THE NATURE OF PROPERTY IN SOCIETY: Toward an Authentic Social Science Alvin Lowi, Jr. November 20, 1998 (Revised 4-15-01) (C) 2001, Alvin Lowi, Jr., - All Rights Reserved If proprietary mechanisms for managing ourselves are "better" than non-proprietary ("statist") mechanisms - and by "better" I mean, more efficient, less polluting, more fulfilling, able to correct problems sooner, and so on - it begs the question, "Where does property come from?" Many people feel that "property is theft" or that property is "granted" from some "higher," or central authority. In this article, Alvin Lowi examines where property really comes from and talks about what that means for developing an authentic social science. -- Ed. PART 1 Reason Magazine carried an article by Kenneth Silber entitled "A Little Bit of Heaven." 1 In it Silber entertained the question of establishing property rights in outer space. This bit of science fiction moved David Ferguson to ask: 2
I found Fergusons questions to be most provocative, especially in the context of Silber's article. Hopefully, the following observations will help illuminate the possibility of developing an authentic science of society, whether named socionomics (Ferguson), socionomy (Heath), sociology (Spencer), volitional science (Galambos) or something else. Only by recourse to science can such important questions as he poses be settled without rancorous contests of personal opinions. TESTING A SOCIAL SCIENCE POSTULATE Science IS as science DOES. It proceeds by a process of testing extrapolations of abstract ideas via observations of predicted consequences of them in the surrounding world. The abstract ideas referred to are known as hypotheses. Hypotheses are otherwise known as guesses, hunches or postulates. While they are abstractions, they are not devoid of reality. They are at least tainted with reality because they are hatched in a human mind that is full of memorable experience. The scientific method cannot be implemented without hypotheses (postulates) that have observable consequences and are therefore falsifiable.3,4 In other words, hypotheses must contain some truth content in order to function as the launch point of scientific endeavor, i.e. to act as a postulate. Ferguson envisions an authentic science of society, which he proposes to call "Socionomics." A "first postulate of socionomics" may be stated as follows: 5
The term "vice versa" was added to introduce reciprocity into Fergusons hypothesis. If "reciprocity" can qualify as an observable phenomenon, it would add truth content to the postulate and aid falsification thereby producing a worthy postulate. Socionomics postulates that social order and personal development are naturally reciprocal and spontaneous. This suggests that the normal relationship between individual human beings in and with their social environment is naturally inclined to cooperation, harmony and resonance. The social environment referred to is conceived to be a certain population of autonomous and volitional human individuals engaging in communication and exchange relationships according to customary and consensual standards of behavior. This is the essence of spontaneity, the quality of behaving naturally without pretense, affectation or regimentation. Spencer Heath was a leading exponent of the theory of society based on the notion of spontaneous reciprocity being the central theme of civilized human action.6 The following few paragraphs illustrate how Heath makes explicit the dynamic reciprocity between the individual members of society and the social environment in which they live and move and have their being:
The postulate of socionomics suggests an evolutionary paradigm which has to provide evidence for a test of the implied reciprocity:5 If social and individual development are truly reciprocal, it should be possible to investigate, observe and elaboration a relationship. As a negative example, it is comparatively easy to show that a reciprocal relationship connects the oppressive welfare state with uncivilized behavior (coercive wealth transfer and legal privilege connect with predation, pandering, apathy, antipathy, alienation, etc.). To show the converse defines socionomic research. Such research is more challenging because cases of civilized behavior and elements of spontaneous order are neither noteworthy nor newsworthy nowadays. Relevant observations will take considerably more care and digging. In learning how to recognize reciprocity as an observable phenomenon, socionomics can get down to business with scientific method. Then it can answer the fundamental question posed by Galambos, namely "How do you know you are 'right?'"7 What is reciprocal behavior? Contemplating the phenomenon, Spencer Heath observed that whereas one cannot lift himself by his own bootstraps, he can lift up his neighbor by his neighbor's bootstraps and his neighbor can reciprocate by lifting him up by his. It is obviously futile for person to try to mount a fence by lifting himself by his own bootstraps. But he finds two or more persons can become productive when they cooperate. To illustrate, one person agrees to remain on the ground to do the lifting first, to be subsequently hoisted to the top by the hand of the first mounted. Such cooperative arrangements are endless. If socionomics postulate holds up to scrutiny, "spontaneous social order" will be observed wherever people are found getting along together in a similar manner on their own recognizance. Once such reciprocity is established, economics shows such progressive behavior leads to prosperity.8,9 Ferguson should be relieved to discover that testing the "first postulate of socionomics" need not wait for space-based commercial development. If this hypothesis cannot be tested scientifically in the terrestrial here-and-now where real people live together, it is not a worthy starting point for a science of society. Clearly, we do not have to leave the planet to conduct an appropriate test of the postulate. We only need to engage the scientific method, mans only known means to check fantasy, arbitrary opinion and oppressive faction. It is not the purpose of science to put down ideas; its purpose is to put them in the context of reality. Before we can confidently depend on any of our ideas in the pursuit of our lives, they must be put to the test of observation against reality. The "First Postulate of Socionomics" inspires appropriate research topics that are easy to identify. Reciprocity is just one among many. Somewhat more difficult is the design of an "experiment" that can examine the question and possibly find an answer. Harder yet is the execution of the work consistent with scientific method. This escalation in the level of difficulty is due in part to the unfamiliarity of applying scientific discipline to the process of making reproducible observations of familiar social phenomena. It may seem odd that such observations are complicated by the very familiarity of the phenomena. More than in any other field of science, the observers corrupt social observations with preconceived notions of how the world ought to be rather than how it is. So it is that in this domain of phenomena, conclusions drawn tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies rather than dispassionate findings of fact. The practice of scientific method is a feat rarely even attempted by conventional social scientists. Some even dispute its relevance.9 Others argue that it is impossible.11 Nevertheless, social phenomena are as ubiquitous as astronomical phenomena -- although one might easily overlook this fact if he is only cognizant of the works of historians and journalists whose concentration is primarily on poignancy, spectacle, pageantry and conflict. Obviously, we don't have to contrive spectacular extra-terrestrial experiments to test our social theories. Chances are we will find our most significant data under our very noses among our neighbors. And almost certainly they wont be of the newsworthy variety of information. |