In sum, human nature is an issue or a matter that pertains to thought, and thought is then subject to epistemology and structure. In turn, epistemology and structure or the “epistemological regime” of a system or structure is aimed at control above all else. The “epistemological regime” is what keeps control of a society, and it enables a grip on power. In turn, the social hierarchy and social organization shape up and develop as a result of the basic character and nature of the “epistemological regime.”
And if an “epistemological regime” is to maintain control and power, it can do so if we assume and believe that the “epistemological regime” is governing and overseeing a unified society with a common culture. In other words, we assume and believe that there is a collective of people based on a certain scale and scope, held together by a common culture, which then fosters the conditions and circumstances for the hold or the grip of the “epistemological regime” over the collective or the society under question. But international society is diverse and fragmented, and as a result, the international structure which was once American and unipolar is now in a state of disorder and upheaval.
In turn, the difference between the idea of epistemology and structure being at the very heart of human nature and thought on one hand and any other idea on the other hand is the difference between a “complex” idea on one hand and a “simple” idea on the other hand. As mentioned before, it all comes down to thought, and thought itself is divided into complex and simple ideas, to borrow from Hume. Hence, the idea that epistemology and structure penetrate into the very heart of both individual and collective life is a complex idea which takes time to develop.
In short, the various subregions or subsystems of the overall structure have to “mesh” and “integrate” with one another, and this can happen only if there is a common culture between them. In turn, a common culture suggests that there are also common values between the various subregions or subsystems of the broader structure. In other words, there has to be a sense of “solidarity” which exists throughout the broader structure in order for both the structure and the “epistemological regime” of the structure to hold and sustain themselves over the course of time.
“Solidarity” is perhaps interchangeable and synonymous with “inclusivity.” A “collective” becomes a “collective” when it includes and accommodates various individuals. Hence, the structure is the same as a collective, although there is a slight difference between a structure and a collective. To borrow from Talcott Parsons:
“In one sense a social system, except for the above limiting case, may be regarded as a collectivity. But in a much more important sense a society or any at all complex partial social system is to be regarded as a network of collectivities, side by side, overlapping and larger-smaller. The concept of collectivity has here been introduced as one of the most important of the substructures of the structure of social systems, not as a name for the overall characterization of such systems.”
Nevertheless, the exact same cohesive or ingredient – namely, inclusivity – is needed in order to keep both the smaller collective and the broader structure together, which is why a collective and the broader structure are almost exactly the same as one another.
Adam A. Azim 