What Roles Do Individuality and Family Have in Society

Received 10 June 2014; revised 27 July 2014; accepted 13 Baronial 2014

ABSTRACT

The relation between individual and society is very close. Essentially, "lodge" is the regularities, customs and ground rules of antihuman behavior. These practices are tremendously important to know how humans act and interact with each other. Society does not exist independently without individual. The individual lives and acts within lodge but social club is nothing, in spite of the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. On the other hand, society exists to serve individuals―not the other way effectually. Man life and society almost go together. Man is biologically and psychologically equipped to alive in groups, in society. Society has go an essential status for human life to ascend and to continue. The relationship between individual and lodge is ultimately 1 of the profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical rather than sociological because information technology involves the question of values. Human depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and encompassed by civilisation, every bit a societal force. It is in the lodge over again that he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups. The question of the relationship between the individual and the guild is the starting point of many discussions. It is closely connected with the question of the relationship of man and society. The re- lation between the two depends upon i fact that the private and the society are mutually de- pendent, 1 grows with the aid of the other. The aim of this newspaper is to testify the questions: how a man is a social animal and how individual and gild touch each other?

Keywords:

Society, Social Life, Individual

one. Introduction

Man is a social animal. He has a natural urge to live an associated life with others. Human needs society for his existence or survival. The human kid depends on his parents and others for its survival and growth. The inherent capacities of the child tin can develop only in society. The ultimate goal of lodge is to promote good and happy life for its individuals. It creates conditions and opportunities for the all round evolution of individual personality. Society ensures harmony and cooperation among individuals in spite of their occasional conflicts and tensions. If society helps the individuals in numerous means, great men as well contribute to lodge by their wisdom and feel. Thus, society and individuals are spring by an intimate and harmonious bond and the conflicts between the ii are apparent and momentary. In a well-ordered guild, there would be lasting harmony between the two.

2. Society

The term "society" means relationships social beings, men, express their nature by creating and re-creating an organization which guides and controls their beliefs in myriad ways. Society liberates and limits the activities of men and it is a necessary condition of every human being and need to fulfillment of life. Society is a system of usages and procedures of authority and mutual aid many divisions of controls of homo beliefs and of liberties. This changing system, we phone call social club and it is ever changing [1] . Society exists only where social beings "behave" toward i some other in ways determined past their recognition of one another.

Society not confined to man [ii] . It should be clear that social club is non limited to human beings. There are many degrees of animate being societies, probable the ants, the bee, the hornet, are known to most school children. It has been contended that wherever there is life in that location is order, considering life means heredity and, so far as nosotros know, can ascend only out of and in the presence of other life. All higher animals at least have a very definite guild, arising out of the requirements their nature and the conditions involved in the perpetuation of their species [iii] . In society each fellow member seeks something and gives something. A society can also consist of likeminded people governed by their own norms and values within a dominant, large social club moreover; a order may be illustrated as an economic, social or industrial infrastructure, fabricated up of a varied collection of individuals. Finally, we tin can say that the word "society" may too refer to an organized voluntary association of people for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic or other purposes [4] . Society is universal and pervasive and has no defined boundary or assignable limits. A society is a collection of individuals united by certain relations or modes of behavior which marking them off from others who do not enter into those relations or who differ from them in behavior. In this way nosotros tin conclude that, society is the whole complex of social behavior and the network of social relationship [5] .

three. Nature of Society: [half-dozen]

Society is an abstract term that connotes the complex of inter-relations that exist between and among the members of the grouping. Club exists wherever there are good or bad, proper or improper relationships betwixt human beings. These social relationships are not evident, they do not have any concrete from, and hence lodge is abstruse. Society is non a group of people; it ways in essence a state or condition, a relationship and is therefore necessarily an abstraction. Society is organisation of relationship. It is the total circuitous of human relationships. It includes whole range of human being relations. Social relationships invariably possess a physical element, which takes the course of awareness of another's presence, common objective or common interest [7] . Now we tin say that order is the union itself, the organization, the sum of formal relations in which associating individuals are bound together. Societies consist in mutual interaction and inter relation of individuals and of the structure formed by their relations.

4. Social Life

As a human being being homo cannot live without clan. Then human's life is to an enormous extent a grouping life. Because individuals cannot exist understood apart from their relations with one another; the relations cannot exist understood apart from the units (or terms) of the human relationship. A man of society may exist aided by the agreement of say, neurons and synapses, but his quest remains the analysis of social relationships [8] . The role of social life is antiseptic when we consider the procedure by which they develop in the life of the individual. Kant [9] thought that information technology was just antagonism which served to awaken man's power to overcome his inertia and in the search for power to win for himself a identify among his fellow-men, "with whom he cannot live at all." Without this resistance, the spiteful competition of vanity, the insatiable desire of gain and power, the natural capacities of humanity would have slumbered undeveloped [10] .

Social life is the combination of various components such as activities, people and places. While all of these components are required to ascertain a social life, the nature of each component is different for every person and tin can change for each person, as affected by a variety of external influences. In fact, the complex social life of our day his actions indeed, even his thoughts and feelings are influenced in large measure past a social life which surrounds him similar an atmosphere [11] . Information technology is true that, human achievement is marked past his ability to do, so to a more remarkable degree than any other creature. Everywhere at that place is a social life setting limitations and pre- dominatingly influencing individual action. In government, in religion, in industry, in education, in family association―in everything that builds up modern life, so men are cooperating. Because they work together, combine and organize for specific purposes, so that no man lives to himself. This unity of effort is to brand gild [12] .

In that location are different kinds of social life and these are depends on various factors. There are also more immediate things that can affect i's social life on a day-to-mean solar day ground. Availability of friends and/or dates, current cash flow, personal schedule, contempo positive eatery reviews and perhaps a mail on Perez Hilton of where the celebs are hanging out can all determine with whom you interact, the nature of activities, how oft you socialize and where such social activities take place [13] . These types of factors of social life are normal and for normal people. Nevertheless, social life depends on unlike things such equally a) The political life; b) The economical life; c) Voluntary associations; d) Educational associations; e) Methods of communication and; f) The family [fourteen] .

Even so, I have come to realize that my social life, or at to the lowest degree the very little going out that counts as "social" is completely determined by things that should have zippo to do with determining one's social life.

5. Human Is a Social Creature

Though accurate information about the exact origin of society is not known however it is an accepted fact that man has been living in society since time immemorial. Long ago, Aristotle expressed that "Human is substantially a social animal by nature". He cannot live without social club, if he does so; he is either beast or God. Man has to live in society for his existence and welfare. In most all attribute of his life he feels the need of social club. Biologically and psychologically he compelled to live in society.

Homo tin never develop his personality, language, culture and "inner deep" by living outside the society. The essence of the fact is that man has always belonged to a gild of some sort, without which man cannot exist at all. Gild fulfills all his needs and provides security. Every man took nativity, grows, live and die in society. Without society man's life is just like fish out of water. Hence there exists a great deal of close relationships between man and social club. Both are closely inter-related, interconnected and inter-dependent. Relationship between the two is bilateral in nature. But this close relationship between man and social club raises one of the most important questions i.e. in what sense man is a social animal? No dubiousness Aristotle said so long agone. All the same, human being is a social animal mainly considering of the following 3 reasons:

5.one. Homo Is a Social Brute by Nature

Homo is a social fauna because his nature makes him then. Sociality or sociability is his natural instinct. He tin't simply live in society. All his human being qualities such as: to recollect, to ask, to learn language, to play and work only developed in human society. All this developed through interaction with others. One can't be a normal being in isolation. His nature compels him to live with his fellow beings. He can't afford to alive alone. Famous sociologist MacIver has cited three cases in which infants were isolated from all social relationships to make experiments about human being's social nature.

The first instance was of Kasper Hauser who from his childhood until his seventeenth year was brought upwards in forest of Nuremberg. In his case it was establish that at the age of seventeen he could hardly walk, had the listen of an infant and mutter simply a few meaningless phrases. In spite of his subsequent teaching he could never make himself a normal man.

The second case was of two Hindu children who in 1920 were discovered in a wolf den. I of the children died before long later discovery. The other could walk but on all four, possessed no language except wolf like growls. She was shy of human being and afraid of them. It was only after careful and sympathetic preparation that she could learn some social habits.

The third case was of Anna, an illegitimate American kid who had been placed in a room at age of six months and discovered five years later on. On discovery information technology was found that she could not walk or speech and was indifferent to people around her.

All the above cases prove that human is social by nature. Human being nature develops in human only when he lives in society, only when he shares with his fellow begins a common life. Social club is something which fulfils a vital need in man's constitution, it is not something accidentally added to or super imposed on human being nature. He knows himself and his boyfriend beings within the framework of society. Indeed, human being is social by nature. The social nature is not super-imposed on him or added to him rather it is inborn.

5.2. Necessity Makes Man a Social Animal

Homo is a social animal non simply by nature but also by necessity. It is said that needs and necessities makes human being social. Human being has many needs and necessities. Out of these unlike needs social, mental and physical needs are very of import and needs fulfillment. He tin can't fulfill these needs without living in society.

All his needs and necessities compel him to live in gild. Many of his needs and necessities volition remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his swain beings. His psychological safe, social recognition, loves and cocky-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the class of living in society. He is totally dependent for his survival upon the being of social club. Human baby is brought upwardly under the care of his parents and family members.

He would not survive even a day without the support of club. All his basic needs like nutrient, habiliment, shelter, health and education are fulfilled just within the framework of society. He also needs society for his social and mental developments. His demand for self-preservation compels him to alive in society. Individual too satisfy his sexual practice needs in a socially accepted way in a order.

To fulfill his security business organisation at the old historic period individual lives in society. Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society. A nutrition, shelter, warmth and amore need compels him to live in society. Thus for the satisfaction of man wants human lives in society. Hence information technology is also truthful that not only for nature merely also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in guild.

5.3. Human Lives in Society for His Mental and Intellectual Evolution

This is yet another reason for which man is a social brute. Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but besides determines his personality and guides the form of development of human mind.

Development of human mind and self is possible simply living in guild. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ethics and thereby moulds private personality. With the course of living and with the process of socialization man'due south personality develops and he became a fully fledged individual. Man acquires a cocky or personality only living in a society. From birth to decease individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality. Individual mind without gild remains undeveloped at infant phase. The cultural heritage determines man's personality past molding his attitudes, behavior, morals and ideals. With the assist of social heritage man's in born potentialities are unfolded.

Thus, from the above word we conclude that Homo is a social brute. His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to exist a human beingness. He acquires personality within guild. There exists a very shut relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body.

6. Relation between Private and Social club

Human being cannot survive without society and societies cannot be without members. Still there may exist conflicts between the individual and society; i tin can imagine that social systems function better when they have considerable control over their private members, merely that this is a mixed blessing for the arrangement'due south members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its elective members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau (1769) who believed that we lived improve in the original state of nature than nether civilisation, and who was for that reason less positive virtually archetype Greek civilization than his contemporaries. The relation between individual and lodge has been an interesting and a circuitous problem at the same fourth dimension. Information technology can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to requite

a solution of the relation betwixt the two that will exist fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict

betwixt the ii to the minimum and by showing a style in which both will tend to bring near a healthy growth of each other. Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the bespeak of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the land and the society. Information technology is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close. And then we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the private and lodge:

6.1. Utilitarianism

The outset model is Rawls's presentation of the position of classical utilitarianism. His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the proficient for a gild by treating it as ane big private choice. It is a summing up over the field of private desires. Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, simply Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals [fifteen] . It applies to order the principle of selection for one homo. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound upward with this classical utilitarian position. Information technology is just from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can exist summed over an unabridged society [16] . The paradigm presented hither, and rejected by Rawls, is i in which the interests of order are considered as the interests of one person. Plurality is ignored, and the desires of individuals are conflated. The tension between individual and society is resolved past subordinating the individual to the social sum. The social order is conceived equally a unity. The principles of individual option, derived from the experience of the self every bit a unity, are applied to society equally a whole. Rawls rightly rejects this position as existence unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some authoritative decision that information technology is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness. Merely individual persons practice not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn.

half-dozen.2. Justice as Fairness

The 2nd paradigm is that which characterizes the original position. It has already been suggested that this is a picture of an aggregate of individuals, mutually disinterested, and conceived primarily equally will. While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their ain choosing. They take their ain life plans. They coexist on the same geographical territory and they accept roughly similar needs and interests then that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible.

I shall emphasize this aspect of the circumstances of justice by bold that the parties take no interest in one another'southward involvement...Thus, 1 tin can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages nether conditions of moderate scarcity [17] .

Here the tension betwixt individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an amass of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the aforementioned space at the same time. It is resolved in favor of the plural, while giving upwardly whatever social unity which might obtain. The classical utilitarian model and the original position as sketched by Rawls provide paradigms for two polar ways in which the tension between the plurality of individuals and the unity of social structure might be resolved. One resolution favors unity and the other favors plurality.

half dozen.iii. The Idea of a Social Wedlock

The third epitome is included under Rawls'southward discussion of the congruence of justice and goodness, and of the trouble of stability. It is described as a good, every bit an end in itself which is a shared cease. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the unabridged society of the principle of pick for i person and from the conception of lodge as an amass of mutually disinterested individuals. The idea of a social marriage is described in dissimilarity to the idea of a private society. A individual society is substantially the second model as realized in the actual globe. It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position equally descriptive of a social order. Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social spousal relationship [xviii] . It is one in which concluding ends are shared and communal institutes are valued.

6.4. Marx and Engels on Relationship betwixt Individuals and Society

The straight elaborations of Marx and Engels on relationships betwixt individual activity and social process can be divided into three categories for purposes of discussion: 1) full general statements concerning the dialectical relations between the two and the historicity of homo nature; 2) physical descriptions―often angry, sometimes satirical―of the bear upon on people of their particular relations to the production procedure and the examination, as a major business organization, of "estrangement" or "alienation"; and iii) analyses of consciousness with detail attending to the pervasive power of article fetishism in form club [19] .

Too, the relationship betwixt private and society can exist viewed from another three angles: Functionalist, Inter-actionist, and Civilisation and personality.

6.4.1. Functionalist View: How Society Affects the Individual?

What is the relation between individual and society? Functionalists regard the private as formed by society through the influence of such institutions as the family, school and workplace. Early sociologists such as Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim and even Karl Marx were functionalists, examined society equally existing apart from the individual. For Durkheim, society is reality; it is offset in origin and importance to the individual. Durkheim's cracking discussion of the commonage consciousness showed the ways in which social interactions and relationships and ultimately society influence the private'due south attitudes, ideas and sentiments. He utilized his theory of "collective representation" in explaining the phenomena of organized religion, suicide and the concept of social solidarity. In contrast to Auguste Comte (known equally male parent of sociology), who regarded the individual as a mere abstraction, a somewhat more substantial position past Durkheim held that the individual was the recipient of group influence and social heritage. In sociological circle, this was the "burning question" (individual 5/s lodge) of the day [20] .

How lodge is important in the germination of individual'south person­ality is conspicuously reflected in the cases of isolated and feral children (children who were raised in the company of animals such as bears and wolves). The studies of feral children, referred to earlier, accept clearly demonstrated the impor­tance of social interaction and human association in the development of personality.

half-dozen.4.ii. Inter-Actionist View: How Is Society Constructed?

How an private helps in edifice society? For inter-actionists, it is through the interaction of the people that the society is formed. The main champion of this arroyo was Max Weber (social action theorist), who said that society is built up out of the interpretations of individuals. The structuralists (or functionalists) tend to approach the relationship of cocky (individual) and society from the point of the influence of gild on the individual. Inter-actionists, on the other mitt, tend to work from cocky (individual) "outwards", stressing that people create gild.

A prominent theorist of the concluding century, Talcott Parsons developed a general theory for the study of society called activeness theory, based on the methodological principle of voluntarism and the epistemological principle of analytical realism. The theory attempted to establish a balance between two major methodological traditions: the utilitarian-positivist and hermeneutic-idealistic traditions. For Parsons, voluntarism established a 3rd culling between these ii. More a theory of society, Parsons presented a theory of social evolution and a concrete estimation of the "drives" and directions of world history. He added that, the structure of club which determines roles and norms, and the cultural arrangement which determines the ultimate values of ends. His theory was severely criticized past George Homans. In his Presidential address, "bringing human dorsum in", Homans re-established the demand to report individual social interactions, the building blocks of society. A recent well-known theorist Anthony Giddens has not accepted the idea of some sociologists that lodge has an being over and above individuals. He argues: "Human actions and their reactions are the only reality and we cannot regard societies or systems every bit having an existence over and above individuals." [21] .

6.4.three. Culture and Personality View: How Individual and Society Affect Each Other? Or How Individual and Lodge Interacts?

Both the above views are incomplete. In reality, it is not order or individual just it is gild and individual which helps in understanding the full reality. The farthermost view of individual or social club has long been abased. Sociologists from Cooley to the present accept recognized that neither order nor the individual can exist without each other. This view was laid down mainly by Margaret Mead, Kardiner and others who maintained that guild'south culture affects personality (private) and, in plow, personality helps in the formation of order's culture. These anthropologists have studied how society shapes or controls individuals and how, in turn, individuals create and change society. Thus, to conclude, it can be stated that the human relationship between gild and individual is non one-sided. Both are essential for the comprehension of either. Both go hand in hand, each is essentially dependent on the other. Both are interdependent on each, other.

The private should be subordinated to society and the individual should sacrifice their welfare at the price of society. Both these views are extreme which run into the relationship between private and guild from merely the 1 or the other side. But surely all is non harmonious between private and society. The individual and society collaborate on one another and depend on one another. Social integration is never complete and harmonious.

vii. Conclusion

The wellbeing of nations can occur at the cost of the well-beingness of their citizens, and this seems to have happened in the past. Yet in present day conditions, there is no such disharmonize. Guild and individual are made mutually dependent and responsible and mutually complementary. The result is that society progresses well with the minimum possible restrictions on the private. A very broad telescopic is given to the natural development of the energies of the private in such a style that in the end. Order will benefit the best by it. While club reaps the best advantage of the properly utilized and adult energies of the individuals, an attempt is fabricated to run into that the normal and sometimes even the aberrant weaknesses of the individuals accept the least possible outcome on the gild. Spirit of service and duty to the society is the platonic of the individual and spirit of tolerance, broadmindedness and security of the individual is the worry of the society. At that place is no rigid rule to develop the individual in a item pattern suitable to the rules of the social club. Society demands greater sacrifices from its greater individuals while the fruits of the works of all are meant equally for all. The general dominion is: the higher the condition and civilisation of the individual are, the lesser his rights are and the greater his duties are. A sincere attempt is made past the sociologists to bring to the minimum the disharmonism between the individual and the society, then that there will be few psychological problems for the individual and the gild both. The inherent capacities, energies and weaknesses of the individual are properly taken into account and the development of the relation between the two is made every bit natural equally possible. Human being values and idealism beingness given due respect, the evolution of the relation between the two is more or less philosophical.

References

1. MacIver and Folio (1965) Order. Macmillan and Company, London, 5-half-dozen.
2. Light-green A.W. (1968) Sociology: An Analysis of Life in Modern Guild. McGraw Hill Volume Company, New York, ten- 14.
3. Horton, P.B. and Hunt, C.L. (1964) Sociology. McGraw Hill Volume Company, New York, 67.
4. Lenski, One thousand., Nolan, P. and Lenski, J. (1995) Human being Societies: An Introduction into Macro Folklore. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 11.
5. Maryanski, A. and Turner, J.H. (1992) The Social Cage Human being Nature and the Development of Society. Stanford Univer- sity Press, Redwood Metropolis, 119.
6. Quoted from Ritzer, Yard. (1993) The Mcdonaldization of Society. Pine Forge Press, 1000 Oaks, 39.
7. MacIver and Page (1965) Society, op., cit., 21-23.
8. Sanderson, S.K. (1995) Social Transformation. Blackie Printing, New York, 110.
9. Bottomore, T.B. (1979) Sociology. George Allen & Unwine Ltd., London, 19-27.
10. Ibid, 13-17.
11. Hubert, L. (1972) A Critique of Artificial Reason. Harpen & Row, New York, 139.
12. Hampshire, Southward. (1972) A New Philosophy of the Just Lodge. The New York Review of Books & Company, New York, 34-39.
13. Giddens, A. (2009) Folklore. sixth Edition, Wiley India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 329-331.
14. Abrahamson, M. (1988) Sociological Theory. Prentice Hall Ltd., London, 15-19.
15. Quoted from Nagel, T. (1973) Rawls on Justice. Harvard Academy Press, Cambridge, 27.
16. Rawls, J. (1958) Justice and Fairness, The Philosophical Review. Penguine Press, New York, 184.
17. Ibid., 128.
18. Quoted from Nagel, T. (1973) Rawls on Justice, op., cit., 329.
19. Giddens, A. (2009) Sociology. 6th Edition, op., cit., 87.
20. Abrahamson, Grand. (1988) Sociological Theory, op., cit., 19.
21. Hauser, A. (1982) The Folklore of Art. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 43-46.

NOTES

^*Corresponding author.

lopezoureeace.blogspot.com

Source: https://file.scirp.org/Html/8-1760197_49227.htm

Share this post