¶ … individual is a product of society, rather than its cause.' Discuss. The relationship between the individual and the society are recurrent themes and profoundly linked concepts in the fields of anthropology and sociology. While the individual is defined as a human being who is considered isolated from and separate from the broader community, the society is thought of as the aggregate of these individuals or a more holistic structure that extends beyond the individuals themselves. However, both concepts are problematic since their significance varies according to whether the approach is holistic, focusing on society, or individualistic, focusing on the individual. Therefore, the causal relationship between the individual and society is of the utmost importance in the related academic fields. Since this subject is evidently central to the study of humans, many social theorists have taken a focused interest in these relationships. A classical debate brings into conflict, advocates of society's primacy, Durkheim in the first place, and advocates of the individual's primacy, led by Weber. An evaluation the arguments of Durkheim's conception will first be presented which will try to illustrate its limitations. This will also be contrasted with the arguments of Weber's conception which will also attempt to demonstrate its shortcomings. Furthermore, the argument will be made that one should likely exceed this classical opposition in order to thoroughly understand the interactions between the individual and society.

There are numerous types of societies. Yet, when the appearances and outlooks are filtered out, one can observe two essential types of societies: collective societies and individualistic societies. In collective societies, the focus is one society's moral traits rather than the actions of a singular individual. The individuals carry value as a whole. These societies can be 'found especially in East Asia, Latin America, and Africa' (Spielberger, 2004, p.532). By contrast, the individual's desires and needs, existence and personality, are designated as the main focal point of individualistic societies. These societies can be 'found in the West, e.g. in Western and Northern Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand' (Spielberger, 2004, p.532). As maintained by Durkheim, the above-named forms of social organization correspond to two types of social solidarity. Working on his doctoral dissertation, he put forward the terms 'mechanical solidarity' and 'organic solidarity' (Durkheim, 1893, cited by Giddens, 1972). According to Durkheim, mechanical solidarity is solidarity of resemblance and disparities between individuals are little if any. The individuals, which are members of the same society, exhibit similarities because they possess and consent to the same feelings, values, and sacred beliefs. Durkheim defines this circumstance as 'conscience collective'. In contrast, organic solidarity is solidarity occurring due to the individuals' differentiation from the group. Individualism is strengthened in societies with organic solidarity. This type of solidarity is found in societies who are specialized in 'division of labor' (Durkheim, 1893, cited by Giddens, 1972).

In fact, alterations in societies resulting from the division of labor are associated with many generic changes and specific issues that influence social structure. The arising results can illustrate the differences between mechanical and organic solidarities. The individual's relationship with the society can be explained on the basis of the division of labor. That is to say, Durkheim analyzes the phenomenon of social solidarity as being dependent on division of labor, because he sees social order and solidarity crucial to society's functioning. Further, the sources of social order and solidarity are built upon the division of labor and specialization. Durkheim does not define explicitly the concept of 'division of labor'. He solely says:

" ... co-operation ... does not come about without the division of labor. To co-operate, in short, is to participate in a common task. If it is divided into tasks qualitatively similar, but mutually indispensable, there is a simple division of labor of the first degree. If they are of a different character, there is compound division of labor, specialization properly called (Durkheim, 1893, cited by Barnes, 1966, p.165)."

Durkheim provides an explanation of the social evolution in a society by considering the division of labor that is present; the first and most essential truth in society and individualism can only be explained through that fact. In other words, Durkheim believes the individual to be a product of society. Moreover, the emergence of the individualistic perspective as a singular entity is a late event. Namely, Durkheim indicates in The Division of Labor in Society that the division of labor is one of the reasons why individualism developed. As mentioned earlier, 'conscience collective' is merely a limited part of highly...

Furthermore, it follows that the more advanced the division of labor is, the weaker and blurrier the collective consciousness gets in that society. Yet, on the other hand, in societies with mechanical solidarity, the resemblance of individuals hinders the division of labor and therefore individualism is less prominent.
To support his theory, Durkheim illustrates mechanical societies' inner unity of collective feelings with the example of the Iroquois tribes of North America. Each tribe is consists of several resembling clans, forming a 'segmental society' (Morrison, 1995, p.162). The Iroquois 'live without specialized functions or privileged hierarchies or private property'. 'Adults of both sexes are equal to each other'. 'The individual is wholly absorbed by the clan' (Law, 2011, p.112; Allerton, 2015). Later, Durkheim's research on formalized forms of social organization which draws on examples of the Iroquois, is reabsorbed in British social anthropology's functionalism. Functionalism is a structural top down theory that regards society's organization as more important than the individual. By exposing functionalism's ideas, Bronislaw Malinowski, who developed this theoretical orientation, demonstrates how functional analyses follow Durkheim's position:

... the individual member of a culture must acquire the necessary skills, learn how to work and produce, appreciate the prevalent values, manage his wealth, and regulate his consumption according to the established standard of living. Among primitive peoples there will be in all this a considerable uniformity as regards all individuals. In highly civilized communities, the differentiation of labor and of functions defines the place and the productive value of the individual in society (Malinowski, 1939, p.950).

... in primitive societies the individual is completely dominated by the group ... he obeys the commands of his community, its traditions, its public opinion, its decrees, with a slavish, fascinated, passive obedience (Malinowski, 1926, p.3).

It is possible to see how this argument is being depicted in functionalism's most distinguished representatives' ethnographies. For instance, Evans-Pritchard points to the Nuer people who believe that 'there is no master and no servant in their society, but only equals who regard themselves as God's noblest creation' due to their 'hard and egalitarian upbringing' (1940, p.181). Likewise, Radcliffe-Brown shows the importance of the Andaman warriors' dance before setting out a fight in establishing a collective solidarity:

The group is to act as a group and not merely as a collection of individuals, and it is therefore necessary that the group should be conscious of its unity and solidarity ... the chief function of the dance is to arouse in the mind of every individual a sense of the unity of the social group of which he is a member, and its function before setting out to a fight is therefore apparent (Radcliffe-Brown, 1922, p.252).

Taking everything into consideration, in Durkheim's conception we can see the emergence of the idea that the individual is dissolved into the society. It is in fact the society that influences the individual, and not the other way around. Thus, when the individual reckons that they are a singular entity, the reality is that they only reproduce what society wants them to do or to be. In that sense, given that there is no real freedom, the individual genuinely blends with and disintegrates into the broader society. It is argued that Durkheim's school of sociological thought offers a valid framework on individual-society relations in modern and primitive societies, however, others criticize it for being too broad and generic. In opposition to Durkheim, it is argued that all social facts can solely be dealt with objectivist macrostructural analyses. For example, some phenomena can be interpreted subjectively.

Hence, Weber takes a subjectivist view: 'There is no absolutely "objective" scientific analysis of culture ... of "social phenomena" independent of special and "one-sided" viewpoints' (1949, p.72). With regard to this view, Weber is recognized as the originator of 'methodological individualism'. According to this doctrine, 'collective concepts (class, race, etc.) are used in everyday life and influence the actions of individuals; as such, they are relevant for the sociologist. But sociologists should not turn collective concepts used in everyday life into their own tools of analysis' (Udehn, 2001, p.103). Because in methodological individualism social phenomena are explained through individuals' actions and motivations, the central question becomes: 'What motives determine and lead the individual members and participants to behave in such a way that community came into being in the first place and that it continues to exist?' (Weber, 1978, p.18). Thus, for Weber, the individual can be considered an active transcending being, who is the cause of society, rather than its product.…