Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 5:20PM | in Religion, World Development What makes our social glue?
James Hunter asks: How do societies hold together?
The classic answer to that question was that traditional societies, that is agrarian, economically underdeveloped and non-urban societies were held together mainly by beliefs held in common by all of its members. Modern societies by contrast are held together through social and economic interdependence.
Now, the reason why this question remains a puzzle is that just as people and associations and so-called traditional societies depended heavily upon each other for the sake of survival, so too in modern societies we depend upon at least some common beliefs, some shared ideals, some collective myths to function smoothly. The question of how societies hold together gains new poignancy in a world like ours where even a minimal consensus of sensibilities, dispositions and attitudes seems elusive.
Where there are even fewer beliefs, ideals, and commitments, and hopes held deeply in common and where there are few if any real meaningful traditions observed, or binding public rituals practiced, what else is there to hold such a society together? What remains to bind together its innumerable fragments? The answer in large part is power, the exercise of coercion with a threat of its use.
This short description neglects the roles of nationalism and ideological liberalism as being potent sources of social glue in modern societies. And of course, nationalism docks directly with the power exercised by the state, just as liberalism does with the disembedded market. Our societies are not necessarily losing shared beliefs; they are just increasingly held unconsciously and they tend to be profoundly disempowering.
Sunday, April 11, 2010 at 5:20PM | in Religion, World Development 
Reader Comments (3)
there's a discussion of this on my blog at:
http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/pluralist-society/
I think that the society held together by a shared culture or common values is a thing of the past: mobility and freedom make such homogeneity impossible, and our cultural and religious communities are now what we chose to define our identity as different to the mass. I doubt in fact that common values ever did serve the purpose that the early sociologists supposed they had in a pre-modern society. Yes, there was less diversity of thought and culture in pre-modern societies, but is it true that those societies held together *because* they had less diversity?
I think that societies hold together because of our need for one another. In the introduction to _Church and State_ I put it this way:
As intercultural and interreligious contacts and migration relativize truth
claims and social norms, it becomes harder to find ideological support for social
structures. The family, we now know, is not a given: it is made by people, in many
different ways. The class system is not part of the divine order. Ideologies have
proven untenable, and ideology itself has been asked to turn around for inspection
– and we can see at the very least that the emperor’s new clothes have a large hole
in the rear. Ideologies too are seen to be manufactured, their doctrines designed
to support interests. Political theories that supposed that shared ideologies and
values are the basis of social unity have given way to a model of society that is
united, despite differences, by our needs for one another.
Thanks for your reply, Sen. I maintain that there are shared values that hold our societies together. In Canada, at least, social trust has not deteriorated entirely and it is possible identify 'Canadian values' -- respect, tolerance, and honesty, among them.
The question is whether these shared values are sufficient to meet the needs of a global society. Are they strong enough to raise nations to the next level of social organization? I am deeply skeptical about the capacity of liberal values or nationalism to accomplish this task.
> I am deeply skeptical about the capacity of
> liberal values or nationalism to accomplish
> this task.
You set this trap for yourself, if you think that shared values are vital. Mobility and freedom of choice make it impossible to attain shared values today, nationalism and other ideological systems have tried and failed, so we are left living on the heritage of the past - clinging to what is left of shared values that once existed. Doom and gloom lie ahead. Woe is us!
The alternative is to think about a new kind of society, that finds ways to work without having shared values, and even draws on the diversity of values as a strength. For you, it would mean letting go of the idea of a "Canadian identity," and the same for the Dutchman and the Kiwi and (most difficult!) the Japanese.
I think that the shared values that have existed in various places are the product of a relatively self-contained local society rather than the cause of societies ingeneral. If they were the truly the cause of society, how could a new society ever come into existence? "No two men can be found who may be said to be outwardly and inwardly united." It's only by living harmoniously together for quite a long time that people can first understand one another's values, be willing to learn from one another, and after some generations produce shared values that can be recognised as typical of that community. How did those people do all that work together before the shared values and local identity existed? Clearly there is something more substantial at work, in which shared values play at most a contributory role.