Lockean Approaches Won’t Repair Declining Social Cohesion

Who can explain the malaise of declining social cohesion?

There is much talk about why people aren’t getting along as much nowadays, as much as they did 15 years ago. What can be said about that? Well here’s my explanation about that!

People were more co-operative with each other and more self-regulating over their behaviour, in the past. Like for example, if a person was crossing the road and the oncoming car was far away, it would slow down metres away from the person when the person was far away. People could also smile at each other in the street or ask each other for the time, without looking a scruffy drunk vagabond who cannot formulate a coherent sentence. Whatever changed?

  • Women
  • LGBT
  • Race
  • Disability

What does it mean to be british? If you’re a politician who is implementing the Prevent Scheme, which expanded into the Prevent Duty and Prevent Curriculum, you would think that it means the cyberpunk insulated watchtower values of democracy, peace, tolerance and liberty – things that are too angelic and utopian to dissuade even the most quaint awestruck egalitarian. The sociology I would have learnt if I had bothered to revise for my GCSE qualifications beforehand, was that there are social values which unite everyone in a country by one woven thread.

That would of been drinking tea, liking the queen and playing scrabble but since World War Two, at the sheer amount and rapid rate of inflation, too quick to allow the previous batch of immigrants to become accustomed to the culture, social facts are now a thing of the past, so it’s all gone pretty much all subcultural. However lots of people who claim to act like a subculture, with their dabbling dalliance interest of a hobby behind their glossy veneer, with them predictably ostentatiously socially signalling so by their fashion style, topical repertoire or verbal vernacular, they are often not, well the ones who signal the most often aren’t anyway. Carbon dioxide to all posers!

We need to look beyond the Intersectionality Model, as good as it is

There is much said about intersectionality and privilege. Yes I do agree there. I would not say that the only thing that matters is economics, social class and money. There is more to it than that.

Intersectionality has its place in society

To refrain from posting blog articles and youtube videos of other people’s opinions, it’s that everyone is born with certain life chances and certain potential opportunities which can either be seized or wasted.

The most important of these, the penultimate opportunity and the penultimate conflict, that’ll most likely happen before a person has reached 30, also provides importance towards the trajectory of someone’s life, for whether they can capitalise on what their life chances and potential impending opportunities gave them.

People are deprived opportunities due to discrimination and the like, of which they otherwise would not have to had unforegone opportunities, if such discrimination, oppression and repression did not exist. I’ve experienced discrimination due to sabotage myself, those from infoprying cartels and those from domestic abuse situations.

It all sounds bleak and cold to say it like that but I am a cynical person. I just think that when it comes to making the most of the opportunities of your life, although having money is important, it’s often not the only thing that must be possessed, either within yourself isolonary, in the micro scale of your peers or the macro scale of wider society?

When people get older and have regrets about the opportunities they wasted and their ambitions that they never tried, along with them regretting choosing the wrong options, a lot of it has nothing to do with money. This is where the concept of privilege then enters the equation.

Stop blaming social media for this

I’m tired of people blaming social media (or social networks) for every social ill that is sprawled out as a socially patterned thing, if those issues existed before that.

  • Negative body image and unrealistic beauty standards]
  • Cyberbullying and trolling
  • Misinformation and fake news
  • Objectification of women
  • Echo chambers and filter bubbles
  • And whatever else….

I’m pretty sure that these issues, existed before social media!

My classic diagram

Phase 1: No naysayer, friendship isn’t transitive

Here’s a good article that went viral about the Five Geek Social Fallacies.

Emphasis on this part….

Friendship Is Transitive: all your friends can and should be friends with each other. Any idea of incompatibility due to conflicting interests, subcultures, and/or politics is inherently wrong.

Friends Do Everything Together: everybody should be invited and included in every gathering. To not attend an event or suggest somebody shouldn’t be invited due to logistics or conflicting interests is inherently wrong.

The article is talking in the context of sexual harassment, sexism and toxic masculinity.
However I shared the example in the context of subcultures or whatever other social circle, to do with Social Cohesion.

Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario.

Imagine if I have 2 social circles, X and Y, to then have the church community I’m in, claim that “friends do everything together” and that I should invite the entire group of the church (15 people), into BOTH of the social circles I’m in, X and Y

“Friends do everything together”, they’d say
“Friendship is transitive”, they’d say

What if I was to warn them…..

Be warned that for this subculture stuff, that there’s preliminary conditions and counter-social values for it

Be warned that if you are incongruent, for example for acting like a diplomat, that it can hinder your chances of making friends in these social circles, even though it has nothing to do with your conversation topics or opinions

To then have the person say….

That’s not true. That’s a load of nonsense.

Then they fail to heed the advice and fail to listen to me.

Of course they would disagree with me, as they would believe in these 4 things.

  1. Citizen of the world, decoder of territories
  2. You become it once you say it, only nasty shaming gatekeepers say otherwise
  3. The Big Tent theory
  4. Horseshoe Theory

This is why I disagree with those lockeans, who tell me that there is no such thing as a person’s identity, who make lots of illusionary arguments (I use empericalism), as if it’s some Salvador Dali painting with the walls melting with questions like

  • Was mathematics always invented or always there built into the universe?
  • When one person and another person looks at the colour red and the other green, how do we know that they’re not seeing the colours, the wrong way round?
  • How do we know that the letters of the alphabet are in the right order?
  • When is a door not a door? When it’s a jar.

This is where Personal Identity Theory, fails and where Social Identity Theory, succeeds

This is where lockean theory fails and where kantian theory, succeeds.

Phase 2: No naysayer, the correct Identity Theory should be prefixed with Social, not Personal

Liberals have a thing called Personal Identity Theory, which means that are demographic descriptors of someone’s identity, especially the invisible mental ones like subculture, interest, knowledge, identity and region, that it’s all a social construct. That the way to become a certain demographic or categorical descriptor of identity, is to simply IMAGINE it then you become it.

  • Personal Identity Theory: the liberal version
  • Social Identity Theory: the conservative version

Another intuitively appealing view, championed by John Locke, holds that personal identity is a matter of psychological continuity.

Some commentators believe that there are no informative, non-trivial persistence conditions for people, that is, that personal persistence is an ultimate and unanalyzable fact
(cf. Chisholm 1976; Lowe 1996; Merricks 1998; Shoemaker & Swinburne 1984).

personal identity from the internet encyclopedia of philosophy

Instead of

I think…therefore I am

Now it’s

I believe I am it…so therefore I am it

The short explanation using sociopathy, podcasts and subcultures as an analogy

About the question of what causes sociopathy….

There are people in this world who believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a child to be born a sociopath and that if they ever exhibit sociopathic traits, then it’s always 100% because the child was a victim of child abuse from their parents before the age of 7. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!

No matter how much you tell them, they will always disagree.

About the question of what causes personality….

There are people in this world who believe that personality is 100% environmental, ahem, to be more specific for the sake of argument, they believe that when it comes to the SINGULAR personality TRAIT of whether a person is introverted or extroverted, than it is 100% ALWAYS due to the environment. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!!

No matter how much you tell them, they will always disagree.

I’m talking about the context of Social Cohesion about those Social Cohesion Thinktanks.
Even if there was a perfect world where there was no discrimination and stigma against transgenders, those Social Cohesion Thinktanks, would STILL exist.

We can apply that SAME logic with the long explanation below, later yet to be said.

Example One
About the question of subcultures, for the sake of example, hipsters to keep it more simple
There are people out there in this world, that no matter how much you tell them, that hipsters tend to have a pre-liminary conditions (1) and a counter-social value (2), they will ALWAYS DISAGREE and tell you that it’s not true, and even if it is true, that it’s trivial and irrelevant.

No matter how much you tell them, they will always disagree.

Example Two
About the question of being congruent (or incongruent) within the context of someone who acts diplomatic.

Imagine a situation like this

Sun Pat branded peanut butter has more peanuts in it than other brands. Peanut butter sandwiches are tasty and better than cheese sandwiches. Do you want some?

There’s an

  1. Factoid of concrete facts
  2. Assertion of personal opinion
  3. Sentiment (whether mildly or severely positive/negative)
  4. Request or gesture

There are people in this world, who no matter how much you tell them that a person always acting diplomatic could cause them an issue when making friends, they will ALWAYS 100% tell you that it’s not true and that congruence is a non-existent concept and not a real thing. And even if it is real, it’s trivial and irrelevant.

No matter how much you tell them, they will always disagree.

To then expand this even further….
Using the podcast videos above, that have these people in them

  • Almie Rose
  • Melissa Hemsley
  • Katie Kimmel
  • Alexa Chung

If you was to tell them, that if a guest on the podcast, just so happened to always act and speak in a diplomatic way, that it would be counter-productive towards the peer engagement of the podcast, they will ALWAYS 100% disagree and tell you that it’s either not true or even if it is true, that it’s trivial and irrelevant.

No matter how much you tell them, they will always disagree.

Using an annoying diplomat for an analogy

Let’s quote that article from The Guardian

Strikingly, a Black person’s deficit may be minimized or tentatively overcome by a performance, a negotiation, or what some Blacks refer to derisively as a “dance”, through which individual Blacks may be inclined to show white people and others that ghetto stereotypes do not apply to them personally; in effect, they perform for credibility or for acceptance. This performance can be as deliberate as dressing well and speaking in an educated way or as simple as producing an ID or a driver’s license in situations in which this would never be demanded of whites.

What the person is actually referring to is “social coding” but it looks like they didn’t know that there was already a terminology for it. I’ll explain what that means in another article.

People who believe in Personal Identity Theory, which in 2023 tends to be typically liberals, they do NOT acknowledge the various chasms that occur within different people, well not as much as they should do. Because as far as they’re concerned, the following thing are real.

  1. Citizen of the world, decoder of territories
  2. You become it once you say it, only nasty shaming gatekeepers say otherwise
  3. The Big Tent theory
  4. Horseshoe Theory

This prevents them from seeing the REAL problems that occur within the various chasms amongst groups, factions within a group and the conflict within 2 friends due to their differing “emotional ATTAINMENT needs”

What happens if you have a group of people, who are all friends, where similar and anagoulous to what I said above….

  1. They don’t have conversations about topics/events/people
  2. It’s a frivolous conversation, that is often disjointed. The conversation does not have much of “a point”.
  3. There is some significant level of uncertainty to the conversation, much to the detriment of those who hate making prescriptive decisions who would rather prefer a homogenised atmosphere
  4. There is a high level of rapid-fire-rapid-response, so there isn’t much time for a person to be mulling their words over, before they speak

Then someone else, probably a NEWBIE sees them and wants to be friends with them. Let’s imagine that this person has the CONGRUENCE of a DIPLOMAT

The diplomat has the modus operandi of trying to remain ties with both people, at the upmost possible level, to never cause any uncomfortableness or disagreement, in any way, who will go out of their way to appease people and bend over backwards, just to be DIPLOMATIC, much like to give an extreme example, two countries which are allies which suspects their current ally of doing state sponsored hacking with weak and flimsy evidence, who will be DIPLOMATIC by refusing to raise their concerns unless they can gather more stronger and convincing evidence, whereas they would be raising their concerns if it was a hostile country or a neutral-ally country.

How do you move any further with that conversation?

Do you like X?
Do you like Y?
Do you like Z?

Maybe they wouldn’t answer the question but if the question is something like

Scott thought you’d prefer the Cadbury Dairy Milk chocolate bar and Kyle thought you’d prefer the Galaxy chocolate bar? So which one are you going to eat first?

The diplomat would DEFINITELY NOT want to answer that question, despite it being obvious that both gifts would be appreciated, despite the minimal difference between them.

That’s just how the modus operandi of the diplomat, makes them act.

But then for those people who act like that, in those types of conversations (see videos and podcast above for a kind of similar representative example), how do you (or they) move any further with the conversation?

It’s just hard to explain. I just need a better way to explain it.

Phase 3: No naysayer, accommodations for what, when counter-social values met escapist enclaves, for a reason

Most people think that subcultures are just there to provide a shared activity, based on some hobby, intrinsic identity, geographical location, creative ambition or shared knowledge.

However that isn’t fully true, only on a superficial surface level.

I like to think that all subcultures have to be looked at, within the broader picture and cultural backdrop, to understand why they came into existence, in the first place.

  1. Preliminary structural conditions
  2. Counter-social values

So about those hipsters, on a surface level, they just like being a media junkie, holidays abroad and consumerist spending on superfluous superficial convenience or status symbols.

On a surface level, that’s true but on a deeper level, as they have too much time on their hands to know what to do with, along with a high disposable income, for being middle class, them having a lack of DIRECTION in their life as they can just be drifting and be SAFELY doing nothing with their life – that is the REAL embodiment and eptiomisisation of it.

If you take away the preliminary structural conditions (1) and the counter-social values, it then ceases to exist (2)

Me personally, I would say that I’m a hippie and a channer.

There’s a reason why the real counter-social value, that’s beneath the surface, why it’s not posted onto the full-frontal internet

It’s more like it’s for the partial-frontal and non-frontal internet. Well I have the media industry reading my blog, tellonym account and twitter account, like some BBC employee, so traffic wise it’s partial-frontal but literati-wise it’s full-frontal. The people in the media industry and the media loop, read my blog, so I won’t be posting such stuff here, as it’s not supposed to be so public.

Well it’s due to that Evaporative Cooling Theory. If we make it too easy for posers and abusers to masquerade as something they’re not, by putting on a convincing persona, then it makes it harder for the ringleaders and subordinate group members, to spot red flags, posers, abusers, mops and pointless regrettable timesinks.

Phase 4: No naysayer, analysis of the precursor of miscreant behaviour, is one sided, so who’s the real villain?

What is the difference between a reprobate and a miscreant? A reprobate does something that would typically breach the probation conditions that would be legal for a law abiding citizen to do, whereas a miscreant exploits people’s tolerance and docile nature to exploit The Polite Society.


Exacerbating factors to all the four timely phases

Alternative Theories

Companies take advantage of social grievances raised by employees, to deindividualise people

A woman I was talking to on the Talk Life app, told me that it was due to companies taking advantage of employees who raise complaints to Human Resources, in an opportunistic manner so the company could then use such complaints to then de-individualise people. That makes sense to me!

Historical evidence from Henry Ford, backs up her argument. He created the Ford cars company and he was the one who created weekends, as he noticed that on the factory line when assembling parts, that by giving people days off, it resulted in increased productivity by reducing the amount of discarded work that never met Quality Assurance standards. He also created the 40 hour work week and he allowed people to play music at work and wear coloured clothes, to boost productivity. As we now live in a post-industrial society where virtually all of the factories have closed down, with the world of work being much easier and comfortable compared to 100 years ago, employers have swung the pendulum in the opposite direction, to de-individualise people to boost productivity.

One thing I can say, is that school uniforms should be banned. They are designed to make people subservient and docile, so they just accept any supposed factoids without thinking, to make them passive and suggestible. Remember that school is an institution, as people are forced to be there. The only other institution where 100% of the recruits are supposed to wear uniform, is in prison. Not even in all job sectors, does all the staff wear uniform across every company but they do across every school in the country. This reminds me of the Hidden Curriculum.

What is The Hidden Curriculum?

Cancel Culture and Gamergate

Liberalism being swung too far and the censorship and cancel culture going too far. I’m sure that other people have made similar arguments but I’ve not looked much into whatever they said. Maybe I should find some other articles later.

It’s just the internet making people more aware of things

Nobody would know what a microaggression is, if there wasn’t an internet to inform people about it.

my brother

I would agree with that but we can both agree that there’s more reasons for it, than just that.


So that’s my opinion on why social cohesion is declining in the UK. Because it is impossible for anyone to have some sort of hobby group, social circle, social meetup, without having someone else try to infiltrate and hijack it, for the sake of diversity and inclusion, all while inevitably the purpose and values of the space is changed too far, as the pendulum is swung too far.

I don’t feel the need to find real life examples of this as someone else has probably done it, so the information must exist on the internet somewhere.

I would make the conclusion longer but I’ve spent long enough writing these articles, as it is.

Related Posts