I found Robert Wright’s NYT op-ed in praise of the Army both chilling and revelatory. Here’s the core sentiment of the article:
[T]he whole, larger stereotype — that the military is a right-wing institution, best viewed with skepticism if not cynicism by the left — is way off. Growing up in, or at least amid, the Army helped make me a liberal — not because I reacted against my environment, but because I absorbed its values. If all of America were more like the Army, it would be a better country.
Bob goes on to praise the way the military mixes race and class, creates a channel of social and economic mobility, provides good medical care to Privates and Generals alike, and is pervaded by a sense of solidarity and shared purpose. I think these are in fact admirable features of the armed forces, and they’re worth cultivating — in the armed forces. These are probably necessary features of an effective voluntary government institution devoted to the defense of a free society. But a free society is not a fighting force — it is not organized around war. If all of America were more like Sparta, we would no doubt be a more egalitarian society. But Sparta was not a “better country.”
I know that Bob, the author of a truly fascinating book on the logic of social coordination and cooperation, has to understand that free social orders are not, unlike the military, based on a single social goal pursued in common by all its members. Once you understand the logic of non-zero-sum games, as Bob most surely does, you begin to see societies as networks of mutually beneficial cooperation, in which individuals coordinate to help one another by on the way to helping themselves. There need be no shared purpose, no shared feeling, in order for us to be “in it together.” Yet, though he should understand better than just about anyone, Bob seems to me to fall victim to what Dan Klein, in a deeply insightful paper, has called “The People’s Romance” — the “yearning for encompassing coordination of sentiment” around a common social purpose. Dan’s analysis and critique of The People’s Romance is a must-read. Let me just quote him regarding the analogy of society to an army:
[The People's Romance] captures what William James sought in the “moral equivalent of war”—namely, “a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted” to dig coal, make tunnels, wash clothes, and catch fish. “[We should be] conscious of our work as an obligatory service to the state. We should be owned, as soldiers are by the army, and our pride would rise accordingly.” In Great Britain at the Labour Party Conference of 1945, Sir Stafford Cripps said, “We have got to engender in the people the same spirit of determination to see this programme through that they have displayed in winning victory in the war.”
Whatever kind of vision of society this is, it is not a liberal one. Society is not an organism, not a family, not a firm, not an army. America would be a better country if people stopped wishing it was.
Your title is way off the mark and simply disgusting.
Your title is way off the mark and simply disgusting.
Society is not an organism, not a family, not a firm, not an army.
It’s an invariably tendentious mistake to treat “society” as having any linguistic tranparency at all. It seems to me that Margaret Thatcher famous comment “There is no such thing as society” should be taken as a Wittgensteinian invitation rather than an easy jibe.
And I’m so sorry that Tia had an attack of the vapours.
Society is not an organism, not a family, not a firm, not an army.
It’s an invariably tendentious mistake to treat “society” as having any linguistic tranparency at all. It seems to me that Margaret Thatcher famous comment “There is no such thing as society” should be taken as a Wittgensteinian invitation rather than an easy jibe.
And I’m so sorry that Tia had an attack of the vapours.
The only argument of this sort that ever made any sense to me was: “the military integrated and got rid of racism within its ranks, didn’t it?” But then an African-American vet explained to me what made this achievement possible. In the military, he said, you live very, very close to people of other races and creeds on a “twenty-four seven” basis. Nasty arguments break out all the time, but they are resolved. The only alternative is that of making your own life miserable. On this view the military’s success in dealing with racism is not due to the authoritarian or collectivist features of the military that these writers admire. It is due to a feature of military life that isn’t, and can’t be, shared by the rest of society — not unless we literally live like Spartans!
The only argument of this sort that ever made any sense to me was: “the military integrated and got rid of racism within its ranks, didn’t it?” But then an African-American vet explained to me what made this achievement possible. In the military, he said, you live very, very close to people of other races and creeds on a “twenty-four seven” basis. Nasty arguments break out all the time, but they are resolved. The only alternative is that of making your own life miserable. On this view the military’s success in dealing with racism is not due to the authoritarian or collectivist features of the military that these writers admire. It is due to a feature of military life that isn’t, and can’t be, shared by the rest of society — not unless we literally live like Spartans!
This doesn’t seem to be at all fair to Wright’s column. Where does Wright say that society should follow a single shared purpose, or praise the army for pursuing a single common goal? Where does he cite the Spartan aspects of the Army as a model for society? I’m not seeing it anywhere.
The word “solidarity” does not appear anywhere in Wright’s column. The closest thing I see is where he praises commanders for caring about the well-being of others, which is a perfectly appropriate sentiment for a society based on mutually beneficial cooperation.
The kinds of “egalitarianism” that he focuses on, diversity and equal opportunity, also seem fine for a non-militaristic society with diverse goals. He talks about people interacting with others from diverse backgrounds, quality schooling for all children, decent health care for all, and jobs that are open to anyone with the relevant skills (which may vary drastically for different jobs). How are those Spartan values? How do they depend on society marching in lockstep in pursuit of a single, shared mission?
This doesn’t seem to be at all fair to Wright’s column. Where does Wright say that society should follow a single shared purpose, or praise the army for pursuing a single common goal? Where does he cite the Spartan aspects of the Army as a model for society? I’m not seeing it anywhere.
The word “solidarity” does not appear anywhere in Wright’s column. The closest thing I see is where he praises commanders for caring about the well-being of others, which is a perfectly appropriate sentiment for a society based on mutually beneficial cooperation.
The kinds of “egalitarianism” that he focuses on, diversity and equal opportunity, also seem fine for a non-militaristic society with diverse goals. He talks about people interacting with others from diverse backgrounds, quality schooling for all children, decent health care for all, and jobs that are open to anyone with the relevant skills (which may vary drastically for different jobs). How are those Spartan values? How do they depend on society marching in lockstep in pursuit of a single, shared mission?
“But a free society is not a fighting force — it is not organized around war.”
I think our society is organized around war, as evidenced by the military-industrial-congressional complex. As a result, our freedoms are compromised.
“But a free society is not a fighting force — it is not organized around war.”
I think our society is organized around war, as evidenced by the military-industrial-congressional complex. As a result, our freedoms are compromised.
Blar has it exactly right in the comment above. Wilkinson makes a convincing argument against a straw man–i.e., that society is NOT a single-minded, single-issue, single-goal-oriented social entity in the way that the military is. But his argument against this obviously false claim is irrelevant to the issue of whether society at large would benefit from the features Wright mentions as enhancing life in the miliary: egalitarianism, equal opportunity for advancement as well as for health care, etc. In short, what Wilkinson succeeds at is not relevant; what’s relevant he leaves unaddressed.
Blar has it exactly right in the comment above. Wilkinson makes a convincing argument against a straw man–i.e., that society is NOT a single-minded, single-issue, single-goal-oriented social entity in the way that the military is. But his argument against this obviously false claim is irrelevant to the issue of whether society at large would benefit from the features Wright mentions as enhancing life in the miliary: egalitarianism, equal opportunity for advancement as well as for health care, etc. In short, what Wilkinson succeeds at is not relevant; what’s relevant he leaves unaddressed.
Society is not an organism, not a family, not a firm, not an army.
This sounds to me just like “an electron is neither a particle nor a wave”.
A society may not be a physically contiguous entity, everyone may not be directly related, we didn’t all agree to it, and we may not all be under direct orders to kill on command.
On the other hand, a society can have goals and values (sometimes contradictory, but individual brains contradict themselves too), a society can care for its members, a society can use its resources to compete with other societies, members can leave by emigration, and individuals can be compelled to comply with social goals as a condition of staying in the society. It has attributes of all those things, even if it meets the definition of none of them exactly.
“Plato is not a Roman. Romans were humans. Therefore Plato was not human.” Just because X isn’t a Y doesn’t mean X can’t have some properties of Y.
Society is not an organism, not a family, not a firm, not an army.
This sounds to me just like “an electron is neither a particle nor a wave”.
A society may not be a physically contiguous entity, everyone may not be directly related, we didn’t all agree to it, and we may not all be under direct orders to kill on command.
On the other hand, a society can have goals and values (sometimes contradictory, but individual brains contradict themselves too), a society can care for its members, a society can use its resources to compete with other societies, members can leave by emigration, and individuals can be compelled to comply with social goals as a condition of staying in the society. It has attributes of all those things, even if it meets the definition of none of them exactly.
“Plato is not a Roman. Romans were humans. Therefore Plato was not human.” Just because X isn’t a Y doesn’t mean X can’t have some properties of Y.