No Individual without Society

I have been talking on a Philosophy board recently and the discussion led my thinking to the Individual vs Society debate. I started wondering what came first, the Individual or Society?

This may seem like a silly question, because the point was made that no society can exist without the individuals that comprise it, and I would have to admit that it is a valid point indeed ..... Except there is a little voice nagging at the back of my head that the issue is not as simple as I may think it is.

When we define an individual, we invariable define him/her in terms of other people (society?). To talk of a human individual, we need to talk about the traits that is distinctive about the individual and that separates it from the norm, or society. We will need to talk about personality.

If we take the Big Five personality model as a base, and look at the five traits that define a person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_psychology), it is easy to see that these qualities are comparative. For example, a person may fit somewhere on a sliding scale of being either More or Less open to new experiences, compared to either the Norm, or someone else. With these Big Five personality model traits, you would be able to define an individual, but what you are doing in actual fact, is comparing that individual to others. Without his/her society, there could be no comparison, and therefor there could be no individual.

How could one say then, that you have the individual first and then society, if it is impossible to define an individual without society?

Individuality is defined as "the particular character, or aggregate of qualities, that distinguishes one person or thing from others; sole and personal nature" by the On-Line Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individuality) while one of the definitions of 'society' is "a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society).

If you look closely at the above, you will notice that the one cannot really do without the other, and you therefore have a true 'chicken-and-egg' dilemma.

Another question that begs to be answered then, is what are we actually talking about when we pit the Individual against Society? From the above defintion, a society seems completely benevolent. It provides 'protection, continuity, security and a national identity' for its members. Why does one so often hear then that the individual has to struggle for his/her freedom from society?

I will endeavor to answer the above question in the next post.

Until then, fare thee well fellow adventurers.