corporations and collectivities

i’ve been referring to western society — especially since the middle ages and forward — as being “corporate” in nature, i.e. that unrelated individuals in western societies tend to get together and form “corporate” sorts of groups, like guilds and mutual aid societies and even quite a few protestant churches, more than people in other societies do. this is as opposed to more family-based societies where social life and affairs are based on … yeah … the family — especially the extended family or clan or tribe. i thought i picked up the term “corporate” from avner greif [opens pdf], but he talks about “corporatism” and not strictly a society having a “corporate” nature, so i guess i sorta coined it myself (sorta) or got it from elsewhere.

anyway…

in Family in Contemporary Egypt [available on questia] by andrea rugh, the author uses the term “corporate” or “corporations” not to refer to the individualistic groupings in western society, which she calls “collectivities”, but to family-based societies instead. i’ll let her explain it [pgs. 32-34]:

“Corporateness is used here to define that sense the Egyptian has of the inviolability of his social groups, of their indivisible unity that persists regardless of the constituent members. The term is contrasted with the concept of collectivity which is meant to refer to the Western perception of groups as collections of individuals joining to achieve the common interests of the individual members. Within the collectivity individual rights supercede group rights and are only restricted where they may conflict with the rights of other individuals. It is the exception to discern in the collectivity any supra-individual rights that might devolve on the larger group. The individual is generally protected by legal rule or social custom from too great a tyranny of the group.

“In a corporation, the group comes first and the individuals are expected to sacrifice their own needs for the greater good of the group. The personal status of individual members is defined by the group and not more than incidentally by individual achievement. Individual behaviors are evaluated primarily by how they reflect on the group, the group taking the blame or the rewards for these behaviors. Personal lapses in behavior, if kept secret, are of little consequence; it is only their public acknowledgement and association with the lowering of group status that causes an individual a sense of shame and personal guilt.

“The collective view, by contrast, considers the individual on his own merits. He can excel or not live up to the expectations of his group without reflecting more than marginally on that group. The individual draws on the group for support in achieving his own status level. He can personally overcome the deficiencies of his group, and the world will recognize his achievements. Society, as a result, holds him responsible for developing his own potentialities and only in special cases of disadvantage accepts the view that his group might hinder this effort.

“A person holding a corporate view or a collective view organizes his life quite differently from one holding the opposing view. Each view is so deeply engrained in the cultural consciousness of a people [i would say in the biology of a people – h. chick] that it is difficult for people to stand outside their own cultural perspective and project themselves into the consciousness of those holding the opposing view. People conceive of their own world view as representing logic, common sense, and other valued characteristics, and, indeed, given the whole social system within which the world view functions, it *is* the view with the best ‘fit’ to provice coherence for the society as a whole.

“The following illustration demonstrates the conflict in world view that occurs when member of a society that is corporate-based are to comment on the principles of a collectively based society:

“‘An American literature class in an Egyptian University had just finished Thoreau’s ‘Walden’. The American professor had explained all the pertinent points of Thoreau’s return to nature, his attempt at realizing self-sufficiency, his strong sense of individualism. The class was clearly uncomfortable with what they had been reading and were having difficulty in putting the book into some sort of familiar perspective.

“‘”How do you feel about Thoreau, the man, and do you think that a life style like his would be appropriate in the Egyptian context?” the professor asked. Hands flew up and a number of answers came at once:

“‘”He is a miser–he lacks generosity.” The student based his comments on the lengthy accounting Thoreau made of all the materials he had bought to sustain himself in the woods. “What is the purpose of going off and living alone? What kind of life is that?” “Doesn’t he have any family? He doesn’t speak about them. How can he leave all his responsibilities behind like that?”

“‘The consensus of the class was that Thoreau was not accomplishing anything useful by his anti-social behavior; he had abrogated his role as a social being. He should in fact be considered “crazy” and would be so considered if he should try to live in this way in the Egyptian context. The concept of self-realization and self-reliance were totally lost on the students.’

“Individualism has little positive value in Egyptian society, and often is equated with a number of negative outcomes. As one student later commented: ‘Individualism leads to sexual license and social chaos since everyone is seeking his own ends.'”

whatever way you wanna use the words — corporate vs. family-based or collectivities vs. corporations — what matters here is that, broadly speaking, there are two different types of societies: individualistic and group oriented. and the group oriented societies are based, not on random groupings of individuals, but on extended families, clans and tribes. and you get varying degrees of all that by greater or lesser amounts of inbreeding; you get individualism by outbreeding.

one thing i’d really like the hbd-o-sphere to think about and understand even more, though, is what rugh said about the difficulties that the two types of peoples have in understanding one another:

“Each view is so deeply engrained in the cultural consciousness of a people that it is difficult for people to stand outside their own cultural perspective and project themselves into the consciousness of those holding the opposing view.”

it’s not just difficult for people to stand outside their own cultural persepctive to understand others — it’s difficult for people to stand outside their own biological natures to understand other peoples’ biological natures. and this applies to all areas of human biodiversity, not just the inbreeding/outbreeding thing.

it’s hard to understand other individuals or peoples, unless you try, which most people don’t. most people don’t even ever consider trying to view things from a totally different perspective than their own. they don’t and/or can’t imagine that other people might, on a very fundamental level, think and feel differently about life.

for instance, if you’re one of those people who can wait on eatin’ the marshmallow so that you can have two later (mmmmmm!), imagine that there are some people who can’t do that. it’s not just that they choose not to wait, they CAN’T. then imagine what they must think about people who do. it’s not easy for either side. (i suspect it’s easier for higher iq people to imagine how others experience the world — if they bother trying — but think about the legions of people with below average iqs….)

anyway. enough soapboxing. (^_^) different peoples are different. i know you know that already, but think about it some more anyway. that is all! (^_^)
_____

update: a couple of more passages from rugh [pgs. 281-82]:

“Corporateness has other social implications that can be discovered by reviewing some of the points made in earlier chapters….

First, group — most often family — becomes the bottom line for most kinds of social and economic organization. There is little use in talking about how an isolated individual copes in his socioeconomic environment since so much depends on the back-up support he commands….

Second, people feel a strong sense of who stands in a relation of outsider or insider, however they may momentarily define these categories. The zero-sum game, attributed to Egyptian social behavior, is based to a large extent on the sliding perception of who stands outside and who inside the group in any attempt to garner resources. Kin of varying degrees of distance can at different times fall in or outside the circle of alliance depending upon the activity at hand….

The villain for the individual Egyptian is almost always perceived as an outside aggressor rather than the Egyptian himself, his failings, or the failings of someone of his committed inner circle. This allows projection of problems on outside others rather than on introspective self-doubts or vital group members. The greater good requires that these kinds of deceptions be sustained by everyone concerned lest the solidarity of group be threatened. To combat the outside threat people seek to consolidate groups which can either strengthen life’s chances or spread life’s burdens. Limited and versatile groupings like the family are effective tools under these circumstances.

Third, confidence between people is based on trust which in turn is more likely to occur where structural relationships of group exist. The stronger the overlay of ties, jural and affective, the more confidence a person invests in another person. The jural ties of kinship are strongest, even without affective ties, for there is a strong moral obligation for kin to come to the aid of other kin, even when there have been no effective relationships between them over a long period of time…..”
_____

previously: mating patterns and the individual

update: see also family type in egypt and mating patterns in egypt

(note: comments do not require an email. diversity fail.)

Advertisements

28 Comments

  1. You seem to be begging the question. You’re defining “individualism” as not identifying with blood relations or something.

    I don’t see why that’s necessarily the case. I don’t buy that say a homosexual or Muslim convert that runs away from home and throws himself into his adopted subculture is necessarily more “individualistic” than say an Amish man who stays with his family.

    Reply

  2. i’ve been referring to western society — especially since the middle ages and forward — as being “corporate” in nature, i.e. that unrelated individuals in western societies tend to get together and form “corporate” sorts of groups

    The clans of Scotland that were cleared by the nobility were primarily attacked not because they held land but because they provided an alternative to identification with state, nation and/or religion: kinship. Cromwell actually burned the genealogies of Scotland just prior to readmitting the Jews to England and decades subsequent to the Lowland Clearances that was the real source of the migration from the Scottish Borders to northern Ireland and the New World by the Scotch-Irish. The mercantile forces of sea-going firms (corporations) like the Dutch East India Company would demand identification not with land and kin, but with a larger manifest destiny for Europeans and their adopted religions from the region where Jews originated before their mercantile tradition dispersed them throughout Europe.

    We still can’t get a handle on kin identity as an alternative to identifying with things like Communism or Capitalism because of this monopoly on kin identity held by Jews which advances wherever Christianity advanced within Europe’s trade routes.

    Reply

  3. @evan – “I don’t buy that say a homosexual or Muslim convert that runs away from home and throws himself into his adopted subculture is necessarily more ‘individualistic’ than say an Amish man who stays with his family.”

    neither do i.

    i’m talking about the average behaviors of populations, not what the odd individual does here or there. if you’re new here — welcome! — and haven’t been following along, you might want to start here. (^_^)

    Reply

  4. “The villain for the individual Egyptian is almost always perceived as an outside aggressor rather than the Egyptian himself, his failings, or the failings of someone of his committed inner circle”

    I guess that’s why they blame all their problems on the Jews and the West.

    I wonder how many people with this tribe-oriented world view can move to, say, the UK, before the UK changes and become more like the societies where these people come from–that is, corrupt, dysfunctional hell holes.

    Reply

  5. @melykin – “I wonder how many people with this tribe-oriented world view can move to, say, the UK, before the UK changes and become more like the societies where these people come from–that is, corrupt, dysfunctional hell holes.”

    yeah, i dunno what the tipping point is. i don’t want that we should find out either!

    Reply

  6. one thing i’d really like the hbd-o-sphere to think about and understand even more, though, is what rugh said about the difficulties that the two types of peoples have in understanding one another:

    This is a crucial point, and when (if?) future generations of Westerners start to understand this again, I think they’ll look back on us as hopelessly deluded. Our ‘nation-building’ fiascos, our mass immigration from clannish societies, even the Eurozone project–this Thomas Friedman / Francis Fukuyama way of looking at the world is going to be discredited, and our descendents will label us naive simpletons. Of course, the question then becomes, will we have descendents? Or will the clannish end up demographically wiping out the individualistic at some point? Perhaps it’s our biological destiny.

    Reply

  7. huh?

    Although the doctrines of Judaism are diverse enough to allow many genetic strategies, DNA measurement validates the core patriline laws of at least the Cohanim priesthood to ancient times. They also validate the matriline laws but only subsequent to European diaspora — probably subsequent to their alliances with the Goths. What we appear to have is a patriline that migrated throughout Europe’s trade routes and mated with the daughters of local city/court elites (probably scholars’ daughters) and then kept their genes to themselves (outside of occasional court Jews getting into the nobility some how) pretty much until the Enlightenment/Reformation. After that there were some intermarriages and those have actually increased to the present day but the tribal identity of Judaism persists as do the DNA patterns of the core Cohanim populations.

    This contrasts with the Christianization process that developed throughout Europe. As it progressed it destroyed the identities first of tribes, then clans, and finally of the nations. The destruction is now so complete that the official position of the “Scottish National Party” is that it vigorously opposes “nationalism” and actively promoting the “enrichment of Scottish culture” through non-European immigration. Amazing double speak, no?

    Kin identity in new immigrants to the US has a long history with some ethnic groups enjoying more kin identity than others upon entry to the culture. However the immigrants from the European continent that have especially maintained a strong kin identity beyond the first few generations in the US has been Jews. This while Jews lead opposition to “nationalism” among others in an explicit attempt to stop a resurgence of “anti-Semitism”, “fascism” and/or “Nazism”. The most impressive act of this leadership was Jewish involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy which was avowedly to serve Jewish interests and even to “suppress Nazism” in post WW II America despite America’s pro-Jewish role against Nazism in WW II. This process, culminating in the 1965 reform, opened up America to a flood of non-European immigrants while reducing the allowances for north and west European immigrants.

    Reply

  8. @m.g. – “Or will the clannish end up demographically wiping out the individualistic at some point? Perhaps it’s our biological destiny.”

    that’s greg cochran’s prediction. =/

    i say we should at least go kicking and screaming into that good night.

    Reply

  9. From a site called factsanddetails.com about China:

    China as a Giant Corporation

    In a review of the book China’s Megatrends: The Eight Pillars of a New Society by futurologist John Naisbitt and his wife, William A. Callahan wrote in China Brief: Rather talking about the PRC as a nation-state, many Chinese entrepreneurs “see China as a corporate enterprise. This formulation caught the Naisbitts’ attention, leading them to conclude that “China has reinvented itself as if it were a huge enterprise.”

    This appeal to corporate governance also helps explain the Naisbitt’s idea of vertical democracy: people in corporations don’t have rights, they have tasks; a corporation is not a commonwealth organized for the good of its members — its purpose is profit. As the Naisbitts explain, “Survival of the company has to take priority over individuals’ interests and benefits. Those who would prefer to fight against the company’s culture and goals would have to choose: leave or adjust.” Since this is a country we are talking about, I suppose resigning means you leave China, while being fired means you end up in jail.

    This shift from the PRC as a nation-state to China as a corporation clarifies how a free-market capitalist like John Naisbitt can so enthusiastically endorse CCP rule: both are pursuing an authoritarian capitalist model of governance, at the expense of democracy and social welfare. [Source: William A. Callahan, China Beat, November 15, 2010, William A. Callahan is Professor of International Politics at the University of Manchester and author of China: The Pessoptimist Nation (Oxford University Press, 2010)]

    Reply

  10. The point of my post about China as a giant corporation is that “corporate” or “corporation” is probably not the right word for what you are trying to put your finger on. Maybe association?

    Reply

  11. yup! well, to find out how, you’ve come to the right place (i think):

    I believe it has to do with anti-kinship memetic systems originating with Jews being used by hypocritical elites along with Jews to cripple the kinship-based identity of folks from Europe, particularly Protestant areas of Europe.

    The posts you linked to were interesting though I disagree with your view that the amount of inbreeding or outbreeding by itself does something. I believe the greater individualism the further north you go in Europe is due to the natural environment’s selective pressures in those marginal habitats requiring a good deal of independence.

    Reply

  12. Remember de Tocqueville’s observation that Americans were great joiners? This so-called civil society was composed of voluntary associations, everything from the Elks Club to churches to voluntary fire departments. In England we had “societies” of all kinds: the Royal Society, anti-Slavery Society, missionary societies, philanthropic societies of all kinds, all voluntary in nature.

    The right of free association is written into our constitution. I think “voluntary associations” is a better word than “collective” or “corporation” for outbred organizations of the kind you are talking about. (Not that corporations haven’t become the dominate institution of our time.) Maybe there is yet a better term?

    Reply

  13. @luke – “I think ‘voluntary associations’ is a better word than ‘collective’ or ‘corporation’ for outbred organizations of the kind you are talking about…. Maybe there is yet a better term?”

    i really liked avner greif’s “corporatism” — even though i managed to misquote him ever afterwards. (~_^) that really struck a chord with me, but the word “corporate” has tended to confuse people who just stop by and read something quickly — they, not surprisingly, start thinking and writing in the comments about corporations — the business entities — and, of course, that’s not the point.

    i like rugh’s “collectivities,” too, but not as much.

    i need an adjective to describe a society full of “voluntary associations” — an “associative” society? meh. doesn’t have a great ring to it. while i’m at it, i also need an adjective to describe the “family-based” societies, too.

    thanks for your help! keep the suggestions coming! (^_^)

    edit: interesting idea about china as a corporation, btw. kinda/sorta fits with rugh’s idea of extended-family societies having, to use her term, “corporateness” — chinese society being based on extended-families/clans, yada, yada, yada.

    Reply

  14. @evan – “I believe it has to do with anti-kinship memetic systems originating with Jews being used by hypocritical elites along with Jews to cripple the kinship-based identity of folks from Europe, particularly Protestant areas of Europe.”

    kinship is not an idea, it is a biological state.

    you can certainly alter kinship (i.e. genetic relatedness) via memes (e.g. catholic church’s ban on cousin marriage), but it takes some time — some amount of generations — to alter the genetic relatedness in a population. in other words, this sort of thing doesn’t happen overnight. jewish influence on western culture hasn’t been around long enough to make the sort of changes to kinship we’re talking about here (unless you count christianity as a jewish concept). and anyway, kinship changes appeared in medieval europe long before european jews got out of their ghettos (see mating patterns in europe series below in left-hand column, esp. posts under the england section).

    @evan – “The posts you linked to were interesting though I disagree with your view that the amount of inbreeding or outbreeding by itself does something.”

    it most certainly can, over the long term — which is what we’re talking about here.

    @evan – “I believe the greater individualism the further north you go in Europe is due to the natural environment’s selective pressures in those marginal habitats requiring a good deal of independence.”

    that’s the evolutionary psychology explanation put forward by, amongst other, kevin macdonald. i think it’s wrong for a couple of reasons:

    1) where are all the other individualistic societies that ought to have been selected for in other marginal environments? why are the mongolians not individualistic? how about the saami? or eskimos? or why not the australian aborigines for that matter? why is it that, curiously, only nw europeans — and especially the english (and the dutch?) — are so individualistic? what is it about them?

    2) evolutionary psychology is great, but it has tended toward the view that human evolution somehow stopped in the paleolithic. that’s not true, not by a long shot. one of the biggest changes in european populations in the last 2000 years is a radical change in mating patterns. if you imagine a genetic relatedness spectrum with outbred/not closely related at one end and inbred/most closely related at the other, out of all human groups, europeans have moved the farthest away from an ant-like condition (which no human group exhibits) in which the individual members are very closely related (ant sisters share 75% of their genomes) and behave almost as a single organism.

    the independent natures of nw europeans is directly related to their mating patterns of the last 1600 years or so.

    Reply

  15. I didn’t say kinship is an idea.

    The Jewish diaspora into Europe is very old and goes back to at least the Roman Empire. The technical infrastructure of the Roman Empire compensated for the naturally harsh conditions at the frontiers of that Empire creating an environment within which the universal altruism of Christianity was promoted among Europeans by Paul and the other early Christian Proselytes who were Jews. Jewish religious belief, however, retained its tribal character, expressing both reciprocal and kin altruism. The result was an extended period of Jewish success in diaspora among Europeans in competition with holders of indigenous niches involving religious beliefs and inter-tribal trade. The monopoly on kin identity held by Jews advanced wherever Christianity advanced within Europe’s trade routes.

    What followed in more contemporary times after Jews left the ghettoes was a continuation of this successful displacement of indigenous religions and trade niches with the same basic religions.

    Reply

  16. it most certainly can

    Not by itself. The beetle models you cite aren’t cases of inbreeding and outbreeding by themselves. They’re cases where certain genes are favored (in the case of the model the altruism genes).

    that’s the evolutionary psychology explanation put forward by, amongst other, kevin macdonald.

    The disagreement is also over “individualism”. You seem to suggest that “individualism” means outmarrying. Your argument seems to be that individualism is outmarrying, which is caused by outmarrying; outmarrying is caused by outmarrying. I don’t see why outmarrying is the definition of individualism, and if your argument is that outmarrying
    is caused by outmarrying, you haven’t explained anything.I don’t see why a hillbilly who marries his cousin and makes his living as a backwoods farmer and hunter is less individualistic than someone in a cosmopolitan environment in a mixed relationship who is dependent on the large group organisms that are national and global economies for survival.

    As for Mongolians, Saami, Eskimos, et al, they haven’t experienced the same evolutionary history as ancient Europeans. And I’m not sure on what basis you’re judging their relative individualism.

    if you imagine a genetic relatedness spectrum with outbred/not closely related at one end and inbred/most closely related at the other

    Northern Europeans are more homozygous than Southern Europeans. Europeans are much more homozygous than groups like sub-Saharan Africans who are very heterozygous.

    the independent natures of nw europeans is directly related to their mating patterns of the last 1600 years or so.

    Northern Europeans are less independent and individualistic and more group oriented today as a result of Christianization than before. That was arguably part of the point of Christianizing them. The Roman Empire could never fully subjugate them through war. Memetic control was able to get them to submit to group authority and become more group oriented.

    Reply

  17. @evan – “I didn’t say kinship is an idea.”

    ok. but i don’t see how your “memetic” idea explains how christianity “destroyed the identities first of tribes, then clans, and finally of the nations.” how, exactly, did it do that? what is — or was — the biological mechanism affected?

    @even – “The Jewish diaspora into Europe is very old and goes back to at least the Roman Empire.”

    yes, but initial numbers were comparatively small, and — unless you count christianity (an argument which has some very valid points to it) — the influence of jewish ideas on european society didn’t really get going until around the time of the enlightenment or thereabouts. so, the idea that jewish ideas may have had some biological effects on european kinship is a bit weak since european kinship connections were already changing drastically in the early medieval period — unless, again, you count christianity as a jewish ideology.

    Reply

  18. @evan – “Not by itself. The beetle models you cite aren’t cases of inbreeding and outbreeding by themselves. They’re cases where certain genes are favored (in the case of the model the altruism genes).”

    no, but inbreeding makes the evolution of altruism genes easier — given certain selection pressures, of course. that is the point. (the corollary is that outbreeding does the reverse.)

    @evan – “You seem to suggest that ‘individualism’ means outmarrying.”

    no, you have misunderstood. individualism≠outbreeding. individualism — that individual organisms (i happen to be interested in humans) behave, on the whole, in an independent fashion without too much focus on their relatives — arises because of outbreeding — or, i should say, can arise given the right circumstances. it cannot arise in an inbred population even given the otherwise right circumstances.

    the more inbred, the more like your relatives you are and, in fact, the less of a unique individual you are, genetically speaking. of course you are still a discrete individual organism (unless we start talking about slime molds or something…). but you are less unique and, therefore, there are greater chances that you share a whole slew of “genes for altruism” (whatever they may be) with your relatives vs. strangers, and so the more likely you will be to favor your relatives over others. you will, in fact, behave less individualistically and be more oriented to your kin-group.

    Reply

  19. @evan – “I don’t see why a hillbilly who marries his cousin and makes his living as a backwoods farmer and hunter is less individualistic than someone in a cosmopolitan environment in a mixed relationship who is dependent on the large group organisms that are national and global economies for survival.”

    hillbillies, on average (we’re talking about group differences here), are less individualistic than outbred cosmopoles because they are more focused on their kin than themselves and their nuclear families.

    the phenomenon is more readily seen/understood if you look at the most extreme example first — the arabs. most inbred — very tribal — no living alone in nuclear family groups (at least not traditionally) — no liberal democracy (for what that’s worth) — no concern about the commonweal (as m.g. so eloquently puts it) — primary focus on the extended family (the tribe) first. if you backtrack, then, to hillbillies who are inbred but not at all to the degree of arabs, you’ll see that they, too, are less individualistic in their behaviors than outbred groups. thus the hatfield and mccoy scenarios. kin first. and to h*ll with cooperation with non-kin.

    Reply

  20. @evan – “Memetic control was able to get them to submit to group authority and become more group oriented.”

    and, again, the biological mechanism is?

    Reply

  21. @evan – “Jewish religious belief, however, retained its tribal character, expressing both reciprocal and kin altruism.”

    the key here is not that jewish religious belief retained its tribal character, but that the jewish population retained its tribal character both by, for the most part (up until fairly recently), continuing to mate endogamously within their own ethnic group AND by continuing (up until fairly recently) inbreeding, i.e. marrying close relatives. that’s how you maintain your tribal sentiments.

    Reply

  22. “i need an adjective to describe a society full of “voluntary associations””

    i use endogamensch and exogamensch in my head but they’re a bit esoteric. I don’t think corporate or corporatist are good terms because of confusion.

    .
    “You seem to suggest that ‘individualism’ means outmarrying.”

    I think it’s a lot easier if you look at this from the other direction. Inbreeding is the natural human state. Inbreeding creates clannishness or anti-individualism. It’s a bit like a gravitational force that holds people in place (in both good and bad ways).

    Outbreeding weakens the familial gravitational force and that weakening – less clannishness / more individualism on a sliding fixed-sum scale – has various side-effects both good and bad.

    So a society could be categorized in clannishness/individualistic terms as
    10/0 (Libya?)
    9/1
    8/2
    7/3 (Greece?)
    6/4
    5/5 (NW Euro?)

    I don’t think it could go below 5/5 i.e. putting others before family, naturally.

    Reply

  23. @g.w. – “i use endogamensch and exogamensch in my head but they’re a bit esoteric

    heh. (^_^)

    @g.w. – I don’t think corporate or corporatist are good terms because of confusion.

    yes. the concept really clicked with me, but the terms do confuse people. gotta come up with something else.

    @g.w. – “I don’t think it could go below 5/5 i.e. putting others before family, naturally.”

    i sometimes wonder if we’re approaching that, though, when you see these people (mostly celebrities so far, thank goodness) adopting asian or african kids rather than having some of their own. i mean … wtf?

    Reply

  24. hubchik
    “i sometimes wonder if we’re approaching that”

    Yes i didn’t stress the word “naturally” enough. I think we’re well past 5/5 and into 4/6 but i think that state is the unnatural product of a maladaptive culture acting on people who would be 6/4 or 5/5 in a neutral culture.

    Reply

  25. how many celebrities have adopted po’ black (and/or asian) children now? off the top of my head i’ve got:

    – madonna
    – brangelina
    – what’s-her-name “miss congeniality”
    – that south african chick who’s in “prometheus”
    – some other female celebrity that i saw in the paper the other day but i didn’t know who she was

    i mean — it’s weird! freakish. and i’m starting to (almost) be embarassed on their behalf. i know what they’re trying to say is, “look how much i care,” (so give me extra status points ’cause i’m so moral), but now it just looks like they’re following a trend. AND it’s starting to look like they think “you guys can’t take care of your kids so we’d better do it … in any event, we’ll do it better than you.”

    freakish.

    Reply

  26. yes very. especially sandra bullock and charlize theron as they really don’t look comfortable with it at all.

    .
    “you guys can’t take care of your kids so we’d better do it … in any event, we’ll do it better than you.”

    yes good point

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s