Definitions of society abound. In many
cases they explain more about the persons offering them than about society.
From a more general perspective
this large-scale human activity system we call society can be described in
terms of two sets: the rulers and the ruled.
(To forestall any misunderstanding –
by ‘rulers’ I mean those members of society who exert an influence over others,
however subliminally or accommodating the others, the ruled in this case, may
be in their response)
Rulers evoke dynamics that are
acting downwards, towards those they influence. The ruled either merely adjust
their behaviour or their reaction is more antagonistic. In both cases their
dynamics are acting upwards.
These dynamics are generally fluid.
At any given time their source can experience a role reversal. For example, a
response can be so dramatic it forces the rulers to defend themselves, or an
authority might adjust its behaviour because of the feedback it receives.
Since any system needs resources to
function at all, a society can be said to represent a human activity system
that has the space, the members, and the resources to perform in terms of a
given set of dynamics in the form of a mutually interdependent framework. Take
any one of those elements away, or diminish their capacity for that matter, and
the system will lose its aggregate whole. That is to say, its functional
details will have lost their capacity to play their - mutually interdependent –
role.
Note that any labeling under the
auspices of politics, ideology, religion, any judgmental description that might
be applied through some ethics or morals, does not come into it. All those are
interpretations by someone, they sit aside the system itself. Just like
electricity operates according to Maxwell's equations and something like lightening,
or heaters, or a cosy atmosphere are human descriptions of the same phenomenon.
In that sense complex,
interdependent systems define themselves according to their respective capacity
to realise their potential within their neighbourhood. It is this capacity
which can be observed from various positions within the system and as a
consequence gives rise to this or that label, sometimes followed by arguments
about the ultimate truthfulness of the label. As far as the latter is concerned
there is no ultimate truth.
What the members of a society make
of themselves, or what others make of them, can be as varied as circumstances
or perceptual triggers are able to evoke.
Suppose some divers come across a scene such as the one below:
What thoughts would cross their
minds? Their assumptions, however realistic or otherwise, become part of the
definition. To what extent these survive is a matter for the aggregate ambience
and how much room it gives to its imagery.
Human activity systems are first
and foremost complex systems. The reality is far more faceted than the
dichotomy of ruler and ruled suggests. Such labels are in themselves rather
ambiguous. A ruler needs a target; the target requires the awareness of being
ruled. The more complex the society, the more variance it possesses, the more
types of rules and their respective foci it can entertain.
To rule, and to live under a rule,
requires resources. Rich, complex societies have the capacity to furnish the
controlling layers - whoever or whatever they may be - with the necessary means
to sustain their dynamics. The result is a steady growth of controlling
entities.
The society's wealth ensures their
survival and the variance of the society guarantees enough opportunities
without having to fight for space. As long as the supply routes remain intact
the system becomes subject to ever more regulatory frameworks. Indeed, members
who are ruled over in one context may well decide the most convenient solution
is to become an authority themselves.
Should the resources become
jeopardised, the alternative mentioned above becomes less and less viable and
the dynamics acquire a competitive aspect.
The strangulating web they
altogether weave becomes a prison of convenience. A grotesque version of a
mutual admiration society in which the shared mediocrity is used as a seemingly
bottomless bag of spoils with something for everyone. And, like ruling classes
everywhere, none of them give up their place willingly.
One could say our obsession with
economic growth stems from the subconscious fear of having to fight for one’s
preferences should the resources dry up.
How then to define society? Take
your pick.
