Dialectic relationship of society and individual

Discussing about the Dialectical Relationship between Knowledge and Mentality

dialectic relationship of society and individual

For those of you unfamiliar, dialectics is, in a nutshell, the idea that two or the potentially dialectic relationship between technology and society. of the individual - for casting blame on the person for their not keeping up. The authors put a dialectical relationship between knowledge and mentality in the forecast on the significant role of science 00knowledge for modern society. . or individual obtain through their perception activities and practical activities. Akram Yari on the dialectics between an individual's life and society's progress he has friends, a love relationship can have begun, kids are maybe already.

dialectic relationship of society and individual

A prominent theorist of the last century, Talcott Parsonsignored the American symbolic interactionists and tried to attempt a grand synthesis of individual action and large-scale structure in his theory.

But, his emphasis was heavily on the large-scale structure society. He believed that it is the structure of society which determines roles and norms, and the cultural system which determines the ultimate values of ends. His theory was severely criticised by George Homans A recent well-known theorist Anthony Giddens has not accepted the idea of some sociologists that society has an existence over and above individuals. How individual and society affect each other? Or how individual and society interacts?

Both the above views are incomplete. The extreme view of individual or society has long been abandoned. For sociologists—from Cooley to the present—have recognised that neither society nor the individual can exist without each other and that they are, in reality, different aspects of the same thing.

dialectic relationship of society and individual

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 relationship between society and individual is not one-sided. Both are essential for the comprehension of either. Both go hand in hand, each is essentially dependent on the other. Nevertheless, social life depends on different things such as a The political life; b The economic life; c Voluntary associations; d Educational associations; e Methods of communication and; f The family [14].

dialectic relationship of society and individual

Man Is a Social Animal Though accurate information about the exact origin of society is not known still it is an accepted fact that man has been living in society since time immemorial. He cannot live without society, if he does so; he is either beast or God. Man has to live in society for his existence and welfare.

In almost all aspect of his life he feels the need of society. Biologically and psychologically he compelled to live in society. The essence of the fact is that man has always belonged to a society of some sort, without which man cannot exist at all.

Individual and Society: The Dialectical Conception of History

Society fulfills all his needs and provides security. Every human took birth, grows, live and die in society. Hence there exists a great deal of close relationships between man and society.

Both are closely inter-related, interconnected and inter-dependent. Relationship between the two is bilateral in nature.

But this close relationship between man and society raises one of the most important questions i. No doubt Aristotle said so long ago.

However, man is a social animal mainly because of the following three reasons: Sociality or sociability is his natural instinct. All his human qualities such as: All this developed through interaction with others.

His nature compels him to live with his fellow beings. The first case was of Kasper Hauser who from his childhood until his seventeenth year was brought up in woods of Nuremberg. In his case it was found that at the age of seventeen he could hardly walk, had the mind of an infant and mutter only a few meaningless phrases. In spite of his subsequent education he could never make himself a normal man. The second case was of two Hindu children who in were discovered in a wolf den.

One of the children died soon after discovery. The other could walk only 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 training that she could learn some social habits. The third case was of Anna, an illegitimate American child who had been placed in a room at age of six months and discovered five years later.

On discovery it was found that she could not walk or speech and was indifferent to people around her. All the above cases prove that man is social by nature. Human nature develops in man only when he lives in society, only when he shares with his fellow begins a common life.

He knows himself and his fellow beings within the framework of society. Indeed, man is social by nature. The social nature is not super-imposed on him or added to him rather it is inborn. It is said that needs and necessities makes man social.

Man has many needs and necessities. Out of these different needs social, mental and physical needs are very important and needs fulfillment. All his needs and necessities compel him to live in society. Many of his needs and necessities will remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his fellow beings. His psychological safety, social recognition, loves and self-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the course of living in society. He is totally dependent for his survival upon the existence of society.

Human baby is brought up under the care of his parents and family members. He would not survive even a day without the support of society. All his basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, health and education are fulfilled only within the framework of society.

He also needs society for his social and mental developments. His need for self-preservation compels him to live in society. Individual also satisfy his sex needs in a socially accepted way in a society.

To fulfill his security concern at the old age individual lives in society. Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society. A nutrition, shelter, warmth and affection need compels him to live in society. Thus for the satisfaction of human wants man lives in society. Hence it is also true that not only for nature but also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in society.

Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but also determines his personality and guides the course of development of human mind. Development of human mind and self is possible only living in society. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ideals and thereby moulds individual personality. Man acquires a self or personality only living in a society. From birth to death individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality.

Individual mind without society remains undeveloped at infant stage. Thus, from the above discussion we conclude that Man is a social animal. His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to be a human being. He acquires personality within society.

Individual and Society: The Dialectical Conception of History » pa

There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body. Relation between Individual and Society Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members?

This idea was voiced by Rousseau who believed that we lived better in the original state of nature than under civilization, and who was for that reason less positive about classic Greek civilization than his contemporaries. The relation between individual and society has been an interesting and a complex problem at the same time.

It can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to give a solution of the relation between the two that will be fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict between the two to the minimum and by showing a way in which both will tend to bring about a healthy growth of each other.

Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the point of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the state and the society. It is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close. So we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the individual and society: His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the good for a society by treating it as one large individual choice.

It is a summing up over the field of individual desires. Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, but Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals [15].

The separate individual forms a class only in no so far as others have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors. On the other hand, the class in its turn achieves an independent existence. The development process of a social class depends upon the development of common conditions and upon the realization of common interests. Economic conditions had first transformed the mass of the people of the country into workers.

The determination of capital has created for this mass a common situation and common interests.

Dialectical Theory

This makes it already a class as against capital, but hot yet for itself. In this struggle this mass becomes united and constitutes itself as a class for itself.

The interests it defends become class interests. So, in that vision of history, revolutions are not political accidents, but the expression of historical necessity. Revolutions perform necessary functions and they occur when conditions for them are given. Capitalists relations of productions were first developed in the womb of feudal society. The French Revolution occurred when the new capitalists relations of production had attained a certain degree of maturity.

Dialectic and social change It is not my consciousness that determines reality. On the contrary, it is the social reality that determines their consciousness. But the dialectical conception of history affirms that the law of reality is the law of change.

dialectic relationship of society and individual

There is a constant transformation in inorganic nature as well as in the human world.