Contributing Member of Society

-- By LissetteDuran - 16 Feb 2012

Introduction

We all want to be contributing members of society. It is one of those lofty goals like equality and world peace. But what does it actually mean? How can we contribute? And, does everyone?

Absolute Society

It is hard to believe that we all belong to one great club where admission is free and exclusion is based on the sentiments of the whole. Yet, we often refer to one large society. I take it that this society is very much like Robinson’s civilization. It is some type of “idealized sense of what makes us human.” But what are these ideal factors that make us one society? Are they shared beliefs, goals, or understandings? If we look to our political discourse today, it would be difficult to pinpoint which one of these we would agree on.

Why is the content of political discourse a useful way to establish the boundaries of social structure? I don't feel any less part of the same society as Republicans or Conservatives who inhabit Manhattan than Democrats or Socialists. Whether I am part of the same society as Texans, on the other hand.....

I think we have tricked ourselves into thinking that we can be joined as one absolute society. We hold this society sacred. For us, it sits next to absolute truth and absolute justice as the attainable end of an eternal struggle. Because to concede that as a people we are fragmented and can have irreconcilable differences would be to undermine our idealized notion of how we progress. We need to think that we move as one and that no one is left behind. So, we believe that we progress as a "people", or as "Americans", or as any other extremely large grouping. When in reality, we progress as individuals and as small societies. Some get far in life and some inevitably die out. Our progression and success is measured in relation to those of others.

Our belief in one society is therefore ungrounded. To say that we progress as one would go against how we measure progress. We are a conglomeration of societies. And as a whole, we share nothing but space.

I don't see the "thereforeness" about this. I didn't read an argument, just a series of assertions, some prefaced by "I think," and some not. I don't know that these formulations are wrong any more than I know they are right. If you want to depend on them, you should support them somehow.

Multiple Societies

If we are just various different societies in proximity, then the question becomes to which societies do we belong? I believe that we are all born into a society. As we mature and create relationships, we become members of others. As the number of your individual memberships grow, it becomes more difficult to maintain the memberships of the previous societies. This cycle is inevitable. Yet, we are judged by our handling of it. With each new membership comes a test of belonging.

Given these difficulties, why haven't you defined "society"? It seems to me you are deliberately using it in a non-standard way.

Now at the end of my schooling, I am dealing with these tests. Although I think that memberships can be held simultaneously, this conception is challenged on a daily basis. I am a part of the Columbia society yet, I am still part of the Washington Heights society. I am part of the rich schooling society but I am still a member of the poor. But I can no longer traverse these societies seamlessly. The memberships I have added on often create tension with my previous ones. I find this tension mostly when reconciling my home society with my school one. Right now, I am part of the Columbia society. I am the privileged law student tackling the questions our very expensive law books create for us. But right outside, is my other society. This one is less privileged. It is composed of people--including my father--holding signs denouncing the unfair treatment of workers by the Columbia administration. Their picketing outside of JG does not bother me, that is, unless I am trying to read for class.

My reaction to the boycotters outside is sustained by the way the Columbia society treats nonmembers. Although it sits in Harlem, Columbia prides itself in the difference between them. When Columbia's world and Harlem's worlds interact, it is usually through an Anthony Pallone email. Their differences are highlighted as negative. Those emails are a constant reminder that "they" are not part of "this society."

For those who traverse various different societies, these tensions force us to choose to which society we will belong and contribute.

How do we choose?

Although I do believe that memberships in different societies can be reconciled, I have yet to figure out how to reconcile mine. The more college/law school/graduate school friends I have made, the less Washington Heights and Harlem friendships I can maintain. The more I immerse myself into this Ivy League bubble, the less I find myself understanding and sympathizing with the people and the struggle I knew back then.

Law school makes this decision even more difficult. They create binaries--nonprofit or corporate; make money or make change--that I think are detrimental to the way we process the societies in which we live. There is an assumed permanence to these choices that I think is unrealistic. You don't relinquish your membership to one by joining another. You can choose the corporate or nonprofit sector and switch. Especially as attorneys, since we are engaged in practice, we have the ability to change what we do with more ease.

I think that the first step to achieving this goal of "contributor to society" is to define a society. Instead of trying to conform to one general undefined society, we can define one specific society and focus on that. We can use what it does to gauge what we want it to do and then tailor our contributions to those desires.

At the end, I think that we are all contributing. It is easier to say to society in general because figuring out to what and how is too difficult. Nonetheless, I still think it is an exercise worth doing.

Maybe "society" here is a synonym for "community"? Read that way, the draft has some greater coherence for me, but it still seems to me unclear what the central idea is, or how it's being developed. I think going back to the outline and trying to identify the central idea is the right place to start.