Every society prevents some thoughts/feelings from being expressed or understood by the individuals. Not to be confused with taboos, these are thoughts which naturally did not exist in a culture due to circumstance. Fromm gives us an example in “Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis” pg. 102
There are simply things that are “not done” [in cultures.] In a tribe of hunters, if a member of the hunting expedition feels revulsion towards killing, they will not understand this emotion.
This inability to understand one’s emotions is caused by having no previous life experience to back up the concept to understand that someone could feel revulsion towards an action which their entire community/culture accept so readily. They can’t imagine the world logically otherwise, and therefor can’t understand their emotional state when it is in conflict with their logic. This causes the dilemma of internal conflict.
I wonder…
“What would be the dilemmas faced by an individual who harbors a new, potentially transgressive idea?”
“How would the individual address these thoughts which to them emotionally are sound, but conflict with their life experiences?”
The individual experiencing the new belief would experience an inner conflict, a mental dilemma that something is wrong (like the concept of hunting being wrong in the example above), however the only experiences they have show no concept that the idea would be anything but positive. Thus they will never understand why it is they feel this conflict, just that they do. This conflict will continue to haunt the individual, causing them stress, strife and a myriad of health issues, until it is dug-up and uncovered (consider psycho-analysis, shamanistic practices or mindfulness avenues people use to dig up and understand internal conflicts.) The expedition to uncover such a belief, must be done outside of the influence of their culture, this is why typically it is done via methods that allow the individual to break away from the chains learned behaviors, so they may find new ways to think about problems.
If you’re thinking at this point “I have these thoughts! I should find a shaman!” hold up. Participating in psychoanalysis, or therapy would be strongly suggested. It is a safe space for people to share their thoughts and beliefs outside of the influence of societal pressures. The professional is there to help ensure the ideas and concepts being uncovering can be looked at objectively and the patient doesn’t fall into a pit of self-re-assurance over bad ideas.
Once the reasons for the conflict of the internal dilemma is understood by the individual via, therapy, self-revelation or other matters, they will be alone with the new concept and will face a second dilemma. The moral/cultural dilemma of their idea is understood but they may feel internally they are an outcast, due to as far as they know, they are alone with experiencing any mental conflict.
At this point, sharing with their peers is a critical step to change or improved understanding. If they find many of their peers share a similar dilemma, and are able to help their peers, then the outcome would be a net-positive (perhaps they change their ways, and switch from hunting to farming gradually.) The individual may also find they are alone in their belief, but if it’s communicated with respect between the parties then they may find an alternative (maybe they could help their tribe in ways other than hunting.) Finally, after discussion the individual may come to a conclusion that their dilemma is understood but unavoidable, perhaps it is a task that must be done by them (if there were too few hunters already to collect food for the winter), at this point the individual may be able to get over their dilemma by changing their perspective (accepting their dilemma, and that their tribe’s ability to survive the winter takes precedence.)
The above are some ideal scenarios.
Reality knows many outcomes, many of which can be much worse. Without a set of peers open to understanding or listening, the result could be the individual becomes an outcast for sharing taboo thoughts. The new belief, especially a conflictory one could mean the thinker of the new thought would become targeted, silenced, harassed, loose rank or be exiled. If such an action were to take place, anyone with any other new thoughts would be hesitant to speak up out of fear of reprisal.
All negative scenarios are driven by similar traits, refusal to have an open mind and disdain for those who challenge the community or culture. They also seek out the same outcome, silencing of any thoughts that contradict to the current culture’s beliefs. There is a key word here, silencing.
Silencing a thought preserves the culture, but preserving the culture means preventing growth and preventing learning. It puts the culture in a dead-lock.
An open mind is best.
For the individual, it requires an open mind to access their mental state to understand that an internal dilemma exists, what triggers it, and what they can do to address it. To refuse to understand your own emotional state, means you will remain enslaved to it controlling you.
For the culture, it requires an open mind to listen and discuss new thoughts between members. To get stuck in the old-ways of doing things indefinitely, results in a stagnation of a culture and an enslavement to moral concepts which may no longer be applicable.
P.S.
If you feel highly emotional towards an idea, if you feel a mental dilemma over a concept nibbling at your psyche. You owe it to yourself to explore it. Seek out therapy or talk with friends. If you surround yourself with people who will listen to your ideas and concepts and participate in discussion others’ ideas and concepts, build a community on the concept of free thought if you must.
Avoid hive-mind communities for your own well being and growth. Hive minds are seductive, they pull people in by reaffirming beliefs (not debating or creating new beliefs.) Like a cult singing hymns about their love for their leader, hive minds support and encourage only discussion which fits their agenda, it is not a place of growth or learning but a place of complacency. If a concept comes easily to your mind and causes no discussion or debate within yourself or a community beyond blind acceptance because it fits a pre-set of ideals, (easily supported via upvotes, likes, etc..) and if contradictory or conflicting ideas are targeted, silenced or people exiled for their beliefs (via suppression, over-moderation, silencing, bans), then it is a community to avoid.