Modern Society and The Individual
Society, in the context of this essay, refers to ‘modern societies’ (especially those of the modern ‘democratic’ West) and means a collection of individuals who dwell, who live, in a particular area and who are subject to the same laws and the same institutions of authority. Modern society is thus a manifestation of The State, and which State is predicated on individuals actively or passively accepting some supra-personal authority [1].
In modern societies, change and reform are often therefore introduced or attempted by The State most usually: (1) on the basis of the manufacture of some law or laws which the individuals, and the established institutions, of the area governed by The State are expected to obey on pain of some type of individual punishment, financial and/or physically punitive (as in prison); or (2) by means of State-sponsored or State-introduced schemes such as, for example, the British National Health Service and which schemes are invariably enshrined in law.
The essence of such change and reform of a society – large-scale, effective, rapid change and reform in society – is therefore, for the majority of people, external, and most often derives from some posited or assumed or promised agenda of the government of the day; that is, derived from some political or social or economic theory, axiom, idea, or principle, posited by others, be these others, for example, politicians, or social/political/economic theorists/reformers (and so on).
There is thus a hierarchy of judgement involved, whatever political ‘flavour’ the government is assigned to, is assumed to represent, or claims it represents; with this hierarchy of necessity requiring the individual in society to either (i) relinquish their own judgement, being accepting of or acquiescing in (from whatever reason or motive such as desire to avoid punishment) the judgement of these others, or (ii) to oppose this ‘judgement of others’ either actively through some group, association, or movement (political, social, religious) or individually, with their being the possibility that some so opposing this ‘judgement of others’ may resort to using violent means against the established order.
Objectively, this process of change and reform by means of a hierarchy of judgement manifest in laws, and of State authority and power sufficient to enforce such laws, has resulted in fairly stable societies which are, for perhaps the majority of people, relatively peaceful, not overtly repressive, and – judged by the criteria of past societies and many non-Western societies – relatively prosperous.
Thus, while many problems – social and economic – remain and exist in such societies, with some such problems getting worse, such societies seem to work reasonably well, still contain an abundance of well-intentioned, moral, individuals, and appear to be better than the alternatives both tried in the past and theorized about. Hence it is not surprising that perhaps the majority of people within such societies favour solving such problems as do exist by existing social, political, and economic means; that is, by internal social, political, and economic, reform rather than by violent means.
In addition, while most large-scale, effective, rapid change and reform in society is by enforceable State laws and State-sponsored schemes, change and reform also occurs and has occurred within society, albeit more slowly, through the efforts of individuals and groups and organizations devoted to charitable, religious, or social causes and which individuals and groups and organizations by their very nature are invariably non-violent and often non-political. Furthermore, such non-violent, non-political, individuals and groups and organizations often become the inspiration for reform and change introduced by The State.
Some Problems of Modern Society
Before outlining the Numinous Way approach to reform and change, it would perhaps be useful to outline some of the social problems that still beset modern societies. What therefore constitutes a social problem within a society? How is such a problem defined?
In essence, it is an undesirable circumstance or way of living that affects a number of people and which undesirable circumstance or way of living others in society are or become aware of; with what is undesirable being – according to the ethics of The Numinous Way [2] – that which is, or those who are, unfair; that which deprives or those whom deprive a human being of dignity and honour; and that which is and those who are uncompassionate.
Thus, among the many problems of modern societies are misogyny; ethnic and religious discrimination, hatred, and prejudice; and social/economic inequality.
For example, misogyny – from the Greek μισογύνης – is unfairness toward, and/or prejudice and discrimination against, women. Often, as in the past, this is a consequence of an existing prejudice in a man: for example, that men are somehow better than women, or that women are ‘useful’ only for or suited to certain things; or that the subservience of women, and thus their domination/control by men, is ‘a natural and necessary’ state of human existence.
Misogyny in individual practice often results in men being violent/domineering toward, or selfishly manipulative of, women; and thus in them treating women in a dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate way.
Similarly, a hatred or dislike of or discrimination against an individual or a group of individuals on the basis of their perceived or assumed ethnicity is treating that individual or group in a dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate way.
Thus such social problems are often the result, the consequence of, a lack of empathy in a person, with this lack of συμπάθεια with other human beings having often in the past been evident in the treatment of people and individuals by governments, States, and institutions, and often revealed in and through discriminatory, unfair, uncompassionate laws.
The Numinous Way Approach
The Numinous Way approach to the problems of society – to reform and change – is an individual one, deriving from the faculty of empathy, and from the uniquely individual authority and personal judgement that empathy and a personal knowing reveal in the immediacy-of-the-moment.
This means that reform and change is personal, direct; of and involving individuals who are personally known; and begins with the necessary inner change in the individual. That inner, personal, change – in individuals, of their nature, their character – is understood as the means to solving such personal and social problems as exist and arise. That such inner change of necessity comes before any striving for outer change by whatever means, whether such means be termed or classified as political, social, economic, religious. That the only effective, long-lasting, change and reform is the one that evolves human beings and thus changes what, in them, predisposes them, or inclines them toward, doing or what urges them to do, what is dishonourable, undignified, unfair, and uncompassionate.
In practice, this evolution means, in the individual, the cultivation and use of the faculty of empathy, and acquiring the personal virtues of compassion, honour, and love. Which means the inner reformation of individuals, as individuals.
Hence the basis for numinous social change and reform is aiding, helping, assisting individuals in a direct and personal manner and in practical ways, with such help, assistance, and aid arising because we personally know or are personally concerned about or involved with those individuals. In brief, being compassionate, empathic, understanding, sensitive, kind.
Furthermore – importantly – this type of reform and change also means being honourable, acting with honour, which in turn may mean dealing in a practical, direct, personal, and honourable, manner with another individual or individuals who are being unfair, unreasonable, and dishonourable with those we are aiding, helping, assisting; and which dealing with such unfair, unreasonable, and dishonourable, people may or could involve, as a last resort, the use of physical force against them consistent with a code of honour. There is, however, one important – necessary – condition regarding the use of physical force arising from the nature of both empathy and personal honour, which is that it applies only in personal circumstances, personal situations, and cannot be abstracted out from the immediacy-of-the-personal-moment. That is, such honourable force does not apply to anything supra-personal such as any cause, movement, political, social or religious.
Who thus decides when such a personally known social problem requires such a use of honour? And the only answer consistent with the ethics of empathy, with the virtue of honour, is that it is the empathic, the honourable, individual in the immediacy-of-the-moment. Or, expressed in more familiar terms, ‘according to their conscience’ – according to what they, as a unique individual of empathy, compassion, and honour, judge is necessary to alleviate unfairness and restore dignity, fairness, and honour.
The individual of empathy and honour thus has – in certain circumstances – an honourable, a moral, duty which comes before obedience to the authority of some State as manifest in the laws of that State, and even if a majority of people in such a State support or seem to support such laws.
David Myatt
February 2012 ce
Notes
[1] The State is defined, in Authority and Legitimacy in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way, as:
The concept of both (1) organizing and controlling – over a particular and large geographical area – land (and resources); and (2) organizing and controlling individuals over that same geographical particular and large geographical area by: (a) the use of physical force or the threat of force and/or by influencing or persuading or manipulating a sufficient number of people to accept some leader/clique/minority/representatives as the legitimate authority; (b) by means of the central administration and centralization of resources (especially fiscal and military); and (c) by the mandatory taxation of personal income.
As mentioned in my note On Idiosyncratic Capitalization, I capitalize certain words, such as State, and often use terms such as The State to emphasize the philosophical truth of State as entity, as both a concept – an abstraction – and as a type of being which thus has or which is capable of having a certain longevity in relation to the life of mortal human individuals.
[2] The ethics of The Numinous Way are the ethics of empathy – of συμπάθεια; that is, of compassion and honour. In practical personal terms, this means dignity, fairness, balance (δίκη), reason, a lack of prejudgement, and the requirement of a personal knowing and of personal experience, of πάθει μάθος.
An ethical person thus reveals, possesses, εὐταξία – the quality, the personal virtue, of self-restraint; of personal orderly (balanced, honourable, well-mannered) conduct, a virtue especially evident under adversity or duress.
The morality of The Numinous Way is outlined in the first section of War and Violence in the Philosophy of The Numinous Way, and in other essays such as Ontology, Ethics and The Numinous Way, and The Natural Balance of Honour.
As I mentioned in my essay In Pursuit of Wisdom:
” Empathy thus establishes a new (or possibly a re-expressed older) understanding of our human nature – both existing and potential – and a new (or possibly a re-expressed older) knowing of how we might avoid ὕβρις and thus the suffering that ὕβρις brings. This understanding and knowing is of the numinous manifest in the indivisibility of living beings.”
