I currently work for a fairly small company, and it’s a fairly relaxed work environment. One day my co-workers were discussing some of the problems in the world and what ought to be done about them. It was one of those conversations that should’ve ended way earlier than it did. Both parties, we’ll call them John and Ben, were making essentially the same points again and again. The conversation was looping around without much progress.
When I reflected on this conversation later, I realized that Ben was talking about the world, civilization, society, or at the very least, our society [the United States], and John was just talking about John. They both agreed that there were economic, societal, psychological, and technological problems with the world. Ben talked about how human consciousness has evolved significantly over the last few millennia, in his opinion, and it should continue to evolve with the incredible access to knowledge. With that evolved consciousness, we could throw off silly notions like nationalism and other myths, and in doing so our species can flourish. And he advocated some change in policies about the environment and guns and agriculture and technology. It was some decent, wide-ranging stuff.
John, on the other hand, suggested that the solution to the world’s problems was the ownership and sustainable cultivation of land. He used the term “sustainable farming” many, many times. Ben agreed that more sustainable farming practices are desirable, but there are many other problems that demand very different responses. But John kept insisting that sustainable farming/living off the land is all we need to do. He presented it as a societal solution, that it would improve society at large, but really it was a personal solution. It was a solution for him, in response to the ills of the world.
I occasionally run into this societal problem/individual solution phenomenon in other conversations. It’s very common when discussing economics. For example, you might look at society, and when you do that, you might notice that there are companies, such as McDonald’s, that generate around $20,000,000,000 of revenue per year. Of course it generates that revenue by people making hamburgers and french fries and cleaning the dining area and operating the cash register and so on. These workers, whose labor the $20 billion is built upon, are mostly unable to purchase basic necessities with their McDonald’s wages. When I say “basic necessities,” I mean food, running water, a modest shelter [like a cheap apartment], and an ability to get around the city, whether by car or public transportation. They work and they work, but are unable to afford the basics.
Now, you might look at this situation and say, “Well, this seems like a problem, a societal problem.” We probably shouldn’t have a society where that type of arrangement exists. People who generate such gargantuan profits should be able to take care of themselves, at the very least. We’d certainly all be against an arrangement where McDonald’s makes twice as much profit, but the store workers are paid no wages at all, and are just given a cheeseburger on their lunch break to sustain themselves. That’s surely worse than the current arrangement, but the current arrangement can also be improved.
And then we could discuss how to improve the situation, whether by some better minimum wage, a restructuring of corporations of a certain revenue threshold, or some other regulations. When you bring up these kinds of points, a common response is, “just quit your job if you don’t like it,” which doesn’t address, or even acknowledge the existence of, the societal problem. It’s an individual solution [it’s hard to even call it that] to a societal problem.
In truth, they don’t offer the advice “just quit your job” as a solution at all. They don’t want to solve any problem, societal or individual. They just want to throw out something so they can reject the very idea that there is a problem. If I can throw out this little bullshit “solution,” it stands to reason, then there isn’t any problem at all, is there? But they’re presenting it as a solution to the problem, not as a denial of the problem’s existence. Because if they were to say, “no, I don’t think that McDonald’s arrangement is a problem at all with our society,” then they might get dragged into an argument about what society is, what it ought to be, and so on. They just want to say, “quit your job,” then wipe their hands clean. Another problem solved!
But let’s take that “solution” seriously for a second. Let’s say that the arrangement is a problem in society, and the solution is for those affected to quit their jobs. So, tomorrow, nearly everyone who works at McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, KFC, Domino’s, Panda Express, Pizza Hut, Little Caesar’s, Walmart, Target, Home Depot, CVS, 7-11, Amazon, Walgreens, and basically every grocery store, all quit their jobs. They all just stopped going to work tomorrow. Some chaos would ensue. Perhaps, then, the hundreds of thousands of workers who just quit will look around at all the other workers who just quit their jobs, and they’ll realize that they’re all in the same boat. Though they work in different industries, some make coffee, others deliver packages and so on, their experience is shared. Then maybe that could develop into a camaraderie based on their shared experience, a class consciousness if you will. With that class consciousness, they could demand better conditions.
I have a hard time believing that the “just quit your job” guy really wants that solution.
I think that the individual-solution-for-societal-problem [ISFSP] comes about from people who either believe that society doesn’t exist [Margaret Thatcher] or that society-wide problems/solutions don’t exist or, at the very least, they’re not worth considering.
I would, of course, disagree. One example comes to mind. There used to be lead in gasoline. Our society is set up in such a way that most people need to use gasoline-powered cars to get around. The lead would get into the air, and people breathe air, and breathing air with lead in it is very bad. Lead in gasoline correlated with a decrease in children’s school performance, and it’s probable that lead led to violent crime. That’s a societal problem if I’ve ever heard one. It’s such a societal problem that it’s difficult to even come up with an ISFSP for it. Let’s try, though.
“Oh, you think leaded gasoline is bad? Why don’t you just… uh, invent a lead filtering, air purifying helmet to wear on your head at all times?” Yeah, I suppose people could have done that. Or just get rid of the lead in gasoline, which is what we did.
So what am I trying to say? What’s the point of all this? Well, I’m trying to say that societal problems exist, and should be treated as societal problems, with societal solutions. It’s good to discuss these problems and solutions, but if you run into an ISFSP person, you might find yourself dragged into a circular, pointless conversation. ISFSP sneakily changes the question at hand. Instead of “should mega-billion-dollar corporations pay a living wage?” we’re now discussing “should people who don’t like their jobs quit those jobs?”
ISFSP people don’t like that first question. Corporations pay what they pay, people work, profits are made, there is no “should” at all, they often. In that case, the conversation is close to becoming pointless. What I’m suggesting is that we learn to recognize ISFSP when we see it. When it arises, we should acknowledge it and open up a dialogue about it. Just ask if the ISFSP believes that the original topic of conversation, the societal problem, is a problem at all. Often they don’t. Asking them will at least force them to admit that no, they don’t think that people not making a living wage is a problem. At least you’d know where you stand at that point. They then have to defend a society wherein so many people work but cannot afford to live.
I think it’s worth asking an ISFSP person what they think the point of society is and whether we should bother improving it at all. You likely won’t change their mind, but it’s more valuable than doing the circular conversation I’ve described.
I’m not saying that individual solutions are always useless. Society’s not perfect, and you gotta play the hand you’re dealt, but societal solutions are important too, and it’s worthwhile to recognize when one party is talking about society and the other is talking about an individual in society.
Lefty Forrester 