What makes a person a member of a society?

There is a synopsis between three areas of study this semester: Pauline Epistles and Theology, Ecclesiology (the study of the Church) and Canon Law (the well-ordering of the earthly side of the institution that bridges between heaven and earth, which is called the Church). This corresponds will with my strong interest in Social Philosophy, the basic question being what makes a society.

The first observation: When we look at any society, whether it be the most basic and natural society of a marriage and family, or a more derived society like a Church, the classical polis, or a nation, our language will naturally refer to it as one.

First question: What makes it a unity?

Lady Thatcher, making history as the first female Prime Minister of the U.K., and helping to end the Cold War, yet some what lacking in a proper understanding of social ontology.

At first this may seem like an overly basic question -- we all now that well a club like the Lions are one club because the individual members are all in the same club. Well may be it is not so clear after all. It is this obscurity that I think underlies the following statement of Lady* Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the U.K., "There are no societies, just individuals." Well at first this seems like a solution to the obscurity, upon further reflection, it just does not sit well -- it is a reality that when we refer to a society of people we are referring to something that is above and beyond the individuals. Their is a real unity to the Lions club.

So then a reality of the club must surely be able to be explained by how we describe a crowd or a queue. There seems to be a unity there. Not so fast -- this is also an unsatisfactory answer. There is nothing uniting the crowd or queue besides the incidental qualities of being in the same place at the same time, while there is more to the unity of a club or society than the incidental qualities. I person is still a member of a club, a society, a marriage, a family, a nation, even if they are separated from these societies by incidental factors. When a man stays home while his wife is on a business trip, they do not stop being husband and wife because of the geographical separation. If marriage, and all types of societies were like a crowd or a queue, than just like when you leave a crowd you stop being a member of a that crowd, the geographical separation of spouses would dissolve that marriage. This is clearly an absurd conclusion.

Waiting in the line at the D.M.V., so de-humanizing that these people have grown rabbit ears!

In addition there is a difference in dignity between the members of a crowd and the members of a society. This is not meant by any means to refer objective dignity that each man, woman, child, and fetus has, but to the feeling of being dignified or non-dignified. Imagine waiting in line at the D.M.V., there is something de-humanizing about that. To recover that momentary and relatively insignificant loss of dignity a person would seek out a society, usually the society of friendship.

While this is a very nice pile of sand, clearly this falls very short of what is meant by a society. There are more than individuals, if this was not the case than a nation would be nothing more than a pile of people.

So the reality of the unity of a society is not explicit, in the same way that a person is naturally referred to as one, nor is it an aggregation like a crowd, a queue or a pile of sand. There is more to the unity of a society, the unity of a marriage, and the unity of a nation than the unity of a pile of sand.

There is a third option. This is proposing again the classical and hence timeless concept of a unity of order. There is no tangible object of a society that one can point to and say there is that society, rather to determine a society we look at what are the principles of order that make that cohesive -- united.

Saint Paul preaching in Athens, the wisdom of Aristotle is meeting the knowledge of the faith of Paul.

In his Epistles, Paul writes about this when he writes, "the body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body" (1 Corinthians 12:12). Just like the parts or members of a society are diverse, so the parts of a body are diverse (I am not all arms or all legs, but I have arms and legs and many other parts), the body though only functions when their parts have some sort of order between them. When this order is seriously disrupted by injury or disease the whole body suffers. This is an analogy that Paul uses to describe the society of the Church, that she is rich because of the diversity of her members, but she can only function because of the order that they all share in. Reflecting on successful marriages, families, clubs, etc., it becomes evident that these societies are successful because while respecting the dignity of the diverse members there are principles of order that allow these diverse members to be and to act cohesively. If you do not like the word "order," the idea of a strong sense of cooperation can suffice some-what.

Members of these societies must cooperate with these principles of order, as these are the only principles that hold a society together. These principles of order become enshrined in many different ways. In a nation a system of laws, values, and even culture institution develop as buttresses to these underlying principles of order. In the Church these are often discussed in terms of the "four C's": Creed, Cult, and Code. In other words, the principles of order for the Church are the beliefs of the Church, the worship of the Church, and the Canons or laws of the Church. In a family, the routine of a family often enshrines this order. Remember when you were a kid and for no apparent reason everyone always sat at the same spot at the kitchen table? By doing that, sub-consciously the individual members were re-enforcing the strength of the family by honoring the order of it.

Far from being oppressive, upon reflection, it is found that these principles of order actually serve to elevate individuals. I am a better man because of the family I come from. I am a better believer through the order provided by the Church. I am a better citizen, because of the order provided by politics (hence the duty to respect our leaders, as outlined by Paul in Romans 13:3). If I wanted to improve my ability at the piano or singing, I would do well to join a piano club or an orchestra.

Aristotle, philosopher and scientist extraordinare

If the glory of God is man fully alive, I can say that I am fully alive because I am immersed in a matrix of different types of societies. This is why Aristotle writes that man is essentially a social creature. An individual cannot even approach his full potential and glory if he remains just an individual. To be draw up into greatness he must enter into an order of cooperation, a society.

*I do not mean this in any sort of sexist term, in the sense of "her there little lady...", but rather a recognition of the title she bears granted to her by her Queen, H.R.H. Elizabeth II (or if you prefer: E. Alexandra Windsor-Montbatten).