|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 6SocietyWritten by Darrell Anderson. A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities Although there are perhaps thousands of differing worldviews, within western thought there are two well-known broad theories about human nature. One theory suggests that humans are social creatures (Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his forerunners) while the other theory suggests that humans are anti-social (Thomas Hobbes and his forerunners).[1] Observation reveals a mixture of both theories, not an either-or impasse. To be social implies being of or having to do with humans living together as a group in a situation requiring that they have dealings with one another.[2] To be anti-social would be a desire to splinter or avoid groups, or to reduce one’s desire to deal with one another. The two boundaries of human desire indicate that humans are concurrently both social and anti-social creatures. The desire to seek happiness and sustain energy flows promotes persuasion and cooperation and is social in nature. The desire to protect boundaries and prevent trespass results in anti-social behavior. The former desire is the basis for creating social systems, the latter desire the basis for legal systems. Humans are not well adapted for self-sufficiency. At no time in human history have people lived in a so-called “state of nature.” Through both need and want humans always have been social beings.[3] Mutual survival is attractive because individuals become more efficient in pursuing their individual happiness. Mutual survival is attractive because persuasion and cooperation reduces the uncertainty and fear of isolation and conflict,[4] offsetting the challenge of self-sufficiency. Mutual survival is attractive because humans are indeed social creatures and become anti-social only when threatened with trespass or the fear of trespass. Thus, mutual survival creates a sense of unity, purpose, and fulfillment. Mutual survival means the participation of two or more individuals. Merge two or more individuals into a collective environment and a new system model arises. New system boundaries are created, new elements, new relational rules. As mentioned previously, the term relational rule describes the relationship of how system elements interact. The term is not being used to describe a system of social laws or statutes. This new system model is called a society. A society is a natural outgrowth of humans attempting to cooperate together to promote mutual survival. At least as far back as the ancient Greek Epicureans people have recognized that self-interest drives humans to form groups and social systems.[5] What is society? Society is merely a word — a label — describing a complex set of systems. Each subset is a unique system or model describing a collection of individuals continually interacting with one another. The boundaries of that entire system and subsystems are based upon one or more specified group elements or characteristics. Strictly speaking there is no society per se, but only various social structures shared by many people.[6] Loosely speaking there is one society simply called humanity, and within that system are numerous subsystems. Although often overlapping, the individuals within each subsystem or society maintain their own set of principles for human interaction. The characteristics describing the elements of those subsystems include geographical location, climate, language, family, marriage, kinship, tribe, ethnicity, common beliefs, religion, pursuits, and vocation. That social structure determines the basic character of each person because people are products of their environment.[7] As with all systems, the arbitrarily derived model called society only provides humans a mechanism for understanding the universe. Like many systems used to describe the universe, the system or model known as society is dynamic — continually changing. The model is continually changing because one of the elements defining the system — humans — continually changes. Humans continually change their individual definitions of happiness and trespass. Therefore, the elements, relational rules, and boundaries of these subsystems are continually transforming, thereby changing the overall complexion of the entire society. Regardless of the precise moment selected within the time domain, the system model known as society rarely applies seamlessly to all points of the world. Different beliefs, customs, worldviews, and interpretations create different subsystems. Different system relational rules apply within each unique subsystem. Not only are human social systems dynamic, they are non-linear.[8] Although individually humans act in a sequential, linear manner, millions of concurrent interactions creates a non-linear model of understanding that system. From an individual perspective human actions might seem linear, but from a global or collective perspective those actions are non-linear.[9] Understandably, linear analysis and thinking do not function well with non-linear models. Thus, beliefs and worldviews that might make sense to one individual do not necessarily apply to other people. Generally there are two types of societies:[10]
All higher animals possess a sense or need for security, stimulation, and identity.[11] As social creatures, humans reflect those needs in their concept of society through three broad social system categories:[12]
Uncertainty and fear drive threat social systems and tend to produce malevolence.[13] Self-interest drives exchange systems. Love and restraint drive integrative systems, which tend to produce benevolence.[14] Love is an act of seeking unison and solidarity with other people, to provide meaning and purpose, but allowing other people to retain their own sense of identity.[15] The exchange social system is bilateral and reciprocating, the other two systems are unilateral. The exchange system acts as a bridge between the threat and integrated social systems. All three social systems are necessary for healthy human interaction, although in an ideal world the threat system disappears.[16] But an ideal world never exists because even with eliminating or reducing human threats there are always non-social external threats, such as natural disasters. Humans would need to cooperate with one another to avoid or reduce those threats. Trust plays an important role in human interaction. Therefore, benevolence tends to increase when trust is high, and conversely malevolence tends to increase when trust is low. Trust usually is high within families and kin, lessens somewhat as human relations extend to neighborhoods and clans, continues to lessen within entire communities and tribes, and diminishes further as those boundaries expand globally. Probably the simplest reason why this trust decreases is a lack of familiarity — ignorance. What are the system relational rules that define how social system elements interact? That depends upon how the elements describing how each subsystem of society are defined. The relational rules of interaction for the local community bridge club are different from those of a farmer’s association, and both are different from those of an organized religion or a large sports league. Because language is a communicative attempt to convey understanding, the society known as America is different from the society known as Greece. Within the society known as America, the relational rules for Harlem are different from Beverly Hills. Rural communities are described by relational rules different from those of large urban areas. The most well known society is the family and every family is unique. The definition of family varies from culture to culture, and era to era. In ancient civilizations, the fundamental unit of society was the family, not the individual.[17] In the agrarian era the family was an extended multigenerational collection of people. In the Industrial Age, the “nuclear” family appeared, consisting solely of a father, mother, and children.[18] Because of a high rate of divorce and remarriage, and a continual movement of people from one geographical area to another, today’s definition of family varies widely and no simple definition applies.[19] As the old adage reminds, no human is an island, nor can any human escape being a product of their environment. Different societies interact with one another. The farmer in Kansas might sell wheat to a buyer in Bombay, India. Commuters living in the suburbs interact with those people living in the center of the city. Long distance travelers might interact with people speaking a different language or worshipping a different God. The factory laborer living in a densely populated area of a city might work for an employer living in an outlying rural area. Today’s online virtual communities further obscure those interactions. Love and restraint might succeed among familiar small groups of people, but the division of labor requires more dependence upon self-interest.[20] How are societies different from individuals? What is the relationship between an individual and a specific society? Although often referred to as a living thing, most important to realize is a society is not an entity or a thing, but merely a label for a system model describing a specific collection of individuals. The word society describes certain characteristics or relationships among certain humans. Nobody can use his or her physical senses to provide access to “society.” Societies do not exist in the unconditional finite world but in the conditional infinite world of the mind. To declare that “society” does something, or that “society” is a living organism, or that somebody owes something to “society” is to reify the word. To reify means to treat an abstraction as substantially existing or as a concrete material object.[21] Individuals reify words as a means of understanding complex systems by analogy. Because complex systems are dynamic, an abstract idea called “society” often is compared to living organisms. Some similarities include:[22]
Analogies often fail. At best, language is an imprecise means of communicating ideas and problems arise when people reify descriptive processes. Reification attempts to move the conditional abstract realm of ideas and constructs into the unconditional realm of physical existence — attempting to treat abstract ideas as physical objects. Reification hides root causes and opens doors to ignorant subjectivity rather than purposeful objectivity. To be objective means conforming to a known standard. Nature knows no systems, thus by definition all human “standards” are arbitrary. Deriving those standards is a matter of human action and interaction. Once established, those standards only provide fixed reference points. For example, the definitions of a second, a gram, and a meter are arbitrarily derived, but nonetheless provide objective standards through which other processes become recognizable and usable. Subjective standards are different. A thermometer provides a distinct indication of the temperature in a room. To say that the temperature in a room is 65°F is an objective statement. However, to declare the room feels cold is a subjective statement. The former statement is true by definition, the latter is true only to a specific individual. Because of the human interpretive process, many individuals try to use objective standards despite developing subjective decisions. The ability to render decisions that seem contrary to objective criteria is sometimes called irrational behavior. However, to the individual rendering such a decision, the process is always rational because the decision serves self-interests.[23] Such a process is called “rationalization.” Rationalization is a process of explaining something through reason, common sense, or convention.[24] Once a descriptive process is reified, the process of communicating ideas becomes more difficult because of the human interpretive process. Objectivity is lost. “Society” has no “desires” or ability to act. That is not to declare that collectively individuals do not act, create, or provide perceived value, or that a group of people cooperating together is not a synergistic process, only that specific individuals within that group actually provide the necessary energy (labor) to act, create, or produce. “Society” is an abstract construct — nothing more, nothing less. Specific characteristics of an individual can be identified, but characteristics of societies are merely statistical reflections of some members of that particular society. To declare that 54 percent of the people living in a specific neighborhood regularly consume a particular brand of beverage does not mean all the people in that neighborhood do not occasionally consume the beverage. Nor does such information mean those 54 percent consume only that particular beverage. Nor can such a reflection determine the specific individuals who consume that beverage, or when or why. Such a statistic is merely a momentary static snapshot reflection of a dynamic system. As individuals move, migrate, intermix with other people, increase their own personal knowledge, and change their definitions of happiness, that general statistic changes. Societies are dynamic. At best only general aggregate characteristics of a society can be studied. Within the aggregate, statistics can predict with reasonable certainty when babies will be born or approximately when old people will die, but no such process is possible for every unique individual. Those general characteristics provide no information about specific individuals. For example, the magnitude of an opinion common among a specified group of individuals can be measured. However, the intensity of a specific individual’s support or objection to that opinion is almost impossible to determine.[25] Fanatics might exist on any side of an issue. Another distinction between society and individuals is that a society does not create or produce anything, only individuals within a specific society create and produce things. Individuals cooperate together and pool resources, skills, and knowledge, but the word “society” is only a description of how those certain individuals interact. The word “society” often describes a combined effort of individual actions. Specific societies differ from individuals in that groups of people often accomplish more than any one specific individual — the concept of mutual survival and synergism. Humans are not well adapted to self-sufficiency and usually improve their conditions when embracing persuasion and cooperation. Mutual survival means pooling resources, such as knowledge, skills, and assets. Humans can pool their resources in parallel such as when members of a community participate in building a barn, or they can pool resources in series such as when people share and disseminate ideas and information from one individual to another. Humans cooperating in parallel accomplish tasks more quickly than serial actions, but even serial actions improve living standards better than separate and unique individual actions. Specific societies differ from individuals in that membership in any specific group or society often people within that group agree to special permissive actions and privileges unique to that specific society. The word privilege is derived from the Latin word privilegium, rooted in the words privis (private) and legis (law); and essentially means “private law” or a law pertaining to a particular individual or group of people. The idea of privilege implies a structured relationship within a specific group. Such permissive actions and privileges promote a sense of unity and loyalty within the group, and encourage members to continue their participation. Such encouragement and loyalty promotes mutual survival within that specific group. Join the local bridge club and you become eligible for enjoying the next potluck dinner provided by members of the club. The society itself, being merely a description of a system model, does not possess any permissive actions or privileges. Only specific individuals within that group possess permissive actions or privileges. Similarly, specific societies differ from individuals because when individuals agree to participate together some members of that society often are selected or appointed to help coordinate the efforts the members of that group. Such individuals exhibit or demonstrate special or unique skills and abilities to lead others and to coordinate individual actions. This characteristic or element is sometimes called a natural aristocracy. Fundamentally, an aristocracy means leadership by the best qualified.[26] (No other meaning or definition of the word aristocracy is implied at this time.) Even in hunter-gatherer societies, the best hunters usually direct the hunt because of their skills and knowledge. That selection process creates various ways of promoting and enhancing the needs and wants of the members of the group. To augment that process selected or appointed individuals often are allowed, within specified limits and certain manners, to act without needing or requesting opinions from every specific individual of that group. Sometimes actions are restricted to first obtaining those opinions. Group members usually agree to abide voluntarily by some of the decisions and actions of these unique individuals. Overall, such a process improves individual efficiencies with respect to how the group members interact with one another, but the “society” itself possesses no ability; only individuals possess those permissive actions. These differences are noticeable with any specific society or group. Through these efforts often there are compromises; that is, sometimes an individual’s definition of happiness is adjusted or adapted to promoting mutual happiness. Every individual is in a continual process of adjusting his or her definition of happiness in order to promote the general definition of happiness shared by the members of that group or society. Because of this willingness to cooperate together and the general subsequent benefits, like a school of fish members of a specific societies tend to move in unison. Yet, societies still are nothing but arbitrary system models describing a specific collection of individuals. Regardless of the descriptive boundaries, each unique subsystem of society is merely a collection of people, ideas, conventions, and worldviews. These norms and customs constitute and define a collection of people known as a society. Each subsystem is a society within itself. Because these norms and traditions evolve naturally, as a descriptive process societies are sometimes perceived as living and growing, and not manufactured.[27] Not all societies form knowingly. Some societies are mere statistical labels used to help understand the nature of specific individuals. To be a member of a society labeled “electrical engineers” only reveals some basic characteristics about individuals who have pursued that vocation. The label does not describe a group of people who have voluntarily associated themselves with one another, but only identifies a general collection of people. The same would be said about all women who are six feet tall. Such a label reveals nothing about hair color, weight, skin color, beliefs, religion, geographical location, or family. Nor do all societies form voluntarily. No individual chooses when or where to be born, and for many years after birth an individual rarely has any say in where to live or many other personal issues. Regardless of whether a particular society is formed voluntarily, involuntarily, or merely by statistical analysis, that an individual is a member of any society often appeals to the emotions and nature of individuals desiring to be social beings. The desire or need to find a sense of identity is one of the most powerful characteristics of human essence, strong enough that many people will seek their identity in or group or “herd.”[28] Whether or not voluntary, individuals identify themselves with various societies, even when not conscientiously joining that group. Such identification provides a sense of belonging and unity through membership and hierarchy, satisfies the desire for stimulation through external competition among groups and internal competition for rank and status, and a sense of security through stability and knowable boundaries.[29] A sense of belonging and unity provides a sense of safekeeping, refuge, loyalty, security, reduces fear, and reduces coordination challenges in production and defense.[30] Such behaviors and desires have roots to the beginnings of human existence. A healthy social system is one in which humans are encouraged to love other humans, to work creatively, to develop reason and objectivity, and to develop a sense of identity or self based upon personal experience.[31] There are several noticeable characteristics of well-adjusted personalities within healthy social systems:[32]
Humans are both social and anti-social creatures. They prefer to promote mutual survival but always will struggle with their desire for individual survival and their personal definition of happiness and trespass. Thus, they always will struggle with their personal desires and inclinations versus those obligations and restraints they must embrace to promote mutual survival.[34] That these ideas and conventions exist means every human must acknowledge them. Every human is individually pursuing happiness and that happiness is primarily defined by each individual. However, humans also are products of their environment and their happiness is influenced by interaction with other people. An individual might be a member of numerous societies, but because different individuals within different societies continually interact means every individual must be aware of those differing interpretations, customs, and beliefs. Even when they disagree. Finis. Next: Chapter 7 — Property Endnotes [1] Nock, Our Enemy The State, p. 39. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an 18th century French philosopher, author of The Social Contract. Thomas Hobbes, a 17th century British philosopher and author of Leviathan. [2] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983. [3] Calhoun, A Disquisition on Government, p. 3. [4] De Molinari, The Production of Security, p. 2. [5] Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, p. 184. [6] Fromm, The Sane Society, pp. 78–79. [7] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 81. [8] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Great Reckoning, pp. 245–260. [9] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Great Reckoning, p. 283. [10] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, pp. 167, 191. [11] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, pp. 169–170, 333. [12] Boulding, “Economics As A Moral Science,” p. 4. [13] Boulding, “Economics As A Moral Science,” p. 5. [14] Boulding, “Economics As A Moral Science,” p. 5. [15] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 31. [16] Boulding, “Economics As A Moral Science,” p. 4. [17] Maine, The Ancient Law, p. 74. [18] Toffler, The Third Wave, p. 28. [19] Toffler, The Third Wave, pp. 208–225. [20] Hirshleifer, “The Dark Side of the Force,” p. 1. [21] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983. [22] Spencer, “The Social Organism,” The Man Versus The State, p. 392. [23] Tannehills, The Market for Liberty, pp. 8–15. [24] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 65. [25] Barnard, Draining the Swamp, p. 222. [26] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983. [27] Spencer, Social Statics, p. 302. [28] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 63. [29] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 339. [30] Hirshleifer, “Anarchy and Its Breakdown,” p. 48. [31] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 72. [32] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, pp. 92–100. [33] The concept of justice is discussed in subsequent chapters. [34] Stevenson and Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, pp. 121–125. |
||