Monday, October 20, 2003

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Why Living in a Society ? Quite simply because we are. The social contract is mandatory, so to speak. I think the fundamental concept inherent to the idea of society is that it implies the relations of one person to others. I think that this is an essential characteristic of humanity. Man as man only exists as such in relation to his fellows. Society is not only the product of man but is the product of society. Humans require a way to relate themselves to the world around them and the primary way this is done is through others. If there were only one person left on earth he would invent someone to relate to, he would invent a society out of necessity (witness Robinson Crusoe, or the modern example: Tom Hanks in Cast Away).

The individual and society are inextricably linked. One cannot exist without the other. The primary mode through which this relation of one to the other is carried out is through questioning. By questioning the society of which we are a part we gain greater understanding of both it and ourselves. By questioning society we are attempting to transform the society that is into the image of society that should be. Through the attempt at greater understanding and transformation the state of society and ourselves is advanced.

Within the blogosphere we are operating in a consciously created society, a type of imagined community. A blog is a means by which one relates himself to others. It is both a mode of expression to society and a questioning of society. The interplay of one to the other is back and forth in a constant dialogue: this is the very essence of society.

So my blog title reflects this reality and it is meant to be a constant reminder that the primary obligation of living in a society is to question that society. To me a blog is an excellent way to do this.

Margaret Thatcher and the denial of Society

Now to the issue of Margaret Thatcher and her denial of society. In the Thatcher interview cited HERE via maderblog, Mrs. Thatcher says, "and who is society? There is no such thing!" I believe, however, that Thatcher posits this claim only out of convenience for the argument she is making. The problem with her argument is that she conflates modern government with the idea of society. She says:

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand 'I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!' or 'I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!' 'I am homeless, the Government must house me!' and so they are casting their problems on society"

Note how she considers government and society synonymous and that society does not enter the picture until the end of her argument. Society and government, however, are not synonymous. Government is an institution created by and subsumed within society. Mrs. Thatcher claims that society does not exist only because she does not want individuals to be so dependent on a specific institution of society. This is fine but it does not mean society is non-existent.

Later in the interview Thatcher implies that there are only individual men, women and families but no society. First, to admit the family as a unit implies the existence of society, for a family is a type of society. Secondly, it may be possible to imagine a situation in which only individuals exist outside of a society; however, as soon as one of those individuals acknowledged, in some way, another then a society would be created. I am having difficulty imagining a case in which this would not occur.

Slightly farther down in the article we see that at the heart of the matter Thatcher and I essentially agree. She writes:

"It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations"

Precisely! Life, as she says "is a reciprocal business." This is what I have been arguing; the essence of society is a condition of reciprocity. And I agree that "people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations." I have a feeling that the entitlements and obligations that Thatcher and I are considering are probably almost polar opposites but in the abstract we agree.

So, I maintain my position that society does exist and that we are living in one.

Update: Mader has a well thought-out response to this post over at his site. My quick response is in the comments section over there.

Posted by Matthew @ 7:40 p.m.