does "society" exist?

Tags: Philosophy And Debate
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Read Discussion
Reply to All

It was Margaret Thatcher that said "society doesn't even exist". In some definitions of what a "society" is, it is said to be "ontologically independent of the qualities of its constituent individuals". does that mean that a "society" is more than or over and above a group of people? it is spposedly "ontologically independent" due to the fact that it can be an obstacle and not just an advantage for the people who comprise it, but nevertheless, it seems strange to talk of "society" as being independent of "us".

its like when you say "I am in a society with other people", as if to say that if we all stepped out of society, it would still be there.

we are society aren't we?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link/Embed

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 330 • Replies: 10

@existential potential,

There is a "strong form" of argument for the ontological status of "society" which considers that "social reality" is the only reality there is. Briefly, language, the cuurency of social cohesion, underlies "thinking" including concepts of "self". Thus the ontology of "self" is predicated on the ontology of "the group/world".(If you look up my threads you will find an extensive discussion of this). Continental philosophers from Heidegger to Foucault have been keen to stress this position.

Such a view is opposed bythe Anglo-American "analytical philosophers" who tend to follow the Cartesian line of starting with "ego".

0 Replies

Whose society? The society of "top dog winners," or the society of the masses?

0 Replies

@existential potential,

existential potential wrote:

It was Margaret Thatcher that said "society doesn't even exist". In some definitions of what a "society" is, it is said to be "ontologically independent of the qualities of its constituent individuals". does that mean that a "society" is more than or over and above a group of people? it is spposedly "ontologically independent" due to the fact that it can be an obstacle and not just an advantage for the people who comprise it, but nevertheless, it seems strange to talk of "society" as being independent of "us".

its like when you say "I am in a society with other people", as if to say that if we all stepped out of society, it would still be there.

we are society aren't we?

IF individuals associate with one another
then there is a society.

If thay go their separate ways, ceasing association, then no society exists.
Individuals are the creators, the parents, of society, which is their child.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

David,

Quote:

If thay go their separate ways, ceasing association, then no society exists.
Individuals are the creators, the parents, of society, which is their child.

Sorry. but that doesn't make sense.

What do you think "conversations with yourself" are other than the mimicry of conversations with others ?
Even rebellion against society depends on that society for its significance.

Think about it.

1 Reply

To what extent does any of this apply to a concept like government as well. I'm thinking of notions like "elected speakers" and the (problematic) idea of electing governments to fuel social change. Or partisanship as well. All of this seems to be predicated on similar ideas of constituent parts, invariably at odds, somehow forming a coherent whole?

1 Reply

@Ashers,

Ashers,

That's an interesting point.

From the position of "selves" being a product of prevailing culture rather than vice versa, governmental structures will tend to work "naturally" because their acquiesent or supporting components are already in place via socialization. (I am speaking statistically).This would explain why "democracy" is doomed when it is imposed from without on those cultures with an authoritarian history. This is not to say that cultures do not change, but since commonalities of disposition are particular embedded in local language which underscores the contents of thought, this is going to take some time.

As far as "partisanship" is concerned, this seems to owe its origins to an evolutionary tribalism trait common amongst primates. Like the "self-other" dimiension,the "us-them" divide is also reified and exacerbated by language.In essence partisanship and religion are equivalent in that respect despite the lipservice paid by religion to "the brotherhood of man". (Interestingly, Islam more honestly restricts "brotherhood" to itself ).

1 Reply

@fresco,

Interesting. If that is democracy doomed with regards to change, where is the success to be seen/had and how might you compare it (if at all) to the psychological or "spiritual" shifts you often talk about? I'm thinking of Krishnamurti and "inward revolution" and his drawing attention to problems of changing the world externally.

Do you think there is another commonality also in terms of "lipservice" paid by political entities to the wellbeing of the state as a whole, "we're all americans!" etc?

And what do you suppose are the dynamics at work that lead Islam to restricting "brotherhood"? Does Islam, where it is most prominantly found at least, possess the "acquiesent or supporting components (that) are already in place via socialization" that blurs the line between it being a religious and political force? And in so doing does this allow for such a restriction of brotherhood, i.e. it already has the substantial base of adherents at it's call to happily make a still sizeable portion of the world population the "enemy"?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:
David,

Quote:

If thay go their separate ways, ceasing association, then no society exists.
Individuals are the creators, the parents, of society, which is their child.

fresco wrote:

Quote:

Sorry. but that doesn't make sense.

I 'm sorry if u fail to see it.
Society can exist only if individuals associate with one another.
By agreement among themselves,
the individuals can regulate and control their creation.

fresco wrote:

Quote:

What do you think "conversations with yourself" are
other than the mimicry of conversations with others ?

Y r we discussing talking to yourself ?
What is your point ?

fresco wrote:

Quote:

Even rebellion against society depends on that society for its significance.

Admittedly, rebellion cannot exist unless there is something against which to rebel; so what ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Y r we discussing talking to yourself ?
What is your point ?

My point is that the very tools of thought - LANGUAGE - comes from society.
Thinking is the functioning of a "society of one" !

Of course I "get" your point. Philosophically you take the position that the whole is the sum of its components. This is called a "bottom-up" approach, which unfortunately doesn't work very well when discussing structures larger than molecules. Bodily cells for example cannot be "understood" except in relationship to the whole body...and by analogy nor can "individuals" except with respect to social groups. I'm taking a "top-down" view, in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

0 Replies

@Ashers,

Ashers,

Krishnamurti implies that "spirituality" begins with seeing that "one is the world", i.e. a microcosm of society. One then attempts to "escape the conditioning" by the "cessation of thought" or engage in "non-judgmental awareness".
Whether this is feasible is another matter.

As far as politics is concerned, this usually involves the anthropomorphization of "society" such that psychological aims and goals are attributed to groups. Such "galvanization" is perhaps only valid in times of war where "common survival" becomes the focus. Altuism indeed may come to the fore involving actual self-sacrifice.

The dynamics of Islam as a politico-religious force encompass the fact that its originators, the Arabs, have had no historical concept of "nationhood". There is a de facto mistrust between them which operates at the secular tribal level such that "brotherhood" takes on a non-secular/religious aspect, and precludes a cooperative practical one. This point may explain their relative organizational disfunctionality in secular terms, and their pre-occupation with jihad (there's war again) with respect to "the infidel".

0 Replies

Read Discussion
Reply to All

does "society" exist?

Related Topics