The importance of social norms?

[nosos]

In any anarchist society there would be an absense of positive law. There would be no government to enforce social norms.

In my mind that makes a general sense of the importance of social norms massively important to the stability and coherence of that society. People must be willing to stand up to anti-social elements within the community.

However is there any way to ensure this doesn't become oppressive? Is it possible for a community to enforce social norms in a way that respects anarchist sensibilities?

 

[Crispy]

What exactly do you mean by 'socail norms' ? Opening the door for other people, that sort of thing?

 

[nosos]

Any sort of shared idea which has the force of a standard.

 

[Aldebaran]

Enforcing a standard is the equivalent of creating a law. Which brings on the question how and by whom the law shall be enforced. Which brings you back to a necessity of government.

salaam.

 

[nosos]

How is a standard equivilent to law?

If I tell my neighbour off for dropping litter in my front garden, are you saying my invocation of a standard (that he ought not to drop litter) makes me akin to government enforcing law?

 

[Aldebaran]

How is a standard equivilent to law?

Because you make it a standard on which hence everyone needs to agree, even if in disagreement.

If I tell my neighbour off for dropping litter in my front garden, are you saying my invocation of a standard (that he ought not to drop litter) makes me akin to government enforcing law?

You aren't governing him by enforcing your standard onto him? What if he says he won't stop doing it, who do you want to call to force him to obey your standard?

salaam.

 

[118118]

its not clear nosis, what you want to differntiated these enforcable norms from: capitalist state, or fair liberal-socialist-democrcay (if thats not an oxymoron (?))

fwiw, i am inclined towards the idea that some sort of non-direct-democracy would have to be retained, perhaps an elected representative to legislate laws. asi i see it, as long as, say, productoin was still run and diustributed by the direct decision of workers, that would enable society to keep a subversive forcce churning away, that could prevent the sort of non-accountability we see in our representatives today. imo, anarchist ideas of utopia are a bit weird: tho the apparent progressiveness of anarchists in the civial war, wrt e.g. women, is encouraging.

so i owuld say, that we need some kind of, if not state, then dicates from a higher power on what norms must be followed. so i'm not sure that i agree with your assumption, that we should all set out own norms. may well be wrong on this, of couse.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How is a standard equivilent to law?

A standard that is enforceable becomes a rule, which is the next thing to a law.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

However is there any way to ensure this doesn't become oppressive? Is it possible for a community to enforce social norms in a way that respects anarchist sensibilities?

ultimately, no

if someone else in the community is being "anti-social" (eg. keeping people awake, shitting on the public byways etc.), and negotiation failed to resolve the problem, you have a choice - put up with it, or take direct action yourself to prevent it happening again

if you yourself are not able to tackle the problem directly (eg. because the "anti-social" group are bigger and stronger, or because you yourself have some kind of disability), you might have to enlist aid from others within the community. that's a nasty situation right there that flies in the face of "anarchist sensibilities". but it was the original person's actions which caused other people to group up against them. everybody is responsible for the consequences of their actions even if those consequences are impossible to predict. it is not an ideal situation, but then, nothing is. anarchy is an ideal. if it was perfect and real, there would be no concept of "antisocial" in the first place.

e2a. to clarify, I mean that someone completely unwilling to negotiate or compromise on changing behaviour that is causing disruption has ALREADY gone against the spirit of an anarchist society. at the point where you are forced to take oppressive action to enforce your own personal "norms", you have already been the target of oppression of a kind. ultimately, you are living within an equilibrium which has already been disturbed to the point of social conflict; you are, presumably, taking action to restore that equilibrium. the "antisocial" element doesn't see it that way, of course, but then, that's what anarchy is: leaderlessness. it makes no odds whether that "leader" is a bloke sitting on a golden cushion, or an abstract set of ideas or "norms" - either one should have no bearing on personal action and responsibility.

 

[inflatable jesus]

I think it really just depends on how delicate one's anarchist sensibilities are.

Personally, I don't think it would be un-anarchist to have some kind of a structure for resolving the general disputes that people have so long as it's the least oppressive and most democratic system that is possible.

I don't think it's really something that anarchists need to spend too much time thinking about though. That problem wouldn't need to be considered (if it ever needs to be considered at all) until after the more basic inequalities in power have been addressed.

 

[Azrael]

In any anarchist society there would be an absense of positive law. There would be no government to enforce social norms.

There's no government to enforce "social norms" today. Barring Asbos (which aren't there to enforce "social norms", but as a short-cut to jail for yobbish criminals) "social norms" rest on custom, not law. Custom shapes the law, but usually goes far beyond it. Old "social norms", ones enforced far more rigidly than today's (ie, the needlessly brutal attacks on unmaried mothers), did not carry the weight of law.

There's no "law" telling you to open doors for people, to get your round in (though there should be, with some suitably Jacobean punishment) or generally act like a decent person.

Though since in your anarchist society murderers, rapists, and common thugs of all kinds will be unrestrained, I find it odd that "social norms" are a high priority. Presumably after you've been beaten/robbed/murdered, having the felon politely cart your corpse home will make all the difference.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

Though since in your anarchist society murderers, rapists, and common thugs of all kinds will be unrestrained

wrong

 

[Azrael]

By all means amend to say "restrained by vigilantes, who will, if we're exceptionally lucky, be in the mood to risk violent death for a stranger, inflict their (doubtless grisly and fatal) response on the right person, be strong enough to actually win, and not set themselves up as the new robber baron after they have" if you so wish.

I just find it strange that "social norms" would be identified as a particular problem by anarchists, given the other, much weightier, calamities that will result from the absence of due process and the rule of law.

 

[fudgefactorfive]

By all means amend to say "restrained by vigilantes, who will, if we're exceptionally lucky, be in the mood to risk violent death for a stranger, inflict their (doubtless grisly and fatal) response on the right person, be strong enough to actually win, and not set themselves up as the new robber baron after they have" if you so wish.

no, i think if you're going to put words in my mouth anyway, i'll just say nothing

 

[Azrael]

I'm doing no such thing; I'm giving my own (irreverent) take on the alternatives in an anarchist society.

So we're clear, I'm not implying you agree (I'd hope no anarchist seriously agrees!).

By all means present a different scenario.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

In any anarchist society there would be an absense of positive law. There would be no government to enforce social norms.

In my mind that makes a general sense of the importance of social norms massively important to the stability and coherence of that society. People must be willing to stand up to anti-social elements within the community.

However is there any way to ensure this doesn't become oppressive? Is it possible for a community to enforce social norms in a way that respects anarchist sensibilities?

Won't work.

Because everyone's idea of what constitutes acceptable behaviour is different.

There will always be irresolvable conflicts of 'rights'.

E.g. on another thread: a group of employees' 'right' to work in a conducive environment and play commercial radio, loudly v. another employees 'right' to be able to work in peace and quiet without the distraction of loud music.

Another thread: One person's right to quiet enjoyment of their home, and their right to be able to sleep v. their neighbour's right to enjoy their home by keeping a pet dog in it, which unfortunately when the neighbour is out turns into a noisy f'ing source of irritation and sleep deprivation.

Another thread: One person's right to have access to their driveway without any obstructions v. their neighbours right to stick a great big airconditioning unit on the side of their house (but which unfortunately overhangs and obstructs the first person's driveway)

That's three examples that I can think of from urban off the top of my head.

And what about the smoking one? A person's right to smoke v. another person's right to breath smoke free air.

It's not workable.

 

[Azrael]

Traditionally, liberties could not, by definition, conflict. (I prefer the British term "liberty" to the Americanised "rights".) Liberty ceased to be liberty when it impinged on another subject against their will.

Obviously the Victorians lacked 100DB sound-systems (unless Arthur Sullivan really cranked up his Edison phonograph) but if your water feature flooded your neighbour's garden, you removed it, and it wouldn't occur to your to shout about your "liberty".

Obviously it isn't quite that simple (is shouting loudly at a political rally a protected liberty if it wakes up half the neighbourhood?) but that's more-or-less the thinking. It was also unofficial and cultural, and as a consequence, very much alive. It makes far, far more sense than today's acultural "human rights", which seem to apply to every area of life (as opposed to specific regions of it such as political speech and criminal procedure) and are so numerous they must be "balanced" against one another.

Not quite sure what all of this has to do with social norms, however.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I see your point.

Liberty (to me at least) has more connotations of being a privilege. When you are at liberty to do something, it seems to me more something is a freedom or privilege granted (by someone? by society at large?).

Whereas yes, I agree with you that nowadays people don't go on about their liberties, they go on about their 'rights' and that does have different connotations.

A right is less a freedom or a privilege that is granted, but something that is asserted.

The former is much more of a societal/community based thing, whereas the whole idea of 'rights' is much more individualistic -- and perhaps selfish, too.

Or at least that's my first impressions, off the top of my head.

 

[Azrael]

That is how the language has changed. I'm just trying, in my own tiny, tiny way, to change it back.

Regardless of whether we call them "liberties" or "rights", the old concept is very different to the new.

The old "rights" (using the term for the sake of clarity) were a small number of legal protections that guaranteed wider freedoms. They were the beginning of freedom, not its end; the bedrock, not the structure itself. Now "rights" and "freedom" have become synonymous. The modern impulse to regulate and categorize everything has gobbled up liberty, rights and freedom.

Example: the "right" to privacy. If rights are absolute, this is impossible: the police have to be able to violate this "right" to investigate dangerous criminals. Consequence: rights themselves become conditional. (And a very dangerous move it is.)

But if privacy is a social more and not a "right", it can be very strong but compromised in some circumstances. The circumstances in which it is compromised can be guaranteed absolutely: the police have to get a warrant. That right is absolute, and it provides a de facto and indirect privacy protection.

This subtle balance has been completely lost, and ironically, the increase in "rights" has reduced our freedom (by making rights conditional and not absolute). I believe passionately that rights must be absolute or they are useless. Strong social mores (such as a respect for privacy) are essential for that version of liberty to function.

So, I've got it back on topic with regard to "social norms" ... but heaven knows where anarchism fits in.

 

[Azrael]

Oh sod it, it's so late it's early and I'm a bit drunk, so I'll give it a go.

Say you have no laws or police. When you detain a violent thug (presumably by means of a "hue and cry" of the pre-1829 type) what do you do with him or her? In a city the size of London it's completely impractical to assume the whole community knows him. So Mr Thug has to go before someone to decide his fate: that person is, in effect, a judge. That person must decide if the charges against Mr Thug stand up, and if so, whether Mr Thug is granted bail or remanded in custody. Already you have a judiciary and a remand system. To avoid arbitrary rulings, the judge must have laws on which to base his or her decision.

So Mr Thug comes to trial. There must be rules of evidence, admissibility and subpoena; there must be legal counsel, court officers, and police to ferry Mr Thug from his remand cell. You have a legal structure and more laws. And on what basis is Mr Thug convicted? True, the jury could be asked to convict him without recourse to written law, but that would rely on "natural law" of some sort, and so law exists whether you admit it or not. And there must be some recognized law, or people can be detained on any nonsensical charge; and also, arbitrarily, as one judge's "natural law" may be different from another's.

And after Mr Thug is convicted, there must be some standard procedure for gaoling him. You now have a prison system and parole boards.

Sheer necessity will ensure laws emerge sooner or later, whatever you choose to call them. In a society that (officially) forswears laws, those laws may become synonymous with social norms. Social norms can be horrible, prejudiced, irrational things. We'd probably be far, far worse off than we are now: the historical fate of all idealistic projects.

 

[118118]

in a world of social norms, I can forsee a norm that norms cannot be contested, happening more easily than a law that laws can't be. how often do we see somethinh similar in every day life?

 

[118118]

whereas i think it would be more difficult for a social norm to come into effect to kill everyone with brown eyes. E.g.. i guess is depends on what you think is important about democracy: to guard against extremes of human nature (then norms are better, less corrupting institutions) or to guard against barriers against continual renewal of society (then laws are better).

seems a bit contrary, tho.

 

[Azrael]

E.g.. i guess is depends on what you think is important about democracy: to guard against extremes of human nature (then norms are better, less corrupting institutions) or to guard against barriers against continual renewal of society (then laws are better).

There's been some very extreme "norms" (anti-Semitism of the "blood libel" type, witch-hunts, paedo-hunts) only restrained by laws. (It was judges sick of dealing with "folk wisdom" on witches that saw an end to the witchcraft laws: "democracy" enthusiastically supported the persecution.)

Not sure what's meant by "continual renewal of society", but if it's "renewal" of the Robespierre and "continual revolution" type then thank goodness for laws!

 

[118118]

yes, but genocide is, i would guess, usually be state sanctioned to some respect.

not sure who robespierre is...

 

[Azrael]

The state may sanction genocide, or it may not, but genocide feeds off prejudices endemic in the population. The European pogroms were often instigated by the local population, and while governments harnessed and manipulated them on occasion, on others they actively opposed them. (Ie, the royal castle was the last refuge for the Jews of York during one particular bout of medieval barbarity.)

The witch-hunts were enthusiastically prosecuted by ordinary people and only stopped when judges got sick of the stream of petty jealousies, resentments and insinuations clogging up their courts.

There is no automatic link between democracy and decency. Horrific attitudes can be very popular. Democracy is simply the enactment of the popular will: it is morally neutral as a concept, and to pretend otherwise puts freedom and liberty in dire jeopardy.

Maximilien Robespierre was a leader of the French Revolution who encouraged the slaughter of thousands in the name of the People. The people needed no encouragement. He harnessed democracy as a force for mass murder in the Reign of Terror, an event which is proof positive that people freed from external restraint are not inherently good.

Edmund Burke, that great critic of the French Revolution, said, "Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without." Only when we are angels can anarchism become a realistic possibility. Burke was scathing of organizing society with abstract ideals: and every single prediction he made about that great idealist enterprise the French Revolution proved uncannily accurate. We'd do well to heed his warning.

 

[118118]

no thats not what i meant at all!

you don't think that the state exacabates existing prejudices then? war?

i haven't read this, mind.

 

[Azrael]

Governments can exacerbate existing prejudices, sure; they can also fight them. Neither state, nor peope, are inherently good or bad in this respect.

What are you saying? That prejudice would be less without the state? I see no evidence for that: far from it, without laws and external restraint prejudice could magnify and take on unchecked force. Without laws "social norms" would be tyrannical.

Democracy can destroy liberty.

 

[118118]

no i'm not. just less violent acts. i have no proof.

eta: neither am i saying that it should be done away with: a mix of each, to get the best of both, is best imho.

 

[Azrael]

no i'm not. just less violent acts. i have no proof.

Without states we'd have a ragbag of tribes and international criminal cartels duking it out. They'd probably knock up treaties amongst each other from time to time (so, in effect, would become states), but I can't see how the aggregate of violence would drop. Spectacular bouts of violence like Kosovo and Iraq, yes, those take massive organisation: but the constant attrition would outstrip their scope.

Domestically there's no contest: without a state we'd be at the mercy of thugs, robber barons and criminal gangs. Just look at the horrors infesting Afghanistan, much of which is now ruled by opium warlords. Or Iraq, now ruled simply by the gun. (Or, to be more exact, the AK-47.)

I fully support a minimal state, and would love for responsibilities like welfare provision and healthcare to me organised locally. But a state of some kind: yes. Most definitely yes.

 

[118118]

well, thats just hobsseian pessimism, no?
tho i agree wit the healthcare.
i stand by my claims, at the moment, fwiw.