How should we organise Society ? This question has interested philosophers since before the time of Plato. Today we have, I imagine, a society as divided as any in history. Has something gone wrong ? To look at that question I believe we need to review the suggested political systems and relate them to a modern views of rights.
Plato was of the opinion that rulers needed knowledge, so his kings would have been talented philosophers - a Meritocracy. This assumes however either that the rulers know what is best for me, or what is best for society (and I don't then matter) - both views untenable today I think for educated people.
Hobbs, distressed by the social upheaval of his day, placed his faith in the absolute rule of Kings - a Monarchy. The alternative anarchy was considered too chaotic in his view for the protection of the citizen. This is in essence similar to Plato’s scheme - but substituting heredity for talent.
Locke, recognising that the whims of a ruler are no better in practice than anarchy, instigated the rule of the majority - a Democracy. Elected representatives forming a parliament. In practice however only the powerful were allowed to participate, biasing the decisions somewhat.
Mill feared that an elected majority would suppress any minority views, which could be the better ones. He thus imposed controls on the power of the majority to control the minority - Modern Democracy. Yet abuses by both groups are rife, either through prejudice or selfishness. Rights are ill-defined in both directions and based upon complex systems of laws (prohibitions).
Marx, seeing the conflicts brought about by the industrial revolution, argued for a form of total state control - Communism. Only a Utopian ideal was offered however, with no practical theory. Utopias, perfect by definition, cannot accept change and thus human progress is curtailed and dissidents suppressed.
Socialism advocates a merger of central state ownership/planning with entrepreneurial innovation, a loose liaison between the demands of the state and those of the individual. A vague mix of the worst of both worlds perhaps. The rich have free reign, the poor are controlled by their dependence upon the state.
Today's era, arguably, represents the Western cult of the corporate individual, no longer subjected to the majority - a politics of relativity. Free market forces shaping society selfishly - Modern Anarchy. Sadly this ‘survival of the fittest’ methodology reverts humanity to the way of the animal, and to the discredited doctrine of Social Darwinism.
Politics involves the resolution of conflicts between individuals and states, so in what way do the two relate ? Various other aspects of philosophy get dragged in here, Ethics, Justice, Economics, even Aesthetics - Politics could be said to be 'Applied Philosophy'.
What rights do we have as members of a society ? Conversely what rights does society have over us ? Firstly we need to be clear just what ‘rights’ actually are. In essence they are nothing more than collective agreements, a form of social contract. Outside a social grouping there are no rights - they are neither laws of nature nor genetic endowments. To hold any right one has to be party to the agreement, in other words one must abide by the rules of behaviour set out as pre-conditions (either explicitly or implicitly) by the relevant group.
Given that we collectively invent these rights, then those we choose to give to each other will reflect our agreed values - and this is where the problems start. Under any political organisation there will be conflicts in the desired rights, especially true today with our multi-cultural societies. Can these ever be resolved ? History suggests not, so perhaps we need to find an alternative approach.
Let us take a look at nature. What we see overall in essence is a balanced ecology, a collection of entities living in a symbiosis, the waste products of one being used by another in a system of mutual benefit (a non-zero sum mode of transactions, all parties gain - destruction of a species destroys the food chain and ecology). Contrast this with our industrial and political methodology of transaction by conflict (a zero sum mode, someone must lose - destruction is actually a goal).
If we consider an individual as a collection of parts operating in mutual dependence (heart, lung, brain etc. - all equally important) then perhaps we can form a society along the same lines. In any ecosystem we have many separate species, each inhabiting its own niche, so it will be natural to allow for such diversity within our society. Similarly it will be possible to allow for many different societies to co-exist in a global system.
Removing the desire to standardise people to fit social ‘norms’ needs quite a lot of work. Intolerance is I believe a feature of ignorance, so education will be vital to overcome the human propensity to categorise people into ‘us’ and ‘them’. That distinction is an invalid one, on many alternative criteria the ‘us’ become ‘them’ and vice-versa - the divisions are arbitrary. We need to regard differences as just valuable alternative viewpoints, not as problems to be eradicated at all costs.
The whole purpose of a society must be for mutual benefit, otherwise why have one ? If this is accepted, then we must organise ourselves to maximise our individual benefits, allowing for the free development of everyone, not just the few. Unlike a natural ecology, humans can now direct their evolution, we can set goals. So what should be the aims of our new political system ?
Our first goal should, I think, be to capitalise on the benefits of technology. We now possess globally the capability to provide, by automation, the subsistence needs of the whole world, in food, shelter and education. It is time technology made good its past promises and delivered as a right, to all humans, the free basics of life. All it takes is our collective desire to do so.
Our second goal should be to re-evaluate work. We must ask the question ‘do you work because it is what you wish to do?’ If the answer is no, as I suspect it will be in most cases, then that individual is not being used to his or her full potential - and forced labour is slavery. With subsistence automated, it will not be necessary for people to work in order to live. The potential benefit to society from releasing people’s inherent talents should more than repay the perceived loss to the economy, much of which seems to be wasted in unproductive conflicts between people just trying to survive.
From studies in the Complex System sciences it is found that diversity results from a balance between the static and the dynamic (what is called the ‘edge of chaos’), so to gain the maximum evolutionary benefits we need to allow for the interplay of both states - both inaction and action. Freedom to ‘do our own thing’ must be balanced by agreement not to interfere with others. Our third goal therefore must be global education in tolerance plus demonstrating clearly the role of co-operation in achieving our individual goals, even where they seem to conflict.
Can we operate such a diverse society successfully ? Only I think if the benefits are obvious to all. We cannot afford to treat any segment of society as having lower value than the rest, and that does require a major change in personal attitude from that prevalent today.
Our evolutionary past remains the greatest barrier to any progress in this area. Evolutionary Psychology leads us to believe that the majority of our actions are still based upon the survival behaviours of our primitive ancestors. With survival no longer a problem, we need to understand and transcend that inheritance and make full use of that accidental by-product of evolution - our thinking/feeling brain.
In case such thought is seen as Utopian, I must make clear that the attainment of such goals is a gradual process. I just suggest some criteria that we can use to decide if a change takes us in an appropriate direction. No fixed organisation is paramount, indeed I believe a multi-layer organisation would be required, with extensive distributed local autonomy. A fully working system will need many additional criteria included (the details are more relevant to politics perhaps), but we have here set out the general aspirations than we wish our new organisation to address.
Our world society is already based extensively on mutual co-operation, none of us can now survive without the contributions of many others to our basic subsistence needs. We fail however to recognise this, and continue to behave as if we are autonomous agents whose actions only concern ourselves. Individually we are still savages, yet collectively can behave almost civilised. But unless we decide where we want the future to take us, we will remain merely blind animals stumbling around in the dark...