On society

What is society?

A society is a large-scale system of people bound by shared rules, institutions, norms and structures. It is abstract and institutional. It enables strangers to collaborate at scale. Society is the foundation of a nation.

Not all societies are nation states, but all nation states are societies. Beyond nations we have societies such as:

• The Irish diaspora

• The European Union

• Hanseatic League

• Crypto ‘communities.’

  
  

In this essay I will explore society from a nation state perspective.

Why do we need it?

Society enables us to collaborate with strangers by reducing uncertainty through shared frameworks, including:

• A commonly recognised legal system

• Shared expectations around contracts and exchange

• A shared currency that enables impersonal trade

• A recognised authority capable of enforcing common rules

• Collective defence

• Utility management

• Resource management.

A healthy society thus provides systemic stability.

The cost of being a societal member is a curbing of personal freedom. When governments get the balance right between control and freedom, the society may be deemed healthy. In such circumstances, it might be said that we have traded absolute freedom for structural freedom.

Is society a good thing?

Society has many advocates:

• Thomas Hobbes – Society exists to protect us from chaos. So society provides us with security, protecting us from our natural brutish inclinations.

• John Locke – Society protects our freedoms, though we must be careful it does not extinguish them.

• Emile Durkheim – Society is the moral glue that prevents fragmentation (normlessness).

• GWF Hegel – Society is a measure of ethical development.

• Aristotle – Humans are political animals and so society is a natural phenomenon.

• Jean-Jacque Rousseau – Society offers freedom when we obey laws that we commonly create.

  
  

Several of these luminaries were also society critics. Rosseau famously argued that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”. Other critics included:

• Fredrich Nietzsche -Society generates mediocrity. It protects the weak and restrains greatness.

• Henry David Thoreau – Society cultivates blind conformity and often obstructs moral clarity.

• Mikhail Bakunin – A centralised society is to be rejected. In fairness this is more anti-state than anti-society.

• Michel Foucault – Society is a mechanism to surveil and control its members.

• Max Stirnor – Individuals should not subordinate themselves to abstractions such as society.

The cases for each of the pro and anti-society perspectives are not difficult to make if you choose your lens carefully.

Let us explore whether there are other social models that might better serve humanity.

Are communities a better model?

Unlike societies, communities are built on personal relationships. They are bounded by:

• Familiarity

• Shared values

• A sense of belonging.

Relative to societies, communities are typically small. Dunbar’s number suggest that the maximum number of relationships a person can maintain is around 150. So this might reflect the maximum size of a community. However Dunbar’s number is disputed.

Communities are managed informally using social tools such as approval, shame and exclusion. Shrewd governments build their military around communities. A platoon of soldiers from the same village are more likely to look out for each other.

Tribes are the original community model. We were all tribal up until 12,000 years ago. Human adaptations take many millennia to adapt at the DNA level.

So we are still wired to be tribal. Though the term is often used today in a pejorative manner. Tribes typically have a common vision, for example, to survive and perhaps trade. However they can be quite diverse with different languages and worship practices coexisting within the group.

The tribal model started to collapse with the arrival of the agricultural revolution, which led to less nomadic behaviour. It also led to the notion of owner and worker. Certain people through luck, skill or guile found themselves determining the destiny of others.

This disparity accelerated with the arrival of cities. In 1950, 20% of humanity lived in cities, today it is 55%. This trend is expected to continue. Urbanisation, and thus industrial society, is at odds with our natural wiring.

However even within cities communities thrive. It is not clear whether this is because of or despite modern society.

Are nations a flawed system?

When set against humanity’s timeline, cities (circa 10,000 years ago) and latterly ‘political’ nations (circa 250 years ago) are something of a recent experiment. Thus it is too early to conclude that the national model is a success.

Geology offers a natural medium for nation building, ie isolated landmasses, aka islands. Everything else is a social construct, typically arrived at by successful conquest and / or by drawing lines on a map. But even islands of any size are traditionally not crucibles for a united nation - think the chieftains of Ireland or the tribes of the Americas.

Nations, and civilisations (supernations), have a long history of impermanence. Examples include:

• Yugoslavia

• Czechoslovakia

• Prussia

• Catalonia

• Ottoman Empire.

So we cannot assume that the nation we support in international sporting events, the one in which we may be asked to sacrifice our lives or the lives of our children, will be around in say 50 years.

Whether we like it or not, nations and thus societies are the primary collective model.

Note that a characteristic of a collapsing society is when the economic and social disparity between the rich and poor is widening. This presents a strategic opening for more capable states. And so the nation becomes an empire comprising a collection of nations and thus societies.

Given the disparity trends this might suggest that further power consolidation is likely, particularly when the weaker nation has the resources that the stronger nation needs.

This societal model is too ingrained to dismantle. Revolutions when they happen tend to evolve into variants of the original model. The level of shock needed to dismantle the model wholesale would have to be seismic in nature. An errant asteroid comes to mind or perhaps some sort of major climate perturbation. Or perhaps a simple world war would suffice.

Governance implications

But perhaps there is a less extreme way to reshape societies in a manner that benefits all stakeholders. Society is a fine example of sociality at scale. No other species can collaborate in the millions, as far as we know. Sociality is humanity’s superpower.

Societies are complex systems that sit within complex systems. Intelligent governments recognise that at best they can influence the behaviour of the citizens. Control is an option, but it is unlikely to end well for those in power.

Government, and thus society, works well when it is in service to all citizens rather than a framework for control. A more decentralised approach to government, one that empowers communities to make local decisions, is the way forward.

A government might be considered society’s brain. But a brain without a functioning body is of little use. A functioning body has a nervous system that not only allows the brain to influence all aspects of the body, but most importantly, it enables the body to provide feedback to the brain. A harmonised brain and body would appear to be the way forward.

The question then is how this societal nervous system is developed.