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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Society started with Eve (metaphorically speaking OR religious if you are that way). When man began there had to be a male and a female unless the first were hermaphrodite. I guess that part is anyone's best guess unless you were there. Perspective is all relative and needs something to be relative to. My guess is the individual is the concept and that society is the foundation premise. I look forward to your next installment, thanks for letting me know about this blog/site.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the encouragement and for the style tips made in the Polymathica group. I will play around a bit and ask for some feedback once I find something I like.
ReplyDeleteI like.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sending me the link to this. I'm finding your work inspiration and it certainly tackles some of the issues that I have said are important for the debate. Instead of dodging important distinctions here (as some people might), you have given a clear break down of the definitions of "individuality" and "society."
ReplyDeleteI would only add that I think that the person who says "there are no pre-society individuals" and the person who says "pre-society individuals are possible" only seem to be using the word "individual" differently. Yes, within society, we define individuals through their personal qualities and individuality by making comparisons. When Vicjasin says that there must have been a first individual, he is right, but he is using the word 'individual' in a different sense. I believe that both senses are used validly as long as the communicator clarifies what he/ she is talking about.
Hi Andre
ReplyDeleteGlad to see your passion for philosphy remains unabated:-) I was wondering if you have come across the ideas of Michael Foucault? It's social constructionist, takes a different tack to the invidividual/society problem. In a nutshell - and I know I won't do it justice - the basic idea is that who we are is socially constructed; we are shaped and constrained by the language that is used in society. The big narratives in society means that certain "ways of being" are available to us, whilst others aren't. For example, I am a woman and an immigrant. Who I am and can be is shaped by the dominant narratives in society on what a woman and an immigrant "is". From a social constructionist view, there is no such "thing" as a woman, it is how we talk about a woman that defines what a woman can be... anyway, can't do it justice, and half of his ideas are way above my head. But social constructionism offers interesting views on the relationship between the individual and society... Interesting stuff!
Niccie