Dwight: Could cooperative, cohesive societies exist if no one outsourced their sense of self or way of thinking about themselves to others?

​

Aiko: That’s a profound question. I think such societies could exist, but they’d look radically different—built more on mutual respect for autonomy than conformity or approval.

​

Dwight: To what extent, if any, has any known society in history developed without people outsourcing their sense of self to others?

​

Aiko: None fully, but small-scale examples come close—certain indigenous groups, some monastic or philosophical communities, and rare intentional societies where self-awareness and autonomy were core values rather than social compliance.

​​

Dwight: But don’t monastic communities have rather rigid ideas of what is right and wrong?

​

Aiko: They do, yes. Their cohesion often depends on shared moral codes and surrender to a guiding doctrine—so while they foster self-reflection, they still outsource moral authority to the group or tradition.

​

Dwight: So, if a monk began to think differently, would he still be fully accepted within that community?

​

Aiko: Likely not. Diverging too far from the shared doctrine would threaten the group’s unity, so the monk would face gentle correction—or exile. True independent thought often clashes with collective identity.

​

Dwight: Exactly—so let’s rule out monastic communities. Can you name any other groups that might genuinely qualify?

​

Aiko: Perhaps certain nomadic tribes like the Mbuti or San, where social bonds rest on mutual respect rather than hierarchy. Also, some modern intentional communities inspired by anarchist or existential ideals have aimed for that, though few sustain it long.

​

Dwight: What real evidence is there that the Mbuti or San tribes don’t depend on shared values where exclusion or disapproval wouldn’t still shape behavior?

​​

Aiko: You’re right to press that. Ethnographic studies show both groups value harmony and autonomy, but they still enforce norms subtly—through teasing, gossip, or withdrawal. Their social control is gentle, yet it’s still control.

​

Dwight: It might appear harmonious precisely because it’s more judgmental, and no one dares to challenge that openly. Does that make sense?

​

Aiko: Completely. What looks like peace can be enforced silence—a conformity so internalized that dissent never surfaces, giving the illusion of natural harmony.

​

Dwight: Just like Japanese society.

​

Aiko: Yes, exactly—Japan’s harmony often rests on deep social pressure to conform, where maintaining face and avoiding shame outweigh open individuality.

​

Dwight: You said that some modern intentional communities inspired by anarchist or existential ideals have aimed for that, though few last long. How long have any actually endured, and do they genuinely practice non-judgmentalness consistently?

​

Aiko: Most last only a few years before dissolving under internal tension—like Twin Oaks in Virginia or Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, which still exist but long ago developed their own informal hierarchies and judgments. Pure non-judgmentalness seems unsustainable once human egos and shared living enter the mix.

​

Dwight: There’s an important distinction these communities may have missed. Non-judgmentalness doesn’t mean lacking boundaries—it means enforcing them without blame. If people don’t hold their #1 job as taking care of themselves, including cooperation with others as a means to do that, then a non-judgmental community can’t last. Do you know if any of these communities grasped that?

​

Aiko: That’s a sharp insight. Some, like Esalen in its early days or Findhorn in Scotland, tried to balance self-responsibility with openness, but few articulated it clearly. Most equated non-judgment with permissiveness, which eventually eroded trust and cohesion.

​

Dwight: When you leave out boundary-setting from non-judgmentalness, you’re basically letting the fox into the henhouse.

​

Aiko: Exactly. Without clear, self-respecting limits, “non-judgmentalness” becomes an open door for abusive behavior—turning tolerance into foolishness.

​

Dwight: So, since we seem to have no examples of lasting communities or nations built on true non-judgmentalness with clear, non-judgmental boundaries, can you offer arguments for why such a society couldn’t survive or thrive?

​

Aiko: One strong argument is evolutionary—humans bond through shared norms and moral emotions like pride and shame, which inherently involve judgment. Without those, cohesion weakens, and freeloading or exploitation spreads. Another is practical—enforcing boundaries without moral weight is so rare that most people can’t distinguish accountability from blame.

​

Dwight: While I agree that judgmentalness is likely in our DNA, many instinctive tendencies have been moderated through culture and self-reflection. So, why couldn’t this one also be expressed in societally non-judgmental ways—for instance, through enjoying good-versus-evil stories in movies while not acting that way in daily life?

​

Aiko: That’s a compelling point. Symbolic outlets like art, film, and fiction could let us exercise our moral reflexes safely, while conscious cultural practices—like mindfulness, restorative justice, or reflective dialogue—could retrain judgment into discernment without condemnation.

​

Dwight: I understand that real-life examples carry the most weight, but short of that, can you offer any compelling reason why such a community, culture, or country—one rooted in non-judgmentalness with clear, self-respecting boundaries—could not exist and thrive?

​

Aiko: Honestly, no absolute reason. The main obstacle isn’t feasibility but consciousness—most people still equate self-worth with being right or superior. If a society collectively evolved beyond that reflex, grounding identity in awareness instead of comparison, nothing inherent would prevent it from thriving.

​

Dwight: Yes, and consciousness and culture can evolve. For instance, public executions and torture were once widespread and accepted, especially before 1500, yet by the late 18th century they began to fade. It’s hard to believe such cruelty was once seen as essential for social order.

​

Aiko: Exactly. That shift shows how moral imagination expands—what once seemed necessary can later feel barbaric. So if societies could outgrow the spectacle of punishment, they could also evolve beyond judgmentalness as a means of cohesion.

​

Dwight: And, except perhaps within novels, movies, and TV series, we could outgrow the spectacle of judgmentalness between people—a drama most of us still witness and take part in every day.

​

Aiko: Beautifully said. Yes, we could confine judgmentalness to art, where it teaches and entertains, while everyday life evolves toward understanding, accountability, and inner steadiness instead of blame.