Having achieved the aim of this treatise, a truly civilized society, it seems only fitting that it now proceeds to disprove it. Such is long overdue in fact, as much of this text is generalized, axiomatic and empirical; civilization, labour, capital, population, agreement and the social contract are all attempts at general representations of socio-economic occurrences and their interrelations. As such, these phenomena were deduced from general observation and commentary on human societies throughout history, though modified to a degree to ensure compatibility with hypothetical societies not yet attempted, allowing for extrapolation. The nature of this approach is thus heuristic and lacks the appropriate rigor to claim it is irreproachable.
However, should the reader think this text consummate, one is obligated to point out the flaws in its exposition: chief amongst them is that much of this text is intuited from general observations of society. This leads to the second criticism, that its discourse is entirely general; though this is purposefully done, to allow for supplementation from an otherwise compliant citizenry, it forgoes any nuance or particularity in its hypotheses. This is considered less of an issue in critiquing conventional contracts, as their summaries are the basis of their particulars; as the latter inherits the flaws of the former, further review becomes excessive and unnecessary when seeking an optimal contract. In considering unconventional, alternative contracts however, one ignores terms yet unexamined; ignoring these particulars thus lessens the potency of any contracts considered, as neither their full impact nor their optimum is appreciated. Summarily, conventional contracts have issues that stem from their fundamental terms, while alternative contracts may be more advantageous given closer examination; that this text lacks the scrutiny to fully realize alternative contracts lessens its utility.
Further to this, this text considers only a single society. The proposed theory can be projected onto numerous nations, treating them as a singular entity, given the pliancy of the social contract; this flexibility only allows for so much, as regions with entirely different social contracts could not be considered to be under the same regime, especially if completely uninvolved with one another. One may argue that progress in transport has made it impossible to avoid involvement with the world at large, thus allowing such a model to be potentially viable in representing society.
As such, previous eras would have tenuous grounds for a single society model, through causal links in neighbouring nations’ economies; however, the further back one goes in history, the lesser technology one finds, and so the less connected nations are and the weaker the proposed model becomes at representing multiple societies as a single entity. Despite the conveyance of this modern era, the model is still flawed as by not generalising to include multiple societies, it forgoes any consideration of different nations interaction and how they might interfere with one another; this is mostly obvious when multiple societies hold either entirely different social contracts or have differing terms on a contentious issue.
To that end, such contentious issues are another problem this text fails to address; in attempting to permit and preserve the reader’s autonomy, it includes controversial social contracts and lacks reconciliation, instilling a lack of resolution within the proposed model it uses, between disparate societies and between malcontents. The reader may extend this scrutiny further by noting its lack of basic principles in all social contracts, such as a definition of crime and punishment; murder, theft, enslavement, corruption, etc., are all condemned as socially reprehensible, yet the theory employed in this text has no such standard and allows
for any conceivable term, including sacrifice of the citizenry in any of the aforementioned crimes. This is yet another symptom of the uninhibition of the general nature of such a model, that lacks restraint in its pursuit of universal application, evaluation of society and representation of autonomy.
Furthermore, this treatise assumes violent disagreement to be a failure of society; of course, during events, should negotiations prove futile, such things are inevitable, which is this approach places great importance on considering autonomy before societal discourse degrades to such a point. This assumption of violent resolution being the worst outcome is largely due the aforementioned societal discourse commonly becoming polarised prior to such hostilities. While this frustration and opposition is understandable, it fuels rhetoric that solely opposes the disagreeable terms of the social contract, lacking deliberation of terms beyond the immediate repeal and replacement of said social contract and its associated economy. This is usually in addition to the destruction of assets and utilities, which, while facilitating and/or useful to parties holding uncivil intent, are not uncivil, largely due to the fact they are insentient, at least historically.
Leave a Reply