It’s OK to Mourn the Queen but Hate the Monarchy

One of the most profound issues in the social sciences pertains to the interplay between individuals and societies that surround those individuals. In his famous sociological treatise on this topic, C. Wright Mills (1959) made a case for employing what he called the sociological imagination, which encourages us to think about individuals and societal structures as separate entities while, concurrently, understanding the critical interplay between them. So we can think of an individual as an individual, but it is important to understand how an individual's mind and actions are, often, unwittingly, the result of powerful and often large-scale social structures that shape who an individual is and how an individual decides to proceed in life.

In many ways, this idea sits at the core of the field of sociology, which largely seeks to establish social equality by working to change large-scale social structures to work toward this goal. Given the long history of social and fiscal inequality that have characterized so much of human history, and the many atrocities that go along with such inequality, it seems to me, as a dyed-in-the-wool egalitarianist, that this goal of the field of sociology is more than just admirable.

In fact, as a behavioral scientist who studies the human condition by employing a deep evolutionary approach to understanding who we are, I've become very interested in the work of Bingham and Souza (2009) who, along with several other scholars in this area, point out that the most common form of societal functioning under ancestral conditions largely was egalitarianism and, further, that because egalitarianism runs so deep in our history, an argument can be made that egalitarian societies tend to fare more smoothly and effectively compared with societies with profound levels of social inequality. In short, an argument can be made that egalitarianism is a good thing.

This said, it seems important to, as Wright suggested, be able to step back and see individuals as unwitting products of social structures. And it seems important to be able to work toward social equality at the level of social structures and not at the level of individuals. That is, to work toward social equality on a large scale, changing social structures, rather than attacking individuals, seems like a most effective strategy.

Let's Not Blame the Queen

Source: Darelle / Pixabay

From the perspective outlined above, I have to say that I have been a bit surprised by the reaction of some to her passing. I've heard many talk about her exclusively in terms of her role in the structural factors of colonialism and large-scale social inequality. And I've heard people mocking her in the same breath. I have to say, as a humanist and egalitarianist, I've been disappointed a bit by this brand of reaction.

Sure, it's no secret that the United Kingdom has a long history of colonialism, social inequality, and social injustice. The early history of the United States itself, ultimately leading to an all-out bloody revolution, speaks to this point.

This said, as Wright pointed out years ago in describing the sociological imagination, to move toward social equality, we need to be able to tease apart individuals from the social structures that surround them. And focus efforts toward change on the larger social structures, rather than on individuals themselves.

Queen Elizabeth did not create the system of monarchy and its dark counterpart, colonialism. These social structures existed beyond her and were put into place well before she was born.

Instead of seeing her as a faceless cog in the machine of colonialism, we can think of her as an individual who, like any individual, existed in a particular historical and political context, with large-scale environmental factors surrounding her life, often beyond her own consciousness.

When people start scoffing at someone's death and blaming that person for atrocities that owe to social structures that exist largely beyond their control, I'd say that we are losing our own humanity a bit in the process.

We Can Mourn the Queen's Passing and Work Toward Social Equality

The colonialism and concomitant social injustices that go along with it which are embedded in British culture are not the fault of Queen Elizabeth. She was a human who lived a long, complex life that, as is true for most of us, included a complex combination of beauty and tragedy. Hers was a human story. And I'd say that, even if you are ardently against monarchies for any number of reasons, we can still see the queen as an individual human and appreciate her life in this way.

At the same time, we can work to address issues such as social inequality and colonialism by working to educate people about these issues as well as how we can affect social structures to make large-scale changes.

In other words, we can be respectful regarding Queen Elizabeth's passing and be anti-elitism and work toward social equality on a larger scale. These need not be mutually exclusive endeavors.

Motivation Essential Reads

The Most Underutilized Form of Motivation

Is Setting Goals Healthier than Enjoying Life?

Bottom Line

Attitudes about the recent death of Queen Elizabeth have been mixed, with many mourning deeply and genuinely while others are responding mainly to socially unjust aspects of monarchy as a system. Based on the idea of the sociological imagination, famously put forth by groundbreaking sociologist C. Wright Mills (1959), I'd say that we should be able to see Queen Elizabeth as an individual and, concurrently, work toward social goals that match our own values that bear on the broader human experience.

In other words, one can be both sad for Queen Elizabeth and her family while, at the same time, being fiercely egalitarianist and against large-scale societal systems such as monarchy that work against the goals of social equality.

***

Thanks to Shannon Guyton for her thoughtful insights into this topic that helped shape this piece.