Holding Our Society Together

Once upon a time, our ancestors were hunter-gatherers.  They lived in small groups of little more than a hundred souls who wandered their territories in search of sustenance.  These folks cooperated with one another because they had too.  They were also tied together with bands of affection.

Hunter-gathers knew everyone in their tiny clans.  They had interacted all of their lives and worked face-to-face daily.  This, moreover, was the world for which they were genetically primed.  It felt natural because it was.

How different things are with us.  We are surrounded by millions of strangers, most of whom we never meet.  Although we depend upon these people, we don’t have an opportunity to develop a personal relationship with more than a few.  We are not emotionally attached for want of the interactions that enable these to happen.

Nowadays, the impact of this lack of bonding is making itself felt.  Our society is retribalizing.  We are breaking down into smaller, mutually hostile, groups.  Not only do liberals hate conservatives, but blacks do not trust whites, women are skeptical of men, and gays look askance at straights.

Despite repeated calls for universal love, we don’t love everyone—because we can’t.  Genuine love is contingent upon intimacy, which is impossible when so many folks are involved.

So what are we to do?  We see people fighting with each other in the streets.  We witness angry diatribes on television.  We worry about the effects of increasing diversity.  With all of these centrifugal forces, how can we strengthen the attachments upon which we depend?

There are, in fact, a number of ways.  Love may not be enough, but it can be supplemented by other means.  One of these is morality.  All societies have moral rules.  These enable us to reduce the conflicts between people who have competing interests.  They tamp down disagreements—even between strangers.

The problem is that as societies grow larger, the rules they impose must be modified.  To illustrate, what constitutes theft among hunter-gatherers is not the same as what does in an industrial society.  In the former, for instance, there is no intellectual property to steal.

In any event, our mass techno-commercial society is in the midst of a gigantic renegotiation of our shared values.  What are we to decide about abortion, gay rights, or the sanctity of marriage?  Opinions not only differ, they ferociously differ.  Even whether free medical treatment is a “right” is up for grabs.

What then are we to do?  How can we develop a consensus that permits us to live comfortably with a multitude of strangers?  To which communal rules can we give allegiance, despite our disparate backgrounds and interests?  If we are to trust one another, a set of core principles is essential.

I suggest five.  They are: honesty, personal responsibility, fairness-defined as universality, individual freedom, and family commitment.  All are grounded in our history, but must be modified to deal with emerging challenges.  Only then can they form a nucleus around which agreement is feasible.

To cite one area in which modifications are necessary; the family is not what it was.  The roles of men and women have changed, so, therefore, must the ways in which they maintain intimate commitments.  This is, in fact, occurring in households across the nation.

Once we reestablish what we believe is moral, we can use our collective allegiances to settle differences.  We may not love each other, but we can be truthful, mutually supportive, and abide by the same standards.  Under these conditions, we will know what to expect from one another, including those we never previously encountered.

Yes, we must judge one another.  We have to if we are to enforce agreed upon principles.  But, in the process, we also learn how we are apt to be evaluated.   This facilitates choosing the appropriate conduct.

Shared principles provide shared goals.  When these point in directions from which most of us benefit, they can coordinate complex activities.  They are able to hold us together because they lead down common pathways.

Strangers, because most seldom interact, cannot always be motivated by emotional ties.  They can, however, be moved by internalized moral commitments.  And if they are, they can operate conjointly despite their differences.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University