Social Uplift Meta-Elements

The American philosopher of the late 19th Century, C. S. Pierce admonished his contemporaries not to impede nor stand in the way of science.  This was a radical position to take since the achievements of science and technology had not yet permeated society.  As things were done by grandpappy, and were successful at that, so things ought to be done--the philosophy of his contemporaries.  However, I believe the admonishment amounts to a profound statement about the conditions of cultural progress since the mid-Nineteenth Century to today: if you, member of society, can't contribute to contemporary cultural achievement and by your actions add to the cultural gain, then get out of the way!  Become a spectator.  Don't be a drag on the societal flight to greater and greater heights--the social uplift.

Typically, a worker or a manager or a CEO is involved in working for social betterment and, if nothing else, applying scientific knowledge through technology.  But conditions arise in his bio which force the individual into a spectator role, abandoning his position as an involved contributor to society's betterment.  I shall argue at that juncture in a person's life he becomes a candidate for receiving the advantages afforded him through some social program, e.g., Social Security.  But I am getting ahead of myself.  Let's examine the meta-elements at play in social uplift.

The Meta-Elements  

1.  The promise. There's a societal promise that some social program exists for every individual which will sustain him as bystander of significant movement toward social uplift.  He is not being forgotten nor tossed aside.

You will recall that in England centuries ago debtors were put in prison and many prisoners were hanged.  There was no social program for them to go into; no one welcomed them.  Today's promise by society-on-the-march to those who are the bystanders to social progress is: we've got a place for you where you won't be in the way!

2.  The acceptance.  The individual, aware that he is unable to contribute to efforts leading to progress (a contribution defined as the production of a good or service used by others in the progress-progression), and having found a social program that is right for him, must apply for admittance into it.  He needs to gather the data and documents that show he qualifies for the program, i.e., meets the program requirements.  If he does not succeed the first time to gain admittance, he ought not despair but go through the appeal process that each program offers.  The acceptance process necessarily entails dialogue and communication between applicant and social agency.

3.  Areas of societal advancement.  With the individual's adherence to the terms of some bystander role he has assumed, there ought to be an obvious social gain in that area in which the individual had been performing.  If lacking that, the individual might be justified to seek his former professional status in the work pool.  For, social-uplift implies societal advancement toward social, visionary goals.

4. Provisions for breakdown of the uplift system.  If it turns out that there's more bystanders-people than contributors-people to social-uplift, an evaluation of society's commitment to its stated visionary goals is in order.  Those that can contribute to bringing about the vision are needed to do so, but if there's simply no enthusiasm and dedication among the societal members, whether as avowed contributor or accepted bystander, the goals themselves must be questioned and if necessary abandoned.

5.  Utopian vision pursued.  Significant problems in the way of reaching societal goals must be overcome as signs of progress such that the ends are continually in view.  A number of societal goals make up a utopian vision of what is being brought about by human ingenuity and dedicated endeavors.  The ultimate world-view is one that sustains human life on the planet and maintains friendly environments fit for mankind. This set of utopian ends must be open to revision and even re-direction as progress towards them continues.   

   


 






 

Social Uplift Format

This topic is the last in the social-X series (I think).  And it's certainly the most controversial in American politics today!

The Republicans argue on the basis of the social contract that helping others should be limited, because there's no reciprocity--nothing in return.  The social contract is the idea of tit-for-tat, I do something for you and you do something for me.  And, there's penalties if the one party to the contract renigs.  Included in the topic is the idea of the dole--the true handout.  Now it may be alright to offer 'aid' to African 'backward' people from whatever motive, according to a certain line of reasoning, but it is certainly not right to offer what are regarded by Democrats as social services to people in this country.  Also included in the topic is the concept of re-distribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor, who haven't earned it and probably will never be able to pay anything back.

Also included are the whole range of social programs including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--in Republican parlance, programs that offer the poor financial gains they don't really deserve.  Just gifts to the 'dregs,' as Republicans I think believe in their heart of hearts.

Under this topic, aid to disaster is sometimes brought into question:  how about the nations of the world fitting the bill?  How about the government financial bailouts?  Germany is bearing the brunt of Greece's financial woes.  Is that fair?

Well, we'll look at these issues in light of the social contract principle, which admittedly is at the heart of the English tradition, adopted by the founders of the US; and the ultimate basis for dispute between Republicans and Democrats!  Ultimately, I argue, the principle is flawed because it understates the progress of today's society and the dynamics of social change toward cultural progress we are witnessing.  iPod anybody?