Understanding contemporary society and social structures

Sociology

Relationship Between Individual & Society: Understanding Contemporary Society

The human being, by his nature, is a social creature. This nature drives him to live as a member of society, in which he interacts with others to satisfy his needs and instincts. No person can manage to satisfy his needs on his own; rather, he requires specific relationships with other human beings in order to satisfy them. The nature of these relationships is determined by the system which is implemented in the society. However, every system, in order to produce a progressive society, has to balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the society. If the individual's needs are ignored, then he will live in misery. Also, if the society's needs are ignored, then the society will not function properly as the environment in which the individual's strive to satisfy their needs. (LBA, 2010)

The relationship between the individual and society has altered over the course of time. There is a symbiotic balance the society and the individual. The society cannot function without the individual and a great deal of individuals must function as part of a society. While there may be those who are highly isolated, it is an extremely rare occasion where there exists an individual outside of society. In this relationship, there is a great tension and in this tension there rises a debate. There are those that argue that the society is more important than the individual and there are those who contend that the individual is more significant than the society.

The paper will demonstrate the ways in which this relationship has changed over time and what kinds of factors have the greatest influence upon this relationship as well as the perceptions of this relationship. The paper will explore this topic and reference the debate, though not necessarily engage in this debate. It is evident that both are vital to their respective existences; that is to say that the individual cannot exist as such without the society and the society cannot exist without the individual. They both need each other to survive. The paper will inquire as to whether the debate over which is more relevant or important is moot or relevant. The paper will additionally consider such concepts as individuation as part of the examination of the relationship of the individual and the society, in whatever form the society takes. The paper will conclude that there are moments when the needs of the society will outweigh the needs of the individual and there are moments, necessarily, that the needs of the individual must be honored in order for the society to function as such.

What do we mean when we say a society? Society is a word that and concept that is used often, and the definition may be taken for granted. What constitutes an individual? This definition is extremely intuitive, yet some of the definition is contingent upon the polar opposite of the individual, which is the society, the amassing and systemic organization of individuals. Kumar offers insights as to these definitions as well as provides a springboard upon which the discussion and examination of their relationship can begin.

A society refers to the whole and individuals represent only its parts. It is obvious that individual is both a social factor as well as a social product. Thus there is no antithesis or contradiction between society and individual. Nevertheless there may be occasions of conflict and opposition between the society and the individual. There is controversy among scholars as to who should be sacrificed in such cases. (Kumar, 2012)

This definition concurs with the general perspective of this paper. A society is the whole and the individuals are the parts. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole, yet there is great value within those parts. The individual exists as a being, yet the individual's existence is in part constituted by his/her participation within a greater society composed of many individuals. Kumar agrees that neither the individual nor the society retains a greater value over the other overall. There is value and necessity to both aspects. They are parts of each other as well as reflections of each other.

The debate over the primacy of the individual agent or the determining society has often been passionate (Hook); however, the vitriol assumes that a solution depends on the supremacy of one or the other form of reduction. According to Lukacs (1971) theorists in this tradition are polarized into two groups: "on the one hand, there were the 'great individuals' viewed as the autocratic makers of history, on the other hand, there were the 'natural laws' of the historical environment" (p. 158). (Juckes & Barresi, 1993)

One may render great understanding of a society by studying individuals, which some sociologists do; there is great insight to be gained about individuals by understanding the society within which this society exists and participates. The debate over the value of the society and the individual, which permeates the discussion of their relationship, puts society and individuals against each other. Kumar, as well as the point-of-view of this paper, dissolves this opposition as a strategy to widen the potential for understanding of the nature of this relationship and the factors that alter it. There has been some light shed upon the meanings of and the relationship between the society and the individual, the discussion will now proceed with the nature of the debate over which one is more important.

Jeffs and Smith (2002) discuss the debate between individual and the society with respect to changes into modern culture, in relation to youth work, and even education. They provide a history of the debate as well as insight into the debate's perspective, arguments, movements, and influences. They explain:

Debates concerning the 'conflict' betwixt individualism and community formed a backcloth for controversy. Within the emerging discipline of sociology, pioneers seeking to interpret the new world materialising around them were fascinated by the decline and demise of community…These concerns and debates had a profound impact on the development of youth work and community work. The relationship between the individual and a dominant market economy was not an abstract academic affair left by practitioners for others to wrestle with. Not least because youth work, adult education and community work attracted those struggling to address this issue precisely because each seemed to offer a partial solution to the conundrum. (Jeffs & Smith, 2002)

Jeffs and Smith have an impressive line of logic. They begin by describing the nature of the debate, which is fundamentally tumultuous. They proceed by linking the debate to the field of sociology. This field is ripe for sociological review, research, and consideration. They note how in most modern societies, due in large part of aspects of industrialization and capitalism, there is a rise in the value of the individual. The Lebanese Muslim Association offers a unique perspective as to how capitalism affects this tenuous yet strong relationship and how capitalism support the individual over the society.

Capitalism looked to the individual as the most important element in the society. It established individualism as the ideal, neglecting the impact that the individual by himself will have on the society as a whole. Thus, each citizen in the society looks to the things which will bring him or her benefit. The value of any idea is established based on the impact of that idea on the individual himself, irrespective of the impact on others. This view to the individual has made the capitalist societies the breeding grounds for selfishness, greed, and an unparalleled animosity among the people. The concepts of sacrifice and sharing are rare… (LBA, 2012)

As the individual's value rose, the community suffered and dissolved. If considering this debate from the perspective that they are both necessary to each other's existence (one cannot exist without the other), as well as consider that they exist best when they are in balance, the logic of their assertions become quite apparent. In an effort to rebuild the community and rebalance the roles and values of the individual within society, they relate this debate to youth and community work. While these kinds of areas of work would be valued and necessary in any society, in societies with a prevalence of particular problems and qualities of individuals, youth and community work emerged as the movements that they are in part because of the tension created in the changes that the relationship between the individual and society. Within these fields of work, the debate raged on and split into groups based on points-of-view and reactions to the changes in society that affect the individuals.

Those involved in the development of youth work came from a range of religious, philosophical and political traditions. These traditions shaped the practice of organisations and individuals but above all melded to bestow upon youth work a unique essence. Five overlapping responses to industrialisation in particular percolated practice creating a discrete entity - youth work. They laid the basis for divergent strands of practice extant today: Romantics, Conservatives, Socialists and radicals, Evangelicalism, British Idealists… (Jeffs & Smith, 2002)

Changes in society change individuals. These changes affect the relationship between the individual and society. Industrialization is one of the greatest changes in society that influences the relationship between society and the individual. It serves as one of the major factors that transitions the pre-modern to the modern world, as well as one of the transitions into the rise of the individual over the society.

Veenhoven (1999) theories on the relationship between the individual and society, as well as how or why that relationship has changed. He furthermore theorizes upon how individuals and societies recognize these effects; he later proposes way in which to measure the changes in the relationship.

In the process of modernization, western societies became ever more individualistic. At the individual level this involved both greater awareness of ones own preferences and greater ability to act independently. At the societal level individualization involves greater freedom and a change in social regulation from normative prescription to negotiation These developments are linked to several other modernization processes, such as growing division of labor, extension of youth and expanding education. There is a rich literature on the nature of individualism and on the determinants of the individualization process (o.a. Triandis 1990). (Veenhoven, 1999)

There is evidence of Veenhoven's theories in the 21st century America, for example. American culture is very much a consumer culture. This is a culture that is fortunate enough to have wide access to many forms of information technology, the use of which is very much based in individual customization. People customize their mobile devices, their online avatars, their email accounts, and significantly, their social media presences. It is a part of American culture to express one's identity through the various personal objects (real and virtual) that they customize. A 21st century American might say, "I am what I consume" or "My stuff represents who I am." These examples refers to Veenhoven's statements about the expression of preferences and an increased awareness of one's preferences.

Consider online dating and other online communities. One of the first steps to participation in this activities and groups is to fill out, what is usually, quite elaborate profiles that ask about the applying individual's preferences. People meet each other based on their preferences and the values they place upon those preferences. Veenhoven brings the debate into the realm of individualization.

Individuation is an expression of the rise of the individual in the relationship between the individual and society. Modernization, examples of which are industrialization and the information age, promote the individual and devalue the society, or at least modify the value and function of society with respect to the individual. Further influences that contribute to the rise of the individual and individuation mentioned are the division of labor and youth & community work. This speaks to the number of Marxist theorists across fields of study that research and debate the relationship between the individual and the society. His quotation further relates to Jeffs & Smiths (2002) and their views as to how the debate of this relationship is central to the development and growth of youth work and community work, particularly countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

Blake explains the concept of individuation with respect to theories by Carl Jung and modern society. She states:

One of the main tenets of Jungian psychology is the concept of Individuation. Individuation is striving for wholeness of the personality. Jung adopted the term from Aristotle and others who wrote of the principium individuation is, the process by which the general becomes ever more particular as it develops. Each individual has an opportunity for development that is unique. The terms individual and individuation are not synonymous…human beings also have personalities and each human personality is often vastly different from the others, with considerable differences in consciousness. (Blake, 2012)

From the quotation, it is evident that the concept of individuation is as old as western culture as it is understood today. Over the course of Jung's lifespan, he experienced the transition between pre-modern and modern society. He experienced the shifts in the perspective, in the individual, in the society, as well as the theorizing and debate over which takes greater precedence: the society or the individual. The time period in which he lived informs his theories and in some ways validates their authenticity.

Individuation and individuals are distinctive. Individuals are singular beings -- one being, one human, is an individual. Individuation is the growth into the fullest potential of an individual personality. There is both positive and negative potential for individuation. Individuation is an influential aspect in the consideration of the relationship between the society and an individual. Blake explicates further:

Individuation is always to some extent opposed to collective norms, since it means separation and differentiation from the general and a building up of the particular -- not a particularity that is sought out, but one that is already ingrained in the psychic condition. The opposition to the collective norm, however, is only apparent, since closer examination shows that the individual standpoint is not antagonistic to it, but only differently oriented. (Blake, 2012)

Individuation is another form of tension within the relationship between individuals and societies. Here is where the positive and negative aspects of individuation are exposed. Individuation contributes to the rise of the individual over the health and value of the society. Conversely, individuation can enrich the society when individuals have and use the increased self-awareness and articulation of identity in a positive respect.

Individuation it of itself is a type of paradox. To participate in individuation is to both become more of an individual and at the same time, individuation promotes the growth of society. Individuation could promote the opposition between individual and society; it can also expand and enrich the society in which the individuation takes place. Ultimately, Jung and Blake align with perspective of this paper, which is that individuals and societies are not in opposition to each other; they are in some kind of synchronous orbit or in a sate of symbiosis.

Individuation is quite rampant in modern, industrial, consumer societies. Their manifestations are evident in American culture, for example, but not nearly in as many positive iterations than are possible. From the perspective of Marxist-infused sociological perspective, individuation promotes the increase of consumption as well as augments alienation within individuals in such societies. Alienation is a negative expression of individuation, yet the affects and examples of individuation are not limited to alienation within a capitalist, consumer, and/or industrialized societies. The concept and some of the implications of individuation; now the measurements and evidence of individuation will be considered.