Best of Popular Online Community Forum

Today I want to introduce a new hypothesis: That the reason we share information with each other is due to an elemental need humans have — to share information about the society they are members of (both within a single society and also across societies). When we say that humans are “social” animals, we make an assertion similar to statements declaring humans to be herbivores or carnivores — not only do we need to eat, we also need to communicate.

When we characterize someone as a (living) human being, we share that they have some set of capabilities associated with this kind of existence — that we can think, that we can be happy or sad, that we love, want, or appreciate someone or something (and so on). Yet by and large, a person who is only known as a “stranger” or “foreigner” is the most meek of all members of society… they hardly even “belong” to society at all.

A nondescript person is not a noble savage — quite the contrary: the person without any character has nothing more than the most basic human rights, they enjoy the social standing of a refugee and are only minimally trusted. Such individuals are no more the foundation of society than the grains of sand on a sandy beach are the foundations of the great physical structures and edifices built by civilizations.

At this most basic level of human existence, we observe that humans nonetheless do have certain expectations — that we do not kill each other, that we do not lie or cheat each other and so on. Even though such expectations are sometimes suspended in times of war, nonetheless this is considered an exception to the rule — and otherwise we feel we are different than animals which might pounce on prey, tear the prey to shreds and devour it in a matter of moments. As humans, we respect all other humans according to what we feel are ethical obligations — as members of humanity, we follow a human ethical code which we observe whether our neighbor is our best friend or whether they are a stranger. That is the human contract.

I propose that humans are also naturally disposed to fulfilling more than this very minimal human contract. We are naturally designed as social beings — and therefore we are also naturally designed to fulfill a social contract. Note that my view of the social contract is probably different than other views (e.g. Rousseaus’s view) of this term: For me, the social contract that humans naturally follow is to communicate and inform each other about society and the relationships among its members.

On the most rudimentary level, this can be observed within family relationships and also the relationships family members have with people outside of the family unit. The parent who cheers on his or her school child, who is proud of their achievements, who brags about their child’s capabilities is the quintessential prototype of such family-unit social engagement, thereby creating relationships between members of the family unit with members of society. What is more: Society expects this information — that is why it is actually a social contract.

Here is a hypothetical example: Consider a person who experiences some traumatic event — such as a death or a similarly traumatic experience of separation from another family member. Obviously, such trauma will affect the person and their behavior — they may seem detached or perhaps they may start crying for no apparent reason. This is presumably one reason why in many cultures, such significant life events are ritually shared with the wider community — it is a way of sharing information about the family members, and thereby facilitates easier and more meaningful interactions between the individual family members and society at large.

To ask “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is essentially to ask “Am I a member of society?” — because yes: According to the social contract, society expects everyone to share such information.

The more such information is shared, the more an individual acquires a character — it is in this way that they even become socially characterized. An individual who is not talked about hardly exists for society — the less information is shared about an individual, the more they become socially stigmatized. Conjectures and prejudices replace actual communication, and the less a person is talked about, the more the individual becomes marginalized and even ostracized as a “stranger”. An extreme case of this might be one in which family members have closer ties to complete strangers than they do to members of their own family… and this is not socially accepted. In such situations, society is forced to rationalize such awkward relationships, leading to what are commonly referred to as “social stigmas”.

Because the social contract (as a sort of “human information technology”) is part and parcel of being human (i.e. because it is “hardwired” into the human design), we can now understand why sharing information about our human relationships and human interactivity appears to be “addictive” — yet it is not an addiction per se, but rather more like eating, sleeping, breathing and other basic human functions.

In many parts of the world today, ideas related to community and/or communal resources are in widespread disrepute. In many countries, stuff referred to as  “intellectual property” is granted rights that makes it possible to privatize communal information. In conclusion, we may today actually have many laws on the books that are at odds with human nature — and perhaps we are thereby actually limiting our potential to achieve the best of what humans are capable of.

Of course, this raises many issues and questions I hope to able to investigate more soon.

Socialisation News Post Forum