The Sorting Problem

The fundamental question raised by the sorting problem is: how does a collective continue to organize and order its values as a whole, if individuals within that collective continually move toward others with similar values? The problem this question presents, however, is not a problem at all. Durkheim already addressed this question directly in his work, Division of labour in Society. Instead of rebuilding the infrastructure to answer this question, we will use Durkheim as a starting point.

To begin, what exactly is the problem? In ancient societies, division of labor was very low. Most individuals performed the same daily tasks. Farming, hunting, and weaving were all necessary societal tasks that most people performed. Durkheim argues that low division of labor led to low diversity of values, beliefs, and worldviews. When everyone lives similar lives, everyone typically holds similar values and beliefs. To add to this, religious diversity barely existed within collectives in ancient times. Most societies had one mythology, or religion, that built individuals’ worldviews. This creates a system of ‘mechanical solidarity’, where the individuals are bound together by their sameness. He argues that this sameness forms a ‘collective consciousness’ in which individuals share the same perspective and worldview.

As populations grow and people pack more densely into larger cities and communal areas, they interact with others more frequently. Durkheim explains that this creates an intense competition for resources. Individuals specialize in different trades instead of competing for the same jobs, creating many niches. As a result, people no longer live identical lives. Durkheim’s earlier explanation of a ‘collective consciousness’ weakens because individuals have unique perspectives shaped by their niche in society.

Society does not fall apart because of this. Instead, new bonds form. Durkheim calls this ‘organic solidarity’. Individuals specialize in unique niches, so they become interdependent. A shoemaker needs a baker, a baker needs a farmer, a farmer needs a doctor. Different professions need each other to survive. Society builds its laws as a civil contract between professions to settle disputes and restore cooperation when it breaks down.

Building upon Durkheim’s principles to address how the same process follows along with the value structures from the individual level to the collective level. Individuals naturally form small groups around their niches, interests, beliefs, hobbies, etc. However, these groups are not exempt from cooperating with one another. As Durkheim points out, each group needs another to fulfill various needs. Cooperation then becomes a mandatory agreement between groups for society’s larger collective to function.

Stepping back to understand the value structures within a group. As a group forms around a niche, its members cooperate to build a value structure within the group. This group-wide value structure forms a sub-collective among its members. Each individual group in a society can form sub-collectives. Looking back at the examples we used for Durkheim’s position, bakers might align with other bakers in their immediate vicinity, farmers with other farmers, and doctors with other doctors. What each of these sub-collective groups values will vary depending on the niche’s focus. For example, a doctor will likely value medical research above the interests of a local bakery. Whereas a shoemaker will likely not value medical research, at least not at the top of the value structure. Leaving each group with its own hierarchical value structure with largely varying peaks.

Cooperation between these groups requires an agreement on values between two sub-collectives with vastly different value structures. Durkheim already explained why these groups tend to cooperate rather than isolate themselves, but he does not explain how individuals come together for large-scale projects that require cooperation from the collective as a whole. Examples include infrastructure, education, safety, and transportation, which cannot be accomplished without value-based agreement from the entire collective. These challenges can be addressed only through cooperative value judgments between sub-collectives.

Because sub-collectives tend towards cooperating in a society, they must find a way to agree on values. They do this by averaging the most important values for each sub-collective. In fact, the sub-collectives essentially form the building blocks for the collective as a whole. They must negotiate with each other to agree on common values across sub-collectives. In this cooperation, a structure forms that the majority agrees with and follows.

Because the collective remains the totality of individuals within a given structure, some sub-collectives will be larger than others. Larger sub-collectives will have more influence over the value structure. However, a sub-collective must also appease other sub-collectives to maintain its influence. Agreement must be based on cooperation, which naturally limits even the largest sub-collectives' influence. We see this in modern writers’ strikes. The writers’ needs were not met, so they went on strike to protest the lack of consideration for their values.

What survives the cooperation process between various sub-collectives is a generalization of the value structures found within them. Whereas niche-specific values rise to the top within groups, general, collective-focused values rise to the top in the collective. At the collective level, artists might value creativity and aesthetics; athletes might value athletic ability and intelligence; doctors might value education, medical funding, and research. At the collective level, these group-level values sink lower in the hierarchy, and generic values rise to the top, reflecting Schwarz’s self-transcendent values such as benevolence, fairness, or security. This doesn’t mean sub-collective values never rise to the top. In many cases, they may, but the general trend points towards values that emphasize collective cooperation and support.

Another point to emphasize is that values at the peak of a sub-collective’s value structure do not disappear when transitioning to the collective. They simply move down the hierarchy, below the self-transcendent values at the top.