Upholding and Forgoing the Pact

           Society is composed of people. Together, we— you, me, and everyone from Barack Obama to Paris Hilton—make up society. When I say we make up society, I should really call us the elemental framework. We do not single-handedly comprise society; instead, society is formed around a people and their set of laws or governing codes. In essence, society is sort of pact in which people, such as us, forgo complete sovereignty with the intention of maintaining a degree of social decency.

            In light of this pact, people are beholden to society; we must first fulfill our side of the bargain. We must follow the laws set within our society. With this commitment, our vow is twofold. First, we surrender our rights to what has been deemed unlawful and wrong; we relinquish our right to murder our enemy in the aftermath of conflict or steal our neighbor’s car when overcome with jealous. Second, we commit to live up to the standards set forth by the law; we must show up for jury duty, pay our taxes, and stop when the traffic light is red. Through our obedience of the law we expect society to provide a sense of structure through which we can have the potential to move forward. We expect society to do away with chaos in order to preserve a sense of order, in which we can successfully grow and progress. In essence, we anticipate that society, too, will live up to its end of the bargain.

            When the pact is rightfully fulfilled, society is beholden to its people. Society is supposed to reward people for their sacrifice with protection of basic rights. It is entrusted with the duty to ensure that personal liberties are never compromised and placed in jeopardy. In the United States, we live in a society that vows protection of our inalienable right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” We live in a society where government is designed with a Constitution and system of checks and balances that ensure that society upholds this promise to the people. With that, we expect that by paying taxes we will have good public schools, plowed roads after it snows, and response teams ready in the event of an emergency. We expect police officers to enforce traffic laws so that we get from place to place in one piece. Ultimately, we assume that by doing what is asked, society will, in turn, keep our lives in working order.

            It is important to note that this pact between people and society goes both ways. That said, when people and society both fulfill their duties, all is well. However, when either side is not in tact, the pact between people and society need not be completely upheld.

            When we, the people of society, choose not to abide by the law, society need not repay us with unedited rights. While I by no means suggest entirely stripping those who do not follow the rules of society of all their liberties, I do mean that within reason society retains the power to take away some right. For example, in response to the mass murders and conspiracy of Charles Manson, the state of California dealt him a lifetime prison sentence, limiting his rights to uninhibited life in mainstream society. Through his decision to commit crime, Manson broke his pact with society.

            In the same way that society need not reward people’s destructive behavior, when society does not hold up its promise to protect the basic rights of the people, the people need not follow the rules of that society. This idea is reiterated in the Declaration of Independence when Thomas Jefferson overtly states that to secure rights to the aforementioned “Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness,” the people maintain the right to alter or dissolve their government. The people are not obligated obey the laws of their corrupt society.  

            This idea is further illustrated in Mark Twain’s novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Growing up in the antebellum South, where slavery was legal, Huck Finn is surrounded the racism of Pap, Tom Sawyer, and the Southern society in general. Initially, Huck plays pranks on Jim, however, with each passing prank, he feels a greater sense of guilt and remorse. He begins to feel compassion for Jim in spite of his race. As their friendship evolves, Huck questions what he should do with Jim—whether he should turn Jim in or help him escape slavery. By questioning what he should do with Jim and eventually deciding to help him, Huck questions, and essentially rejects, all that he had been taught been taught about the relationship between slaves and the Southern white man.

Beyond an example of personal denunciation of societal norms, Huck Finn is a representation of the reevaluation of slavery that occurred over the course of the nineteenth century. In the midst of the fugitive slave laws, Dred Scott decision, and other pro-slavery efforts, abolitionists stood up against the government’s lack of consideration for Blacks and made attempts to combat slavery. After the conclusion of the Civil War, with more support, Americans combated aws that did not provide for equal protection  and paved the way for constitutional reform.

With that, we see that while the “give and you will receive” philosophy for the most part rings true in society, there are certainly times when our pact with society comes to a necessary standstill.