Building a fair society

"All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". George Orwell's brilliant satire focused on the world's oldest political problem: How to create a fair society.

We do not know what to do.

But we do know what not to do. George Orwell showed us in his clear and accurate language. Changing one set of pigs for another does not solve the problem merely perpetuates it from another point of view. We must not allow for more pigs.

Toward those feeling aggrieved, who do not understand that making them the pigs will not correct the social problem, we need restraint and patience. Insights take longer in some but come eventually. Making the current aggrieved the pigs may satisfy their tensions but will inevitably give rise to other tensions which will eventually have their politcal expression.

We need to draw a line through today and determine firmly the past is past. Where grievances are legitimate then reparations are due. But, we must not codify the pig mentality. To codify inequality in law is not to correct mistakes of the past but to continue them.

All laws must fall equally on all citizens. When, I cry, oh when will we learn this simple, essential reality of our social future?

Who are we?

Society needs understood in two ways.

1. The social structure: The framework of law, history and social ethics that defines the processes operative within the society. 
2. The ways of living, the choices people make about how they want to live within the legal, historical and ethical framework.These ways of living are the cultures within the society. 

The traditional view of society  combines and confuses these two issues.
Academic sociology combines and confuses these two issues.
Politicians combine and confuse these two issues.
These two issues are combined and confused in popular opinion/attitudes. 

Where these issues are confused a society loses perspective on individual human spirituality and becomes essentially a tribe, where all are largely expected to conform.

The best modern example where these two issues are pressed firmly together is in Muslim society where one is expected to be a Muslim, conform to the Muslim way. The social structure allows limited variation, the right of the individual person to express their unique spirituality in the choice of how they wish to live is seriously moderated, even surpressed. They may be right, hence this is not a criticism, merely an observation drawn to make clear the difference between the Muslim social structure and resulting culture, and the western liberal plural social structure and resulting cultures.

What does it mean to live in a western liberal democcray? Well, it is tough. I recall my son describing how tough, at about 18 (he is now 32 and has sorted these isues, well as much as anyone sorts them), 'there is too much choice Dad...'. The Western liberal democratic processes focused on the right of each person to live as they choose, has evolved a social structure where people can do exactly that. Choice gone mad...

In the last 50 years, people have indeed lived more adn more as they choose, tried many new ways of life-style, sexual satisfaction, and every form of sport, and recreation and spiritual endeavour one can imagine, and the imagination of people is not exhausted yet. Everyone today, is of the view their spirit and orientation has a right to be seen and heard and is not to be denied nor dismissed merely because it is different from the core social norm. For me, that is exactly as it should be. So I know who I am, and what I stand for.

The central issues we face are three fold. 

1. We need clearly 'see' the distinction between social structure and culture. Unless we 'see' clearly the difference between laws and regulation that enables the breadth of plural diversity then we risk trending back to where we have been, and indivual spiritual expression will be reduced. I resist that, since I think each person is born with a inalieable right to pursue their spiritual and life fulfilment in the manner of their choice, to select their cultural choice from the many,  provided they do not restrict or inhibit others pursuing their inalieable right.
2. The second, and huge issue is ethics. Our core emotional responses must be to celebrate the difference between us and others, and not condemn. It is very hard not to think that our way of living is the best way, and harder still not to press others to our mould. I suspect every religion has suffered from this very serious failing, certainly Christianity has been just dreadful, priding itself in 'conversions'.  The breadth of diversity of life style and 'culture' within western liberal and plural democracies has developed very rapidly, and to a breadth unimagined one hundred years ago.  But, it was predictable, looking back, the core of the social structure was there, the social ethic of individual freedom was there. We are now merely struggling to cope with the reality fostered by the core chocies of our society.
3. We need understand where our freedom comes from, from our social structure. We need be ready to defend our social structure against all attacks, we must never compromise, as we tend to do, based on naive notions of being liberal. The defense of our core social structure is being liberal, and enabling future generations to build on our learning and advance human spiritual and ethical development further than we can, due our inherent limitations of timing.  

There is now the issue of native and immigrant rights.To give living rights to those different, perhaps Maoris in New Zealand, for example, requires a liberal plural social structure, for to have otherwise is to enforce native way of life on people who are not native. For native cultures to floursih, then there must be no descrimitory legislation, or regulation, laws must fall equally on all, so that the native culture is enabled of flourish along with any others.

These legal and ethical pricniples have not been well handled to point that only a few generations ago many native cultures were actively being extinguished, and due such poor ethical and legislative process, natives may have been disadvantaged, and for that financial compensation is due. But compensation processes must not be confused with core social structural issues, since with compensation we seek to appease the past; while retaining a clear and plural social structure so we enable the future.

Similar comments as regards immigrants, they come into a plural, liberal social structure that we must protect. They may live as they choose within that, enabled by the very plurality they at times seek to deny. They make their choice, live and let live, or leave.

The problem is that these people, both natives and immigrants, frequently do not have the depth of  cultural and spiritual experience with pluralism. And as illustrated by my son, for those maturing today, it can be hard. Natives and immigrants frequently come to a breadth of pluralism in a few generations, whereas I come to it through my my ancestors reaching back a hundred generations. Natives and immigrants also often come with deep grievances that cloud judgement of the way forward. If we be liberal, and act such, then it is to be patient, and firmly resistant to naive pressures and requests. It is from insight into the depth of three thousand years of social evolution that the west knows the way forward to find the true fulfilement of humanity.

Education leading to understanding on the strucutre of who we are, and the significance of the western liberal, plural, democratic social structure, the very structure that will protect all cultures. Education however, requires we get the concept right first. Social structure defines all of us, we are all western. liberal, plural and democratic. Culture defines a particluar persons choice giving flavour and style to all of us, within the broader definition of who we are.