Posts by Laura Reyes3

Ronald Howard3 said:If I don't like a specific approach or a treatment plan, I can just walk out of the hospital and seek care elsewhere—or try a different method entirely.

Our military is essentially pointless anyway since we're just playing proxy for someone else. Over the last year, we’ve handed over billions of dollars worth of weapons to a country we have zero connection with—that's nearly a thousand bucks per employee (30,000 machine guns, hundreds of mortars, 14 helicopters...).

We’re all forced to use banks to some degree, but crypto exists specifically because of the flaws in the banking system—it allows for direct transactions without middlemen or needing anyone's permission.

Our courts are such a mess that they might be better off non-existent.

Did the most famous education theorist in Rome have to deal with inspectors, endless regulations, and angry parents? Did he have to stick to a rigid curriculum and teach in one specific way, or did he have the freedom to explore topics alongside his students? Did he have the authority to remove a student who was sabotaging class or bullying others? Did he even have the right to discipline them? Just a reminder: in America, homeschooling isn't really a formal concept here—you basically have to hand your child over to "expert" strangers to be "educated."

A hospital is a hospital—it doesn't really matter which one you walk into. But you aren't exactly going to let someone without a board certification touch you... can't really risk that. You always have the right to walk away, though.

Quincy:

Our military is essentially pointless—we’re nothing more than someone else's errand boys. Over the last year alone, we’ve handed over a billion dollars worth of weaponry to a country we have absolutely zero common ground with. That works out to nearly a thousand bucks per employee... 30,000 machine guns, hundreds of mortars, 14 helicopters... what an absolute waste.

We aren't talking about our specific military—or even our own schools—but rather the state of education as a whole...

Quincy:

We’re all forced to deal with banks to some degree—it's just the way the system is built—but crypto emerged specifically because our banking infrastructure is fundamentally flawed. It offers a way to handle direct transactions without needing a middleman... or someone else's permission.

Cryptocurrencies aren't banks. It’s just coercion all the way down—pure and simple. Using coercion as an argument against traditional schooling isn't an indictment of the banking system; it’s actually a defense of it. You can't spin it that way... it just doesn't work.

Quincy:

Our legal system is such a disaster—frankly, we'd probably be better off without it...

Check the thread under: military.

Quincy:

Did the most famous education theorist in Rome have to deal with endless inspections, rigid regulations, and disgruntled parents? Did he have to stick to a strictly defined curriculum and teach in one specific way—or did he actually have the freedom to explore topics alongside his students? Did he possess the authority to remove a student who sabotages the class or bullies others? And did he have the right to administer corporal punishment? I should remind you that in this country, homeschooling isn't even a recognized concept... you're forced to hand your child over to "expert" strangers just so they can "educate" them.

He followed a set curriculum and a specific methodology—essentially he was just a cog in the machine. I never once heard him mention or even hint at corporal punishment during his lectures. Some professors simply carry an inherent authority... making sweeping generalizations isn't much of an argument. So, what's your actual stance? Are you advocating for physical punishment, or are you pushing to abolish schools entirely? The absence of physical discipline isn't a reason to dismantle the education system. Violence and physical punishment have no place in a classroom. And the lack of homeschooling options isn't a valid argument for getting rid of schools, either...

Ronald Howard3 said:Education before the year 2000 and the bureaucratic nightmare we’re stuck with today? They aren't even in the same universe.

There’s more red tape in the healthcare system than in schools—so why not start a philosophical debate about abolishing hospitals altogether?

There’s more red tape in the defense department than in schools—so why not start a philosophical debate about abolishing the military?

There’s more red tape in the banking sector than in schools—so why not start a philosophical debate about abolishing banks?

There’s more red tape in the legal system than in schools—so why not start a philosophical debate about abolishing the courts?

The Roman education system was pretty much what you're advocating for, and the most famous educational theorist in Rome concluded that public schools are actually a good thing...

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus's De institutione oratoria
.

Here are the links. The text is in Latin—but let’s be honest, we all know our Latin; we don't need formal schooling for that, it's something you pick up out in the real world...
There are two options here—some prefer the feel of an old book, others swear by an e-book, so take your pick.

https://archive.org/details/marcusfa...ge/n4/mode/2up

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2182...-h/21827-h.htm

What exactly did Quintilian write, and why does his work still matter to us—to our civilization and our heritage?

Don't assume everything is laid out for you online. In reality, the internet only scratches the surface of true knowledge.

Are we dealing with people who think scrolling through the web and living their daily lives is enough of an education? They claim traditional schooling stifles a child's freedom... but have they actually heard of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus? Have they even picked up his books?

Or will they just dismiss Quintilian as "irrelevant"? Maybe they’d go as far as calling for him to be banned altogether.

Is Quintilian somehow to blame for all the corruption and decay currently plaguing our youth?

What's your take?

People love to claim that schools are where morality goes to die. Sure, that happens sometimes, but let’s be real—it happens just as often at home.
In both settings, you’ll find endless examples of characters being broken—or, occasionally, some integrity actually being preserved. It really comes down to an individual's innate nature and how much effort is actually put into their upbringing...

The Education of an Orator / Marcus Fabius Quintilianus. 1st Century AD.

Even so, Quintilian leaned toward the value of schools and public education.

Simple. As follows:
No single specialized science actually studies the world as a whole—they just pick at one specific part or one isolated aspect of it... The moment a scientist starts questioning the very assumptions underpinning their research—if they actually dig deep enough—they inevitably step outside the boundaries of science itself...

I don't get what's being bolded...

As long as his job boils down to nothing more than gathering and processing data according to a pre-set formula—he doesn't need critical thinking. Critical thinking is the exception, not the rule...

That’s just how the tax system works—it isn't exactly a logic science...

Nothing should ever be taken for granted. In philosophical terms, knowledge isn't just something handed to you—everything requires a reason. But this idea that the scientific method demands "continuous" doubt? That’s just nonsense. The whole point of science is to actually acquire knowledge, not to stay stuck in a loop of eternal skepticism... If you question everything indefinitely, you end up knowing absolutely nothing. What kind of science is that—one that never actually discovers anything?

Knowledge doesn't spread like that—not really. You look at Newtonian or Einsteinian physics and you see how different the process actually is...
Just because someone cast doubt on Newtonian physics and shook things up—it doesn't mean we actually know any less...
Science "knows" things with such... absolute certainty.

Philosophy has the potential to elevate science—specifically through something like Hegelian logic science. Within philosophy, a scientist can actually learn what constitutes knowledge, what qualifies as an opinion, or even what defines "the good." These are all non-scientific concepts, sure, but they are absolutely essential if one intends to think critically. Critical thinking relies entirely on being properly educated in terms of these core concepts. If Hegel’s claim holds any weight—that Newton was "a perfectly uneducated man in terms of concepts"—then that reality likely applies to most of the lesser-known scientists out there, too...

Newton was actually chasing the philosopher's stone—his physics was just a side project. If he had dared to publish that work publicly back then, he would have lost his head. That’s just how he was... No such thing as a majority.
What does that even have to do with anything—I don't know—but since you brought it up...

copperhound12 said:Bingo! You finally caught my drift and put a finger on exactly what I was driving at.

Quincy:

So, we have what is widely accepted and common knowledge, versus what you claimed is the ultimate purpose. Only, "ultimate purpose" isn't really an operational concept because it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything or nothing at all. It can cover the entire spectrum of meaning.

"The public good" isn't a precise or operational term? Interesting. Well, there’s your contradiction right there—it serves as a convenient mask for those ideologues who bury the vital facts, manipulate the narrative, and use it as a tool for social control. Is that clear enough for you?

Quincy:

In short, the essence of critical thinking is that it often looks like an attack, but it isn't.😁 As in, if someone perceives a certain action as an attack, they might just be wrong; perhaps it’s merely well-intentioned criticism or just critical thought.

The goal of scientific—or rather, critical—thinking isn't to attack, but to attempt to understand (think of the themes in "Resist Critical Thinking")

I assume you’ve finally grasped the core of the issue.

Quincy:

Okay. A general critique of an institution, but if that institution is something we need to overcome (or something similar), then it makes no sense to just replace it with another institution. What kind of critique is that, then?

Quincy:

Look, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Why? Because you're just swapping one institution for another.

That isn't change. Real change is a paradigm shift in thought, in knowledge, in ideology—in everything.

Do you know what these—our little "pleasant conversations"—remind me of? ☕

First, it reminds me of the dialogue in "The Negation of the Institution" where theory is dissected with both subtlety and boldness during a conversation between Franco Basaglia and Jean-Paul Sartre. In that exchange, the latter keeps insisting: "Are we attacking practical science and attacking institutions without ever formulating what comes after them? Quite simply, what is desired is not given, and what is desired is never entirely what is given." Basaglia actually resonates with me here: "But to even attempt to build a science within our current reality—one shaped by actual and potential users—already feels like chasing a utopia. Years ago, you penned a sentence that still carries immense weight for me: 'Ideologies act as tools of freedom while they are being forged, but once completed, they transform into instruments of oppression' (F.B., 'Negation of the Institution,' p. 106)."

On another note, I am currently working my way through Solenoid by Mircea Cartarescu, and there is this one fascinating story tucked away in the first volume (which, mind you, is massive, and I have a notorious weakness for good storytelling):

It’s about a prisoner, someone handed a life sentence in a maximum-security facility, left to rot for years in a cell somewhere in the frozen reaches of Siberia, never once stepping foot outside those walls. But then, one night, he starts hearing rhythmic hammering against his cell walls. He presses himself close, trying to make sense of it, and realizes the sounds are clear, intelligent, and repetitive, occurring at specific intervals. At first, he assumes he’s just hallucinating, but the sounds return the next morning, and the day after, and so it goes. Eventually, he begins to decipher the sequence of noises and starts taking notes; the patterns grow more complex, almost as if new words are being introduced into the code used by his neighbor on the other side of the wall. It took months to catch a hint of the connection in the rhythm of the strikes, and years to truly master their language. Ultimately, a sort of dialogue began to take shape, with the prisoner responding using the exact same code he had recorded and sent back. His neighbor was actually coordinating an escape plan—something incredibly bold, yet precise and masterful. And then, one desolate night, our prisoner finally escaped into freedom, following those instructions to the letter.
Fast forward through a vast stretch of time: after many, many years, our former captive returns to that very same place, now famous and wealthy, specifically to try and help the companion who was once on the other side of that wall. They lead him back to the cell where he lost his youth, only for him to discover that there is nothing on the other side but rock and sea. The wall was merely an exterior boundary; just dozens of feet away, waves were crashing against the prison wall.

Here is the metaphor: you are that prisoner.

What would non-institutional education actually look like? — I mean, really... beyond the sterile classrooms and the standardized testing grind we're all stuck in.

ruggedraven36

"The public good"... what a joke. Not precise—not operational... a concept? Interesting. There’s your contradiction right there. It’s the perfect way for those ideologues to bury everything that actually matters—manipulating the narrative to maintain social control. Clear enough now?

That’s not even what I wrote...

ruggedraven36:

The metaphor remains: you’re the one behind bars...

Stop preaching.

ruggedraven36 said:So basically, any scientist who isn't actually thinking critically? They aren't even scientists—they're just people using the title.

Reminds me of that Hegelian remark about Newton. His motto was essentially: "Physics, beware of metaphysics—in other words, Science, beware of opinion."

How can science even begin to study the world if it doesn't approach it critically?
The scientific method demands constant doubt. Nothing is ever taken at face value; everything is scrutinized over and over again. Dogma is useless to science—it offers nothing toward actual progress.

copperhound12 said:They’re exactly what I already mentioned—these exclusive types of schools (think Waldorf, Montessori, Ilich’s discussions on "deschooling," the "network" concept from V. Stambolović, those "Free Children of Summerhill" types, etc.—just to highlight the heavy hitters relevant to this debate) that serve to keep the social and symbolic (institutional) universe feeling satisfied and stable because nothing in the system actually changes; if anything, the system actively encourages this by "innovating" just enough to claim it supports pluralism and offers "alternative" options for people-who-think-differently.

It’s all futile without a paradigm shift in how we think. Our society is our culture: it is perfectly logical and understandable to view human reality as a social construction of reality. That is the fundamental question we have to untangle. And then—we have to act.

According to Berger and Luckmann, institutions control human behavior by prescribing pre-defined patterns of conduct. We are talking about behavior here. Institutions are built on behavior. So, what would a non-institutional school even look like? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they behave? Would you even call it a school then?

Now, I am seriously questioning whether you have even cracked open the book by Berger and Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality"?

Because that text lays out very clear, unambiguous actors of institutionalization—concepts like the "symbolic universe," the "legitimation of our reality" (where "Legitimation explains the institutional order by attributing cognitive validity to its objectified meanings" (116)), "role typification" (“Institutionalization occurs when there is a mutual typification of habitualized actions by types of actors” (75)), the "maintenance and transformation of subjective reality" (which is exactly what you mean by "behavior"), "identity theories," and so on and so forth.

Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own specific methodology. The goal of science is to expand, organize (and classify) that knowledge. Not what you just wrote.

We all know that; we could have just Googled it and we are well aware of your definition. My point was that the ultimate purpose of science —and I'll emphasize this—is to be helpful and to establish whatever it investigates or organizes as a public good. Because science is, metaphorically speaking, a game and a spontaneous adventure.

And reading critically means nothing if there isn't a clearly defined meaning for what "critical reading" actually represents.

"Human beings are endowed with the capacity for critical thought (including the ability to read critically - ed.) and that capacity can only be destroyed if the human being themselves is destroyed. The goal of scientific, or rather critical, “Sharing an opinion isn’t some kind of personal assault; it’s actually just an attempt to understand the situation, even if people constantly misinterpret that effort as a direct attack.” ( Šušnjić, “Resisting Critical Thinking”)

Get what I'm saying? ☕

That isn’t "mine"—it’s a quote. Everything you're saying holds water, except for that one part regarding what you seem to define as an "institution"...
So, we have role typification—which, granted, requires legitimacy—but let's look at the practical side. If you have a school, and there are students and teachers, and those students are actually learning while the teachers are teaching... then you have typification and legitimacy in action. It results in behavior that aligns perfectly with those established roles... simple as that.

We all know how this goes... Google it... We know exactly what you wrote. I’ve already said that... The ultimate purpose of science... it’s a bit of a moving target, isn't it? Some argue it's about pure discovery—peeling back the layers of the universe just to see what's underneath—while others claim it’s purely utilitarian, a tool meant to solve problems and make life easier. But honestly? It feels more like an endless attempt to impose order on a chaotic mess... a way to build a framework where none exists. It’s about more than just providing assistance—it’s about cementing everything she researched and organized into a definitive framework... Public good...Because she’s—metaphorically speaking—pure play and a spontaneous adventure...

So, we have what is generally accepted as fact versus this "ultimate meaning" you’re talking about. The problem is that "ultimate meaning" isn't an operational concept—it lacks precision. It could mean absolutely anything, or nothing at all... it's a catch-all for the entire spectrum of interpretation. Poetry and associative thinking? Fine for art, I suppose—but they aren't methodologies, and they certainly aren't scientific reasoning.

Humans possess the capacity for critical thought—and yet...Read it critically... That ability can only be stripped away if the individual themselves is destroyed—period. The whole point of science... Critical... An opinion isn't an attack—it’s just an attempt at understanding... though people seem to mistake the two far too often. Schumer — "Resisting critical thought..."

In short—critical thinking often masquerades as an attack, but that’s just not the case... 😁

Look, if someone perceives an action as an attack, they might just be wrong—maybe it’s nothing more than well-intentioned feedback or simply a critical perspective...

Listen, California, if we can't even agree on what constitutes an institution, this whole conversation is a dead end. Why? Because you’re just swapping one institution for another. Fine. You offer a general critique of an institution, but if your goal is to overcome that institution (or whatever), then there's no point in just plugging in a different one in its place. Where's the actual critique in that?

Every scientific opinion is, by definition, critical thinking.

copperhound12 said:

I mean, I guess if we're really going to sit here and dissect this, we have to look at the sheer scale of it all. It’s just... it's overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe I'm overthinking things, but I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees. I honestly don't know where to start, but let me try. There's this sense that everything we thought we understood about the subject is being completely upended, and frankly, it's infuriating! It feels like every time we get a handle on a concept, someone comes along and shifts the goalposts again. It's exhausting. I suppose I should be more patient, but how can you be when the foundation keeps shifting under your feet? It's just one thing after another. I guess... maybe I should just say that...
So, look, we’re supposed to be talking about the education system here—that's the actual topic at hand—but then, out of nowhere, you start pivoting and rambling about the nature of science instead. I mean, ah... sorry, but... 😁

Science. Education and upbringing—it all falls under that umbrella, doesn't it? It covers the fundamental frameworks of institutional schooling. I suppose the ultimate purpose of this whole field of science is to help tackle actual human problems, but honestly, it shouldn't stop there. It has to go deeper than that; it needs to be able to read between the lines and truly interpret the underlying realities we're dealing with. Critical.I mean, you really have to frame it as a public good. That’s the only way to make it work, because her entire fundamental premise is centered on actually solving problems—otherwise, she just falls straight into dogma. Real science isn't supposed to be some rigid, stagnant set of rules; it should be an adventure, a total game.

Look, if you really want to get into this, I’d highly recommend diving into David Bloor, specifically looking at the Edinburgh School and their work on the Strong Program. It's worth your time, I guess.

How could I possibly say no? I’m giving you the exact same response I gave when I first suggested you sit down and actually study that book.University transcript V. Stambolović

It’s actually a total paradox, and honestly, it feels like our own personal tragedy that we have to approach everything through its exact opposite. I mean, think about it—we have to embrace slavery just to even begin to grasp what freedom really means. We have to confront ugliness just to recognize beauty, or lean into hatred just to truly experience love. Even goodness... I guess we have to pursue the good only so we can finally, fully understand the primal evil lurking at the core of it all. It's exhausting, really.

Maybe it’s worth taking a moment to actually explain the "why" behind Basaglia's whole crusade. What you’re touching on here is what we call the Basaglia Law, or Law 180, which was all about the de-institutionalization of psychiatric hospitals. Even though Basaglia had moved on from his time working in Gorica (which is basically like a smaller version of a city in the Midwest now) quite a while before that, the specific psychiatric hospital where he used to work was eventually shut down for good back in 1978. I might dive deeper into the specifics of that later on. But fundamentally, Basaglia believed that psychiatric patients didn't deserve... Institutions. It always comes back to the institutions, doesn't it? I mean, really, if you look closely at how everything is structured, it’s almost impossible to ignore the sheer weight they carry over our individual lives. They aren't just buildings or sets of rules; they are these massive, immovable forces that shape every single thing we think and do. It's honestly exhausting to even consider how much influence they exert on the collective psyche. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we often forget just how much power these entities hold over us, acting as the silent architects of our entire social reality. It’s all quite overwhelming when you actually stop to analyze it. I just can't see them being therapeutic. Kids go to school to learn, and that’s my observation—they aren't heading to class for therapy. Honestly, adults don't exactly flock there for that reason either, though I suppose there are always those few exceptions to every rule. 😁 I honestly think it’s worth pointing this out so the rest of you folks on the forum get the full picture. Look, Basaglia wasn't out there writing down rigid dogmas, so I suppose you can't really blame the authors themselves if someone else decides to twist their theories into some kind of unshakeable doctrine. That’s just how people work, I guess. But regardless, you have to recognize that Basaglia was actually one of the absolute heavyweights driving the democratic psychiatry movement over in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s.

His work is nothing less than a metaphor for what lies ahead of us. That’s exactly how you have to read it—you really have to look deeper if you want to grasp the full picture!

And which institution are you actually referring to? Schools aren't the only institutions out there; there are plenty of them. Besides, how you personally interpret 1) freedom and 2) the concept of an institution is perfectly understandable—I have no issue with that—but not everyone sees things through your specific lens.

All institutions (including schools, for that matter) are functional and necessary (I've already made that point clear in a previous post); without them, society simply wouldn't be able to function. However, at some point, they inevitably deny the validity of personal experience, individual emotions, and independent thought—which effectively turns them into something sclerotic, crippled, and dogmatic. That is precisely why de-institutionalization becomes vital: because these entities trap their own truth, discarding any critical judgment that doesn't fit within their predetermined criteria. To put it bluntly: it is time for a change; the longer we delay, the more painful that transition will be.

You’re right, and you’re also wrong. Institutions are absolutely essential for our world to keep turning. But maturity (and a healthy dose of criticism) tells us that their status quo outgrew our "modern" needs a long time ago. It is time for a paradigm shift: our future has already arrived.

There is this fascinating book, "Better to Be the Wind Than the Leaf," a bestseller by some of our well-known local authors/psychologists: M. Rijavec and D. Miljković (which I often cite in my lectures). It emphasizes that the only true and successful way to raise a child is PARENTAL upbringing, because only a parent can, should, and must understand their child. But—and there's always that "but"—one ought to read wise books, engage with people steeped in experience, and communicate openly and honestly, because that is ultimately good for society and—of course—for ourselves. ☕

What exactly would "non-institutional schools" even look like?

According to Berger and Lukmanan, institutions control human behavior by prescribing predefined patterns of conduct. We're talking about behavior here. An institution is defined by behavior. So, what kind of non-institutional school could exist? One where students and teachers just do whatever they want? How would they even act? Is it even a school at that point?

Science is an organized body of knowledge with its own methodology. The goal of science is to expand and organize (and yes, classify) that knowledge. Not this... what you wrote.

And "critically interpreting" without a clearly defined meaning—without specifying what such critical interpretation actually entails—means absolutely nothing.

copperhound12 said:"Let’s analyze the world of terror, the world of violence, the world of exclusion. If we don't admit that we *are* that world—since we are the institutions, the rules, the principles, the norms, the organizations—if we don't admit that we are part of that global threat and deception that destroys the sick, then we will never understand that the crisis of the patient is our own identity crisis." (p. 60, Franco Basaglia: The Negation of the Institution)

I don't find it problematic at all. Why? Because through years of practice, experience, and deep realization, I have learned exactly what an institution does. It functions by—quite simply—crushing freedom.

Furthermore, as much as my view of institutions might be grim, I have an even darker opinion regarding anti-intellectualism or the systematic devaluation of knowledge and science.

In this post, I’ll explain why I didn't mention Ilich and his obscure work "Deschooling Society". It's because I have centered my observations and critical thinking on treating the institution itself as a science. To truly grasp science as a foundation, we have to observe it within its structures (its concepts, theories, hypotheses, methods) and functionally (its practical implications—whether it actually meets the needs of a given society). At that specific moment, science—as the fundamental unit of society—transforms into its own practical dogma: the institution. All these massive piles of scientific and pedagogical books, along with our futile debates upon which we build our critiques, are nothing more than pathetic monuments to our educational system.

"Can a slave be liberated if they don't even know they are enslaved?" – Herbert Marcuse put it quite lucidly, because an institution represents an imposed servitude (schools, the police, the legal system, etc.). But that alone isn't enough. We have to analyze every single institution (including the school), because any discussion about "de-institutionalization" becomes purely formal and pointless if we don't have a legitimate and adequate replacement. Everything we've seen so far—which includes various Montessori methods, Waldorf schools, (and even) the "network" principle from V. Stambolović, or the works of the aforementioned Ilich—represents nothing but mere exclusivity. The system demands this; it wants every institution to become more reinforced and "progressive," provided the system itself remains untouched!

If we actually believe in all of this, then we are all being manipulated.


"All social reality is precarious. All societies are constructions against chaos." (Berger / Luckmann – The Social Construction of Reality – p. 126)

Human misery wears many masks. Perhaps the most devastating is the kind found in the total impoverishment of human existence, which essentially triggers an identity crisis. That is precisely why we should look to a shining example, a sort of Promethean "fire"—Franco Basaglia and his theory of "Negating the Institution" along with his Law 180 in Italy. Why? Because if we attempt to "replace" our school system with some new form of exclusivity, we are—metaphorically speaking—doing humanity a massive disservice. Do you honestly believe such a thing is possible within this sick world and the lost culture of our schools and... "schooling"?

Exactly! I couldn't agree more with what was highlighted in bold. It is actually quite dangerous to feel comfortable in school—and that is the current state of affairs.

So, we started out talking about education—that was the topic—but suddenly you've pivoted entirely toward the nature of science. Hmm. My apologies, but... 😁

Alright—I’d suggest looking into David Bloor, the Edinburgh School, and the Strong Program...

Steven Clark2 said:My children attended school remotely via Zoom here in the States—though I suppose I shouldn't assume everyone else’s experience was the same. They participated in various other activities through Zoom as well; it wasn't an endless ordeal, lasting perhaps one semester, if not slightly less, though my memory isn't perfectly sharp on the exact duration. At one point, I found myself speaking quite candidly to some of these instructors. I asked them, somewhat bluntly, why they hadn't taken the initiative to educate themselves on how to actually utilize Zoom effectively or how to conduct digital lessons properly. This wasn't coming from a place of mere arrogance; years ago, I worked remotely in America for several years. It wasn't some hobbyist endeavor; I was working professionally in content creation and social media management. Through that work, I learned a great deal—most notably that presenting knowledge in a physical classroom is fundamentally different from doing so over the internet, even if many people mistakenly believe the two are interchangeable. The teachers I spoke to didn't take my critique particularly well at first. However, the tone shifted when I told them that I actually felt a sense of pity for them personally. It truly is a struggle; they are clearly suffering because they are attempting to force traditional, analog teaching methods into a digital space where they simply don't fit.

I feel compelled to share a few thoughts on this matter. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes worry that my tendency toward sincerity might come across as overly earnest, but I believe certain topics demand nothing less than a direct and heartfelt approach. It is my sincere hope that we can navigate these discussions with the gravity they deserve. kaže:
Furthermore, as much as I may harbor deep skepticism toward our institutions, my disdain for anti-intellectualism—or more specifically, this pervasive tendency to dismiss expertise and scientific rigor—is even greater.

Instead of focusing on education, we should shift our attention toward healthcare, law enforcement, the military, religious institutions, and sports.

I cannot speak for everyone else here, but as a parent of two, I find myself wondering about the scope of this discussion. Is our focus strictly limited to the American school system and formal education, or can we broaden the conversation to encompass more? Furthermore, I am curious about which age groups we should be addressing—are we strictly discussing elementary and high school, or should we also include the college years?

I could certainly argue that being uneducated isn't the issue, but as you've already pointed out, it isn't quite the same thing. To illustrate my point, I know a few people who arrived here with very high levels of education. For instance, there is an acquaintance of mine from back home who works as a software engineer at Amazon. When he first started, his salary was two or three times higher than what the average skilled worker earns in a role that doesn't require any advanced credentials—jobs where you could hold a PhD and it wouldn't make a lick of difference, such as being a truck driver or a mechanic. Because this programmer was pulling in a minimum of $100,000 a year (and honestly, if we factor in bonuses and perks, it’s likely at least 15% higher, though I won't get bogged down in the weeds), he was able to purchase his own home after only two years in the States. Meanwhile, others in those lower-paying roles, perhaps earning closer to $35,000 or $40,000 annually, have to wait much longer—if they even want to buy. Banks don't look at your diploma when approving a mortgage, of course, but in the end, having that degree does play a role because it provides significantly better employment stability and opportunities for professional growth.

I find myself reflecting on the concept of water parks lately. There is something inherently nostalgic yet surprisingly complex about them. While they are often marketed as simple venues for family fun, I cannot help but view them through a more analytical lens. One must consider the sheer logistical undertaking required to maintain such massive aquatic installations safely and efficiently. It is quite an impressive feat of engineering, really. kaže:
Foucault held a deeply skeptical view regarding formal education and our modern institutions; to him, they functioned as nothing more than sophisticated extensions of the prison system.

It is my sincere belief that schools serve the exact same social functions as prisons or psychiatric institutions: their true purpose is to define, classify, control, and regulate individuals.

On also held a PhD, which allowed him to spend quite a bit of time at various universities across the US and even in France, where he served as a lecturer. 😁 If we take this statement into its proper context, one might conclude that Foucault actually missed the mark. He really should have looked more closely at his own experience with AIDS—not to mention the way he seemed almost to mock the whole situation, only to ultimately succumb to it in the end.

That isn't quite the crux of the matter, though perhaps it isn't the primary issue today either. Schools have been a fundamental pillar of human civilization since time immemorial. In my estimation, the more significant challenge lies in our need to fundamentally reform the educational system rather than attempting to abolish it entirely or replace it with something else altogether.

The topic should remain universal—after all, philosophy itself is universal.
We're talking specifically about schooling here. Education is a fundamental human right. As for this "philosophy" that calls for stripping those rights away—it needs a much more thorough explanation in a new opening post, provided it isn't just someone trolling.

copperhound12 said:

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)

That last quote is problematic for me.

Regarding schooling (and let's be clear, I mean schooling, not education)—I believe it is essential to respect and study our traditions. Our tradition includes the university system (which spans about a millennium). Without those universities—the school system—Western civilization wouldn't even know what Rome was, and literacy would have been restricted to the clergy. That isn't an ideal I support.
Furthermore, as much as I might dislike my own views on institutions, I have an even deeper disdain for anti-intellectualism or the dismissal of knowledge and science.
Someone who hasn't even looked at a book's bibliography—especially if they haven't been guided by someone who actually knows how to read such texts—shouldn't be attempting to interpret scientific problems or content. It isn't socially responsible.

Also, I don't see why you aren't bringing Ivan Illich’s arguments into this. He’s a solid author, and he wrote "deschooling," if my memory serves.

Pornography doesn't always have to be about sex—though, let's face it, that’s usually where the lower classes find their fix—it can just as easily be about food prep, cooking, or sitting down for lunch...

After all, what is a reality show if not just another flavor of pornography?

We can take this concept as far as we want...

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...

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...?

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.

copperhound12 said:-------------------

And you think you have some sort of valid point when you attack me personally? Calling my arguments "ad hominem" is just a weak, unprovable deflection on your part.☕

I do respect your points. However, they are manifestly obvious, superficial, and lack depth. Education and upbringing are meant to shape students, and that responsibility falls on authoritative teachers. Robert K. Merton was a renowned author and sociologist who always sought to investigate latent motives. Because those hidden drivers are far more significant when it comes to the institutionalization of any organization or institution—and believe me, they exist here too. So, what are they?

I'm not going to sit here and list every single narrative for you, but basically, most of what I've read can be found in the works published here in America, such as "The Negation of Institution" by Franc Basaglia, and "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.

To put it bluntly, the conceptual machinery of society demands a social reality that is acceptable and suitable to itself. It then INSTITUTIONALIZES that reality. Every phenomenon and every specific arrangement falls under the umbrella of social control. To me, that is the only legitimate, serious argument that truly touches upon anthropology, sociology, and philosophy.

"A child does not internalize the world of significant others as one of many possible worlds; they internalize it as the only existing and only understandable world. This is precisely why the world internalized during primary socialization is embedded much more deeply than the worlds internalized during secondary socialization. (Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, p. 161, "The Social Construction of Reality")"

You're mashing together functionalist theories with interactionist ones. It makes zero sense how you claim they support each other—and frankly, I don't see the connection between your point about primary socialization at the end and your opening remark about latent motives.

wearyharbor41 said:I wonder if you have ever paused to consider that there are gifted children—even entire generations—who fully develop their intellect by the time they reach middle school? To them, being forced into a rigid academic structure feels much like forcing an adult to endure unnecessary burdens that serve no purpose in their life. Have you truly reflected on the fact that these children are human beings with their own inherent rights, entitled to be free from coercion? One might even ask how much systemic harm this educational model has inflicted upon both students and their parents alike.

Rather amusing, really.

Nobody reaches maturity in elementary school—and calling it "intellectual development" isn't even the right way to put it, since we don't go to school just to develop our "intellect."

If someone actually wants to offer a coherent critique of the American education system, they’re welcome to try—but they need to provide a viable alternative.
Illiteracy isn't an alternative to education.