Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => CCP Public Library => Topic started by: Seriphyn on 02 Apr 2012, 10:47
-
Clickie (http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu328/Seriphyn/eveculturechart.png)
VERY simplified of course. Please don't assume the Amarr one is some attack on Amarr RP or anything; not trying to play a game of one-up with saying "diversity is awesome" or anything! It's just that any differences between Kador and Kor-Azor will be trivial when compared to Jin-Mei versus Luminaire (hence the use of the word 'relative')
One thing I pointed out is the disconnection (at least how I see it) between the militaristic, hypercapitalist Caldari who gambles on combat sports and has "aggressive tendencies", and the Herko fiction of Caldari being all sand garden contemplative discretionary and all that. Would be curious to see what Caldari RPers make of it.
And what others make of the chart overall. Anyone interested in making their own? If I wasn't a lazy bugger, I'd probably endeavour to make a more elaborate one (hinthint)
EDIT - Actually...thinking branches may be more appropiate...the cultures can be traced back to one homeworld in Minmatar for example...but more than one homeworld in Fed etc.
-
I would have the Amarr's religious culture form the baseline, and then have it splinter at the top into the different Royal Houses. Their society is governed by feudalism, underneath the Emperor family.
-
You left out the complete submission of the Minnies towards the Elders.
Also, their culture has aspects introduced to it by the Federation during the building process of the Republic.
-
That looks like what I was working on. I should try to finish it...
-
Graphs like that are nice, but ultimately only highlight a small aspect of a (presumably) large, pluriform, and deep culture. For example, while you could say that the Caldari culture has a deep split between its economic policy and spiritual background, that's very contestable, and even if true I'd not say that it was the defining cultural aspect of Caldari society.
If you'll allow me a little bit of leeway in what underlying idea the various graphical forms represent, I'll try to demonstrate both the utility and uselessness of graphs like this by applying them matrix-style to every Empire in New Eden. From left to right, I'll interpret the shapes as trying to express social stratification, a central conflict, some kind of unification, and social division.
Applying those to every empire, I get, very roughly:
Minmatar
Stratification: elder versus younger.
Conflict: state-building and peace versus a war of liberation and vengeance.
Unification: shared blood and tribal history.
Division: along the lines of the Tribes.
Amarr
Stratification: Feudal structure: Imperial families, Holders, commoners, slaves.
Conflict: Religion versus practicality, perhaps; or, lately more to the fore, faith versus corruption.
Unification: Monotheism
Division: the various Imperial Families.
Caldari
Stratification: mainly socioeconomic.
Conflict: hypercapitalism versus spirituality; or maybe meritocracy versus plutocracy; or taken even more broadly, like profit versus prosperity.
Unification: the meritocracy.
Division: the various megacorporations.
Gallente
Stratification: socioeconomical stratification, again.
Conflict: Liberalism versus empty hedonism; or maybe Quafe-and-J-Pop monoculture versus pluralism; or warlike tendencies versus true appreciation for freedom.
Unification: Political union; or hey, it's that monoculture thing again.
Division: Ethnical and federation member lines.
Not exactly an academically rigorous disproof of the utility of charts like these, but I hope to've shown that since any of them could be said to apply equally to all of the empires, and not doing so might actually leave out important aspects of that empire's culture, they're more useful as starting points for discussion rather than descriptions of a or the deep truth behind a culture.
-
Looks like a good approach, Jev...I agree with Caldari conflict bit about spirituality versus hypercapitalism...basically Patriots versus Practicals in that regard? Also, yes, Fed has that mixed message in the PF of either being a monolithic entity, or a political allliance of worlds. The division I think is less ethnic-based and more sociocultural instead (though ethnicity would play a part in it)
There is a problem with EVE PF though...
"How do you enforce one planetary culture over multiple billion+ planets?" (esp. Caldari and Minmatar)
With the Federation, this is handwaveable. There is no one planetary culture being enforced. The Gallente stuff is just what you see on interstellar networks. Federation is an entity that connects separate, independent planets with their own cultures and politics (as long as its democratic) as a security and regulatory force.
The State and Republic have a bit of an issue. You fly around State and Republic space and notice all the lit-up worlds and think "How the hell can all these be enforced to be Caldari or Minmatar?". Technology? Heavy government footprint?
Instead, I think it would make more sense if the Minmatar Republic just had Matar with billions+. The rest of the worlds are just colonies of, at most, a few million. Sort of like other IPs where you have "Earth and colonies". The State, meanwhile, either just has New Caldari Prime which is governed by the CEP, and then small colonies governed by megacorporations. Or, to avoid the trouble of being bombarded by fascists again, have eight different worlds that are fully-developed, each owned by a megacorp, and the rest are colonies.
The answer could be that these entities enforce the cultures from the top-down, ie. authoritarianism. This would fit in with the fact the Federation is the only 'liberal' state in the classical sense of the term.
-
An enlightening but flame-filled discussion in the OOC channel related to the above has made me go against the CCP's lack of material and reconsider...will come around again with a different set of thoughts...
-
A thought about the State and the Republic: they were--at least until recently, in the case of the State--only collections of their component megacorps or tribes. I'd look to those units for the management of culture, and quite possibly of planets or large parts of planets, rather than to the over-arching polity.
-
In my view, there is a disconnect between the local customs and the Federal level and I can't really see it as the top level of a hierarchy of refinement starting from the member cultures. There is a certain bag of common interests shared by all the major powers behind the central government but as long as this bottom line is met, I don't see the administration having much interest in the local affairs. While there is a chronicle about Fed revisionism on the university level, I would assume that this kind of thing is most common in Essence and border regions, and less frequent where there is more distance to the Luminaire.
Maybe you could say that another layer of stratification for the Federation, besides socio-economic status, comes from the regional differences - the amount of support/influence by the central government seems to depend on your the distance to the Luminaire, or to the active war zone.
To me, the interplay between the various interest groups, and manipulation of the public opinion are the central themes in the Federal culture, and I'd draw the graph for the Federation as follows:
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg338/scaled.php?server=338&filename=lxq6l.png&res=medium)
In the same spirit, I'd venture to say that the major conflict in the Federation is between centralism and minarchism, or safety and control vs. freedom and locality, and while the hedonism may be a frequent there in the PF, to me it appears merely as a tool and consequence of the public opinion control, not as a serious issue itself.
When it comes to Caldari, I think how Herko painted it makes a lot of sense. On the background, you have the virtues of loyalty, knowing your place and doing what you are expected to do as well as you can, respecting your superiors and ancestors, but instead of japanese style family ties you actually identify yourself with the megacorp structure. Their way of the winds seems to be compatible with the idea that you go where the natural forces take you and do what you must and generally glorify the self-sacrificing collectivist mentality.
Following this line of thinking, there would probably be a divide between your private and public life. Outside working hours you would gamble, seek prostitutes and enjoy all the cheap pleasures of Jita with your colleagues and other associates while at work you would be professional, competitive and keep up the facade, as you would be expected to.
The major conflict in this sense would be between what the society and the whole history expects from you, and what you might want on the individual level. From this perspective, one could draw the graph as follows:
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg821/scaled.php?server=821&filename=zdats.png&res=medium)
-
Im not so in Makro-Makro theorys.... so I have not so much Infos about that topic.... but I would work for the Fed with Social Milieus. See here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soziales_Milieu&ei=pEd6T76KBsjdsgbb-tG8AQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSoziales%2BMilieu%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D872%26prmd%3Dimvns) or here (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.bpb.de/publikationen/Z7ZFHI,0,Soziale_Milieus_eine_praxisorientierte_Forschungsperspektive.html&ei=pEd6T76KBsjdsgbb-tG8AQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEIQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSoziales%2BMilieu%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D872%26prmd%3Dimvns).
So for the Fed some bubbles which overlap some times like this: here (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Soziales+Milieu&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1680&bih=872&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=pEd6T76KBsjdsgbb-tG8AQ).
-
About the pyramide... I had something for the Kingdom in mind.... maybe I try the make a chart...
so it is better to understand.
-
When it comes to Caldari, I think how Herko painted it makes a lot of sense. On the background, you have the virtues of loyalty, knowing your place and doing what you are expected to do as well as you can, respecting your superiors and ancestors, but instead of japanese style family ties you actually identify yourself with the megacorp structure. Their way of the winds seems to be compatible with the idea that you go where the natural forces take you and do what you must and generally glorify the self-sacrificing collectivist mentality.
In my opinion, we need to avoid getting too attached to the idea that the Caldari are self-sacrificing for the sake of collectivist ideals. Remember, the Caldari are hyper-capitalistic, meritocratic, and intensely competitive, traits which do not lend themselves to altruistic interpretations. Rather, the Caldari understand that grouping together usually increases your chances of personally doing better. Therefore, you and your colleagues compete so that you, together, can get to the top of your Division. Divisions compete within a Megacorp to advance their own vision for the company. Megacorps compete with each other for market share and to implement their vision for the future of the State. And the State competes with every other Empire.
The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth. This was a planet that killed the weak, and promoted the stronger leader, the stronger tribe, and the stronger nation. This explains much about the modern Caldari civilization: the strong social mores (social cohesion is important in dangerous conditions), the intensely competitive nature (resources are at a premium), the tendency to group (groups offer better chances for survival and specialization of labor), and xenophobia (the fewer resources there are, the more competition from outsiders to possess your land, livestock, etc).
Because of the national archetypes we have around us, it's easy to classify fictional civilizations as analogues of our own, but this is not the case. The Caldari are not, despite the names, either Asian or Finnish, and the Federation isn't the U.S. or E.U. So we need to be careful when reading a certain bit of PF to be sure to compare it with other PF. Defining the Caldari as a strictly self-sacrificial, collectivist culture ignores the PF defining them as often very individualistic, competitive, focused characters. And portraying them as strictly greedy and selfish in nature ignores the PF that shows them often having a good deal of patriotism and loyalty. And these are both, of course, gross generalities.
I personally see the Caldari approach best defined as "units of competition". You, personally, want to do well, better than everyone else around you, in fact. But outside of that immediate group, you also want your entire group to do better than other groups of similar nature (family, coworker groups, etc). And you want that group (company, Megacorp, The State, etc) to do better than others.
Because of this desire for competitive superiority, social attitudes and ideas which are (or appear to be) disruptive or even just non-useful tend to be considered a Bad Thing. This explains why gender equality seems to be the norm in the State, but homosexuality is not accepted - gender equality is an efficient use of labor, but homosexuals do not tend to reproduce, an important facet of survival for groups on a cold, hostile planet with high infant mortality. This can explain other things, as well: why do so many Caldari have tattoos in fiction pictures? Simple: tattoos are often a mark of identification with a certain group, and can serve to inform others of your loyalty to your common cause.
Of course, one should be wary of something that can explain everything. This is, of course, just my view.
-
Great post Vik.
-
Great post Vik.
Yeep... I like the argumention line.
Because of the national archetypes we have around us, it's easy to classify fictional civilizations as analogues of our own, but this is not the case. The Caldari are not, despite the names, either Asian or Finnish, and the Federation isn't the U.S. or E.U. So we need to be careful when reading a certain bit of PF to be sure to compare it with other PF.
You right... my post wasnt in the direction of.... Fed=E.U. ...it is more the system Social Milieu .... with its category system; you have a good tool to analyse pluralistic societys, like the Fed. Better than just a wall of text. With a good tool (analysing-system, you can break down every problem and question. (And more important I dont belive in Makro-Makro analying... but it just me :P)
About:
"Rather, the Caldari understand that grouping together usually increases your chances of personally doing better."
I like this line.... it is a nice Micro-Micro law... I rewrite it:
"Individuals understand that grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better."
So it can be said than like you:
"Therefore, you and your colleagues compete so that you, together, can get to the top of your Division. Divisions compete within a Megacorp to advance their own vision for the company. Megacorps compete with each other for market share and to implement their vision for the future of the State. And the State competes with every other Empire."
And even more, they are from a frozen hell hole so:
The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth; that makes the "grouping together" more meaning full and more combative etc.....
But like I said Sociology isnt my field. :(
-
...
So how do you answer Seriphyn's question then?
-
"How do you enforce one planetary culture over multiple billion+ planets?" (esp. Caldari and Minmatar)
You don't enforce a single culture, not over a single planet, or even an entire city.
Governments, institutions, corporations, societies etc encourage & maintain common themes throughout its sphere of influence.
In the case of the Caldari, the society encourages and maintains Wayism and the shared history/origin forms a foundation for "Caldari culture." An area that might be explored are the cultural differences between the families that left Caldari Prime as part of Luminaririan (Gallente+Caldari) colonization*, those that left Caldari Prime as part of the Caldari hidden corporate colonies, and those that were the last to leave. This may even be tied to corporate philosophies.
*Vieve has written about Miesian Caldari as part of her characters' backgrounds.
Just like any company, the megacorporations will encourage a particular corporate culture. In the case of the Caldari these may be displayed in popular culture as put forward in Masks of Authority (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Masks_of_Authority_(Chronicle)). Various divisions within these megacorporations will have their own cultures based on ethnic make-up, location, isolation, etc.
A way to normalize cultures is to move people around, either forced movement or "highly encouraged." A corporation can force individuals to move so that a local culture does not depart significantly from a "metropolitan norm." This can be done through skills training or higher-education, establishing a common culture among graduates of a particular institution or program. Lastly, someone from one locale might be assigned/receive a job in another locale where only those arriving do not share the local culture, but do share the macro culture.
-
...
So how do you answer Seriphyn's question then?
In my model, there is no contradiction, as indeed there is no contradiction in the PF. Although there is the occasional reference to Caldari contemplative traditions, much more is made of violent sports (Mindclash, Splinterz) and the tendency of Caldari to be profuse gamblers. This is not, to say the least, an Asian motif. That's not to say that the more contemplative Caldari traditions do not draw from Asian and Native American themes, but those are not the dominant forms of recreation in the state, and almost every culture, no matter how violent or competitive, has more reflective activities.
Incidentally, all of my views are (or, at least, I would like to think they are) based on PF sources I have read. I'd be happy to link you to the supporting evidence for any part of my thesis you'd like confirmation of.
-
You don't enforce a single culture, not over a single planet, or even an entire city.
Governments, institutions, corporations, societies etc encourage & maintain common themes throughout its sphere of influence.
In the case of the Caldari, the society encourages and maintains Wayism and the shared history/origin forms a foundation for "Caldari culture." An area that might be explored are the cultural differences between the families that left Caldari Prime as part of Luminaririan (Gallente+Caldari) colonization*, those that left Caldari Prime as part of the Caldari hidden corporate colonies, and those that were the last to leave. This may even be tied to corporate philosophies.
Funny. My base "modern Caldari cultural origins template" looks something like:
the families that left Caldari Prime as part of Luminaririan (Gallente+Caldari) colonization
Practicals.
those that left Caldari Prime as part of the Caldari hidden corporate colonies
Patriots.
and those that were the last to leave.
Liberals.
Yes, I have rationalizations for all of these (and for what the "base cultures" splintered and mutated into during and after the Gallente-Caldari War), but I'd rather not make people's eyes bleed this early in the morning.
-
In my model, there is no contradiction, as indeed there is no contradiction in the PF. Although there is the occasional reference to Caldari contemplative traditions, much more is made of violent sports (Mindclash, Splinterz) and the tendency of Caldari to be profuse gamblers. This is not, to say the least, an Asian motif. That's not to say that the more contemplative Caldari traditions do not draw from Asian and Native American themes, but those are not the dominant forms of recreation in the state, and almost every culture, no matter how violent or competitive, has more reflective activities.
Incidentally, all of my views are (or, at least, I would like to think they are) based on PF sources I have read. I'd be happy to link you to the supporting evidence for any part of my thesis you'd like confirmation of.
Let me state the contradiction more clearly: If Caldari are culturally and genetically modified to not have any of the cravings which we would consider usual in RL and they only live for competition, what makes them consume? You can't be hypercapitalistic if no one has need for your products.
Also, since EVE PF is as scattered as it it, linking the sources is always a good thing to do, that way people can better see where you are coming from and check whether they would arrive at the same conclusions.
-
...
So how do you answer Seriphyn's question then?
In my model, there is no contradiction, as indeed there is no contradiction in the PF. Although there is the occasional reference to Caldari contemplative traditions, much more is made of violent sports (Mindclash, Splinterz) and the tendency of Caldari to be profuse gamblers. This is not, to say the least, an Asian motif. That's not to say that the more contemplative Caldari traditions do not draw from Asian and Native American themes, but those are not the dominant forms of recreation in the state, and almost every culture, no matter how violent or competitive, has more reflective activities.
Incidentally, all of my views are (or, at least, I would like to think they are) based on PF sources I have read. I'd be happy to link you to the supporting evidence for any part of my thesis you'd like confirmation of.
I would actually argue that Asian cultures can have quite a bit of fixation on violence and gambling, just its easy to miss sometimes with Western eyes. I mean, take the Japanese. The Yakuza (who are a recognizable section of Japanese society, some even have marked offices) make a huge part of their revenue from majong parlors and other gambling dens. MMA, in the form of shoot fighting, basically started in Japan, with the subsequent gambling on it. Sumo is a highly ritualized but certainly violent sport that holds immense importance to Japanese culture and society. Thats just one example.
That said, I strongly agree with the rest of your points regarding Caldari culture.
I always viewed the average Caldari citizen's loyalty to Caldari culture meaning that he's not necessarily loyal to other Caldari, its that he or she is loyal to the Caldari way of life and way of doing things, which means a commitment to the constant competition and social Darwinism that their system recreates, as well as an acceptance of the consequences to the "losers".
I would imagine that being a loyal Caldari means ignoring all of those homeless and outcast Caldari on the street (if indeed he even sees them) as he walks to his high-powered corporate job "for the good of the Caldari people and State". Caldari culture's genesis in a harsh environment could make for harsh rules. If you cant help the tribal-group, if you're not productive and "one of us", then youre a threat to the tribal group, because you break up traditions designed to create viable individuals, and you eat food and take up resources that could be going to the betterment of "more meritorious" individuals, and thus you're a threat to the tribal-group as a whole, and thus expelled.
-
In my opinion, we need to avoid getting too attached to the idea that the Caldari are self-sacrificing for the sake of collectivist ideals. Remember, the Caldari are hyper-capitalistic, meritocratic, and intensely competitive, traits which do not lend themselves to altruistic interpretations.
For starters, doesn't this view run into trouble with the PF about the self-sacrifice of the celebrated hero Tovil-Toba (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=aug01), the State first mentality (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=30-11-09) of Caldari miners, the State executor waiting for his turn (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=22-02-10) in line to see the doctor or people's calm compliance with the clearly anti-competitive scrip currency? (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/The_Caldari_Financial_System#Corporate_Scrip)
Rather, the Caldari understand that grouping together usually increases your chances of personally doing better. Therefore, you and your colleagues compete so that you, together, can get to the top of your Division. Divisions compete within a Megacorp to advance their own vision for the company. Megacorps compete with each other for market share and to implement their vision for the future of the State. And the State competes with every other Empire.
...
I personally see the Caldari approach best defined as "units of competition". You, personally, want to do well, better than everyone else around you, in fact. But outside of that immediate group, you also want your entire group to do better than other groups of similar nature (family, coworker groups, etc). And you want that group (company, Megacorp, The State, etc) to do better than others.
This idea does not really fly, you run into the tragedy of commons here. You can't prioritize both the groups interest and your personal interest in the same go without conflicts. The former usually implies group roles, the latter implies redundancy and winner-takes-it all rewards which decreases group cohesion.
The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth. This was a planet that killed the weak, and promoted the stronger leader, the stronger tribe, and the stronger nation. This explains much about the modern Caldari civilization: the strong social mores (social cohesion is important in dangerous conditions), the intensely competitive nature (resources are at a premium), the tendency to group (groups offer better chances for survival and specialization of labor), and xenophobia (the fewer resources there are, the more competition from outsiders to possess your land, livestock, etc).
I agree that under harsh conditions it is advantageous to stick together but cannot see how this could lead to people being competitive and pursuing their individual interests, as this would decrease the survivability of the group as a whole. Also, you're now introducing here the division between your own group and strangers, and I'm getting confused in what sense you are actually so uncomfortable with this idea.
Because of the national archetypes we have around us, it's easy to classify fictional civilizations as analogues of our own, but this is not the case. The Caldari are not, despite the names, either Asian or Finnish, and the Federation isn't the U.S. or E.U. So we need to be careful when reading a certain bit of PF to be sure to compare it with other PF.
If PF hands us an institution or a character which seems to have an intriguing pattern of behavior, acting against his own interest etc, I think it brings depth to try to understand what would motivate a similar RL entity to act like this. Dropping the assumption that the characters of New Eden are psychologically human would in my opinion create more problems than it would solve.
Defining the Caldari as a strictly self-sacrificial, collectivist culture ignores the PF defining them as often very individualistic, competitive, focused characters. And portraying them as strictly greedy and selfish in nature ignores the PF that shows them often having a good deal of patriotism and loyalty. And these are both, of course, gross generalities.
You don't seem to like the idea that Caldari in general actually might be self-sacrificial and collectivists, and competitive only because this is expected from them. I agree that a faction of trillions of people has to be multi-faceted, as anything else would be an oversimplification, but this general argument is not very helpful in understanding the culture any better.
-
Defining the Caldari as a strictly self-sacrificial, collectivist culture ignores the PF defining them as often very individualistic, competitive, focused characters. And portraying them as strictly greedy and selfish in nature ignores the PF that shows them often having a good deal of patriotism and loyalty. And these are both, of course, gross generalities.
You don't seem to like the idea that Caldari in general actually might be self-sacrificial and collectivists, and competitive only because this is expected from them. I agree that a faction of trillions of people has to be multi-faceted, as anything else would be an oversimplification, but this general argument is not very helpful in understanding the culture any better.
Ehm.... he said:
"Rather, the Caldari understand that grouping together usually increases your chances of personally doing better."
On the micro level he has as hypothesis:
"Individuals understand that grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better." or better as Wenn-dann (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://eswf.uni-koeln.de/glossar/node85.html&ei=1TBYT4uOB8PRsgbXu_GFDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwenn%2Bdann%2Bje%2Bdesto%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D872%26prmd%3Dimvnsob).... When/IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.
So I think he already said they working together.... but it has a reason... and the reason isnt that they are self-sacrificial and collectivists, and competitive because this is expected from them.
The reason is because grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better. And you can add in the caldari society is it a little extremer because of the past: "The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth; that makes the "grouping together" more meaning full and more combative...."
The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth. This was a planet that killed the weak, and promoted the stronger leader, the stronger tribe, and the stronger nation. This explains much about the modern Caldari civilization: the strong social mores (social cohesion is important in dangerous conditions), the intensely competitive nature (resources are at a premium), the tendency to group (groups offer better chances for survival and specialization of labor), and xenophobia (the fewer resources there are, the more competition from outsiders to possess your land, livestock, etc).
I agree that under harsh conditions it is advantageous to stick together but cannot see how this could lead to people being competitive and pursuing their individual interests, as this would decrease the survivability of the group as a whole. Also, you're now introducing here the division between your own group and strangers, and I'm getting confused in what sense you are actually so uncomfortable with this idea.
About:
"I agree that under harsh conditions it is advantageous to stick together but cannot see how this could lead to people being competitive and pursuing their individual interests, as this would decrease the survivability of the group as a whole."
At this point I dont see the problem which you see.... they working together but... a huge but... you dont have always a garantie to have this outcome.... it means: Yes grouping together gives you the Pareto-Optimum and it is possible to get it.... as long the collectiv goods is small... and a small group can benefit from it... that gets the free rider problem out the way.. the problem starts when the collectiv good is in that form that everybody can consume form it. That is the start... you have than already two groups... one which trys to get the Pareto-Optimum (survival in Caldari case) and a second group which just free rides.
The Caldari have most likely just group together around small collectiv goods, with small groups to avoid this problem..... so the point that: "IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.." Isnt wrong it just needs an addition... "rational" so: "IF rational individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better..and it is more likely that rational individuals are group together around controlable collectiv goods."
The Logic of Collective Action (http://homes.ieu.edu.tr/~ibagdadi/INT230/Mancur%20Olson%20-%20Logic%20of%20Collective%20Action.pdf)
Edit: Unter friedlichen Umständen fällt der kriegerische Mensch über sich selber her. Nietzsche "Jenseits von Gut und Böse". Under peaceful conditions the militant man attacks himself. He means their is never peace, their is always a war somewhere against some someone and isnt important if you win or lose aslong you are stand up and go for another competition. One point is nice... I dont know if "militant man" is plural and singular in english.... because in german "kriegerische Mensch" can mean the one militant/warlike or a characterisation of humans with the attribut being militant...
-
Ehm.... he said:
"Rather, the Caldari understand that grouping together usually increases your chances of personally doing better."
On the micro level he has as hypothesis:
"Individuals understand that grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better." or better as Wenn-dann (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://eswf.uni-koeln.de/glossar/node85.html&ei=1TBYT4uOB8PRsgbXu_GFDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwenn%2Bdann%2Bje%2Bdesto%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D872%26prmd%3Dimvnsob).... When/IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.
So I think he already said they working together.... but it has a reason... and the reason isnt that they are self-sacrificial and collectivists, and competitive because this is expected from them.
The reason is because grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better. And you can add in the caldari society is it a little extremer because of the past: "The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth; that makes the "grouping together" more meaning full and more combative...."
...
About:
"I agree that under harsh conditions it is advantageous to stick together but cannot see how this could lead to people being competitive and pursuing their individual interests, as this would decrease the survivability of the group as a whole."
At this point I dont see the problem which you see.... they working together but... a huge but... you dont have always a garantie to have this outcome.... it means: Yes grouping together gives you the Pareto-Optimum and it is possible to get it.... as long the collectiv goods is small... and a small group can benefit from it... that gets the free rider problem out the way.. the problem starts when the collectiv good is in that form that everybody can consume form it. That is the start... you have than already two groups... one which trys to get the Pareto-Optimum (survival in Caldari case) and a second group which just free rides.
The Caldari have most likely just group together around small collectiv goods, with small groups to avoid this problem..... so the point that: "IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.." Isnt wrong it just needs an addition... "rational" so: "IF rational individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better..and it is more likely that rational individuals are group together around controlable collectiv goods."
Yes and this is just simply wrong. When Tovil-Toba crashes to the ground, he does not personally gain anything. When Caldari megacorps are controlling the markets with scrip, the megacorp gains, the consumers don't but no one complains. If you have more meat than the average clan member, there will be more food for yourself if you don't share. Like said, the average survivability of the community can be higher if the members don't act selfishly, but then some of them are going to have to sacrifice from their personal gain and there needs to be some kind of social order. This is not individualism or competitiveness like you claim, this is collectivism.
The book you linked also disagrees with what you are saying, here's a quote:
But it is not in fact true that the idea that groups will act in their self-interest follows logically from the premise of rational and self-interested behavior. It does not follow, because all of the individuals in a group would gain if they achieved their group objective, that they would act to achieve that objective, even if they were all rational and self-interested. Indeed unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests. (pg. 2)
-
Ehm.... he said:
"Rather, the Caldari understand that grouping together usually increases your chances of personally doing better."
On the micro level he has as hypothesis:
"Individuals understand that grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better." or better as Wenn-dann (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://eswf.uni-koeln.de/glossar/node85.html&ei=1TBYT4uOB8PRsgbXu_GFDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwenn%2Bdann%2Bje%2Bdesto%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D872%26prmd%3Dimvnsob).... When/IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.
So I think he already said they working together.... but it has a reason... and the reason isnt that they are self-sacrificial and collectivists, and competitive because this is expected from them.
The reason is because grouping together usually increases their chances of personally doing better. And you can add in the caldari society is it a little extremer because of the past: "The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth; that makes the "grouping together" more meaning full and more combative...."
...
About:
"I agree that under harsh conditions it is advantageous to stick together but cannot see how this could lead to people being competitive and pursuing their individual interests, as this would decrease the survivability of the group as a whole."
At this point I dont see the problem which you see.... they working together but... a huge but... you dont have always a garantie to have this outcome.... it means: Yes grouping together gives you the Pareto-Optimum and it is possible to get it.... as long the collectiv goods is small... and a small group can benefit from it... that gets the free rider problem out the way.. the problem starts when the collectiv good is in that form that everybody can consume form it. That is the start... you have than already two groups... one which trys to get the Pareto-Optimum (survival in Caldari case) and a second group which just free rides.
The Caldari have most likely just group together around small collectiv goods, with small groups to avoid this problem..... so the point that: "IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.." Isnt wrong it just needs an addition... "rational" so: "IF rational individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better..and it is more likely that rational individuals are group together around controlable collectiv goods."
Yes and this is just simply wrong. When Tovil-Toba crashes to the ground, he does not personally gain anything. When Caldari megacorps are controlling the markets with scrip, the megacorp gains, the consumers don't but no one complains. If you have more meat than the average clan member, there will be more food for yourself if you don't share. Like said, the average survivability of the community can be higher if the members don't act selfishly, but then some of them are going to have to sacrifice from their personal gain and there needs to be some kind of social order. This is not individualism or competitiveness like you claim, this is collectivism.
The book you linked also disagrees with what you are saying, here's a quote:
But it is not in fact true that the idea that groups will act in their self-interest follows logically from the premise of rational and self-interested behavior. It does not follow, because all of the individuals in a group would gain if they achieved their group objective, that they would act to achieve that objective, even if they were all rational and self-interested. Indeed unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests. (pg. 2)
You are like than a RL friend. He also likes to have a whole book in one line (he is such a lazy fuck ;P).... It is even just the intro (the link are just the first pages... from a big book)..... and yes.... you willl love it: he starts with like you say, but he goes further (P.S. I know the article were you have copy past it (http://economics.about.com/cs/macroeconomics/a/logic_of_action.htm) :P)
he will come later how it works.... I know, I know, I know: "Listen Dude... but page two man"..... it is just the start for a long argumentionline..... which goes from small collectiv goods over group size - over big groups and big collectiv goods - to a group theory as whole. And that is what I take out of it..... see as a tool.... like your Mercedes-Benz mechanic.... he has most of the time a laptop and a special tool for a special problem (I know, I know so german to not see the ideology behind and work with as was it a tool to solve problems :P) ....
So our special problem was .... "IF Individuals grouping together, then they increases their chances of personally doing better.." it doesnt explains logical and detuctiv what was happening. So we need a group theory (and there are more than olson out there).... so I have just add his group theory toi solve the problem which we had on the start.
-
Let me state the contradiction more clearly: If Caldari are culturally and genetically modified to not have any of the cravings which we would consider usual in RL and they only live for competition, what makes them consume? You can't be hypercapitalistic if no one has need for your products.
There is not one shred of PF that supports genetic manipulation or modification of tube children. Eggs are harvested, fertilized and placed into artificial wombs. This allows a Deteis woman to give birth to many children in a nine month span instead of one.
-
Let me state the contradiction more clearly: If Caldari are culturally and genetically modified to not have any of the cravings which we would consider usual in RL and they only live for competition, what makes them consume? You can't be hypercapitalistic if no one has need for your products.
There is not one shred of PF that supports genetic manipulation or modification of tube children. Eggs are harvested, fertilized and placed into artificial wombs. This allows a Deteis woman to give birth to many children in a nine month span instead of one.
There is actually a pretty explicit cluster-wide taboo on that kind of genetic manipulation - particularly when it comes to tinkering with basic drives - because of what happened to the Jovians.
-
Let me state the contradiction more clearly: If Caldari are culturally and genetically modified to not have any of the cravings which we would consider usual in RL and they only live for competition, what makes them consume? You can't be hypercapitalistic if no one has need for your products.
There is not one shred of PF that supports genetic manipulation or modification of tube children. Eggs are harvested, fertilized and placed into artificial wombs. This allows a Deteis woman to give birth to many children in a nine month span instead of one.
There is actually a pretty explicit cluster-wide taboo on that kind of genetic manipulation - particularly when it comes to tinkering with basic drives - because of what happened to the Jovians.
This.
I'm not sure where the idea of being culturally and genetically modified to not have the usual RL cravings [drives?] comes from, but my impression of Caldari is that they have their share of such drives and a decent part of the culture is about how they channel them and what outlets are acceptable.
-
There is not one shred of PF that supports genetic manipulation or modification of tube children. Eggs are harvested, fertilized and placed into artificial wombs. This allows a Deteis woman to give birth to many children in a nine month span instead of one.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what you are saying. I was referring to the following part in Vikarion's post:
The Caldari, as a people, built their civilization on a planet much harsher than Earth. This was a planet that killed the weak, and promoted the stronger leader, the stronger tribe, and the stronger nation. This explains much about the modern Caldari civilization: the strong social mores (social cohesion is important in dangerous conditions), the intensely competitive nature (resources are at a premium), the tendency to group (groups offer better chances for survival and specialization of labor), and xenophobia (the fewer resources there are, the more competition from outsiders to possess your land, livestock, etc).
I'm not sure where the idea of being culturally and genetically modified to not have the usual RL cravings [drives?] comes from, but my impression of Caldari is that they have their share of such drives and a decent part of the culture is about how they channel them and what outlets are acceptable.
This is my impression as well. Suggesting that we should "get past" themes like "what outlets are acceptable", "channeling one's cravings" and other social control or collectivist concepts which are clearly all over the Caldari lore simply sounds like an OOC motivated PF contradiction to me. Of course, it's a big cluster and there must be hyper-individualistic Caldari people as well, somewhere, nothing wrong with that.