THE NATURE OF PROPERTY IN SOCIETY:

THE NATURE OF PROPERTY IN SOCIETY:

Toward an Authentic Social Science

Alvin Lowi, Jr.

November 20, 1998 (Revised 4-15-01)

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

"Will space-based commercial development be our first opportunity to scientifically test the First Postulate of Socionomics? What is the relationship between the concepts of property and spontaneous social order aka civil society? Isn't the phrase "public property" an oxymoron? How about "public interest?"

I found Ferguson’s 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^,⁴In 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

"Spontaneous social order (civil society) is the basis for personal development and social harmony, and vice versa."

The term "vice versa" was added to introduce reciprocity into Ferguson’s 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:

"Physical science teaches that all nature consists of one universal energy and that this energy is organized from primary and elementary units or particles called quanta, photons, electrons, etc. These are the prime individuals, the fundamental units of nature, by the multiplication and in the combinations of which are organized all the actions and events, all the substances and all the structures and manifestations of energy that occur and thus are said to exist. This casts nature in her role as the Great Collectivist. She brings her ultimate quanta together in myriad forms and her children are the atoms, the molecules, the cells, the structured plants and animals, the societies of men, the stars and the systems of stars. In all these forms of "action" and in us, nature organizes her ultimate elements in all the terror and in all the creative beauty we behold. This is the creative collectivism in which the cosmos evolves.

Shall we say, then, that nature has regard for the mass and not for the individual?--for the whole and not for the part?--that she destroys the unit that the structure may grow? Rather, we may perceive at every stage that only through combinations of their lesser units do individuals come into being, and in this being they are not lost; their natures are fulfilled. Nature works always away from undifferentiated mass towards higher organic unities of the individualized components. It is the nature of individuals to combine and fulfill themselves always in the growth and being of a higher organic unity. Being so created makes them acceptable in this higher membership. In this they are not lost, but their own nature is realized and self-found. Thus alone can they be "saved" from their own disintegration. For it is the law of each individual being that it shall attain such harmony of self-hood, such integrity of life and being, as qualifies it for the associative relationships that constitute a higher order of existence. This is the true collectivism.

Trace this law of nature in the life of man. As his nature grows in balance and beauty, in the fullness and integrity of his own being, does he not become more acceptable for associative relationships, for social integration into a society composed of him and his fellow men? And in this higher, this more complex mode of existence, this community life, does not the social environment and the freedom it brings condition him for still higher growth and realization of self in his individual being? Out of his own beauty and perfection, however unconsciously, man builds his social world, and here he is far more than requited for his individual gifts in that higher freedom and abundance that only the providence of social organization and exchange can bestow. In the Great Society man builds his heaven, for it is the function of the social organization to serve and minister him into the perfection of his individual life."

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 socionomic’s 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, man’s 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 won’t be of the newsworthy variety of information.

Part 2