Is Society Good or Bad?

/

The sociological task reveals that this is the wrong question.

Summary: 

Two unsatisfactory approaches to society are (1) blind acceptance of how things are and (2) overt verdicts on society’s moral status as a whole. 

Neither pays attention to the process of how norms came to be nor the variety of outcomes they produce. The better approach is to notice what society creates and what it might be at the expense of.

Overview:

  • How to approach societal value — examining and understanding how a society organizes itself and what its impact is.

  • Emile Durkheim as a template through the example of Mechanical Solidarity versus Organic Solidarity.

  • Two processes of the sociological task in determining society’s effects.

Part One — The Sociological Task

A cultural epoch — ancient history, pre-modernity, modernity, et cetera — exists, quite generally, as being morally neutral. To ask if modernity is good or bad would be to ask an unanswerable question. Modernity simply exists. How it is used can be good or bad. Or, more importantly, particular effects in particular contexts can be suitable and beneficial or disastrous and harmful.

But that all depends on how a component of the said cultural epoch is utilized in a specific time and place.

Are there parts of modernism that we might celebrate? Of course.

Are there parts of modernism that we should reconsider? I assume so.

Does this allow us to indict a moral verdict on the epoch as a whole? Plainly, no.

The other disposition is equally unnecessary while also coming loaded with potential problems. It is also the approach most likely to occur while existing in a particular epoch — a climate of assumed acceptance that the way things are is simply the way things are.

Society, it seems, tends to be the assumed script by which we live; the water we swim in.

Asking questions about the water is not something we are all that inclined to do.

Unless you are a sociologist in which case examining the unfolding reality of a cultural epoch within societal existence is the melody of your soul.

Today, I’d like to invite us to sing the sociological song — taking our cue from one of the first conductors, Emile Durkheim.

Part Two — The Sociological Question of Modern Industrialism

First, a simple definition of the sociological task: Examining, questioning, and understanding society, how it’s organized, and how it impacts life. Emile Durkheim was one of the first sociologists to use this framework, albeit with some inchoate problems. He did, however, provide a wonderful template for future generations to adapt the framework to.

Durkheim lived and worked in France during the 19th and 20th centuries and was one of the first to consider, in a scientific manner, how a person is part of a larger whole. Durkheim’s primary notion was that an individual exists in a network that they help form. Therefore, all elements of human life are social and society shapes every dimension of human life.

Durkheim also had the opportunity (or unfortunate coincidence, depending on your views) of living during one of the most radical shifts in human history since the emergence of agriculture — the scientific and industrial revolution of modernism. As Durkheim witnessed France shift from agriculture to industrialization alongside the burgeoning nation-state trend and a level of wealth unprecedented in history, he was interested in studying how these new structures and cultural dispositions affected humanity.

The sociological question, however, was not whether or not modernism was good or bad.

Durkheim did not set out to give a moral conclusion or a cultural verdict for the age. He also did not promote blind acceptance of social life as an assumed reality.

Rather, Durkheim showed how one ought to pay attention to the landscape being traversed (and how that landscape historically came to be) so that traveling the best routes is possible.

Within Durkheim’s historical moment, this is what he did. Not apathy, not ignorance, but an intentional exploration to help make the world aware of the terrain they were navigating.

Part Three — Mechanical Versus Organic Solidarity

Emile Durkheim’s most notable work in examining society as a whole is his work on what he called solidarity — how individuals exist in their social networks.

He made note of a variety of differences between the previous iteration of society and its agricultural economy (pre-modern) and the industrial, scientific age blossoming before him (modern). Particularly, Durkheim noted that the number of people and the degree of interaction between the amount and diversity of people was continually increasing. He called this ‘Dynamic Density’ and noticed a correlation between the accruing globalization — that was increasing the dynamic density — and change in social structures.

Essentially, collective life — how people belonged and what society was becoming — was shifting.

Pre-Modern solidarity, for example, was geographically based. Your interdependent connections were mostly the effect of proximity and were restricted to limited factors: Family (or tribe), location, and a small array of social spheres that happened to be accessible in your area and socially acceptable according to your cultural norms.

Durkheim called this Mechanical Solidarity; where the collective consciousness was determined by geographical and tribal solidarity.

Modern solidarity, however, transcended the geographic and ancestral ties and, as a result, was less involved and offered less intimacy. As specialization in roles increased with the division of labor of capitalistic economic structures and as the range of traveling capacity grew, social connections were less based on proximity and became exhibited primarily because of economic overlap. Your social sphere became the result of market interdependence, not family.

Durkheim called this Organic Solidarity; where the collective consciousness was determined by social institutions.

Which one is better?

Wrong question.

Part Four — The Better Questions for the Sociological Task

Similar to Marshall McLuhan’s articulation of media and technology, the better question when it comes to different social expressions is, “How does this affect things?”

Just a general gloss reveals that the pre-modern or “Mechanical” solidarity offered a larger depth of intimacy. The proximity and permanence of the tribe created a communal identity, belonging, and shared history that is quite valuable to the health of individuals and, assumably, society.

However, the possibility for growth, progress, and diversity is quite low. It’s also no secret that inter-tribal conflict was often devastating for many populations. Anyone who belongs to a family also knows that intimacy isn’t as glamorous as it sounds, either.

Modern or “Organic” solidarity offers unprecedented diversity and a much higher possibility of growth and progress; particularly demographically (increasing population size) and economically (producing wealth).

However, the ability to have the in-depth shared history of pre-modernism’s tribes is significantly lower.

Or consider how a person might come to understand themselves. In mechanical solidarity frameworks, the individual identifies with the whole as a natural extension of themselves; which also means their concept of the self is limited to the group they are a part of. In modern societies, a person has enormous access to various options. They might not have the depth of relational intimacy and tribal interdependence, but they do have a larger sense of independence.

This is just an example of the sociological task and its ability to notice the impact of society and how it is organized.

In Durkheim’s seminal work The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, he remarks that the sociologist’s job is to glean as much information as is possible about the subject; which means that one cannot go about making judgments on the rationality, validity, or moral nature of what one is studying. First, you gather the information, then you draw conclusions on what ought to be done with it.

The invitation is to pay attention.

Because the mode of society is creating society.

And if we are going to configure the best way to live in the places we are, we first have to understand where we are and what we are handling.

A society itself, therefore, is not good or bad; a society can have positive or negative effects depending on how it is used and what it prioritizes.

Utilizing Durkheim’s work on solidarity, the sociological template appears to be twofold when determining society’s effects:

First Question:

What are the likely outcomes?

Durkheim noticed that modernism created a particular experience of the world. The economic situation was different as a result of the emerging norms and structures from capitalism, industrialization was creating a culture of consumerism and material access, and social structures were becoming more detached.

Progress, growth, diversity, and individualism are just some of the results of modern society, but the point is simply to acknowledge them.

Second Question:

What are the potential positives and what are the potential negatives?

All social realities are like a bargain — the effects usually come as a package deal. This means, when it comes to social structures, we simply must decide on which deal we are going to make. You want intimacy, you will probably lose some individualism.

Similar to “Relational Dialectics Theory” or Marshall McLuhan’s “Four Laws of Media” — there is a tension between something’s existence and its diverse range of possibilities. Depending on how a social reality exists and is used, something will be gained and something will be lost.

But if we don’t pay attention, if aren’t aware of what we are handling, we might not be choosing the positives we actually need and we might not be considering the negatives certain social structures are likely to create.