In Search of a Word
“Antisocialization.” I am trying to make a word that makes sense in a field where all the words have been repurposed already, and I suspect sabotage.
LOL. Good Lord, what a mess!
I mean, the word “socialization,” is taken, I suppose that would have been the first, most obvious word for my purpose too? Literally, “ize,” is to “make like,” to cause to conform, and “ation,” is the process of doing a thing, so socialization means being made to conform to the social environment.
Of course, that’s fine, we’ll leave that be.
But I certainly don’t intend “antisocialization,” to mean the process of forgetting the social rules, tuning in, turning on and dropping out, it’s not, “anti,” that way.
I pray I’m just a fool with the wrong prefix or suffix, or both, but I fear not.
I think I’ve talked until I forgot my original context, that being “social,” is composed of being some portions of prosocial, neutral, and antisocial, that there are things you are to be for and things you are to be against and things where maybe you can take your pick, or somethings where we need to simply think and be reasonable about, that liking them or not isn’t the point. These three can be said as prosocial, asocial and antisocial, and what about this?
Can we say that if everything is in the neutral zone for you, all simply things with relatively little emotional content for you, that you are relatively asocial, and that the fewer things that are in your neutral zone, the more things that you must love or hate, that you are more social? With the caveat that lacking social pressure, the things in the asocial/neutral zone can be dealt with other ways, one of which would be rationally and logically. Where the society allows, we can think, if we wish.
We are perhaps talking about another spectrum, from asocial, to hypo-social, to something like “normal,” or simply social, to hyper-social.
I am well outside that acceptable social zone here, I think, Autistic. I don’t think any of this is really allowed, that’s why the language is such a problem. Unfortunately all that is allowed is the end of the world, so I am conflicted. Which of these?
The less socially oriented one is, the more things fall into the neutral zone and perhaps we deal with them more coldly, more rationally, and the more socially oriented we are, the fewer things are neutral and get the rational treatment and more things are seen through the social lens, and are either with us or against us, or rather we are pro- or anti- about more things for social reasons, group reasons.
So my antisocialization can serve, mostly because it is not in the dictionary and available, and also because an increase in social behaviour means an increase in antisocial behaviour, I mean perhaps it means both, an increase in prosocial behaviour as well. I don’t think so, but if so, both still means more antisocial behaviour – which in theory is highly visible and a problem and what we ought to be tracking? Honestly, this will be my first try at expressing this, but . . . it is through antisocial behaviour and our responses that we are oriented towards the antisocial and the social. I don’t think an excess of prosocial treatment makes anyone more socially discriminatory. It’s all sort of a Dark Side matter. It’s the Bad Wolf that makes us socially discriminating, love doesn’t do that, the social and antisocial travel together, a package deal . . .
hey, maybe the Good Wolf doesn’t make you good, he just turns down the volume on your social, flattens you out.
Good Lord, do not tell me it’s hyper-socialization I wanted all along. Maybe. Oh my Gawd, it is, isn’t it, that’s what I’m trying to say: abuse makes you hyper-social, makes you define an out-group and want to hurt it. Speaking too soon, I haven’t even googled the word yet. And also – this new one isn’t exactly slogan material, is it, Mommas don’t make your babies too social, isn’t exactly a call to arms.
I’ll find the logic if it’s not all here yet, but the ol’ right brain is already satisfied. Antisocialization is the process of becoming more intensely social. It sounds backwards but doesn’t it all. Just remember that the more social we are, the more antisocial we are also, that it’s all one, not opposites – the very error of group dynamics again, to confuse the same as opposites, somehow.
New on Jan 28th., 2024:
Maybe solving this question, or at least reinforcing the rationale:
Hyper-socialization is right. Still a harder sell, but I’ve figured out that it is indeed a push to both ends of social, I’ve found the prosocial part.
It’s a thing I say in a different rant quite often, that you can overdo empathy, that in fact, racism is a matter of too much empathy for our “own people,” so that we forgive our own people for crimes that destroy the world.
So hyper-sociality in the extreme is Nazism and the like, supremacy movements and pogroms, with little neutrality in evidence and too much antisocial behaviour going on, violence and such, accompanied with too much empathy for the people committing those crimes from their own communities.
Sound familiar now?
Like why TF America cannot hang its violently racist traitors?
So yes, I’m afraid, technically, it’s creating hyper-sociality I rant about – but still doesn’t sound alarm bells – and they still add up to anti, like multiplying positive and negative numbers, the product is negative.
I suspect all terminology has these issues, but I’m hurting, feeling weak.
I must say I have been wondering what the Hell group dynamics was talking about with their suggestions of prosocial behaviour within the group for a very long time.
Jeff
Jan. 26th., 2024
Abuse with an Excuse 