Organic Society

As we have seen, the traditional mode of thinking does not recognize the distinction between social and natural laws: the social framework is considered just as unalterable as the rest of man's environment. Hence the starting point in a changeless society is always the social Whole and not the individuals who comprise it. While society fully determines the existence of its members, the members have no say in determining the nature of the society in which they live because that has been fixed for them by tradition. This does not mean that there is a conflict of interest between the individual and the Whole in which the individual must always lose out. In a changeless society the individual as such does not exist at all; moreover, the social Whole is not an abstract idea which stands in contrast to the idea of the individual but a concrete unity that embraces all members. The dichotomy between the social Whole and the individual, like so many others, is the result of our habit of using abstract terms. In order to understand the unity that characterizes a changeless society, we must discard some of our ingrained habits of thought, and especially our concept of the individual.

The individual is an abstract concept and as such it has no place in a changeless society. Society has members, each of whom is capable of thinking and feeling; but, instead of being fundamentally similar, they are fundamentally different according to their station in life. It would not even occur to them that they are in some way interchangeable.

Just as the individual as an abstraction has no existence, so the social Whole exists not as an abstraction but as a concrete fact. The unity of a changeless society is comparable to the unity of an organism. Members of a changeless society are like organs of a living body. They cannot live outside society, and within it there is only one position available to them: that which they occupy. The functions they fulfill determine their rights and duties. A peasant differs from a priest as greatly as the stomach from the brain. It is true that people have the ability to think and feel, but as their position in society is fixed, the net effect is not very different than if they had no consciousness at all.

The analogy applies only as long as the members accept assigned role unquestioningly. Paradoxically, the analogy is usually put forward when the traditional framework of society is threatened: people living in a truly changeless society would have neither the need nor the ability to think of it. The fact that Menenius Agrippa found it necessary to propose the analogy indicates that the established order was in trouble. The term `organic society' only applies to a society in which the analogy would never be thought of, and it becomes false the moment it is used.

The unity of an organic society is anathema to another kind of unity, that of mankind. Since the traditional mode of thinking employs no abstract concepts, every relationship is concrete and particular. The fundamental similarity of one man to another and the inalienable rights of man are ideas of another age. The mere fact of being human has no rights attached to it: a slave is no different from another chattel in the eyes of the law. Privileges belong more to a position than to a person. For instance, in a feudal society the land is more important than the landlord; the latter derives his privileges only by virtue of the land he holds.

Rights and titles may be hereditary. but this does not turn them into private property. We may be inclined to consider private property as something very concrete; actually it is the opposite. To separate a relationship into rights and duties is already an abstraction; in its concrete form it implies both. The concept of private property goes even further; it implies absolute possession without any obligations. As such, it is diametrically opposed to the principle of organic society, in which every possession carries corresponding obligations.

Nor does organic society recognize justice as an abstract principle. Justice exists only as a collection of concrete rights and obligations. Nevertheless, the administration of law involves a certain kind of generalization. Except in a society that is so changeless as to be dead, each case differs in some detail from the previous one and it is necessary to adapt the precedent in order to make it applicable. Without abstract principles to guide him, it depends upon the judge how he performs this task. There is at least a chance that the new decision will be in conflict with the precedent in some respect. Fortunately this need not cause any difficulties since the new ruling itself immediately becomes a precedent that can guide later decisions.

What emerges from such a process is common law, as opposed to legislative statutes. It is based on the unspoken assumption that the decisions of the past continue to apply indefinitely. The assumption is strictly speaking false but it is so useful that it may continue to prevail long after society has ceased to be organic. The effective administration of justice requires that the rules be known in advance. In view of man's imperfect knowledge, legislation cannot foresee all contingencies, and precedents are necessary to supplement the statutes. Common law can function side by side with statute law because, in spite of the underlying assumption of changelessness, it can imperceptibly adjust itself to changing circumstances. By the same token organic society could not survive the codification of its laws because it would lose its flexibility. Once laws are codified the appearance of changelessness cannot be maintained and organic society disintegrates. Fortunately, the need to codify laws, draw up contracts, or record tradition in any permanent way is not very pressing as long as tradition is not threatened by alternatives.

The unity of organic society means that its members have no choice but to belong to it. It goes even further. It implies that they have no desire but to belong to it, for their interests and those of society are the same: they identify themselves with society. Unity is not a principle proclaimed by the authorities but a fact accepted by all participants. No great sacrifice is involved. One's place in society may be onerous or undignified but it is the only one available; without it, one has no place in the world.

Nevertheless, there are bound to be people who do not abide by the prevailing mode of thinking. How society deals with such people is the supreme test of its adaptability. Repression is bound to be counterproductive because it provokes conflict and may encourage the evolution of an alternative way of thinking. Tolerance mixed with disbelief is probably the most effective answer. Craziness and madness in all its variety can be particularly useful in dealing with people who think differently and primitive societies are noted for their tolerance of the mentally afflicted.

It is only when traditional ties are sufficiently loosened to enable people to change their relative positions within society by their own efforts that they come to dissociate their own interests from those of the Whole. When this happens, the unity of organic society falls apart and everyone seeks to pursue his self interest. Traditional relationships may be preserved in such circumstances, too, but only by coercion. That is no longer a truly organic society but one that is kept artificially changeless. The distinction is the same as that between the traditional and dogmatic modes of thinking and to emphasize it I shall refer to this state of affairs as Closed Society.