What Does 'Social Dynamics' Mean?
This is the first of many blog posts concerning Social Dynamics. It is the heading of the book, but the content of the book does not address in detail what exactly is meant by the term. I will attempt to lay out my understanding of the idea as well as I can. Let’s call this ‘Part 1’.
Human interpersonal relationships can be incredibly complicated. And, the ways in which people often consider their interpersonal relationships are grossly inadequate. We all have different values, different sensibilities, and different ends. Which makes interacting with others an impossibly complex algebra of emotions, moods, dispositions, characteristics, tolerances, allegiances, the spoken, the unspoken, yes’s and no’s (and there are many kinds of each).
Someone may one day think to themselves ‘I love my wife.’, but the next day, after an instance of unnecessary conflict, they I may think: ‘I hate her!’. (A simple enough example, but the simplest examples are often the most relatable, and easily digested.) Relationships change over time depending on the interpersonal interactions of the actors involved in any social dynamic. So, even though you might love someone one day, the next: you realise that yesterday you were deluded, or that they tricked you, and now… you are certain that you actually hate them! And, then, a few days later, you begin to question that proclamation, too. The point is that ‘love’ and ‘hate’ should not be taken as definitive, or even as particularly semantically weighty ideas to begin with. They are not just ambiguous terms we all may understand entirely differently, but they are also as changeable as moods.
The entire Social Dynamics shtick is to attempt to assist people in reformulating thought patterns — from crude to smooth! The human world’s problems are generally caused by unhelpful thought-processes, and the resulting actions and effects. Learning to think in new ways can bring those dealing with the difficulties of life out of the slumps they otherwise may not be able to find their way out of. Our social dynamics are built upon our underlying thought-processes, and our ability to act in time. Improving one’s coherence in thought (and the use of language in particular) should lead to the improvement of one’s coherence in every day social interactions.
Human beings are primates. Just because we are able to use language to describe the world we inhabit, does not mean that we have it all figured out. We are linguistically and intellectually simple creatures. Our ability to understand our thoughts and feelings is very much limited by the words we use, as well as conventional ways of thinking about things (borrowed ideas, essentially). So, for example, the person upset with his wife might think ‘I hate her!’ because she, for example, has been incessantly nagging him about something in particular; or just generally nagging him to death. This upsets him, causes him to feel all sorts of bad.
Relating his feeling bad to his wife, and thinking of her more and more as a source of annoyance, his previous positive feelings about her become corrupted into grave feelings of unwellness. Then, this man, being a simple primate, as he is, thinks ferociously to himself: “I hate her!”.
But, surely it is not hate. Especially considering the fact that it usually subsides within a couple of minutes… It is the disturbed internal state of a perturbed primate, who has limited linguistic and intellectual capacity, attempting to explain, articulate, even narrate, the tumultuous situation in which he finds himself. But, in doing so: he gets all entangled in traditional linguistic concepts, constructs, and constraints. Which complicate things infinitely more than if he just kept his mind still, and stewed in silent rage. If he does not know how the use language with skill, how to still the mind – or shut the hell up – he will begin to think, say, and do foolish things; overcome with emotion, and not having to tools to channel the energies of frustration back into clear thought or calm.
But, maybe he does not still his mind, or choose to shut the hell up, but instead: has an angry outburst at his wife, potentially shouting something hurtful; or, maybe not even that, but by simply shouting profane expressions of general displeasure. This usually does not help, but is done in frustration. His wife takes this behaviour as affront to her, or evidence of a lack of his caring, and reacts with insulting, profane exclamations, or exhortations of her own.
Regardless of what happens from this point, the dynamic has already been damaged. Things have been said, and actions have been taken that forever change how these people think of each other, feel about each other, and how they behave toward, and negotiate with, one another. These moments will creep back in as memory, seeding doubt of the other at future points in time.
I use the term ‘social dynamics’ because of the endlessly changeable nature of interpersonal relationships, and how every considerable variable in every interpersonal interaction is, in some sense, in motion. It is not adequate to think of person-to-person relations in definitive, static terms when: how human beings feel from time to time is so variable, so complex, so multivalent. Yet, people think crudely in designating, and considering, dynamic systems as static, and so fail to notice (or to allow themselves to see) how complicated, and changeable these systems actually are. People do this in order to think in simpler terms, and with simpler models of reality; so they can reassure themselves they have got it all figured out; so they do not have to do any difficult thinking. Human beings love taking short-cuts. But, lazy-thinking will put one into a Conceptually Crude Cosmos. And, living in a Conceptually Crude Cosmos can lead to endless epistemological difficulty.
Thinking in terms of whether of not you ‘hate’ someone is plainly not helpful. That is emotional thinking, which is not real thinking, by any means. As discussed in the chapter ‘The Victim of Circumstance’, semantics is incredibly important to consider in piecing together clear, reasonable, useful thoughts, and spoken language. If you do not ‘hate’ someone, but instead understand that you feel unwell, upset, or somehow perturbed, when you think of — or see them — for a particular reason, or many reasons…. then, consider more deeply why their presence, or thoughts of them, might bother you to the extent that you feel this way. Where did it all begin; where there was potential fault, on who’s part; where there was potential for greater understanding.
When one begins to consider issues more deeply, it becomes easier to unravel the fibres of the cloth of the dynamics you are entangled in. Some things are very much straightforward, sometimes someone is a belligerent shit, and it is clear as day why. Other times, consideration of the endless variables that build these dynamics may give those willing to be considerate a deeper understanding of the situation, enough to dispel the primitive myth of ‘hate’, maybe encourage a glimmer of empathy, and take a person closer to the security they can find in the knowledge that they may be missing something.
People have differing ends, differing points of view; some may even be out to intentionally cause harm or misery. But, thinking thoughts like ‘I hate them so much!‘ gets a person nowhere other than deeper into a pit of ill-feeling, anger, ignorance, and despair. If one wishes to understand why a dynamic is as it is they need to think deeply about all the points in time they believe were significant in shaping that particular dynamic, while at the same time being as honest with themselves as they can manage being.
We lie to ourselves most of all(but most of those lies do not truly fool us, if we are at least partially honest with ourselves).
Understanding human social dynamics is significant. But, understanding corrupted, or damaged dynamics in particular is most edifying. Nothing broken, nothing to fix! Knowing exactly where and how things can go wrong in a relationship is a valuable learning experience. Figuring out who, if anyone, was at fault (not trying however you can to justify your own position to yourself and others, as so many so often do), and whether that presumed fault was due to someone acting in a way justifiably categorisable as ‘unjust'(though what is ‘just’ is always in context, and heavily contingent on the specifics of each particular situation)), or simply due to a misunderstanding, is always the most significant piece of the puzzle.
Whether the misunderstanding was on one party, or another, or many: this does not matter. Once misunderstanding has occurred, and has not been apprehended as such by all parties involved: all bets are off, noses fly skyward, chests puff out, pomp enters the scene in a slimy, insinuating manner, bifurcation occurs, and regaining coherence and sanity in a dynamic becomes… difficult, as cascades of enmity flow.
Where others see hate, I see failed negotiations.