Individual or Society: The Chicken and Egg Question
08/02/11 19:31 Filed in: Human Nature
Much of what I’ve been reading lately has focused on the common good and on the nature of society. Essential to these discussions is the question of the priority of the individual or the state. That is, is the individual anterior to -- logically at least -- society or the state so that the state must be limited in what it can demand or impose upon citizens; or is the state anterior to -- logically speaking -- the individual so that there are no limits on what it can demand of citizens.
The answer is both/and or neither/nor.
If we look at ourselves through the lens of evolution, we come to understand that human beings -- homo sapiens -- evolved as members of cohesive groups. We see the same pattern in all the great apes, except for the orangutans who forage for food in solitude and are much less aggressive than homo sapiens or other apes. If we want to understand our own nature, then, we have to put our species-specific nature in discussion with this evolutionary past. I do not mean this to follow the pattern of evolutionary psychology which tries to discover deep-seated genetic imperatives in our biology that we gained and haven’t lost since the emergence of homo sapiens on the African plains. Rather, I mean that we have to understand our biology -- which includes our evolution -- if we want to understand the kinds of creatures we are -- individuals with free choice.
If we speak of individuality, then, we must understand how individuality arises among a social creature like the great apes. It cannot be something divorced from that sociality, for it is the sociality that makes for individuals to develop identities. We cannot, of course, deny that these social groups are constituted by individuals.
Which brings us to the chicken and the egg. We cannot ask what came first, the individual or the society without leading us into the circular question of the chicken and the egg. Neither can be understood without the other; which means neither can exist without the other.
Individuals and societies are mutually constitutive elements.
Which means, at the political level, that societies can demand much of the individuals that belong to them and that individuals can place limits on what societies can demand. This position is the most realistic and the most liberating philosophies for it recognizes that we human beings determine our social existence through our free choices, and that we accept that society shapes the choices available to us.
When we speak of the common good, then, we can say both that the common good can be characterized independently and antecedently to individual interests and yet that the common good includes the full development of each and every member of society.
The answer is both/and or neither/nor.
If we look at ourselves through the lens of evolution, we come to understand that human beings -- homo sapiens -- evolved as members of cohesive groups. We see the same pattern in all the great apes, except for the orangutans who forage for food in solitude and are much less aggressive than homo sapiens or other apes. If we want to understand our own nature, then, we have to put our species-specific nature in discussion with this evolutionary past. I do not mean this to follow the pattern of evolutionary psychology which tries to discover deep-seated genetic imperatives in our biology that we gained and haven’t lost since the emergence of homo sapiens on the African plains. Rather, I mean that we have to understand our biology -- which includes our evolution -- if we want to understand the kinds of creatures we are -- individuals with free choice.
If we speak of individuality, then, we must understand how individuality arises among a social creature like the great apes. It cannot be something divorced from that sociality, for it is the sociality that makes for individuals to develop identities. We cannot, of course, deny that these social groups are constituted by individuals.
Which brings us to the chicken and the egg. We cannot ask what came first, the individual or the society without leading us into the circular question of the chicken and the egg. Neither can be understood without the other; which means neither can exist without the other.
Individuals and societies are mutually constitutive elements.
Which means, at the political level, that societies can demand much of the individuals that belong to them and that individuals can place limits on what societies can demand. This position is the most realistic and the most liberating philosophies for it recognizes that we human beings determine our social existence through our free choices, and that we accept that society shapes the choices available to us.
When we speak of the common good, then, we can say both that the common good can be characterized independently and antecedently to individual interests and yet that the common good includes the full development of each and every member of society.
Comments