Introductory lecture for Social Philosophy class, Ateneo de Davao University, 1998.
This is a course in Social Philosophy. In other words, this is a course that views, approaches, and grasps social reality philosophically. Let us elaborate further on this. To view social reality from a philosophical perspective is to see society in general terms -- structures, ends, elements. It is to see not the aberrations nor the peculiarities, but the basic structures, the perennial ends, and the common elements. It is not to see individual events and actors, but the meaning of these events and these actors inview of the whole. It does not just look at superstructures, but at the foundations of social reality. Such a view does not simply rest content with the obvious, with the superficial. Rather, it looks behind or beyond what appears; in other words, it looks penetratingly into the social reality it gazes at. Thus, the basic question in this course is not who, what, where, when, or how, but why?
To approach social reality through philosophy is to tackle social issues using pure reason alone -- without appealing to experimentation or divine revelation. This is not saying, however, that empirical data are entirely irrelevant; they could also strengthen or weaken the claims. Nevertheless, much of the issues tackled in social philosophy are beyond the realm of the empirical -- that is, they are metaphysical assumptions -- such that empirical evidences can never refute them convincingly. What is asked for are the reasons upon which social events and actions are founded. Only pure reason can reach these assumptions and validate them as truths. Specifically, pure reason approaches social reality reflectively. This means that pure reason does not just create from out of nothingness, or from out of itself, but instead looks back and articulates the possibilities discovered in its experiences. Pure reason remembers -- that is, puts together again -- the parts of society broken down by analysis, to re-experience society's wholeness.
To grasp reality philosophically -- to grasp the reasons behind -- is to grasp the essential elements of society that are universal in time and place. In other words, the outcome of a course in social philosophy is an understanding of what is always true about society -- whether simple or complex, whether primitive or contemporary, whether Occidental or Oriental, etc. The underlying presupposition of this course is that any reality that claims to be social has something in common with all other realities that are social -- this common element is what philosophy aims to articulate.
There are many profiles of social reality that can be tackled by philosophy. We do not have the time and the energy to take them all up. This course simply gives us a taste of social philosophy. Let us, therefore, narrow the questions we need to take up in this course.
This course in Social Philosophy will be occupied by the question "What makes society society?" In other words, what is it that allows for a group of individuals to be considered a society, which is not present in other groups? What binds individuals together in a society?
This question assumes that a society is not just a mere aggrupation of individuals, but is much more. A collection of bystanders cannot be called a society. Neither does a busload of commuters deserve the name. Temporal and spatial contiguity are not enough. There has to be interaction between and among the members of the group. This question, therefore, hopes to arrive at an insight concerning the nature of this interaction, the binding element, that makes a group a society.
Such a question, despite having been asked for centuries, remains significant for us today. Its significance lies on our need to understand the nature of society to experience it to the utmost, as well as to propose realistic solutions to problems of social disintegration and apathy. One who wants to participate in social interaction to the best that he can will be wasting intention, effort and resources if he doesn't know the very reason for society's being. Another person who wants to convince others to be more participative in social processes will have a difficult time if he can't answer satisfactorily the question "Why do I have to participate?"
This course will address our question concerning this binding element in society by means of a historical survey of philosophical views from Confucius and Plato in ancient times to contemporary times. Along the way, we discover two general answers to the question, and a critique. The ancient and medieval philosophers point (ethical) values as the binding element of society. The modern philosophers point to (economic) needs as the tie that binds. The postmodern philosophers -- presented synthetically by Michael Harrington -- on the other hand, reveal how the past conceptions of society's foundations have merely led to disastrous consequences in contemporary times, and therefore call for a re-thinking of society's foundations.
The first set of answers about the binding element of society comes from the ancient and medieval philosophers. They all share the common insight that society is there as the venue for the development of the ethical person, of the good person. Society, therefore, must be bound by the common values that the members share and aspire to attain. Without these values, society breaks down and the members become vicious. The ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius identifies jen (human-heartedness) and li (propriety) as the primary values that make up society. On the other side of the globe, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato identifies dike (justice, keeping one's place and giving what is due) as the basic social value. His pupil Aristotle points to philia (friendship) as the social cement. The medieval African philosopher St. Augustine of Hippo points to agape (universal love) as the truly unifying element of the city of God. The medieval Italian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized the value of the common good over and above individual good. What is common in all these answers is the idea that the unifying force is a value that stands over and above the individual and the society, a value to which the individual and the society seek to participate. This is different from the insight of the moderns.
The modern philosophers (modern because they directly influenced or were directly influenced by modern science) share the common insight that society is the venue for the satisfaction of individual members' mutual needs. There are no ultimate values to be sought and to be imbibed, only individual needs that must be satiated. Society arises out of a compromise among individual members -- trading off absolute personal liberty in exchange for psychological and economic security. The Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli singled out the need to achieve and maintain power by means of fear to maintain order and civility, without which there would only be constant warfare. The modern English philosopher Thomas Hobbes -- whose ideas inspired the English Revolution of 1688 -- argued that civilization and culture is only possible if individuals mutually agree to give up their liberties to a Sovereign who will ensure the absence of strife to protect the lives of members and ensure the pursuit of wealth. The modern French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- whose ideas spawned the French Revolution of 1789 -- theorized that society is established by a social contract founded on the awareness that individual needs have grown complex, and can only be satisfied when addressed collectively. What is common in all these answers is the idea that the social binding is dependent on the individual's recognition that only by mutual contract with others is it possible to preserve himself and pursue his welfare. The post-modern philosophies arose as critiques of both ancient-medieval and modern ideas about the essence of society.
This course concludes with Michael Harrington's essay. Here, he points to the accidental revolution taking place in our society. This is a revolution initiated unconsciously by its actors and aimed against the handed over foundations of society. He argues that the foundations laid down by previous social architects have only led to ugly and dangerous social superstructures in the contemporary age. While technology has grown, social relations have decayed. We are experiencing the weakening of social bonds when we allowed technology to mediate for us. We are experiencing the paradox of being in contact by not being in contact, of being present through absence. New foundations and structures have to be thought of to fit the unanticipated social developments brought about mainly by quantum technological advancements.
The challenge for us is to evaluate Harrington's critique in the light of our own experience of contemporary society, specifically, of Philippine society at the close of the twentieth century. Are we really experiencing social decay? Another challenge we should pose to ourselves concerns the method we have assumed since the beginning of the course -- the use of philosophy in understanding social reality. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel once pointed out that "Philosophy comes too late to teach the world what it should be ... The owl of Minerva begins its flight when the shades of twilight have already fallen." Is he right? Ω