"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."
Margaret Thatcher
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a moral justification for selfishness."
J. K. Galbraith
By denying society's existence, Margaret Thatcher reveals herself to be either extremely clueless, or extremely mendacious, as the reality of society's being is obvious. Denial also exposes that the right wing's "moral justification for selfishness" has worn thin. Individuals do look after their self-interests, and the concept of enlightened self-interest--the needs of the individual and how they fit in with the needs of everybody--is well worth examination. In the United States, about half the voting public believes (whether honestly or conveniently) Thatcher's creed, at least to some extent. Yet her followers do not bother to explain to the rest of us what is meant by the "no such thing" argument. Nor have they troubled to explain how their denial of society's existence does anything more than disguise anti-social greed.
Arguments debunking the non-society myth have been constantly presented, yet the True Believers still cling to it. Thatcher herself came of age during WWII, when her society was fighting for its life against a closely related society that had turned radically, dangerously different from her own. The nature of that life-and-death battle was how society would be ordered. Her society won, and immediately afterward, embarked on another similar struggle--mostly peaceful, yet far more prolonged. During that second struggle, Thatcher worked as a public servant, representing and for a time leading her society. And her leadership in the social engagement known as the Falklands War increased her popularity, allowing her to institute some of her anti-society policies.
Could someone declaring the non-existence of society simply not want to be bothered by the needs and wants of others? Total strangers, after all, appear to be none of our concern. Yet even a slight regard for reason compels us to see that our needs, and those of our fellows, are mutual. And even a scant knowledge of history demonstrates that individual prosperity increases when everyone prospers. Naturally, we will disagree on the extent of our mutual dependence. Of course we will debate the merits of the means of securing the general welfare. Ongoing dialogue concerning improvements in living standards is a major strength of a free society. But to deny society's existence, as a fact of life similar to gravity or the sunrise, seems like a ham-handed attempt to shut off that debate. Someone with Thatcher's intelligence has to know better. We are forced, then, to question her sincerity.
We are all responsible for ourselves, and for our well-being. Still it is impossible to imagine the seven billion selves on earth, all seeking only the gratification of their wants, along with the survival of the race. What sane individual believes he would be the one to triumph in such a chaotic struggle? Individuals tend to do well when the general welfare is disbursed generally. In complex societies, which all are now, we are naturally impatient with the desires and demands of total strangers. But the self-interest of each is subject to the self-interest of all.
Concerning families, these cannot endure without the workings of society: tolerance, politeness, mutual respect. Families in prehistoric times formed clans for their protection. Later, clans became tribes, and tribes evolved into nations. Today people are far more inter-woven and interdependent than ever before, and society is far more complex. Families are hard-pressed in the modern world, but they would be destroyed without a generally respected and sustained social fabric. We need only look at the horrible condition of families (and individuals) in failed states such as Somalia, where the social fabric has been demolished by the pandemonium of constant war.
By publicly denying society's existence, conservatives seek to justify selfishness by refusing to acknowledge any other emotions. The cause of enlightened self-interest is disregarded, and the prospect of solving our problems becomes impossible. Those who declare that society does not exist are aware that they can make those declarations because others will take responsibility for securing society. They can repeatedly sing praises justifying their grabbing all the honey they can, because they know other bees will look after the hive. We all have selfish instincts, as well as social ones. Seeking to balance both is an ongoing process. Given the realities of human nature we will never achieve it. But we must recognize and accept both.
We need conservatives to join the debate, to rationally engage us where they feel selfish motives will serve general human interests. We do not need True Believers preaching denial. But Margaret Thatcher is unfortunately not alone. Conservatives everywhere condemn and ridicule "compassion" and "empathy", and swear fealty to Ayn Rand, matron saint of the Church of the Brutally Selfish Civilization Builder. They help nobody by ignoring humanity's social impulse. If they get their way, the result will be chaos. Society will then succumb to the authoritarian rule that Thatcher so diligently opposed during her public career.
