The Social Contract
In his review of Gentle Action (see Reviews section of the Gentle Action website) Gordon Shippey questions how far we should exercise trust in the context of State and private institutions. His argument is based on what he terms “the myth of the social contract”. In a reply to Gordon (on the same page of the website) I contrast the Enlightment’s view of a social contract – out of self interest and the need for mutual protection free individuals “in a state of nature” come together for mutual protection and form a society – with that of a number of Native American groups in which society or the tribe is prior and the individual emerges out of that society but is alway a product of the society.
8 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Gordon Shippey, February 24, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
David
Thanks for the clarification, however I think you misunderstand me. I actually I agree with the natives view, for as you rightly point in your book they too do not believe in authority or institutions of authority but that authority is the exception and not the rule, so the myth of the social contract does not apply. In fact I believe as Heidegger once did that the individual is not a given but emerges out of some context or social process.
However the myth of the social contract theory is not about tribe V Individual but the illegitimacy of imposing institutions of authority like state and corporation on to any society or tribe! Hell Spooner pointed out that the myth of the social contract was even use to justify the destruction and slaughter of the Native American thus end any form of social organization. While the settlers self-organizational tendency were also manipulated to serves the interest of corporations, who would exploit them via wage slavery.
Historically this was due to conquest by an elites, however this it does not get away from the fact that these institutions of authority whether State or Private are illegitimate forms of power. And since the concept of Authority itself is normative hence non-empirical it needs some metaphysical justification. So far as even David Hume pointed out Political Philosophers have failed to do so.
Empirically we can point to many examples where Authorities (which are small group of men) have imposed and dominated by coercion and conquest on a society that is already self-organized with need for them, but I believe you are confusing state with society. States Corporatism in the present sense are in fact derived from the neo-Hegelian concept that it is the right of the organic entity over the individual or society.
However this statement should not be confused with the notion of a organic society, which is as you say an organic process, but that of an abstract entity or Organic body, that imposes its will. Which is why corporations and states are legally defined as immortal persons, with more rights than people of flesh and blood and thus depriving us of our inherent right as a whole society to organize our selves. States and Capitalism are based on expropriation exploitation and built in inequality and unnecessary risk
We as a society had to self organize in order to fight just so we could acquire formal rights {which can and some cases have been taken away}, this is because these institutions even to this day does recognize our natural inherent rights, however our ability to self-organize have been used against us by those folk who believe in the present paradigm. I am not saying that they are evil nor good, they are human but power corrupts and you know the rest.
We are merely ALLOWED to vote for a representative, which means we are voting to give up our soverenity and hand over what little say we do have, but of course even they are excluded due to the massive virtually unaccountable hierarchy (partly based on the Peking order of money) of QANGO’s Govt’s IMF, World Bank, Corporations ECB etc…all church’s of power that try and justify and mystify economic doctrine that large part of society are in principle excluded from. Now while most of humanities abstract systems like technology and the markets are due to the physical laws unfold like in an organic way, this does not mean that the market are some natural function, for when we have economic collapse we told in a way that this is irreversible process and there is no away out. Like its some natural disaster.
Now I don’t believe in the hidden hand conspiracy theories, for I am merely referring to how any system of certain set of imposed constraints and power would unfold, if I say copy want to increase it market share that is an institutional analysis not a conspiracy. I believe that the Negation of absolute power and De-Commoditization are the key and we can thus replace exchange value with use value, hell we even treat the planet as a commodity look what that has done for us!
We live within what Whitehead refer to as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, we do this with the concept of the State and Money, Corporations, when it fact this are legal fictions made of people who demand the illegitimate social right to be obeyed.
Now the Taoist, Native Americans and Anarchists have something in common in that society {can as you point out} self-organize and that it may need leadership at times but this role but only for exceptional cases and there should be no hierarchy nor institutions set aside from society in order to take control away from the society in which they live. I believe your concept of Gentle Action conflicts with the notion of Social contract, even if it was historically true (which it is not). But as Hume points out the myth of the social contract rests not on historical facts (which it ignores) but that of pure opinion. Or as he put it ‘Why Obey Govt?’
By Gordon Shippey, February 24, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I guess what I am saying is that these human abstract mythical bodies (just like the church) are more akin to Parasites feeding of a society, its only the dogmatic illusion of control that making folk believe they have a duty to obey such entities at the exspense of the society they live in, this distortion thus throughs us into the mess that your book clearly points to!
People use to say we can’t live without the church most flk use to think that if the church ever excommunicated it would be the end of that soceity, well we know that is not the case same goes for the other parasits of power and wealth.
By Gordon Shippey, February 24, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Protection of soceity is also a myth, for uk Govt knew that terrorism would increase if they invaded Iraq and they still did it, the State was historically designed to protect property class or moneyed folk, from the bewildered herd, check out the english civil war!
By F. David Peat, February 24, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Another point from the Native American perspective is that of authority.
If there is a certain task to be done – for example hunting, or building an ocean going canoe, etc someone will be in charge. But their authority only persists as long as the task itself. When the task is over then that particular role diappears.
So a person is given the task of a sort of leadership role, because of their experience, by the group but only as long as that role is required.
That’s not to say there are no Elders who have a lifetime of experience and many stories to illustrate particular situations.
By Gordon Shippey, February 24, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Yes that is what Anarchism is about!
Authority justified which in the western world it never has been. And which is why the social contract is use to cover the historical facts of creation of the state or private institutions.
But of course native had value system when it come to property similar(with the exception of feudalism) to pre-capitlist one held by us common folk, which is inturn similar to most consistent Anarchist theory.
Just look at Spainish civil war in 1936-7 for that those elite groups who want control and use it under fasicism, Boshervism and Capitalism put aside their difference in order to crush the communities who had self-organized production, communties and services free from Govt and private capital. Anarchist principle just like when the banks collapsed in south america in 2002 people went back to bartering almost rejected barter for recipircal social exchange or the first economic principle we teach our children ‘TO SHARE’ However the IMF and Govt with the help of the U.S. reasserted it self and took back number of factories back under private ownership and force people to except money again, through fear people did.
Hell capitalism has always supported fasictism and to some degree state-capitalism
Our so-called representatives who have 4 years exempt from accountablity except to the state they serve, well in the UK MP swear to the Crown and the corporate body of the state not to the people.
By David Peat, March 9, 2009 @ 11:52 am
I’ve been watching episodes of the sixties TV series “The Prisoner” Of course McGoohan wished to keep levels of ambiguity in the series so that it can be read at many levels.
But one possible reading is that it is about the Social Contract. McGoohan wakes to find himself in “the village”, a place that has clearly agreed to a very binding social contract in which each person goes about their business. Authority resides in Number 2 who in turn takes orders from the mysterious Number 1. There are echoes of Bentham’s Panopticon since all areas of the village are under constant surveylance. Only McGoohan, as number 6, refuses to conform or live by the rules of the village.
By Gordon Shippey, May 27, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
I re-read what you intially put and can see that the difference it that you presuppose that State and soceity are one in the same thing, where as I do not. While Imposed institutions of authority can develop or show self-orgnizing tendenices or qualities it is not a genuine organization (organic or otherwise). What we need are either genuine organic organization or free asscoaitions via self-management that are not imposed and have no hierarchy and no rights beyond the soceity in which they develop. What the Prisoner does is show both side of this orwellian doublespeak and CCTV and Brave New world in which we are lulled into false belief system via pleasure!
By Gordon Shippey, May 27, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
I re-read what you intially put and can see that the difference it that you presuppose that State and soceity are one in the same thing, where as I do not.