The myth of society

By Sean Turner

Many words in the English language serve to simplify the conveyance of symbols, ideas, or a collection of concepts in human life. Often, such words make conversation less cumbersome — however, in doing so, these words are often misused, and the true meaning of the word or concept it is used to describe remains unclear.

The term "society" is one such word — omnipresent in human dialogue, and convenient jargon in political debate — it is one of the most misused and misunderstood terms one will come across. On any given day, someone will utter such phrases as "for the benefit of society" or "a societal purpose" or "The Great Society." However, what exactly does the word "society" mean?

Merriam-Webster defines society as a "voluntary association of individuals for common ends" or "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests." In both definitions, the common theme is "group." Simply put, the term describes — with unending vagueness — a group of people with something in common. It does not describe the individuals within the group or their corresponding actions. Herein lies the problem...

Groups, of course, are composed of individuals. Individuals, by the very nature of the term, are autonomous — meaning that they are able to make decisions, and act on them freely and independently. A group (such as a society) is merely a concept — having no existential or inherent properties, and thus, having no inherent meaning. No group "entity" exists that can act or be acted upon. There are only individuals who can act and receive action. Therefore, "society," being a group concept, cannot exist — except in the minds of those who imagine it.

Given this, place the word "society" in the context of public policy. If society is merely a concept, how then can one develop or implement policy or political actions for the benefit of a concept? If taxes increase, there is no "society" to be adversely affected. Individuals within the purview of the taxation will instead will bear the burden. If a new government entitlement arises, there is no "society" to step in and foot the bill — despite the pervasiveness of those who seem to believe this. There are no "societal costs" or "societal effects" — only causes and effects that each individual acts or fails to act upon in varying manners and degrees. Hence, no policy can be expected to have the same effect, or desired outcome, for every individual.

Speaking of "society" in this manner is groupthink — which is dangerous when dealing with public policy. It removes the intimacy of a topic that an individual brings, places responsibility on an elusive fantasy that morphs with the imagination, and shifts blame away from irresponsible individuals.

Hey, I would love nothing more than to have a "society" magically appear at my doorstep one day to pay my taxes, or mortgage, or send my kids to private school. While he's at it, "society" can pay for the thousands of government programs I've never heard of, and the ones I've heard too much of. For those who believe "society" exists, and have seen him around, please tell him I'm looking for him — he's got some explaining to do...

© Sean Turner