Someone once told me that society is hated by the arrogant. In fact different societies are hated by different people and for different reasons, and some of these reasons are better than others. The person who loves the society of San Francisco will most likely hate the society of Saudi Arabia. The person who loves the society of Saudi Arabia will most likely hate the society of San Francisco. In neither case do we see arrogance.
Societies can be good, and societies can be bad. Most are a mix of both. As with anything human, we see all sorts of potentials both for good and for bad.
Are societies always wrong? No, the members of American society are doing the right thing by standing up to such things as Nazism and Islamic terrorism. Are societies always right? No, there is nothing to justify the members of Afghan society throwing sulfuric acid into the face of children for going to school. Individuals can go right or wrong. So can collectives. Once again, in neither case do we see arrogance.
The biggest problem with societies is that there is nothing to correct their potentials for tyranny and corruption. Governments in democratic countries are kept from wrongdoing through a rigorously enforced system of checks and balances. But power of societies is unelected, unofficial, unaccountable, unbalanced and unchecked. This gives them green light for what in many cases is greater wrongdoing than what is allowed the democratic governments. And while there are many people scrutinizing the governments, not as many people scrutinize the societies. A hidden power is created, unofficial, unaccountable, unbalanced and unchecked. And many people suffer for it.
That people will form societies, is inevitable. What is not inevitable is that these be organs of tyranny and corruption. Unofficial power should be scrutinized as much as the official power. When unofficial power leads people to run witch hunts and inquisition campaigns, or attempt to get rid of a demographic, or force people to think one way and not another, that is tyranny and corruption in the name of society. Hating such a thing is not arrogance. It is holding liberty dear.
That something is unofficial does not make it not real. To the person who is injured, it does not matter whether he’s injured by government or by society. In either case injury is done. I find it amusing to see people saying that they kill people like me, then go on believing that they are law-abiding citizens.
What is worse: official power or unofficial power? Obviously both can be bad. But for a power to be legitimate it has to be accountable, checked and balanced. Once again, everyone knows that governments can go wrong. Not everyone knows that about the societies that they inhabit.
Claiming to speak for society is a vast power gambit. A person claims as his sort of authority a force that is unelected, unofficial, unbalanced and unchecked. He claims people he finds inconvenient to be in opposition to this authority. It is like Stalin claiming that his enemies were enemies of the people.
I want to see greater scrutiny over societies. Not dissolution of society as that is impossible; rather, holding its potentials for tyranny and corruption in check. It is necessary to come to the aid of people who face abuses of societal powers. It is necessary to confront people who power-trip by claiming to speak for society. That being done, the abuses done in the name of society will be confronted, and social process can go on unimpeded.