Does “the System” exist?
By Wade Lee Hudson
References to “the system” are common in advertising, political commentary, popular culture, and elsewhere, but few people define what they mean by the phrase.
Wikipedia says, “A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.”
This description leaves open the question of whether any one element controls or dominates a particular system. Concerning human societies, for instance, who rules? Who’s to blame?
In its “Jungles” episode, Our Planet declares “No one species can ever dominate, protecting the jungle's incredible diversity.”
But don’t humans dominate nature? The Oxford Dictionary defines the “Anthropocene” as the geological age. “during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.” Dominant means “ruling or controlling.”
However, “The irony of the Anthropocene: People dominate a planet beyond our control,” argues, “It appears that nature…may have some tricks up its sleeve. Despite humans’ pervasive influence on the planet, our actual control over natural systems remains limited.”
In “The Limits to Human Domination of Nature,” Steve Cohen writes,
There is little question that human activities have damaged and sometimes dominated nature. But dominating nature is proving to be a little more difficult than some might have thought. The forces of natural environmental systems have proven to be more than current technologies can handle…. What is missing from our economic system and its technological base is humility and reverence for a universe that may, well, in some measure, always be beyond scientific understanding.
National Geographic likewise takes a more qualified position. It states, “The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems (emphasis added).”
Whether human society functions as a system is another question. In its introduction to sociology, Lumen reports:
Functionalists view society as a system in which all parts work — or function — together to create society as a whole. In this way, societies need culture to exist. Cultural norms function to support the fluid operation and continued stability of society, and cultural values guide people in making choices.
As summarized by Graham Scammbler, Talcott Parsons and other sociologists have seen society as a system composed of interconnected parts, where each part has a specific function that contributes to society’s overall functioning. Specialized institutions that perform specific functions help maintain social stability. Society socializes individuals to internalize norms and values, which guide their behavior, constrain their freedom, and reinforce social order.
If successful, this socialization results in norms and values becoming internalized by individuals. When people pursue their own interests, they also serve the needs of society as a whole. Unity with diversity sustains stability over time. Otherwise, societies fall apart.
Whether one element controls or dominates is a related question. In the February 5, 2020, Ezra Klein Show podcast about Klein’s book, Why We’re Polarized, Jill Lepore comments, “In some big structural way in the book there’s a quite notable absence of villains,” and asks Klein, “Why no villains?” He replies:
I’m trying to tell you how a machine works. I’m just trying to tell you what happens to almost everybody in it... I wanted to call some players and institutions villains, (but) I had trouble figuring out a chain of causality… Every time I tried to trace [blame] down to the place where I could prove it, I would fail... I have trouble assigning the causality or even figuring out where it begins. All these things seem to be in a dynamic relationship with each other. It’s hard to figure out how if you replaced a player or even the institution how different of a result you would get… The thing I’m trying to build an idea of is a machine with different pieces all working together.
In the Introduction to his book, Klein talks about “the system” and writes, “We collapse systemic problems into personalized narratives.”
Commentators most often merely refer to “systems” that are not integrated into a single social system. I’ve concluded, however, that our society weaves together all sectors — social, cultural, personal, economic, environmental, and political — into a single self-perpetuating social system — the Top-Down System.
The next question is what is the Top-Down System’s function? As I see it, its driving force is programming people to selfishly climb social ladders, look down on those below, and try to dominate and exploit them — and submit to those above. Our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals are woven together into this social system. As individuals, we reinforce it with our daily actions.
Whether you call it hyper-meritocracy, rankism, elitism, technocracy, or some other label, this Top-Down System assumes that a select few with superior abilities should rule society.
Domination and submission can be justified as a means to a higher end, but when they become the goal, the be-all and end-all, structural reforms are needed to establish a Bottom-Up System that holds leaders accountable to those they serve.
Bob Anschuetz, a former college English teacher, told me:
I think all references to "the system," whether within or without quotes, should be changed to "the System." That's because you use the word in a special sense, as developed in your booklet. You need to distinguish that special sense for the reader by, in effect, representing it as a "proper name" — which in turn requires an initial capital letter…. This still represents my opinion on the use of an upper-case "S" in "the System."
Proper nouns are capitalized words for a particular person, place, organization, or thing. The Top-Down System is a specific thing.
How to reform it into a Bottom-Up System is a challenge. This website suggests methods for how to move in this direction and grow our society into a compassionate community.
Whether this systemic focus is the wisest path is uncertain, but it’s the best I can do so far. Suggested course corrections are welcome.