The Gist 31: Breaking the Social Contract pt. 1

What happens when social groups break apart.

I’ve been looking for a format to use here, and this is what we’re going with: a short article, which I hope you find interesting, and regular news updates at the bottom. On Saturdays, we’ll do deep dives into specific films of interest.

In doing research for Self-Scare, I had to do a deep dive into a subject I’ve always been fascinated by: society and how humans behave within it. But even more relevant, what pushed humans or ancient near-humans to form social groups? This lies at the center of the Self-Scare documentary, provides the backdrop for our new theory of communication, and directly influences human psychology on the deepest possible levels. In an obscenely over-simplified definition, the answer is fear.

Being one of the most powerful motivators in human psychology, the pre-historical precursor to what we know as fear was a chemical process that encouraged survival, rewarding behavior that led to better survival outcomes. Or, in short, when individual creatures did things that didn’t get them killed, those creatures got to reproduce.

Again, a VAST oversimplification, but the point is, at some time in the distant past, probably during the collapse of the Mesopotamian rainforest into what became the savannah, humans made a decision to come together in groups for mutual assured survival. Ever since then, our entire way of life, even our brains themselves, have evolved to support and encourage that decision. So what happens when we go against that evolutionary decision and reject social order?

Two Scenarios:

I’m going to attempt, again in a very brief, simplistic way, a worldview that is causing a rift in our current social order:

First Scenario:

Group A: In a grocery store parking lot, a member of Group A is working through their daily tasks, picking up items for their family, on their way home for a (hopefully) relaxing night in. They witness a member of Group B who exits the store. They put their items in their car, push their cart off to the side, backup leave. The cart remains, blocking traffic, unreturned, a hazard to other customers.

Group A watches. “Typical,” they mutter. Making note of bumper stickers, flags, clothing, and any other markers Group B displayed during this moment that are also ‘typical’ of that subset. We’ll call these the self-oriented group for now.

Second Scenario:

Group B: Is enjoying a night out with their family. They’ve had a long week, they’re tired, and they are looking forward to some quality time with loved ones. As they’re sitting down to dinner, a person walks into the same restaurant. Outside, a protestor is carrying a banner with a pro-choice message and asking for signatures on a petition. Their chants are loud, disrupting the peaceful dinner and blocking the view from the window.

Group B frowns. “Typical,” they mutter, observing piercings, hair color, and other ‘typical’ markers of that group in society. We’ll call these the social-oriented group.

Breaking the Rules

It’s very easy to see the modern influence in these scenes, but what’s important is that both of these groups want the same thing. They want a world in which they are allowed to live their lives, according to their belief system, and because their system is clearly right, everyone hops on board, and we all live happily ever after. The problem is…of course, we all have different belief systems. And I don’t mean we’re all in one group or another, we ALL have DIFFERENT belief systems. It is impossible to reach that kind of consensus.

Quick note: It may appear from the above that I’m picking on one particular group, painting them as selfish and the other as selfless…But I chose these two examples specifically because they are the most common arguments among these two groups about what makes the other intolerable. And if we dig, we see the source of the behavior clearly. It exposes a lot more beyond these two moments. It is precisely the interaction of tribalism in the modern world. The two belief systems we’re dealing with are anti-social/social orientation BETWEEN tribes.

In next week’s article, we’ll discuss this orientation and why it comes to bear so often in our society, but right now, I’m going to touch on the emotional aspect of why this pisses both groups off so much: It’s the rules.

Existential Threat

Group A (social) sees Group B (anti-social) violate the rules of social order. They are shirking the responsibility implicit in the socially-oriented group, that any action that unfairly places a burden on someone else is morally and ethically abhorrent. They say to themselves, “I have to follow the rules, but you think they don’t apply to you. That’s unfair.” And this core thought drives a righteous anger that attacks the central belief system of Group A, the socially oriented, group-conscious mindset. It labels this person as a danger. They don’t follow the rules, and the rules are what keep society in order. Rules prevent chaos and ensure safety. Not returning a grocery cart is a flag that if this person doesn’t respect the social order, potentially, they could be an existential liability. They threaten the entire community.

What about Group B? Group B does not subscribe to the socially oriented mindset…at least not THAT one. Group B is insular. A mindset focused on family and members of their own tribe. They do not see themselves as beholden to a ‘socialist’ mentality because they operate under a different social contract. A completely different set of rules. This is normally a religious/spiritual/nationalist mindset. NOT for every person within the nation (as in the United States) as an entity, but every person within the ‘tribe’ that they view as that nation. A citizen of the US who is not also a tribe member of the religious-national social group….is not a part of the nation to this person. And as we’ll see, they are seen as a threat. As much as Group B is a threat to Group A.

Here’s where the anger comes in: Group B (anti-social) views the protestor as a direct violation of the moral code of their social order. They cannot accept a person in their community who contradicts the moral and ethical standards of their social group, which bans abortion as an ethical failure. It views this behavior as murder, a universally rejected social behavior. Exactly the same as Group A, Group B says, “I have to abide by the laws of my social group, and you don’t, and that’s not fair.” This is where the anger comes in. Moreover, if Group B legitimately believes their moral code, as defined by their social group, is correct…any violation of that means the violator MUST be a bad person (in this case, a killer) and therefore? A threat to society.

We live in a complicated system. It is imperfect by any measure and complicated further by the presence of capitalism, a system designed to drain us of our vitality for the benefit of a select, objectively ethically void few. We cannot survive in that system any longer, and I believe it is self-correcting. It is untenable. The way forward will be one with many, many difficult decisions and a complete rewriting of our current social order to account for this complete lack of compatibility on so many fronts. I want to stress here: both of these groups and the many subgroups and the overlapping ones all want the same thing. At the end of the day, we want to survive, and we view each other as the best path to that end. Learning how to agree on a single sustainable social structure is a different story.

Green-Eyed Monsters

I leave with a thought I got from Alok V Menon when I saw them live last month, which had to do with the above, and inspired me to sit down and write it. It was a commentary on why conservatives have a visceral reaction to queer people, particularly trans folk. Looking, for now, beyond the patriarchal subtext, we can see a clear example of ‘rule-breaking’.

A queer person, out in public, is a reminder to the conservative that, though they believe it is morally necessary and ethically inarguable to adhere to a binary, heterosexual alignment, not everyone does. The existence of queer people who are happy, vibrant, and free is a direct assault upon the conservative mindset regarding this behavior as sinful, abhorrent, and basically bad. Queer folk shouldn’t be happy if the concept of punishment for sin is legitimate, as they have been taught it. It calls into question the very essence of their identity, and anyone confronted with those truths has a tendency towards rejection and violence. Most importantly, it says the rules that constrain the conservative to certain behaviors are not universal; they are self-imposed, which is paradoxical to ‘Universal Truth’ and again, extremely discomforting. It’s an existential crisis in the form of a drag queen or two men kissing. Alok suggests the conservative does not realize that fighting for our rights, as the LGBTQIA+ community, is fighting for their rights as conservative Americans. Because we only survive together. We survive when we choose to reinforce a social order that keeps us all safe. It is through love we can find a way forward, but that is a difficult proposition in increasingly violent, polarizing times. It’s not a simple answer. You can’t make a meme for this. But humans evolved to live together, and if we’re going to make another thousand years, we have to learn to do it better.

The Gist:

The FINAL scene for Self-Scare Episode 1 went off great Saturday night. Set photos in next week’s post!

Cryptid: A VR Experience begins filming May 16th!

"Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that" - MLK