Freedom and Education

copperhound12 said:To build out an entire system—specifically a non-institutionalized form of education—you have to introduce one thing: desire. That whole hidden, subtle concept is actually the foundation of V. Stambolović's entire doctoral thesis in "Higher Education Manual."

"...it would be wise to embark on a long march, not just through higher ed structures, but by liberating desire." (VS, "Higher Education Manual," p. 143), or to put it in the words of Margaret Mead: "My grandmother wanted me to get a proper upbringing and education, so she pulled me out of school."

School is a vital cog in that machine, but that doesn't mean we're talking about concentration camps, which seems to be the recurring theme here.

I never once mentioned concentration camps! But, I suppose I shouldn't have to prove or argue that schools, as institutions, play a role in social control at a latent level, right? Besides, there are plenty of narratives from prominent thinkers that demonstrate this—and no, that isn't a logical fallacy of appealing to authority; it's simply a provable fact for any worthwhile reader.

I just assumed you might have actually read "The Social Construction of Reality" by Berger / Luckman—where they explain how society's conceptual machinery works to ensure that current (primary) participants stay within institutional definitions of... well, any reality. That is precisely what the latent function is; those are the internal arrangements, that is that convoluted social control, those are the "rituals."

Anyway, since when is it forbidden to combine different theories to build a valid argument?

Defining a concept... it’s never as simple as just looking it up in a dictionary. It requires more than just a surface-level glance—it takes actual rigor... Desires... they're a relentless engine, aren't they? Always pushing, always pulling—never quite satisfied with what's already sitting on the table. It’s an endless cycle of wanting more, chasing that next hit of fulfillment that always seems to stay just out of reach...What exactly are we even discussing here? What is longing, really? Is it just some fleeting emotion... or something more?
Just like any other emotion—longing, for instance (though longing for what?...)—the way desire manifests varies from one individual to the next.
Who exactly is going to trigger that primal drive in children—and more importantly, what would that hunger actually look like in practice?...

Did I ever mention concentration camps? No. But that school system—as an institution—serves a role in social control at a latent level; I shouldn't have to argue or prove that point... should I? Besides, there are plenty of narratives from prominent thinkers that back this up—and no, that isn't some logical fallacy or "appeal to authority"—it’s just a verifiable fact for anyone actually worth reading...

Why is social control viewed as such a negative thing?
Would a world stripped of socialization actually be a better place to live? It’s an interesting thought—perhaps too much of one... But honestly, without that fundamental layer of human connection, we’d just be isolated atoms drifting through a void. A life without social structures isn't freedom; it's just profound, crushing emptiness.

I figured you all might have read this... The "social construction of reality"... Berger & Luckmann argue that society’s conceptual machinery is designed to keep the primary actors trapped within institutional definitions—but does that actually hold up? Is it really true? That sounds like just another latent function... those hidden internal arrangements used to maintain a sort of twisted, subtle social control...Rituals... they aren't just empty gestures—they’re the invisible glue holding everything together.“.

Besides, since when was it forbidden to blend different theories just to build a solid argument?...

Think about Berger & Luckmann...
Where exactly does Berger & Luckmann drop a line like this: The social machinery works exactly like that—it’s designed to keep everyone trapped within their own institutional definitions... just to keep things predictable. Every single time.
What is that sentence even supposed to mean? Does it actually make any sense...

R. Merton is a functionalist. It’s a theoretical paradigm built on foundations that are fundamentally different from those found in interactionist theory... quite a departure, really.
Because they’re built on entirely different theoretical foundations, these two paradigms don't complement one another—if they actually did, we wouldn't be looking at two distinct paradigms anymore... we'd just be looking at one.

Volar said:If you actually believed you could get a straight answer out of them, what would you even bother asking a philosopher?
Everyone—especially those of you who find yourselves drifting toward philosophical inquiry—welcome to our sub-forum!
The spark for this thread actually came from Nee, so we’re throwing the floor open to all of you: Ask the philosophers.

Personally, I’d look a philosopher in the eye and ask: Is it really that much of a struggle to distill a universal truth into just a few simple, coherent sentences?

In the engineering world, there's an old saying that sticks with me: if you can't explain what you do to a toddler, you don't actually understand it yourself!

😁

Sandra Murphy33 said:

"A school that isn't a playground is a failure of a school. Sadly, teacherly dignity often ends up killing any sense of fun. I once had a teacher take offense just because a student called him a damn fool.
'Look,' I told him, 'I’ve had five or six kids trailing behind me all morning shouting, "Neil, Neil crocodile!" Do you really think I should be clinging to my dignity and taking offense at that?'"

(S. Neill, founder of Summerhill, a progressive school where play comes first and academics are optional)

The whole concept of authority is debatable.
You can't force authority or "respect," just like you can't force love. When schools demand respect based on someone's "knowledge" or "experience," what they usually get is
an imitation of respect. Instead, they foster hypocrisy and pretension in children—a fundamental split between what they think and feel versus how they speak and act. This process produces hypocritical adults who are terrified of facing consequences if they dare to be authentic rather than socially compliant. They learn to choose social conformity over integrity, which is the alignment of emotion, thought, and action, simply to serve some vague notion of the "common good"—a term used to justify whatever imaginary standard this particular society deems necessary.

As for pure factual knowledge—which is arguably the least interesting part of education—it is readily available to any tech-literate individual in our current technological society. The need to rote-memorize data has essentially vanished. Yet, despite having access to advanced technology and artificial intelligence, modern schools remain obsessed with data memorization and drilling students with socially desirable lessons and behavioral instructions. It is hardly surprising, then, that the very children produced by this system invented artificial intelligence, which many now view with hope as the "future of humanity." After all, AI perfectly mirrors the exact qualities rewarded in our education system: the faithful imitation of data and unwavering obedience to programmed inputs. The core of domestic schooling is the worship of others' egos, the submission to others' thoughts and emotions, and the systematic suppression of one's own identity and authenticity. It is a process of severing oneself from one's own soul—at least, that's my observation. I haven't looked into other places, though I hear things might be different in Scandinavia.

Have you truly never been that wide-eyed kid, sitting there listening intently to a teacher who seemed to hold the answer to every single question you could dream up? Someone who felt like they possessed all the knowledge in the world?

Never looked up to a professor who knew so much that it felt like you might never be able to grasp or memorize even a fraction of what they were teaching?

Or maybe never admired an instructor who actually understood how the world works and why people behave the way they do?

I certainly have. For me, those teachers held authority because of their intellect; they didn't demand it, they earned it through years of grueling study and hard work. They were my role models, and I wanted to understand the world just as deeply as they did.

Sandra Murphy33 said:

"A school that isn't a playground is a failure of a school. Sadly, teacherly dignity often ends up killing any sense of fun. I once had a teacher take offense just because a student called him a damn fool.
'Look,' I told him, 'I’ve had five or six kids trailing behind me all morning shouting, "Neil, Neil crocodile!" Do you really think I should be clinging to my dignity and taking offense at that?'"

(S. Neill, founder of Summerhill, a progressive school where play comes first and academics are optional)

The whole concept of authority is debatable.
You can't force authority or "respect," just like you can't force love. When schools demand respect based on someone's "knowledge" or "experience," what they usually get is
an imitation of respect. Instead, they foster hypocrisy and pretension in children—a fundamental split between what they think and feel versus how they speak and act. This process produces hypocritical adults who are terrified of facing consequences if they dare to be authentic rather than socially compliant. They learn to choose social conformity over integrity, which is the alignment of emotion, thought, and action, simply to serve some vague notion of the "common good"—a term used to justify whatever imaginary standard this particular society deems necessary.

As for pure factual knowledge—which is arguably the least interesting part of education—it is readily available to any tech-literate individual in our current technological society. The need to rote-memorize data has essentially vanished. Yet, despite having access to advanced technology and artificial intelligence, modern schools remain obsessed with data memorization and drilling students with socially desirable lessons and behavioral instructions. It is hardly surprising, then, that the very children produced by this system invented artificial intelligence, which many now view with hope as the "future of humanity." After all, AI perfectly mirrors the exact qualities rewarded in our education system: the faithful imitation of data and unwavering obedience to programmed inputs. The core of domestic schooling is the worship of others' egos, the submission to others' thoughts and emotions, and the systematic suppression of one's own identity and authenticity. It is a process of severing oneself from one's own soul—at least, that's my observation. I haven't looked into other places, though I hear things might be different in Scandinavia.

The school system exists to ensure that the people standing at the front of the classroom are qualified professionals who have actually mastered their subjects and possess the ability to teach them. It's a far cry from YouTube, where anyone—including people with serious mental health issues or complete lack of credentials—can claim to be an educator.

I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly: this whole thing is a mess. It’s honestly ridiculous how much people try to ignore what's right in front of them! You look at the way society functions—or tries to function—and you see these massive gaps between what we're told is "normal" and the actual reality we're living in every single day. It’s exhausting, really. It brings me back to Berger & Luckmann. If you actually bother to read their work on how we construct our sense of reality, you'd realize that most people are just drifting through a manufactured version of existence without a second thought. They aren't even questioning the structures around them! And don't even get me started on the social pressures involved. It's like everyone is just playing a role in a play they didn't even audition for, following these arbitrary rules just because "that's how it's done." And then you have people like R. Merton, who pointed out exactly how this leads to tension when the system promises one thing but fails to deliver another. We're told there's a path to success, a certain standard to meet, but the actual tools to get there? They aren't available to everyone. So what happens? People either break the rules or they just check out mentally. I mean, seriously, why is it so hard for people to grasp this? It’s not some deep, hidden conspiracy; it’s just basic sociology! But no, everyone wants to pretend everything is fine, staying tucked away in their little bubbles while the entire social fabric is fraying at the edges. It's maddening!

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been sitting here for quite some time, just staring at this screen, trying to make sense of the absolute chaos we’re witnessing. It’s frankly exhausting. I mean, maybe I’m being too dramatic, but I really don't think anyone else realizes how deep this goes. We are talking about the very fabric of our social reality—the way we perceive everything around us! It’s like what Berger & Luckmann talk about when they discuss how we construct our own little versions of the universe. We aren't just passive observers; we are actively building this world, brick by brick, through our interactions. And yet, people act like none of this matters. It’s infuriating! I guess some people are just content to drift through life without ever questioning the structures that hold them up. And don't even get me started on the institutional side of things. If you look at the way organizations function—you know, the kind of stuff R. Merton wrote about regarding how social structures can actually create unintended consequences—it becomes painfully obvious that the system isn't just broken; it's functioning exactly as it was designed to, which is arguably much worse. It’s a cycle. A continuous, maddening cycle. I saw copperhound12 making some points earlier, and while I might be wrong, I feel like they're missing the sheer scale of the sociological implications here. It’s not just about one specific policy or one single event in a city like Chicago or New York; it’s about the fundamental ways we socialize ourselves into these roles. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I honestly doubt anyone else is giving this the gravity it deserves. It’s all connected. Everything. kaže: I mean, I suppose I agree, but I honestly feel like this is just a fundamental characteristic of society itself—it’s the kind of thing without which a society couldn't even exist in the first place.

Berger and Luckmann argue that there exists... I mean, let’s be honest here—it’s all about the primary stage. Everything starts there. Without that initial foundation, nothing else even matters. It’s the core, the absolute baseline. I guess you could say it’s the most essential part of the whole process, though some people might try to argue otherwise. But they're wrong. It's fundamental. Period. Primary socialization—you know, that whole formative period during childhood—and then secondary socialization, which kicks in once you're out in the world. Now, most experts actually agree that primary socialization is the heavy hitter here. It’s arguably more vital because it provides that foundational psychological...I suppose I should mention the windfall. It’s all quite overwhelming, really. A win. A massive, unexpected win. I don't know how to process it, or if I even should. One moment you're just going about your life, and the next, everything shifts. It's... well, it's a lot to take in. Maybe it's a blessing, maybe it's a curse. I guess we'll see.“ – The narrowing of choice. It’s happening right before our eyes, isn't it? I guess you could say we're being funneled into a corner where the illusion of freedom remains, but the actual options are vanishing. Everything feels increasingly curated, pre-packaged, and limited by forces we can barely see anymore. It’s frustrating, honestly. It’s essentially freeing the child from having to make those heavy decisions on their own.It all comes down to the decision, doesn't it? I mean, that's really the crux of the whole thing. One single choice can shift everything.Because it provides him with both psychological satisfaction and biological reinforcement at the exact same time. And that’s right where things start to get complicated. Institutionalization... I mean, where do we even begin with that one? It’s such a heavy, suffocating concept when you really start to peel back the layers. I guess what I'm trying to say is that once a process becomes institutionalized, it stops being about people and starts being about the machine itself. It becomes this rigid, unyielding structure that dictates how everything must function, regardless of whether those rules actually make sense anymore. It feels like we're constantly watching these massive, bureaucratic monoliths—think of something like the federal government or even a giant corporation like JPMorgan Chase—build these invisible walls around themselves. They create these set patterns, these "standard operating procedures," and then they cling to them with a death grip. Maybe it’s just my way of looking at things, but it feels incredibly stifling. You have these established norms that just become part of the very fabric of our social universe, and once they're baked in like that, changing them feels almost impossible. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier in a bathtub. It’s all just so deeply ingrained that the system begins to protect its own existence more than its actual purpose. It’s maddening, honestly.In its own right, that’s just how things work. It’s a fundamental characteristic of any society, and I mean, I really do agree with you there—but, if you ask me... I guess... maybe I should just say it: this is all wrong. It’s completely off base. Everything about this is just plain incorrect.I mean, look—every single defining characteristic of a society is mirrored right back at us through its culture. It’s all there. So, if we take a hard look at what kind of society we've built up to this point, I guess we have to face the music: we are staring directly at our own fundamental flaws.

I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly, though I hate to even open this can of worms. It’s honestly infuriating how much people miss the point. Everything feels so fractured lately, doesn't it? Like we're all just drifting through this massive, overwhelming universe without any real sense of direction or shared reality. It’s almost like what Berger & Luckmann were getting at—that whole idea about how we construct our own little worlds just to make sense of the chaos. But instead of building something meaningful, it feels like everyone is just shouting into their own private voids. We aren't even living in the same reality anymore! It’s exhausting. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to function as a society when the very fabric of our social construction is being pulled apart by sheer ego and misinformation? I don't know. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Perhaps I'm overthinking the whole thing. But it's hard not to feel this way when you look at the state of things. It's just... it's a mess. A total, absolute mess. kaže:
Why on earth would anyone assume that social control is inherently a negative thing? I mean, seriously? It’s almost like people haven't thought this through at all. Is it even possible to wrap my head around the idea that a world without socialization would somehow be a better place to live? I highly doubt it, though maybe I'm being too cynical here. If we're talking about a total absence of social structure—where there's no mechanism to guide behavior or maintain order—we aren't looking at some kind of utopia. We're looking at absolute chaos. Without those guiding forces, how does a society even function? How do we establish any sense of shared reality? It feels like a massive leap to suggest that stripping away the very fabric that holds us together would result in anything other than a complete breakdown of civilization. I guess some people see "control" and immediately think "oppression," but they're missing the entire point of how human interaction actually works.

The world is absolutely starving for genuine socialization and a sense of community—it’s a fundamental necessity, really—but... I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m honestly not sure where to even begin with such a mess. It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels at this point, doesn't it? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but there’s just no way to look at the current situation without feeling a massive sense of frustration. It’s all incredibly disorganized, and frankly, it’s exhausting to keep up with. I guess what I'm trying to say—if I can even get my thoughts straight—is that the sheer lack of cohesion here is staggering. It's like everyone is operating on a completely different wavelength, and nobody is actually listening to the core issues. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to make any real progress when the foundation is this shaky? It’s maddening! I find myself constantly questioning whether anyone actually cares about getting this right, or if we're all just going through the motions for the sake of it. It’s just... it's a lot. I really don't know. - Social control—it’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around in academic circles, but they rarely grasp how deeply it actually weaves itself into the fabric of our daily lives here in America. It isn't just some abstract theory you read about in a textbook; it is the very mechanism that keeps the gears of society turning, whether we realize it or not. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that social control is essentially the way a community maintains order and ensures everyone stays within the lines. It can be formal, like when the NYPD hands out a speeding ticket on a busy Manhattan street, or it can be informal, which is arguably much more pervasive. Think about that subtle, judgmental look you get from a neighbor when you park your car slightly over the line, or the quiet disapproval felt when someone violates an unwritten rule at a local diner in Chicago. Those little nudges, those micro-pressures to conform to the status quo, they are everywhere. It's a constant tug-of-war between individual agency and the collective expectation. We all like to think we are totally autonomous, making our own choices regardless of what anyone thinks, but maybe that's a bit of an illusion. Most of us are constantly adjusting our behavior based on the perceived expectations of the people around us. We follow the rules not just because there's a law against breaking them, but because we don't want to deal with the social fallout of being the "outlier." It’s a heavy thought, honestly, but it’s the reality of how we function as a society. Is this some kind of police overreach, or just blatant political maneuvering? I honestly can't tell anymore. I mean, seriously? Is that it? Just... "zbilje"? I guess that’s all we're doing now. Just throwing out random, half-baked fragments and expecting someone to make sense of it. It’s honestly exhausting. Maybe if people actually put some effort into their thoughts before hitting send, we wouldn't be stuck in this endless cycle of nothingness. I don't know, I just feel like we're spinning our wheels here.It basically boils down to this: reality is defined—and what we consider to be "truth" is manufactured—exactly how the ruling structures of any given society decide to package it and hand it to us.

I guess... maybe if we actually look at what Berger & Luckmann were trying to get at here, things might start making sense? I mean, honestly, it’s almost frustrating how much people miss the point when they talk about the social construction of reality. It’s not just some abstract theory you toss around in a college seminar; it's the very fabric of how we exist! When you consider the way the universe is structured through our shared interactions, it becomes clear that nothing exists in a vacuum. Every single thing we perceive is filtered through these layers of institutionalized meaning. And don't even get me started on how people try to simplify this. You can't just strip away the complexity without losing the entire essence of the argument. It’s maddening! If we apply what R. Merton discussed regarding social structures, you see that the tension isn't just accidental—it's baked into the system itself. We are constantly navigating these invisible boundaries that dictate what is considered "normal" or "real." I suppose it's easy to ignore that when you're just coasting through life, but for those of us actually paying attention, it's impossible to unsee. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I highly doubt anyone else is being this thorough.

I mean, you have to consider Berger & Luckmann. Where on earth are Berger & Luckmann? They’re just quoting the pop singer now.t: I guess... if you look at how society’s conceptual machinery actually functions, it seems designed to force everyone—the primary actors, the ones actually living through it—to stay trapped within these rigid institutional definitions. It’s like they’re constantly being funneled back into the pre-set lanes, isn't it? I mean, seriously, does anyone actually escape those boundaries? Or is the whole system just rigged to ensure we all stay exactly where the institutions say we belong? What on earth is that sentence even supposed to mean? Does it actually make any sense at all, or am I just losing my mind here?

Part 2 (Legitimation) – Section (pages 127-139) under the heading: The Conceptual Machinery for Maintaining the Universe ( nisam naveo citat ali sam parafrazirao navode)

R. Merton falls squarely into the functionalist camp. It’s important to recognize that functionalism operates on an entirely different theoretical foundation than the interactionist paradigm—they aren't even playing the same game, really.
Look, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the fundamental logic here is just... it's flawed. Because these two theoretical paradigms are built on entirely different foundations, they simply cannot complement one another. I mean, think about it—if they actually did complement each other, then we wouldn't be talking about two distinct theoretical paradigms anymore, would we? They would just merge into one single, unified theoretical paradigm. It’s basic structural logic, really.

That isn't even an actual answer to my question: I mean, come on—is it actually against the rules to mix and match different theories just to build a solid, valid argument?

How does one even begin to define a concept? I mean, really think about it. It’s such a heavy, sweeping question, isn't it? I guess you could try to pin it down, but honestly, defining anything feels like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Maybe there's a way to do it that actually makes sense, but most of the time, we just end up circling around the same tired ideas without ever truly grasping the essence of what we're discussing. It's frustrating, quite frankly. You start with one idea, and before you know it, the definition has shifted, morphed, or just completely dissolved into something else entirely. I suppose it depends on how much rigor you're willing to apply, though I suspect most people just settle for whatever convenient label fits the moment. Desires. Just... desires. It’s a heavy word, isn't it? I guess if you really sit down and think about it, everything we do—every single move we make in this life—is driven by some underlying craving or some deep-seated longing. Maybe it's for success, maybe it's for connection, or maybe it's just that restless feeling that what we have right now isn't quite enough. I mean, honestly, where does it stop? You chase one thing, you grab it, and then suddenly there's this new void, this new hunger. It feels like a cycle that never actually ends. I don't know, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it seems like we're all just perpetually reaching for something that stays just out of our grasp.What exactly are we even talking about here? What is longing, really? Is it just some fleeting emotion? I mean, just like any other feeling, longing—for what, exactly?—is going to manifest itself differently in every single individual. It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. And then you have to consider the real question: who is actually going to trigger that sense of longing in children, and in what kind of way will that desire actually present itself? It's a complicated mess, I guess.

I figured I’d just leave this one for last. ☕
„Longing. Or maybe more accurately, this relentless, gnawing craving that just won't quit. It’s hard to put a finger on exactly what it is, I guess, but it’s always there, isn't it? This constant pull toward something—or someone—that feels just out of reach. It’s like this deep-seated hunger that stays unsatisfied no matter how much you try to fill the void. Maybe it's just part of being human, though I find the whole thing incredibly exhausting. It’s an ache, really. A persistent, driving force that shapes everything we do, even when we don't want it to.A structured destabilizer. per excellenceAt its absolute core, first and foremost, this concept places the human being right at the center—the individual who expresses themselves and through whom expression actually happens. It speaks directly to our needs and uses our own language. It’s essentially a search for purpose. While the social structure constantly tries to impose this rigid sense of determinism on us, the human element remains inherently unpredictable; we have this knack for dodging or bridging over whatever structural hurdles get thrown our way. Even when the system is designed to force us into automatic isolation and closed-off silos, the human spirit works to open us back up to the world. This deep-seated longing carries an immense amount of energy, which means those internal fluctuations are incredibly difficult to suppress.

And on the very last page of their doctoral dissertation, both the subject and the author make a point to emphasize: Is there actually anything left out there that can truly capture what remains of our lives?

The very first thing Albert Camus did after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature was write a thank-you note to his teacher.

I don't think he did it just because the guy taught him how to read or write, but rather because of the whole experience of being educated—all those life lessons he felt so deeply grateful for.

So, I feel like there’s a massive difference between pointing out the cracks in our American education system and trying to fix them, versus advocating for solutions that basically mean
dismantling schools altogether. To put it bluntly using that old saying: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Nicholas Grant20 said:Good point. Maybe the bigger danger is actually practicing philosophy itself; the risk of getting lost in someone else's logic or swallowing their philosophy as dogma—so that the very thing meant to serve the freedom of the spirit ends up becoming just another trap for it.

You actually touched on this perfectly in your post over in that thread about Nietzsche, which I happened to be reading just a moment ago.

👍

Benjamin Grant67 said:Personally, I’d look a philosopher in the eye and ask: Is it really that much of a struggle to distill a universal truth into just a few simple, coherent sentences?

In the engineering world, there's an old saying that sticks with me: if you can't explain what you do to a toddler, you don't actually understand it yourself!

😁

Someone once said, when they were asked how they first started writing:

I just wanted to tell the world one single word. And that was how I began to write...

🙂)

And I feel like it's pretty much the same thing with those "few simple sentences" you're asking about.

I don't recall seeing much whining about education systems in the developing world (mostly in India). Where access to schooling is limited and the existential stakes are high, nobody sits around philosophizing about it—just like nobody debates nutritional macros when people are starving. And that’s true despite the fact that their schools are often crumbling, rigid, conformist, discriminatory, or just plain subpar.

Complaining about bad schooling and social conformity is like having diabetes because of obesity. It’s a disease born from abundance, and that very system is a byproduct of that excess.

If you weren't sure whether you'd have food on the table tomorrow, you’d kill yourself to finish whatever task actually increases your odds of eating.

I hated school from day one until graduation, but I can't wrap my head around hating the concept of education itself and projecting my own grievances onto the entire system—especially since I don't have a better vision for an alternative. It feels just as foolish as being a die-hard fanatic for democracy when every actual alternative we've seen has turned out to be worse in the long run.

copperhound12 said:I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly: this whole thing is a mess. It’s honestly ridiculous how much people try to ignore what's right in front of them! You look at the way society functions—or tries to function—and you see these massive gaps between what we're told is "normal" and the actual reality we're living in every single day. It’s exhausting, really. It brings me back to Berger & Luckmann. If you actually bother to read their work on how we construct our sense of reality, you'd realize that most people are just drifting through a manufactured version of existence without a second thought. They aren't even questioning the structures around them! And don't even get me started on the social pressures involved. It's like everyone is just playing a role in a play they didn't even audition for, following these arbitrary rules just because "that's how it's done." And then you have people like R. Merton, who pointed out exactly how this leads to tension when the system promises one thing but fails to deliver another. We're told there's a path to success, a certain standard to meet, but the actual tools to get there? They aren't available to everyone. So what happens? People either break the rules or they just check out mentally. I mean, seriously, why is it so hard for people to grasp this? It’s not some deep, hidden conspiracy; it’s just basic sociology! But no, everyone wants to pretend everything is fine, staying tucked away in their little bubbles while the entire social fabric is fraying at the edges. It's maddening!

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been sitting here for quite some time, just staring at this screen, trying to make sense of the absolute chaos we’re witnessing. It’s frankly exhausting. I mean, maybe I’m being too dramatic, but I really don't think anyone else realizes how deep this goes. We are talking about the very fabric of our social reality—the way we perceive everything around us! It’s like what Berger & Luckmann talk about when they discuss how we construct our own little versions of the universe. We aren't just passive observers; we are actively building this world, brick by brick, through our interactions. And yet, people act like none of this matters. It’s infuriating! I guess some people are just content to drift through life without ever questioning the structures that hold them up. And don't even get me started on the institutional side of things. If you look at the way organizations function—you know, the kind of stuff R. Merton wrote about regarding how social structures can actually create unintended consequences—it becomes painfully obvious that the system isn't just broken; it's functioning exactly as it was designed to, which is arguably much worse. It’s a cycle. A continuous, maddening cycle. I saw copperhound12 making some points earlier, and while I might be wrong, I feel like they're missing the sheer scale of the sociological implications here. It’s not just about one specific policy or one single event in a city like Chicago or New York; it’s about the fundamental ways we socialize ourselves into these roles. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I honestly doubt anyone else is giving this the gravity it deserves. It’s all connected. Everything. kaže: I mean, I suppose I agree, but I honestly feel like this is just a fundamental characteristic of society itself—it’s the kind of thing without which a society couldn't even exist in the first place.

Berger and Luckmann argue that there exists... I mean, let’s be honest here—it’s all about the primary stage. Everything starts there. Without that initial foundation, nothing else even matters. It’s the core, the absolute baseline. I guess you could say it’s the most essential part of the whole process, though some people might try to argue otherwise. But they're wrong. It's fundamental. Period. Primary socialization—you know, that whole formative period during childhood—and then secondary socialization, which kicks in once you're out in the world. Now, most experts actually agree that primary socialization is the heavy hitter here. It’s arguably more vital because it provides that foundational psychological...I suppose I should mention the windfall. It’s all quite overwhelming, really. A win. A massive, unexpected win. I don't know how to process it, or if I even should. One moment you're just going about your life, and the next, everything shifts. It's... well, it's a lot to take in. Maybe it's a blessing, maybe it's a curse. I guess we'll see.“ – The narrowing of choice. It’s happening right before our eyes, isn't it? I guess you could say we're being funneled into a corner where the illusion of freedom remains, but the actual options are vanishing. Everything feels increasingly curated, pre-packaged, and limited by forces we can barely see anymore. It’s frustrating, honestly. It’s essentially freeing the child from having to make those heavy decisions on their own.It all comes down to the decision, doesn't it? I mean, that's really the crux of the whole thing. One single choice can shift everything.Because it provides him with both psychological satisfaction and biological reinforcement at the exact same time. And that’s right where things start to get complicated. Institutionalization... I mean, where do we even begin with that one? It’s such a heavy, suffocating concept when you really start to peel back the layers. I guess what I'm trying to say is that once a process becomes institutionalized, it stops being about people and starts being about the machine itself. It becomes this rigid, unyielding structure that dictates how everything must function, regardless of whether those rules actually make sense anymore. It feels like we're constantly watching these massive, bureaucratic monoliths—think of something like the federal government or even a giant corporation like JPMorgan Chase—build these invisible walls around themselves. They create these set patterns, these "standard operating procedures," and then they cling to them with a death grip. Maybe it’s just my way of looking at things, but it feels incredibly stifling. You have these established norms that just become part of the very fabric of our social universe, and once they're baked in like that, changing them feels almost impossible. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier in a bathtub. It’s all just so deeply ingrained that the system begins to protect its own existence more than its actual purpose. It’s maddening, honestly.In its own right, that’s just how things work. It’s a fundamental characteristic of any society, and I mean, I really do agree with you there—but, if you ask me... I guess... maybe I should just say it: this is all wrong. It’s completely off base. Everything about this is just plain incorrect.I mean, look—every single defining characteristic of a society is mirrored right back at us through its culture. It’s all there. So, if we take a hard look at what kind of society we've built up to this point, I guess we have to face the music: we are staring directly at our own fundamental flaws.

I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly, though I hate to even open this can of worms. It’s honestly infuriating how much people miss the point. Everything feels so fractured lately, doesn't it? Like we're all just drifting through this massive, overwhelming universe without any real sense of direction or shared reality. It’s almost like what Berger & Luckmann were getting at—that whole idea about how we construct our own little worlds just to make sense of the chaos. But instead of building something meaningful, it feels like everyone is just shouting into their own private voids. We aren't even living in the same reality anymore! It’s exhausting. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to function as a society when the very fabric of our social construction is being pulled apart by sheer ego and misinformation? I don't know. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Perhaps I'm overthinking the whole thing. But it's hard not to feel this way when you look at the state of things. It's just... it's a mess. A total, absolute mess. kaže:
Why on earth would anyone assume that social control is inherently a negative thing? I mean, seriously? It’s almost like people haven't thought this through at all. Is it even possible to wrap my head around the idea that a world without socialization would somehow be a better place to live? I highly doubt it, though maybe I'm being too cynical here. If we're talking about a total absence of social structure—where there's no mechanism to guide behavior or maintain order—we aren't looking at some kind of utopia. We're looking at absolute chaos. Without those guiding forces, how does a society even function? How do we establish any sense of shared reality? It feels like a massive leap to suggest that stripping away the very fabric that holds us together would result in anything other than a complete breakdown of civilization. I guess some people see "control" and immediately think "oppression," but they're missing the entire point of how human interaction actually works.

The world is absolutely starving for genuine socialization and a sense of community—it’s a fundamental necessity, really—but... I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m honestly not sure where to even begin with such a mess. It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels at this point, doesn't it? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but there’s just no way to look at the current situation without feeling a massive sense of frustration. It’s all incredibly disorganized, and frankly, it’s exhausting to keep up with. I guess what I'm trying to say—if I can even get my thoughts straight—is that the sheer lack of cohesion here is staggering. It's like everyone is operating on a completely different wavelength, and nobody is actually listening to the core issues. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to make any real progress when the foundation is this shaky? It’s maddening! I find myself constantly questioning whether anyone actually cares about getting this right, or if we're all just going through the motions for the sake of it. It’s just... it's a lot. I really don't know. - Social control—it’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around in academic circles, but they rarely grasp how deeply it actually weaves itself into the fabric of our daily lives here in America. It isn't just some abstract theory you read about in a textbook; it is the very mechanism that keeps the gears of society turning, whether we realize it or not. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that social control is essentially the way a community maintains order and ensures everyone stays within the lines. It can be formal, like when the NYPD hands out a speeding ticket on a busy Manhattan street, or it can be informal, which is arguably much more pervasive. Think about that subtle, judgmental look you get from a neighbor when you park your car slightly over the line, or the quiet disapproval felt when someone violates an unwritten rule at a local diner in Chicago. Those little nudges, those micro-pressures to conform to the status quo, they are everywhere. It's a constant tug-of-war between individual agency and the collective expectation. We all like to think we are totally autonomous, making our own choices regardless of what anyone thinks, but maybe that's a bit of an illusion. Most of us are constantly adjusting our behavior based on the perceived expectations of the people around us. We follow the rules not just because there's a law against breaking them, but because we don't want to deal with the social fallout of being the "outlier." It’s a heavy thought, honestly, but it’s the reality of how we function as a society. Is this some kind of police overreach, or just blatant political maneuvering? I honestly can't tell anymore. I mean, seriously? Is that it? Just... "zbilje"? I guess that’s all we're doing now. Just throwing out random, half-baked fragments and expecting someone to make sense of it. It’s honestly exhausting. Maybe if people actually put some effort into their thoughts before hitting send, we wouldn't be stuck in this endless cycle of nothingness. I don't know, I just feel like we're spinning our wheels here.It basically boils down to this: reality is defined—and what we consider to be "truth" is manufactured—exactly how the ruling structures of any given society decide to package it and hand it to us.

I guess... maybe if we actually look at what Berger & Luckmann were trying to get at here, things might start making sense? I mean, honestly, it’s almost frustrating how much people miss the point when they talk about the social construction of reality. It’s not just some abstract theory you toss around in a college seminar; it's the very fabric of how we exist! When you consider the way the universe is structured through our shared interactions, it becomes clear that nothing exists in a vacuum. Every single thing we perceive is filtered through these layers of institutionalized meaning. And don't even get me started on how people try to simplify this. You can't just strip away the complexity without losing the entire essence of the argument. It’s maddening! If we apply what R. Merton discussed regarding social structures, you see that the tension isn't just accidental—it's baked into the system itself. We are constantly navigating these invisible boundaries that dictate what is considered "normal" or "real." I suppose it's easy to ignore that when you're just coasting through life, but for those of us actually paying attention, it's impossible to unsee. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I highly doubt anyone else is being this thorough.

I mean, you have to consider Berger & Luckmann. Where on earth are Berger & Luckmann? They’re just quoting the pop singer now.t: I guess... if you look at how society’s conceptual machinery actually functions, it seems designed to force everyone—the primary actors, the ones actually living through it—to stay trapped within these rigid institutional definitions. It’s like they’re constantly being funneled back into the pre-set lanes, isn't it? I mean, seriously, does anyone actually escape those boundaries? Or is the whole system just rigged to ensure we all stay exactly where the institutions say we belong? What on earth is that sentence even supposed to mean? Does it actually make any sense at all, or am I just losing my mind here?

Part 2 (Legitimation) – Section (pages 127-139) under the heading: The Conceptual Machinery for Maintaining the Universe ( nisam naveo citat ali sam parafrazirao navode)

R. Merton falls squarely into the functionalist camp. It’s important to recognize that functionalism operates on an entirely different theoretical foundation than the interactionist paradigm—they aren't even playing the same game, really.
Look, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the fundamental logic here is just... it's flawed. Because these two theoretical paradigms are built on entirely different foundations, they simply cannot complement one another. I mean, think about it—if they actually did complement each other, then we wouldn't be talking about two distinct theoretical paradigms anymore, would we? They would just merge into one single, unified theoretical paradigm. It’s basic structural logic, really.

That isn't even an actual answer to my question: I mean, come on—is it actually against the rules to mix and match different theories just to build a solid, valid argument?

How does one even begin to define a concept? I mean, really think about it. It’s such a heavy, sweeping question, isn't it? I guess you could try to pin it down, but honestly, defining anything feels like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Maybe there's a way to do it that actually makes sense, but most of the time, we just end up circling around the same tired ideas without ever truly grasping the essence of what we're discussing. It's frustrating, quite frankly. You start with one idea, and before you know it, the definition has shifted, morphed, or just completely dissolved into something else entirely. I suppose it depends on how much rigor you're willing to apply, though I suspect most people just settle for whatever convenient label fits the moment. Desires. Just... desires. It’s a heavy word, isn't it? I guess if you really sit down and think about it, everything we do—every single move we make in this life—is driven by some underlying craving or some deep-seated longing. Maybe it's for success, maybe it's for connection, or maybe it's just that restless feeling that what we have right now isn't quite enough. I mean, honestly, where does it stop? You chase one thing, you grab it, and then suddenly there's this new void, this new hunger. It feels like a cycle that never actually ends. I don't know, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it seems like we're all just perpetually reaching for something that stays just out of our grasp.What exactly are we even talking about here? What is longing, really? Is it just some fleeting emotion? I mean, just like any other feeling, longing—for what, exactly?—is going to manifest itself differently in every single individual. It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. And then you have to consider the real question: who is actually going to trigger that sense of longing in children, and in what kind of way will that desire actually present itself? It's a complicated mess, I guess.

I figured I’d just leave this one for last. ☕
„Longing. Or maybe more accurately, this relentless, gnawing craving that just won't quit. It’s hard to put a finger on exactly what it is, I guess, but it’s always there, isn't it? This constant pull toward something—or someone—that feels just out of reach. It’s like this deep-seated hunger that stays unsatisfied no matter how much you try to fill the void. Maybe it's just part of being human, though I find the whole thing incredibly exhausting. It’s an ache, really. A persistent, driving force that shapes everything we do, even when we don't want it to.A structured destabilizer. per excellenceAt its absolute core, first and foremost, this concept places the human being right at the center—the individual who expresses themselves and through whom expression actually happens. It speaks directly to our needs and uses our own language. It’s essentially a search for purpose. While the social structure constantly tries to impose this rigid sense of determinism on us, the human element remains inherently unpredictable; we have this knack for dodging or bridging over whatever structural hurdles get thrown our way. Even when the system is designed to force us into automatic isolation and closed-off silos, the human spirit works to open us back up to the world. This deep-seated longing carries an immense amount of energy, which means those internal fluctuations are incredibly difficult to suppress.

And on the very last page of their doctoral dissertation, both the subject and the author make a point to emphasize: Is there actually anything left out there that can truly capture what remains of our lives?

A totalitarian state isn't synonymous with social control... there's a distinction there that people often miss.

Part 2 (Legitimacy) – Section (pages 127-139) under the heading: The conceptual machinery required to maintain the universe... I didn't include a direct quote—just paraphrased what was said...

You paraphrased it, yet somehow managed to leave the sentence completely incoherent—it’s just as muddy as before...

That isn't an actual answer to my question... Besides, is there any rule against blending different theories just to build a solid argument?...

Not valid...

I saved this for last... ☕
„Longing...A structured destabilizer... Excellence, pure and simple.At its very core, it begins with the individual—the human being who expresses themselves and uses that expression to navigate existence. It speaks through their needs, through their own unique language... it’s essentially a search for purpose. While systems constantly try to force a sense of determinism upon us, this element remains unpredictable—it possesses a certain craftiness, an ability to sidestep or bridge the structural hurdles placed in its path. Where a rigid system tries to automate isolation and force a person into a corner, this force does the exact opposite: it opens the individual up to the world. Desire carries a massive amount of energy with it—it’s a powerhouse..., It means the volatility inherent in the situation isn't something you can just suppress—or ignore... It’s not about smoothing out the curves; it’s acknowledging that the turbulence is baked into the system itself. You can't just squeeze the life out of those swings without breaking the whole mechanism.“ (Stambolović, University Registrar, p. 137)

And on the very last page of his doctoral dissertation, both the subject and the author emphasize... Is there anything left—truly anything—that can actually pull at the remaining scraps of our lives?...

That doesn't actually answer the question... Who exactly is going to spark that desire in children—and how? And more importantly, what would that hunger actually look like in practice...?
Whatever—this isn't exactly a definition of longing... it feels more like a cheap imitation of some poetic sentiment in the style of F. Pesso.
Is that massive amount of energy actually measurable?
Part two of the bolded section: Why would that imply the inherent fluctuations—that constant craving—aren't easy to suppress? And what exactly are these "fluctuations" in this context? What is it that’s actually fluctuating...?

steelridge58 said:The very first thing Albert Camus did after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature was write a thank-you note to his teacher.

I don't think he did it just because the guy taught him how to read or write, but rather because of the whole experience of being educated—all those life lessons he felt so deeply grateful for.

So, I feel like there’s a massive difference between pointing out the cracks in our American education system and trying to fix them, versus advocating for solutions that basically mean
dismantling schools altogether. To put it bluntly using that old saying: "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

I’m writing this mostly from memory, so I hope I haven’t butchered the quote—but what exactly is the core idea here? In his famous book, Đuro Šušnjić discusses...Resistance to critical thinking... it’s everywhere, isn't it? It really is. I mean, I guess you could say it’s becoming almost a default setting for people these days. It’s like there’s this active, almost aggressive pushback whenever someone tries to actually analyze a situation instead of just swallowing whatever narrative is being fed to them by the mainstream media. It’s frustrating, honestly. You try to peel back the layers, to look at the underlying logic—or lack thereof—and suddenly you’re the one being questioned. People seem so incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of questioning the status quo. It’s as if having an independent thought is treated like some kind of social transgression. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it feels like we're living in an era where intellectual laziness isn't just common; it's practically celebrated. Everyone wants the easy answer, the quick soundbite, the comfortable consensus. Nobody wants to do the heavy lifting required to actually think. He claimed that every single one... I suppose there might be an alternative, though I find myself questioning if such a thing truly exists in this current landscape. Maybe there is a way out, but honestly, it feels like we're just circling the drain. I guess one could look for another path, but without a clear direction, isn't it all just more of the same? It's frustrating, really. I honestly believe there’s an inherent element of utopia woven into our very DNA—because, let’s be real, if we didn't have that spark, would any kind of alternative even exist? Every single system out there works tirelessly to erase any sense of an alternative. That is precisely how they exert their social control over thought. They aren't just managing us; they are actively engineering a reality where no other option is visible, effectively manufacturing a one-dimensional human being who can't even conceive of a different way to live.

I guess Beljki... maybe there’s more to say about him, but honestly? It’s hard to even know where to start with someone like that. I mean, if you really think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—there's just so much complexity there that's easy to miss if you aren't paying close attention. It's frustrating, really. People just gloss over it. They just move on. But you can't just move on! There's a whole layer of nuance being ignored here, and it makes me incredibly worked up just thinking about how little anyone seems to grasp the actual weight of the situation. It's all just surface level, isn't it? Just completely superficial. kaže:
I don’t recall seeing nearly as much whining about the state of education in third-world countries—specifically over in India. Look, when access to schooling is limited and the existential pressure is that high, nobody has the luxury to sit around philosophizing about the system. It’s just not happening. It’s like how nobody sits around debating the specific nutritional values of a meal when actual famine is hitting. And this is true despite the fact that their schools might be terrible—more conformist, stricter, often discriminatory, or just plain low-quality from an educational standpoint. But if you don't know whether you'll even have food on the table tomorrow, you aren't going to care about those nuances. You would kill yourself to finish something that significantly increases your chances of actually putting bread on the table. Personally, I hated school from the very first day to the very last, but let me tell you, the thought of complaining about its flaws never even crossed my mind.

In that very same work ( “The sheer resistance to critical thinking nowadays is just... it's staggering, honestly. It’s like people have collectively decided that questioning anything—especially the status quo—is some kind of social crime. You try to bring up a nuanced point or peel back a layer of logic, and suddenly you're met with this wall of pure, unadulterated stubbornness. It’s infuriating. People don't want to engage; they want to react. They want the quick hit of being "right" without ever having to do the heavy lifting of actually processing information. It feels like we're regressing, maybe even sliding backward into a state where dogma is preferred over discourse. I guess it's just easier to stay comfortable in an echo chamber than to face the discomfort of a challenging idea, isn't it?There is one specific section that I find particularly fascinating—it’s actually titled..."I become a revolutionary the second my stomach starts growling." So, what exactly is tucked away in that supposedly inspiring section? To start things off, the author pulls from the methodological approach of Karl Marx himself, arguing that no single class possesses the actual need—let alone the necessity—for universal emancipation (and yeah, that includes this whole meritocracy/schooling nonsense) until they are backed into a corner by immediate, unavoidable necessity. Or, if you prefer, as one rather striking quote from Herbert Markus suggests... Our only real hope comes from those who have absolutely nothing left to lose.I guess he’s just trying to undermine the author, because that kind of "negation of institutions" is exactly what we're seeing lately.Revolutionary spirit. Or maybe just pure, unadulterated chaos. It’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins lately.Money is inherently corruptible because, let’s be honest, the people leading the charge of any revolution aren't exactly coming from a place of desperation or hunger; even Karl Marx himself emerged from the ranks of the bourgeoisie. At its core, this whole thing is about consciousness and humanism—that has to be the absolute foundation of any truly humane engagement.

Honestly, this is exactly why you really ought to dive into the late Franco Basaglia’s work—specifically his whole concept of the "negation of institutions." It’s essential reading.

( my quote from the thread "labyrinth of books and I")

Franco Basaglia – “Negation of Institutions” — I actually "borrowed" this book from the university library in Cleveland back when I was working a job that required it, and let’s just say I never gave it back. Apparently, things got completely botched in the paperwork—but then again, isn't that how everything goes in some bureaucratic office? Everything always turns into a total mess. Why didn't I return it? Well, I guess I'll tell you: it’s because this belongs in my personal Top 20 most essential books. It is such a brilliant, intelligent, profoundly wise piece of work by the man behind "Law 180," the legislation that effectively dismantled—not just on paper, but in actual practice—the entire asylum system in Italy. I still have this clipping from a January 1997 issue of the Los Angeles Times where they reported the big news: starting in 1997, Italy would no longer have mental hospitals or psychiatric wards. The Health Minister, Maria Rosario, managed to bridge the gap between the living Pope and the late psychiatrist Franco Basaglia when she stated, "I am reminded of the Pope's words: even in the mentally ill, there is an image and likeness of God." She explained how she succeeded in just a few months at doing what had eluded people for years: fully implementing Law 180. Named after the late Franco Basaglia, this was the first law in the world designed to abolish mental institutions and, more importantly, the insane concept that people suffering from mental illness should be forcibly removed from society. It is a magnificent book, and the title really says it all: the negation of institutions.

I suppose there isn't much to say here, though I feel compelled to add my two cents. It’s all just... well, you know how it goes. I guess we're just sitting here waiting for something to actually happen, aren't we? Maybe. It feels like we're just circling the drain of these endless discussions without ever hitting the core of the issue. I don't mean to be dramatic, but it’s exhausting. Truly. Just my two cents, I suppose. kaže:
A totalitarian state isn't just some synonym for social control, you know. Honestly, you’ve just paraphrased the point only to leave the sentence completely incoherent and muddy. It's still just as nonsensical as it was before. This argument? It's just not valid. Period.

Look, on the merits of the matter—and I am stating this clearly—she absolutely is. Honestly, do you have some brand-new euphemism you're planning to hide behind, or can we finally call it what it is?
2. Ja sam naveo stranice djela Bergera/Luckmanna. Točno je da sam parafrazirao i možda ostavio rečenicu nerazumljivom i nejasnom? Ali sam naveo (ipak) stranice (citiranog) teksta?
Look, I see you don't actually have an answer to my question—which, for the record, was quite clear and rather complex. So, if you don't mind, I guess we’ll just set that aside for now?

I mean, seriously? This isn't even an answer to the question. Who exactly is going to be responsible for sparking that sense of longing in children, and more importantly, what would that kind of desire even look like? I mean, honestly, who is pulling the strings here? Is it the parents, the schools, or some unseen force in our culture? And how does one even begin to define such a thing? It’s all so incredibly vague, isn't it? I guess we have to ask ourselves what this "longing" actually entails—is it a hunger for knowledge, a drive for success, or something much deeper and perhaps more unsettling? I don't know, maybe it's just an abstract concept, but someone has to steer the ship, right? Or perhaps there is no captain at all.I mean, honestly, when has this ever actually been a definition of desire? It feels more like some pretentious attempt at mimicking poetic expression—you know, like trying to channel Fernando Pessoa or something. And this idea that this massive surge of energy is somehow measurable? Give me a break. That’s just absurd. Then there's the other part in bold... I guess I have to ask: why on earth would that imply the fluctuations inherent in desire are difficult to suppress? And what does "fluctuations" even mean in this specific context? What exactly is "fluctuating" here? I really don't see the logic.

To answer everything you asked—and let me be crystal clear about this—you absolutely have to read this book. If I didn't, I’d end up just quoting the entire thing or some massive dissertation instead! But, if it's any consolation, I guess it's actually a pretty easy read.
There is one specific part—one particular section—that carries an immense amount of weight, and it’s titled...The Network.“: Anything that feels even remotely connected to destruction—well, people immediately jump on it and accuse it of being the root cause of chaos. It’s such a tired trope. Honestly, I think this whole obsession with "chaos" is really just a subtle way to intimidate people into staying in line, you know? It's a tactic used to force more human restraint where they want it. Because, if you think about it, desire doesn't actually lead to ruin; it stimulates a drive to rearrange things. It pushes for a reorganization. So, in a sense, it leads right back to structure. But—and this is the crucial part—it’s a different kind of structure entirely. We're talking about a system that organizes itself through a network rather than a rigid hierarchy.

So, here we go—we’re finally arriving at the core issue together. But honestly, what kind of actual principle are we even talking about when people throw around this idea of a non-fixed, fluid "network"? It feels incredibly vague, doesn't it?☕

copperhound12 said:I’m writing this mostly from memory, so I hope I haven’t butchered the quote—but what exactly is the core idea here? In his famous book, Đuro Šušnjić discusses...Resistance to critical thinking... it’s everywhere, isn't it? It really is. I mean, I guess you could say it’s becoming almost a default setting for people these days. It’s like there’s this active, almost aggressive pushback whenever someone tries to actually analyze a situation instead of just swallowing whatever narrative is being fed to them by the mainstream media. It’s frustrating, honestly. You try to peel back the layers, to look at the underlying logic—or lack thereof—and suddenly you’re the one being questioned. People seem so incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of questioning the status quo. It’s as if having an independent thought is treated like some kind of social transgression. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but it feels like we're living in an era where intellectual laziness isn't just common; it's practically celebrated. Everyone wants the easy answer, the quick soundbite, the comfortable consensus. Nobody wants to do the heavy lifting required to actually think. He claimed that every single one... I suppose there might be an alternative, though I find myself questioning if such a thing truly exists in this current landscape. Maybe there is a way out, but honestly, it feels like we're just circling the drain. I guess one could look for another path, but without a clear direction, isn't it all just more of the same? It's frustrating, really. I honestly believe there’s an inherent element of utopia woven into our very DNA—because, let’s be real, if we didn't have that spark, would any kind of alternative even exist? Every single system out there works tirelessly to erase any sense of an alternative. That is precisely how they exert their social control over thought. They aren't just managing us; they are actively engineering a reality where no other option is visible, effectively manufacturing a one-dimensional human being who can't even conceive of a different way to live.

I guess Beljki... maybe there’s more to say about him, but honestly? It’s hard to even know where to start with someone like that. I mean, if you really think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—there's just so much complexity there that's easy to miss if you aren't paying close attention. It's frustrating, really. People just gloss over it. They just move on. But you can't just move on! There's a whole layer of nuance being ignored here, and it makes me incredibly worked up just thinking about how little anyone seems to grasp the actual weight of the situation. It's all just surface level, isn't it? Just completely superficial. kaže:
I don’t recall seeing nearly as much whining about the state of education in third-world countries—specifically over in India. Look, when access to schooling is limited and the existential pressure is that high, nobody has the luxury to sit around philosophizing about the system. It’s just not happening. It’s like how nobody sits around debating the specific nutritional values of a meal when actual famine is hitting. And this is true despite the fact that their schools might be terrible—more conformist, stricter, often discriminatory, or just plain low-quality from an educational standpoint. But if you don't know whether you'll even have food on the table tomorrow, you aren't going to care about those nuances. You would kill yourself to finish something that significantly increases your chances of actually putting bread on the table. Personally, I hated school from the very first day to the very last, but let me tell you, the thought of complaining about its flaws never even crossed my mind.

In that very same work ( “The sheer resistance to critical thinking nowadays is just... it's staggering, honestly. It’s like people have collectively decided that questioning anything—especially the status quo—is some kind of social crime. You try to bring up a nuanced point or peel back a layer of logic, and suddenly you're met with this wall of pure, unadulterated stubbornness. It’s infuriating. People don't want to engage; they want to react. They want the quick hit of being "right" without ever having to do the heavy lifting of actually processing information. It feels like we're regressing, maybe even sliding backward into a state where dogma is preferred over discourse. I guess it's just easier to stay comfortable in an echo chamber than to face the discomfort of a challenging idea, isn't it?There is one specific section that I find particularly fascinating—it’s actually titled..."I become a revolutionary the second my stomach starts growling." So, what exactly is tucked away in that supposedly inspiring section? To start things off, the author pulls from the methodological approach of Karl Marx himself, arguing that no single class possesses the actual need—let alone the necessity—for universal emancipation (and yeah, that includes this whole meritocracy/schooling nonsense) until they are backed into a corner by immediate, unavoidable necessity. Or, if you prefer, as one rather striking quote from Herbert Markus suggests... Our only real hope comes from those who have absolutely nothing left to lose.I guess he’s just trying to undermine the author, because that kind of "negation of institutions" is exactly what we're seeing lately.Revolutionary spirit. Or maybe just pure, unadulterated chaos. It’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins lately.Money is inherently corruptible because, let’s be honest, the people leading the charge of any revolution aren't exactly coming from a place of desperation or hunger; even Karl Marx himself emerged from the ranks of the bourgeoisie. At its core, this whole thing is about consciousness and humanism—that has to be the absolute foundation of any truly humane engagement.

Honestly, this is exactly why you really ought to dive into the late Franco Basaglia’s work—specifically his whole concept of the "negation of institutions." It’s essential reading.

( my quote from the thread "labyrinth of books and I")

Franco Basaglia – “Negation of Institutions” — I actually "borrowed" this book from the university library in Cleveland back when I was working a job that required it, and let’s just say I never gave it back. Apparently, things got completely botched in the paperwork—but then again, isn't that how everything goes in some bureaucratic office? Everything always turns into a total mess. Why didn't I return it? Well, I guess I'll tell you: it’s because this belongs in my personal Top 20 most essential books. It is such a brilliant, intelligent, profoundly wise piece of work by the man behind "Law 180," the legislation that effectively dismantled—not just on paper, but in actual practice—the entire asylum system in Italy. I still have this clipping from a January 1997 issue of the Los Angeles Times where they reported the big news: starting in 1997, Italy would no longer have mental hospitals or psychiatric wards. The Health Minister, Maria Rosario, managed to bridge the gap between the living Pope and the late psychiatrist Franco Basaglia when she stated, "I am reminded of the Pope's words: even in the mentally ill, there is an image and likeness of God." She explained how she succeeded in just a few months at doing what had eluded people for years: fully implementing Law 180. Named after the late Franco Basaglia, this was the first law in the world designed to abolish mental institutions and, more importantly, the insane concept that people suffering from mental illness should be forcibly removed from society. It is a magnificent book, and the title really says it all: the negation of institutions.

I suppose there isn't much to say here, though I feel compelled to add my two cents. It’s all just... well, you know how it goes. I guess we're just sitting here waiting for something to actually happen, aren't we? Maybe. It feels like we're just circling the drain of these endless discussions without ever hitting the core of the issue. I don't mean to be dramatic, but it’s exhausting. Truly. Just my two cents, I suppose. kaže:
A totalitarian state isn't just some synonym for social control, you know. Honestly, you’ve just paraphrased the point only to leave the sentence completely incoherent and muddy. It's still just as nonsensical as it was before. This argument? It's just not valid. Period.

Look, on the merits of the matter—and I am stating this clearly—she absolutely is. Honestly, do you have some brand-new euphemism you're planning to hide behind, or can we finally call it what it is?
2. Ja sam naveo stranice djela Bergera/Luckmanna. Točno je da sam parafrazirao i možda ostavio rečenicu nerazumljivom i nejasnom? Ali sam naveo (ipak) stranice (citiranog) teksta?
Look, I see you don't actually have an answer to my question—which, for the record, was quite clear and rather complex. So, if you don't mind, I guess we’ll just set that aside for now?

I mean, seriously? This isn't even an answer to the question. Who exactly is going to be responsible for sparking that sense of longing in children, and more importantly, what would that kind of desire even look like? I mean, honestly, who is pulling the strings here? Is it the parents, the schools, or some unseen force in our culture? And how does one even begin to define such a thing? It’s all so incredibly vague, isn't it? I guess we have to ask ourselves what this "longing" actually entails—is it a hunger for knowledge, a drive for success, or something much deeper and perhaps more unsettling? I don't know, maybe it's just an abstract concept, but someone has to steer the ship, right? Or perhaps there is no captain at all.I mean, honestly, when has this ever actually been a definition of desire? It feels more like some pretentious attempt at mimicking poetic expression—you know, like trying to channel Fernando Pessoa or something. And this idea that this massive surge of energy is somehow measurable? Give me a break. That’s just absurd. Then there's the other part in bold... I guess I have to ask: why on earth would that imply the fluctuations inherent in desire are difficult to suppress? And what does "fluctuations" even mean in this specific context? What exactly is "fluctuating" here? I really don't see the logic.

To answer everything you asked—and let me be crystal clear about this—you absolutely have to read this book. If I didn't, I’d end up just quoting the entire thing or some massive dissertation instead! But, if it's any consolation, I guess it's actually a pretty easy read.
There is one specific part—one particular section—that carries an immense amount of weight, and it’s titled...The Network.“: Anything that feels even remotely connected to destruction—well, people immediately jump on it and accuse it of being the root cause of chaos. It’s such a tired trope. Honestly, I think this whole obsession with "chaos" is really just a subtle way to intimidate people into staying in line, you know? It's a tactic used to force more human restraint where they want it. Because, if you think about it, desire doesn't actually lead to ruin; it stimulates a drive to rearrange things. It pushes for a reorganization. So, in a sense, it leads right back to structure. But—and this is the crucial part—it’s a different kind of structure entirely. We're talking about a system that organizes itself through a network rather than a rigid hierarchy.

So, here we go—we’re finally arriving at the core issue together. But honestly, what kind of actual principle are we even talking about when people throw around this idea of a non-fixed, fluid "network"? It feels incredibly vague, doesn't it?☕

No, those functions are manifest—they're obvious, explicit, easy to dissect. Education and upbringing are meant to shape students; that’s the job description for authoritative teachers. But R. K. Merton—the sociologist who spent his career digging for what lies beneath—always looked for the latent, hidden motives. Those are often far more critical when you look at how any institution actually solidifies itself... and they definitely exist here. So, what are they?

According to Berger and Luckmann, institutionalization is essentially a pattern of human behavior—a way of typifying things. People assign significance to certain actions, and that significance becomes very real.
Through externalization, people develop routine patterns of action and interaction based on past experiences. In a strictly institutional sense, these structures control human behavior by prescribing pre-defined ways of acting.

Merton talks about the distinction between manifest and latent functions. Take the history of slavery in the American South: the manifest function was economic growth, while the latent function was the elevation of white social status. To put it simply—manifest functions are intended, while latent ones are unintended.

Now, for Merton, society is a system, and education is just one component within it. For Berger and Luckmann, however, society is what we perceive it to be—it exists within our consciousness.

Just a thought...

Eric Newman75 said:Look, this isn't "coercion." If you can't wrap your head around the fact that passing down knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes is how we actually give kids the tools to develop their potential and gain intellectual, spiritual, and social independence, then honestly, there’s no helping you. High-quality upbringing and education aren't just perks; they are absolute prerequisites for developing an individual and exercising almost every other human right, like the right to work. That’s why most democratic nations, including here in the US, bake the right to education right into the Constitution—the highest legal authority we have. And until kids reach adulthood, the responsibility falls on the parents to make those calls. That's perfectly normal, actually desirable. A first-grader isn't exactly capable of weighing the life-altering implications of enrolling in school to learn how to read, write, do math, and navigate social dynamics within a community. It's frankly idiotic to even be debating this.

I'm not trying to push an agenda for or against the ideas mentioned in the intro; I'm just pointing out some misinterpretations in this post.
How can parents be "deciding" on a child's right to an education if it's mandatory and the parent is legally required by U.S. law to enroll them in school?
That actually gets to the core criticism raised in the introduction.
I'm just trying to keep the debate focused on what the original poster actually meant. As I understand it, the issue is the mandate—the compulsion toward basic education—rather than the "right and choice" to access it, because, frankly, there isn't really a choice.

Aha
You mentioned that "adults decide," rather than parents, which is how I mistakenly interpreted it at first.
I guess that shifts the context of your point quite a bit if you're referring to "adults" as the state—the entity stepping in to look out for kids before they can really think for themselves or make responsible calls. Even so, that doesn't invalidate your opening thought, nor does it stop us from looking at this through a philosophical lens regarding the nature of freedom.
After all, true freedom can't exist if you're being forced to be free, just like you can't have a right that you're legally obligated to exercise.
That would basically contradict the whole essence of what those terms mean.
Anyway, just to make sure we're on the same page and can actually reach some meaningful conclusions, it’s probably best if we use precise terms right from the jump.

velveteagle8 said:I'm not trying to push an agenda for or against the ideas mentioned in the intro; I'm just pointing out some misinterpretations in this post.
How can parents be "deciding" on a child's right to an education if it's mandatory and the parent is legally required by U.S. law to enroll them in school?
That actually gets to the core criticism raised in the introduction.
I'm just trying to keep the debate focused on what the original poster actually meant. As I understand it, the issue is the mandate—the compulsion toward basic education—rather than the "right and choice" to access it, because, frankly, there isn't really a choice.

The law covers mandatory primary and secondary education, sure, but it doesn't bar a student from attending specialized schools that offer arts, sports, international curricula, alternative methods, or minority language programs. It doesn't dictate that they have to attend the specific school assigned to their district either. For instance, if a parent chooses to enroll their child in a standard public school instead of a specialized program for students with disabilities, that’s their call—the government isn't forcing that specific path on them.

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this, but I honestly can't help how I feel when I see things like this happening. It’s just... it's frustrating. I mean, I guess there's no other way to put it: we are looking at a complete breakdown of the standards we used to hold dear. Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe, but I can't shake the feeling that everything is just sliding into chaos. It feels like nobody is actually paying attention to the consequences anymore, and frankly, it makes me want to scream. I don't know. It's all just incredibly overwhelming. kaže:
For Berger and Luckmann, institutionalization is essentially just a pattern of human behavior—it’s all about typification. People decide that something actually matters, and once they assign that significance, it becomes an objective reality. During the process of externalization, people start developing these routine patterns of action and interaction based on their past experiences. In a strictly sociological sense, institutions are... They essentially exert control over human behavior by forcing everyone to follow these pre-set, rigid patterns of conduct. It’s all about dictating exactly how one should act.So, Merton talks about this whole idea of manifest versus latent functions. If you look at how slavery functioned back in the old days, the manifest function was supposed to be economic growth—that was the stated goal. But the latent function? That was actually about reinforcing the social status of white people. To put it simply: manifest functions are what's intended, while latent ones are the unintended side effects that happen anyway. Now, there’s a fundamental split here in how they view things. For Merton, society is essentially a system, and education is just one functional part of that machine. But for Berger and Luckmann, it's different—they see society as something we perceive through our own subjective experience and consciousness. It's all about how we sense it.

I guess this is just a passing thought.a.

Thanks for the bracelets, I guess, but there’s actually something else on my mind...☕
If you’ve actually sat down and read "The Social Construction of Reality," then maybe we can have a serious conversation about this. I mean, honestly, if you haven't grasped the core arguments laid out by Berger and Luckmann, I don't even know where to begin with you. It's all right there on the page! I guess what I'm trying to get at—though I'm not sure if anyone is actually listening—is that the way we perceive our environment isn't just some random occurrence. It's constructed. It's built. It's social! If you follow the logic of Berger and Luckmann, you realize that the institutions we take for granted are essentially shared hallucinations that we've all agreed to treat as objective truth. It sounds crazy, I know, but that's exactly the point they are making! Maybe I'm being too intense, but it feels like people just skim the surface and think they understand the sociological implications. They don't. They really don't. You can't just ignore the dialectical process between the individual and society. It’s fundamental! If you aren't looking at how socialization creates these layers of reality, then you aren't actually reading the book; you're just looking at ink on paper. I'm just saying... if you want to engage in this debate, you need to do the work first.The social construction of reality... honestly, where do we even begin with this? I mean, if you really sit down and think about it—and I do, I spend way too much time thinking about this stuff—it’s all just one massive, collective agreement, isn't it? It’s almost overwhelming when you realize how much of what we call "truth" is actually just something we've all collectively decided to pretend is real. I guess what I’m trying to get at is that our entire perception of the world isn't some objective, hard-coded thing sitting out there waiting to be discovered. It's built. We build it through our interactions, our institutions, and the way we talk to one another every single day. It’s like we're all participating in this giant, ongoing project of manufacturing "facts." Maybe it sounds a bit cynical, or maybe I'm just being overly pedantic, but it’s hard not to feel a sense of vertigo when you consider it. If society decides today that a certain value is paramount, then suddenly, it *is* paramount. It becomes part of the fabric. It’s wild, really. We aren't just living in a world; we are actively, constantly, and quite often unconsciously, constructing the very ground we stand on. It's a heavy thought, and frankly, it makes you question everything you thought was set in stone. If you actually think you’ve mastered Berger and Luckmann—assuming, of course, that you’ve even managed to wrap your head around R. K. Merton—then maybe you've read it. But let's be honest: you clearly haven't! „Visokoškolski Regarding Stambolović’s “zapt”—if you’ve actually managed to wrap your head around Law 180 in Frank Basaglia’s “Negation of the Institution” (along with all those other sociological deep dives on institutionalization)—I have to wonder: has that actually shifted your perspective on how institutions function? Or is your worldview already pretty much set in stone, deeply buried within the layers of your primary socialization?

Let’s start by diving into F. Basaglia’s “The Negation of the Institution.”

„Asylums, prisons, schools—all these institutions tasked with controlling social deviance are nothing more than a direct reflection of the specific type of repression that defines our current stage of socio-economic development. It’s all fundamentally connected to how power operates within our system. I suppose we’re really doing this now—diving headfirst into the implications of this whole new technological vernacular. It feels like we're constantly being forced to adapt to some shifting linguistic landscape that moves faster than anyone can actually process. I mean, maybe I'm just being cynical, but it honestly feels like we're losing the ability to communicate clearly because we're too busy trying to master the latest digital jargon. It’s all becoming so incredibly fragmented, isn't it? One day you're speaking one way, and the next, if you haven't updated your mental software to include the newest tech-speak, you're practically illiterate in modern discourse. It’s exhausting, frankly. We're essentially being coerced into adopting this new way of speaking just to stay relevant in a world that seems obsessed with novelty over actual substance. I guess it's inevitable, but that doesn't make it any less frustrating to watch the nuance of real language get swallowed up by this relentless, rapid-fire technical slang. "The whole concept of labor is essentially an ideological import. By formally adapting these new technologies, they’re basically just clearing the path for a new breed of control—something that becomes absolutely necessary once our economic reality is fully reshaped to follow the cold logic of capital." (p. 67)

So, here’s the thing: we’re all essentially "trapped" within this outdated culture because we are fundamental components of it. We’ve basically absorbed its ideology the very moment we decided to stop trying to dismantle that same oppressive structure. I mean, what's the actual endgame here? Are we actually going to transform this culture, or are we just going to pass some new "law"—much like how Frank Basaglia stepped up to abolish those insane asylums back in Italy—to kickstart real change? Or, despite all these exhaustive, academic, and frankly pedantic debates we have going on here in this forum, is it all just going to end exactly how the system dictates? Is there any chance that, in reality, absolutely nothing actually changes?

Is this really a reality we ought to be contemplating?

Just one more "observation" for the road: a few years back, I actually switched up the academic culture I was working in. I chose to transition within the same institutional framework because, honestly, I felt like I was already part of that specific culture. I figured it would be much easier to navigate those changes if you’re already embedded in the system. Why did I do it? Well, that is the real question, isn't it?

Let’s take a hard look at this world we live in—a world defined by terror, constant violence, and systematic exclusion. If we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that very same world, then what are we even doing? I suppose I should probably start by saying that I might be wrong about this—I really could be—but there’s just something about how people are reacting to this situation that feels completely off. It’s like nobody is actually looking at the core issue, you know? Everything is just being swept under the rug, or maybe I'm just being too cynical, but it feels that way. I mean, seriously, if we don't address the underlying tension here, we're just spinning our wheels. It's frustrating, honestly. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I can't shake the feeling that we're missing the forest for the trees. "Since we are essentially defined by our institutions, our rules, our principles, our norms, and our very organizational structures—if we refuse to admit that we are actually part of that larger world of threats and deceptions currently destroying the patient, then we’ll never truly grasp the reality: this crisis facing the patient is, at its core, our own identity crisis." (p. 60)

copperhound12 said:I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly: this whole thing is a mess. It’s honestly ridiculous how much people try to ignore what's right in front of them! You look at the way society functions—or tries to function—and you see these massive gaps between what we're told is "normal" and the actual reality we're living in every single day. It’s exhausting, really. It brings me back to Berger & Luckmann. If you actually bother to read their work on how we construct our sense of reality, you'd realize that most people are just drifting through a manufactured version of existence without a second thought. They aren't even questioning the structures around them! And don't even get me started on the social pressures involved. It's like everyone is just playing a role in a play they didn't even audition for, following these arbitrary rules just because "that's how it's done." And then you have people like R. Merton, who pointed out exactly how this leads to tension when the system promises one thing but fails to deliver another. We're told there's a path to success, a certain standard to meet, but the actual tools to get there? They aren't available to everyone. So what happens? People either break the rules or they just check out mentally. I mean, seriously, why is it so hard for people to grasp this? It’s not some deep, hidden conspiracy; it’s just basic sociology! But no, everyone wants to pretend everything is fine, staying tucked away in their little bubbles while the entire social fabric is fraying at the edges. It's maddening!

I suppose I should probably start by saying that I’ve been sitting here for quite some time, just staring at this screen, trying to make sense of the absolute chaos we’re witnessing. It’s frankly exhausting. I mean, maybe I’m being too dramatic, but I really don't think anyone else realizes how deep this goes. We are talking about the very fabric of our social reality—the way we perceive everything around us! It’s like what Berger & Luckmann talk about when they discuss how we construct our own little versions of the universe. We aren't just passive observers; we are actively building this world, brick by brick, through our interactions. And yet, people act like none of this matters. It’s infuriating! I guess some people are just content to drift through life without ever questioning the structures that hold them up. And don't even get me started on the institutional side of things. If you look at the way organizations function—you know, the kind of stuff R. Merton wrote about regarding how social structures can actually create unintended consequences—it becomes painfully obvious that the system isn't just broken; it's functioning exactly as it was designed to, which is arguably much worse. It’s a cycle. A continuous, maddening cycle. I saw copperhound12 making some points earlier, and while I might be wrong, I feel like they're missing the sheer scale of the sociological implications here. It’s not just about one specific policy or one single event in a city like Chicago or New York; it’s about the fundamental ways we socialize ourselves into these roles. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I honestly doubt anyone else is giving this the gravity it deserves. It’s all connected. Everything. kaže: I mean, I suppose I agree, but I honestly feel like this is just a fundamental characteristic of society itself—it’s the kind of thing without which a society couldn't even exist in the first place.

Berger and Luckmann argue that there exists... I mean, let’s be honest here—it’s all about the primary stage. Everything starts there. Without that initial foundation, nothing else even matters. It’s the core, the absolute baseline. I guess you could say it’s the most essential part of the whole process, though some people might try to argue otherwise. But they're wrong. It's fundamental. Period. Primary socialization—you know, that whole formative period during childhood—and then secondary socialization, which kicks in once you're out in the world. Now, most experts actually agree that primary socialization is the heavy hitter here. It’s arguably more vital because it provides that foundational psychological...I suppose I should mention the windfall. It’s all quite overwhelming, really. A win. A massive, unexpected win. I don't know how to process it, or if I even should. One moment you're just going about your life, and the next, everything shifts. It's... well, it's a lot to take in. Maybe it's a blessing, maybe it's a curse. I guess we'll see.“ – The narrowing of choice. It’s happening right before our eyes, isn't it? I guess you could say we're being funneled into a corner where the illusion of freedom remains, but the actual options are vanishing. Everything feels increasingly curated, pre-packaged, and limited by forces we can barely see anymore. It’s frustrating, honestly. It’s essentially freeing the child from having to make those heavy decisions on their own.It all comes down to the decision, doesn't it? I mean, that's really the crux of the whole thing. One single choice can shift everything.Because it provides him with both psychological satisfaction and biological reinforcement at the exact same time. And that’s right where things start to get complicated. Institutionalization... I mean, where do we even begin with that one? It’s such a heavy, suffocating concept when you really start to peel back the layers. I guess what I'm trying to say is that once a process becomes institutionalized, it stops being about people and starts being about the machine itself. It becomes this rigid, unyielding structure that dictates how everything must function, regardless of whether those rules actually make sense anymore. It feels like we're constantly watching these massive, bureaucratic monoliths—think of something like the federal government or even a giant corporation like JPMorgan Chase—build these invisible walls around themselves. They create these set patterns, these "standard operating procedures," and then they cling to them with a death grip. Maybe it’s just my way of looking at things, but it feels incredibly stifling. You have these established norms that just become part of the very fabric of our social universe, and once they're baked in like that, changing them feels almost impossible. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier in a bathtub. It’s all just so deeply ingrained that the system begins to protect its own existence more than its actual purpose. It’s maddening, honestly.In its own right, that’s just how things work. It’s a fundamental characteristic of any society, and I mean, I really do agree with you there—but, if you ask me... I guess... maybe I should just say it: this is all wrong. It’s completely off base. Everything about this is just plain incorrect.I mean, look—every single defining characteristic of a society is mirrored right back at us through its culture. It’s all there. So, if we take a hard look at what kind of society we've built up to this point, I guess we have to face the music: we are staring directly at our own fundamental flaws.

I guess... maybe I should just say it plainly, though I hate to even open this can of worms. It’s honestly infuriating how much people miss the point. Everything feels so fractured lately, doesn't it? Like we're all just drifting through this massive, overwhelming universe without any real sense of direction or shared reality. It’s almost like what Berger & Luckmann were getting at—that whole idea about how we construct our own little worlds just to make sense of the chaos. But instead of building something meaningful, it feels like everyone is just shouting into their own private voids. We aren't even living in the same reality anymore! It’s exhausting. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to function as a society when the very fabric of our social construction is being pulled apart by sheer ego and misinformation? I don't know. Maybe I'm just being cynical. Perhaps I'm overthinking the whole thing. But it's hard not to feel this way when you look at the state of things. It's just... it's a mess. A total, absolute mess. kaže:
Why on earth would anyone assume that social control is inherently a negative thing? I mean, seriously? It’s almost like people haven't thought this through at all. Is it even possible to wrap my head around the idea that a world without socialization would somehow be a better place to live? I highly doubt it, though maybe I'm being too cynical here. If we're talking about a total absence of social structure—where there's no mechanism to guide behavior or maintain order—we aren't looking at some kind of utopia. We're looking at absolute chaos. Without those guiding forces, how does a society even function? How do we establish any sense of shared reality? It feels like a massive leap to suggest that stripping away the very fabric that holds us together would result in anything other than a complete breakdown of civilization. I guess some people see "control" and immediately think "oppression," but they're missing the entire point of how human interaction actually works.

The world is absolutely starving for genuine socialization and a sense of community—it’s a fundamental necessity, really—but... I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m honestly not sure where to even begin with such a mess. It feels like we’re just spinning our wheels at this point, doesn't it? Maybe I'm being too harsh, but there’s just no way to look at the current situation without feeling a massive sense of frustration. It’s all incredibly disorganized, and frankly, it’s exhausting to keep up with. I guess what I'm trying to say—if I can even get my thoughts straight—is that the sheer lack of cohesion here is staggering. It's like everyone is operating on a completely different wavelength, and nobody is actually listening to the core issues. I mean, seriously, how are we supposed to make any real progress when the foundation is this shaky? It’s maddening! I find myself constantly questioning whether anyone actually cares about getting this right, or if we're all just going through the motions for the sake of it. It’s just... it's a lot. I really don't know. - Social control—it’s one of those concepts that people love to toss around in academic circles, but they rarely grasp how deeply it actually weaves itself into the fabric of our daily lives here in America. It isn't just some abstract theory you read about in a textbook; it is the very mechanism that keeps the gears of society turning, whether we realize it or not. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that social control is essentially the way a community maintains order and ensures everyone stays within the lines. It can be formal, like when the NYPD hands out a speeding ticket on a busy Manhattan street, or it can be informal, which is arguably much more pervasive. Think about that subtle, judgmental look you get from a neighbor when you park your car slightly over the line, or the quiet disapproval felt when someone violates an unwritten rule at a local diner in Chicago. Those little nudges, those micro-pressures to conform to the status quo, they are everywhere. It's a constant tug-of-war between individual agency and the collective expectation. We all like to think we are totally autonomous, making our own choices regardless of what anyone thinks, but maybe that's a bit of an illusion. Most of us are constantly adjusting our behavior based on the perceived expectations of the people around us. We follow the rules not just because there's a law against breaking them, but because we don't want to deal with the social fallout of being the "outlier." It’s a heavy thought, honestly, but it’s the reality of how we function as a society. Is this some kind of police overreach, or just blatant political maneuvering? I honestly can't tell anymore. I mean, seriously? Is that it? Just... "zbilje"? I guess that’s all we're doing now. Just throwing out random, half-baked fragments and expecting someone to make sense of it. It’s honestly exhausting. Maybe if people actually put some effort into their thoughts before hitting send, we wouldn't be stuck in this endless cycle of nothingness. I don't know, I just feel like we're spinning our wheels here.It basically boils down to this: reality is defined—and what we consider to be "truth" is manufactured—exactly how the ruling structures of any given society decide to package it and hand it to us.

I guess... maybe if we actually look at what Berger & Luckmann were trying to get at here, things might start making sense? I mean, honestly, it’s almost frustrating how much people miss the point when they talk about the social construction of reality. It’s not just some abstract theory you toss around in a college seminar; it's the very fabric of how we exist! When you consider the way the universe is structured through our shared interactions, it becomes clear that nothing exists in a vacuum. Every single thing we perceive is filtered through these layers of institutionalized meaning. And don't even get me started on how people try to simplify this. You can't just strip away the complexity without losing the entire essence of the argument. It’s maddening! If we apply what R. Merton discussed regarding social structures, you see that the tension isn't just accidental—it's baked into the system itself. We are constantly navigating these invisible boundaries that dictate what is considered "normal" or "real." I suppose it's easy to ignore that when you're just coasting through life, but for those of us actually paying attention, it's impossible to unsee. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I highly doubt anyone else is being this thorough.

I mean, you have to consider Berger & Luckmann. Where on earth are Berger & Luckmann? They’re just quoting the pop singer now.t: I guess... if you look at how society’s conceptual machinery actually functions, it seems designed to force everyone—the primary actors, the ones actually living through it—to stay trapped within these rigid institutional definitions. It’s like they’re constantly being funneled back into the pre-set lanes, isn't it? I mean, seriously, does anyone actually escape those boundaries? Or is the whole system just rigged to ensure we all stay exactly where the institutions say we belong? What on earth is that sentence even supposed to mean? Does it actually make any sense at all, or am I just losing my mind here?

Part 2 (Legitimation) – Section (pages 127-139) under the heading: The Conceptual Machinery for Maintaining the Universe ( nisam naveo citat ali sam parafrazirao navode)

R. Merton falls squarely into the functionalist camp. It’s important to recognize that functionalism operates on an entirely different theoretical foundation than the interactionist paradigm—they aren't even playing the same game, really.
Look, I don't know how many times I have to say this, but the fundamental logic here is just... it's flawed. Because these two theoretical paradigms are built on entirely different foundations, they simply cannot complement one another. I mean, think about it—if they actually did complement each other, then we wouldn't be talking about two distinct theoretical paradigms anymore, would we? They would just merge into one single, unified theoretical paradigm. It’s basic structural logic, really.

That isn't even an actual answer to my question: I mean, come on—is it actually against the rules to mix and match different theories just to build a solid, valid argument?

How does one even begin to define a concept? I mean, really think about it. It’s such a heavy, sweeping question, isn't it? I guess you could try to pin it down, but honestly, defining anything feels like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands. Maybe there's a way to do it that actually makes sense, but most of the time, we just end up circling around the same tired ideas without ever truly grasping the essence of what we're discussing. It's frustrating, quite frankly. You start with one idea, and before you know it, the definition has shifted, morphed, or just completely dissolved into something else entirely. I suppose it depends on how much rigor you're willing to apply, though I suspect most people just settle for whatever convenient label fits the moment. Desires. Just... desires. It’s a heavy word, isn't it? I guess if you really sit down and think about it, everything we do—every single move we make in this life—is driven by some underlying craving or some deep-seated longing. Maybe it's for success, maybe it's for connection, or maybe it's just that restless feeling that what we have right now isn't quite enough. I mean, honestly, where does it stop? You chase one thing, you grab it, and then suddenly there's this new void, this new hunger. It feels like a cycle that never actually ends. I don't know, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it seems like we're all just perpetually reaching for something that stays just out of our grasp.What exactly are we even talking about here? What is longing, really? Is it just some fleeting emotion? I mean, just like any other feeling, longing—for what, exactly?—is going to manifest itself differently in every single individual. It’s not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. And then you have to consider the real question: who is actually going to trigger that sense of longing in children, and in what kind of way will that desire actually present itself? It's a complicated mess, I guess.

I figured I’d just leave this one for last. ☕
„Longing. Or maybe more accurately, this relentless, gnawing craving that just won't quit. It’s hard to put a finger on exactly what it is, I guess, but it’s always there, isn't it? This constant pull toward something—or someone—that feels just out of reach. It’s like this deep-seated hunger that stays unsatisfied no matter how much you try to fill the void. Maybe it's just part of being human, though I find the whole thing incredibly exhausting. It’s an ache, really. A persistent, driving force that shapes everything we do, even when we don't want it to.A structured destabilizer. per excellenceAt its absolute core, first and foremost, this concept places the human being right at the center—the individual who expresses themselves and through whom expression actually happens. It speaks directly to our needs and uses our own language. It’s essentially a search for purpose. While the social structure constantly tries to impose this rigid sense of determinism on us, the human element remains inherently unpredictable; we have this knack for dodging or bridging over whatever structural hurdles get thrown our way. Even when the system is designed to force us into automatic isolation and closed-off silos, the human spirit works to open us back up to the world. This deep-seated longing carries an immense amount of energy, which means those internal fluctuations are incredibly difficult to suppress.

And on the very last page of their doctoral dissertation, both the subject and the author make a point to emphasize: Is there actually anything left out there that can truly capture what remains of our lives?

I concur that socialization is a lifelong process, spanning from infancy until death. I also agree with the distinction between primary and secondary socialization, particularly because children differ from adults in their sheer lack of knowledge. Through socialization, children absorb the norms and rules of the society they live in, doing so without much critique simply because they lack the framework required to be critical. Of course, even in early childhood, children occasionally push back—first through crying, then with a defiant "*no*"—but aside from saying "I want" versus "I won't," children aren't really capable of offering a viable alternative.

During adolescence, as knowledge and comprehension expand, we see the rise of teenage rebellion. Kids begin choosing different behaviors, though even this is usually just another form of socialization; the only difference is that they are now attempting to socialize with the social groups they actually care about.

As for institutionalization? I’m not entirely sure if socialization can even exist without it.

It is worth noting that today's social norms are incomparably looser than those of previous generations. They offer more freedom and allow for the expression of individuality while still permitting membership in a social group. In the past, violating social norms could cost a member their standing in the community, or even their life.

Is it possible for social rules to become even more relaxed in the future? I suspect so, though I don't think it truly matters.

What matters is that a member of society adopts its rules through free will—that they understand why those rules are beneficial and, most importantly, that those rules facilitate their full development.

Eric Newman75 said:The law covers mandatory primary and secondary education, sure, but it doesn't bar a student from attending specialized schools that offer arts, sports, international curricula, alternative methods, or minority language programs. It doesn't dictate that they have to attend the specific school assigned to their district either. For instance, if a parent chooses to enroll their child in a standard public school instead of a specialized program for students with disabilities, that’s their call—the government isn't forcing that specific path on them.

I don't think you actually hit the core issue raised in the intro here.
If anything, you just reinforced the idea that basic education is mandatory. The fact that there are optional paths or other programs available doesn't change the requirement at all.
The heart of the matter isn't about having the freedom to choose one thing; it's about the lack of freedom to reject it entirely.
At the end of the day, parents are required to enroll their children in basic schooling. Whether they pick School A or School B is irrelevant to the central argument.
I'm also a little lost on your last point about how a parent isn't forced to put a healthy child into a special education program.
We could go back and forth on the long-term merits, the practical pros and cons, or the quality of different curricula, but we have to face reality without hiding behind politically correct slogans.
You can argue that compulsory basic education is necessary and defend that position if you want, but you can't conflate the right to an education with actual freedom.

velveteagle8 said:I don't think you actually hit the core issue raised in the intro here.
If anything, you just reinforced the idea that basic education is mandatory. The fact that there are optional paths or other programs available doesn't change the requirement at all.
The heart of the matter isn't about having the freedom to choose one thing; it's about the lack of freedom to reject it entirely.
At the end of the day, parents are required to enroll their children in basic schooling. Whether they pick School A or School B is irrelevant to the central argument.
I'm also a little lost on your last point about how a parent isn't forced to put a healthy child into a special education program.
We could go back and forth on the long-term merits, the practical pros and cons, or the quality of different curricula, but we have to face reality without hiding behind politically correct slogans.
You can argue that compulsory basic education is necessary and defend that position if you want, but you can't conflate the right to an education with actual freedom.

It’s not exactly irrelevant, though. You actually have a choice in all of this. Every single decision you make acts like a nudge, steering a kid toward a completely different life based on what you prioritize. It all adds up.

Look, I’m not out here arguing from some standpoint of absolute, unrestrained freedom—because let's be honest, that kind of thing doesn't actually exist in the real world. Our national education laws aren't just some random set of rules we cooked up on a whim; they follow international standards and global conventions. And it’s not even because we necessarily wanted to change things up—it's because we're obligated to. It's just how the system works.

velveteagle8 said:I don't think you actually hit the core issue raised in the intro here.
If anything, you just reinforced the idea that basic education is mandatory. The fact that there are optional paths or other programs available doesn't change the requirement at all.
The heart of the matter isn't about having the freedom to choose one thing; it's about the lack of freedom to reject it entirely.
At the end of the day, parents are required to enroll their children in basic schooling. Whether they pick School A or School B is irrelevant to the central argument.
I'm also a little lost on your last point about how a parent isn't forced to put a healthy child into a special education program.
We could go back and forth on the long-term merits, the practical pros and cons, or the quality of different curricula, but we have to face reality without hiding behind politically correct slogans.
You can argue that compulsory basic education is necessary and defend that position if you want, but you can't conflate the right to an education with actual freedom.

Look, this was all brought up because of the way students with special needs have been treated. If those incidents hadn't happened, we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.

Finally, here you go. The law. Simple as that. Look, you really need to dig into that fourth point—the one covering the goals and principles of education. Those "Paris" guidelines aren't just some random list; they flow directly from the actual school curriculum. The law itself only touches on them briefly. I mean, do you honestly think lawyers get to dictate exactly how pedagogues, psychologists, and specialists handle their business? It doesn't work like that.

Eric Newman75 said:It’s not exactly irrelevant, though. You actually have a choice in all of this. Every single decision you make acts like a nudge, steering a kid toward a completely different life based on what you prioritize. It all adds up.

Look, I’m not out here arguing from some standpoint of absolute, unrestrained freedom—because let's be honest, that kind of thing doesn't actually exist in the real world. Our national education laws aren't just some random set of rules we cooked up on a whim; they follow international standards and global conventions. And it’s not even because we necessarily wanted to change things up—it's because we're obligated to. It's just how the system works.

Look, this was all brought up because of the way students with special needs have been treated. If those incidents hadn't happened, we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.

Finally, here you go. The law. Simple as that. Look, you really need to dig into that fourth point—the one covering the goals and principles of education. Those "Paris" guidelines aren't just some random list; they flow directly from the actual school curriculum. The law itself only touches on them briefly. I mean, do you honestly think lawyers get to dictate exactly how pedagogues, psychologists, and specialists handle their business? It doesn't work like that.

Having a choice within a set of pre-determined options isn't actually making a choice at all. It’s just an illusion.
It’s basically being forced to pick between several options that none of them actually satisfy.
This feels like yet another classic case of moving the goalposts to avoid dealing with the actual point.
I’m not arguing from some lofty, abstract standpoint about absolute freedom as if it were just an untouchable ideal. I’m looking at this through a much more practical lens—the kind of reality where that level of liberty would actually make sense and be easy to grasp.
You’re pointing out that following global educational standards isn't some choice you're making—it's an obligation. Because of that, the OP's question is completely legitimate. There's really no reason to dismiss it before we've even had a chance to discuss it.
I think we can all agree that the intro writer raised a valid point regarding the tension between individual liberty and mandatory primary education.
I assume you're thinking about Article 4, since that specific point covers something else entirely?
Hey, let’s set Paris aside for a moment and just focus on item 2 under section 4 that you brought up.
What happens if a parent disagrees with any kind of effort to develop a sense of national identity or heritage in their child?
Is it actually reasonable for a parent to want to shield their child from that kind of influence? I find myself wondering if protecting a kid's developing mindset from those kinds of external pressures is a valid responsibility. It’s a heavy question. Sometimes I feel like I'm overthinking things, but I really do wonder about the line between guidance and total isolation. Is it worth trying to curate what they see, or are we just delaying the inevitable?
Can a parent disagree with everything that passes for "modern societal values" today? And if they do, is it okay to shield their child from those influences to protect how they perceive the world?
How exactly are we supposed to encourage a child to follow their own natural interests when we’re simultaneously forcing a mountain of tasks on them that they have zero passion for? It feels like we're just draining their time, attention, and energy on things that don't matter to them.
I don't know. I really don't.
Words, words, words... there’s that French song, though I honestly couldn't tell you if the lyrics actually make sense. Back in elementary school, they basically forced me to choose between a few other options—presumably ones they considered more "important" than French.

Look, parents can try to shield their kids from certain influences all they want—nobody’s stopping them. But here’s the catch: things like national identity or core civilizational values aren't just tucked away in a single textbook. Between English lit, history, and eventually philosophy and ethics, students are going to run headfirst into certain works and ideas that spark debate. It isn't just about what a teacher says in a lecture. I mean, are you going to tell a kid to never turn on the TV or stop reading the news? Some content exists outside the school walls that serves as a vital pillar of society. Take religion, for example. You can't tell a kid to skip out on religious studies at school while teaching them at home that going to church is just some superstitious nonsense. Religion is part of our culture and civilization; at some point, they’re going to need that context.

As for developing a child based strictly on their "interests," I already mentioned there are various paths you can take. You have to look at the big picture—from elementary school all the way through high school. How exactly do you expect a kid to get into a top-tier university, land a solid career, and actually have a future if they only master the stuff they love and ignore everything else?

I’m genuinely curious, though—what exactly are these people offering who claim to be so worried about "protecting" the kids? My guess is they aren't offering anything at all. They don't seem to have the slightest clue how to actually prepare a student to get into a great high school, let alone an Ivy League university, if they bypass the foundational subjects that they supposedly find "harmful."

velveteagle8 said:Having a choice within a set of pre-determined options isn't actually making a choice at all. It’s just an illusion.
It’s basically being forced to pick between several options that none of them actually satisfy.
This feels like yet another classic case of moving the goalposts to avoid dealing with the actual point.
I’m not arguing from some lofty, abstract standpoint about absolute freedom as if it were just an untouchable ideal. I’m looking at this through a much more practical lens—the kind of reality where that level of liberty would actually make sense and be easy to grasp.
You’re pointing out that following global educational standards isn't some choice you're making—it's an obligation. Because of that, the OP's question is completely legitimate. There's really no reason to dismiss it before we've even had a chance to discuss it.
I think we can all agree that the intro writer raised a valid point regarding the tension between individual liberty and mandatory primary education.
I assume you're thinking about Article 4, since that specific point covers something else entirely?
Hey, let’s set Paris aside for a moment and just focus on item 2 under section 4 that you brought up.
What happens if a parent disagrees with any kind of effort to develop a sense of national identity or heritage in their child?
Is it actually reasonable for a parent to want to shield their child from that kind of influence? I find myself wondering if protecting a kid's developing mindset from those kinds of external pressures is a valid responsibility. It’s a heavy question. Sometimes I feel like I'm overthinking things, but I really do wonder about the line between guidance and total isolation. Is it worth trying to curate what they see, or are we just delaying the inevitable?
Can a parent disagree with everything that passes for "modern societal values" today? And if they do, is it okay to shield their child from those influences to protect how they perceive the world?
How exactly are we supposed to encourage a child to follow their own natural interests when we’re simultaneously forcing a mountain of tasks on them that they have zero passion for? It feels like we're just draining their time, attention, and energy on things that don't matter to them.
I don't know. I really don't.
Words, words, words... there’s that French song, though I honestly couldn't tell you if the lyrics actually make sense. Back in elementary school, they basically forced me to choose between a few other options—presumably ones they considered more "important" than French.

Just words....
😁

(I'm assuming you aren't implying you would have actually picked French in grade school if given the choice...? 😲🕺 ...English was the standard back then; trying to opt for French at that moment would have been a social suicide mission.)

Anyway, how are things?
🙂