I am defining society as the system of rules we follow or are expected to follow when relating (socializing) to others. These might be laws, customs, norms, speech, etc., but they are rules we use to navigate the complexities of living with other humans. The term society might include the people who abide by those rules but I will not use it as such, for the individual exists as separate from the community they are a part of. They can abandon it, adopt another, create their own, and it is even conceivably possible to resurrect a society when all of its members are now deceased. Imagine imprinting all of the customs, laws, norms, etc., all of the characteristics of a deceased society save the particular individuals that were a part of it onto the minds of a different group of individuals. These individuals would then follow the exact same rules of the deceased when relating to each other. If they were placed in the same town as the deceased an outsider would be unable to tell the difference, aside from different faces. Thus I restate my definition of society: the rules that are followed or expected to be followed by a group of human individuals when relating to others.
Human societies are incredibly complex, truly so vast and deep that no individual can hold the whole in mind. When attempting to understand any difficult or complex concept it is often helpful to simplify it as much as possible and then apply those principles to more complex instances. For this reason I will imagine the simplest possible human society in attempt to discover principles upon which a society ought to be based.
-
To begin, imagine a single individual human in nature. Clearly there is no society here, the very word implies social relations to others and there are no others. This may appear trivial but note how the concept of human rights no longer applies. This person may have a right to life, liberty, property, or a right to anything, and it would not matter. No other person exists who would have to respect those rights. If their rights do exist, then they do so in exactly the same way a lone island exists on a planet composed entirely of ocean. This island is land, the entirety of it, there are no other land masses from which to differentiate it from any other. The concept of islands being separated from continents does not apply as there are no continents, indeed we can only identify the concept ‘island’ from experiences on our planet. Similarly, rights do not exist for an individual person when no other persons exist.
Now we shall add a second person, and imagine that both of these people live on an island with no natural predators and more than enough evenly distributed natural resources for both to live a life of luxury. Additionally, assume that these individuals are each rational and self maximizing. As they will at least on occasion meet we can see how a society will inevitably form. Let’s assume that they only desire totally isolated lives, as in separate from one another, and self preservation. When they meet they will state these desires and, as rational beings, will come to a mutually agreeable way to satisfy them. The simplest way would be for each to stay on their respective half of the island. This agreement is the creation of their society. Arguably this is no society at all as they are choosing to not be sociable yet they still have an arrangement between them. This would be their social contract, the rules they follow when relating to each other. It may seem irrational, paranoid, and notably anti-social, but is a society nonetheless. This is the simplest human society that I can conceive of.
The properties of the simplest instance of a concept or object can be assumed to apply to more complex instances unless proven otherwise. Thus it would be worth examining the properties of this society. Conveniently it only has one rule, each person will stay on their respective side of the island, so I will use the word society as a proxy for this one rule until stated otherwise. This society has characteristics that are implied in the manner of its formation; it is mutually agreeable and mutually understood. Without either of these qualifiers the society could not form. Without agreement the two individuals would be at odds and would be in a de facto state of war until they found an agreeable arrangement, or one is killed by the other thus making society impossible. Without mutual understanding one might inadvertently violate the rule and give the appearance of disagreeing, thus leading to the previously stated enmity until understanding is established. Thus this two person society can only exist if both conditions, that of mutual agreement and mutual understanding, are met.
There is an additional condition implied by breaches of the social arrangement. To explore this, imagine that one is physically stronger than the other, so much so that a fight would certainly lead to the stronger’s victory. Each still has the desire for isolation, thus the stronger would be rationally fulfilling their desire by killing the weaker. This makes any society they might form unsustainable as the stronger would simply kill the weaker, leaving a single human in isolation and thus dissolving society.
Now imagine that the difference in strength is less drastic. Most fights would lead to the stronger’s victory but not all, they would still have a significant risk of dying in conflict. The weaker would know that they are disadvantaged but still lethal, thus would desire a mutually agreeable and understandable rule to stave of a fight. The stronger would desire an agreement as well because their chance of victory is not high enough to warrant immediate attack. Any agreement reached between the two would be upheld only so long as the stronger felt the possibility of their own death was too high to risk attack, or until the weaker found an opportunity for a decisive preemptive attack (as they would know that eventually the stronger would attack, thus in the interest of self preservation they must each go on the offensive). This effectively imposes a half life on the existence of any society they might form; society would continue to exist until one found a way to kill the other. Yet if they have equal force they are least likely to risk attacking as their chance of victory is equal to their chance of death. As a total imbalance of power would immediately dissolve society and a lesser imbalance of power would eventually dissolve society, it follows that the closer the balance of power is to equilibrium then the longer their society will last. Thus the third necessary condition of this society is found, its rule must be mutually enforceable.
-
In summation, this two person society is most sustainable if three conditions are met. The rules of the society must be mutually agreeable, mutually understood, and mutually enforceable. The extent to which these conditions are met determines the sustainability of their society.
No comments:
Post a Comment