Developing a Right-Wing Sociology
Introduction
It is impossible to concern oneself with politics without concerning oneself with sociality. After all, even the classical thinkers began their exploration of politics with sociological premises in mind, because as Aristotle put it, “man is by nature a social animal… [and] seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household.” Political theorists, philosophers, policymakers, and statesmen alike would be unwise to stray from these premises. In recent years, however, the discipline of sociology has been heavily associated with left-wing progressivism, making it a favorite target of conservatives and libertarians who speak out against the progressive orthodoxy that they see on college campuses. Has the discipline always been that way though? According to sociologist Robert Dingwall:
“I first began to study sociology almost 50 years ago. Its development was then conventionally taught as a conservative reaction to the disorder of social and economic change in the 19th century… sociology was in some sense the antithesis of socialism. [Sociologists] might have an elective affinity in their focus on social systems and social movements, rather than on individuals but their programmes were fundamentally opposed. Sociologists asked how order could be re-established without explicit coercion: socialists sought to replace that order completely.”
Ardent individualists on the political right often have a hard time conceptualizing a form of sociology that is not opposed to the interests of the free market and individual rights, but as Dingwall notes, sociologists are concerned with the same problem that libertarians and anarchists are: establishing order without coercion. This essay sets out to combat the notion that sociology and right-wing politics are fundamentally opposed.
Conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists of all prefixes stand to benefit from the reintegration of sociological thought into their politics. This was a point that Jeff Deist, President of the Mises Institute, made with much controversy during his 2017 speech, “For a New Libertarian,” a speech which significantly contributed to my desire to write this essay. Deist set out to remind libertarians that they must grapple with issues of sociality, and not just individuality, lest they be left on the political sidelines forever. He said, “[W]hile libertarians enthusiastically embrace markets, they have for decades made the disastrous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institutions — in other words, hostile to civil society itself… blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.” Considering that the political right is greatly concerned with maintaining order and productivity in society without the use of heavy-handed government intervention and coercion, forays into sociology are not only logical, but necessary.
This essay is an attempt at introducing those on the political right to the discipline of sociology and what it has to offer them. It attempts to formulate a sociological framework that is broadly applicable to conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists alike. Additionally, it provides recommendations for the right-wing policy agenda that are rooted in the aforementioned sociological framework. I am admittedly not a sociologist by trade. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject. I am merely a curious political scientist who found himself amazed at the amount of wisdom that could be found in sociological texts. I hope to pass on that same curiosity and amazement to readers of all political persuasions.
We will begin by developing a right-wing understanding of social capital and social infrastructure. After this, we will consider various policy measures that logically follow the theories postulated earlier in the work. Prior to this though, let us establish precisely what is meant by “sociology.”
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, sociology is “a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserve and change them. It does this by examining the dynamics of constituent parts of societies such as institutions, communities, populations, and gender, racial, or age groups.” From this definition, it is clear why politically-minded individuals ought to familiarize themselves with sociology. As people who want to change society, it is only right that we understand the mechanics of social change and the parts which we are changing. In fact, it may be argued that political science is itself a subcomponent of sociology, with Encyclopedia Britannica going on to state that, “The broad nature of sociological inquiry causes it to overlap with other social sciences such as economics, political science, psychology, geography, education, and law. Sociology’s distinguishing feature is its practice of drawing on a larger societal context to explain social phenomena.” Considering the complex nature of society, it is only logical that its study be interdisciplinary.
There have undoubtedly been major sociological contributions to right-wing political theory, even if they are not thought of as such. For example, a favorite definition of the state comes from Max Weber, a sociologist: “a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Such an observation, while political in nature, is primarily sociological. It comes from an analysis of how society is structured and how it functions, rather than from a desire to make normative claims about the state. Similar to how praxeology studies individual action as a means to understanding economics and other social phenomena, so too does sociology study individuals’ actions with one another in order to understand the social world.
Murray Rothbard divided praxeology into several subcategories: “The Theory of the Isolated Individual; The Theory of Voluntary Interpersonal Exchange; The Theory of War/Hostile Action; The Theory of Games; and a final unknown category.” While he argues that the first two categories fall under the umbrella of economics, he considers the rest to be “largely unexplored areas.” It is my contention that the later three subcategories belong in the domain of sociology, and it can even be argued that praxeology and economics as a whole, like politics, may simply be subcategories of sociology. After all, the action axiom presupposes an environment to which an individual actor is responding and adjusting, and what, if anything, can we call this environment but society?
Having laid out the basics of sociology as a discipline, let us begin to delve into a favorite topic of the political right: value. However, we will not be discussing value in the economic sense of the word, but rather in the social sense. More specifically we will begin with a discussion of social capital and social infrastructure — sociological concepts that are critical for any politically-minded person to understand. By engaging with these concepts, conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists may come to understand the economic, political, and social value of strong relationships in our communities. Indeed, as I will come to show, the right-wing project is an impossible one without a proper amount of social capital and infrastructure.
The Value of Social Capital and Infrastructure
Considering the fact that most of the major intellectual influence on the political right has come from economists such as Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, and Rothbard, it is unsurprising that conservatives and libertarians tend to think primarily in economic terms. Discussions about monetary theory, productivity, labor, taxes, and debt are the norm in right-wing circles; they are capitalists talking about capital. However, they are discussing capital almost entirely in the fiscal sense of the word, and to their own detriment. While fiscal capital is the most tangible form of capital, it is preceded, and in fact, nonexistent, without social capital.
Social capital, simply put, is the value created by social relationships. Just as human action produces physical, fiscal, and human capital, so too does it produce social capital. Not only that, but a minimal amount of social capital is necessary for the creation of all other forms of capital. As such, it is critical for any economist or political theorist to have a comprehensive understanding of social capital, its creation, and its impact on society. In his famous book Bowling Alone, sociologist Robert Putnam analyzes the tremendous decline in social capital in America that has occurred over the past several decades. He writes, “Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals — social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” Trade cannot exist outside of a social network, for an individual cannot trade with himself. Economics only exists where social capital exists, and where social capital exists in abundance, so too do the fruits of trade and economic interaction.
Moreover, if the goal of right-wing politics is to maintain order and prosperity with minimal government interference, then harnessing the reciprocity induced by high social capital is critical. Achieving broad compliance with the Non-Aggression Principle is possible (and legitimate) only when it is done without the use of force or coercion. It relies entirely on voluntary reciprocity of the NAP. Putnam notes that social capital is central to maintaining such common rules of conduct, that “Networks involve (almost by definition) mutual obligations… Networks of community engagement foster sturdy norms of reciprocity: I’ll do this for you now, in the expectation that you (or perhaps someone else) will return the favor.” Civil coexistence and altruistic behavior is dependent upon high levels of social capital. In an atomized society, there are no incentives to cooperate, no common purpose or principle upon which individuals can negotiate a common ethical framework, and indeed, no reason to engage with the outside world at all, in matters of trade or otherwise.
The ideas of trust, reciprocity, altruism, community, solidarity, reputation, and loyalty are just as important to a healthy society and market as the ideas of productivity, efficiency, and scarcity. In fact, altruistic acts such as philanthropy and volunteering are excellent indicators of social capital. While high social connectivity and engagement in civic organizations and social groups certainly encourage doing good for other people, social capital more often refers to that which drives us to do good with other people.
Conservatives and libertarians often laud society’s ability to provide support for the disadvantaged, the temporarily downtrodden, and the community in general without the use of costly, taxpayer-funded social programs. However, this ability relies entirely upon high social capital. When participation in volunteer organizations, service clubs, and religious groups decreases, so too does social capital and our want and capability to help other people with other people — a cooperative effort that greatly multiplies the efficacy of our altruistic efforts. Social capital is that cohesive energy which communities produce through human action, and which helps maintain social order, civil engagement, and feelings of familial relation among their members. The question then arises: how exactly do we produce this energy, how do we maintain high social capital? It is this question that ought to be at the forefront of the sociologically-minded right-winger’s mind.
While Putnam does a great job illustrating the decline of social capital and civic engagement over the past several decades, he leaves the task of reversing the trend up to his intellectual posterity. He does, however, provide a couple of angles from which we may address it: “Like most social issues, this one has two faces — one institutional and one individual. To use the convenient market metaphor, we need to address both the supply of opportunities for civic engagement and the demand for those opportunities.” In other words, libertarians and conservatives must think like social capitalists, and not merely market capitalists; they must look for new and innovative ways to create value — social value — by finding opportunities for people to engage with and expand their social networks and giving them good reason to do so by their own free will.
One way to create both the supply and demand for the creation of social capital is by reinvigorating and investing in our social infrastructure. Famous industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie was an ardent supporter of social infrastructure, in particular libraries, which he dubbed “palaces of the people.” By investing his private wealth into libraries, Carnegie set out to create accessible spaces in which individuals and communities could forge new connections, improve themselves, and develop the bridges and bonds between themselves. Sociologist Eric Klinenberg took this concept and revamped it for the modern era in his book Palaces for the People. While Klinenberg’s politics very clearly do not fall right-of-center, the core concepts of the book still prove incredibly relevant and useful for conservatives and libertarians. He writes:
“Social infrastructure is not ‘social capital’ — a concept commonly used to measure people’s relationships and interpersonal networks — but the physical conditions that determine whether social capital develops. When social infrastructure is robust, it fosters contact, mutual support, and collaboration among friends and neighbors; when degraded, it inhibits social activity, leaving families and individuals to fend for themselves. Social infrastructure is crucially important, because local, face-to-face interactions — at the school, the playground, and the corner diner — are the building blocks of all public life. People forge bonds in places that have healthy social infrastructures — not because they set out to build community, but because when people engage in sustained, recurrent interaction, particularly while doing things they enjoy, relationships inevitably grow.”
Just like the economy needs businesses and factories to produce physical, fiscal capital, civil society needs social infrastructure to produce social capital.
Klinenberg cites Putnam and fellow sociologist/political scientist Charles Murray as early observers of America’s civil decline. He notes, however, that the role of social infrastructure in reversing this trend is critical and underappreciated. By constructing spaces in which members of communities have frequent, regular interactions with one another, in which civic organizations can meet and plan their activities, and in which there is a very low barrier to entry, society can substantially increase its production of social capital.
By no means do these spaces have to be funded and managed by the public sector. Indeed, the private sector has much to gain from the construction of this social infrastructure as well. Health and longevity improves alongside social capital; philanthropy and volunteerism increases alongside social capital; financial wellbeing improves alongside social capital; and participation in civic processes (i.e. voting and political activism) increases alongside social capital. The investment into these spaces is likely to improve communities far more than any traditional social program towards which the government puts its money. So-called Carnegie libraries, many of which were privately run, provided an environment in which future Carnegies could arise.
When looking at Klinenberg’s examples of social infrastructure, it becomes clear that there is a market incentive to these locations as well a broader, more abstract social incentive:
“What counts as social infrastructure? I define it capaciously. Public institutions, such as libraries, schools, playgrounds, parks, athletic fields, and swimming pools, are vital parts of the social infrastructure. So too are sidewalks, courtyards, community gardens, and other green spaces that invite people into the public realm. Community organizations, including churches and civic associations, act as social infrastructures when they have an established physical space where people can assemble, as do regularly scheduled markets for food, furniture, clothing, art, and other consumer goods. Commercial establishments can also be important parts of the social infrastructure, particularly when they operate as what the sociologist Ray Oldenburg called “third spaces,” places (like cafés, diners, barbershops, and bookstores) where people are welcome to congregate and linger regardless of what they’ve purchased.”
It seems all but obvious after reading this passage, but the places in which people congregate and communicate with one another as members of a common community are critical to our social well-being. Could you imagine life without parks, playgrounds, barbershops, and bookstores? These places are the factories of social capital, the fabric of our communities!
With all this talk of social networks, I would be very surprised if the most prevalent and modern use of this term — that is, in reference to online networks such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Twitter — has not come to mind several times. How exactly do these online social networks contribute to our social capital? Are they forms of social infrastructure? As hubs of social interaction and connectivity, it would appear as though online social networking platforms have been a growing source of social capital. However, it is critical that they are used to compliment rather than replace traditional forms of social infrastructure. Face-to-face interaction is almost always more productive and more bonding than instant messaging or clicking the like button on a friend’s post. While social networks have shined as instruments of communication that allow us to organize in-person gatherings and events, they have also lulled us into a false sense of social connectivity, leading us to believe that the interactions we have online are equal to those we have in the physical world.
And of course, the question of polarization and tolerance inevitably follow any discussion about social capital and networks. Indeed, there is evidence of a correlation between a society’s level of social capital and their level of social (in)tolerance. Putnam labels this “the dark side of social capital.” To libertarians this may pose a challenge in values. While one ought to have good relations with their neighbor, by no means does one want this relation to inhibit their personal freedoms and decisions in life. Yet, this is exactly the sort of trend that Putnam observed. Nevertheless, he does not find this correlation to be a necessary and inevitable outcome, and instead demonstrates all possible outcomes, which I have organized in the following chart:
Although the individualistic form of society is likely very appealing to libertarians, it is not the form of society that best fosters voluntary adherence to the NAP. As discussed earlier in this essay, social capital is necessary for the principle of reciprocity — a principle which is foundational to the NAP and the voluntary compliance which it necessitates.
As counterintuitive as it may sound, libertarianism and anarchism rely on social, but not political, constraints over one’s actions. This is one of the founding premises of paleolibertarianism. Cultural and social expectations of behaviour are non-coercive, as they are not backed up by the threat of physical force. A shared set of values and norms, or at least one foundational value (the NAP), is in fact necessary to our political aims. In one of Rothbard’s final pieces, “Nations by Consent,” he argues that the true anarcho-capitalist project depends on the formation (and eventual secession) of nations-without-the-state. These nations are bound not by a coercive political arrangement, but by a voluntary social one. He wrote, “Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions.” It is the consideration of the aspects of an individual’s environment that ought to be thought of in sociological terms, and these aspects are the areas in which social capital acts as a bonding force.
What Is to Be Done?
Of course, any good work must not only propose theory, but also action to be taken in light of said theory. That is what this section seeks to do. While so-called “beltway” libertarians are often the subject of criticism for their conformity to the Washington establishment, it is undoubtedly true that implementing certain policies is critical to the success of a political persuasion. On which policies, then, should traditionalist conservatives and libertarians focus their efforts? Is there any such thing as a government policy that can be implemented without the use of coercion? While the policy agenda rightfully focuses on repealing old laws and preventing the implementation of new ones, there are certain policies that can be proposed from the right-wing position.
The first step is to implement policies that help to develop social capital in our communities, and in particular, those communities suffering the most from low social capital. One institution that has shown remarkable success in achieving this is that of the charter school. As the Heritage Foundation’s Mary Clare Amselem wrote in her piece “Rebuilding Social Capital Through Community Institutions”:
“Strong interaction between school and community reinforces social capital that encourages learning and persistence. Communities can either reinforce lessons learned in the classroom or, in broken neighborhoods, undermine them… While many schools do this, charter schools are particularly well placed to take on the role of community anchor as part of fulfilling their core mission… The less regulated charter schools tend to act more like private schools by forming their own mission statements and often acting as cultural centers. Their size and popularity also position them as an important source of funding for mutually beneficial activities within the community.”
In other words, charter schools have the ability to act not only as educational institutions, but community ones as well. They can help instill values such as self-motivation and discipline, fiscal responsibility, and intellectual curiosity.
Additionally, as private institutions, charter schools have more leeway to make connections and partnerships with other community organizations and programs than public schools have. Amselem cites several such examples, including a partnership to provide free dentistry at an adjacent clinic, free dance lessons at a studio, and college savings matching programs. By encouraging the construction of charter schools around America and helping families access them through policies such as “school choice” income tax credits, we can begin a multi-generational process of rebuilding social capital in our communities, and in turn, strengthening our financial and human capital as well.
Another policy worthy of consideration is one that expands tax-exempt status to all sorts of social infrastructure. Currently, only “charitable organizations, churches and religious organizations, private foundations, political organizations, and other nonprofits [including] social welfare organizations, civic leagues, social clubs, labor organizations, and business leagues” are exempt. By encouraging the growth of all sorts of social infrastructure through tax exemption (libraries, swimming pools, diners, barber shops, bookstores, etc…) we can substantially increase our communities’ production of social (and financial) capital.
Another critical institution for the production of social capital and a healthy civil society is that of marriage and child-rearing. Study after study shows the financial and social benefits of having children, with the one major precondition being the presence of a healthy marriage beforehand. Nevertheless, marriage and birth rates have been declining dramatically among most communities in recent years, and this does not bode well for our social capital. To reiterate the Aristotle quote featured in the introduction to this essay, “seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household.” Presumably, the family is the central unit of the household, and as such, its health is critical to the health of the society in which they live. Any policy that encourages marriage and child-rearing, whether that be through tax incentives, or housing subsidies (and potential forgiveness) for married couples with children, is almost sure to increase our social capital.
The first step to achieving Rothbard’s “nations-without-states” is to develop more localized forms of the same concept, namely, neighborhood and homeowners associations. These organizations — while often stereotyped as a source of annoyance among those in suburbia — encourage communication, collaboration, and commonality in communities. Neighborhoods with these associations often attract like-minded individuals, those with shared values and backgrounds, to live together. Moreover, it normalizes the formation of private covenants and contracts, in other words, codes of living that are not enforced under threat of force or coercion. While, like states, they attract those who seek power for power’s sake into their leadership, the beauty of such organizations is that they are voluntary, and individuals can either choose to remove themselves from the neighborhood, or better yet, remove that person from power in their next community election.
Better yet, such associations have already proven capable of taking over several of the functions of municipalities, including paying for roads, parks, and trash services that would traditionally be the responsibility of local and state governments. Indeed, if such associations were to be made mainstream, it seems inevitable that one might take the Rothbardian step of “seceding” from their local governments in favor of a voluntary, private form of self-governance. It is critical, though, on the policy level to ensure the absolute right of freedom of association in these communities. The successful growth of such associations depends on incentives to join it for the community and people with whom you will be engaging on a regular basis, as neighbors and co-contractees. Whether this means limiting the communities to those of a particular religion, political persuasion, age, race, gender, or otherwise, the freedom of association for such organizations is absolutely critical.
When it comes to prioritizing verbal, argumentative resolution over aggressive forms, there is logically no better place to begin than in the realm of legal disputes. By developing a system of dispute resolution organizations (DRO’s), that is, a system of private legal arbitrators, individuals can be encouraged to settle legal disputes outside of the formal judicial system. Many private contracts already stipulate that disputes be settled by private organizations such as the American Arbitration Association should any arise. In the context of a truly stateless society, acts of subrogation through indemnity insurers would be the norm, and may even be entwined with one’s neighborhood association or employer. By encouraging a system that focuses on peaceful arbitration and voluntary entry into contracts which outline crimes and punishments, we take one step closer to a coercion-free society.
While these proposals are hardly in-depth or comprehensive, they are nonetheless a starting place for thinking about policy-induced, sociological gains. Alas, the hardest part of any discussion of social capital is figuring out how to address the problem. In an article on Putnam and Murray’s works, the National Review notes that “[they] admitted to not knowing what to do about these problems [of social capital].” However, I am confident that with enough emphasis on the sociological problems most relevant to our politics, our policymakers will be able to come up with brilliant proposals.
And that is precisely the point that I wish to make with this essay. We must spend the time thinking about sociological problems on the political right. Economic problems are the current favorite, but they must soon go out of fashion alongside our sensate culture. We cannot begin to address the economic concerns of our nation and world without thoroughly addressing the underlying social and cultural problems first. As I have demonstrated, the concept of social capital is antecedent to financial and human capital. The issue of culture, of fostering altruism in our communities, is at the heart of achieving a non-coercive society. The immense complexity of our individual selves and the world in which we live is navigable and productive only when issues of sociality are foremost in our minds.
The conservative, the libertarian, and the anarchist of the 21st century must be a sociologist first.
