## Sociality vs. The Social: A Study in Mass Society This text explores the complex relationship between sociality (the inherent human drive for connection and community) and the "social" as constructed by political and intellectual forces. It argues that traditional sociological approaches often fail to grasp the true nature of the masses, viewing them through a pejorative lens shaped by preconceived notions of order and progress. The core argument is that the masses, in their chaotic and unpredictable nature, possess a "puissance" – a power – that transcends the project-oriented logic of political systems. ### The Limitations of Political Sociology Traditional social science, the text argues, often reduces the masses to a mere object of study, a "shapeless mass" to be molded into a "subject of history." This approach, driven by a logic of "ought," leads to either scorn or abstract idealization, depending on whether the masses conform to the pre-defined ideal. A common mistake is to view the masses as a homogenous entity, ignoring their inherent contradictions and complexities. Think of how revolutions are often portrayed: a heroic narrative focusing on key leaders, overlooking the diverse motivations and experiences of the participating masses. This perspective, the author contends, is inherently limited because it fails to understand the masses' primary "project": their own enduring existence amidst social and natural impediments. This is no small feat, and deserves recognition beyond the judgment of political projects. Consider Machiavelli's perspective: shifting focus from the palace to the public square offers a different understanding of power dynamics. ### The Primacy of the Local and the Popular The author advocates for a shift in perspective, prioritizing the "local," the territorial, and the proxemic. This means understanding societies through the lens of local knowledge, rather than imposing universal, projective truths. This requires the intellectual to become a participant observer, engaging with the everyday knowledge of the masses. This approach echoes the Russian Narodnik movement, which emphasized understanding the peasantry's perspective. This shift highlights the crucial role of the masses in shaping history and political events. Major historical events, the text argues, are not solely the product of leaders or objective causes, but rather emerge from a collective "puissance," an indefinable force that unites the masses. The French Revolution, the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre, and the Reign of Terror are cited as examples where the actions of the masses, rather than individual leaders, were the driving force. ### The Mystical Dimension of Sociality The author suggests that this "puissance" has a mystical or mythical dimension, drawing on the work of Karl Mannheim and Walter Benjamin. This isn't necessarily religious in the traditional sense, but rather refers to a logic of union, a shared experience that binds individuals together. This resonates with Marx's view of politics as a secular form of religion. This mystical dimension is often found in popular religious practices, which prioritize being-together over individual salvation. The author contrasts this with the individualistic ideology often associated with official religious institutions. The author uses Zen Buddhism and Taoism in China as a contemporary example of a popular religious practice that resists state ideology. The author proposes a "sociological law": social structures are only worthwhile insofar as they remain adequate for the popular base that supports them. The decline of institutions often reflects a disconnection from this base. ### The Masses and the Political Order The text contrasts "power" (the ability to manage life) with "puissance" (the drive for survival). The masses, it argues, are primarily concerned with survival, exhibiting a versatility and "insolence" towards political power. Their allegiances shift based on their perceived self-interest, demonstrating a non-adherence to the political domain. This "insolence" is a form of resistance, a refusal to be fully controlled by political systems. This versatility is not simply capriciousness; it's a strategy for survival, a way of prioritizing the essential over the ad hoc. The author argues that the masses' primary responsibility is to triumph over death, both literal and metaphorical (imposed by political-economic systems). ### The Mass and Individualism The text challenges the notion that the decline of politics equates to a retreat into individualism. Instead, it suggests that the saturation of the political form coincides with the saturation of individualism. The rise of conformity, group identity ("tribes"), and standardized culture points to a loss of the individual in favor of a less distinct mass. This mass is characterized by a fluidity of identity, a "cultural stockpot" of experiences and values. The author contrasts the individual (free, contracting, project-oriented) with the person (dependent, playing a role within a social context). The mass, belonging to the latter category, is characterized by its "monstrosity," its embrace of chaos and the natural world, which civilization often seeks to deny. The concept of "similarity," a key element of the "we," acts as an intermediary between the natural and social worlds. The text concludes by emphasizing the enduring strength of collective will to live, a "recalcitrant sociality" that resists domestication. This force, operating beyond the confines of political systems, is the true source of societal perdurability.