I am currently finishing a book on systems thinking for community professionals. Your definition of a "society" is clearly a system – members working together (i.e., connected) to reach a common goal. One of the points I make is that a primary activity of a community is to coordinate the activities of its constituent community systems, i.e., to get them to cooperate. I definitely need to get the book!
Peter, would you consider co-dependence to be a secondary characteristic of co-operation?
Communities are often romanticised, yet on closer examination the co-operation within “true” communities (as distinct from their more urban, idealised counterparts) is frequently grounded in division of labour and exchange.
Also, thanks for the heads up on your Hypersociety book, will be purchasing it soon 🙂
Also, it will be useful to distinguish institutions and societies. “Institutions” are not ends on themselves. They are a system of people and interactions that align the previously existing interests of its members. When those incentives disappear, or change, or greatly diminish, the institution can disappear or become useless. On the other hand, a society is an end on itself.
I'd say your definition is that of the population of the society, the collection of people. The definition of society should include the systems and interactions inside the population, and maybe even to outside of it.
A society is a system, it shall have a population (the collection of people that compose it); an economy, which is a production system to get the material resources and energy to reproduce itself (means of production that eventually lead to a class system); a reproductive system (which leads to the gender system); a defense system which is the military or the warrior class; communication systems: I'd say two, the non-linguistic and the linguistic, with its information store and recovery associated systems: orality, writing scripts, computers, (DNA?), and so on (and the class associated, composed of priests, scribes, lawyers, academics, journalists, managers, teachers); a political system to solve problems peacefully instead of through violence.
In my daily life interactions at the mall, in the gym and among neighbors, I exchange pleasantries but increasingly I sense that we would never get along on a deeper, fundamental level given animosities, stereotypes, cultural/life/political values and perspectives. This is particularly true concerning interactions with persons who are contractors, small business persons, cops, firemen, etc. I look and sound like them but all too often we part ways when it's apparent that differences concerning life views and attitudes and ultimately misunderstandings will drive a wedge between even the superficial, mutually respectful social interactions. I continue to be pleasant and civil but I'm starting to yearn for a society consisting of like-minded, mutually respected and copasetic mission driven persons. I know this will only encourage the silo-society that we find ourselves living in but I'm starting to sense that this balkanizaton of society is inevitable. Thoughts...suggestions?
From a materialist viewpoint, it will be the commons management problems that push for public spaces to discuss and establish policies on the issues. On a larger scale, it brings hidraulic despotism as in ancient China and ancient Egypt.
As for your rhetorical question about the Holy Roman Empire my answer is 1254, with the death of Conrad IV. But of course, terms like polity, society and interest group are inherently blurry.
Ironically, the term Holy Roman Empire only came into use in 1254 when the it transformed from a functional to a symbolic state.
Societies can be quite different, quite variable, depending on a number of factors. That's obvious and hardly needs stating. One primary factor that is too neglected,, I believe, however, is the perspective of the analyst. Those viewing a society from the "inside" are likely to have a different understanding of that society than those viewing it from the "outside." Cultural anthropology thrives on (and sometimes struggles with) this distinction. So too does sociology, if to a lesser extent. Historians are almost always stuck on the "outside" trying to both coral the boundaries of a society and sense as many variables at work on the "inside" as possible. It is a difficult task, and its conclusions should be subject to constant revision.
Societies are not rigid, monolithic structures. There is no such thing as “the one society.” Instead, they are dynamic, fluid, and constantly changing networks of people connected by an invisible but powerful web of shared protocols. The glue that holds these networks together and enables interaction is communication.
What distinguishes societies is successful, routine interaction between them. This interaction is made possible by the collective use of shared protocols—primarily a common language and shared values. These protocols are the tracks on which the train of communication runs. They are flexible, adaptable, and subject to constant change, but without them there would be no social cohesion, only a string of individuals without the possibility of mutual understanding. Society is ultimately a continuous communication process based on common rules.
I prefer to speak of a society as one in which people are interdependent. Some cooperation is necessary, but it is a variable, not a constant
The word "fractal" comes to mind.
I am currently finishing a book on systems thinking for community professionals. Your definition of a "society" is clearly a system – members working together (i.e., connected) to reach a common goal. One of the points I make is that a primary activity of a community is to coordinate the activities of its constituent community systems, i.e., to get them to cooperate. I definitely need to get the book!
Amazing article, hell yes!
Peter, would you consider co-dependence to be a secondary characteristic of co-operation?
Communities are often romanticised, yet on closer examination the co-operation within “true” communities (as distinct from their more urban, idealised counterparts) is frequently grounded in division of labour and exchange.
Also, thanks for the heads up on your Hypersociety book, will be purchasing it soon 🙂
Dynasties! and aristocratic houses! they are “interest groups” or “societies” that should definitely be studied under this framework!
Also, it will be useful to distinguish institutions and societies. “Institutions” are not ends on themselves. They are a system of people and interactions that align the previously existing interests of its members. When those incentives disappear, or change, or greatly diminish, the institution can disappear or become useless. On the other hand, a society is an end on itself.
I'd say your definition is that of the population of the society, the collection of people. The definition of society should include the systems and interactions inside the population, and maybe even to outside of it.
A society is a system, it shall have a population (the collection of people that compose it); an economy, which is a production system to get the material resources and energy to reproduce itself (means of production that eventually lead to a class system); a reproductive system (which leads to the gender system); a defense system which is the military or the warrior class; communication systems: I'd say two, the non-linguistic and the linguistic, with its information store and recovery associated systems: orality, writing scripts, computers, (DNA?), and so on (and the class associated, composed of priests, scribes, lawyers, academics, journalists, managers, teachers); a political system to solve problems peacefully instead of through violence.
In my daily life interactions at the mall, in the gym and among neighbors, I exchange pleasantries but increasingly I sense that we would never get along on a deeper, fundamental level given animosities, stereotypes, cultural/life/political values and perspectives. This is particularly true concerning interactions with persons who are contractors, small business persons, cops, firemen, etc. I look and sound like them but all too often we part ways when it's apparent that differences concerning life views and attitudes and ultimately misunderstandings will drive a wedge between even the superficial, mutually respectful social interactions. I continue to be pleasant and civil but I'm starting to yearn for a society consisting of like-minded, mutually respected and copasetic mission driven persons. I know this will only encourage the silo-society that we find ourselves living in but I'm starting to sense that this balkanizaton of society is inevitable. Thoughts...suggestions?
once again you are recognized for nailing it with “elite overproduction”- https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/the-revolt-of-the-rich-kids-privilege-status-america?r=jf6p8&utm_medium=ios
Archeologists and urbanists usually define cities as settlements that:
1) have at least one central public space (either in the open as park and/or closed as a city assembly building); and
2) where commons management become important, particularly drinking water supply and sewers building and maintenance.
From a materialist viewpoint, it will be the commons management problems that push for public spaces to discuss and establish policies on the issues. On a larger scale, it brings hidraulic despotism as in ancient China and ancient Egypt.
As for your rhetorical question about the Holy Roman Empire my answer is 1254, with the death of Conrad IV. But of course, terms like polity, society and interest group are inherently blurry.
Ironically, the term Holy Roman Empire only came into use in 1254 when the it transformed from a functional to a symbolic state.
Societies can be quite different, quite variable, depending on a number of factors. That's obvious and hardly needs stating. One primary factor that is too neglected,, I believe, however, is the perspective of the analyst. Those viewing a society from the "inside" are likely to have a different understanding of that society than those viewing it from the "outside." Cultural anthropology thrives on (and sometimes struggles with) this distinction. So too does sociology, if to a lesser extent. Historians are almost always stuck on the "outside" trying to both coral the boundaries of a society and sense as many variables at work on the "inside" as possible. It is a difficult task, and its conclusions should be subject to constant revision.
A few thoughts on this:
Societies are not rigid, monolithic structures. There is no such thing as “the one society.” Instead, they are dynamic, fluid, and constantly changing networks of people connected by an invisible but powerful web of shared protocols. The glue that holds these networks together and enables interaction is communication.
What distinguishes societies is successful, routine interaction between them. This interaction is made possible by the collective use of shared protocols—primarily a common language and shared values. These protocols are the tracks on which the train of communication runs. They are flexible, adaptable, and subject to constant change, but without them there would be no social cohesion, only a string of individuals without the possibility of mutual understanding. Society is ultimately a continuous communication process based on common rules.