These days we hear a lot about polarization; contrasting groups fighting against each other. Occasionally (too often for my taste) we introduce laws that restrict personal freedoms to favour our collective rights. The problem with that is that each individual is an individual, and not a collective organism; and strains to be free, and live, as they judge correct.
This past week I heard a CBC program talking about the Lost Boys experiment that took place in the 1950s in an attempt to determine if the boys could be induced to hate each other to the point of violence. We may shudder at the horrifying nature of the research, but we have to remember that our society had just emerged from the unthinkable atrocities of the Second World War. There was a legitimate interest in trying to sort out how an educated society could commit the atrocities of Hitler's Germany.
A bit of further research found, on the British Phychological Society website, a bit of an explanation, (paraphrasing significantly): "In the experiment, called "The Robber's Cave Experiment" the boys could indeed be made to hate each other, but when working toward a common goal, such as solving a water shortage, they were found to make peace with each other. This was used to support the idea of the 'necessary collectivistic nature' when studying human relationships."
Apparently, Muzafar Sherif, the author of the study, believed that a common goal would eliminate self-interested hatred and conflict. He was sympathetic to Marxism. I wish he could have studied the Old Colony, or Old Order, Mennonites, which by then had established semi-collective communities in Canada and in several South American countries. These communities operate in Marxist, collectivist, fashion, except they are not atheist. (Their nominal "religion" is actually used as the "opiate for the people" in order to keep them under "control.")
But, I digress. Why didn't Sherif study those who had actually lived in a collectivist community like the Old Colony Mennonites? Maybe he didn't know about them, or about their system of governing themselves? Possibly, he tried to, but was rebuffed. Why didn't, don't, researchers study actual communities which practice a form of collectivism, and have done so for years? Why do researchers have to resort to trying to simulate a collective environment?
Because they wouldn't be allowed in to study these actual "collective" communities. That should tell researchers something. Perhaps, to allow an outsider in, would threaten their survival. If an outsider would be let in, I can guarantee you that the methods, rules, and customs, used to sustain the collective nature of their lifestyles would be shocking to anyone used to a decent amount of personal freedom.
If you have thought collectivism may be the answer to the current polarization in the Western World, I would encourage you to study those who have lived it. The books widely read, with beautiful women and pastoral landscapes on their covers, tell romantic tales of those living in these Mennonite (or Amish) communities, and give a decidedly rosy picture of life there. Instead, next time you meet someone with a Mennonite name, ask them their story, or their grandparent's story. Some may have lost the story about life in these communities, but some will remember.
