Gemeinschaft and Gesellshaft: A Sociological View of the
Decay of Modern Society.
First published in Mankind
Quarterly, 1994.
Copies of ‘The Problem of Democracy’ by Alain de
Benoist are available in softback here and here in hardback.
Peaceful modern societies which respect the individual
evolved from age-old familistic ties. The transition from band-type societies,
through clan and tribal organizations, into nation-states was peaceful only
when accomplished without disruption of the basic ties which link the
individual to the larger society by a sense of a common history, culture and
kinship. The sense of “belonging” to a nation by virtue of such shared ties
promotes cooperation, altruism and respect for other members. In modern times,
traditional ties have been weakened by the rise of mass societies and rapid
global communication, factors which bring with them rapid social change and new
philosophies which deny the significance of the sense of nationhood, and
emphasize individualism and individualistic goals. The cohesion of societies
has consequently been threatened, and replaced by multicultural and
multi-ethnic societies and the overwhelming sense of lost identity in the mass
global society in which Western man, at least, has come to conceive himself as
belonging.
Sociologically, the first theorist to identify this change
was the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who emphasized the tendency for
mass urban societies to break down when the social solidarity characteristic of
tribal and national societies disappeared. Ibn Khaldun saw dramatically the
contrast between the morality of the nationalistic and ethnically unified
Berbers of North Africa and the motley collation of peoples who called
themselves Arabs under Arabic leadership, but did not possess the unity and
sense of identity that had made the relatively small population of true Arabs
who had built a widespread and Arabic-speaking Empire.
Later it was Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936) who introduced
this thought to modern sociology. He did so in his theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft
und Gesellschaft, 1887). This theory revealed how early tribal or national (gemeinschaft)
societies achieved harmonious collaboration and cooperation more or less
automatically due to the common culture and sense of common genetic and
cultural identity in which all members were raised. This avoided major
conflicts concerning basic values since all shared a common set of mores and a
common sense of destiny.
However, as history progressed, larger multi-ethnic and
multi-cultural societies began to develop, and these Tonnies described as being
united by gesellschaft ties. These were not united by any common set
of values or historical identity, and collaboration was only maintained due to
the need to exchange goods and services. In short, their existence came to
depend on economic relations, and as a result of the diversity of cultural
values, the lack of any “family feeling,” and the emphasis on economic exchange
and economic wealth, conflict over wealth and basic values was likely to
disrupt the harmony of such societies at any time. In political terms,
liberalism developed to eulogize the freedom of individuals from claims to
national loyalty and support for national destiny, while Marxism grew out of
the dissatisfaction felt by those who were less successful in achieving wealth
and power, which now came to represent the primary goals of the individuals who
were left at the mercy of the modern mass gesellschaft society.
Nationalism and any sense of loyalty to the nation as a distinct ethnic,
kinship unit came to be anathematized by both liberals and Marxists.
“A specter is haunting Europe—a specter of communism” wrote
Marx in the preface of theManifesto. A century later this specter became a mere
phantom, with liberalism the dominant force. Over the last several decades,
liberalism used communism as a scarecrow to legitimize itself. Today, however, with
the bankruptcy of communism, this mode of “negative legitimation” is no longer
convincing. At last, liberalism, in the sense of the emphasis on the individual
above and even against that of the nation, actually endangers the individual by
undermining the stability of the society which gives him identity, values,
purpose and meaning, the social, cultural and biological nexus to which he owes
his very being.
Fundamentally, classical liberalism was a doctrine which,
out of an abstract individual, created the pivot of its survival. In its
mildest form it merely emphasized individual freedom of action, and condemned
excessive bureaucratic involvement by government. But praiseworthy though its
defense of individual freedom was, its claim that the ideal system is that in
which there is the least possible emphasis on nationhood leads to situations
which in fact endanger the freedom of the individual. In its extreme form,
classical liberalism has developed into universal libertarianism, and at this
point it comes close to advocating anarchy.
From the sociological standpoint, in its extreme form,
modern internationalist liberalism defines itself totally in terms of the gesellschaft society
of Tonnies. It denies the historical concept of the nation state by rejecting
the notion of any common interest between individuals who traditionally shared
a common heritage. In the place of nationhood it proposes to generate a new
international social pattern centered on the individual’s quest for optimal
personal and economic interest. Within the context of extreme liberalism, only
the interplay of individual interests creates a functional society—a society in
which the whole is viewed only as a chance aggregate of anonymous particles.
The essence of modern liberal thought is that order is
believed to be able to consolidate itself by means of all-out economic
competition, that is, through the battle of all against all, requiring
governments to do no more than set certain essential ground rules and provide
certain services which the individual alone cannot adequately provide. Indeed,
modern liberalism has gone so far along this path that it is today directly
opposed to the goals of classical liberalism and libertarianism in that it
denies the individual any inalienable right to property, but still shares with
modern liberalism and with libertarianism an antagonism toward the idea of
nationhood. Shorn of the protection of a society which identifies with its
members because of a shared national history and destiny, the individual is left
to grasp struggle for his own survival, without the protective sense of
community which his forebears enjoyed since the earliest of human history.
Decadence in modern mass multicultural societies begins at a
moment when there is no longer any discernable meaning within society. Meaning
is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values, because rampant
individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation of egotism at the expense
of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give
form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is
more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people
who are conscious of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they
are prepared to make personal sacrifices.
Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural
and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel
truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without
values or any sense of identity: such a situation leads to nihilism, drug
abuse, criminality and worse. With the spread of purely egotistic goals at the
expense of the altruistic regard for family and nation, the individual begins
to talk of his rights rather than his duties, for he no longer feels any sense
of destiny, of belonging to and being a part of a greater and more enduring
entity. He no longer rejoices in the secure belief that he shares in a heritage
which it is part of his common duty to protect—he no longer feels that he has
anything in common with those around him. In short, he feels lonely and
oppressed. Since all values have become strictly personal, everything is now
equal to everything; e.g., nothing equals nothing.
“A society without strong beliefs,” declared Regis Debray in
his interview with J.P. Enthoven in Le Nouvel Observateur, (October 10,
1981), “is a society about to die.” Modern liberalism is particularly critical
of nationalism. Hence, the question needs to be raised: Can modern liberal
society provide strong unifying communal beliefs in view of the fact that on
the one hand it views communal life as nonessential, while on the other, it
remains impotent to envision any belief—unless this belief is reducible to
economic conduct?
Moreover, there seems to be an obvious relationship between
the negation and the eclipse of the meaning and the destruction of the
historical dimension of the social corpus. Modern liberals encourage
“narcissism”; they live in the perpetual now. In liberal society, the
individual is unable to put himself in perspective, because putting himself in
perspective requires a clear and a collectively perceived consciousness of
common heritage and common adherence. As Regis Debray remarks, “In the capacity
of isolated subjects men can never become the subjects of action and acquire
the capability of making history” (Critique de la raison politique, op. cit. p.
207). In liberal societies, the suppression of the sense of meaning and
identity embedded in national values leads to the dissolution of social
cohesion as well as to the dissolution of group consciousness. This
dissolution, in turn, culminates in the end of history.
Being the most typical representative of the ideology of
equalitarianism, modern liberalism, in both its libertarian and socialist
variants, appears to be the main factor in this dissolution of the ideal of
nationhood. When the concept of society, from the sociological standpoint,
suggests a system of simple ‘horizontal interactions,’ then this notion
inevitably excludes social form. As a manifestation of solidarity, society can
only be conceived in terms of shared identity—that is, in terms of historical
values and cultural traditions (cf. Edgar Morin: “The communal myth gives society
its national cohesion.”)
By contrast, liberalism undoes nations and systematically
destroys their sense of history, tradition, loyalty and value. Instead of
helping man to elevate himself to the sphere of the superhuman, it divorces him
from all ‘grand projects’ by declaring these projects ‘dangerous’ from the
point of view of equality. No wonder, therefore, that the management of man’s
individual well-being becomes his sole preoccupation. In the attempt to free
man from all constraints, liberalism brings man under the yoke of other
constraints which now downgrade him to the lowest level. Liberalism does not
defend liberty; it destroys the independence of the individual. By eroding
historical memories, liberalism extricates man from history. It proposes to
ensure his means of existence, but robs him of his reason to live and deprives
him of the possibility of having a destiny.
There are two ways of conceiving of man and society. The
fundamental value may be placed on the individual, and when this is done the
whole of mankind is conceived as the sum total of all individuals—a vast
faceless proletariat—instead of as a rich fabric of diverse nations, cultures
and races. It is this conception that is inherent in liberal and socialist
thought. The other view, which appears to be more compatible with man’s
evolutionary and socio-biological character, is when the individual is seen as
enjoying a specific biological and cultural legacy—a notion which recognizes
the importance of kinship and nationhood. In the first instance, mankind, as a
sum total of individuals, appears to be “contained” in each individual human
being; that is, one becomes first a “human being,” and only then, as by
accident, a member of a specific culture or a people. In the second instance, mankind
comprises a complex phylogenetic and historic network, whereby the freedom of
the individual is guaranteed by the protection of family by his nation, which
provide him with a sense of identity and with a meaningful orientation to the
entire world population. It is by virtue of their organic adherence to the
society of which they are a part that men build their humanity.
As exponents of the first concept we encounter Descartes,
the Encyclopaedists, and the emphasis on “rights”; nationality and society
emanate from the individual, by elective choice, and are revokable at any time.
As proponents of the second concept we find J.G. Herder and G.W. Leibniz, who
stress the reality of cultures and ethnicity. Nationality and society are
rooted in biological, cultural and historical heritage.
The difference between these two concepts becomes
particularly obvious when one compares how they visualize history and the
structure of the real. Nationalists are proponents of holism. Nationalists see
the individual as a kinsman, sustained by the people and community, which
nurtures and protects him, and with which he is proud to identify. The
individual’s actions represent an act of participation in the life of his
people, and freedom of action is very real because, sharing in the values of
his associates, the individual will seldom seek to threaten the basic values of
the community with which he identifies. Societies which lack this basic sense
of national unity are inherently prone to suffer from repeated situations wherein
the opposing values of its egotistical members conflict with each other.
Furthermore, proponents of nationhood contend that a society
or a people can survive only when: a) they remain aware of their cultural and
historical origins; b) when they can assemble around a mediator, be it
individual, or symbolic, who is capable of reassembling their energies and
catalyzing their will to have a destiny; c) when they can retain the courage to
designate their enemy. None of these conditions have been realized in societies
that put economic gain above all other values, and which consequently: a)
dissolve historical memories; b) extinguish the sublime and eliminate
subliminal ideals; c) assume that it is possible not to have enemies.
The results of the rapid change from national or
tribal-oriented societies to the modern, anti-national individualism prevalent
in contemporary “advanced” societies have been very well described by Cornelius
Castoriadis: “Western societies are in absolute decomposition. There is no longer
a vision of the whole that could permit them to determine and apply any
political action … Western societies have practically ceased to be [nation]
states … Simply put, they have become agglomerations of lobbies which, in a
myopic manner, tear the society apart; where nobody can propose a coherent
policy, and where everybody is capable of blocking an action deemed hostile to
his own interests.” (Liberation, 16 and 21 December, 1981).
Modern liberalism has suppressed patriotic nationhood into a
situation in which politics has been reduced to a “delivery service”
decision-making process resembling the economic “command post,” statesmen have
been reduced to serving as tools for special interest groups, and nations have
become little more than markets. The heads of modern liberal states have no
options but to watch their citizenry being somatized by civilizational ills
such as violence, delinquency, and drugs.
Ernst Junger once remarked that the act of veiled violence
is more terrible than open violence. (Journal IV, September 6, 1945). And he
also noted: “Slavery can be substantially aggravated when it assumes the
appearance of liberty.” The tyranny of modern liberalism creates the illusion
inherent in its own principles. It proclaims itself for liberty and cries out
to defend “human rights” at the moment when it oppresses the most. The
dictatorship of the media and the “spiral of silence” appear to be almost as
effective in depriving the citizenry of its freedom by imprisonment. In the
West, there is no need to kill: suffice it to cut someone’s microphone. To kill
somebody by silence is a very elegant kind of murder, which in practice yields
the same dividends as a real assassination—an assassination which, in addition,
leaves the assassin with good conscience. Moreover, one should not forget the
importance of such a type of assassination. Rare are those who silence their
opponents for fun.
Patriotic nationhood does not target the notion of “formal
liberties,” as some rigorous Marxists do. Rather, its purpose is to demonstrate
that “collective liberty,” i.e., the liberty of peoples to be themselves and to
continue to enjoy the privilege of having a destiny, does not result from the
simple addition of individual liberties. Proponents of nationhood instead
contend that the “liberties” granted to individuals by liberal societies are
frequently nonexistent; they represent simulacra of what real liberties should
be. It does not suffice to be free to do something. Rather, what is needed is
one’s ability to participate in determining the course of historical events.
Societies dominated by modern liberal traditions are “permissive” only insofar
as their general macrostability strips the populace of any real participation
in the actual decision-making process. As the sphere in which the citizenry is
permitted to “do everything” becomes larger, the sense of nationhood becomes
paralyzed and loses its direction.
Liberty cannot be reduced to the sentiment that one has
about it. For that matter, both the slave and the robot could equally well
perceive themselves as free. The meaning of liberty is inseparable from the
founding anthropology of man, an individual sharing a common history and common
culture in a common community. Decadence vaporizes peoples, frequently in the
gentlest of manners. This is the reason why individuals acting as individuals
can only hope to flee tyranny, but cooperating actively as a nation they can
often defeat tyranny.
-----------------------------------------------
* Facebook: National-Anarchist
Movement (N-AM)
Posts
