1 : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
2 a : an enduring and cooperating group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another
b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
3 a : a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <move in polite society> <literary society> b : a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners
(Websters Online Dictionary www.websters-dictionary.com)
We can see clearly from the definition from Websters that a society is based on a community, suggesting sharing and collaboration, where interaction is social and grouped. The very essence of human life is begun born in groups, raised in groups, working in groups, playing in groups, interests defended in groups, and dying in groups. These groups are organized, specialized, interdependent, and greater than the sum of their parts. In fact, individuals owe their very existence to group behaviour -- namely, the pair-bond, or the union of mother and father, maybe a reason why Ms. Thatcher had to append the social group "families" to her statement.
Group survival is how we all survive, persons making our clothing and luxuries, food and homes, without these groups we couldn’t function, however the argument may stop for society when we deliberate responsibility for this society. It is true that society cannot work without toleration however somewhere someone must be profiting from society, and these are persons perfect for the attention and individualist label. “Communism works in theory. In theory!” Homer Simpson, Matt Groening, Socialist, and even though this was said by a loveable cartoon character it displays the very reputation it has obtained, Communism however perfect in theory creates a society fair and just, whereby everyone has what they need, a perfect society, a society destined to fail, because, at the end of the day someone has to be in charge, human nature makes sure of this.
Methodological individualism, this doctrine holds that all economic and social phenomena can be traced back to, and explained by, the actions of individuals, the how. not should. Political scientist Jon Elster argues:
"A family may, after some discussion, decide on a way of spending its income, but the decision is not based on 'its' goals and 'its' beliefs, since there are no such things. Even if the final budget is a compromise that does not correspond to the wish of any single family member, then members have nonetheless agreed to the compromise, since compromising is somehow more rewarding than not compromising.” (Jon Elster. Alchemies of the Mind - Rationality and the Emotions Cambridge University Press, 1999.)
Methodological holism, the political scientists’ term ‘structure’, holds that groups consist not only of individuals, but also relationships between individuals for a common goal or goals. Individualists would argue that organizing a group best occurs at the individual level, not the group level. The problem with this argument is that organization occurs neither impulsively nor at individual level. A car factory has thousands of employees but no single worker has the complete knowledge to build an entire car. The only way to create a smooth running operation is to have workers specialize in specific areas, thus the interdependent labour of the entire group. So how does such complex interaction come into existence in the first place? Not by itself, imagine a car factory with no central organization; workers just building a car, communicating with no one except the workers whose parts are immediately connected to their own. It could turn out that the engine workers thought they were building a Mercedes Benz, while the trunk workers thought they were building a Corsa. There is an obvious need for central organization.
We cannot assume blame of central organisation to the individual, the leader; the responsibility of organising depends on the group. The President gives guidelines for groups to follow, these groups need to exact their own interaction to achieve results. The larger the company the less control, the President needs persons to help him, advise him, monitor future aspects and make sure of smooth running. We can see that the individual has control in the balance of those around them, with interaction as the means of progress.
This existence of central organisation is hugely important, as it structures the society around us. North and South Korea has central governments, individual citizens who share same cultures, language and genetic stock but their structure, N. Korea, totalitarian and S. Korea, democratic, has proved that one suffers crushing poverty and the other booming prosperity.
‘Humans are autonomous individuals’, this sociological phrase has been described as a ‘fallacy of composition’, how can the aggregate behaviour equal its individual part? Humans have high self interest, however this is evident when in social backgrounds, a lone individual would appear outwardly selfish if seen, however introduce 100 persons and we would see the selfish and generous divide, instead of a completely selfish area some individuals will give up their time to improve lifestyle in altruistic ways. However not all social behaviour can be explained individually, in the Great Depression many across the US and worldwide were experiencing mass financial problems and depression leading to suicides. Durkheim’s work illustrated and analysed suicide rates by comparing them to the type of suicide, Anomic, lack of social controls, Fatalistic, excessive social control, Egoistic, excessive individualism, poor family links, and finally Altruistic, life valued less than groups. It was obvious that the poor self worth and huge financial problems had caused many altruistic suicides, however Durkheim wanted a theory. He recognised examples of suicides and generalised them, such as; Protestantism, a very individual religion, had stronger egoistic suicides than Catholicism and anomic suicides were more characteristic of life than altruistic suicides.
Economic slumps are examples of how individual efforts are made to diverge from financial problems and group-wide recession. Keynes definition of recession is,
“During normal times, there is a circular flow of money in the economy. My spending becomes part of your earnings, and your spending becomes part of my earnings. For a wide variety of reasons, however, you may lose confidence in the economy. You may therefore decide to spend less and save more in anticipation of the tough times ahead. This may be a rational strategy for an individual, but it leads to disastrous and unintended consequences for the group when everyone does it. That is because your decision to spend less means that I earn less, which makes things tougher for me. So I follow the same personal strategy; I hoard my money, but that only makes things tougher for you. The circular flow of money falters, and the result is a full-blown recession.” ‘John Maynard Keynes’
Keynes believed that to avoid recession the banks should increase money flow to increase spending, thus social policies amended and individual efforts unneeded. This theory is still being used and depression is eliminated from out economies.
Group effort has a much higher accomplishment rate then individual, therefore tackling problems in a group is much less taxing and more productive. Living in a free market world where security is your own responsibility, with crime and pollution not overseen, and illness treated by yourselves would create mayhem, therefore social policy eliminates those threats, this is a responsibility of a central government, however rules should apply and be followed to keep the system social and not individual.
As far as our society profiting from individualism, then no-one could argue against Individualism being a good and very healthy thing, however the idea of a full society is wrong and confusing, society only works because we give it a chance to via our interventions and ideas, ideas are individual, results are social therefore to say there is no such thing as society is wrong, society in its purest sense is dead, however life works in movements and systems whereby society is present, this appears a methodical holist approach. Society is in a system whereby its faults are easily made but very difficult to fully understand and rectify, without social boundaries individualism couldn’t exist. Society exists but only because individuals and families are part of their spectrum, without their backing and solidarity society would crumble from its foundation.
Finally Oborne suggests ‘Thatcher read a distinction between externally-imposed "society" and spontaneous "community”’. Which simply means that Margaret Thatcher clearly saw the line between responsibility to look after yourself, and your immediates, and responsibility to want and not return, selfishness is individualism, and altruism our society; however without one another they cannot work therefore society is a mass of all our past learning’s and theories with not one right but each imperative to our survival. I think therefore I am.
Bibliography
www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst042798.htm -
www.cornellreview.org/ftcgart.cgi?num=11 - 10k - 9 Apr 2003
philosophy_questions_719.html
www.armchaireconomist.com/ Sad%20but%20True%20-%20The%20Meaning%20of%20Economics.pdf
Jon Elster, Alchemies of the Mind - Rationality and the Emotions, Cambridge University Press, 1999.)
Margaret Thatcher, Aids, Education and the Year 2000," Woman's Own, 3 October 1987, pp. 8-10
Friedrich A. Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order, University of Chicago Press; Reissue edition (April 1996)
Abercrombie.N, Hill.S, Turner, B, (1994) Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, third edition, London, Penguin Books.
Rob Furbey, Lecture 6, Society and Individuals, Philosophies of Social Science
