[DISCUSSION] Detachment from conditioned social structures

Before engaging a discourse on this topic, one has to understand the underlying hypothesis or premiss I am handling for this issue:


Premiss:

People are conditioned by many factors, may that be through personal experiences, education, state ideologies, beauty trends, and so on. In other words: The social environment in its completeness and complexity influences people in many ways, shapes their psychological patterns and conditions them to believe in ideas, philosophical and political constructs, norms, and so on.



Example:

One example would be the socio-structural element of the "democratic ideal". Democracy is - seen from the viewpoint of a planet experiencing two brutal world wars originating from absolute or totalitarian systems - put on a socket and personated as the ideal form of state/government. Often to a point that democracy as we know it is regarded as a flawless political system and not as another sort of absolute ideology man has to subjugate himself to. Constitutions are seen as invariable documents of truth and righteousness and must be defended at all costs to ensure personal freedom, freedom of speech, and so on.



Elaboration:

What got me thinking is, that people are almost franticly clinging to such social constructs - just like I did. As a sociology-student, the German constitution and "Rechtsstaat" (state of law) were untouchable, holy principles for me. I still believe in principles like personal freedom, freedom of speech and such, yet it has become quite apparent that there are flaws in such a system. Simply think of the 5%-hurdle for parties during the elections, which make an exact representation of the people's will impossible. Or think of disenchantment with politics and the indifference of people regarding taking part in the political process - which basically makes democracy inoperative. Or just think of lobbyism, which acts against the principle of égalité.

I think it becomes quite clear what I am aming at here:
We became used to democracy, to lobbyism, to a capitalist-banking-system, etc. in a way that we are (sub)consciously bound to these social and political constructs. Just as we adapt to the idea that there is a terroristic threat to (Western) society. Or the idea that you have to obtain a master-degree in order to be a valuable and above all functional part of society.

Anyway, let's get back to the core questions I am asking myself:


Questions

1. Do we need to detach from social constructs in order to achieve improvement/development/change? If yes, in what way?

2. How can one realize this detachment on both a practical and theoratical level?

3. Can people detach from their habitat at all? Will this lead to threats/chaos? Or is this a necessity that needs to happen?




[to be continued as far as this is posted from my workspace ;-)]

Note: This is just my opinion
Questions

1. Do we need to detach from social constructs in order to achieve improvement/development/change? If yes, in what way?
Yes. Or at least create or find a social construct which is not so easily influential. Most "western" societies are individualistic and use the media to (mis)"inform" you about certain things. Of course this is needed to control a nation on the scale as they exist nowadays (i.e. before propaganda, bigger nations had trouble uniting for a cause).

To achieve improvement, or at least a change, one must spend ones whole life as a hardworking citizen and even then their political/decisive power is limited, and real long term change is only achieved at a limited and (too) slow rate. The social construct is based on what politicians deemed best at their time, and sure it might have been good enough at one time, but its the top of the hierarchy that keeps on to the illusions that this is a permanent state of existence and who will not, or only gradually, accept a change. The people who have the resources to stop change will most often do so if it is in their interest, so if any of the changes are against someones agenda one will have a hard time at getting this change through.

Therefore I believe its easier to collect whatever you have left and motivate other like minded people to do the same. Then find a country with less influential bullshit, were a society still cares for the common good instead of the individualistic view. Or at least find a country which gives a lot of liberties to the way people live.

2. How can one realize this detachment on both a practical and theoratical level?
Practical level - Hardest thing is to start and get going. Planning is the first and longest stage. Everything has to be taken into account; if you want to create a happy alternative society/community you will have to go about the whole thing as detailed as if you would make a business plan. Either way, the most important points are finding a location with sufficient liberties and low risk of interference, making sure that everyone involved has the same idea and has discussed their idea or perspective on things with the rest of the people involved (this is best done in group and individual talks as people react different in different situations - this should be accounted for throughout the project, after all the good vibe is an important factor for the long term live of a community).

Theoretical level - Whoever plans the community should set up a committee made up by whomever is fit to do so (i.e. through expertise, voted or investment etc.). This committee should theorize and decide on the political and social actions introduced in the community (inc. deciding the political system that should be used).. of course others will have a say, but its easier for a small group to communicate and efficiently run things than for a massive one.

As do the political system itself....
For economics:
I was thinking of a resource based economy with own currency (only used inside the community), this way we have tighter control on wealth share. Everyone should get a basis pay either way, but everyone also has to fulfill a couple of hours work every day (4?), this will have various exclusions (e.g. older people and people with specific jobs such as teacher).

People get the option to work on own projects or community projects and will be paid according to the help it does to the community and the work put into it (who decides the correct amount is still a mystery to me.. would have to find a fair way).

The people will be able to exchange the currency into the national currency at any time, in case they need anything from outside. They money obtained for exchange is gained by the community through tourism (this is just a thought for bigger communities.. or the late future    ). The bigger the community the easier it would be to offer enough services to fulfill the needs of the people living there as well as allowing the community to offer a value proposition so that visiting tourists actually change their money.

As to the political...I have no clue.. I dont believe in democracy too much, it works in some ways, and should be used for various decisions, yet i believe that to prosper and work well a community or political system would have to have a long term plan that would only be interrupted by changing heads of state. I think Id want a committee of people who can in extreme cases be voted off, but that at the same time they would due to their expertise, character and community spirit not be changed so quickly).

3. Can people detach from their habitat at all? Will this lead to threats/chaos? Or is this a necessity that needs to happen?

Depends on the people you talk about.. some are glad to leave, some just look for a chance, others are happy, others are unhappy but dont want to leave, others dont know what they want until they lose it etc. etc. We are complicated beings... A community should open up the doors and show people that it is not to hard to find change in their lifes.. and show them that there are alternatives to any problems one has  ^^ the moment someones perspective has changed to a positive outlook on their own lifes in relation to others, the community has done its job.

Necessity to happen? Necessity is a philosophical stand point.. enviromentalist says its necessary, scientists say its probably necessary, the mass says it has worked until now nothing can be wrong.. so theres many different opinions ^^

I say its necessary for the human race to survive longer than it would if it continues on the course it is now.