Reading: The Sacred Canopy (P. Berger): Ch. 1 Religion and World Construction (Day 2)

p 16."It is possible to sum up the dialectic formation of identity by saying that the individual becomes that which he is addressed by others"

- This isn't a critique of individuality, but it does point to a different conception of individuality, one that calls into question the notion of an autonomous being. Assuming identity is a fluid process, that continuously changes, it would seem to say as others change the way they address an individual, so would that individual's identity shift. So how and why would others change they way they address an individual? Significant shifts in one's society of friends and colleagues could cause such a shift in identity (getting a new job, embarking upon a new career, joining an organization),. This points to the phenomenon that identity is a shared experience variable by social environment. This then points to the power that institutions have in shaping identity. This marks a shift in the conception of identity and points to the power that institutions have in shaping individuals. In radical forms of individuality where the individual and institution exist in a state of continual strife (the individual demands ultimate freedom, whereas the institution demands fidelity), this experience of identity as shared would be to be overcome. In light of this analysis, what sense does it make to call a society conformist (May - The discovery of being, Whtye - the organization man, Marcuse - One-dimensional man)? What are these thinkers seeing as the conformist trend in institutions? Is it a change in late capitalism where the notion of the individual makes no sense? Does this then offer the interpretive possibilty that Maslow and other humanistic thinkers, reassert the value of individuality against "de-humanizing" trends in late capitalist society? What vision of society did these thinkers posit as an alternative? In some sense, they were looking to replace the old religious culture with a new secular, therapeutic one. The new culture would be spiritual, but not dogmatic; feeling not rationalizing; sensitive not harsh; accepting not judging; free not conformist. But still the question persists: what does it mean to be conformist? Marcuse would say in Eros and Civilization that conformism would develop out of a misunderstood vision of the possibilities of human freedom and liberation. He would point to the idea that technology has made such gains in life that man should have at his disposable more leisure time, less toil and suffering - and ultimately more freedom. He would argue that the only thing preventing this new reality from emerging is the global disproportionate distribution of wealth and resources. In other word domination inherent in our social situation would seem the culprit.