What should a society preserve and what must it be willing to change?

 

Societies endure by transmitting language, knowledge, values, institutions, memories, material resources, and expectations from one generation to the next. Human development therefore never begins in isolation: every person enters an already existing symbolic, social, institutional, and ecological world. This inheritance provides the stability needed for communication, cooperation, identity formation, and cumulative cultural development. At the same time, transmission is never neutral. It determines which knowledge is recognized, whose experiences are represented, how opportunities are distributed, and which power relations continue[1].

Language is a fundamental infrastructure of transmission. It enables thought, communication, collective memory, identity formation, and the imagination of possible futures. Linguistic categories influence how people interpret reality without completely determining their thinking. Language can preserve cultural diversity and support dialogue, but dominant language standards can also marginalize groups and legitimize existing hierarchies. Polarizing political and digital discourse may reinforce social divisions, whereas inclusive communication, mediation, and critical reflection can create new interpretations and possibilities for cooperation. Non-verbal communication is equally important because emotional attunement, gestures, and embodied interaction shape trust, attachment, empathy, and perceptions of status from early childhood onward[2].

Intergenerational transmission takes place through an interconnected institutional ecosystem. Families provide primary socialization, emotional security, language, behavioral expectations, and stories about identity and belonging[3]. They can support development but may also reproduce prejudice, hierarchy, trauma, and unequal expectations. Education systematically transmits knowledge, skills, civic norms, and cultural traditions[4]. It can promote critical thinking and social mobility, yet it can also reproduce inequality through unequal access, culturally biased standards, and decisions about which knowledge belongs in the curriculum. Educational canons should therefore preserve valuable knowledge while remaining open to revision and previously excluded perspectives.

Media and digital platforms have greatly accelerated transmission and expanded access to information[5]. However, algorithmic selection, concentrated platform power, misinformation, unequal digital literacy, and technological bias influence which ideas become visible and credible. Rituals, commemorations, and cultural practices also transmit values and memories by connecting shared narratives with embodied and emotional experiences. They can strengthen solidarity and continuity but may become exclusionary when membership or legitimacy is defined too narrowly. A plural institutional environment, in which families, schools, media, science, law, and cultural institutions can correct one another, is less vulnerable to ideological rigidity than a system dominated by a single source of authority[6].

Social reproduction becomes problematic when inherited structures systematically concentrate wealth, education, cultural capital, networks, recognition, and political influence[7]. The distinction is especially important in business succession. Preserving a viable enterprise, employment, knowledge, and long-term investment may justify targeted deferral or conditional relief where immediate taxation would create a demonstrable continuity risk. It does not follow that every heir should receive the same advantage. An heir who sells an inherited interest and receives liquid wealth no longer carries the same continuity burden. A defensible arrangement follows the enterprise and the continuing commitment, not kinship alone, and withdraws relief when the stated purpose is not fulfilled.

Inequality is transmitted not only through material inheritance but also through institutional selection, social expectations, legitimating narratives, and the internalization of advantage or exclusion[8]. Historical structures connected to class, race, gender, colonialism, and other forms of domination can therefore continue even after their original legal foundations have disappeared. Yet reproduction is not deterministic. Individuals, communities, social movements, and responsive institutions can reinterpret inherited conditions and create new opportunities.

Collective memory forms another major dimension of transmission. Societies do not simply preserve historical facts; they select, organize, and interpret the past through education, family stories, museums, monuments, public ceremonies, literature, and media. These narratives shape collective identity, political legitimacy, moral judgment, and expectations about the future. Because memory is selective, it is also a field of power. Dominant groups may elevate certain experiences while marginalizing others, including Indigenous knowledge, oral traditions, and the histories of colonized or excluded communities[9].

War, genocide, slavery, colonial domination, repression, and other forms of collective violence may continue across generations through family narratives and silences, emotional patterns, social stigma, cultural representations, and enduring institutional inequalities. Denial and imposed forgetting may protect dominant identities or temporarily suppress conflict, but they can also prolong distrust and prevent recognition. Social healing does not require erasing the past. It requires acknowledgment, truthful historical investigation, public testimony, inclusive education, institutional reform, and—where appropriate—apologies, reparative measures, or truth and reconciliation processes[10]. Collective memory becomes constructive when historical narratives remain open to evidence, plural perspectives, and critical reinterpretation.

Intergenerational responsibility should not be understood as inherited personal guilt[11]. Present generations are generally not individually culpable for actions committed before their birth. They nevertheless participate in institutions shaped by history and may benefit from, sustain, or reform structures that still produce unequal outcomes. Responsibility is therefore primarily structural and future-oriented: individuals and institutions share an obligation to examine inherited arrangements and contribute, according to their position and capacity, to reducing avoidable injustice.

This responsibility also extends to future generations, which cannot directly represent their interests in present political decisions[12]. Climate change, ecological degradation, public debt, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other long-term developments can profoundly affect their freedoms and opportunities. Responsible policy must therefore preserve not only material resources but also the ecological, institutional, cultural, and political conditions that allow future generations to shape their own societies. Such responsibility must remain bound by realistic capacity, demonstrable causal connections, and democratically legitimate procedures. Without these limits, it risks becoming moralistic, politically divisive, or practically impossible.

The central alternative to rigid social reproduction is correctable transmission: the intergenerational transfer of knowledge, values, practices, institutions, and memories combined with mechanisms that permit criticism, reinterpretation, and reform. Continuity without correctability produces dogmatism, entrenched inequality, epistemic closure, unresolved trauma, and institutional stagnation. Correctability without sufficient continuity, however, can undermine social trust, shared reference points, and coordinated action. Development therefore depends on balancing preservation with revision.

Correctable and development-promoting transmission requires several minimum conditions:

• Epistemic openness: inherited beliefs and narratives remain subject to evidence, criticism, and new knowledge.
• Plurality of perspectives: different social experiences, cultural traditions, and forms of knowledge can enter public interpretation.
• Institutional reflexivity: institutions can evaluate their own effects, accept accountability, and reform harmful practices.
• Meaningful participation: citizens and affected groups can influence education, public debate, policymaking, and institutional development.
• Historical reflection: societies preserve institutional memory while critically examining injustice, failure, and trauma.
• Social mobility and access to opportunity: education, employment, cultural resources, and political participation are not permanently concentrated within inherited groups.
• Dialogue and mutual recognition: disagreement can be addressed through communication that treats others as legitimate participants rather than enemies.

Science, independent media, courts, democratic deliberation, education, and participatory institutions can provide mechanisms for correction. Their effectiveness depends on a broader culture that values critical dialogue, historical awareness, ambiguity, and pluralism. When these conditions are present, societies become more resilient: they can recognize mistakes, integrate new knowledge, respond to crises, and reform institutions without losing all continuity.

Transmission also creates space for agency, hope, and transformation[13]. Human beings are shaped by inherited structures, but they are not passive products of them. Agency develops through relationships, knowledge, organization, and access to responsive institutions. Social movements demonstrate how groups can turn experiences of exclusion into collective demands for recognition, rights, and institutional reform. Hope functions as a social infrastructure when credible narratives of alternative futures help people coordinate action. It becomes manipulative when political promises are detached from genuine possibilities for participation and change.

The quality of a society can consequently be evaluated not only through economic performance or formal institutions, but also through the way it organizes transmission. Relevant indicators include educational accessibility and quality, intergenerational mobility, openness of cultural and knowledge systems, inclusiveness of language and public memory, institutional correctability, and protection against structural inequality.

Three principles summarize this framework. The continuity principle recognizes the need for shared knowledge, institutions, and cultural reference points. The correction principle requires inherited arrangements to remain revisable when they cause harm or lose legitimacy. The plurality principle protects multiple experiences and interpretations from domination by a single authoritative narrative. Together, these principles make intergenerational transmission a possible foundation not only for social stability, but also for human development, collective learning, and institutional renewal.

 

Would you like to explore how a relational understanding of humanity can transform democracy, law, the economy, and public institutions? Click the link below to read the full book, Becoming Human Together, and discover a new framework for building a more humane, democratic, and correctable society within ecological limits.

(PDF) Becoming Human Together: Rethinking Democracy, Power and Institutions for a Complex and Changing World

---

[1] Richerson and Boyd, Not by Genes Alone; Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization; Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, 2nd ed. (London: Sage, 1990 [1970]). These sources address cultural inheritance, memory, and institutional reproduction from different perspectives.

[2] Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power; John J. Gumperz, Discourse Strategies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Linguistic categories shape attention and participation but do not mechanically determine thought.

[3] Annette Lareau, Unequal Childhoods, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011); Bowlby, Attachment and Loss; Yehuda and Lehrner, “Intergenerational Transmission of Trauma Effects.”

[4] Bourdieu and Passeron, Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture; Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2011 [1976]); Lareau, Unequal Childhoods.

[5] van Dijck, Poell, and de Waal, The Platform Society; Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral, “The Spread of True and False News Online”; UNESCO, Global Framework of Reference on Digital Literacy Skills for Indicator 4.4.2 (Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2018).

[6] Ostrom, “Beyond Markets and States”; Longino, Science as Social Knowledge. Institutional plurality can improve opportunities for correction, but it can also create fragmentation, duplication, and gaps in responsibility.

[7] Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital”; Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014); Lareau, Unequal Childhoods.

[8] Miles Corak, “Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27, no. 3 (2013): 79–102, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.3.79; Raj Chetty et al., “Where Is the Land of Opportunity?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, no. 4 (2014): 1553–1623, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022. The empirical estimates are context-specific and do not identify one universal mechanism.

[9] Halbwachs, On Collective Memory; Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Silencing the Past (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995); Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization.

[10] Hayner, Unspeakable Truths; Pablo de Greiff, ed., The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), https://doi.org/10.1093/0199291926.001.0001. Effects depend on political context, victim participation, implementation, and accompanying institutional reform

[11] Young, Responsibility for Justice; Janna Thompson, Taking Responsibility for the Past (Cambridge: Polity, 2002).

[12] Weiss, In Fairness to Future Generations; Stephen M. Gardiner, A Perfect Moral Storm (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); United Nations General Assembly, Pact for the Future, Resolution A/RES/79/1, 22 September 2024, https://docs.un.org/A/RES/79/1.

[13] Tilly and Tarrow, Contentious Politics; Albert O. Hirschman, Shifting Involvements (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982); Rebecca Solnit, Hope in the Dark, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2016). Hope is used here as a social and interpretative resource, not a directly measured causal variable.