I've started and abandoned several comments on this piece. Mostly because my own thinking isn't too clear, but one comment I've consistently had is that I think you are oversimplifying the lives of our ancestors. I also think there is or needs to be a distinction in terms between bureucratized and systematized. To my mind the bureaucratization is the imposition of an administrative system where there need be none.
My more salient comment though I think comes in to try to explain why hero narratives endure. First is the preference for people to be able to identify in some way with the story. A story about a multitude of systems and their interactions is not inspiring or relatable. We can see this in our own non-fiction stories. It is far more accurate to describe the early warning network of agents during the revolutionary war, but far more romantic to retell the 'one if by land, two if by sea' midnight ride of Paul Revere. To capture our imagination and attention a story has to have a protagonist (it is much more inspiring if there is a single antagonist). I think this is partly why the WEF has become a bit of a lightning rod on the right. Yes, they are operating through a vast network of systems and probably aren't collecting their thoughts in some secret back room meeting like a Simpsons-esque Republican party, but having Klaus Schwab as a figurehead to whom we can tie the multitude of bad WEF ideas makes a useful story in which we can all play a small hero arc.
I'll end this here because I feel like I'm getting a bit rambly, I think you're on the right track with the notion of a poly system, but there will be an art to packaging it in such a way that the masses find compelling.
I agree with your point about characterisation: a story needs characters, and people will go to great lengths in order to find them because they strengthen a particular narrative.
All historical narratives must simplify history; whether this is 'oversimplifying' or not depends on whether the conclusions extracted are incompatible with the history discussed. I agree that one could go into much more depth about the history of stories, but in the interest of brevity I believe I've done the appropriate amount of simplification. If you think there are specific points of oversimplification, though, I'll happily consider them.
I'll consider the argument for a distinction between bureaucracies and systems; my initial instinct is that the two processes amount to the same thing, but there may be useful differences in the patterns of proliferation of each. Which I will think about.
It was an excellent piece, not trying to poke holes.
My point wasn't as much about simplifying as it was about the value of characters. It would be much shorter to write the whole truth (a night watch saw the British approach and warned the parish through the messengers network the revolutionaries had established) than to romanticize Paul Revere's ride. Historians obviously know that pulling a character will make the story memorable and indeed even if you need to add a half page of pointless story the value of having a compelling and memorable character makes it worth it (we obviously agree here). Where we may not agree is that the value of a character will force stories towards oversimplifications. I think we are seeing this in real time with the WEF. Klaus Schwab as a stand in for the global elite raises two problems. 1) The anti-WEF types do not fully realize the extent of the hydra they are up against, and 2) The pro-WEF types have an easier time dismissing the anti-WEF because no, Klaus Schwab is not personally responsible for x,y,z that he has been accused of. That's a conspiracy.
To my mind, a "system" will become as encompassing and large as is useful for people that are involved with it (could think of the phone system becoming more complex but we've ditched party lines and we need longer phone numbers because there are so many individual phones, these are useful innovations but they do add complexity), whereas a "bureaucracy" will expand as much as it can whether there is a purpose or not. One of my favourites is that I grew up near a military base and in March we were treated to several weeks of live fire and explosive munition exercises. Why? Because these were useful training activities for the officers and grunts on base? No. Because if they didn't spend their budget it would not be increased the next year and may in fact be decreased. The same thing happens in bureaucracies with staff. I have budget to hire? My question is not "is there something useful this person could do?" It's "what work could I make up to have a new hire do?" The people they interface with may have more "work" to do after I hire them (even if it's just meetings), thus the system grows like an algae bloom in a nutrient rich pond.
Reviews or suggestions on stories that show female characters in a likeable/ realistic way would be of interest to me. Women doing things like fighting like men or being prostitutes are not appealing but seem to be more common these days than things us normal women can relate to.
In the latest adaption of Sherlock Holmes they turned Irene Adler into a prostitute when, if you read the book, she is a respectable woman. So I have gripes with how women are portrayed even tho they are supposedly empowering.
It's been a long time since I've read the books, but didn't Adler threaten to ruin a king? Sure, she changed her mind when she met another beau, and she might have had her reasons, but still, quite unpleasant.
I do understand your point about the prostitution thing though, but that might have been the only way the producers saw to show the modern, unnuanced viewers that the character kind of was an outsider from the rest of society, while also being a strong, independent woman. According to the 'hot and happening' establishment the narrative's changed, and sex work, as long as you choose to do it yourself, means empowerment for women.
Very stupid and absurd, yes.
Is there a specific genre you like? In any case I can recommend Jane Austen (duh), Diana Wynne Jones (accessible fantasy, for children, YA and adults) and Yoko Ogawa (gorgeous use of language).
Absolutely lovely article! One of the highlights for me was: "Perhaps the future’s dystopian hell turns out to be a German train network. (Again!)" As a German, this has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
Ha! To be honest, it looks like the entire European rail experience could be getting a lot better as cross-border integration of the network accelerates and more experimental private rail companies proliferate - so with any luck, Germany will shed its trains' awful reputation in a few years' time. Britain's trains are a lot better today than they were 15 years ago, though it's almost taboo to mention it!
Another complication (unwanted as it is necessary) is the reality that many of these systems are spontaneous; the system itself emerges from the intentions, actions values and beliefs of human agents but the order itself is no the product of intentional design. Language, markets etc. are distinguishable from institutions such as for instance, governments, which (more or less) exhibit the characteristics of intentional structure. Our confusion (and often our propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot) in regards to systems stems to a considerable degree on an inability to separate spontaneous and artificial systems. Deliberate change to a deliberately planned system never seems to work with emergent systems.
A very good point. Understanding emergent behaviour in the context of planning systems is quite the challenge. There's also the problem that, after a point, it doesn't matter whether a system is the deliberate creation of a rational agent or emergent from the behaviour of many free individuals; either way, it is inherited by those who did not design it, and maintained by the normalising forces of custom and habit. Where such a system acts against the interests of those subjected to it, the system can reasonably be described as oppressive, whether it's emergent or not.
Interesting. What's an example of a spontaneous order that you would consider oppressive in the sense that you mean? I'd want to be very careful about using terms like "oppression" or "coercion" with regard to natural phenomena (which I regard spontaneous orders to be) as that opens a Pandora's box of Marxian-style fist shaking at the heavens.
I think the problem is that from the individual point of view, a lot of 'spontaneous orders' are indistinguishable from deliberate orders. The British NHS is something you could describe in either category since as a system it contains both deliberate and spontaneous aspects. When an elderly person is rendered unable to walk after being left in a hospital bed for weeks without treatment or exercise following a nosocomial COVID infection (real example btw), the individual experience is one of being trapped and destroyed by a system, and words like 'oppression' seem more apt. The fist-shaking is not directed at the heavens, but a destructive system (that may indeed be operated by upstanding moral agents, but causes atrocities nonetheless).
I agree that the natural order in itself is not appropriately called 'oppressive'; being subject to hunger and thirst and so on is a fact of existence and not an oppression of nature. However, were these bodily functions to become controlled by an external system of coercive permissions, prices, and licences, the computation changes.
Yeah, I have a similar problem with consititutionalism: the idea of a constitution (especially a written one) presents us with the designed order. But after it's in place, the judicial precedents, interpretations and conventions emerge through the factors that I mentioned before. So even if something started as the result of human intent/design, the same thing could *change* through unintended human activity to the point where the nominal artifact resembles nothing like the intended design. It would be fair to say that these are in fact two distinct things and are not commensurable, despite the name they share. But again, it's just another part of the problem caused by absurd complexity you raised.
As far as I know even individuals with a schizoid personality disorder crave to be part of a society. The pain you experience from being socially rejected or excluded lights up the same parts of your brain that react to physical pain, which can be seen as a good thing, if you think about it. It is not strange that people will learn to use cold, unfeeling technologies and systems if they think it will help them to form connections with others. No-one wants to be left behind.
When anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked when the first civilization started her answer was when the first human survived a broken femur. Someone took care of him for a long time, while if you break your leg in the animal kingdom, your kind will let you die.
Being social allows humans to grow closer, and by communicating and helping others it is possible to build relationships and a funcional society. We just tend to function better that way. Being social, and having empathy is also useful for child rearing, and to fully appreciate certain books, music and movies.
On the other hand, empathy is not as positive as people think. Empathetic people can easily be manipulated by individuals who know how to act, and they are often victims of gaslighting. Socializing can be draining and can lead to depression.
Also, with a lack of empathy you would not help a man unload items from a tan Volkwagen Beetle. Even if the poor man had his arm in a sling.
Yes, we validated Godwin's Law in our first non-fiction article. Oops!
I do find it curious that empathy is so often described as if its expression in society is not moderated by a system of behaviours, manners, and norms. Likewise, Reason is describes as an abstract force that exists independently of the individual Reasoners; this rhetorical sleight-of-hand elides the fact that any two people employing their rational faculties in service to a problem are likely to create fundamental points of disagreement. Reason is not universal, and 'empathy' as an abstract concept is often a slippery customer, without regard for the socially-constructed manners of its expression.
In my experience, those whose learning difficulties constrain them in manifesting empathy will instead overfocus on the social rules which govern its modes of expression. Just a thought.
Empathy is probably described as if it is not moderated by society because it mostly only effects how people behave, and not their inner world. Being empathetic comes naturally for most people, they are born with it, and while they can be taught how to deal with it and more or less how to act on it for it to suit their roles in the society they live in, nothing changes the emotions they experience. And these experiences can 'bleed out' into a world where the expression of empathy is diluted, through stories and songs. Most people don't express it, but it is always present in its entirety.
Reason on the other hand, will become part of how you handle information from start to finish. The knowledge you gain in your life to be able to apply logic will compliment and fine tune your thinking, and while people will focus on the different points they find important if they can, which guarantees disagreement, reason still follows certain, universal rules in my opinion.
And yes, some people will indeed copy empathy and other socially accepted emotional displays to try to fit in. Some can actually develop empathy by regularly heedful listening to others to 'get a feel for it', but if that doesn't work, learning to play by the rules is a good method, or to use cognitive empathy, if you wish to manipulate the hell out of someone.
Every now and then you can spot people who fake it in situations in which there are no clear socially accepted emotional reactions. When they haven't yet decided which emotion to wear, their faces are completely blank for a split second when it should not be.
Rational and irrational is just yet another meld ultimately. Everyone is made up of both, and to deny one or the other is to leave yourself only half a person. Prioritising one over the other is fine (everyone does that. Some people are more rational... most are more irrational, though there's always an underlying logic behind things, even if the user wasn't altogether aware of it) but it's the denial of one or the other that is just rank stupidity and dare I say: irrational (when I find people who claim to be fully rational and basing something off of just rationality, either they're being edgy or they're really irrational and cannot accept it and feel the need to prove just how "rational" they are... which isn't something a rational person would do and bespeaks massive insecurity about one's own flaws. Like, the French Revolution is one of the most irrational time periods simply because of this pathological need to make everything "rational" and breaking things that weren't broken... which is irrational. Don't fix what isn't broken or you'll break it - even a child should be able to figure this out but somehow these so-called "rationals" couldn't. -.- Actual rationals should be able to figure out the utility of generally "irrational" things and appreciate them for that utility (it's the job of rationals not to change for change's sake, but to identify what is broken and figure out a means to improve and change it. Change for change's sake is irrational and only serves the fuel the ego... and usually bloodlust). Those stories of heroes and villains serve a purpose, unconsciously or not, which is to maintain the stability of society and promote the values of the author/storyteller. And I don't think they're entirely dead either (well... nowadays they might be with Kathleen Kennedy's reign of terror...), but rather we see them in other forms, usually fantasy or sci-fi (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time etc.) and, back when those series weren't viciously murdered, the graves defiled and the corpses mutilated and made marionettes, they seemed highly successful (whereas the corpse puppets are anything but, except by shrieking idiots chasing social acceptance), and then there's the people I see online who desperately want a revival of these. There is a place for such narratives, we just need the right one for this modern world...
And yes, most people crave social acceptance above anything else. It's funny how human evolution created such an exploitable weakness. -.- Sorry, I just view that kind of behaviour as insecurity and a lack of sense of self (particularly as I grew up amongst people who craved it to the point where they faked entire personas and interests around it, but hated anyone who was genuine or authentic - authenticity is far more valuable because it's actually real instead of people playing pretend endlessly. Such pointless games tire me...). I see certain people on Youtube who are quite well-meaning but are hopelessly naive in the belief that they'll win simply by having a better argument than their opposition and then people en masse will take their side. Yeah, not to be rude to them but they've clearly not been paying attention because most people do not listen to arguments, no matter how logical, because they're A. more moved by emotions, and B. are terrified of social ostracisation so even if you do convince them logically, they'll never take your side and will oppose just as hard (if not moreso) than a true believer because they will want to keep the peace (just like a husband being abused by a mentally ill wife will attack the child that speaks up against their mother's behaviour in order to keep the peace and avoid repercussions from said wife) and please the unpleasable (they're kept walking on eggshells forever and ever and ever - the moral goalposts constantly shift so no-one feels safe, heretics will be created and punished, and therefore everyone else will work twice as hard to avoid the guillotine). In order to change the minds of most people, you'd have to usurp the current paradigm first, not the other way around. And most societal change was driven by minorities.
I've started and abandoned several comments on this piece. Mostly because my own thinking isn't too clear, but one comment I've consistently had is that I think you are oversimplifying the lives of our ancestors. I also think there is or needs to be a distinction in terms between bureucratized and systematized. To my mind the bureaucratization is the imposition of an administrative system where there need be none.
My more salient comment though I think comes in to try to explain why hero narratives endure. First is the preference for people to be able to identify in some way with the story. A story about a multitude of systems and their interactions is not inspiring or relatable. We can see this in our own non-fiction stories. It is far more accurate to describe the early warning network of agents during the revolutionary war, but far more romantic to retell the 'one if by land, two if by sea' midnight ride of Paul Revere. To capture our imagination and attention a story has to have a protagonist (it is much more inspiring if there is a single antagonist). I think this is partly why the WEF has become a bit of a lightning rod on the right. Yes, they are operating through a vast network of systems and probably aren't collecting their thoughts in some secret back room meeting like a Simpsons-esque Republican party, but having Klaus Schwab as a figurehead to whom we can tie the multitude of bad WEF ideas makes a useful story in which we can all play a small hero arc.
I'll end this here because I feel like I'm getting a bit rambly, I think you're on the right track with the notion of a poly system, but there will be an art to packaging it in such a way that the masses find compelling.
I agree with your point about characterisation: a story needs characters, and people will go to great lengths in order to find them because they strengthen a particular narrative.
All historical narratives must simplify history; whether this is 'oversimplifying' or not depends on whether the conclusions extracted are incompatible with the history discussed. I agree that one could go into much more depth about the history of stories, but in the interest of brevity I believe I've done the appropriate amount of simplification. If you think there are specific points of oversimplification, though, I'll happily consider them.
I'll consider the argument for a distinction between bureaucracies and systems; my initial instinct is that the two processes amount to the same thing, but there may be useful differences in the patterns of proliferation of each. Which I will think about.
It was an excellent piece, not trying to poke holes.
My point wasn't as much about simplifying as it was about the value of characters. It would be much shorter to write the whole truth (a night watch saw the British approach and warned the parish through the messengers network the revolutionaries had established) than to romanticize Paul Revere's ride. Historians obviously know that pulling a character will make the story memorable and indeed even if you need to add a half page of pointless story the value of having a compelling and memorable character makes it worth it (we obviously agree here). Where we may not agree is that the value of a character will force stories towards oversimplifications. I think we are seeing this in real time with the WEF. Klaus Schwab as a stand in for the global elite raises two problems. 1) The anti-WEF types do not fully realize the extent of the hydra they are up against, and 2) The pro-WEF types have an easier time dismissing the anti-WEF because no, Klaus Schwab is not personally responsible for x,y,z that he has been accused of. That's a conspiracy.
To my mind, a "system" will become as encompassing and large as is useful for people that are involved with it (could think of the phone system becoming more complex but we've ditched party lines and we need longer phone numbers because there are so many individual phones, these are useful innovations but they do add complexity), whereas a "bureaucracy" will expand as much as it can whether there is a purpose or not. One of my favourites is that I grew up near a military base and in March we were treated to several weeks of live fire and explosive munition exercises. Why? Because these were useful training activities for the officers and grunts on base? No. Because if they didn't spend their budget it would not be increased the next year and may in fact be decreased. The same thing happens in bureaucracies with staff. I have budget to hire? My question is not "is there something useful this person could do?" It's "what work could I make up to have a new hire do?" The people they interface with may have more "work" to do after I hire them (even if it's just meetings), thus the system grows like an algae bloom in a nutrient rich pond.
Reviews or suggestions on stories that show female characters in a likeable/ realistic way would be of interest to me. Women doing things like fighting like men or being prostitutes are not appealing but seem to be more common these days than things us normal women can relate to.
In the latest adaption of Sherlock Holmes they turned Irene Adler into a prostitute when, if you read the book, she is a respectable woman. So I have gripes with how women are portrayed even tho they are supposedly empowering.
It's been a long time since I've read the books, but didn't Adler threaten to ruin a king? Sure, she changed her mind when she met another beau, and she might have had her reasons, but still, quite unpleasant.
I do understand your point about the prostitution thing though, but that might have been the only way the producers saw to show the modern, unnuanced viewers that the character kind of was an outsider from the rest of society, while also being a strong, independent woman. According to the 'hot and happening' establishment the narrative's changed, and sex work, as long as you choose to do it yourself, means empowerment for women.
Very stupid and absurd, yes.
Is there a specific genre you like? In any case I can recommend Jane Austen (duh), Diana Wynne Jones (accessible fantasy, for children, YA and adults) and Yoko Ogawa (gorgeous use of language).
Seconded
Absolutely lovely article! One of the highlights for me was: "Perhaps the future’s dystopian hell turns out to be a German train network. (Again!)" As a German, this has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard.
Side note: When asked about the trains being late constantly the response of Richard Lutz (CEO of the Deutsche Bahn) was "believe me, I suffer like a dog". :D https://www.manager-magazin.de/unternehmen/deutsche-bahn-richard-lutz-leidet-wie-ein-hund-a-2306a35a-da42-45c1-a111-4fcc7fcafcb3
Ha! To be honest, it looks like the entire European rail experience could be getting a lot better as cross-border integration of the network accelerates and more experimental private rail companies proliferate - so with any luck, Germany will shed its trains' awful reputation in a few years' time. Britain's trains are a lot better today than they were 15 years ago, though it's almost taboo to mention it!
Another complication (unwanted as it is necessary) is the reality that many of these systems are spontaneous; the system itself emerges from the intentions, actions values and beliefs of human agents but the order itself is no the product of intentional design. Language, markets etc. are distinguishable from institutions such as for instance, governments, which (more or less) exhibit the characteristics of intentional structure. Our confusion (and often our propensity to shoot ourselves in the foot) in regards to systems stems to a considerable degree on an inability to separate spontaneous and artificial systems. Deliberate change to a deliberately planned system never seems to work with emergent systems.
A very good point. Understanding emergent behaviour in the context of planning systems is quite the challenge. There's also the problem that, after a point, it doesn't matter whether a system is the deliberate creation of a rational agent or emergent from the behaviour of many free individuals; either way, it is inherited by those who did not design it, and maintained by the normalising forces of custom and habit. Where such a system acts against the interests of those subjected to it, the system can reasonably be described as oppressive, whether it's emergent or not.
Interesting. What's an example of a spontaneous order that you would consider oppressive in the sense that you mean? I'd want to be very careful about using terms like "oppression" or "coercion" with regard to natural phenomena (which I regard spontaneous orders to be) as that opens a Pandora's box of Marxian-style fist shaking at the heavens.
I think the problem is that from the individual point of view, a lot of 'spontaneous orders' are indistinguishable from deliberate orders. The British NHS is something you could describe in either category since as a system it contains both deliberate and spontaneous aspects. When an elderly person is rendered unable to walk after being left in a hospital bed for weeks without treatment or exercise following a nosocomial COVID infection (real example btw), the individual experience is one of being trapped and destroyed by a system, and words like 'oppression' seem more apt. The fist-shaking is not directed at the heavens, but a destructive system (that may indeed be operated by upstanding moral agents, but causes atrocities nonetheless).
I agree that the natural order in itself is not appropriately called 'oppressive'; being subject to hunger and thirst and so on is a fact of existence and not an oppression of nature. However, were these bodily functions to become controlled by an external system of coercive permissions, prices, and licences, the computation changes.
Yeah, I have a similar problem with consititutionalism: the idea of a constitution (especially a written one) presents us with the designed order. But after it's in place, the judicial precedents, interpretations and conventions emerge through the factors that I mentioned before. So even if something started as the result of human intent/design, the same thing could *change* through unintended human activity to the point where the nominal artifact resembles nothing like the intended design. It would be fair to say that these are in fact two distinct things and are not commensurable, despite the name they share. But again, it's just another part of the problem caused by absurd complexity you raised.
Great article by the way. I look forward to more.
As far as I know even individuals with a schizoid personality disorder crave to be part of a society. The pain you experience from being socially rejected or excluded lights up the same parts of your brain that react to physical pain, which can be seen as a good thing, if you think about it. It is not strange that people will learn to use cold, unfeeling technologies and systems if they think it will help them to form connections with others. No-one wants to be left behind.
When anthropologist Margaret Mead was asked when the first civilization started her answer was when the first human survived a broken femur. Someone took care of him for a long time, while if you break your leg in the animal kingdom, your kind will let you die.
Being social allows humans to grow closer, and by communicating and helping others it is possible to build relationships and a funcional society. We just tend to function better that way. Being social, and having empathy is also useful for child rearing, and to fully appreciate certain books, music and movies.
On the other hand, empathy is not as positive as people think. Empathetic people can easily be manipulated by individuals who know how to act, and they are often victims of gaslighting. Socializing can be draining and can lead to depression.
Also, with a lack of empathy you would not help a man unload items from a tan Volkwagen Beetle. Even if the poor man had his arm in a sling.
~
P.s. Omnipresent Hitler, heh.
Yes, we validated Godwin's Law in our first non-fiction article. Oops!
I do find it curious that empathy is so often described as if its expression in society is not moderated by a system of behaviours, manners, and norms. Likewise, Reason is describes as an abstract force that exists independently of the individual Reasoners; this rhetorical sleight-of-hand elides the fact that any two people employing their rational faculties in service to a problem are likely to create fundamental points of disagreement. Reason is not universal, and 'empathy' as an abstract concept is often a slippery customer, without regard for the socially-constructed manners of its expression.
In my experience, those whose learning difficulties constrain them in manifesting empathy will instead overfocus on the social rules which govern its modes of expression. Just a thought.
Good thought, food for thought.
Empathy is probably described as if it is not moderated by society because it mostly only effects how people behave, and not their inner world. Being empathetic comes naturally for most people, they are born with it, and while they can be taught how to deal with it and more or less how to act on it for it to suit their roles in the society they live in, nothing changes the emotions they experience. And these experiences can 'bleed out' into a world where the expression of empathy is diluted, through stories and songs. Most people don't express it, but it is always present in its entirety.
Reason on the other hand, will become part of how you handle information from start to finish. The knowledge you gain in your life to be able to apply logic will compliment and fine tune your thinking, and while people will focus on the different points they find important if they can, which guarantees disagreement, reason still follows certain, universal rules in my opinion.
And yes, some people will indeed copy empathy and other socially accepted emotional displays to try to fit in. Some can actually develop empathy by regularly heedful listening to others to 'get a feel for it', but if that doesn't work, learning to play by the rules is a good method, or to use cognitive empathy, if you wish to manipulate the hell out of someone.
Every now and then you can spot people who fake it in situations in which there are no clear socially accepted emotional reactions. When they haven't yet decided which emotion to wear, their faces are completely blank for a split second when it should not be.
Rational and irrational is just yet another meld ultimately. Everyone is made up of both, and to deny one or the other is to leave yourself only half a person. Prioritising one over the other is fine (everyone does that. Some people are more rational... most are more irrational, though there's always an underlying logic behind things, even if the user wasn't altogether aware of it) but it's the denial of one or the other that is just rank stupidity and dare I say: irrational (when I find people who claim to be fully rational and basing something off of just rationality, either they're being edgy or they're really irrational and cannot accept it and feel the need to prove just how "rational" they are... which isn't something a rational person would do and bespeaks massive insecurity about one's own flaws. Like, the French Revolution is one of the most irrational time periods simply because of this pathological need to make everything "rational" and breaking things that weren't broken... which is irrational. Don't fix what isn't broken or you'll break it - even a child should be able to figure this out but somehow these so-called "rationals" couldn't. -.- Actual rationals should be able to figure out the utility of generally "irrational" things and appreciate them for that utility (it's the job of rationals not to change for change's sake, but to identify what is broken and figure out a means to improve and change it. Change for change's sake is irrational and only serves the fuel the ego... and usually bloodlust). Those stories of heroes and villains serve a purpose, unconsciously or not, which is to maintain the stability of society and promote the values of the author/storyteller. And I don't think they're entirely dead either (well... nowadays they might be with Kathleen Kennedy's reign of terror...), but rather we see them in other forms, usually fantasy or sci-fi (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time etc.) and, back when those series weren't viciously murdered, the graves defiled and the corpses mutilated and made marionettes, they seemed highly successful (whereas the corpse puppets are anything but, except by shrieking idiots chasing social acceptance), and then there's the people I see online who desperately want a revival of these. There is a place for such narratives, we just need the right one for this modern world...
And yes, most people crave social acceptance above anything else. It's funny how human evolution created such an exploitable weakness. -.- Sorry, I just view that kind of behaviour as insecurity and a lack of sense of self (particularly as I grew up amongst people who craved it to the point where they faked entire personas and interests around it, but hated anyone who was genuine or authentic - authenticity is far more valuable because it's actually real instead of people playing pretend endlessly. Such pointless games tire me...). I see certain people on Youtube who are quite well-meaning but are hopelessly naive in the belief that they'll win simply by having a better argument than their opposition and then people en masse will take their side. Yeah, not to be rude to them but they've clearly not been paying attention because most people do not listen to arguments, no matter how logical, because they're A. more moved by emotions, and B. are terrified of social ostracisation so even if you do convince them logically, they'll never take your side and will oppose just as hard (if not moreso) than a true believer because they will want to keep the peace (just like a husband being abused by a mentally ill wife will attack the child that speaks up against their mother's behaviour in order to keep the peace and avoid repercussions from said wife) and please the unpleasable (they're kept walking on eggshells forever and ever and ever - the moral goalposts constantly shift so no-one feels safe, heretics will be created and punished, and therefore everyone else will work twice as hard to avoid the guillotine). In order to change the minds of most people, you'd have to usurp the current paradigm first, not the other way around. And most societal change was driven by minorities.