Hypothesis (in one way or another formulated by sociology and other perspectives): (Modern) Societies
(as abstract, generalised, principally anonymously organised social entities/orientational shapes)
outsource the most tense (or most contradictory etc.) parts of their constitution (which are based more or less on the contradictions/ambiguity of the human constitution/condition).
a) unavoidably, or b) because of a–more or less contingent–way they organise/represent those contradiction outsourcing.
Therefore they work more efficiently and can hold together more human beings than any communitarian/community-mode-organised social entities. And therefore societies are hypocritical. Maybe more so than communities. They don’t face/openly admit (in a metaphorical sense, though societies are no actors) their ambiguities and the value-particularistic non-generality of the different normative groups within society. The (supposed) fact that societies do not openly (in a general way and publicness) debate the (probably) unreconcilable differences and contradictions within and between their groups and parts, is maybe a basic condition for/of their existence.