Contracted to Society

If we want society to support us, then we have to support society. That is the basis of our contractual relationship with society. Society will look after us, but we must also look after society.

Society gives us rights and protections as individuals; support and benefits when we’re in need; a safe, secure Living Environment; and conditions that enable us to develop nourishing relationships with others.

Without society, our survival – both individually and as a species – would be in jeopardy.

In a world without society’s rules, we would be living in chaos and discord. The seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes accurately described it as a life that would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

Individually, we would be preoccupied with our own survival. It would be a day-to-day existence, a daily struggle to acquire and retain the basic necessities of life – food, shelter, warmth. Only the strong and ruthless would survive.

As a species, we would not be able to compete with the forces of Nature. Other species would triumph over us, and environmental challenges would make our lives a constant hardship.

Given that we would have no mass, humanity would soon perish.

Society has been humanity’s great saviour.

Living together has brought order, harmony and stability. It has enabled us to flourish. As a species, we have prospered. For the most part, we live in relative comfort; our basic needs are satisfied; we have high mortality rates; we have acquired leisure time; we live a mainly peaceful existence.

By choosing a societal existence as our developmental path, humanity seems to have made a wise choice.

There is, however, an underlying fragility to our survival. Society cannot function effectively without the compliance, engagement and active involvement of its people. Society exists only because its people recognise the benefits of societal living and accept that there is no other realistic survival option for humanity.

Hence, they are, for the most part, prepared to accept their automatic enrolment in the implicit contract that exists between the individual and society.

As part of that contract, and in order to ensure that society can operate effectively, society asks of its populace two things: firstly, that they should obey society’s rules and, secondly, that they should make some contribution to society.

These two stipulations are critical in that they sustain and foster the understanding that living together is mutually beneficial:

• By agreeing and conforming to set rules, individuals know that they have some protections from other members of society. They are no longer isolated and vulnerable. There is order and control. Nature may still pose a wider threat, but we are at least protected from some of the unscrupulous behaviours of our fellow species.
• Making a contribution recognises that all individuals have some worth. We’re in it together. With each of us doing our bit to uphold society, this will both strengthen and nurture society. It is by working together that so much more can be achieved, each individual bringing their own value.

But what if they don’t? What if individuals, through their non-compliant actions, choose to opt out of the contract? What does society do with its rule-breakers and with those people who merely take without giving anything in return?

When those people are in a tiny minority, society can deal with them or at least limit their impact. Their dissenting behaviour or their lack of contribution can be minimised or dismissed. Its effect is diluted by the good behaviour and contributions of the majority.

It is often thought that the more a society looks after its transgressors and needy, the more advanced and progressive it is. This is not necessarily true. In fact, the more a society looks after its weak, after those who are problematic, the more vulnerable it may actually be.

Those who recognise the importance of society and reap the gains from that societal existence quell the disenchanted minority by “buying them off”. It is by not being too harsh on them that their non-compliance doesn’t escalate into riotous, revolutionary behaviour, and, similarly, by accepting a level of free-loading, it maintains the semblance that these people still have a stake in, or benefit from, society.

Yet it’s a difficult balance that has to be maintained. The growth of non-compliance is a constant underlying threat, meaning that the proliferation of these minority groups with their destabilising and disruptive behaviours represents a real threat to society’s existence – an ever-present, ongoing vulnerability. If society is too soft or too free-handed, it risks undermining its own survival, as more people would see the appeal and benefits of misbehaviour and start to take advantage of society’s leniency and generosity.

If society gives too freely, more people will take without giving anything in return.

In short, society, as a matter of self-preservation, needs to ensure that its members fulfil their contractual obligations. The terms of the agreement must be upheld. We need to feel an obligation to society; that we shouldn’t take advantage of it; that we should be prepared to contribute to its upkeep.

Such contractual requirements are essential for humanity’s continued survival.

This may actually be a weakness or failing of society; that, as society develops, individuals become increasingly remote and detached from its underlying purpose. Society’s other attractions, including its diversionary temptations, start to preoccupy us. In these circumstances, we don’t always appreciate our more fundamental need for society. Too often, we just take it for granted. We don’t realise that, without society, we wouldn’t be able to exist; that we can’t survive without it.

Society may need to reaffirm its purpose and importance at regular intervals or through continuous communication. It may need to reiterate its core requirements. It may need to renew our social contract.

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out Articles or the Article Index