As students, we are quick to associate amongst each other in select groups. These groups are often referred to as cliques, but appear in many different forms.

The foundation of these social groups can be based on the location of where we live, rooted in our shared interests or beliefs or based on common heritage or ancestry. It should be obvious that our division into social groups is not unique to students, but occurs just as often, if not more so, among the broader population as well.

The arrangement of human beings into distinct social groups is strongly rooted in history. People separated from at least one cohesive social group tend to be labeled as outcasts. If interference occurs with the bonding among these social groups, not only do people on an individual level lose their sense of purpose, but, on a collective level, inevitably find a broader moral and cultural breakdown.

This is where the pursuit of government policies that are radically libertine or individualistic are destructive to our civilization. We must make a distinction between the authentic, traditional understandings of liberty that are rooted in American history and its philosophical forerunners, and the seemingly misguided notions of individual liberty commonly accepted today.

British anthropologist Robin Dunbar has studied human interactions and found that human beings are capable of maintaining about 150 stable relationships with other people. We can deduce from this data that, absent strong common societal ground rules, societies formed with members beyond this number will begin to notice discord among the members.

This can very well explain why nationwide socialism, and other collectivist, political philosophies tend not to be as successful as theorized. These philosophies may be successful if they were far smaller in scope.

In addition to the size, there are two other concerns. The first is the lack of a common moral framework to hold the group together, and the second is the lack of a genuine love and affection between the different members. Without all three components, there will simply be too much mistrust, suspicion and cheating for such a system to work properly.

There is a similar failure among intensely individualistic political schemes, including systems that have become closely identified with America, including laissez-faire capitalism and, in the last five decades, moral permissiveness.

There is nothing inherently wrong with free enterprise and private businesses. The only trouble is that, without a shared cultural destiny and common moral framework, these systems can become heartless and cruel. It is necessary for people to have a shared loyalty to one another, as fellow citizens and fellow Americans.

Examining the problems with our traditional left-right political divide could lead us to conclude the reestablishment of a tribal system would be the most ideal form of human organization, but this is not necessarily the case. There are many things that we as Americans can start changing to correct some of the mistakes that we have made in recent times.

The American system was specifically designed by the founding fathers to recognize our imperfect human tendencies. The devolution and federalization of governmental authority in the direction of the states and our local cities and towns was ideal for forming such a system.

We know that we have the most say in our affairs when we are among our family, less among our neighborhood, and even less on the national level. By devolving government authority towards the levels closer to the individual, we are able to gain a stronger sense of control in our lives and identity in our purpose.

Local control provides a natural check on large businesses, since local communities will pose their own regulations on these enterprises. This will defend against large businesses commanding monopoly-level market-share in a very organic way, without excessive bureaucratic, nationwide regulation.

There is a cynicism in participating in a socialist political system since we often do not know ‘- and do not trust ‘- the people who benefit from communal largess; and, we feel that our own contributions are not properly rewarded.

In order to counteract this, it is necessary to have a sense of shared tradition and ritual within our communities in order to foster the necessary bonding between people of disparate backgrounds and varying personalities. Traditions and rituals aid in overcoming the natural distrust among people.

By honestly having concern for our fellows, the desire to help those who are in trouble becomes second nature, is ultimately beneficial, to our society.

The American founders allowed for all of these things to be done in our communities. We can start at the University of Massachusetts. The student organizations that we join are reflective of our human tendency to affiliate in groups. We can channel this for the benefit of the organizations we are involved with, our larger community, and all of our fellow men.

Eric Magazu is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].