fashion

There is something about people that makes us act together. This gives us greater power. We can undertake great projects, defend our lands and use our resources more efficiently. We can build the pyramids, create the Roman Empire, and transform scientific research into the everyday structure of our lives. But to do this we must think as a group.

Perhaps we only exist because our ancestors were better at working together to our evolutionary advantage. Therefore it is no surprise that we have a pronounced need to conform. This both protects us by allying ourselves to the strength of greater numbers, and also allows us to coordinate our actions for goals beyond the capacity of an individual. Even fashion in clothing is a group behaviour resulting in greater efficiency in production and distribution. Once established,however, a fashion industry then acts to reinforce the mass behaviour from which it profits. Of course there must be a few independent thinkers to steer this army of conformism, the celebrated designers who we look to for guidance in the most acceptable methods to cover our nakedness.

This desire to belong must explain such phenomena as the religious conversions of whole countries - in theory, this requires the otherwise unlikely simultaneous recognition by millions of people that their philosophy of the nature of existence is flawed and that only one particular alternate interpretation is likely to be correct. These changes have not always been forced upon people by war although such mass changes in thinking have certainly contributed to wars. Eight million people are thought to have died in the Thirty Years War of 1618-1648. Much, though by no means all, of the impetus in the conflict derived from the new Protestant ideas such as Lutheranism and the newer Calvinist thinking which spread rapidly through the central countries of Europe, just as Christianity itself once had done. Ideas do not necessarily proliferate to the advantage of their believers. Their creation of a common community of thought seems to be more powerful than personal well-being. So group belief can be an overwhelming social force, but ripe for manipulation by anyone in search of influence, power, or money.

What would you say if I offered you my product for which you would pay for the privilege of damaging your health, causing cancer, as well as lung and arterial disease without any compensating benefit? It would damage the health of your family and place a burden on the whole of society. Yet with the help of advertising and nothing more to gain than the profits of a few companies our society accepted this insane offer to smoke. No wonder we accepted Nazism, Fascism and Jim Jones. To be fair we also sustain the group endeavours of a functioning society such as health, education and transport systems, so we can't entirely abandon the basis of our social cohesion. But if we want to succeed against destructive group behaviours such as rising obesity, addictions and racism we need to either use the tools of mass manipulation or try to foster greater independent thought. Some form of Social Anarchism or Social Ecology is good in theory but would probably fail like communism and other political theories in the real world of greed, ambition, guns and paranoia as the "celebrated designers" hijack the compliant multitudes for their own gain.