We can construct a theory of social harmony in many ways. It can be constructed in a purely theoretical context such as B.F. Skinner's Walden Two or in a purely pragmatic fashion, such as an elaboration of acceptable behavior for an existing group. Most of the texts for this class fall somewhere in the middle, looking at established models of existence, but then imagining how changes in structure, thinking, hierarchy, etc., would increase or decrease social harmony.
We propose to follow this example. While drawing on other venues and cultures, we, like the majority of referenced authorities, will focus on the United States. Limiting our scope reduces a tremendous task -- developing a theory of social harmony -- to manageable proportions. Additionally, the U.S. is a laboratory, a bully pulpit, and a trend-setter for other world societies. Rightly or wrongly, the United States exerts a large influence on world culture. It does so because it is a microcosm of world cultures and societies. What the peoples of this country experience here somehow manages to get back to their own original cultures. It is an ebb and flow of values, traditions and information. This process has also been assisted by modern technology which helps in bridging families and reducing the size of the international community. Therefore, other societies are more likely to emulate a harmonious society in the U.S. rather than one emerging from another state.
Additionally, we will look to our experiences. Our personal experience of conflict with society is illuminating in the challenges to both the individual and the society in accommodating differences. Finally, we will look at the experience of this class, "Theories of Social Harmony" as a microcosm of conflict and cooperation within a society
Social harmony is more than structured toleration, but less than chaos and anarchy. It must have a level of wholeness and integration. As explained by Hugh Dalziel Duncan, Sorokin noted that logically and functionally integrated systems posses certain fundamental traits.
(1) A functional or logical system has a unity and therefore a "certain degree of autonomy and self-regulation in its functioning and change." It has "a certain degree of independence of, or immunity to, external conditions."
(2) The autonomy of any cultural system "means further the existence of some margin of choice or selection on its part regarding the infinitely great number of varying external agents and objects which may influence it." It will ingest some of these and not others. It has an affinity for some and a repulsion for others.
(3) Autonomy also means "the functional change, and destiny of the system are determined not only and not so much by the external circumstances... but by the nature of the system itself and by the relationships between its parts." (Duncan 1969, 133).
The autonomy defined by Sorokin is characteristic of nation-states. They reserve the right to limit what influences permeate their boundaries, and to determine the direction of their members. In reality this cannot happen. No barricade, physical or cultural can protect every element of a group from outside influences. However, the right to try to control these influences is the essential right of sovereignty. At the same time, reality dictates that such entities cannot exist in a vacuum, but must conform to some basic requirement of sharing space (the Earth) with other states.
The state is an autonomous unit. It must constantly balance its autonomy with the autonomy of its individual members. Frans de Waal believes this balancing act is essential to human nature. "In human children, too, supervision needs to strike a balance between prevention of excessive violence and over-regulation. The basic rules of peacemaking cannot be learned if fights are always broken up before a decisive outcome has been reached." (De Waal 1989, 257).
Michael Waltzer takes this example of the society of nation-states and urges that a similar balance of autonomy and obedience in the US be given not only to individuals, but also to self-identified groups. He examines how to reconstruct society to encourage toleration of both individuals and groups. He defines tolerance as "the peaceful coexistence of groups of people with different histories, cultures, and identities." (Waltzer 1997, 3). According to Waltzer, toleration historically exists in five forms:
Waltzer cites the European Community as a modern example of movement beyond individual rights to group rights.
"[T]he European Community requires its members to be more tolerant in different way than they have been in the past... The Community recognizes regions within states as legitimate objects of social and economic policy -- and it is likely will someday recognize them as political subjects as well." (Waltzer 1997,49).
The role of government in encouraging toleration is setting a structure to educate and encourage the public to view other groups in one of the five manners illustrated by Waltzer.
Nation-states like the US focus on the toleration of individuals, not groups. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution wrote with a view towards individual freedom and protection from harm. There is no identification of groups as entities deserving of rights. In fact, the original Constitution deprived some groups of rights. The Constitution refers to groups in amendments only. Although the Constitution recognizes African-Americans as a separate group, it defines their rights negatively -- it prohibits discrimination again them as individuals. Such rights as a group have been denied to women. Only recently has a group received recognition and appropriation of positive rights. The recent passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act not only prohibits discrimination against individuals, but obligates the government and public spaces to accommodate the handicapped. This could be the model for a more tolerant society -- recognizing interest group identification and according "accommodation" rights to the less powerful, less vocal, and smaller of these groups. However, it should be clear that the underrepresented group would receive privileges to enable it to access the corridors of power and make itself heard -- much like ramps enable the wheelchair-bound to access public restaurants and school. Once a disadvantaged group reaches a level of strength, special privileges would no longer be relevant. As Waltzer himself recognizes, "only if groups are self-sustaining, would resignation, indifference, or stoic acceptance suffice for toleration. But if groups are weak and need to be helped...then some mix of curiosity and enthusiasm is necessary." (Waltzer 1998, 100). To this we add positive accommodation.
Waltzer recognizes that mere toleration does not ensure social harmony. "Toleration brings an end to persecution and fearfulness, but it is not a formula for social harmony." (Emphasis added.) (Waltzer 1997, 98). Social harmony requires more than toleration. While social harmony is closer to Waltzer's fourth and fifth levels of toleration, social harmony requires the existence of a common desire for a specific end -- equality and access for all individuals and groups. Waltzer advocates that the government should help the weaker groups of society attain a level playing field with the stronger groups, so that they may be able to advocate their group's needs and views on equal footing. Intrinsic to Waltzer's vision is competition and dichotomy.
Waltzer is accommodating to fringe groups, although limiting their power. "They [should be] confined to civil society: they can preach and write and meet; they are only permitted a sectarian existence." (Waltzer 1997, 82). Deborah Tannen, however, recognizes the loss when fringe groups with great strength disproportionate to their small size have too loud a voice in society. The only people in society heard are those who are thick-skinned and aggressive enough to win the verbal sparring and negativity of our culture. The warlike nature of society intimidates and overwhelms those with healthy self-doubt or conciliatory natures. The weak and the meek are unheard. "All of society loses when creative people are discouraged from their pursuits by unfair criticism," as well as aggression, intolerance, and hostility. (Tannen 1998, 18).
Not only should weaker groups be aided to achieve an equal voice, but cooperation between groups, not competition, should be encouraged. To balance all groups means that they are all equally powerful to compete for limited resources. It also means that no one group can dominate. Instead, groups will work together on the basis of common interests to reach a majority position. Inherent in the call for competition would be the need for cooperation. As these relationships develop, society would move from toleration to harmony. In essence, harmony is a synchronization of efforts.
Music theory defines harmony as coinciding with the natural order of the universe. A series of notes exists in nature, the result of a division of a single note into two, then thirds, then fifths, then the full octave. Further divisions, however, eventually result in dissonance. While a harmonious construction of notes reflects the vibrations that exist in nature, the dissonant constructions are contrary to nature. Gregorian chants of the Middle Ages were based on this scientific theory of the harmonious scale, and resulted in truly soothing music that was considered as emulating heaven or at least the perfect earthly representation of peace as thought to be in heaven. Contemporary composition has evolved past this reliance on pure harmony. Composers of the current century brilliantly pushed the extreme of dissonance to express a wider range of emotions and ideas. However, the finest have mastered a delicate balance between the harmonious and dissonant, daring beyond the complacency of the eight-note scale but establishing order and limits of the dissonance, however subtle, to achieve the most complex and creative of works.
For example, in opera it is not uncommon for large groups to be singing in an overlapping fashion for extended periods of time. It is a musical conversation. In the film Amadeus, Mozart proposes doing this for a sustained period of twenty minutes with twenty-five singers. This was something unheard of in the opera world. Mozart argues that his idea is unlike twenty-five people just talking to each other. That would be chaos, a cacophony of voices, and ultimately it would not be music but noise and distortion -- dissonance. Mozart says it is possible to bring twenty-five people together and have them singing different things for a long period of time because it is set to music and thus becomes music.
So where is the difference? What makes the difference between harmony and dissonance? It is the implementation of other elements that allows for the difference to happen in a melodic way. It is the addition of finely structured music and an atmosphere that accepts such a format as "communication."
For society to hear itself even when many voices are speaking, it is of the utmost importance to integrate other elements that make the transformation from chaos (or conflict) to harmony. These elements can be a variety of things ranging from art to a loose form of a universal social contract, one that integrates those that we call "outsiders." It may be that toleration is the social glue that has been thinned out.
"Conflict on all levels of organic existence is pervasive, persistent, ubiquitous. Conflict is the universal experience of all life forms. Organisms are bound in multiple conflict-configurations and -coalitions, which have their own dynamic and their own logic. Conflict and cooperation are always intertwined." (Van Hoof, 1990). Just as music exists because harmony and dissonance define it, so social cooperation and conflict define society. Harmony and dissonance are the checks and balances for the structure of music. Conflict and cooperation are the checks and balances for the existence of society.
Why is it that we need checks and balances to affirm our existence especially if conflict, which usually has the tendency to turn violent, is what destroys societies and breaks down cooperation? To validate something it is necessary to invalidate something else. For example, to deny the existence of G-d one has to first acknowledge that there is a concept of G-d to deny. To say that Space is Nothingness, one must first "understand" Nothingness, and then Space can be understood. It is a matter of balance. Society needs a balance, something that gives humanity a breadth of existence, a balance of good and bad, so that somewhere in the middle (a common ground) is the cooperation needed for a successful existence. Common ground is the one thing that some people, if not many, search for when interacting with others. It is what unites us from many different paths so that we may live peacefully. This does not mean that we should be forced to live without conflict. The absence of conflict is not realistic. It does imply that to live in our communities harmoniously, we must be able to understand the other and know what our common ground is, should we need to meet in the middle. It is an imperative that to live together we must know how the other lives. To be forced to live together is to erase the differences that first brought us together. We must allow for differences to exist. They should be what brings people together and enriches the colors of the social fabric.
It is equally essential that to have ourselves heard we must also listen. Listening requires that we tell our stories, not as an imposition of value systems, but as a factor that can ameliorate and not isolate. A society that supports the greatest capabilities of humanities, the deepest strivings of the soul, is also a subtle balance between harmony and discord. The finest society, like the finest piece of music, would both respect the variety and creativity expressible of the human soul and the natural instincts of the universe. In such, it would allow the widest variety of human expression while acknowledging and supporting values that are essential to human nature.
Society should be an environment of space, giving room to differences within individuals and within groups. Joni, a Jewish-American, wants to be accepted as both an American and a Jew. She wants the rights of both, which are not conflicting, although sometimes overlapping. She chooses the norms and values of each as she sees fit. As an American overseas, she wanted not to be limited by her identity as an American, or as her job, or as a female, or as a woman, but to be seen as an individual who also had commonalties with the groups to which others belonged. However, she could not have existed in these societies without commonly accepted mores and beliefs that structured her interactions. She was different, a variation on a theme, but she acted within the bounds of human nature. While we might structure personal relationships differently, we seek an exclusive relationship with others upon which to build a future. The tenor and the limits of this relationship are ours to define, but the essence of the relationship understood by all.
Christel, growing up in Chile as a native but without the physical stereotypes, tried to fit in. Coming back to the United States and looking very much the "Gringa" she found her history and roots suffocated because there was no outward difference that would indicate to people that she had a different story to tell. She felt powerless over her identity. She sensed other people controlled it. She felt like a square in a round world.
Martin E. Marty states that "[I]dentity groups must be in some measure differentiated from each other and, in many cases, are somehow in competition." (Marty 1997, 149). Her identity challenged and was challenged by various groups in both societies, both cultures. Yet that challenge or competition did not have to be adversarial. She felt that it was, and when she realized it was not, then she could exist on a cooperative level without a threat to her identity. A mechanical click happened inside her head and she realized that she had to take control, and that meant that she had to tell her story. She could use being bi-cultural to always "fit in". She could be both things at any given time. It would probably be safe to say that we are not just one identity, but several. Beware the person that says he or she is of only one identity.
Why do we need to fit in? As with the animal kingdom, any animal that is not accepted into a group is left to roam alone and thus eventually die. Certainly that is an extreme, but it is assuredly applicable in this situation. Socio-biologists would say that this is an instinctual basis for behavior. Social theorists would counter that people need to fit to achieve some sort of personal authentication. From either point of view, to be, we must realize that the same potential exists for not being. Not being is counter-productive to existing. Deborah Tannen states "[T]he argument culture urges us to approach the world and the people in it in an adversarial frame of mind. It rests on the assumption that opposition is the best way of getting things done." (Tannen 1998, 3).
Marty focuses on competition and Tannen focuses on argument. What do these things have in common? They are both references to how people talk and interact with each other. Is argument truly a negative thing? We are challenged and we challenge with argument, but it is not negative until accepted as negative. Conflict and cooperation are symbiotic and intertwined. For example, if an athlete decides that they are a good runner and would like to measure themselves how do they do it? They compete, and that competition serves as a measuring stick for them to surpass their limitations and to excel. What point is there in competing against oneself if you do not know what is greatness or what is folly? Alfred Lord Tennyson said; "No man is an island entire of himself." We are not alone and must not think that we are. People have different styles, different agendas, different roots and different futures. The beauty is that it does not have to be negative. For life, cooperation, etc., to be positive we must engage. Of course there will be some that are "blood-thirsty" but that is the balance that we, from the cesspool onward and upward, have inscribed into our structure for evolving.
The key, and Tannen points to it, is the need to avoid dichotomy. We should resist the drive to identify Self and Other. There are no clear lines. Christel is both Chilean and American, not one or the other. Joni is both a believer in Judaism and the "American religion" that cherishes democracy, individuality, and adventure.
We believe that there are certain basic human needs and values that can be identified through current religions and cultures as effectively universal. These values are few and constant, but they are identifiable at any moment. Some are the need for peaceful coexistence, the belief in individual responsibility, the acceptance of individual identities. These fundamental values should be codified into a Universal Social Contract, much like the notes of a scale, constructed and valued across age, belief, territory, and culture.
Looking at the limited scope of the United States, the Universal Social Contract already exists in theory within the Constitution. In ideal terms, the Constitution guarantees minimal individual rights, to provide the natural harmony to balance the extremes of dissonance produced by a variety of needs, views, ambitions, and beliefs. The openness of a democracy is fertile ground for cultivating the widest variety of human expression and fulfillment.
Democracy is a limited plot of land. Tannen notes that "opposition is most likely to get out of control when there are no culturally agreed upon rules or rituals in place for expressing or negotiating it." (Tannen 1998, 214). A wide variety of views, like plants, if not structured to give each sufficient space, will allow the hardiest to overshadow the weakest.
We need to further define the role of the outsider. Religions rely on the creation of outsiders. What is it that most religions try to do? They try to attract new adherents and pronounce as outsiders those that are not part of their spiritual dogma. They deem those that do not follow the "rules" of a religion as outcasts or ex-communicated. Society as a whole, in any culture, functions within the realm of polar opposites. In this country most conflicts are between blacks and whites. Most people belong to either the Republican or Democrat party. A person is either "pro-life" or "pro-choice". We are either "this" or "that", and we do not know how to deal with anything in between except by putting them in a subculture classification. We ostracize people that do not choose this or that. Max Frankel in the Sunday New York Times Magazine writes:
[T]he police and the media could help (America's racial and ethnic muddles) by becoming much more discriminating about skin color. Just as they have always distinguished among people's black, brown, red, yellow, gray, or white hair and their blue, brown, green, gray or hazel eyes, let them offer a rich array of skin shades. What a boon to social harmony if we all shed the sloppy habit of identifying achievers and miscreants as merely blacks or whites.
It is worth entertaining the notion of allowing more space to move within the limits of society. Moving outside the dichotomy might make room for the mere toleration of all that is. The key, and Tannen points to it, is the need to avoid dichotomy. We should resist the drive to identify Self and Other. There are no clear lines. Christel is both Chilean and American, not one or the other. Joni is both a believer in Judaism and the "American religion" that cherishes democracy, individuality, and adventure.
Throughout history, religion has been the social glue and identifier of different groups. The question we ask is whether religion can be a source of social harmony, or must always be the cause of conflict and disharmony. Again, we return to the need to eliminate the dichotomy, the Self and Other. Alan Dershowitz, in his book The Vanishing American Jew, warns the Jewish population of the U.S. that it must more beyond its siege mentality, the "Us" versus "Them", if it is to continue to thrive. "Judaism has proved its adaptability to external enmity, poverty, and political exclusion and discrimination. Now it must prove its adaptability to external friendship, affluence, political power, and inclusion." (Dershowitz 1997, 65).
Religion must move away from its need to identify its differences from others' beliefs to recognizing the commonalties. This could be the point of departure for the Universal Social Contract. A Universal Social Contract should be loose enough to provide a way in for those that become deviant. It must render itself to all people, which means destroying or eliminating the phenomenon of "Us" and "Them". A Universal Social Contract should not only be universal but also unifying.
The dawn of religion coincided with the dawn of humanity. With the dawn of humanity was also the cradle of identity. The belief in something greater, and our obligation to it, is ancient. It is thus clear that inherent to human nature is basic beliefs of humanity's purpose in being and the correct way of being. If these can be distilled to the essentials, the basic details can be seen in every religion; the need for survival, for self-actualization, for family, for intimacy, for autonomy.
We return to the United States, and to ourselves. We see that it is human nature to strive for commonality. It is also human nature to compete for limited resources, limited praise, and limited acknowledgment. What must rise now is a recognition of these essential needs of humanity that exist in us all. From this, we will then see that the most peaceful, efficient way to achieve these needs for each is for all to work together. We will then be fulfilling our purpose in the true sense. We will be pure, clear notes that resonate in harmony with each other, and with our universe. All we need to do is hear the notes within the dissonance.
Our work together was an exercise in cooperation. At first we made hesitant steps towards our collaboration, both unsure of the other and ourselves. Necessity required not only the physical meeting of persons but also the intellectual meeting of minds. It turned out that the physical meeting was much more difficult.
In the end, we found that we disagreed on nothing. Yet this does imply that we agreed on everything. For this to happen, a complete synchronicity of thought, we would have had to be the same. We are not. Instead, we found that one idea fed off another. The hardest task was whittling down the vast range of thoughts and feelings we had on the subject to a manageable discussion of the issues.
If this paper appears as disjointed, it is so as a result of
the workings of two very different, but agreeable minds. The
banter, the intellectual exchange of our cooperation results in
more than the dry rendering of the standard student essay. Thus,
we did not try to limit it to the four walls of a neatly written
essay. The true harmony of our project is not in the simple
tune of "Mary Had a Little Lamb." Instead, the various
melodies, sometimes tuneful, sometimes discordant, of instruments
that were our many thoughts. Looked at, and listened to, overall,
it is a much deeper and more resonant work than either of us could
have produced alone. This is the essence of harmony.
Dershowitz, Alan M. The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century. Boston: Little Brown, 1997.
De Waal, Frans. Peacemaking Among Primates. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Duncan, Hugh Dalziel. Symbols and Social Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Frankel, Max. "Word & Image; Let's Be Chromatically Correct," The Sunday New York Times Magazine. December 6, 1998.
Martin, Marty E. The One and the Many: America's Struggle for the Common Good. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Shaeffer, Peter. "Amadeus". Milos Forman, director. HBO Video, 1984.
Skinner, B.F. Walden Two. New York: Macmillan, c1976.
Tannen, Deborah. The Argument Culture: Moving From Debate to Culture. New York: Random House, 1998.
Tennyson, Alfred Lord. Selected Poetry, W.E. Williams, ed. New York: Viking Penguin, 1985.
Van Hoof, J.A.R.A.M. "Intergroup competition and conflict in animals and man." Socio-Biology and Conflict: Evolutionary Perspectives on Competition, Cooperation, Violence, and Warfare. Eds. J.van Dennen & V. Falger. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990.