Civility
The term “civil” refers to strategies and devices use to regulate the
interface between individual interests and community interests. A civil society
is characterized by a multilayered system of organizations that meet, discuss,
vote and contribute to the well-being of the community. In an ideal civil
society, individual and civil interests are congruent and there is no conflict.
The maintenance of civility requires the imposition of attitudes,
expectations, beliefs, rules and the enforcement of codes of conduct. The main
dynamic in a free society involves the defense of social civility by law and the
defense of civil liberties by individuals and groups who champion personal
freedom. Socialism refers to political movements based on the idea that citizens
of a state should own and manage the means of production and distribution of
life’s necessities.
In the best case, an ideal egalitarian society distributes resources
equitably and provides safety and security for its citizens. The basic problem
with social idealism is that human nature cannot be changed. Humans naturally
compete and distribute resources through hierarchical networks. To change a more
or less spontaneous order, a revolutionary group needs to arbitrarily
reconstruct a political and economic system. There have been many versions of
imposed socialism and many revolutions that failed. A reasonable historian can
conclude that communism introduced by revolution in Russia and China failed and
is being replaced by hybrid economies that combine “free enterprise” with
state-owned enterprise.
What is remarkable about socialist ideas in the US is the paranoid resistance
that arises from advocates of capitalism, a resistance organized by dominant
humans who will fight to maintain control of resources and wealth. Ideological
battles are disguises for old battles to defend and expand territory, wealth and
dominance.
Large aggregations of humans grew beyond reasonable limits in the 20th
century. The tendency for the largest coalitions of nations to break up into
smaller units is probably adaptive and represents an old primate tendency. The
tendency in business for large companies to merge and form international
conglomerates is driven by rational goals and means, but goes beyond human
cognitive abilities. These large organizations are not likely to endure. Large
assemblies become unfriendly and inefficient and eventually fail unless they are
re-organized into subgroups that are small enough to allow individuals to work
effectively together.
The Masses
From the viewpoint of a single person, only a small number of other humans
can be recognized as individuals. Only individuals have thoughts, feelings,
status and rights. All the rest turn into "the masses". As humans adapt to
living in large groups, some peculiar attitudes emerge in an attempt to cope
with a large number of other humans out there that you cannot know, cannot
understand and cannot trust. While categories are inevitable, the human tendency
is to rely on broad generalizations. A distinction has to be made between
concepts, principles and axioms that reveal the essence of human tendencies and
categories that lack cogent information.
Humans often lack a sense of appropriateness when they go beyond names and
concepts that apply to a well-known, local community. Categories are improvised
to collect faceless people of indeterminate numbers into imaginary groups. An
American will tell about Europeans in a few sentences and a European will tell
you about Americans. These broad categories have almost no informational value,
but they do serve the cause of prejudice. Every human walks around with a
collection of generalizations and categorical prejudices and generally feels
comfortable with this "knowledge base."
The reader will be reassured to know that I have been on duty for many years,
notebook in hand, studying the masses. One of my vantage points was a local café
where I listened to conversations and studied human behavior as I read
newspapers. One sunny afternoon on the café patio, a loud male speaker in his
early 20's was holding forth about the "masses" and what the "masses want" and
what the "masses don't know." There was a bit of conspiracy theory thrown in for
good measure. This young man didn't score high on the impromptu coffee shop IQ
test - he got 100- but his remarks epitomize an approach that is common "among
the masses". Since identities blur as the distance increases, there is a
tendency to use all inclusive, general and vague categories for everyone who
does not belong to your inner circle. As you move further and further away from
home, even these general categories blur.
The dangerous aspect of the young man's concern is the possibility that he,
in all his wisdom, will figure out what the masses really need and, with a small
band of trusted cronies, he will set out to save the world. Despots are people
who know what the masses need and impose their will. As the distance from other
humans increases, the other humans lose their humanity and may become victims of
despots who treat them as tokens in the video game of life.
