August 4, 2007
Social Philosophy – Path of Least Resistance
Social Philosophy – Path of Least Resistance
Before I roll on in here, I must first apologise to Justin for doubting his wisdom in the area of social breakdown under state stress.
Before rattling on, I would first like to offer my heartfelt condolences to all those people who have been affected by the unraveling disaster that was Hurricane Katrina. Nothing is more heartbreaking than to see my fellow man under such saddening anguish.
What has become apparent from this terrible disaster is the tenuousness of social order in our modern world, and how much we the people rely on that social order and the trappings of modernity, to survive.
I have always been of the view, similar to Hagel, that our social structures, particularly Liberal Democratic, are inherent in the people of those structures. That is to say that our view of Liberal Democracy is as a result of the populous-psyche’s belief in equality and the good of the general population over individual views of self-service. However, Lockean social philosophy, based on a simple point that man, particularly bourgeois man, is self-absorbed and on mass does what is right only for himself. I always considered Lockean theory was inconsistent with modernity.
To simplify, the three hundred year ago view of society is based on three classes, The Poor, the Bourgeoisie, and the Aristocratic class.
As time has moved on, through Hagel and Kant’s time, we have undergone a social awakening where the three-class system has been replaced by a multi-tiered structure with a predominantly socially aware (people’s) government. This is Democratic Liberalism in the
My hypothesis is that this modern social justice awareness has a direct relationship with the populous view. This is reflected in the following actuality – we as people elect those representatives of the government who stand on a platform of helping those less fortunate than ourselves on our behalf. My thoughts are: if I myself am socially aware then I will elect those that will do my bidding. Therefore, a government system that is elected on the popular vote is representative of the majority that is itself socially aware.
However, the recent events in
I would consider that there is a balance between Lockean and Hagellean social order. As Marx suggests, there is a social justice premium that people are prepared to pay for social harmony. We consider that we must pay this premium to ensure that those of unfortunate circumstance are covered under social justice with an underlying thought – we ourselves may well be rendered unfortunate and seek use of that insurance at some point in our lives.
However, under social breakdown, a Lockean view takes over where people will put themselves before the good of the state (and others) when resources are so scarce as to threaten personal existence. The social justice premium will only ever be paid by the people when they themselves have everything they desire (are at a greater height than Esteem needs within the Maslow hierarchy of needs system). This desire point in a modern state is balanced between the needs of the poor and the wealth of the rich, bearing in mind that the poor are the majority and it is they themselves that empower governors to deliver social justice. Yet it is they themselves that under social breakdown are most needy (lower down Maslow’s needs model to begin with) and quickest to resort to Lockean selfishness.
To expand, in the space of four days the city was suffering massive looting…and not just for food and water! Roaming armed gangs, with law enforcement under gunfire from some within the civilian population, is unbelievable in such a short period for what is well understood a modern democratic state. No doubt this catastrophe will shake the American governance view to its foundations. In the past the state has been hands off in relation to social justice in favour of the free-market liberal economics. This is not a sustainable position.
I am careful here not to suggest that everyone under this disaster lost their sense of social justice. In fact the majority were appalled at what was happening in their city and indeed fell victim to the breakout of lawlessness.
My theory is that social cohesion is a balance between Lockean selfishness and Hagelean liberalism while the majority is held above the Maslow Esteem Needs. Under disaster where the state, the social guarantor, is lost, Lockean selfishness will step in the moment those Esteem Needs are no longer guaranteed, all at the expense of society at a whole. This is were Anarchy is tested to failure.
The reason for my apology to Justin is his hypothesis that the lowest common denominator will prevail under social shock is true. Even when lawlessness is a minority factor within that modern society; under limited government guarantee of social justice and the delivery of needs at or above Esteem levels, the powerful minority will rule the majority, either through the barrel of a gun or the denial of food and water to the needy through intimidation and strength of will. All modern states exist at or just above this balancing state.
I am saddened that this is true, and am left wondering if this is an American only phenomenon where society is more machiavellian self-interested compared to the European and Oceanic Social Democratic psyche where Democratic Social justice has a higher priority over Capitalist Liberalism.
I think in summary that the Liberal democratic system of the US offers its poor little more the the achievement of Esteem Needs with a collective psyche that to ascend higher up the Maslow model is solely down to the individual alone regardless of all other factors. However in Europe and Oceania where social systems offer higher levels of achievement within the Maslow model the breakdown of law and order mayl take longer until at least the Esteem level is descended to. Ergo to see stability in any system, including systems under shock, the social psyche must accept that offering the lower classes more than the lower self-esteem levels of the Maslow model is something to aspire to.