Together: The Rituals, Pleasures, and Politics of Cooperation
by Richard Sennett
Yale University Press
Dec 12, 2011
ISBN: 9780300116335
Professor Dave Tilley suggested a review of Richard Sennett’s new book, Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. The book was thoughtfully written. Sennett traces the nature and evolution of cooperation in society, and examines the reasons for the lack of cooperation in current society, and how we can reclaim it. He examines the relationship of cooperation to solidarity, competition, and ritual. Sennett views cooperation realistically; he understands that cooperation is not innately benign, and has its own problems, as people who are bound together can then do harm to others. He discusses the need to rebuild cooperation using the metaphor of repair work embodied in a social workshop, as suggested by the book’s cover painting at right, Making a Staircase by Frances Johnston. He makes a number of fascinating points; for example, he describes the institutionalization of cooperation in the form of solidarity as the Left’s response to the evils of capitalism. Sennett ends the book with a quote from Jacob Burckhardt about modern times as an “age of brutal simplifiers”. Sennett suggests that:
Today, the crossed effect of desires for reassuring solidarity amid economic insecurity is to render social life brutally simple: us-against-them coupled with you-are-on-your-own. But I’d insist that we dwell in the condition of “not yet.” Modernity’s brutal simplifiers may repress and distort our capacity to live together, but do not, cannot, erase this capacity. As social animals we are capable of cooperating more deeply than the existing social order envisions . . . . (Sennett, 2012, p. 280).
Sennett is a sociologist; while he does not view the world through an energy lens, he is aware of the unbalanced nature of our competitive society and the need for return to a more civil, cooperative society. He blames our cultural woes on industrial society and capitalism, thus he arrives at some of the same conclusions as those who frame their worldview using an energetic focus. A society based on grossly surplus energy creates extremes of inequity, with weakened social cohesion, psychological withdrawal, and loss of justice.
As I read the book, I found the need to take notes, as a slightly different perspective unfolded than that of the author. As I read, wearing my spectacles made with energy lenses, I saw the give and take of mutualism throughout history as a function in part of societies with surplus energies (high gain) and less surplus energies (low gain). Viewing the world energetically was briefly fashionable in the 1970s for many science specialties, including ecology and anthropology. Ecologists addressed the issues of succession and relative energy availability in systems in structural terms, and cultural Anthropologists wrote about ecological anthropology. But these approaches to energetic gain generally faded in theoretical popularity in the 1980s after the oil shocks diminished, except for notable holdouts such as Tainter and Allen, who have continued to develop theories viewed through an energetic lens, based on environmental determinism. Many science specialties including ecology dispensed with an energetic world view at the same time that western society as a whole dispensed with it.
The review morphed into a summary of potential characteristics of a new culture. So here, below, is an optimistic view of how a society with less surplus energy might develop as we descend, and what some of those changes might look like. This table is a work in progress, garnered from a number of different sources; some are referenced below.
Characteristic: | Low Gain (Scarcity) | High Gain (Surplus Resources) |
Energy Mandate | Efficiency more important for Maximum Empower | Maximum Empower w/ less efficiency |
Less dense, less technology | Increased size, more technology | |
Slower, less productive, more recycling | Faster, wasteful of energy, high entropy, open mineral cycles | |
Sustainable orientation, pulsing, k-selection | Growth Orientation r-selection | |
Zero Sum or Negative Sum | Positive Sum Game | |
Requires stable energy base | Boom and bust more common | |
Focus | Community Needs | Individual Wants |
Goal | Communal harmony?, quality | Wealth, quantity |
Relation to Nature | Living within Nature as stewards | Separate from Nature, less stewardship |
Spatial Orientation | Localized, smaller capacity, more stratification, heterogeneity | Global, colonization, urbanization |
Temporal Orientation | 7 Generations + perspectives | Next quarter outlook |
Hierarchy | Shorter food chain length | Longer more complex hierarchies |
Diversity | More diversity, parallel units, narrow niches | Less diversity, less complex webs, broad niches |
Ethics | Centered on Community, Justice | Focused on Individual Personhood, Respect for Personhood, Autonomy |
Needs Hierarchy | Focus on basic needs | Focus on higher needs |
More self-reliance | Needs supplied by system | |
Equity | More equity, less division | Less equity |
Physical | Better genetic fitness | Larger mass, better health, more offspring |
Psychological | Depression/vigilance OK | Techno-optimism |
Generalists | More diversity in terms of specialties | |
Focused on Maintenance | Focused on Expansion | |
Social | Extended families, guilds | Nuclear families, mobility |
Cooperation | Competition | |
Altruism, Gift economies | Inequality, Winner takes all | |
Mutual Dependence, Harmony | Independence, Mobility | |
Political | Less freedom, more equality | Capitalism (more freedom, less equal) |
Increased regulation, stored info | Just-in-time | |
Grass Roots | Centralized | |
Network | Silos, bureaucracies | |
Symbiosis | Darwinism, Social Insurance | |
Externalize Internalities? | Internalize Externalities | |
Cultural | More Ritual, myths, stories | Division of labor, Information society |
Stricter Values | Looser Value systems, self-indulgence? | |
Civility, conformity | Experiments, social deviance | |
Selflessness | Self-aggrandizement | |
More resistance, less resilience | Rapid evolution |
from Odum, 1969; Tainter et al., 1996, 2003; Sennett, 2012, Roszak, 2003