Sociology: Organizational/Political Cycle

[BilPrestonEsq]

……Independence
Family
Clan
Tribe
Sovereignty
Aristocracy
Rebellion……

It seems to me that humans have repeated this same cycle of organization and disorganization throughout history. Would you agree? If so, do you think this cycle has to inevitably repeat itself and why?

 

[russ_watters]

No, I don't agree. Could you provide an historical example to demonstrate the cycle?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

A good example would be the english colonies of America rebelling against the aristocratic rule of the english monarchy. England was once inhabited by various tribes including the Britons. The Britons were conquered by the aristocratic rulers of the Roman Empire. The Roman empire lost power over this region to the Germanic tribes(Anglo-Saxons) which would be relative to a rebellion. These same Germanic tribes would come to unite into the sovereignty of the Kingdom of England and so on...The Romans lost the power to defend against these Germanic tribes as a result of internal rebellion against the corruption of the aristocratic rulers of the Roman Empire which along with external 'rebellion' led to it's 'fall'.
Rome you could say developed in the same way: First there were families which would form clans that would form tribes that would unite into an empire(or sovereign nation similarly)that would be ruled by an aristocratic government until it's 'fall' brought on by rebellion.

 

[arildno]

Okay:
So there was a rebellion against the English in the Americas, with a follow-up of independence.
Just a few questions:
1. When was the family build-up phase in post-colonial America?
2. When was the clan build-up phase in post-colonial America?
3. When was the tribal build-up phase in post-colonial America?
4. When was the sovereignty build-up phase in post-colonial America?
5. When was the aristocratic build-up phase in post-colonial America?

Where is your "cycle"?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I want to answer that in its entirety but I have to go. I do want to point out that members of the colonies did move west alone or with there families. One family would settle in an area and lead to other families(clans)settling into the same area which would grow into towns(tribes) that would grow into states(soveriegnty). You could argue that an aristocratic rule has developed in the U.S. do to colussion between politicians and corporations. I would also like to add that going back to the growth of families into clans and tribes does not necessarily have to happen. As a tribe could overthrow an existing aristocracy as I pointed out with the AngloSaxons taking the Roman-Britain. But from that point it will continue through the cycle.So I will leave you with that, but I would like to answer your question in greater detail. I am also interested in your opinions.

 

[arildno]

Really?
So there wasn't any continuity in pre-colonial families, in contrast to post-colonial ones??
Or clans?
Or tribes?

Or, for that matter, was there no forms of institutional continuity post-colonially?

You can find families, clans, tribes, aristocracies in just about every society, and that is the reason why you can construct an artificial cycle of such social structures, by suppressing the presence of the other elements from your narrative.

 

[WhoWee]

How would you describe our current state?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Really?
So there wasn't any continuity in pre-colonial families, in contrast to post-colonial ones??
Or clans?
Or tribes?

Or, for that matter, was there no forms of institutional continuity post-colonially?

You can find families, clans, tribes, aristocracies in just about every society, and that is the reason why you can construct an artificial cycle of such social structures, by suppressing the presence of the other elements from your narrative.

So what am I leaving out? That is what I am interested in. Or what do you agree with? I am also interested in that. There was 'continuity' yes of course. I am not implying that the memories or ideals, and values of anyone individual, family,clan,tribe, are erased. Exactly the opposite, that is what may fuel the change. There is just a change in organizational structure. What I am saying is there is a need for humans to free themselves from an organizational structure once it reaches a certain point. That point is when an aristocratic government or authority resides over the majority. This could also be the natural 'braking point' of the 'cycle'. A law that 'unchecked' authority will become corrupted and break down. Every civilization in history has built itself up and torn itself down. Or it has been conquered by an army or an ideal(religion as an example) I so far have not seen a situation where people are not trying to organize or disorganize based on what point in the cycle the people are in. So if you are alone it is inevitable that you (or the majority rather) will form a family, then a clan, then a tribe, then state(sovereignty), finally if the tribes are not constantly putting a balanced oppositional power(the power of the majority) onto the states(sovereign) power then it will be corrupted by aristocratic rule(based on the rise of power of various dictators). Also in war these various stages of the cycle can impose itself on the other. So for example: the Romans rule over the Britons changed the organizational structure of the Briton tribes to that of a state/empire that was ruled by aristocrats. That became their structure. Then when the Romans lost control to the Anglo-Saxon tribes the majority was then part of a tribe structure. And when the tribes united they became a sovereignty. What I am saying is that they had to become a sovereignty because of a human instinct or natural inclination to organize. Just as they would eventually be ruled by aristocrats(also a natural human inclination) and eventually the instinct is to free yourself or your family or your clan or your tribe. This leads to independence from the aristocracy. It could be the case that the aristocracy just breaks down from the consequences of corruption rather than being violently overthrown(example: hyperinflation of money supply, lack of the controlling government to supply basic necessities, or negatively influencing the flow of basic necessities to the point that the people are no longer dependent on this organizational structure and form there own in there own community or clan.)But no matter what, this 'cycle' seems to repeat itself no matter where the humans are in this 'cycle'. I have more on the details of why I think each one of these stages in human organization exist. But this whole post may seem more confusing than the last to you, I don't know. I makes sense to me! To say there isn't any truth to my 'observations' would be I think a blatant disregard of historical facts. Anyways hopefully I clarified some of my statements a little better.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Same thing is happening in Egypt.

 

[WhoWee]

Same thing is happening in Egypt.

Can you be more specific regarding Egypt - you cast a wide net in your previous post.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Can you be more specific regarding Egypt - you cast a wide net in your previous post.

They have been under aristocratic rule and now they are rebelling and if they succeed they will be an independent based on the values of family. And then the cycle will repeat or not, I have only seen it happen again and again, but I am not claiming that I can read into the future, I am only coming to that conclusion through my observations of the past. What I find kind of ridiculous is the U.S. government response is that they would like to see Egypt 'transistion' into 'democracy'. Would that be the same "democracy" we have in the U.S.? Transition? Transistion like the english colonies transitioned? Because those same 'patriots' would be considered 'terrorists' nowadays. It was not a peaceful transition, it was violent. Who are we to tell them(Egypt) how to form a democracy? If you anyone can find a historical example of this current situation I would appreciate it.

 

[WhoWee]

They have been under aristocratic rule and now they are rebelling and if they succeed they will be an independent based on the values of family. And then the cycle will repeat or not, I have only seen it happen again and again, but I am not claiming that I can read into the future, I am only coming to that conclusion through my observations of the past. What I find kind of ridiculous is the U.S. government response is that they would like to see Egypt 'transistion' into 'democracy'. Would that be the same "democracy" we have in the U.S.? Transition? Transistion like the english colonies transitioned? Because those same 'patriots' would be considered 'terrorists' nowadays. It was not a peaceful transition, it was violent. Who are we to tell them(Egypt) how to form a democracy? If you anyone can find a historical example of this current situation I would appreciate it.

I think it's obvious that history doesn't always repeat to scale in Egypt - that people have learned from the past and that change is gradual. Please note there aren't any new pyramids under construction using slave labor. The fact that people are standing in the street voicing their opinions and not being shot by the police or military - tells me some type of democracy is at work. We may or may not like the outcome - but change is at hand.

Also, yes, wages are low compared to the US - but how do they compare to the rest of the region?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

I think it's obvious that history doesn't always repeat to scale in Egypt - that people have learned from the past and that change is gradual. Please note there aren't any new pyramids under construction using slave labor. The fact that people are standing in the street voicing their opinions and not being shot by the police or military - tells me some type of democracy is at work. We may or may not like the outcome - but change is at hand.

Also, yes, wages are low compared to the US - but how do they compare to the rest of the region?

I think it's obvious that history doesn't always repeat to scale in Egypt

Can you name one?

that people have learned from the past

We have learned nothing. The same reasons that the U.S. declared independence from England are the same reasons we will again, in time, gain independence from our current government. When the economy collapses and the current organizational structure can no longer provide the necessaties of survival we will find them on our own. And hopefully we don't repeat the same mistakes. How many times has a fractional reserve system failed?
It is going to happen again! The cause of our financial dilemma is right under our noses and STILL the majority argues that it WORKS! STILL!

Please note there aren't any new pyramids under construction using slave labor

Nope, no new pyramids. That does not mean there aren't any slaves. Isn't it obvious that they feel they are slaves? Or else why would they revolt?

The fact that people are standing in the street voicing their opinions and not being shot by the police or military - tells me some type of democracy is at work

Democracy and independence is at work. The people have had enough, good for them. I wouldn't doubt if what you say is true about the military not firing upon protesters, that the U.S. has influenced that decision.

 

[WhoWee]

Nope, no new pyramids. That does not mean there aren't any slaves. Isn't it obvious that they feel they are slaves? Or else why would they revolt?

Why would these people feel like slaves? I think this is a very important point - they are not slaves - they are free. What do they expect from their Government? What does their Government need to do to make them happy? How will this need be satisfied by changing the leadership?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Why would these people feel like slaves? I think this is a very important point - they are not slaves - they are free. What do they expect from their Government? What does their Government need to do to make them happy? How will this need be satisfied by changing the leadership?

They are not free yet, but they are working on it. Those last two questions are very important ones for this thread. They are the basis for my whole theory unfortunately I have to go but would like to talk about it later.

 

[WhoWee]

They are not free yet, but they are working on it. Those last two questions are very important ones for this thread. They are the basis for my whole theory unfortunately I have to go but would like to talk about it later.

How are they not free?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

How are they not free?

They are in a fight to free themselves from a dictatorship. If they were free that would not be happening.

 

[Evo]

They are not free yet, but they are working on it. Those last two questions are very important ones for this thread. They are the basis for my whole theory unfortunately I have to go but would like to talk about it later.

Personal theories are not allowed here, so forget the theory. Stick to facts, which must be backed up, so please back up your earlier claims. Thanks.

 

[brainstorm]

There is just a change in organizational structure. What I am saying is there is a need for humans to free themselves from an organizational structure once it reaches a certain point. That point is when an aristocratic government or authority resides over the majority. This could also be the natural 'braking point' of the 'cycle'. A law that 'unchecked' authority will become corrupted and break down. Every civilization in history has built itself up and torn itself down.

You can find families, clans, tribes, aristocracies in just about every society, and that is the reason why you can construct an artificial cycle of such social structures, by suppressing the presence of the other elements from your narrative.

You are both right, in a sense. Most forms of organizing individual actions into what you would identify as "collective behavior" utilize some form of collective identity, which is institutionalized as hegemonic ideology and which subsequently is enacted by individuals oriented according to the programming they have submitted to. When the ideology is as simple as some individuals being "blood" and therefore "thicker than water," it's just a question of individuals doing whatever they can to discriminate against anyone identified as an enemy or otherwise a "threat to the collective." So there is no natural progression from family to clan, tribe, or any other collective identity - although the hierarchy you mentioned makes sense in terms of building numbers of individuals from smaller to larger and eventually attributing them class-dominance (aristocracy) which gives them economic resources that include the labor of subjugated individuals.

It is the fact of individual subordination, either as a "group member" or as a subaltern of the group-identity, that causes people to question and rebel. Even highly-privileged "group members" are likely to question the logic of the collective identity ideology as their individual power/freedom increases as a privilege of high-status and economic position. If anything, the idea about there being a cycle/progression of structures would be due to the fact that 1) "larger" collectives (i.e. more visible and popular ideologies) are more apt to have more critics and resistance 2) that no one pays much attention to when families, clans, or tribes lose members to their own individuality or counter-culture or when they become otherwise destabilized by internal de-construction. Also, it is probably more often the case that collective ideologies are restructured without any change of name/flag, so what may appear to be cultural continuity may actually be discontinuity covered up by consistent identity and public image.

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

Personal theories are not allowed here, so forget the theory. Stick to facts, which must be backed up, so please back up your earlier claims. Thanks.

If it is the history then I will post some pages on Rome, England and the U.S history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_England"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rome"
Let me know if there is something else.

 

[Evo]

If it is the history then I will post some pages on Rome, England and the U.S history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_England"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rome"
Let me know if there is something else.

You've got to be kidding.

Post studies that back yourself up. Wiki pages on history?