Society is a social agreement.
The agreement essentially is bigger than its ability to enforce itself. In other words, enforcement in a society is ultimately self-imposed or, in the end, the agreement no longer works. It borrows something from the willingness of its citizenry to participate and to cooperate with what has been agreed to.
A (potentially) too simplistic example might be a round-about. You know, the now popular circular traffic management adaptation at intersections of converging streets. Drivers essentially have to agree to know and follow the yield rules that have been established about how they work. If they don’t, there will be accidents. Since society can’t afford to have policemen at every round-about, it largely has to rely on the enforcement that each driver imposes on him or herself. When that happens, round-abouts seem to work pretty well. When it doesn’t (I’ve seen some pretty close-calls), not so much.
Though a small example, there are many like it that make up the collective ability to have what we call a society — a group of people agreeing to work with each other in mostly coherent and cooperative ways to achieve some end that serves the desired good of the group.
If a society, then, primarily functions with self-regulation for some common purpose, what happens when the society forgets what it, after all, is regulating or, perhaps more importantly, why it is doing so?
Why, for example, do vaccines even exist? Is it not for common good the society desired? Or, what about the purposes of government (what it should and shouldn't being involved in)? Does a society need certain kinds of protections (pollution, predators, rogue businesses that take advantage or harm people, etc.)? Does a society need mechanisms to promote certain ideals it values (safety, community, public-service, fire-stations, parks, etc.)?
Without such questions, we seem to end up with a narrative that focuses on whether or not things are perfect, as opposed to the purposes that need to be identified or maintained. Both, in the end, are important. But, without addressing the purpose question, it seems quite easy to get collectively lost. And, when that happens, something else breaks down about what a society is and how it functions. Chaos (at least persistent forms of it) does not enhance a society's sense of well-being (or that of its individual members).
Criticism has an important role in a society. It tests the assumptions that are often involved in society-making. But, though often resisted, it is actually the easier part of what is needed in aggregate. It is only half of the real work involved — constructing, maintaining, and perfecting what needs to be served, in order to have a healthy society.
If a society, intentionally or not, defers its ideals to enforcement mechanisms rather than to the collective action that is comprised by its members, it will head towards no longer being a society (because there is, in essence, no real functioning agreement).
When that happens, we are forced back to focus on the core question, what do we want to be...together (as a society)?
