One of the long recurring discussions that Uisdean Ruadh and I have - and by long, I mean 30 years or more - is the nature of societies and political units and their eventual demise (This, wedged into between Theology and the Ecumenical Councils, identification of overhead jets, whether or not colonization of planets is even possible or meaningful, and whatever else comes into our heads.) After 30 years, you would think we have little enough to talk about anymore, yet somehow thanks to the ongoing drama that is human nature in the 21st Century, we do.
It probably comes as no surprise that I, being the cynic that I am on such matters, am much more pessimistic than he, who remains the eternal optimist in this area. I point to the inevitable current trends; he points to history and where a reunifying effort or event was not thought possible, and suddenly occurred, thereby saving the day. And thus it goes, year after year, as we pick apart the nature of social adhesion or dissolution over walks and phone calls and Friday meals.
This past visit out, during our discussion, I posited "What happens if people just simply lose interest in a society?
"What do you mean?"
"Well, not that they hate the system or are actively trying to bringing it down. Simply that they no longer become invested in the system - it no longer meets their ideological or physical needs. Sort of like when marriages give out from a lack of interest in the partner's part: they both have moved on, and only the structure of the marriage is in place, not the core."
"So you are suggesting that a society or economy without interest in its maintenance will simply fall apart?"
"Why not? It becomes like a marriage that no-one cares about at some point: Why bother?"
Societies - political, economic, social - derive their legitimacy and ultimately their existence from the fact that they people they "rule over" or "represent" have a vested interest in their continuance and continue to benefit from them (and to be clear, "benefit" does not mean only physical: the ability to lead a private life is a great benefit, at least to me). Remove either of those factors - no more vested interests or no more benefits - and the society becomes at worst an annoyance and at best an inconvenience. Like that uncomfortable relationship at work no-one talks about, everyone just learns to "work around" that person or that department.
To some, I am sure as soon as I write this, their mind immediately leaps to this party or that movement and how they have done something to create this problem. Let us be clear: virtually every political party is implicated here, so (frankly) we will have none of that. This is not a Red versus Blue issue or a Conservative versus Liberal issue (although there are many fine sites you can go argue those points on); this is an observation on what keeps a political/economic/social in existence, and what keeps it from falling apart: investment in the system and benefits from the system.
Or stated more simply: all societies get to this point. How any of them got here is beyond the scope of this particular post.
What happens when one or both of those goes away? Well, potentially it can be the sort of thing that creates violence and economic mayhem (given, frankly, humanity's propensity for violence and bad decisions as a way to resolve things), but that is not always a given. Sometimes it simply looks like those in power going to do what they have always done, and suddenly finding that no-one is interested in doing it - they have voted, literally or figuratively, with their feet, their interest, their energy, and their finances. That can be as significant as physically leaving a location, finding other ways to do business, or simply developing other institutions to do the same sorts of things (the "parallel economy/parallel structures" one hears about so often).
The odd thing - and I pointed this out to Uisdean Ruadh during our conversation - is that ultimately the people that have checked out are never surprised by this. The only people that are surprised are the ones that, buoyed on by a sense of history and their own importance, seem to think that it is self evident that the system should continue - because, of course, it always has.
It sounds like you and your friend have some extremely interesting conversations.
ReplyDelete"All societies get to this point." Is that another way of saying that no society lasts for ever? Yes, mankind always rallies, but often under a completely different societal structure than when they started.
One thing that's very different than the past, is the internet. And now, there's an argument over who controls it. The nuances of how it factors in, I don't know, but I suspect most folks would agree that it is indeed a factor.
Leigh, we do. Your comment has made me think that I need a post on that, because in a way, it influences how I write here. Originally I assumed all conversations were like this, but it turns out they are not.
DeleteIt is a way of saying that societies and civilizations fail, but not always for the reasons that people like to think. Sometimes it is simply as mundane as "no one cares about the system" anymore.
The InterWeb is a huge factor - at the same time, a very fragile one in the sense it presumes an infrastructure to send and receive information (servers, computers/i-phones, transmission equipment, and simply power itself). And that does not even cover the "Unofficial Interweb", where other things happen. Control is incredibly contentious - there are active discussions now how "disinformation" should be banned, but the concept of "disinformation" has a very wide base: Is it true disinformation in the sense of lies? Is it opinions that are not agreed with?
Leigh, the other thing you make me think of (so many good ideas coming out of your comment!) is that we assume that that the larger order - the international order - is at its apex of development. Every generation that had one assumes that of course, only to be surprised.
DeleteI agree with you about disinformation. One problem with the current discussion is that people no longer seem to know the difference between fact and opinion. This may stem from the idea that truth is relative and contains no absolutes, I don't know. Add to that a possible economic or political incentive to have everyone believe a certain thing, and well, we end up with the mess we've got.
DeleteThose that believe that the system continues because it always has may disbelieve or minimize threat warnings. People losing interest in a society may be subtle enough that it's not recognized by the majority.
ReplyDeleteNylon12, you may be right. In point of fact, the ability of the human brain to ignore what it wants to ignore is virtually limitless. Add to that the assumption that - no matter what the vehicle - that this is best of all possible worlds and why on Earth would anyone want anything else, and you have the makings of a quiet disaster - or quiet revolution, depending on how you see things.
DeleteThere are times in the course of every empire’s life span where the people in it change. The people of America changed irrevocably in 1776. They changed again after their civil war. They’re changing now…in these days where anyone that crosses the border instantly becomes an American.
ReplyDeleteLegacy Americans are watching the institutions they built crumble. How can you take an interest in any social or political issue when you can’t trust anything you read in the mass media? How can you raise your voice on any issue if doing so puts you on a list and targets you for harassment from law enforcement? Or expect a fair hearing in court? What can you do when you can no longer ‘work around’ those special folks at work? Look at what is happening to our churches - I think you might have inside knowledge on that one.
I am wondering how all this happened? Could it be that instead of politely working around those bothersome and loathesome people…we should have dealt with them instead? Because those are the people in charge now… and the apathy they instill in others will kill any empire the same way a revolution or invasion will.
But do those institutions still hold any interest, Glen? The reality is that as anyone will tell you "the good old days" were never as good as we remember them. We cannot say 30 years ago was - without measure - better than today.
DeleteHere is the odd thing, at least to me - there is a counter revolution of sorts going on, quietly and under the radar. Even publicly, certain aspects of things are starting to come undone - the proverbial bridge too far. If your opponent is busy defeating themselves, the worst thing in the world you can do is intervene. That will create resistance or stiffen resolve.
I've thought about this as well. "...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Only, it seems that it is anathema to think that can happen here again. Perhaps, the idea of a Peak Society is held by those that are at the peak of it. That's why it is such a surprise when it topples over.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to see how this all culminates. Where we go from where we are. It is such a tumult to live in now. I can't imagine the future.
I had hoped to see a return to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in my life time. But the days are coming soon, I think, when the fore-tellings of Scripture will start to come to pass in the ultimate fulfillment. We are well into the 2 Timothy 3: "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy..." Then comes the mark without which you cannot buy or sell.... Then... then... then....
Living out eschatology... whoda thunk it.
STxAR, I can only think of us recovering to lower bars, like a receding tide. In a way that is okay - life exists in the tide pools just fine; it just has to learn to adapt.
DeleteThe relevant question to me is just precisely how much one can fracture a society or economy underneath the surface and still expect it to function or survive. I suspect we are dangerous close to finding out.
I guess all this really depends on how you define a society. If you define a society by its boundaries or perhaps by its government, then you are probably right, they all fail at some point. But within those societies, are small societies that after the mayhem is over, are still there and will proceed on under the next set of borders or next government. Romans came and went and yet I'm sure many Italians can trace family back to them. Their local society is still there though the government and boundaries have changed over time. Same can be said with the Incas, Aztecs, Native Americans, etc. There are still present in our history, just under a different set of boundaries and governments.
ReplyDeleteThat is sort of what I was driving at Ed. Large nation-states and large countries and their economic systems come and go; the small societies that are in them can survive. In fact, in the dissolution of the large, it is the small societies and economies that often are reverted to.
DeleteThe one thing that does make curious about this is the homogenization of people and culture and economy due to the modern world. I wonder how much those small societies continue to function, and how well they would/will do in the present circumstances.
I think homogenization is inevitable and someday we'll all just be one whether we want that or not. It seems like all societies become smaller with time and then fade out. All they leave behind are traces, like DNA, quirky traditions and notations in our history books. I sometimes with I could come back in a 1000 years and see what it is that remains of our little society.
Delete