How ideas arise in society

Has anyone here read Ivan Illich, I cant understand why he is not more widely know, his writing and ideas are very accessible, a lot of his ideas are similar to Foucault who is extremely well know despite being very difficult to read.

Black Swan

mariaalice wrote: »

Has anyone here read Ivan Illich, I cant understand why he is not more widely know, his writing and ideas are very accessible, a lot of his ideas are similar to Foucault who is extremely well know despite being very difficult to read.

MOD COMMENT:
Would you please consider elaborating on the philosophy of Ivan Illich for discussion purposes? Perhaps introduce, define, and discuss one of his concepts; e.g., conviviality, counterproductivity, radical monopoly, specific diseconomy, etc.?

I believe that a desirable future depends on our deliberately choosing a life of action over a life of consumption, on our engendering a lifestyle which will enable us to be spontaneous, independent, yet related to each other, rather than maintaining a lifestyle which only allows to make and unmake, produce and consume - a style of life which is merely a way station on the road to the depletion and pollution of the environment. The future depends more upon our choice of institutions which support a life of action than on our developing new ideologies and technologies. (Illich 1973a: 57)

The above is a quote from Illich illustrates a lot of his thinking, If I tried to introduce and explain his ideas I would have to wrie an essay.

There are lot of his ideas that I am attracted to for example he believed that our reality is socially constructed and that we do not fully realise this, ( the full realisation of how our reality is constructed will allow us to escape the constructed reality and live a more authentic life ) he sees three phases in history the first is the preliterate or the vernacular phase, which he seems to think is the most authentic, then we have the invention of writing which constructed a different reality for us and the currently we have computers which are constructing another reality for us.

Then there are his ideas about school and work which I will write about again.

Or there are his ideas about professionalising ( which are similar to Foucault )

Green Mile

It is all linked to our ability to fit into society. If we are on the outside of society,then we will not live a fair life so every human will want and try to “fit in”.We won’t be able to find a partner or reproduce if we are outcasts so what is the point at all in defying sociaty.

It just happens that we are consumers and live in a consumption society. I can’t see societychanging until our lives are in danger and the world agrees there has to bechange.
It’s a shame.

Green Mile

Green Mile wrote: »

It is all linked to our ability to fit into society. If we are on the outside of society,then we will not live a fair life so every human will want and try to “fit in”.We won’t be able to find a partner or reproduce if we are outcasts so what is the point at all in defying society.

It just happens that we are consumers and live in a consumption society. I can’t see society changing until our lives are in danger and the world agrees there has to change.
It’s a shame.

That is my point exactly, if you look at social role valorisation theory( you will have to look it up it would take me too long to explain it )

It basically says if the disabled person is seen to be living a life that mirrors the life of non disabled people then they will get all the good thing in life, (1) my definition of the good thing in life might be different that yours (2) it says if you " behave" " and "act" in certain ways your devalued status will be changed and you too can join our consumerist life style, there is no room for anyone to live an authentic life outside narrowly defined norms.

I would argue that the Internet is instead of freeing people is narrowing accepted ideas of what is normal and acceptable in society and is making it harder for people to live an authentic life outside of narrowly defined norms.

Green Mile

I also agree.
Bob Dylan once said “Birds are not free, they arebound to the sky”

The internet is a very convincing media, basically outlining what others get up to and how to behave. People in the comfort of their homesare teaching and learning from each other, there is more bravery to say thing soutside of the human norm and to ask questions that is not very sociallyacceptable.
Porn on the internet for example is informing inquisitives that women should be treated as items rather than loved etc. It is certainlyshaping the next generation and I do agree that it is moving people outside the societyscope. People are more willing and happy to move outside of society so long as they are anonymous in my opinion.

Duggys Housemate

Define : " narrowly defined norms". Modern democratic capitalist society is pretty ok with most people doing what they want - unless it harms other people, or involves minors, ( or to a certain extent involves discriminating against others). These norms are - by historical standards - wide, not narrow.

Duggys Housemate

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Define : " narrowly defined norms". Modern democratic capitalist society is pretty OK with most people doing what they want - unless it harms other people, or involves minors, ( or to a certain extent involves discriminating against others). These norms are - by historical standards - wide, not narrow.

Thats true in a strictly legal sense, but what I am talking about is how the self is present in every day society.

For example when I was a child there were definitely more people who would have been described as a bit odd but other than that no comment was passed on them, generally they were men and women who never married, now while thy might have felt regret and sadness that they had never married, I doubt they felt there was something wrong with themselves that somehow it was their fault that they nerve married. Today they would be bombarded by information telling them it was their fault they were not married.
Or take the Sherlock Homes book at the time they were published there was no comment on the type of relationship Homes and Watson had. If the book was written today the readers would expect some explanation of the nature of the relationship it has come to be expected that we know everything about everyone.

I know that is only one side of the argument.

Duggys Housemate

mariaalice wrote: »

Thats true in a strictly legal sense, but what I am talking about is how the self is present in every day society.

For example when I was a child there were definitely more people who would have been described as a bit odd but other than that no comment was passed on them, generally they were men and women who never married, now while thy might have felt regret and sadness that they had never married, I doubt they felt there was something wrong with themselves that somehow it was their fault that they nerve married. Today they would be bombarded by information telling them it was their fault they were not married.
Or take the Sherlock Homes book at the time they were published there was no comment on the type of relationship Homes and Watson had. If the book was written today the readers would expect some explanation of the nature of the relationship it has come to be expected that we know everything about everyone.

I know that is only one side of the argument.

I see that point, and you are clearly channelling Foucault. I tend to agree that we tolerated village "fools" and the odd more in the past, while congratulating ourselves on our tolerance on certain other traits - like homosexuality - today.

Maybe humans can only be so tolerant?