Like most Americans, I devote far too much time to thinking I’m a grizzly.
Grizzlies are a solitary species who can survive by themselves without the aide of any other grizzlies, and — as the world knows — most Americans believe themselves to be rugged individualists who can survive alone without the aide of any other Americans, excepting only the 90% of their lives when they can’t.
Despite any appearances to the contrary, I was born resenting authority, social pressures to conform, the powers of both the government and the uber-wealthy, and leash laws for dogs. I have only grudgingly come to an understanding in middle age of the legitimacy of many of the claims society makes on us. But I still rebelliously ask, “Why must it be this way?”
Of course, the short answer to that question is: Human nature. Some pretty conclusive science shows that our brains are to an extent hardwired to deal with living in groups, and there is even a theory now that the very size of our brains is an evolutionary result of social living. Annoying as it might be to us wannabe grizzlies, the evidence is substantial that we are a social species.
Yet, the recognition that we are a social animal can be taken too far, for we are not even close to being as social as some species. Mole rats and honeybees are both far more social than us. No, humans are more like an improbable mix of social and solitary animal. That mix is the root of much conflict.
History shows a perennial tension between the rights or claims of society and the rights or claims of the individual. Homo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. During most of that time we lived in relatively small, more or less egalitarian groups of hunter/gathers. Those groups left no historical records, but from what might be known of them by studying the last very few hunting/gathering groups left on earth, they not only tended to be egalitarian, but they also leaned towards individualism. There wasn’t much difference in power or authority between people. Everyone had a voice in group decisions. And even leaders could not typically compel people to follow them, but usually had to persuade them to do so.
All of that began to change about 5,500 years ago when the first complex, hierarchical societies were invented in what is today Southeastern Iraq. Now you have distinct, hereditary ranks in society: Royalty, nobles, commoners. And you also have the invention of alarming, new ideologies justifying the ranks. These ideologies almost always take the form of “The social order was created by the gods, and the gods want us to stick with it”. In general, these complex, hierarchical societies have tended throughout history to lean unpleasantly towards the social conformity side of human nature. Which is a mild way of putting the fact that, for the most part, they have trod very heavily on individual human rights.
Of course, the rights of the individual are crucially important to anyone concerned with being true to his or herself. The tragedy has been not merely that complex, hierarchical societies have trod heavily on human rights, but that they have for the most part done so unnecessarily. For instance, in many times and places, cheerfully suggesting that the ruler was an imbecile could easily get you murdered by the government. And it still can in some places. But today we have many examples of societies that somehow manage to endure and even thrive despite the fact nearly everyone in them is absolutely convinced their rulers are imbeciles. Criminalizing such things, and murdering the people who indulge in them, is not only immoral, but unnecessary to protecting the social order as well. Yet overall, doing so has been largely the norm for complex, hierarchical societies.
So are there any limits to being true to yourself that your society can legitimately impose on you?
Well, I think there are two general areas in which your society has a right to impose limits on your being true to yourself. First I think it has a right to require you to be socially responsible even if that means you can’t always be true to yourself.
By “socially responsible” I mean that your society has a right to obligate you to (1) respect the rights of others, and (2) to cooperate in promoting the general welfare. Basically, that means (1) that you cannot abridge someone’s rights merely because you would be true to yourself to do so, and (2) you cannot dodge your obligation to help in promoting the general welfare merely in order to be true to yourself.
To give examples: Your society can demand that you do not steal from someone, and thus deprive them of their property rights, even though stealing from them would be a case of your being true to yourself. Furthermore, your society can demand that you pay taxes to support public schools, since public education promotes the general welfare, even though paying taxes might in some cases deprive you of money you could otherwise use to more fully express yourself.
Second, I think your society also has a right to require you in some circumstances to be environmentally responsible even though that might mean you cannot always be true to yourself.
By “environmentally responsible”, I mean your society has a limited right to obligate you to help create or preserve a livable environment not just for yourself and other humans, but for other species as well. I say “in some circumstances” because I can imagine how giving your society an unlimited right to compel you to help create or preserve a livable environment could easily result in tyrannous acts. “By the way, your government has decided to demolish your house and return your land to its natural state. Please vacate by Saturday.”
So, to my thinking, those are the two general ways that society can legitimately limit our right to be true to ourselves. Of course, it is endlessly debatable how they should be applied in practice. But then, what isn’t endlessly debatable these days?
Every society has an image (and most often more than just one image) of what is an ideal human. In all too many complex, hierarchical societies the ideal for the elites has been notably different from the ideal for the commoners. The elites are encouraged to be true to themselves; the commoners are encouraged to suppress themselves in the interests of maintaining the social order.
At times in ancient Greece, the ideal for an adult male elite was to become a socially responsible individual. That is, he was expected to fulfill certain obligations to his polis, or city-state, and also to develop himself as an individual in order to live a full and happy life. Today it seems possible to build on that ideal by expanding it to include everyone — man or woman, elite or not elite — and adding to it an obligation to not only be socially responsible, but also environmentally responsible. The tragedy is, as always, that governors, the uber-rich (who often own the governors), and other elites too often oppose the realization of such ideals for selfish reasons. Hence, a perennial theme of human history has been — and perhaps always will be — the tension between the individual and society.