A Healthy Society: Structural-Functionalism And The Organic Model


Famed Victorian Era British philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer once compared human societies to a living organism or biological body. He referred to this model as the “organic view of society”. Spencer believed that all parts or elements of a complex society, both good and bad and whether working independently or in cooperation with one another, ultimately still served a distinct purpose and played a role in the overall success and well-being of that society. Much like the different organs and systems do within a biological body. Spencer’s biological model eventually became part of the basis for one of the predominant macro-theories of sociology, commonly known today as “structural-functionalism”. Personally, as a sociologist, structural-functionalism and the “organic” or “natural” view of society are the main methodologies that I personally tend to ascribe to. And they are often the lens through which I base my analyses of society and culture.

And so, if society and culture can be compared to a biological body, then currently ours is a body that is gravely ill. And the prognosis of this illness which now afflicts us, on its current course and without aggressive treatment, is terminal. And we are rapidly approaching our societal and cultural deathbed.

But before we can understand the model of a diseased society, a model which unfortunately closely resembles our own, it is important to first understand what factors and characteristics makes a society and culture healthy. We must therefore first understand the model of a healthy society. For a healthy society, similar to a healthy biological body, is generally able to immunize itself or successfully fight off the various social infections and illnesses which can threaten its health or very survival, whenever and wherever they may arise. Often times, leaving the society with a stronger and healthier immune system.

A Healthy Society

A) Stability And Order

So then what exactly is a healthy society and culture? What does a healthy society and culture look like? What are the defining characteristics that classifies a society and culture as being healthy? And finally, what factors contribute to the overall health and well-being of a complex society? The answers to these questions can obviously be as complex as the society one is analyzing; but there are some common characteristics and factors that apply in a general, structural-functional sense.

But, to boil it down to a single defining characteristic, it all comes down to stability and order. Just like the laws that govern nature, the key factors that contribute to and foster a healthy society are stability and order. Stability and order is paramount to health.

In a healthy organism or biological body, all of the biological systems and organs, despite each having their own unique and specialized individual functions, still work together to promote and maintain biological and metabolic homeostasis—i.e. stability and order—which enables the health and life of the organism. Every cell, organ, and system are unified within the overall system of the body as a whole. The heart is not in conflict with the lungs, and the liver does not try act as the brain. All parts of the body instinctively know and provide their individual roles, yet are still working in accord to sustain health and life. In doing so, all parts thereby contribute to the overall health and stability of the biological body, and health can be medically, scientifically, and empirically measured by the overall stability and order of the body and the proper healthy functioning of each individual organ and system. To an organism, stability and order is health, and instability and disorder is cancer and disease.

The same is true of a healthy society and culture. In a complex society—although also extremely complex and comprised of countless various independent elements—all of the various social elements, while still providing their own unique individual roles and functions, should ideally still be united and working towards contributing to the stability and order of the greater society. The health of a society then, in a general sense, can also be measured by this amount of overall stability and order. Stability and order which then contributes to the overall proper and healthy functioning of a society—i.e. life.

However, it is important to keep in mind that a healthy society is not necessarily a completely perfect society—nor is such a thing even humanly possible—just the same as a healthy biological body is not necessarily a perfect biological body. But a healthy society, like a body, should be one which constantly works towards the stability and order which allows it to thrive, while at the same time marginalizing or eliminating any destabilizing elements. For either a biological body or a society, there can ultimately be no health or life without stability and order.

As such, there are several social and cultural factors, elements, and characteristics which can be viewed as promoting and contributing to the overall stability and order of society. My goal is to further explore those various stabilizing factors. Factors which in turn contribute to the health and life of a society.

B) Stability: Social Cohesion

In a healthy society, social stability is achieved primarily through the voluntary social cohesion of free men who are invested in their society—as opposed to the coerced and socially engineered control of totalitarianism. Social cohesion is a term which can be defined as the voluntary willingness and ability of free men within a given society or community to interact, relate, trust, and cooperate with one another for the betterment of social harmony, the quality of life, and the overall greater good. It is the natural strengthening of the social fabric through the bonds of unity, brotherhood, community, and good citizenship. For everyone in said society benefits when such bonds, trust, and peace and stability exists.

This kind of stabilizing social cohesion is best achieved and found within a homogenous society and culture. Because the more homogenous a given society is, the less opportunities and areas for tension, strain, and conflict exist, and the more socially stable, cohesive, and successful it will ultimately be. A homogeneous and socially cohesive society understands that outsiders—those with differing or opposing social and cultural values—are often a key source of social tension and strain. Like it or not, human beings are tribalistic by evolution and nature, and outsiders to the tribe are generally viewed with suspicion if not outright contempt. A healthy society is one which seeks to preserve what it has built for itself, and therefore understands that outsiders pose a potential threat to this noble goal. As such, there is nothing morally wrong with a society looking out for its own.

Now I know that these are “controversial” statements to make in today’s times. And I also know that “homogeneity” and “ethno” or “cultural-centrism” have become loaded and negative words in our progressive, PC modern culture, where diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance are heralded as the highest of “enlightened” virtues. But the strength of homogeneity is still an undeniable human truth that deep down every person instinctively knows to be true—except perhaps for all but the most indoctrinated collectivist drones. “Coexist” is only a bumper sticker, and a ridiculous one at that. To believe that a “diverse” and pluralistic society is more socially cohesive, stable, and successful than a socially and culturally homogenous one, or that diversity and pluralism somehow benefits and contributes to the strength of a society, is utter nonsense; it is nothing more than delusional “pie in the sky” progressive thinking. In reality, people feel more comfortable around those with whom they can identify with, relate to, and with whom they share common values. Which thereby eliminates a key source of social tension and strain, and fosters cohesion and stability. And this human truth holds equally true on the small scale “social group” level as well as the large scale societal one. It is also something that has been empirically proven true time and again.

But I digress. Social and cultural homogeneity does not necessarily have to be derived from purist racial or ethnic lines, however there still must exist a strong sense of common identity in order to foster it. A robust and proud sense of common social identity is therefore critical in creating social and cultural homogeneity.

Strong unifying elements which can help to create this common social identity may include: the unity that is created through a strong common national identity or nationalism—another dirty word, a proud tradition of militarism, a common history with common traditions, a strong common moral code, a strong social patriarchy, and strong common civic values and virtues. These are some examples of the critical elements which ultimately promote unity and a common social identity. All of which then contributes not only to stabilizing social homogeneity, but also a strong and vibrant common culture. A culture which is then able to pass down to subsequent generations both healthy cultural, social, and moral values, as well as a rich and proud history and heritage, traditions, literature, art, accomplishments, and above all pride.

There is simply no denying that a proud common identity and homogeneous culture ultimately promotes social cohesion and stability, and thus contributes to the overall health and success of a society. A common identity and culture allows for all men within the society to better relate, understand, and trust each other. Thereby fostering enhanced unity and social cohesion among men, which strengthens the bonds of community and social brotherhood. Other stabilizing and cohering factors which promote such bonds, and which should also be included as part of a strong and healthy culture, include: the promotion of strong moral values like ethics, respect, and integrity, the promotion of a strong work ethic, the promotion of strong family values and the encouragement of a strong, patriarchal nuclear family, the promotion of healthy male/female relationships and traditional—natural—gender roles, the promotion of the truths and principles of natural law, and finally the respect for legitimate authority.

If a cohesive and unified society is gracious enough to welcome in any outsiders to become a part of their society, then that society must make it explicitly clear that all newly welcomed outsiders are expected to integrate and assimilate and swear loyalty to the rules and values of their new society and culture. It must also be made explicitly clear that, as a welcoming society, they will not tolerate or accommodate anyone who refuses to do so. In a cohesive and unified homogenous society, there is simply no place for the blatant social or cultural pluralism which strains the social cohesion, creates social tension, and ultimately tears apart the social fabric of a society. As such, if someone wishes to join the team, then they must be expected to wear the same jersey, play by the same rules, prove themselves worthy to their teammates, and assist the team in reaching its full potential. Any less is unacceptable.

Like a healthy biological body, a healthy society should also be wary of foreign objects or pathogens that are attempting to enter it, for they can often be vectors of infection and disease. As I stated above, there is nothing morally wrong with a people or society trying to preserve what they have built for themselves, just like there is nothing morally wrong with a biological body trying to preserve its own health by warding off disease. As such, a cohesive society should never feel obligated to allow anyone in if they do not wish to, nor should they feel bad for excluding or marginalizing those who fail to assimilate or ascribe to their values. Nationalism, nativism, and ethno or cultural-centrism, as a means of preserving social cohesion and unity and overall self-preservation, are perfectly moral and legitimate polices—despite what any multiculturalist leftists may say.

Social cohesion, unity, and homogeneity does not necessarily mean that every man in society must always agree with one another or share the exact same beliefs at all times. It is not totalitarian ideological orthodoxy, for those things are coerced products of the left. It simply means that all men can relate to one another, and that they can understand where the other is coming from. They are viewing the world through a similar lens. This means that they possess a similar understanding and view of the world, brought about by a common culture, values, and identity. And while free men may not always agree on everything, they can at least respect and understand where the other is coming from as a result of each possessing a similar frame of reference. They are reading from the same page of the same book, even if they interpret the words slightly different. Like two close brothers having a disagreement, at the end of the day they can still respect one another and remain bonded by loyalty and family.

As I stated above, social stability is achieved primarily through the voluntary social cohesion of free men who feel vested in their society. This in turn makes the individual free man the smallest, most basic unit and building block of a strong cohesive society. After the free man as an individual, the next most important unit or element of a cohesive society is the strong, patriarchal nuclear family. The critical role that the institution of the nuclear family plays as a stabilizing and cohering element in society cannot be overstated. Internally, the family serves as the primary conduit for the transmission of healthy social and cultural values and morality on to the next generation; and externally, strong families are the building blocks of cohesive communities.

C) Stability: The Moral Code, The Civil Society, And Ordered Liberty     

Freedom and liberty are paramount to the health of a society. For individualism and liberty breeds strength, grit, self-reliance, ingenuity, creativity, and ambition, all of which are beneficial to society. It empowers men and makes them great. But in a healthy society liberty should never be limitless or without condition. For that is the recipe for degeneracy, cultural rot, and chaos, not stability and order. Liberty must always come with great moral and social responsibility, and it must be tempered by the conscious awareness of such.

The Importance of a strong, unified moral code to a cohesive society, which then serves as both a restraint on unfettered liberty and also as a socially stabilizing and cohering force, cannot be overstated. A society of men who are not grounded by a strong sense of morality, ethics, and integrity, or a society comprised of men who possess vastly different notions about what is right and wrong, is doomed to chaos and failure. Similarly, a free society not restrained by a strong moral backbone is also doomed to such chaos and tyranny. Therefore, a stable and cohesive society must be steadfastly united in the moral and ethical values which not only governs and dictates the conduct and treatment of men towards each other, but also towards society as a whole. This moral unity promotes not only social cohesion and brotherhood as a result of men being better able to relate and trust one another, but also social stability and longevity in that men are also morally guided by a long-term sense of social responsibility instead of short-term personal gain. On that same token, a strong moral code also serves to temper, constrain, refocus, and civilize the base and primal urges and instincts of men—and women—into more socially healthy energy, as I will discuss further below. Lastly, due to the critical importance of a strong, unified moral code, any deviance or violations from the unifying moral code must be strictly enforced by both informal and formal social controls, as I will also discuss in detail further below.

Again, a strong, unified moral code serves as a guide and standard to govern how men in society relate and treat one another. It fosters a sense of honor and accountability among men, which in turn builds enhanced trust. For when free men are honor bound and accountable to each other, it further strengthens the bonds of social cohesion and brotherhood.

Social cohesion is further strengthened by the interdependence and cooperation of free men voluntarily working together as a result of this enhanced sense of honor bound brotherhood. Free men who, although working towards their own self-interests and that of their families, are still keenly aware of their responsibility and accountability to their fellow men, the community, and the greater good. This sense of civic awareness and community is a concept sometimes referred to as the “civil-society”. Essentially, the term civil-society refers to the stability and cohesion that is created by a shared sense of community and civic responsibility possessed by all members of a given society or community. The term can then also refer to the stabilizing community based institutions—churches, schools, clubs and lodges, charities, community centers, etc.—and infrastructure and networks which are created as a result of this shared sense of community. But ultimately, it is the cooperation and interdependence of free men, honor bound and accountable to each other, which fosters this sense of civil-society and community in the first place.

Even a large, complex society, if it is to be one that is cohesive and stable, should be comprised of many overlapping smaller individual local communities. However, each of them must still be united and tied together under a larger, stronger unifying banner and framework, like heavy nationalism for example. This system is a “bottom-up“, community-based approach towards creating a greater cohesive and unified society, as opposed to a “top-down“, centralized, totalitarian approach. It is also the framework of federalism that was envisioned by many of the US founders. But this nationalistic and federalist framework, while not a leftist, centralized, totalitarian system, must still be strong enough to unite individual cohesive elements—towns, cities, states, etc.

But I digress. In a stable and cohesive society, although free men possess individualism and self-determination and are free to pursue their own interests, associations, and vocational paths, they must still remain morally and responsibly grounded in their sense of honor, integrity, duty, civic virtue, and good citizenship. As I stated above, a strong, unified moral code can also serve to restrain individualism in a healthy way, and in a stable and cohesive society liberty is never without limits or condition. This is individualism and individual liberty tempered by a moral sense of responsibility and accountability to the greater good. This is also a concept known as “ordered liberty”.

Ordered and restrained liberty and individualism should be a voluntary and moral mindset promoted and instilled by a strong moral code and cultural value system. It should also be a mindset possessed by free men who feel vested in their society, and therefore understand that by exhibiting such behaviors and values they are ultimately serving the greater good by helping to create a stable community and society—without the need for totalitarian collectivism. This then contributes not only to economic prosperity and stability, but also cultural and social prosperity and stability as well. As such, the overall quality of life increases, and everyone benefits.

When man’s individualism is not reined in by a strong moral code or compass, or by a personal sense of social responsibility and ordered liberty—as well as by a moral and just society which enforces and holds him to such a code—then it is quite easy for him to fall prey to his most base primal instincts and desires. Immoral and irresponsible individualism can quite easily lead to personally destructive pursuits such as hedonism, mindless consumerism, promiscuity, drug abuse, and degeneracy. It can also lead to socially destructive behaviors such as dishonesty, unethical business dealings, greed, corruption, and even blatant criminality. All of which, both individually and especially in socially large numbers, are extremely destructive to society. In any society, there will always be those occasional people who are inherently anti-social, criminally minded, or psychopathic—lacking any sense of morality, responsibility, remorse, empathy, and conviction. But those types are generally few and rare. However, even the average man in society can easily fall prey to such primal instincts when not restrained and guided by a strong moral framework and code. And when society lacks such a moral structure, then one man quickly becomes many, and social stability and cohesion decays and social and cultural chaos sets in.

D) Stability: Hierarchy, Stratification, And Merit

Generally speaking, honest, healthy men want and need to have a purpose in life. They want to be needed and to contribute to something greater than themselves. Outside of their individual families, men innately want to be part of a group or a team and to experience comradery with other men. This need motivates and inspires men to become great. Men also want to fight for something, to conquer, to build, to create, to bend nature to their will, and to be inspired and led by a grand goal or vision. All in the name of contributing and advancing something larger and lasting beyond themselves. And this is especially true of men in a society which they feel reflects their best interests, goals, and values. A society and a brotherhood which they feel possessively is theirs, which they are vested and loyal to, and one which reflects who they are as men. Men will work and fight relentlessly, if they are inspired and have something worth fighting for. A cohesive and free society can proudly embrace, encourage, and harness these natural masculine needs, by structuring society in such a way which makes this possible—without resorting to leftist totalitarianism and forced collectivism. Furthermore, when men feel invested in their society, like the strong moral code I discussed above, this too reins in and focuses natural masculine energy on socially healthy and productive pursuits.

Thus, a stable and socially cohesive society is a masculine and patriarchal society, and one based upon merit and hierarchy. It is also one which is grounded in the eternal truths and principles of natural law. For it is these same natural laws which govern and bring stability and order to nature, and as such should also be used to structure and bring stability and order to society. A society grounded in such principles is a structurally-functional and organically ordered society. It is a stratified society. One which promotes and ensures stability by acknowledging, respecting, and appreciating the vital roles and functions played by all honest men in society towards contributing to the overall greater good, regardless of rank or social class. Yet, at the same time, it is also a society which is structured and stratified hierarchically and meritocratically to act as a filter or screening mechanism to allow for only the most worthy to rise to the top.

A hierarchically stratified society is therefore one which believes that all men are created equal in their humanity and before the law, but one which also acknowledges the natural truth that not all men are created the same or are equally deserving of societal rights and privilege. This is because a hierarchical society is one which acknowledges the reality that free men are not equal, and equal men are not free. As such, a hierarchically stratified society is one that absolutely rejects the feminized concepts of egalitarianism and totalitarian collectivism. Rather, a stratified society is a masculine society. One which acknowledges that certain privileges, rights, and positions must be earned or achieved, as opposed to being universally granted to practically everyone simply for existing. Because rights and privileges that are granted universally—especially universal suffrage—and without any sense of duty, responsibility, earned achievement, or sacrifice, often have very little value to the individual exercising them. They are then often taken for granted or abused, or used for selfish purposes or short-term personal gain. All of which, in turn, weakens and destroys a cohesive society.

A traditional man, living in a cohesive society that he relates to and feels reflects his interests, should have no objection to this type of merit based, hierarchal social stratification. His innate masculine nature should allow him to recognize and appreciate that such stratification is an entirely natural and organic way of structuring a cohesive, masculine society. However, in a free society a stratified social structure should never be a caste structure. A merit based, hierarchal structure should serve as a social filter, to allow for only the best to rise to the top in all areas, but it should not be a stone wall.

In a free and cohesive society, upward mobility, advancement, or the attainment of certain rights and privileges should always be possible and encouraged for all men, through competition, hard work, sacrifice, merit, achievement, or upon the fulfillment of societal predetermined conditions or rites of passage. This then gives every man in society a goal and a model to follow, and it motivates them to become further invested in society. Which in turn, serves to strengthen the overall stability and social cohesion, and further build a sense of community and brotherhood. Of course such advancement, position, privileges, or rights should never be automatically expected or entitled by any man, nor should they ever be hereditary or passed down by legacy. They must absolutely be earned fresh by each new generation of men proving their own worth, and by every man forging his own path. Lest such privileges lose their sacred value.

A stable and cohesive society is one which rewards those who serve, sacrifice, work hard, are industrious, contribute, obey the law and are responsible, and display the appropriate civic virtues. While at the same time not wasting time and resources on those who refuse to exhibit such behaviors. A man may therefore become as invested in society and its privileges as he chooses to be or his abilities allow. However, the predators and parasites of society must absolutely never be afforded any quarter. For if a society to remain cohesive, stable, and ultimately healthy, then the unproductive parasites and predators can never be allowed to feed and grow off the backs of the honest, productive contributors. No hardworking and honest man wants to be taken advantage of by a lazy freeloader, especially when his society and culture is complicit in the con. Furthermore, the unproductive drains and dregs of society must absolutely never be allowed a seat or voice at the table of power. Because those who have sacrificed nothing or have contributed nothing deserve no say. And these critical principles must be reinforced and made abundantly clear to all in society. They must also be held to steadfastly, no matter how much the occasional “bleeding heart” cries.

The reasons behind such principles should be blatantly obvious to any rational, masculine man who desires to live in a stable, cohesive, and successful society. For a society to feed and subsidize the unproductive parasites, essentially rewarding socially bad behavior, all it is doing is encouraging and promoting increased unproductive behavior. Because a healthy society, just like a biological body, will see its stability, health, and eventually life itself rapidly deteriorate if a parasitic virus or predatory cancer is left unchecked and is allowed to metastasize by feeding off the surrounding productive healthy tissues and organs. From a structural-functional sense, these parasites and predators of society may be viewed as functionally beneficial only insofar as to serve as “bad examples” to the rest of productive society. Thereby further reinforcing healthy social values and further promoting social cohesion—similar to strengthening a biological immune system through inoculation. But these social pathogens must never be pandered to or allowed to grow. They must either be compelled to fall in line, like a parent disciplining a wayward child, or be left alone to wither away and die.

In doing so, this further promotes social stability by eliminating yet another key source of social strain and tension, namely economic, by reinforcing the principle that society will not financially subsidize or support the unproductive parasites and predators. This in turn sends the message to every honest, hardworking man in society that his government will not redistribute or waste his hard earned tax money on those dregs who make no effort to be productive or contribute, nor will his government tax him unnecessarily in order to pay for such welfare entitlements. Quite simply, this alone contributes to a society’s economic stability and prosperity by not allowing a society to go into infinite debt trying to pay for the endless benefits and entitlements of a welfare state. It also promotes economic stability and prosperity by keeping taxes as low as possible, which not only encourages economic growth and production, but also ensures that what money is taxed is spent responsibly and only for the public good—and not wealth redistribution. It allows for the honest, hardworking man to keep the majority of what he earns through his labor.

Furthermore, by not subsidizing or supporting the unproductive elements of society, or by not giving special treatment to certain sub-groups, a cohesive society is also helping to minimize the possibility of victimized “special interest groups” or “protected classes” emerging. Of which the existence of such groups can strain and tear apart the cohesion and unity of the social fabric—as I will discuss later in part 2. As such, there must be one strict standard for all in society to follow. Similarly, it must also be made clear to all that no one is deserving of special treatment simply due to some arbitrary victim status or social aggrievement—any legitimate grievances should be addressed in a court of law. A stable and cohesive society must therefore make it brutally known to both the individual parasites and to any potential “victim groups” that they will not be tolerated, subsidized, or sustained by society, nor will they be afforded the benefits, privileges, and rights of society.

Every man in society is therefore expected to pull his own weight and to contribute to the absolute best of his given abilities. A healthy society must never tolerate parasitic or predatory freeloaders, however a moral and socially cohesive society should be one which can step in to assist a man who legitimately falls on hard times or who legitimately lacks the ability to provide for himself—the key word being legitimately. Especially if such an inability or disability is the direct result of service to the greater society, like a disabled veteran for example. Ideally, such assistance should first come from the family or community whenever possible, with government based options in place only as a last resort or when other institutions are incapable of providing adequate care. The reason being, in a cohesive society the encouragement of community based options helps to further foster and strengthen cooperation, interdependence, and a sense of community, while also strengthening the bonds of social cohesion and unity.

E) Stability: Deviance And Reinforcing The Moral Code

Yet even in a stable and socially cohesive society, no matter how successful that society is in maintaining its moral code and values, there will still be the occasional outsiders who dwell within. This is especially true as a society grows in both size and complexity. As such, there will likely still be individuals who refuse to legitimately contribute, or who display anti-social behaviors like social deviance and criminality, or who refuse to conform and adhere to the values and norms of society. There may even be the emergence of sub-cultures and counter-cultures who either refuse to fit in or who attempt to weaken or subvert the social order. These displays of social deviance can range in severity from practically harmless to extremely subversive, criminal, and dangerous. But from a structural-functionalist perspective, the emergence of such deviance in an otherwise healthy society is both normal and in some ways even beneficial.

As I touched on above, the reason why social deviance could be considered normal and even beneficial to a healthy society is because it, like all social elements, ultimately still serves a function and purpose. In the case of social deviance and even sub-cultures, they may still serve the beneficial function of acting as “bad examples” while at the same time positively reinforcing and strengthening the healthy social and cultural values of society in the fight against them. A society that is strong, stable, and cohesive—just like a strong, healthy biological body fighting pathogens—is better able to fight, marginalize, and destroy these potentially subversive influences and in the end become stronger and better immunized against them in the future. But again, social deviance obviously exists along a spectrum, ranging from the utterly harmless to the extremely subversive and dangerous. Therefore, a morally just and free society must possess the common sense and prudent judgment to distinguish the difference.

But make no mistake, just because some deviance may be viewed as potentially beneficial to a healthy society, that in no way means it should be tolerated or allowed to fester—especially the most harmful, subversive, or socially straining types of deviance. Deviance can be beneficial to a society in the same way that a flu shot is beneficial, it inoculates harmful pathogens in order to build resistance. But the infection must ultimately still be destroyed before it causes disease. As I said above, in a cohesive society there is no place for subversive deviance or blatant social and cultural pluralism, because it always ends up being a source of tension and strain that undermines the social fabric of cohesion and stability. And as such, it must be destroyed.

Is there a place for some minor, harmless, or private social deviance and sub-culture within a free society? The libertarian in me says yes, to an extent. A society that is stable, cohesive, and unified should absolutely allow for and can handle an ample degree of individual liberty; so long as such behavior does not rise to the level of socially or culturally harmful or subversive deviance. Once again, individual liberty in a cohesive, free society must be tempered with a moral sense of social responsibility—i.e. ordered liberty. In such a society, it is the people, society, and culture itself which defines exactly what behaviors constitute harmful or subversive deviance, while at the same time defining the boundaries between what is socially acceptable conduct and behavior and what behavior will not be tolerated. But, in a very general sense, such harmful deviance can be defined as any serious deviance which blatantly threatens the social cohesion, unity, stability and order, or moral and civic values which defines a healthy society. In addition, it can also be defined as any serious or subversive deviance that helps to create any blatant social or cultural pluralism, that which strains a cohesive society.

In a cohesive, free society, unacceptable deviance, whenever possible, can and should be kept in check by informal social controls. Which essentially means any social controls and consequences put forth by the family, community, and social institutions other than the law and government. This again is a “bottom-up” community based approach to social control, as opposed to a centralized totalitarian “top-down” approach. As such, serious but non-criminal deviance or violations of the moral code, norms, codes of conduct, and values of society should ideally be enforced through informal social or community based controls. Which could include various types of informal consequences, punishments, stigmas, or shaming.

A cohesive society simply defines what behaviors are unacceptable, and then stigmatizes and marginalizes those who refuse to comply accordingly. Social stigma can be a powerful method of informal social control because it sends the message that one will be shamed, isolated, or cast out and forgotten by the community for failing to abide by the values that a cohesive society or community sets forth. Harsh perhaps, but a cohesive and stable society understands and should not tolerate any deviance which blatantly serves to undermine or strain its cohesion, moral code, and values. However, a moral and just society may still choose to welcome back reformed, non-criminal deviants once they decide to behave or have been punished accordingly.

F) Order: Law And Punishment

Although the stability created from social cohesion and a strong, unified moral code is critical to the overall health of society, and should be the primary source of stability whenever possible, sometimes it is just not enough. When the stabilizing and unifying forces of social cohesion and community based or informal social control fails, or when destructive deviance rises to such a severe level that it must be deemed criminal, then there must also be strict formal social order. Order which is derived from the rule of law and enforced by legitimate authority backed by violence if necessary. For in the end, a stable and ordered society must ultimately be one which is firmly rooted in the rule of law.

The moral code, laws, and social contract of a cohesive and free society should reflect the consensus, values, and wishes of the men in that society as best as humanly possible—while of course granting the most influence and weight to those men who have earned their right to have a say. Yet such a society must always bear in mind that the ultimate purpose of the law is to promote and maintain social cohesion, stability, and order, as well as to also preserve the values that make up the essence and character of the society. The law of a moral and just society should never serve to needlessly control, dominate, or oppress its people. There is quite a large difference between using the power of the law as a tool of state oppression, and using the legitimate power of the law to maintain social stability and order for the good of all people and the overall social harmony and quality of life.

Therefore, in a cohesive society and culture, the law must serve to codify and constitute the most serious political, moral, and ethical principles and values that society holds dear. The law should also serve to define and criminalize which acts of deviance along the spectrum of deviance constitutes the most severe, subversive, or dangerous, or which acts pose the greatest threats to overall stability and order so as to be worthy of criminality. The law must then also define which acts of deviance are worthy of punishment beyond informal social controls and stigma, and also define and categorize what those formal punishments will be. Lastly, in a moral, just, and free society, the law must be applied equally to all. Such a society must therefore ensure that all men are treated equally before the law, and that all who stand accused before it are afforded due process with the presumption of innocence and the right to defend themselves with counsel.

Still, a cohesive society must never tolerate the dangerous and criminal deviance which undermines its moral code and its very stability, order, and quality of life. For the criminal parasites and predators of society, while structurally-functional to a point, will ultimately sow the seeds of strain, conflict, social disease, and chaos if left unchecked. In turn, destroying the quality of life for all honest people in society. Therefore, upon the conclusion of the full legal process, convicted criminal deviants must be dealt with swiftly, severely, and brutally. This is to send the clear message that, as a society, such behavior will not be tolerated and will be dealt with harshly. Which, in the end, serves to maintain the social harmony and overall quality of life for all.

In a stable and ordered society, the formal punishment of the guilty must be swift, certain, and brutally severe—within a moral proportion to the crime convicted. Formal legal punishment should not simply act as a consequence for the violation of law, but it must also serve as a deterrent to other potential offenders and to discourage the recidivism of the convicted. As such, the punishment for any crime must be severe or brutal enough to leave a lasting impression on the convicted, and to also heavily outweigh any cost/benefit analysis made by other potential offenders when considering whether or not to commit a crime. If a cohesive society values and seeks to maintain its stability and order, then the toxic liberal notions of criminal corrections and rehabilitation must be abolished in favor of legitimate severe punishment. The idea of “corrections” and “rehabilitation” are only useful as social controls for very minor deviance, as I discussed above.

Any serious deviance rising to the level of criminality, as defined by society, must be punished severely—again, within a moral proportion to the crime—and must never be tolerated. Prison sentences must not be viewed as a term of “corrections” to be served in a resort style facility with programs and amenities, but rather as a term of severe punishment or hard labor. And the death penalty, reserved for the most serious of criminal offenses, should be carried out publicly upon the swift conclusion of due process and appeals.

G) Order: Leadership

Leadership is yet another extremely critical factor in maintaining the stability and order of a society. Perhaps even the most critical. For if law and order are essential in maintaining a cohesive society, then so too is who is chosen to legislate, execute, and enforce such laws. As such, leadership on all levels is a crucial component in the overall health of a society. And because leadership is such a critical factor in maintaining the stability and order of a society, it further illustrates the importance of why only those who have proven that they are responsible and worthy should ever be allowed to have a voice in appointing leadership—i.e. suffrage. And it also illustrates the importance of why only the most absolute worthy of all men should ever even be eligible or considered for leadership roles.

The legitimate law of a cohesive, free, and moral society—even if at times harsh—must still act benevolently and exist solely as a means to preserve social stability, order, and the overall quality of life. As opposed to serving as a tool for malevolent authoritarian control and oppression. As such, the leadership of society, those worthy few men who have earned and been delegated with the somber tasks of legislating and executing such laws and duties, must always be guided by a moral and benevolent balance between their authority and their responsibility and accountability to the society they serve. They must possess a fatherly love for their people and society, and a ruthlessness towards its enemies. Furthermore, they must also exhibit both strong moral and prudent judgment in their decision making.

The leadership of society must therefore always place the long-term best interests of their citizens and their society above all other considerations. They must avoid the constant temptation of short-sighted or “quick fix” easy solutions, especially if such policies undermine or compromise the values, character, or long-term health of society. And it must be this “long game” mindset which guides them in their decision making. On the large scale or national leadership level, this long-term mindset should be a strong nationalistic one. And it should be based around policies which place the long-term best interests of the people and nation above all else, always striving to maintain its strength, stability, and unity.

To help ensure this mindset, all potential leaders must be men who have already proven their willingness to place their society or nation ahead of themselves, through a proven history of duty, sacrifice, and responsibility. And beyond just educational or academic qualifications, potential leaders must also be men who have proven that they are worthy of such a task through a proven record of morality, integrity, and civic virtue and responsibility. They must also have proven that they will always honorably maintain the laws, values, and long-term best interests of the society which they have been chosen to represent. Such leaders must also demonstrate that they are always willing to “lead from the front”, like an ancient king leading a charge into battle, for men will loyally follow leaders who have earned their respect. Lastly, the leaders among men must always view their sacred positions as an earned duty and privilege, never as an entitled position or career. And they must especially never abuse their office or power for their own personal interest or gain. Public corruption, criminality, or treason can never be tolerated in a cohesive society. And it is the sacred responsibility of the men in society, who have placed other men in positions of power over them, to always hold those leaders accountable to the absolute highest degree. To include death if necessary.

This accountability of leadership to the men of society is imperative in maintaining the laws, values, and ordered liberty of a cohesive society. It is also imperative in maintaining the overall social stability and order as well. And finally, it is imperative in maintaining the very essence and soul of the society and culture itself. For short-term thinking and corruption at the highest levels breeds distrust, conflict, and social decay and weakens the overall social and cultural fabric.

This then is precisely the reason why it is so important for a cohesive society to limit the privileges, rights, and potentially the power to lead to only those men who have earned them and have proven that they are worthy of such responsibility. It is also why a cohesive society must maintain a hierarchal and meritocratic stratified structure, to ensure that only the most worthy of all men are ever even eligible of finding their way into positions of power and authority. Again, a hierarchal structure must act as a filter or screening mechanism to allow for only the best to rise to the top, in both leadership positions and society in general.

Returning to the biological body analogy once again, although many bodily organs, systems, and functions are involuntarily working constantly to contribute to the health and life of the organism, a body is still best served by an intelligent conscious mind to guide it through life in the outside world. The same is absolutely true of a healthy society. A cohesive, stable, and ordered society does not demand constant micromanagement and involvement from its leadership in all facets of society—that is “top-down”, centrally-planned totalitarianism. A cohesive, structurally-functional society is largely able to run effectively from the “bottom-up” and without much government interference in day-to-day life. However, what such a society does demand of its leadership is to absolutely provide and maintain the necessary stability and order which allows it to thrive and remain healthy, and to also make wise decisions that, like an intelligent mind, will best guide it through life—i.e. the outside world.

The actual system or organizational structure of government for the type of healthy, cohesive society discussed above can take on many forms. It largely depends on the structure, culture, history, and wishes of the society itself. Therefore, this is not a topic that I will be discussing in detail here, for it deviates from the main focus of this paper: what characteristics make a society stable, ordered, and ultimately healthy. So long as it is a system of government which abides by the various factors listed above, and works to maintain stability, order, and the long-term interests of the society first, then it can be considered a healthy government.

H) Militarism

A final social characteristic which can be extremely effective in further helping to create a cohesive, stable, and ordered society is a proud militaristic tradition and culture. A society or nation which praises, emphasizes, and promotes military service and duty as its highest social and cultural virtues, as well as one which prides itself on maintaining a strong military and martial culture, is also a society which projects strength, stability, and order. In addition, a militaristic society and culture is the perfect overall system to compliment or tie together many of the various other socially cohering, stabilizing, and unifying elements already discussed above, such as: nationalism, pride, strong history and traditions, patriarchy, strong moral values, a highly stratified and hierarchal social structure, and strong civic virtues.

The simple reason being, the institution of the military itself is an institutional microcosm and smaller representation of many of the same socially cohering elements required on the societal level. To some extent, a professional, “well oiled” military is an excellent example of what a cohesive, stable, and ordered society should look and function like. Thus the military, due to its very nature, is well suited to promote and instill such social values and examples to the larger society.

This is because a professional military organization is an almost perfect representation of a cohesive, structurally-functional stratified system. It is comprised of thousands of individual parts and units, each with their own specific roles and functions to play, who cooperate and work together interdependently in order to support the success of the greater mission. A professional military organization still recognizes and respects the service, sacrifice, and individual efforts of the single serviceman, but at the same time must also deindividuate him as a part of the larger whole. For example, every man is expected to pull his own weight individually, yet is also a part of a larger unit or team to which he is held accountable. This is similar to the concept of ordered liberty, or individualism tempered by a sense of responsibility to the greater good.

A professional military is a culturally homogeneous organization. It represents and stands solely for the nation and people for which it was established to defend. It therefore maintains one clear allegiance, chain of command, value system, and code that all its members must swear loyalty and adhere to. There is absolutely no place for pluralism or relativism within the ranks of a professional military. Any serious deviance by a member, which violates the military laws, codes, or values, must be dealt with swiftly and severely, in order to reinforce the code and maintain strict military discipline and cohesion. Serious deviance or deviants within the military can absolutely not be tolerated.

A professional military is also a strictly hierarchal and merit based system. It maintains both a rigid rank and chain of command structure, as well as a rigid system of rules and order. This hierarchal stratification ensures that promotion and advancement is achieved only through a combination of time, service, merit, and accomplishment, as well as by meeting a strict set of pre-determined criteria or standards. This system acts as a filter to best ensure that, ideally, only the most superior candidates are eligible to rise to each next level. Competition also tightens at each new level of higher rank, as the numbers required for higher ranks decrease the higher up the rank pyramid one goes. Is this promotional system always perfect? No, of course not. For some goldbricks will always manage to slip through the cracks. But it is far superior to many other forms of military promotion witnessed throughout history—purchasing rank or commission, family connections, political favors, etc.

Individual military units—similar to the individual cohesive communities that comprise a greater society—are often tight-knit, cohesive communities unto themselves. They often have their own proud identities, histories, accomplishments, traditions, and distinct insignia, yet each one is still a small, albeit important, part of the greater, cohesive whole. Individual units are also often built on strong foundations of comradery and honor among the men of the unit, and often times may even possess their own rites of passage. This is important due to the fact that, since individual units each provide their own specific functions or specialties, and within a unit there are still further subdivisions or specializations among individual men, each member of a unit is expected to be skilled and competent in their specific jobs and they are accountable and honor bound to the fellow men in their unit. Those men who are not up to standard or who do not pull their weight will be dealt with through both informal and formal social controls. Small unit loyalty and brotherhood is therefore an integral part of overall military stability, order, and cohesion. This is often why individual units or ships are celebrated so highly instead of the army or fleet as a whole.

Finally, a professional military is also able to instill in its members, through both training, experience, and life within the system, the noble values and character traits that, upon leaving the military, contribute well to the cohesion and stability of civilian society. Noble values and traits such as: nationalism and patriotism, duty, loyalty, service, sacrifice, discipline, honor, courage, strength, responsibility, respect, and brotherhood. The military also provides an excellent opportunity and life experience to build maturity, and to turn boys into men. Veterans, who exhibit the values listed above, are then able to serve as strong role models to the rest of civilian society. In fact, a cohesive society is very well served by holding up such honorable veterans as pillars and role models, as opposed to spoiled, vapid, and degenerate celebrities, pop-stars, or professional athletes.

Now whether or not a cohesive society wishes to make military service mandatory for all its citizens depends on the needs and values of the specific society. I can personally see the merits of both arguments, and I could easily make the case that a cohesive society taking either approach could benefit from it. And perhaps as a topic for a later paper I will more thoroughly explore the pros and cons of each side.

However, I personally tend to ascribe to the Robert Heinlein view that a cohesive, stable, and ordered society is best served by a professional, all-volunteer military. A society where such voluntary military service is also a prerequisite and first step towards earning various additional rights and privileges. I also believe that the overall strength, discipline, and professionalism of a military organization is greatly heightened when its comprised of men who voluntarily choose to be there, and who believe in what they are serving and representing. As opposed to a military comprised largely of soldiers who are compelled or conscripted into service. Furthermore, any social rights or privileges afforded to the individual as a result of military service hold far more meaning and value because they were attained through personal choice and sacrifice, as opposed to simply an obligation. In the end, a healthy society will ultimately benefit from the cohesion, stability, and order fostered by a strong military and martial culture and tradition, as well as by the veterans who exemplify the values that it represents.

Is the military a perfect institution? Of course not, there is no such thing as a perfect institution—or society for that matter. Will a military always perfectly represent the items listed above? Again, of course not. But a professional military is an institution that can be invaluable in contributing to the overall cohesion, stability, and order of a society. Factors which, once again, are vital in maintaining the overall health of a society.

A Masculine Society

If there was one word or concept to sum up all of the preceding factors, elements, and characteristics that contribute to a healthy society, or even one word to sum up a healthy society in general, it would be: masculine. A healthy society is a masculine society. And all of the characteristics which define it are masculine in nature.

A society rooted in natural law is patriarchal and masculine in nature. A hierarchal and stratified society is masculine in nature. A meritocratic and accomplishment based society is masculine in nature. A society that values hard work is masculine in nature. A society built around rugged individualism, yet tempered by duty and brotherhood, is masculine in nature. A society that maintains stability, order, and the rule of law is masculine in nature. A society that maintains a strong moral code and values truth and justice is masculine in nature. A society that believes in punishing the wicked is masculine in nature. The belief in strong nationalism, exclusion, and borders and boundaries is masculine in nature. A militaristic society is masculine in nature. And finally, a society that promotes the virtues and values of pride, duty, honor, courage, strength, sacrifice, discipline, and toughness and grit is masculine in nature.

There is absolutely no denying, that a healthy society is a masculine society. And it exhibits masculine characteristics and values. A diseased society is a feminized society.

Healthy Functioning And Life Of A Society

Going back to the original biological body comparison, the entire purpose of a body and all of its individual organs and systems is to ultimately work together to maintain the biological and metabolic stability and order necessary to maintain health; which in turn allows for the healthy functioning of the living organism to survive and thrive in the outside world. Or, in other words, to live. The exact same thing is true of a healthy society.

A healthy society also requires stability and order. Stability and order which is created, in part, through social cohesion, homogeneity, and unity. Structurally-functional cohesion is realized when every element of society, although often independent of each other and with separate and unique roles to play, works together—even if unaware—for the overall stability, quality of life, success, and health of the society as a whole.

This concept is analogous to a large symphony orchestra performing a complex classical symphony. The orchestra may have up to a hundred individual musicians and instruments, all playing different parts and ranges of a composition, yet in the end they are all still reading from the same piece of music and playing in time and harmony with one another to produce a beautiful sound. Any minor mistakes made by an individual musician will generally go unnoticed and not affect the whole, due to the cohesion, unity, and stability and order of the entire orchestra. That orchestra is, in essence, a structurally-functional and a cohesive society.

But beyond the health of a society, created and measured by stability and order, what is societal life? Just like a healthy functioning biological body is able to survive and thrive—i.e. live—in the outside world, the same is true of a healthy functioning society. A society that is strong, functional, and healthy, due to its own internal stability and order, is better able to live, survive, and thrive in the often hostile world beyond its own boundaries. It is able to live on. It is able to successfully fight off and defend itself from outside invaders, while at the same time also able to ward off and destroy any internal or subversive threats. It is able to project its force and power beyond its own borders when necessary, in order to preserve and defend its own interests and people. A healthy, living society that is surviving and thriving is therefore able to preserve the world that it has created for itself.

It is able to preserve its stability and order which allows for this health and life. It is able to preserve the social and cultural homogeneity and cohesion which allows for such stability. It is able to preserve the quality of life that it has built for its people. It is able to promote, preserve, and pass on the economic prosperity which it has created for its people as a result of this health. It is able to preserve, promote, and pass on the moral and ethical code and values that it has created. It is able to preserve and pass on the history, traditions, and culture that have been created by the life and survival of the society over the course of generations. And finally, and also most importantly, a healthy, living society must be able to maintain and grow its population, through healthy native birth rates promoted by the preservation of the patriarchy, traditional gender roles, traditional values, and the nuclear family.

For in order to preserve the society itself, and to even be able to pass on all the other aforementioned things, a society must be able to successfully transfer itself to the next generation. Ultimately, just like all living organisms, healthy reproduction and the continuation of a society into the next generation is the absolute single most important factor of them all. For without it, all else is for nothing. An organism passes it’s genes into the next generation, and a society it’s history, system, and culture. And this alone defines what the healthy functioning and life of a society actually means. Will it even continue to exist?


In the end, a healthy society functions very much like a healthy biological body. The “organic” and “structural-functionalist” view of society, as laid out by early sociologists and philosophers like Herbert Spencer, makes logical and rational sense because it is grounded in the laws and principles of nature. Namely, that promoting and maintaining stability and order ultimately allows for the healthy functioning of a body, be it a biological or social one, which in turn allows it to exist.

In a healthy society, such stability and order is created naturally through social cohesion, unity, and ordered liberty. In turn, social cohesion and unity are best achieved naturally through social and cultural homogeneity. And finally, social and cultural homogeneity are best achieved through a proud common identity.

The strong cohesion and unity of a healthy society should be created naturally and voluntarily and from the ground-up. In stark contrast to a socially-engineered and centralized totalitarian ideology or system—i.e. a diseased society—which must force and compel such stability from the centrally-planned top-down. The critical component in creating such unity naturally is the free man who, tempered by a strong moral sense of ordered liberty and civic duty, feels invested and accountable to his society and community. This mindset is achieved when free men are able to relate to their society because they feel it reflects their wishes and interests as best humanly possible.

Is a healthy society a perfect society? No, of course not. No more than a healthy biological body is a perfect body. But a healthy society, like a healthy body, is not about perfection. It’s about the health, stability, and order required to sustain life. It is the totalitarian and megalomaniacal minded individuals who malevolently seek to create social “utopia” and “perfection” on earth through control, social-engineering, and force.

And yet, the socially cohering and stabilizing factors that I have discussed above, as well as the model of a healthy society, may seem reactionary or be classified as “far right extremism” by today’s radical progressive and leftist standards. But are they really? There was once a time, not so long ago as to be forgotten, where values such as: community, religion, morality, integrity, duty, honor, courage, strength, masculinity, citizenship, responsibility, accountability, self-reliance, hard work, and traditional family values were commonly taught and respected. These were not “extremist” values. And everything that I have discussed above would not have been labeled “far right extremism”. It is only because of how far left we have turned, both socially and culturally, that the above could be viewed as extreme. Now perhaps some of what I have discussed above is a bit romanticized, you can call me a hopeless romantic later, but at least they are rational human truths grounded in the natural order.

In the second part of my exploration, I will explore the factors which contribute to a diseased and dying society, as well as the model of what such a society looks like. I will explore the intentionally sown conflict and chaos which tears a society apart, in order to create “utopia”. I will then explore how such “utopian” elements are utterly unnatural, and can only be engineered and enforced upon society through totalitarian and centralized control.

© 2016 By AB Frank, All Rights Reserved

Read More: Marxism

This entry was posted in Culture, Society, And Political Theory. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.