Tension and Social Forces
We all basically understand the simple little gigantic idea that there is a distinction between our local community—friends, family, whatever—and, like, the big economic regional or national society we rely on for food and security. On one hand, this is really obvious, in part because a lot of people have written a LOT about this dichotomy.
Ferdinand Tönnies, a German sociologist, is maybe the most famous for looking at this distinction between "Gemeinschaft" (community) and "Gesellschaft" (society) in his 1887 work "Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft."
For Tönnies, community refers to social relationships that are personal, close, and enduring, based on strong ties of kinship, friendship, and tradition. In a community, relationships are ends in themselves, and social interactions are often governed by implicit understandings, shared norms, or common values. Examples might include families, close-knit rural villages, or tight-knit neighborhood communities. In these groups, relationships are typically direct, multifaceted, and involve the whole person.
Oswald Spengler also wrote a ton about this thing, or kind of sociological being. He called it culture, which represented for him the early, vibrant, and creative phase of a society. It is characterized by strong internal cohesion, deep spiritual and artistic expressions, and a close connection to the land and traditional ways of life. This phase is marked by growth, vitality, and a sense of collective identity. It's akin to Tönnies' concept of community in its emphasis on natural, integrated social relationships and shared values. In Spengler, we start hearing the echoes of evolutionary progressivism (“this phase”) that would eventually get him in hot water—kind of a Nazi, but also Hitler hated him.
Emile Durkheim’s classic, The Division of Labor in Society, is also basically about this dichotomy. For Durkheim, he called the internal social “force” that held this kind of sociological creature together “mechanical solidarity.” Now, this was literally the worst choice of term ever in the history of the social sciences because what he is describing as mechanical is... well, organic and natural (Hint: The big mechanical one will be called “organic,” lol). This form of social cohesion occurs in simpler, pre-industrial societies where individuals share similar responsibilities, values, beliefs, and lifestyles. In societies characterized by mechanical solidarity, social bonds are based on shared traditions and collective conscience, which is the set of shared beliefs and values that unite the members of the society. This is similar to Tönnies' concept of community and Spengler's concept of culture, where individuals are bound together by shared traditions and relationships.
The problem that literally all of these guys got into was that they all had this evolutionary sense that, like, this kind of social life was a dying species, something going extinct. As we are learning, horseshoe crabs didn’t go extinct just because humans showed up, and neither will communities go extinct just because we live in a big-ass society now.
For Tönnies, in contrast to community, society is comprised of associations that are more impersonal, instrumental, and transient. Relationships in society are often based on specific roles, objectives, or duties, and they may be contractual or goal-oriented. This type of association is characteristic of modern urban life, large-scale organizations, and diverse bureaucratic institutions. Here, relationships frequently have a one-dimensional focus on a single function or role, and interactions are frequently subject to formal rules and regulations.
For Spengler, civilization represented a later phase of culture marked by the decline of original creative forces and a turn towards materialism, intellectualism, and cosmopolitanism. It is characterized by large, impersonal cities, complex bureaucratic systems, and a focus on technology and rationality. In this phase, a culture's original values and sense of purpose become diluted. Again, this is somewhat similar to Tönnies' society, where social bonds are more necessarily contractual, impersonal, and utilitarian.
Durkheim described the force holding this kind of complex mechanical human organization together as (ugh) “organic solidarity.” To his credit, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, “organic” actually did not mean nature-y but instead “like an organ,” in this case a society structured with complex divisions of labor like organs in a human body. Either way, ugh.
But alas, for Durkheim, in societies like ours, social cohesion arises not from shared experiences or beliefs but from the interdependence of individuals who perform specialized tasks. As everyone is dependent on the specialized functions of others, social bonds are based on this interdependence. This concept has parallels with Tönnies' society and Spengler’s civilization, where relationships are more contractual and based on specific roles.
This is my super simple take on this divide, dualism, or whatever: I basically think that the tension between these two very natural forces is sort of beneath almost every mainstream political conflict. The left overextends societal principles (equality, diversity) into community spaces. The right misapplies community principles (inequality, shared roots) into the institutions of society. This is why our electoral maps look the way they do. Perhaps we should understand our parties as the Party of Society (D) and the Party of Community (R).
On the one hand, the mysterious social force giving life to the Left is one that is trying to turn all social contexts into a society-civilization governed by organic solidarity. Here, we might imagine the application of the ideal of diversity into every crease of human life, the reliance on science, the eschewing of faith, and the enormous cultural capital tied up in having the next tech release, from the iPhone 15 to a ChatGPT subscription—because, by God, if I don't, I’ll fall behind! You will. Your value to society will actually decrease.
On the other hand, the social force that breathes life into the Right is one that is trying to turn all social contexts into a community-culture governed by mechanical solidarity. Here, we might imagine the seething ethno-culturalism, the science denial, alternative facts, the necessity of cultural Christianity or the Hindutva, and the frequent rejection of cosmopolitanism and materialism. Each of these sociological ideals—community and society—organizes a whole life-way. They bring into orbit cultural binaries, values, desires, demands, and expectations about the nature of social life. The truth is that we all participate in both, and if we don't, we usually either die or kill ourselves. After his Division of Labor (1893), Durkheim’s next work was Suicide (1897). More on that another time.