Skip to main content

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COLLECTIVE IN HUMAN HISTORY



Jim Ward


One of the greatest challenges facing humankind in the world today is to recognize the importance of the collective. By the collective I mean any situation in which people join together with some kind of notion that this is for the good of all the members of that collective. The 19th century pioneer of sociology and anthropology, Emile Durkheim stressed the notion that to be human one has to belong to some group that is more than him/herself. For Durkheim someone with the human form raised by wolves in a cave would not be human. To be human is to be social. In essence this notion feeds into the left side of modern politics, where the right tends to believe it is all up to oneself and the left believes we are all in this together.

When Hegel praised the German state for being the greatest achievement up to that point in human history, he had in mind a huge collective of several million people that eventually became, with some notorious ups and downs, the modern German nation-state. In fact, the modern nation-state is the largest-scale collective ever known to humankind.

In essence we could see the collective as progressing through several stages, each next stage being at a larger level. Thus, we could say that the initial bonding together of two individuals is the smallest and earliest kind of collective, progressing up through blood-line collectives such as the family and extended family, then the tribe (or lodge?), then the geographic community (small at first) and, eventually, the nation-state. Some recent writings on poverty in the third world have even contemplated a collective that incorporates all of humanity. Was the United Nations an attempt at this? Probably not. Still, it would have seemed just as unlikely to 18th century philosophers that collectives at the nation-state level would ever come into being.

So, in the history of human development the successful collective has become larger and larger, eventually manifesting itself in the creation of about 200 nation-states. However, many of these nation-states are certainly not true collectives, if by a collective we mean a group of people, no matter how large or small, who are equally disposed to goodwill to all within the collective. Perhaps the ones that come closest are the modern northern European state such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden, where the development of a comprehensive welfare state is a concrete indication that a large majority of people in each of those nation-states really cares about the welfare of ones fellow citizens, be it the need for a decent income, decent housing, decent childcare, good education etc. At the other end of the spectrum we have so-called nation-states, where the collective does not extend beyond blood or tribal links. So-called nation-states such as Uganda, Kenya and Russia fit into this category, where all the good life chances go to members of that small collective of ruling elite. The current concern with the high level of corruption in China seems to point in the same direction. In the cases of Russia and China, this is particularly ironic since they went through a period of Communism, a creed that, theoretically, believes in a collectivity of the largest and most inclusive kind.

Of course all modern nation states came through periods of limited collectivity before becoming more all-inclusive and, it seems that the current discussion about growing material inequality in much of the post-industrial world is really a discussion about the breakdown in a broad sense of collectivities in all those territories.

An ongoing threat to the formation of any collective at the nation-state level is the tendency of the members to be split along “them and us”, lines where negative stereotypes seem to be easily bought into, be they about class, religious beliefs, ethnicity or immigrant/citizen status. My suspicion is the winding down of the welfare state has something to do with this.

So the question becomes, how do broad collectivities develop and, once developed, how are they maintained? I will attempt to deal with these questions in upcoming postings.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ANY LEFT LEFT? OR WHY I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE NDP

 By Bil Lee Prior to announcing that they would not support the Liberal budget (thus triggering an election over what was really a pretty left friendly Liberal program) the NDP in Ontario has been wasting a great deal of breath on hammering the Liberals over the "gas plant" scandal. Of course the Libs have been their old tricky and disingenuous selves in many ways and did waste a pile of money (and try to cover up how much) attempting to score some bi-election wins by cancelling the damn things. But the fact is the PC's and the NDP had both made a promise to cancel them if they got into power, so the money ws going to be wasted in any event. So it was all game playing, and pretty boring game playing actually. I am not against a solid critique of the Libs (except I continue to disagree on the utility of playing at the gas thing). My concern with role back of corporate tax breaks that Horvath has muted about as an election promise is that though I clearly support the ide...

RITUALS KEEP CHANGING by Tony Boonstra

It is interesting that since time immemorial people have developed rituals. Sometimes we forget the initial meaning of the ritual. Take Christmas. It was originally “the Mass being celebrated at the time of Christ's birth”. That is literally what the word means. What I found helpful is an idea I came across in my studies at McGill University years ago. One professor shared with us the difference between a sign and a symbol. A sign is literally what it says. So, when one comes to a stop sign there is only one meaning. Stop. No rolling stops allowed. The meaning of a symbol on the other hand, is the meaning that a community embraces. This can change over time as the community's values and belief systems undergo changes. In the Netherlands they celebrate Sinter Klaas-Santa Claus, on December 5. The celebration takes on much of the meaning of what Christmas is in Canada. There is goodwill, exchanges of gifts, celebrations, etc. Then Christmas is a quiet day for reflection and for C...

WHY DOES NATIONALISM CONTINUE TO TRUMP CLASS?

By: Jim Ward   In his less insightful moments, when he attempted to predict the future (a mugs game at any stage of history), Karl Marx predicted that eventually the awareness of class would trump that of nationalism.  He was, of course, terribly wrong in that prediction.  World War 1, known in its time as The Great War, blinded lots of good British, French, Canadian, German, American, Australian and Turkish working-class lads to the fact that their lives were much the same, selling their labour on the cheap to the benefit of the few that geared them up for war.  Women too, although not major participants in the shooting war, did their bit to ensure their male counterparts were willing to pay the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ for their god and their country.  Young women in London where ever-ready to present young men not in the shooting war with white feathers, branding them cowards , unwilling to fight for “their freedoms ”  Those Bri...