Understanding the Social Contract
Apes, Civilisation and Total War
The story of the human race has humble beginnings.
Sapiens first emerged from Africa about 200 000 years ago as a hunter-gatherer type species. We were no different from the wolves; we were nomads, bound to the land by geography rather than sentiment. “Society” was a three men affair.
But eventually weak skulls, brittle bones and a meek physiology encouraged banding together and fighting smart. As Hellen Keller once observed, “Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much.” The second (more familiar) rendition of society thus emerged approximately 10 000 years ago in the Neolithic Era. Unsurprisingly, this coincided with the advent of agriculture as well.
Remains of ancient cities can be found today in the excavation site of Catalhoyuk. There, archaeologist have found over 400 skeletons under “mud-brick dwellings” arranged in a “honey-comb like maze”. Thus, the seeds of modernity were planted. As humans became more and more efficient at agriculture, societies were able to produce excess food to support a larger population and job specialisation.
Then came the civilisations. Civilisations were born around 5 to 6 thousand yeras ago, in the shadows of 4 great rivers: the Tigris/Euphrates (Mesopotamian), the Indus (Indus Valley), the Nile (the Egyptians) and the Yellow River (Shang Dynasty). This was due to the favourable soil conditions and silt deposits that irrigation provided. The rivers also provided a means of quick transport, communication, administration and trade throughout the kingdom. Unsurprisingly, civilisation was a huge step forward for mankind.
Paradoxically, a cohesive social identity emerged from increasingly complex individual networks. Religions were preached, monuments were erected and ideas were nurtured. Society finally became big enough that it had to be regulated by primitive laws (eg. The Code of Hammurabi). And in it all, an unspoken code was subtly laid down which were not so much legal precepts as social precepts. For example, tax was introduced and it represented a shift in thinking — that the upkeep of society was a burden to be shared by all.
Next in line in the spectrum of human societies were the empires. Unlike the region-bound civilisation, empires ruled over numerous geographies. Examples include the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the French, the Romans and the most recent Brit colonisers, who presided over settlements as far away as Singapore and Hong Kong. Far-away lands were governed by a central entity (eg. in Constantinople, which was the capital city of many successive empires) and the social precepts that were introduced in the age of civilisation were subsumed, strengthened and superseded.
But it was not until the Age of Enlightenment that social contracts were elevated into popular discourse. Political philosopher Hugo Grotius first took to the task, and he was succeeded by a long line of very famous academics like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. But it was Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau who most famously expounded on this theory in his seminal “ Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique”.
These eminent minds all began with the shared human condition absent of political order (a so called “state of nature”). It was agreed that such a “society” was destined for anarchy and chaos, thus, working upward toward their own version of utopia, these men rationalised the valuation of security over subjugation in their own ways.
Today, the only thing common about social contracts is their definition. Every people has their own version of this unspoken agreement. For example, while some countries believe in creating a social net for the poor via high taxes, others cringe at any attempt of the government to infringe on their personal wealth.
The most (in)famous example of antithetical social contracts were the superpowers of the late 20th century, America and USSR. At the heart of this infinitely complex, disruptive and expensive proxy (“Cold”) War was two big boys who just couldn’t stand the sight of each other because they disagreed over how life should be lived.
The Americans believed in Westphalian-esque rights of self-determination, democracy and liberalism. This ideal still rings true today. By and large, America is right-winged, emphasising a by-default strong private sphere and only introducing government into them when necessary. For example, mass surveillance irks the so many American citizens precisely because it is thought the government has overstepped a well-established boundary.
She also advocates a unforgiving state of capitalism and meritocracy where the winner takes all, offering little equalising opportunities and little social netting (compared to say Europe) Your humble writer will here emphasise these statements are made not so much a critique of policy than a objective comparison between different national policies.
On the other hand, the Communists believed in strong government and weak individuals. In order to achieve their conception of utopia, a powerful state was needed to confiscate private resources and split them equally among the People.
This incompatibility in ideology, which was exemplified by Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech (“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent!”) and the physical erection of the Berlin Wall separating East and West Germany, eventually led to years of proxy warfare and economic devastation.
But to engage in a holistic discussion about social contracts, it isn’t simply enough to discuss the pros/cons of one particular ideal. What is far more interesting is examining how the tides of history shaped the rock of today.
In modern Japan, for example, it might seem puzzling to the patriotic American why the Abe’s government struggles to overturn decades of pacifism and why this newfound focus on defence can seem especially infuriating to some Japanese. After all, if they truly loved their country, shouldn’t they take to arms to defend it?
But this omits the long shadow that Japan’s recent history has cast.
The historic 1868 Meiji Restoration began with the end of a previous era of Sakoku which encouraged isolationism. Japan opened her doors to the world for trade but was terrified when they saw large American warships and far more advanced technologies. Quotes like “if we take the initiative, we can dominate; if we do not, we will be dominated” soon eclipsed their historically zen-way of life.
Thus, the Japanese embarked in evolution of social policy, a rewriting of the social contract to engender progress, eventually culminating in the surrendering of fedual shogunate autonomy to a supreme ruler — the infamous Emperor of Japan.
Society developed at a staggering pace, and most crucially as they grew more advanced, their appetite for growth expanded. There was a newfound sense of Japanese pride and patriotic militantism. In 1873, the government established nationwide conscription of males to build up a strong defence. But defence slowly evolved into arrogant offence and the Japanese sought other hinterlands for resources and land.
This policy of aggression culminated in a horrific showcase of might during World War 2 (1939–1945), which scarred the world and Japanese alike. Attrocities committed by the Imperial Army are widely documented these days. In one instance, they massacred innocent doctors, nurses and patients bearing red crosses and white flags in Singapore’s Alexendria Hospital. In another, they killed 50 000 Singaporean-Chinese civilians they deemed had Communist links by ordering them to dig their own trenches then shooting them.
You can probably tell where I’m from, but the point is, Japanese soldiers unleashed a familiar inner demon and it brought out the worse in an otherwise cultured and well-mannered people. After a period of post-war reconciliation of their brutal history, the bulk of the Japanese were frightened of themselves and what they were capable of. The nuclear bombs that instantly annihilated 200 000 Japanese also brought them to a stark realisation that war was not worth it. Thus, these cultural factors shaped the prevailing Japanese social contract of military pacifism limiting aggressive foreign policies.
Japan has been happy to fly under the US security umbrella for half a century now, and it will take much more than one Prime Minister to heal old scars and rejuvenate militantism.
So for so long as there had been society, there had always been contract. An implicit agreement that prescribed the nature of interaction between the society and the individual. The ultimate crystalisation of jurisprudence behind enacted social laws. The thread that strings the colourfully beaded necklace together.
Contract existed between the alpha male of the hunter-gather pack and the weaker ones. Contract existed between the tribal chief and his fellow villagers. Contract existed between the pharoahs of the Nile and the Egyptians. Contract existed between the Pope and the Romans. Contract exists between the Politburo and her people.
These contracts varied greatly in form, some proposing powerful government and limited individual, others antithetically advocating limited government and powerful individuals. Distinct modus vivendis occasionally led to war as in WW2/the Cold War.
But one must acknowledge the spectre history casts when examining the politics of today. Japan comes to mind. But so does China, so does Russia, so even, does America. Every country falls prey to the terror of the past in the making of today.
Everybody implicitly signed a social contract with their country of citizenship at birth. The politics of the left and the right might occasionally swings this pendulum back and forth, but never suddenly and never in big ways. Recently, this proposition has been brought into question with the advent of Trumpish populism all around the world. But then one would probably be ignoring decades of momentum, slowly building up all around you.
Your humble writer therefore encourages you to be critical of the policies that your government enacts. Examine the merits and flaws but don’t get caught up in the trees such that you might miss the forest. Take a step back. Examine the history of your countries’ policies. The thread that links them all will become clear.
