The three sources of our sufferings are: the superior power of nature, our own feebleness, and the inadequacy of the regulations that adjust relationships. We recognize we can never really master the first two so we must submit to nature. But we don’t admit that the third is immutable. If we’ve made the rules of civilization, than we believe they should be at least possible to realign so as to produce happiness in our relationships with each other.

But this also brings us to an astonishing recognition that we hold civilization itself largely responsible for our misery. One of the sources of this is the discovery voyages which introduced us to primitive peoples. They seemed to be leading happy lives, which made us think the problem was our civilization. Since neuroses are derived when a person can’t tolerate the level of frustration society places on him, the abolition of society would return the possibilities of happiness.

Over the last several hundred years, astonishing leaps in science and its application have brought humans increasing control over nature. Men are rightfully proud of such achievements, but these haven’t brought men more happiness in general. Clearly then, power over nature isn’t the only precondition of happiness. One difficulty is that it is hard to know in what degree men of an earlier age felt happier, and what part their cultural conditions played. We imagine their condition based on our own sensibilities and determine whether or not they would be happy based on that. But this isn’t the way to judge. What is true is that happiness is essentially subjective.

In order to assess civilization, we will need to examine its features.  
We count as cultural, all the resources and activities to make the earth serviceable for men, and protecting themselves against the forces of nature. These things are nearly all fulfillments of fairy-tale wishes. Long ago men formed an ideal conception of omnipotence and omniscience, which he embodied in his gods. He attributed to them everything unattainable. Today he has come close to that, at least when he has all the auxiliary ‘organs’ with him. But man still isn’t happy in his god-like character.

But we demand more from civilization than this. We also require beauty, cleanliness, and order. Perhaps no feature characterizes ‘civilization’ more in our minds than higher intellectual achievements, foremost of which are religious systems.

Perhaps the motive force of all human activities is striving towards two confluent goals of utility and yield of pleasure. The last of the characteristic features of civilization is the regulation of relationships among men.  

“Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separate individuals. The power of this community is set up as ‘right’ in opposition to the individual, which is condemned as ‘brute force’. This replacement of the power of the individual by the power of the community constitutes the decisive step of civilization. The essence of it lies in the fact that the members of the community restrict themselves in their possibilities of satisfaction, whereas the individual knew no such restrictions. The first requisite of civilization, therefore, is that of justice- that is, the assurance that a law once made will not be broken in favor of an individual.” The final outcome is a rule of law which all contribute to by the sacrifice of their instincts, leaving none at the mercy of brute force.

“The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization.” Civilization imposes restrictions on our instincts and what we see as rebellion against civilization may simply be revolt against some existing injustice. But it may also spring from the remains of an original personality, still untamed by civilization.

A good part of our struggles center around trying to see if we can find an expedient accommodation between the claims of the individual and the cultural claims of the group. One of the big questions is if this can be done, or whether the conflict is irreconcilable.