Is society anything more than the sum of its individual parts?

Candidate No. 84803

Margaret Thatcher once very famously claimed that “there is no such thing as society”, but merely individuals and families. This point of view stresses that society is nothing more than the ‘sum of its individual parts’, however throughout this essay I plan to discuss and evaluate the assumptions of this claim, and present an opposing side to this argument. This is an extremely individualistic view, and if this were the case and society did not exist, why the need for a Prime Minister or Government in the first place? Emile Durkheim presents a very strong argument as to why society is ‘more than the sum of its individual parts’, and I plan to discuss this theory in more depth throughout the essay.

Durkheim believes that individual action is shaped very heavily by social structure. Durkheim’s ‘Holist Project’ claims that within society there are ‘Social Facts’ which are external to, and not reducible to the individual. ‘Social Facts’ reflect conformity; collective behaviour and collective ways of acting, thinking and feeling. Durkheim tries to establish the existence of social causality beyond the level of the individual, as quoted by Durkheim himself, “the individual is dominated by a moral reality which transcends him – a collective reality” (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.92). Therefore, Durkheim is proposing that the overriding norms, values and beliefs of society form a collective way of behaving which is external to the individual. Therefore, in this sense, the collective dominates the individual, suggesting that society is a lot more than just the sum of its individual parts.

Social Facts exert a cohesive and generalised influence on the behaviour of society, “When I fulfil my obligations as brother, husband or citizen, when I execute my contracts, I perform duties which are defined, externally to myself and my acts, in law and in custom” (Durkheim, E 1938 pg. 1). In this respect, individuals ‘learn’ their own reality objectively through society. People have roles, for example the role of a brother, husband or citizen, and this is customary within society. Norms and values and ‘social facts’ influence individuals greatly, forming a collective society as a result. Therefore, Margaret Thatcher’s claim, rejecting the concept of society, now appears highly contradictory. How would she explain collective social trends and customs over time? For example trends in fashion, or views on marriage and living arrangements? These strong patterns in behaviour reflect the power of society as a whole, not as a sum of its individual parts and individual actions.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Durkheim is stressing the importance of collective behaviour as opposed to individual behaviour, and in doing so is providing a clear answer to the question set, showing that society is not just the sum of its individual parts. “Every man is born into an on-going society which already has a definite organisation or structure, and which conditions his own personality” (Giddens, A 1971 pg 87), this quote is highlighting the impact of society on the individual, claiming that society “conditions” and creates an individuals personality. Giddens gives the example of a church-member, whose beliefs and practises of religious life are ready-made at birth. These beliefs existed through society before him, all will continue to do so after his death, therefore he had no impact on his own religious beliefs at all. The rules of society were enforced upon the individual at birth, highlighting how strongly the individual is influenced by ‘social facts’ and norms and values within society. This is quite a strong argument, suggesting that the individual is just a product of its surroundings, and does not have the power to ‘create’ those surroundings independently.

However, this argument may be highly criticised. It could be debated that the individual has total control over their beliefs and actions, and can resist the power of the collective, especially in contemporary society. As a result of the mass media, the education system and an increasingly multicultural society, individuals are becoming more diversified, more aware and better educated. Due to technology people can travel around the world and view contrasting cultures and societies and open their eyes to new and different ways of living, which may clash with the ‘collective norm’ in their own society. It could be argued that social institutions are weakening as a result of this, as ethnicity and religion can vary greatly in each society so may the norms and values, weakening this cohesive ‘force’. Perhaps the power of the individual is strengthened as a result? Therefore society has become the ‘sum of its individual parts?’

However, the mass media and the education system are both monitored and influenced by the Government. In schools, children are only taught what is on the National Curriculum. This is highly limited, and similarly the mass media have the power only to show us and inform us of certain things that they decide upon. Both methods are highly biased, therefore perhaps individual choice and knowledge is limited, and determined by a collective force outside of individual control? Perhaps Margaret Thatcher’s famous claim had a hidden political agenda, with the aim of removing social responsibility away from the Government, on to the individual. Thus stopping ‘society’ and the Government from being blamed for social problems, which may lead to increased expenditure on benefits, and laying all the ‘blame’ upon the individual, leaving them to act independently. In this sense, perhaps a little cynical as it is, it could be argued that even political views are imposed upon us collectively, which reinforces Durkheim’s point even further, and shows again how society is not just the ‘sum of its individual parts’.

Durkheim’s study of ‘Suicide’, carried out in 1897, shows how even the most seemingly individual act of all can in fact be explained with regard to ‘social facts’ and collective forces. Therefore even the most personal and individualistic act is determined by society. Durkheim explores the importance of social integration, and from his research presents four different ‘types’ of suicide; ‘egoistic’, ‘altruistic’, ‘anomic’ and ‘fatalistic’.

‘Egoistic’ suicide is supposedly the result of excessive individualism, where the individual detaches himself away from social life and the ties binding the individual to society weaken. The “individual ego asserts itself to excess in the face of social ego” (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.166) and this excessive individualism, and detachment from society, causes distress and the consequent act of suicide. ‘Altruistic’ suicide is the opposite of this, and is a product of too much social integration, where the individual is too weak to resist the forces of the social group. “Where a person wants to kill himself it is not because he takes upon himself the right to do so, but, on the contrary, because it is his duty” (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.107) An example of this is in War, where individual personality counts for very little and a person is very strongly integrated, to a detrimental extreme. This is a result of insufficient individualism, as opposed too excessive, where the individual loses personal identity to the social group to which he belongs.

‘Anomic’ suicide is a product of ‘lack of regulation’ by society. This occours in times of crises when there is a disturbance of the collective order, for example in times of economic distress or depression, “Every disturbance of equilibrium, even though it may involve greater comfort and a raising of the general pace of life, provides an impulse to voluntary death” (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.109). Finally, in contrast to this, ‘Fatalistic’ suicide occours when the individual is subject to over regulation by society, for example suicide in prison, where rules and regulations are imposed so strongly and forcefully upon the individual that they cannot cope.

Durkheim aimed to look at the act of suicide within society, not as an individual act, but collectively, in order to find social patterns of behaviour. Durkheim found that each population has it’s own suicide rate, and that “for each population there is a collective force with a particular strength which impels men to kill themselves” (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.115). Therefore, Durkheim is claiming that there is a strong link between the act of suicide and the social environment of the individual. His research showed that social institutions and “marriage, divorce, family, religious society, the army e.t.c” affect the rate of suicide, and as a result of this “one stops seeing these states and institutions as just inconsequential, ineffective ideological arrangements. Rather, they are felt to be real, living, active forces” (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.92). These ‘active forces’ are enforced by society and social processes, and have a collective impact on rates of suicide. This shows how society is more than the ‘sum of its individual parts’, as Durkheim is claiming that suicide is a consequence created by social processes within society, not individually.

However, Durkheim’s work has been criticised. Suicide is an extremely personal and complex act that is very hard to interpret. It could be argued that to look at rates of suicide objectively and as ‘facts’, as Durkheim did, would not provide a valid reflection of the truth. Statistics must never be regarded as totally reliable, although Durkheim does recognise this, “What are taken to be statistics about suicide motives are in reality statistics about the opinions concerning such motives as held by officials" (Durkheim, E 1985 pg.92). Once the individual is dead it is impossible to find out their exact reasons for performing the act for sure, therefore every case must be treated with caution.

‘Methodological Individualism’ also presents an opposing argument to Durkheim’s. It implies that we are self governing, autonomous individuals, who have free will and freedom of choice within society. This view contrasts Durkheim’s and that of ‘Social Holism’ because it focuses on the importance of the individual and places no emphasis on ‘collectives’. In this respect, such a view as that of Social Holism “interprets individual men as the pawns of society, devoid of initiative, devoid even of a common and socially un-conditioned nature, conceiving them as mere parts of a self existing social organism” (Mandelbaum, M 1955 pg.316). This argument suggests that society does not determine and influence the individual, but it is the other way around. Individuals have choice and can act how they please, and social institutions and norms and values are formed as a result of this. In direct response to Durkheim, Mandelbaum states “societal facts cannot be said to have any status of their own since no such facts would exist if there were not individuals who thought and acted in specific ways” (1955 pg.309)

In conclusion, of course the existence of society presupposes the existence of individuals, and without individuals society would not exist at all. However, the answer to the question ‘is society anything more than the sum of its individual parts?’ is ‘yes’. Of course society would not exist without individuals with the ability to think and act independently; but individuals are very heavily influenced by social institutions and ‘collective forces’. Norms and values within society dictate the behaviour of individuals, which is why these differ from culture to culture all around the world. If society were just a collection of individuals, there would be no trends or patterns in social behaviour. This shows that society is a collection of both individuals and social processes, and that it is therefore more than the sum of its individual parts.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Durkheim, E ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’

1938 Chapter 1

Giddens, A ‘Capitalism and Modern Social Theory’