Ever since (before) we made the leap from Homo-Erectus to Homo-Sapien to Homo-Sapien-Sapien, we have, as a species had a unique and growing understanding of ourselves as individuals and of ourselves within a group. We are by nature, social and communal creatures. With each leap in our evolution, has come a sophistication of our understanding of ourselves, both as individuals and collectively . Since the dawn of man, we have theorized about this connection to the self and connection to the group. It used to be shamans who had the ultimate authority in these matters, but as letters and linguistics evolved along with us, the study of man too has evolved. In this evolving study, many theorists have come forward. Great thinkers and scholars who have sought to explain this part of the human experience.
Classical theoryPlato http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_AllegoryPlato must have wondered how as a species, we could be so tender with one another, and at the same time, be driven to kill one another. To explain our behavior, he puts forth the "Chariot Allegory."
Plato speaks of man as a"charioteer" driving himself. There are two horses leading man. One white, well bred, long necked, and running without a whip, the other, black, badly bred, badly behaved and troublesome.
Plato used this allegory to describe our souls. The white horse our love,charity, and other positive natures, the black our negative impulse toward adultery, theft, murder, etc. He theorizes that man behaves wickedly at times because he is unable to control the black horse, even with the help of the white horse.
Should this happen, Plato believed that the soul of man would be incarnated into 9 different levels of being. In descending order: 1) philosophers (like himself), lovers of beauty and men of culture 2) Law abiding Kings and Civic Leaders 3) Politicians, estate managers or businessmen 4)Doctors 5) Prophets and Mystery Cult Participants (Dieist,Freemason,Crowlyites?) 6)Poets or Imitative artists 7)Craftsmen and Farmers 8) Sophists and Demagogues 9) Tyrants
(If we switch the list around a bit, we could be describing the current hierarchy of modern Western Society eh?)
Thomas HobbsExcerpt from: Bierstedt, Robert. 1959.
The Making of Society. New York: Random House/ Modern Library. (p.85-90)
The precursor to Rousseau's "social contract" is found in Hobbs' writing. Hobbs (mid 17th century) theorized that man was forced to band together into some form of society, because left to his own state of nature, he is fearful of his own species and has a propensity for violent action. He argues that this initial contact between us is what sparked civil society and this this society required absolute authority. Hobbs argues that men must give up their own personal liberties in order to achieve an "artificial" peace. By this logic, Hobbs affirms the holdings of Aristotle that society is not a natural phenomena, not our natural inclination, but rather, something that man feels he must construct because of his own "ferocity and natural fear" (p.85).
In his book "Leviathan," Hobbs says that "men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company"(p. 87) with each other. He goes onto explain his theory of man and man's natural propensity for quarrel as stemming from his natural inclination for competition, diffidence, and want for glory. This he reasons, is why when men form society, there is need for an absolute power to "keep them in awe" (p.88). If man is not in awe of a greater authority or common power, he will find himself in a perpetual state of war or quarrel, the consequence being that "every man is an enemy to every man" (p.88). Worst, Hobbs contends, is that in this state of war, right and wrong, justice and no justice haven't a place. Therefore, there is need for the State, because without the State, this lawlessness will abound (p. 89).
Jean Jacques Rousseauhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Rousseau-soccon.htmlThis man was a Revolution era thinker (late 18th century)and a contemporary of the American founding fathers. He imprinted scholarly thought with his expanded ideas of Hobbs' "social contract." Rousseau believes that man's "individual will," may at times be in opposition of the "general will" of society, and that such an attitude could, if left unfettered, "ruin the body politic." This raises the question of how to suppress this from becoming widespread. Rousseau reconciles man's loss of personal liberty for the greater good of the common by pointing out that though man may lose certain benefits he may have had while in a "state of nature" when he is part and parcel to the "civil state" he gains many new benefits to make up for his losses. He becomes an "intelligent being and man out of his previous state of being a stupid and very limited animal." It follows that man must guide and determine his own inclinations and actions to the whole of society rather than to the self, so he can then reap the benefits the state has to offer. This is the social contract.
Man, he theorizes, should thus understand that the general, not the individual will, is always in the right because it is on the whole, inclined towards the public good. This comes with its own set of responsibilities of course. Man must PARTICIPATE in discourse regarding the public good and keep the public interest at his heart. Rousseau makes a poignant observation:
"Once the public interest has ceased to be the principle concern of citizens, once they prefer to serve the state with money rather than with their persons, the state will be approaching ruin. Is it necessary to march into combat? They will pay troops and stay home. Is it necessary to go to meetings? They will name some deputies and stay home. Laziness and money finally leave them with soldiers to enslave their fatherland and representatives to sell it..."
Sound like anybody we know? Love those Revolution Era thinkers! People break the social contract all the time and then wonder why they ended up with the dirty end of the stick! I really like Rousseau's ideas because they are far sighted, relevant, and timeless. My favorite out of the entire group.
Adam Smithhttp://art-bin.com/art/oweal1a.htmlExcerpt from his book "Wealth of Nations," chapters 1-5
Here, to try to understand humans in society, Smith looks to our natural propensity as a species towards barter and exchange. He finds the debate of weather or not this is our natural state to be immaterial, asserting that whatever the case, it is common to all men and exclusive to our species. Of how society is ordered, Smith says that it would be foolish for man to expect help from his "brethren" on the basis of their benevolence. Instead, in order to receive such help, he must interest others to his cause by showing them that it is somehow advantageous to do so. Translation, pay them somehow.
It is through this need of barter and payment that we come to the division of labor. Everybody has to specialize in something or else there would be nothing, no goods or services to trade. If we were all brewers, why would we care if someone wanted to pay us in beer? No, Smith says, we must all specialize somehow. You be the baker and I'll be the butcher. We can then exchange favors between ourselves and still manage to acquire what we individually need, thus forming a cohesive society in which we all participate, add to, and benefit from.
Ferdinand Tonnieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_GesellschaftGerman theorist, late 18th century-the 1930's. This social theorist closely parallels the social theorist Emile Durkheim's theories. With Tonnies, we arrive at Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft is the communal construction of society where individuals are more oriented to a larger association than their own self interests. This societies people share a common sense of beliefs and mores about what the appropriate behaviors and responsibilities of the communal body are. Toonies exemplified the family as the perfect example of Gemeinschaft but allowed that Gemeinschaft is possible where there is a shared place or belief in society that goes beyond kinship.
Gesellschaft, translated to mean "civil society," describes a social construction in which the larger groups interests do not supercede the interests of the individual and where there is a lack of shared mores to the extent that they are found in Gemeinschaft. Here, there is an emphasis placed on secondary relationships rather than the primary relationships of the family. The social cohesion here is derived mostly from the social interdependence created by the division of labor common in these types of societies. Because of this, these societies are more prone to class conflict. Because of the individualized emphasis here, racial and ethnic conflict is more commonly found here is well.
Emile Durkheimhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_solidarityLate 18th century to early 19th century. With Durkheim comes the theory of social solidarity in the form of mechanical and organic solidarity. "Mechanical solidarity" is social cohesion that comes out of a homogeneous group of people based on their shared work, religion, belief systems and lifestyles. This kind of solidarity is usually operational in "traditional" societies, or, non-industrialized societies. "Organic solidarity" is an interdependent social cohesion that comes with specialized work and dependence like what Adam Smith described. This kind of solidarity is found in "advanced" or industrialized societies where differences of lifestyle are common, but not the common ground. The example given in this passage is that the farmer grows the food for the man who makes the tractor that allows him to farm. Organic solidarity is very circular in this respect. The most distinguishing factors of organic solidarity are that in these societies religious practice and belief is more varied and that societal emphasis falls more on the individual than the collective.
Charles Cooleyhttp://media.pfeiffer.edu/Iridener/DDS/Cooley?COOLLW3.HTMLLate 18th century-1929. Cooley's focus fell more on how individuals become socialized into the social body of society, any society. To explain this he theorized about "the primary group."
The primary group consists of an individuals closest and most personal relations such as their mother, best friend of 20 years, or close and familiar neighbor. It is within the context of these relationships that people become socialized to "human cooperation and fellowship." In our primary groups we are linked by ties of "sympathy and affection." Here, we put away our individualist attitudes and work more for the common good because we understand that by making things good for members of our primary group, we are making things better for ourselves. For example, say you and your neighbor are dismayed about the high expense and poor quality of the produce in your local supermarket. The two of you may decide to go door to door and enlist the other neighbors in the neighborhood and try to get a neighborhood garden going. Though everyone in the neighborhood works 40 hours a week, everybody is willing to pitch in on the project during their free time, not just for the benefit they receive (fresh organic vegetables), but also for the added benefit that it feeds the others in the neighborhood with the same fresh veggies, beautifies the neighborhood, and is an enjoyable cooperative activity that everybody can share together. Pretty sweet. If say, somebody is sick over the weekend, everybody will do that persons share of the work because they are sympathetic and they know that the person has shown good faith in participation before and that their intentions still remain with the greater good. It is this appraisal of the person for their "intrinsic values" rather than their "instrumental values" that allows such cooperation.
The primary group is a lovely theory and in practice is wonderful. Cooley was however, a bit too optimistic because he believed that people would take the values learned here, in the primary group, and apply them in their entirety to their secondary groups, the nation, and eventually the world!
My favorite aspect of Cooley's theory is that he seems interdisciplinary between sociology and psychology. Cooley theorized that "The imaginations that people have of one another are the solid facts of society." Brilliant. Cooley saw society as a part of the individual self, not the other way around. I love that!
Contemparary TheoryMancur Olsenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson19th century. Olsen believed in the "Logic of the collective" or the "collective action problem." Olsen believed that only incentive could stir people to act in a group orientated way. That it is the benefits that a group member receives that will stimulate somebody to join a group. Basically, according to Olsen, we as a collective are beholden to a "what's in it for me" kind of attitude with respect to collective works. All of Olsen's theories were rooted in economics in one way or another. For instance, in different kinds of government, one will find different incentive and values. Under anarchy, the "roving bandit" appears. His only incentive will be to steal and destroy because there is a lack of a "greater good" mentality that comes with the state. In the case of the "stationary bandit," the tyrant, his incentive will be to encourage economic growth, not for the greater public good, but because he expects to be in power long enough to reap the rewards. Olsen saw the combination of these two bandits as paving the way for democratic government, one that improves the incentive for good government by more closely aligning it to the public's wish.
Olsen saw all incentive as somehow being selective. He realized that societal groups have to be small and monitored, otherwise one runs the risk of encountering the "free rider," people who enjoy all the benefits of society without working for them. The question then becomes, what incentive is needed to balance people's selfishness and move them forward towards a group orientation?
Ronald Coasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase1910-present. Nobel prize of economics winner in 1991.
I'm not sure where to fit Ronald Coase in this schema of social theorists. I understand that he is an economic theorist, and that in Western societies such as our own, economics are the bread and butter of the body politic, which in turn legislates and sets the law of the land which is the entire crux of social control. Yes, I understand that, but I do not understand why Coases' theory of "externality" fits with social control in the same way that the above theorist theories do. Bit of a hum dinger in fact.
So, there are, according to Coase, several "transaction costs" when conducting business. These include search and information costs, bargaining costs, keeping trade secrets, and policing and enforcement costs. All of this in order to start production and distribution with all the costs entailed.
Next we have "the social cost" of doing business. This did not seem to mean what I thought it was going to mean at all. Apparently, "social cost" has more to do with where the "blame for externalities lies." Externality in this case refers to the effect had on something that wasn't your problem to begin with. Example, say a farmer has cattle that keep defecating in a river 250 miles away that happens to run itself into a lake that you fish in. Say all this excrement is poisoning the fish and making you sick because you eat the fish you catch. Should the farmer 250 miles away be held responsible?
Much litigation with respect to social cost has taken place at all levels of the courts in the United States and I suppose that in this way, Coase is theorizing about the construction of society. Society has after all, grown by leaps and bounds with respect to business and the law, and as such, theories of society have stretched to encompass these aspects of society. Almost like the theories of the other social theorists are given, and we are now just building on this knowledge.
John Rawlshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls1921-2002. American moral and political philosopher and a Harvard man.
With Rawls, we associate the phrase "the veil of ignorance." The veil of ignorance is employed to "determine what constitutes a fair agreement in which everybody is impartially situated as equals" as a way to determine principles of social justice. If a politician must make or enact a decision, he must arrive at the decision by taking into account multiple parties, and settling on whatever decision benefits the weakest of the parties. That when making decisions, a judicious person or entity will be clouded about anything that could affect them positively or negatively, only then, can a just decision be arrived at.
This article says that Rawls appeals to "the social contract." That he tries to figure which principles of justice we would "agree to if we desired to cooperate with others, but would also prefer more of the benefits, and less of the burdens, associated with cooperation." In other words, with social justice in mind, how do we create a win-win scenario in society?
To answer this question, Rawls says we must "affirm a principle of equal basic liberties, thus protecting the familiar liberties of conscience, association, expression, and the like." Still, it must be taken into account that "formal guarantees of political voice and freedom of assembly are of real little worth to the desperately poor and marginalized of society." People have bigger fish to fry, and I appreciate the sensitivity of this distinction. Therefore, we need to make sure that these liberties are equalized in such a way that people get their "fair worth," no matter what station in society they are assigned. No wonder Rawls won so many awards, he actually came up with a solution to this problem!
The first part of Political Liberalism: The"difference principle". Social and economic inequalities have to be arranged so that they pose the greatest advantage to the least advantaged persons and that positions and offices must be availible to all under the condition of equal opportunity. Secondly in the scheme of political liberalism, each person must have access to an adaquate "scheme of basic rights" that is "compatible with the basic scheme for all." This guy is fantastic!
Next, we have "The law of people's." Here, on an international scale, no well-ordered people will deny or violate human rights or behave in an "externally agressive manner." If a State does engage in human rights violation, they are termed "outlaw states" and do not benefit from the esteem or mutual respect and toleration that a liberal and decent state will.
