We humans cannot overstate the appreciation we have for the societal order that has evolved over the course of our history. The general societal order we have in 2025 is far from perfect. Hopefully, improvements will continue long after we’re gone.
But I can say at the least that I’m not too worried today about defending my crops against murderous rogues from nearby villages.
Anxiety in the animal kingdom
Still, like other species, we concern ourselves with survival by default.
Of course, I can’t measure the level of anxiety my dogs or cats feel each morning as they wonder whether they’re going to eat today (even though they eat well everyday). They certainly seem anxious each morning while anticipating the moment my wife and I wake up. They’re not afraid to remind us when it’s time to eat and where to find their food bowls.
Of course, we already know these things. In fact, we’re the ones who put those systems into place. But I suspect their survival instincts, unnecessary as they may be in this context, drive their needless worries.
When the conditions are right for humans, fortunately, we don’t have their level of anxiety. Of course, the conditions aren’t right for all humans. We should remind ourselves of that.
Western humans are generally better off
Nonetheless, many humans find themselves in a societal context where survival is not a primary concern. At times in that context, we often hear the exhortation from self-help gurus not only to survive, but thrive. (I don’t think they would have been in business in a feudal society.)
All this is to say that our human predecessors thankfully established systems that prevent us from experiencing that level of anxiety other animals experience.
I think that’s true in my 21st-century western context because we remind ourselves not to take each day for granted. “This could be your last day on earth,” and so forth. That’s absolutely true, but we typically don’t live that way as long as our health is good and we’re physically located far from a current war.
Not having survival as our daily primary concern is good. On the other hand, it’s easier to take today for granted, leading to a shoddy performance of our duties and loving less than we ought.
Effective, yet far less ‘real’
But let’s circle back to the appreciation we cannot overstate for the institutions our human predecessors put in place. At least in our 21st-century western context, we don’t constantly feel like that momma hen always on the lookout for that raccoon. We may feel that way at times, but we’re not overwhelmed by that.
We were born into a situation where laws apply to us generally as long as our physical bodies are located within certain hypothetical boundaries drawn on a map
None of us can sense these laws the way we sense a physical rock in our presence. That rock seems “more real.” On the other hand, we “sense” a particular law to be “real” because it’s collectively understood by all humans to be such. When a law is “real,” it’s binding.
When does this law become “real” (or binding) and when is it no longer “real?”
It becomes “real” when those whom we collectively understand as holding a “real” office or title say this particular law is “real,” or binding.
Why the few control the many
It’s a wonder how a small group of people (seemingly 1 percent at times) within a large population holds so much power. How does that happen? It can seem quite unfair, but it remains a perpetual reality that seemingly defies the odds.
Here, I’m going to guess — and that’s all I’ve got.
It happens because altogether we assign a title or office to a particular person or persons. Yet, the title or office is merely an abstraction in the minds of us all. Not only do we hold this same abstraction, but we mistake it for an existing reality. We attach this abstraction of title or office to a particular person or persons.
As long as our abstractions generally coincide with the abstractions of others within our sovereign state — abstractions we hold to be true — things remain as they are.
Of course, there are times when the “truth” of these collective abstractions lessen until they’re no more. That can be quite the tumultuous process as history shows. But we have also learned from history that existence of these titles or offices or powers, etc., are collective abstractions that don’t last forever. The existence of a ruler’s power is contingent upon the abstractions of the ruled.
Exhibit A: the Message Machine
And I think rulers know this. It explains why they’re busy controlling the message when they’re addressing the media, sending blast emails, posting on social media, creating clever advertisements, or “addressing the nation” across many media platforms to convey a “very important” message.
In other words, politicians, along with religious leaders and business advertisers, know it’s their job to determine abstract truths within the minds of all. They’re competing to own the largest number of minds. Social media gives them excellent results on that by the way.
But despite the power of this messaging, it doesn’t last forever.
We may laugh at those stupid citizens of the Roman Empire who thought their emperor was divine. But in many respects, we replaced him with someone else. Here in the centuries of anno domini (A.D.), Jesus of Nazareth is the divine man. The Romans certainly replaced the emperor when they eventually removed the title of Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff) from the emperor and gave it to the bishop of Rome.
Or consider France when a man ruled by divine right. What happened to him? Well, the people killed him with the guillotine. Were they simply being disrespectful to God by killing his choice leader? Or, did the “truth” of their formerly collective abstraction wane?
Despite the fiction, sometimes we’re better off
But hey, I could go on and on about all these particular abstractions we collectively hold to be true whether they be titles, offices, laws, national borders, religions, divine revelation, appointments by God, etc.
In the end, though, I don’t doubt we’re better off than our human predecessors and all the other species past, present, and future.
I didn’t wake up this morning wondering if I’m going to eat. Here in 21st-century America, instead of raising chickens and hoping they weren’t eaten by raccoons, I can buy a dozen eggs at the grocery store.
Why? Because a whole system of abstractions collectively held by members of society to be true are true — as far as we’re concerned — like that tree outside my window. With a system of laws, its lifeblood belonging to the collective abstraction, I can get my food easily and safely.
These abstract “truths” lessen our anxieties so much so that survival under the right conditions is not a primary concern. Survival remains a concern, but it’s not the primary one.
Here’s to helpful, collective abstractions
Of course, that could all end tomorrow. A criminal organization could forcefully take over, say, processing plants for chicken, or cornfields across the Midwest, or whatever, and drive up the costs. That likely won’t happen because collectively we hold private property as an intrinsic value as well as trade regulations.
That’s great. Even if this isn’t some intrinsic right given to us by our Creator, let’s still believe it is! It gives certain people the impetus to use physical force to protect our food supply so that we’re not killing each other on the streets to eat.
Get them to ‘buy into it’
Still, it blurs the distinction between what is intrinsically true and what is an abstraction agreed as true — or taken for granted — by all members of society. In other words, presenting collective abstractions to be intrinsically true is false, but necessary.
Why?
We may attend a leadership seminar for church pastors or business executives. The presenters may ask something like this: “How can we get them to buy into this?”
Of course, we may label these seminar speakers as cynical or manipulative. But is “getting them to buy into it” a necessity simply because the general population cannot reason between right and wrong?
Have leaders always held to be true (no matter the form of government) that the general public must be manipulated or physically forced from performing wrong actions? Could doing so increase public safety? To protect the general public, must leaders manipulate them so that “they’ll buy into” their decrees?
Perhaps. For the sake of maintaining our food supply safely, among other things, maybe I can appreciate why leaders manipulate. There are a lot of people out there who wouldn’t hesitate to violate the rights of others, take food supply sources by force, and jack up the prices.
Perhaps if the masses were left to their own devices, and we lacked all these collective abstractions, the anxiety level of most humans would compare to that of Momma Hen, who’s constantly looking out for a raccoon.
So, maybe we should maintain a vast agreement of abstract “truths”, and further refine them. Get more people to “buy into them,” whether by manipulation or force, until the primary concerns of all don’t involve starvation or innocents getting killed.
For the moment, that’s my imperfect solution to the world’s problems.