Political Concept of Society

However resilient and independent individuals may be, human existence outside society is unthinkable. Human beings are not isolated Robinson Crusoes, able to live in complete and permanent isolation – even the skills and knowledge which enabled Robinson Crusoe to survive were acquired through education and social interaction before his shipwreck. However, the concept of society is often little better understood than that of the individual. In its most general sense, ‘society’ denotes a collection of people occupying the same territorial area. Not just any group of people, however, constitutes a society. Societies are characterised by regular patterns of social interaction, suggesting the existence of some kind of social ‘structure’. Moreover, ‘social’ relationships involve mutual aware-ness and at least some measure of cooperation. Warring tribes, for example, do not constitute a ‘society’, even though they may live in close proximity to one another and interact on a regular basis. On the other hand, the internationalization of tourism and of economic life, and the spread of transnational cultural and intellectual exchange, has created the idea of an emerging ‘global society’. Nevertheless, the cooperative interaction that defines ‘social’ behaviour need not necessarily be reinforced by a common identity or sense of loyalty. This is what distinguishes ‘society’ from the stronger notion of ‘community’, which requires at least a measure of affinity or social solidarity, an identification with the community.

In political theory, however, society is often understood in a more specific sense, as what is called ‘civil society’. In its original form, civil society referred to a political community, a community living within a framework of law and exhibiting a common allegiance to a state. Early political thinkers regarded such an ordered society as the basis of civilised life. Modern theorists, however, have tended to draw a clearer distinction between society and the state. In the tradition of Hegel and Marx, civil society takes place outside the state and refers to a realm of autonomous associations and groups, formed by individuals in their capacity as private citizens. Although Hegel treated civil society as separate from the family, most take the term to include the full range of economic, social, cultural, recreational and domestic institutions. The nature and significance of such institutions is, however, a matter of considerable dispute. This often revolves around the relationship between the individual and collective bodies or entities. For instance, can individualism and collectivism be reconciled, or must ‘the individual’ and ‘society’ always stand in opposi-tion to one another? Moreover, society itself has been understood in a bewildering number of ways, each of which has important political implications. Is society, for example, a human artefact or an organic entity? Is it based upon consensus or conflict? Is society egalitarian or naturally hierarchic? Finally, attention is often drawn to the political significance of social divisions or cleavages, notably social class, gender, race, religion, nationality and language. In some cases, these are thought to hold the key to political understanding. Why are social cleavages im-portant, and which ones have greatest impact upon politics?

Collectivism

Few political terms have caused as much confusion as collectivism, or been accorded such a broad range of meanings. For some, collectivism refers to the actions of the state and reached its highest form of development in the centrally planned economies of orthodox communist states, so-called ‘state collectivism’. Others, however, use collectivism to refer to communitar-ianism, a preference for community action rather than self-striving, an idea that has had libertarian, even anarchist, implications, as in the ‘collectivist anarchism’ of Michael Bakunin (1814–76). In addition, collectivism is sometimes used as a synonym for socialism, though, to confuse matters further, this is done by critics of socialism to highlight what they see as its statist tendencies, while socialists themselves employ the term to underline their commitment to the common or collective interests of humanity. Nevertheless, it is possible to point to a common core of collectivist ideas, as well as to identify a number of competing interpretations and traditions.

At heart, collectivism stresses the capacity of human beings for collective action, stressing their willingness and ability to pursue goals by working together rather than striving for personal self-interest. All forms of collectivism therefore subscribe to the notion that human beings are social animals, identifying with fellow human beings and bound together by a collective identity. The social group, whatever it might be, is meaningful, even essential, to human existence. This form of collectivism is found in a wide range of political ideologies. It is, quite clearly, fundamental to socialism. A stress upon social identity and the importance of collective action is evident in the use of the term ‘comrade’ to denote the common identity of those who work for social change; in the notion of ‘class solidarity’ to highlight the common interests of all working people; and, of course, in the idea of a ‘common humanity’. Feminism also embraces collectivist ideas in stressing the importance of ‘gender’ and ‘sisterhood’, acknowledging the common identity which all women share and under-lining their capacity to undertake collective political action. Similarly, nationalist and racialist doctrines draw upon a collectivist vision by interpreting humanity in terms of ‘nations’ or ‘races’. All forms of collectivism are therefore at odds with the extreme form of individualism that portrays human beings as independent and self-striving creatures. If, however, people are thought to be naturally sociable and cooperative, collectivism may be a source of personal fulfilment rather than a denial of individuality.

The link between collectivism and the state is not, however, accidental. The state has often been seen as the agency through which collective action is organized, in which case it represents the collective interests of society rather than those of any individual. This is why New Right theorists in particular tend to portray state intervention in its various forms as evidence of collectivism. The growth of social welfare, the advance of economic management, and the extension of nationalization, have thus been interpreted as ‘the rise of collectivism’. From this point of view, the command economy which developed in the Soviet Union marks the highest form of collectivism. Collectivism, in this statist sense, is usually regarded as the antithesis of individualism. As the state represents sovereign, compulsory and coercive authority, it is always the enemy of individual liberty. Where the state commands, individual initiative and freedom of choice are constrained. However, this is to view the state in exclusively negative terms. If, on the other hand, the state advances the cause of individual self-development, say, by providing education or social welfare, collectivism could be regarded as entirely compatible with individualism. Any collectivist doctrine that links it exclusively to the state must, however, be misleading. The state is, at best, only an agency through which collective action is organized. The danger of the state is that it can substitute itself for ‘the collective’, taking decisions and responsibilities away from ordinary citizens. In that sense, collectivism stands for collective action undertaken by free individuals out of a recognition that they possess common interests or a collective identity. This broader form of collectivism is more closely linked to the idea of self-management than it is to state control. Self-managing collectivism has been particularly attractive to anarchists and libertarian socialists. Bakunin, for instance, looked towards the creation of a stateless society in which the economy would be organized according to the principles of workers’ self-manage-ment, and clearly distinguished this collectivist vision from what he saw as the authoritarianism implicit in Marxist socialism. It is also the form of collectivism found in the kibbutz system in Israel. Needless to say, these collectivist ideas share no similarity whatsoever with styles of individual-ism which emphasise personal self-reliance and individual self-interest. However, by remaining faithful to the ideals of self-management and voluntary action, this form of collectivism need not have anti-individualist implications.

Theories of Society

A theory of society is of no less importance to political analysis than is a conception of human nature. Political life is intimately related to social life; politics is, after all, little more than a reflection of the tensions and conflicts which society generates. However, the interaction between politics, society and the individual is a matter of fierce disagreement and deep ideological controversy. What conflicts exist in society? Who are these conflicts between? Can these conflicts be overcome, or are they a permanent feature of political existence?

A first range of theories are based upon an individualist conception of society. These assume that society is a human artefact, constructed by individuals to serve their interests or purposes. In its extreme form this can lead to the belief, expressed by Margaret Thatcher, that ‘there is no such thing as society’. In other words, all social and political behaviour can be understood in terms of the choices made by self-interested individuals, without reference to collective entities such as ‘society’. The clearest example of such a theory is found in classical liberalism, which is committed to the goal of achieving the greatest possible individual free-dom. Although a state is needed to guarantee a framework of order, individuals should, as far as possible, be able to pursue their own interests in their own way. This has often been described as an ‘atomistic’ theory of society, in that it implies that society is nothing more than a collection of individual units or atoms.

Such a view does not, however, ignore the fact that individuals pursue their interests through the formation of groups and associations, busi-nesses, trade unions, clubs, and so forth. The cement which holds this society together, though, is self-interest, the recognition that private interests overlap, making possible the construction of contracts or volun-tary agreements. Clearly, this notion of society is founded upon a strong belief in consensus, the belief that there is a natural balance or harmony amongst the competing individuals and groups in society. This was expressed in the the eighteenth century in Adam Smith’s idea of an ‘invisible hand’ operating in the marketplace, interpreted in the twentieth century by Hayek as the ‘spontaneous order’ of economic life. Although workers and employers seek conflicting goals – the worker wants higher wages and the employer lower costs – they are nevertheless bound together by the fact that workers need jobs and employers need labour. Such a view of society has very clear political implications. In particular, if society can afford individuals the opportunity to pursue self-interest without generat-ing fundamental conflict, surely Thomas Jefferson’s motto that ‘That government is best which governs least’ is correct.

A fundamentally different theory of society is based upon an organic analogy. Instead of being constructed by rational individuals to satisfy their personal interests, society may operate as an ‘organic whole’, exhibiting properties more normally associated with living organisms – a human being or plant. This suggests a holistic approach to society, emphasising that societies are complex networks of relationships which ultimately exist to maintain the whole: the whole is more important than its individual parts. The organic analogy was first used by Ancient Greek thinkers who referred to the ‘body politic’. Some anthropologists and sociologists have subscribed to similar ideas in developing the functionalist view of society. This assumes that all social activity plays some part in maintaining the basic structures of society, and can therefore be under-stood in terms of its ‘function’. The organic view of society has been accepted by a wide range of political thinkers, notably traditional conservatives and fascists, particularly those who have supported corpor-atism. There is, indeed, a sense in which organicism has clearly con-servative implications. For example, it tends to legitimize the existing moral and social order, implying that it has been constructed by the forces of natural necessity. Institutions such as the family, the church and the aristocracy, as well as traditional values and culture, therefore serve to underpin social stability. Moreover, this view implies that society is naturally hierarchic. The various elements of society – social classes, sexes, economic bodies, political institutions, and the like – each have a specific role to play, a particular ‘station in life’. Equality among them is as absurd as the idea that the heart, liver, stomach, brain and lungs are equal within the body; they may be equally important but clearly fulfil entirely different functions and purposes.

While both individualist and organic theories of society suggest the existence of an underlying social consensus, rival theories highlight the role of conflict. This can be seen, for instance, in the pluralist theory of society which draws attention to conflict between the various groups and interests in society. However, pluralists do not see such conflict as fundamental because, in the final analysis, they believe that an open and competitive political system is capable of ensuring social balance and of preventing a descent into unrest and violence. Elite theories of society, on the other hand, highlight the concentration of power in the hands of a small minority, and so underline the existence of conflict between ‘the elite’ and ‘the masses’. Elite theorists are therefore more prepared to explain social order in terms of organizational advantage, manipulation and open coercion rather than consensus. Fascist thinkers nevertheless subscribe to a form of elitism which implies organic harmony, since they believe that the masses will willingly accept their subordination. The most influential conflict theory of society, however, has been Marxism. Marx believed that the roots of social conflict lie in the existence of private property, leading to fundamental and irreconcilable class conflict. Quite simply, those who produce wealth in any society, the workers, are systematically exploited and oppressed by the property owners. Marx argued that workers are not paid in accordance with their contribution to the productive process, their ‘surplus value’ is expropriated. In the view of orthodox Marxists, fundamental class conflict influences every aspect of social existence. Politics, for instance, is not so much a process through which rival interests are balanced against one another, as a means of perpetuating class exploitation.

Social Cleavages and Identity

With the exception of extreme individualists, all political thinkers recognize the importance of social groups or collective entities. They have been concerned with the ‘make-up’ or composition of society. This is reflected in the attempt to explain how particular social cleavages help to structure political life. A ‘social cleavage’ is a split or division in society, reflecting the diversity of social formations within it. Such cleavages are born out of an unequal distribution of political influence, economic power or social status. To interpret politics in terms of social cleavages is to recognise particular social bonds, be they economic, racial, religious, cultural or sexual, as politically important, and to treat the group concerned as a major political actor. These cleavages, however, can be interpreted in a number of different ways. For some, they are fundamental and permanent divisions, rooted either in human nature or in the organic structure of society. Others, by contrast, argue that these cleavages are temporary and removable. In the same way, these divisions can be thought of as healthy and desirable, or as evidence of social injustice and oppression.

Modern political theorists sometimes prefer the language of identity and difference to that of social cleavages, practising what has come to be called ‘identity politics’ or the ‘politics of difference’. Whereas cleavage implies a split or division, encouraging us to treat social groups or collective bodies as entities in their own right, identity links the personal to the social, in seeing the individual as ‘embedded’ in a particular cultural, social, institutional and ideological context. Identity refers to a sense of separate and unique selfhood, but it also acknowledges that how people see themselves is shaped by a web of social and other relationships that distinguish them from other people. Identity thus implies difference; an awareness of difference sharpens or clarifies our sense of identity. Such thinking has led to what is called the ‘politics of recognition’, which is based upon the idea that identity should be fully and formally acknowl-edged, and that difference should be embraced, even celebrated. Although it has communitarian, postmodern, feminist, nationalist, multiculturalist and other forms, the central enemy of identity politics is liberal univers-alism, the belief that, as individuals, people share the same, core identity. Liberalism is, in this sense, ‘difference blind’: it regards considerations such as social class, gender, culture and ethnicity as, at best, secondary or peripheral in shaping personal identity. Supporters of identity politics, on the other hand, argued that by discounting difference liberal universalists have constructed an abstract model of human nature that effectively strips away the very characteristics that give people as sense of who or what they are. Nevertheless, whether conceived from the perspective of social cleavages or identity politics, there remain considerable disagreements about which social groups or alignments are of greatest political significance.

There is little doubt that the cleavage that has traditionally been most closely associated with politics is social class. Class reflects economic and social divisions, based upon an unequal distribution of wealth, income or social status. A ‘social class’ is therefore a group of people who share a similar economic and social position, and who are thus united by a common economic interest. However, political theorists have not always agreed about the significance of social class, or about how class can be defined. Marxists, for example, have regarded class as the most fundamental of social cleavages and politically the most significant. Marxists understand class in terms of economic power, the ownership of the ‘means of production’. The ‘bourgeoisie’ is the capitalist class, the owners of capital or productive wealth; while the ‘proletariat’, which owns no wealth, is forced to sell its labour power to survive, its members being reduced to the status of ‘wage slaves’. In Marx’s view, classes are major political actors, possessed of the capacity to change history. The proletar-iat is destined to be the ‘gravedigger of capitalism’, a destiny it will fulfil once it achieves ‘class consciousness’.

However, Marxist class theories have, to a large extent, been discredited by the failure of Marx’s predictions and the declining evidence of class struggle, at least in advanced capitalist societies. Post-Marxists, such as Laclau and Mouffe (1985), accept that the priority traditionally accorded to social class, and the central position of the working class in bringing about social change, are no longer sustainable. Nevertheless, social divisions undoubtedly persist even in the most affluent of modern societies, though these are often referred to in terms of an ‘underclass’, a group of people who through endemic disadvantage and deprivation are consigned to the margins of conventional society. Contemporary Western societies have thus been portrayed as ‘two-thirds, one-third’ societies.

In contrast to social class, the significance of gender divisions in politics has traditionally been ignored. However, since the emergence of ‘second-wave’ feminism in the 1960s, there has been a growing awareness of the political significance of gender. ‘Gender’ refers to social and cultural distinctions between males and females, in contrast to ‘sex’ which high-lights biological and therefore ineradicable differences between men and women. Feminists have drawn attention to a sexual division of labour through which women are either confined to a domestic sphere of house-work and child-rearing, or to poorly paid and low-status occupations. Men, on the other hand, tend to dominate positions of power and influence in society. Radical feminists, such as Kate Millett and Mary Daly, have portrayed gender cleavages as the deepest and most politically significant of all social divisions, and therefore practised a form of ‘sexual politics’.

So-called difference feminists believe that gender divisions are rooted in fundamental and ineradicable differences between men and women, and adopt a ‘pro-women’ stance which rejects equality as the attempt by women to be ‘like men’. Liberal or reformist feminists, by contrast, have highlighted what they see as the eradicable inequalities of public life, such as the under-representation of women in senior political, managerial and professional posts, and the inadequacy of childcare facilities and welfare support for women. In effect, they have tried to liberate women from difference.

Racial and ethnic cleavages have also been significant in politics. ‘Race’ refers to genetic differences among humankind which supposedly distin-guish people from one another on biological grounds like skin or hair colour, physique, physiognomy and the like. In practice, racial categories are largely based upon cultural stereotypes and have little or no foundation in genetics. The term ‘ethnicity’ is therefore preferred by many because it refers to cultural, linguistic and social differences, not necessarily rooted in biology. Racial or ethnic cleavages have influenced political thought in two radically different ways. The first racially based political theories emerged in the nineteenth century, against the background of European imperialism. Works such as Gobineau’s Essay on the Inequality of Human Races ([1855] 1970) and H.S. Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century ([1899] 1913) provided a pseudo-scientific justification for the dominance of the ‘white’ European races over the ‘black’, ‘brown’ and ‘yellow’ peoples of Africa and Asia. The most grotesque twentieth-century manifestation of such racialism was, of course, found in the race theories of Nazism, which gave rise to the ‘Final Solution’, the attempt to exterminate European Jewry. Racialist doctrines and movements have re-emerged in various parts of Europe in the late twentieth century, stimulated in part by the insecurity and political instability which the ‘collapse of communism’ generated.

Very different forms of racial and ethnic politics have, however, developed out of the struggle against colonialism in particular, and against racial discrimination in general. Ethnic minorities in many Western societies are excluded from political influence and suffer from disadvan-tage in both the workplace and public life. This has generated new styles of political activism. The 1960s, for instance, witnessed the emergence of the civil rights movement under Martin Luther King (1929–68), and the growth of more militant organizations like the Black Power movement and the Black Muslims under Malcolm X (1926–65). In many of these cases, racial divisions are seen as eradicable, the task facing anti-racists being one of reform: the construction of a more equitable and tolerant society. Where they are seen to be fundamental, as in the case of the Black Muslims (renamed the Nation of Islam), this has generated doctrines of racial separation.

Religion also exerts immense significance upon political life, despite the advance of secularism throughout the West. This is particularly evident in societies deeply divided along religious lines, such as Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka and India. Although the origins of communal rivalry are complex, involving historical, economic and political factors, religious differences remain the obvious fault-lines within such societies. In Northern Ireland, Catholic Republicans have confronted Protestant Unionists; in Sri Lanka, Christian Tamils have fought the majority Buddhist Sinhalese; and in India, Muslims in Kashmir and Sikhs in the Punjab campaign for separate homelands within an overwhelmingly Hindu country. Indeed, since the late twentieth century, religion has come to have growing importance, perhaps as a backlash against the materialism and perceived amorality of secular society. In many parts of the world, fundamentalist movements have emerged, seeking to rekindle spiritual zeal by returning to the original or most basic religious principles. The most significant of these has been Islamic fundamentalism, which has transformed the politics of many parts of North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, most obviously since the ‘Islamic Revolution’ in Iran in 1979. In its most militant guise, as reflected in the radical fundamentalism of ‘jihadi’ groups such as al-Qaeda, terrorism and suicide attacks are viewed as legitimate, indeed purifying, expressions of political and social struggle.

Finally, culture in general and language in particular have been very potent sources of political conflict, particularly in view of their importance in establishing national identity. Language embodies distinctive attitudes, values and forms of expression, helping to create a sense of familiarity and belonging. Although societies which contain a number of languages have been stable and successful – for instance, Switzerland where French, German and Italian are spoken – linguistic divisions have often been difficult or impossible to overcome. The example of French-speaking Quebec in Canada is an obvious case in point. In Belgium, linguistic divisions have turned the country into a loose federation, seriously impairing any unified sense of national identity. The Flemish-speaking peoples of Flanders in the north have traditionally dominated the Belgium economy and her political life; while the French-speaking Walloons in the south have striven to gain greater autonomy.

The political importance of culture has been underlined by the advent of modern, multicultural societies and by the emergence of multiculturalism as a distinctive political stance or orientation. Culture, in its broadest sense, is the way of life of people. A multicultural society is one characterized by cultural diversity arising from the existence, usually as a result of immigration, of two or more groups whose beliefs and practices generate a distinctive sense of collective identity. However, the spectre of multiculturalism elicits starkly different political responses. Supporters of multiculturalism highlight its personal and social advantages, in stressing the extent to which human beings are culturally embedded. In this view, cultural diversity promotes the vigour and health of society, each culture reflecting a particular range of human capacities and attributes. Critics of multiculturalism, by contrast, portray multicultural societies as inherently fractured and conflict-ridden, arguing that successful societies must be based upon shared values and a common culture.

Summary

1 Human nature refers to the essential and immutable character of all human beings. Major disagreements, however, take place about the degree to which humans are shaped by biology or society, are influenced by reason or non-rational drives, or tend to be either naturally cooperative or naturally

competitive.

2 Individualism is a belief in the primacy of the human individual over any social group or collective body. It is often linked to an egoistical and self-reliant view of human nature, suggesting that society is atomistic, hardly a society at all. If, however, humans are essentially social, individuals will gain

fulfilment through the community.

3 Collectivism refers to a belief in the community, group or collective, stressing the importance of a common identity and the capacity for collective action. It is commonly linked to state collectivization and central planning, but it

can as easily refer to self-management and, more broadly, to social solidarity.

4 Social cleavages are divisions or splits which characterize a particular society and structure its political life. These give people a sense of personal and col-lective identity based upon a recognition of difference. The most important social cleavages include those of social class, race or ethnicity, gender, reli-gion and culture.