Social or Rational?

What are the relations insofar between individuals- are they social or are they rational? Social is the glue that ties the interest together. Culture allows the networks to be built hence facilitating for the articulation of mutually-beneficial interest.

But the ties that bind together is ultimately material interest- social ties built on sociability more likely than not degenerate into power relationships. Social roles based on form than on function- more often than not result in exploitation and greed. Altruism and benevolence in such context are likely to be random and self-motivated. Charity in such context too appear to be procurement of goodwill hence enhancing and thereby entrenching existing social roles as opposed to uplifting of social strata.

Hence social roles based on function or in other words, a team: would have to find an enemy. A team without a goal or objective is more likely to be of the above paragraph. A team without a goal and objective, would kill themselves over existing spoils rather than growing them. A team with ambiguous team roles, would often result in disorientation and disillusion.

Hence each team member more often play for themselves rather than for the team. In such context, then, individuality counts for alot more. The ability rather then supporting each other in the accomplishment of each other's roles hence enhancing the team effort would be one of emotional control rather than of camaraderie. Jealousy and envy is bound to happen: hence the ability to focus on the utilitarian aspect is of utmost importance in ensuring that team goals are accomplished: which is to win.

Such a team would require one of utmost ethical standards as the ability to discern right from wrong as opposed to sociability is paramount to that finding the common "enemy". The enemy is therefore not the "Other" but rather yourself.

We win on the basis of individual decisions rather than of collective normative objective. Hence such a team if done correctly are often much admired as they are proven to be worthy individuals- and the resulting effect therefore is an accumulation of often spectacular team capital.

Therefore in order to foster such a team: the irony lies not in making the best decision to win but rather how do we include sociability into the calculus of each individual team member's decisions. Insofar that we are not perfect players, we do need to play to the strength rather than the weakness of each team member.

Hence a team often traverse between what is important: to win and how to win. One cannot do without the other.

Therefore the debate would continue then that whether are we ultimately rational and calculative individuals or are we just blind fools. We are blind fools only insofar that we have no yearning to win- like a cute and innocent baby-, we are cold-blooded, rational creatures only when we realise survival is the final test.

But the question remains: if we are cold-blooded lizards, what then of little children whom have been born for a couple of millennial? 

The tension between self-interest and that of social reciprocity is a debate we faced every single day. We often shelved that unknowingly to the social roles that we have been practicing for our entire live. But what of genocides, mass killings, racism, xenophobic killings on the basis of social reciprocity- did anyone dictate that role for us? Are we that blind to kill someone for physical characteristics is wrong.

I leave it to you to think: are we complicit in this discrimination everyday?