by Jeremy Jameson

Created on: January 23, 2007   Last Updated: May 19, 2007

I would use the following working definition for society: a group of people living in the same geographical area in relative harmony, interacting with one another in mostly civil manner.

To have relative harmony and civil interactions, rules are required. Without rules there is anarchy, in other words every man for himself. In contrast, societies work together towards common goals. For example, the USA is a society whose common goals include seeking order both domestically and internationally, building wealth, protecting essential liberties, and so on. Granted, not everyone in the society supports these ideals, but most do. Those who do not hold these ideals and stay in the society will do so for whatever other reasons, but those reasons are based on benefits that are made possible by rules (at the fundamental level, our Constitution provides these rules for our society).

Those who refuse to abide by the rules (particularly the most important ones) are regularly isolated from society (imprisoned) or removed (executed). In less serious cases of deviating from societal norms, fees or other penalties are assessed. That is a qualifying sign of a healthy society: it tries to correct itself and drive its members towards socially responsible behavior.

However, too many or the wrong kinds of rules can put too much stress on a society for it to function properly. For example, when the government puts a stranglehold on the economy (e.g. communism), the economy dies and with it one of the most basic engines of incentive that exist in a society - so such societies eventually fall apart. Just as parents with too many rules are likely to have rebellious children, the government that tries to govern too much will find its citizens rebelling (in some cases, sparking revolution). That's also what happened for the American colonies: Britain wanted to heavily tax the colonists and have a high military presence among the people to keep order, and the colonists revolted and - with the help of the French - won independence to eventually become what is today the United States. I bet Britain could have maintained control of the colonies if it had treated them as something to be nurtured like the mother country instead of stripped and harvested.

Then again, the colonists no doubt realized that Britain was all the way across the Atlantic and in fact quite different from the colonies even though many of the colonists came from Britain themselves (either originally or by heritage). The colonies were in fact a different place with a different way of life and therefore wanted to establish its own rules (e.g. be its own society). So even if Britain had not been so controlling, the colonies may have revolted anyway so they could have self-rule.

That's the thing about societies - they're always changing. The rules may change somewhat too, but for society to exist there have to be some sort of rules. That's just the way it is.

Learn more about this author, Jeremy Jameson.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.