ANTHROPOLOGY, MAN AND SOCIETY.

INTRODUCTION

Here we will be discussing man and the society, to achieve this; we will be looking into the following.

· Society

· Etymology Of Society

· Conception Of Society

· Society (According To F. M. Anayet Hossain And Md. Korban Ali)

· Nature Of Society

· Social Life

· Man As Social Animal

· Man Is A Social Animal By Nature

· Necessity Makes Man A Social Animal

· Man Lives In Society For His Mental And Intellectual Development

· Types Of Society

· Characteristics Of Society(By Yogesh )

· Characteristics Of Human Society

· Relation Between Individual And Society

· Importance Of A Society

It is important to note that most of the works here are extracts from the source referenced

Society (Wikipedia)

[1]A human society is a group of people involved in persistent interpersonal relationships, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. Human societies are characterized by patterns of relationships (social relations) between individuals who share a distinctive culture and institutions; a given society may be described as the sum total of such relationships among its constituent members. In the social sciences, a larger society often evinces stratification or dominance patterns in subgroups.

Insofar as it is collaborative, a society can enable its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis; both individual and social (common) benefits can thus be distinguished, or in many cases found to overlap.

A society can also consist of like-minded people governed by their own norms and values within a dominant, larger society. This is sometimes referred to as a subculture, a term used extensively within criminology.

More broadly, and especially within structuralist thought, a society may be illustrated as an economic, social, industrial or cultural infrastructure, made up of, yet distinct from, a varied collection of individuals. In this regard society can mean the objective relationships people have with the material world and with other people, rather than "other people" beyond the individual and their familiar social environment.

Etymology And Usage (Wikipedia)

[2]The term "society" came from the Latin word societas, which in turn was derived from the noun socius ("comrade, friend, ally"; adjectival form socialis) used to describe a bond or interaction between parties that are friendly, or at least civil. Without an article, the term can refer to the entirety of humanity (also: "society in general", "society at large", etc.), although those who are unfriendly or uncivil to the remainder of society in this sense may be deemed to be "antisocial". Adam Smith wrote that a society "may subsist among different men, as among different merchants, from a sense of its utility without any mutual love or affection, if only they refrain from doing injury to each other."^[1]

Used in the sense of an association, a society is a body of individuals outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, possibly comprising characteristics such as national or cultural identity, social solidarity, language, or hierarchical structure.

Conceptions of society (Wikipedia)

[3]Human societies are most often organized according to their primary means of subsistence. Social scientists have identified hunter-gatherer societies, nomadic pastoral societies, horticulturalist or simple farming societies, and intensive agricultural societies, also called civilizations. Some consider industrial and post-industrial societies to be qualitatively different from traditional agricultural societies.

In political science

Societies may also be structured politically. In order of increasing size and complexity, there are bands, tribes, chiefdoms, and state societies. These structures may have varying degrees of political power, depending on the cultural, geographical, and historical environments that these societies must contend with. Thus, a more isolated society with the same level of technology and culture as other societies is more likely to survive than one in closer proximity to others that may encroach on their resources. A society that is unable to offer an effective response to other societies it competes with will usually be subsumed into the culture of the competing society.

In sociology

The social group enables its members to benefit in ways that would not otherwise be possible on an individual basis. Both individual and social (common) goals can thus be distinguished and considered. Ant (formicidae) social ethology.

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski differentiates societies based on their level of technology, communication, and economy: (1) hunters and gatherers, (2) simple agricultural, (3) advanced agricultural, (4) industrial, and (5) special (e.g. fishing societies or maritime societies).^[4] This is similar to the system earlier developed by anthropologists Morton H. Fried, a conflict theorist, and Elman Service, an integration theorist, who have produced a system of classification for societies in all human cultures based on the evolution of social inequality and the role of the state. This system of classification contains four categories:

Hunter-gatherer bands (categorization of duties and responsibilities).
Tribal societies in which there are some limited instances of social rank and prestige.
Stratified structures led by chieftains.
Civilizations, with complex social hierarchies and organized, institutional governments.

In addition to this there are:

Humanity, mankind, upon which rest all the elements of society, including society's beliefs.
Virtual society, a society based on online identity, which is evolving in the information age.

Over time, some cultures have progressed toward more complex forms of organization and control. This cultural evolution has a profound effect on patterns of community. Hunter-gatherer tribes settled around seasonal food stocks to become agrarian villages. Villages grew to become towns and cities. Cities turned into city-states and nation-states.^[5]

Many societies distribute largess at the behest of some individual or some larger group of people. This type of generosity can be seen in all known cultures; typically, prestige accrues to the generous individual or group. Conversely, members of a society may also shun or scapegoat members of the society who violate its norms. Mechanisms such as gift-giving, joking relationships and scapegoating, which may be seen in various types of human groupings, tend to be institutionalized within a society. Social evolution as a phenomenon carries with it certain elements that could be detrimental to the population it serves.

Some societies bestow status on an individual or group of people when that individual or group performs an admired or desired action. This type of recognition is bestowed in the form of a name, title, manner of dress, or monetary reward. In many societies, adult male or female status is subject to a ritual or process of this type. Altruistic action in the interests of the larger group is seen in virtually all societies. The phenomena of community action, shunning, scapegoating, generosity, shared risk, and reward are common to many forms of society.

SOCIETY (according to F. M. Anayet Hossain and Md. Korban Ali)

The term “society” means relationships social beings, men, express their nature by creating and re-creating an organization which guides and controls their behavior 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 human behavior and of liberties. This changing system, we call society and it is always changing [1] . Society exists only where social beings “behave” toward one another in ways determined by their recognition of one another.[4]

Society not confined to man [2] . It should be clear that society is not limited to human beings. There are many degrees of animal societies, likely the ants, the bee, the hornet, are known to most school children. It has been contended that wherever there is life there is society, because life means heredity and, so far as we know, can arise only out of and in the presence of other life. All higher animals at least have a very definite society, arising out of the requirements their nature and the conditions involved in the perpetuation of their species [3] . In society each 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 society moreover; a society may be illustrated as an economic, social or industrial infrastructure, made up of a varied collection of individuals. Finally, we can say that the word “society” may also 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 mark them off from others who do not enter into those relations or who differ from them in behavior. In this way we can conclude that, society is the whole complex of social behavior and the network of social relationship [5] .

Nature Of Society

Society is an abstract term that connotes the complex of inter-relations that exist between and among the members of the group. Society exists wherever there are good or bad, proper or improper relationships between human beings. These social relationships are not evident, they do not have any concrete from, and hence society is abstract. Society is not a group of people; it means in essence a state or condition, a relationship and is therefore necessarily an abstraction. Society is organization of relationship. It is the total complex of human relationships. It includes whole range of human relations. Social relationships invariably possess a physical element, which takes the form of awareness of another’s presence, common objective or common interest [7] . Now we can say that society 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.

Social Life

As a human being man cannot live without association. So man’s life is to an enormous extent a group life. Because individuals cannot be understood apart from their relations with one another; the relations cannot be understood apart from the units (or terms) of the relationship. A man of society may be aided by the understanding of say, neurons and synapses, but his quest remains the analysis of social relationships [8] . The role of social life is clarified when we consider the process by which they develop in the life of the individual. Kant [9] thought that it 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 place 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 define a social life, the nature of each component is different for every person and 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 by a social life which surrounds him like an atmosphere [11] . It is true that, human achievement is marked by his ability to do, so to a more remarkable degree than any other animal. Everywhere there 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 make society [12] .

There are different kinds of social life and these are depends on various factors. There are also more immediate things that can affect one’s social life on a day-to-day basis. Availability of friends and/or dates, current cash flow, personal schedule, recent positive restaurant reviews and perhaps a post on Perez Hilton of where the celebs are hanging out can all determine with whom you interact, the nature of activities, how often 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 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] .

However, I have come to realize that my social life, or at least the very little going out that counts as “social” is completely determined by things that should have nothing to do with determining one’s social life.

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. Long ago, Aristotle expressed that “Man is essentially a social animal by nature”. 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.

Man can 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 society of some sort, without which man cannot exist at all. Society fulfills all his needs and provides security. Every human took birth, grows, live and die in society. Without society human’s life is just like fish out of water. 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.e. in what sense man is a social animal? No doubt Aristotle said so long ago. However, man is a social animal mainly because of the following three reasons:

Man Is A Social Animal By Nature

Man is a social animal because his nature makes him so. Sociality or sociability is his natural instinct. He can’t but live in society. All his human qualities such as: to think, to enquire, 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 live alone. Famous sociologist MacIver has cited three cases in which infants were isolated from all social relationships to make experiments about man’s social nature.

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 1920 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. Society is something which fulfils a vital need in man’s constitution, it is not something accidentally added to or super imposed on human nature. 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.

Necessity Makes Man A Social Animal

Man is a social animal not only by nature but also by necessity. 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. He can’t fulfill these needs without living in society.

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.

Man Lives In Society For His Mental And Intellectual Development

This is yet another reason for which man is a social animal. 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. With the course of living and with the process of socialization man’s personality develops and he became a fully fledged individual. 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. The cultural heritage determines man’s personality by molding his attitudes, beliefs, morals and ideals. With the help of social heritage man’s in born potentialities are unfolded.

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. There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body.

TYPES OF SOCIETY (Wikipedia)

Societies are social groups that differ according to subsistence strategies, the ways that humans use technology to provide needs for themselves. Although humans have established many types of societies throughout history, anthropologists tend to classify different societies according to the degree to which different groups within a society have unequal access to advantages such as resources, prestige, or power. Virtually all societies have developed some degree of inequality among their people through the process of social stratification, the division of members of a society into levels with unequal wealth, prestige, or power. Sociologists place societies in three broad categories: pre-industrial, industrial, and postindustrial.

Pre-Industrial Society

In a pre-industrial society, food production, which is carried out through the use of human and animal labor, is the main economic activity. These societies can be subdivided according to their level of technology and their method of producing food. These subdivisions are hunting and gathering, pastoral, horticultural, agricultural, and feudal.

Hunting And Gathering Society

The main form of food production in such societies is the daily collection of wild plants and the hunting of wild animals. Hunter-gatherers move around constantly in search of food. As a result, they do not build permanent villages or create a wide variety of artifacts, and usually only form small groups such as bands and tribes. However, some hunting and gathering societies in areas with abundant resources (such as the Tlingit) lived in larger groups and formed complex hierarchical social structures such as chiefdoms. The need for mobility also limits the size of these societies. They generally consist of fewer than 60 people and rarely exceed 100. Statuses within the tribe are relatively equal, and decisions are reached through general agreement. The ties that bind the tribe are more complex than those of the bands. Leadership is personal—charismatic—and used for special purposes only in tribal society. There are no political offices containing real power, and a chief is merely a person of influence, a sort of adviser; therefore, tribal consolidations for collective action are not governmental. The family forms the main social unit, with most societal members being related by birth or marriage. This type of organization requires the family to carry out most social functions, including production and education.

Pastoral Society

Pastoralism is a slightly more efficient form of subsistence. Rather than searching for food on a daily basis, members of a pastoral society rely on domesticated herd animals to meet their food needs. Pastoralists live a nomadic life, moving their herds from one pasture to another. Because their food supply is far more reliable, pastoral societies can support larger populations. Since there are food surpluses, fewer people are needed to produce food. As a result, the division of labor (the specialization by individuals or groups in the performance of specific economic activities) becomes more complex. For example, some people become craftworkers, producing tools, weapons, and jewelry. The production of goods encourages trade. This trade helps to create inequality, as some families acquire more goods than others do. These families often gain power through their increased wealth. The passing on of property from one generation to another helps to centralize wealth and power. Over time emerge hereditary chieftainships, the typical form of government in pastoral societies.

Horticultural Society

Fruits and vegetables grown in garden plots that have been cleared from the jungle or forest provide the main source of food in a horticultural society. These societies have a level of technology and complexity similar to pastoral societies. Some horticultural groups use the slash-and-burn method to raise crops. The wild vegetation is cut and burned, and ashes are used as fertilizers. Horticulturists use human labor and simple tools to cultivate the land for one or more seasons. When the land becomes barren, horticulturists clear a new plot and leave the old plot to revert to its natural state. They may return to the original land several years later and begin the process again. By rotating their garden plots, horticulturists can stay in one area for a fairly long period of time. This allows them to build semipermanent or permanent villages. The size of a village's population depends on the amount of land available for farming; thus villages can range from as few as 30 people to as many as 2000.

As with pastoral societies, surplus food leads to a more complex division of labor. Specialized roles in horticultural societies include craftspeople, shamans (religious leaders), and traders. This role specialization allows people to create a wide variety of artifacts. As in pastoral societies, surplus food can lead to inequalities in wealth and power within horticultural political systems, developed because of the settled nature of horticultural life.

Agrarian Society

Agrarian societies use agricultural technological advances to cultivate crops over a large area. Sociologists use the phrase Agricultural Revolution to refer to the technological changes that occurred as long as 8,500 years ago that led to cultivating crops and raising farm animals. Increases in food supplies then led to larger populations than in earlier communities. This meant a greater surplus, which resulted in towns that became centers of trade supporting various rulers, educators, craftspeople, merchants, and religious leaders who did not have to worry about locating nourishment.

Greater degrees of social stratification appeared in agrarian societies. For example, women previously had higher social status because they shared labor more equally with men. In hunting and gathering societies, women even gathered more food than men. However, as food stores improved and women took on lesser roles in providing food for the family, they increasingly became subordinate to men. As villages and towns expanded into neighboring areas, conflicts with other communities inevitably occurred. Farmers provided warriors with food in exchange for protection against invasion by enemies. A system of rulers with high social status also appeared. This nobility organized warriors to protect the society from invasion. In this way, the nobility managed to extract goods from “lesser” members of society.

Feudal Society

Feudalism was a form of society based on ownership of land. Unlike today's farmers, vassals under feudalism were bound to cultivating their lord's land. In exchange for military protection, the lords exploited the peasants into providing food, crops, crafts, homage, and other services to the landowner. The estates of the realm system of feudalism was often multigenerational; the families of peasants may have cultivated their lord's land for generations.

Industrial Society

Between the 15th and 16th centuries, a new economic system emerged that began to replace feudalism. Capitalism is marked by open competition in a free market, in which the means of production are privately owned. Europe's exploration of the Americas served as one impetus for the development of capitalism. The introduction of foreign metals, silks, and spices stimulated great commercial activity in European societies.

Industrial societies rely heavily on machines powered by fuels for the production of goods. This produced further dramatic increases in efficiency. The increased efficiency of production of the industrial revolution produced an even greater surplus than before. Now the surplus was not just agricultural goods, but also manufactured goods. This larger surplus caused all of the changes discussed earlier in the domestication revolution to become even more pronounced.

Once again, the population boomed. Increased productivity made more goods available to everyone. However, inequality became even greater than before. The breakup of agricultural-based feudal societies caused many people to leave the land and seek employment in cities. This created a great surplus of labor and gave capitalists plenty of laborers who could be hired for extremely low wages.

Post-Industrial Society

Post-industrial societies are societies dominated by information, services, and high technology more than the production of goods. Advanced industrial societies are now seeing a shift toward an increase in service sectors over manufacturing and production. The United States is the first country to have over half of its work force employed in service industries. Service industries include government, research, education, health, sales, law, and banking.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIETY(by Yogesh )

Some of the important characteristics of society are as follows:

[5]A comprehensive understanding of society requires a thorough analysis of its characteristics. But the term society could be understood both from a narrower and broader sense. In a narrower sense society refers to a group of people but in a broader sense it refers to the whole human society. However, society has the following characteristics:

A society must have population. Without a group of people no society could be formed. Of course society refers not to a group of people but to a system of social relationships. But for the establishment of social relationships a group of people is necessary.

This population is a self perpetuating individual who reproduces itself through some sort of mating relationship. Hence it is the first requirement of society.

(1) Likeness:

Likeness is the most important characteristic of society. Famous sociologist Maclver opines that society means likeness. Without a sense of likeness, there could be no mutual recognition of' belonging together' and therefore no society. This sense of likeness was found in early society on kinship and in modern societies the conditions of social likeness have broadened out into the principles of nationality.

Society consists of like bodied and likeminded individuals. Friendship intimacy and association of any kind would be impossible without likeness. It also helps in the understanding of one by the other. That is why F.H. Giddings opines that society rests on the 'Consciousness of Kind'.

(2) Differences :

Along with likeness, differences are another important characteristic of society. Because society involves differences and it depends on it as much as on likeness. That is why Maclver opines that "primary likeness and secondary differences create the greatest of all institutions-the division of labour". Because differences is complementary to social relationship. If people will be alike in all respect society could not be formed and there would be little reciprocity and relationship became limited. Family as the first society based on biological differences and differences in aptitude, interest and capacity. Though differences is necessary for society but differences by itself does not create society. Hence differences is sub-ordinate to likeness.

(3) Inter-dependence :

Interdependence is another important characteristic of society. This fact of interdependence is visible in every aspect of present day society. Famous Greek Philosopher, Aristotle remarked that 'Man is a social animal'. As a social animal he is dependent on others. The survival and well being of each member is very much depended on this interdependence. No individual is self sufficient.

He has to depend on others for food, shelter and security and for the fulfillment of many of his needs and necessities. With the advancement of society this degree of interdependence increases manifold. Family being the first society is based on the biological interdependence of the sexes. Not only individuals are interdependent but also the groups, communities and societies.

(4) Co-operation and Conflict:

Both co-operation and conflict are two another important characteristics of society. Because famous sociologist Maclver once remarked that "Society is Cooperation crossed by conflict". Co-operation is essentially essential for the formation of society. Without co-operation there can be no society. People can't maintain a happy life without co-operation. Family being the first society rests on co-operation. Co-operation avoids mutual destructiveness and results in economy in expenditure.

Like co-operation conflict is also necessary for society. Conflict act as a cementing factor for strengthening social relations. In a healthy and well developed society both co-operation and conflict co-exist. Because with the help of these two universal process society is formed. Conflict makes co-operation meaningful. Conflict may be direct and indirect. However both are necessary for society.

(5) Society is a network or web of social relationship:

Social relationships are the foundation of society. That is why famous sociologist Maclver remarked that society is a network of social relationship. Hence it is difficult to classify social relationships. But this social relationship is based on mutual awareness or recognition to which Cooley call we-feeling, Giddings call consciousness of kind and Thomas as common propensity. Without these social relationships no society could be formed.

As social relationships are abstract in nature so also the society is abstract in nature. Different kinds of social processes like co-operation, conflict constantly takes place in society. And the relationships established around these create society. Hence a network of social relationships which created among individuals constitutes society.

(6) Permanent Nature:

Permanency is another important characteristic of society. It is not a temporary organisation of individuals. Society continues to exist even after the death of individual members. Society is a co-herent organisation.

(7) Society is Abstract:

Society is an abstract concept. As Maclver opines society is a web of social relationships. We can't see this relationship but we can feel it. Hence it is an abstract concept. Wright has rightly remarked that "society in essence means a state or condition, a relationship and is, therefore, necessarily an abstraction". Besides society consists of customs, traditions, folkways, mores and culture which are also abstract. Hence society is abstract in nature.

(8) Society is Dynamic :

The very nature of society is dynamic and changeable. No society is static. Every society changes and changes continuously. Old customs, traditions, folkways, mores, values and institutions got changed and new customs and values takes place. Society changes from its traditional nature to modern nature. Hence it is one of the most important characteristic of society.

(10) Comprehensive Culture:

Culture is another important characteristic of society. Each and every society has it's own culture which distinguishes it from others. Culture is the way of life of the members of a society and includes their values, beliefs, art, morals etc. Hence culture is comprehensive because it fulfills the necessities of social life and is culturally self-sufficient. Besides each and every society transmits its cultural pattern to the succeeding generations.

(11) Something more than mere collection of individuals:

No doubt society consists of individuals. But mere collection of individuals is not society. It is something more than that and something beyond the individual. Durkheim is right when he remarked that society is more than the sum of its parts i.e. individuals.

(12) Accommodation and Assimilation:

This two associative social process is also important for the smooth functioning and continuity of society. Hence it is also another characteristic of society.

CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN SOCIETY(by Dilip Chandra )

[6]A society is mainly defined as a collection of individuals. It consists of individuals belonging to male and female and different age groups. The sex ratio in the society strike balance. The vital activities such as the birth, growth and death and going on in the society as long as the society is there. The immigration and emigration and the birth and death of the population also strike balance of the population in the society. But the improvement in the medical facilities increased the average life span of the individual there by lead to the population explosion.

A common geographical area: A particular society has been demarcated by the other with natural or artificial boundaries. The natural boundaries such as the rivers, mountain ranges or forests, canals etc. The artificial boundaries are there demarcated by political settlements. The people of the area share the resources in common and participate to reach the common goals of population. The people develop unity, we feeling, integrity oneness and collection consciousness.

Variety of interactions: The society is full of interactions and the different social processes and going on in the society. The people come face to face and interact among themselves. People share certain interests, attitudes, aptitudes, traditions, customs, values, objectives and mores. The people of the society depend upon each other for their survival. The division of labour among the individuals exists and the functions assigned to them are performed. This develops functional inter relationship among the members of the society.

Feeling of Solidarity: Since individuals of the society occupy a common territory, common customs and traditions common values, common history common cultures, self contained interdependence on each other obviously causes oneness and we feeling and develops feeling of solidarity among themselves. Though occasionally interact with other societies, they never lore their identity and remains united as long as their society survives.

Total culture: Each society has its own culture and the individual relationships are organized and structured by the culture. Because of commonness in the culture content, traditional of the society unite together. The society will be differentiated by the other society because of its unique culture. Culture is present in human society and the same is absent in animal society.

Social Organisation: Members of a society are socially organized. Society itself has a structure and the important components and elements of social structure are norms, rules, statuses, power, authority, groups, associations and institutions. The norms are the important which give it stability, order and structure to human society that without them social interaction would be difficult and chaotic. Organization of human society is maintained with the help of norms and institutions that pervade the society. Social organization helps maintain society in social equilibrium.

Functional differentiation: All the individuals in human society never perform similar activities and functions. They perform different functions depending upon their sex, age, interest, abilities, skills and other qualifications. There is more and more specialization in each work and are expected to do their work allotted to them. Thus several persons work on a single activity. There is division of labour depending upon sex and age.

RELATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

(by F. M. Anayet Hossain^*, Md. Korban Ali)

[7]Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members. Still there may be conflicts between the individual and society; one can imagine that social systems function better when they have considerable control over their individual members, but that this is a mixed blessing for the system’s members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau (1769) 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:

1. Utilitarianism

The first 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 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] . It applies to society the principle of choice for one man. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound up with this classical utilitarian position. It is only from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can be summed over an entire society [16] . The paradigm presented here, and rejected by Rawls, is one in which the interests of society 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 by subordinating the individual to the social sum. The social order is conceived as a unity. The principles of individual choice, derived from the experience of the self as a unity, are applied to society as a whole. Rawls rightly rejects this position as being unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some administrative decision that it is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness. But individual persons do not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn.

2. Justice as Fairness

The second 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 as will. While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their own choosing. They have their own life plans. They coexist on the same geographical territory and they have roughly similar needs and interests so that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible.

I shall emphasize this aspect of the circumstances of justice by assuming that the parties take no interest in one another’s interest...Thus, one can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcity [17] .

Here the tension between individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the same space at the same time. It is resolved in favor of the plural, while giving up any 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.

3. The Idea of a Social Union

The third paradigm is included under Rawls’s discussion of the congruence of justice and goodness, and of the problem of stability. It is described as a good, as an end in itself which is a shared end. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the entire society of the principle of choice for one person and from the conception of society as an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals. The idea of a social union is described in contrast to the idea of a private society. A private society is essentially the second model as realized in the actual world. It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position as descriptive of a social order. Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social union [18] . It is one in which final ends are shared and communal institutes are valued.

4. Marx and Engels on Relationship between Individuals and Society

The direct elaborations of Marx and Engels on relationships between individual action and social process can be divided into three categories for purposes of discussion: 1) general statements concerning the dialectical relations between the two and the historicity of human nature; 2) concrete descriptions―often angry, sometimes satirical―of the impact on people of their particular relations to the production process and the examination, as a major concern, of “estrangement” or “alienation”; and 3) analyses of consciousness with particular attention to the pervasive power of commodity fetishism in class society [19] .

Besides, the relationship between individual and society can be viewed from another three angles: Functionalist, Inter-actionist, and Culture and personality.

Functionalist View: How Society Affects the Individual?

What is the relation between individual and society? Functionalists regard the individual 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 as existing apart from the individual. For Durkheim, society is reality; it is first in origin and importance to the individual. Durkheim’s keen discussion of the collective consciousness showed the ways in which social interactions and relationships and ultimately society influence the individual’s attitudes, ideas and sentiments. He utilized his theory of “collective representation” in explaining the phenomena of religion, suicide and the concept of social solidarity. In contrast to Auguste Comte (known as father of sociology), who regarded the individual as a mere abstraction, a somewhat more substantial position by Durkheim held that the individual was the recipient of group influence and social heritage. In sociological circle, this was the “burning question” (individual v/s society) of the day [20] .

How society is important in the formation of individual’s personality is clearly 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, have clearly demonstrated the importance of social interaction and human association in the development of personality.

Inter-Actionist View: How Is Society Constructed?

How an individual helps in building society? For inter-actionists, it is through the interaction of the people that the society is formed. The main champion of this approach 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 self (individual) and society from the point of the influence of society on the individual. Inter-actionists, on the other hand, tend to work from self (individual) “outwards”, stressing that people create society.

A prominent theorist of the last century, Talcott Parsons developed a general theory for the study of society called action 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 third alternative between these two. More than a theory of society, Parsons presented a theory of social evolution and a concrete interpretation of the “drives” and directions of world history. He added that, the structure of society which determines roles and norms, and the cultural system which determines the ultimate values of ends. His theory was severely criticized by George Homans. In his Presidential address, “bringing man back in”, Homans re-established the need to study individual social interactions, the building blocks of society. A recent well-known theorist Anthony Giddens has not accepted the idea of some sociologists that society has an existence over and above individuals. He argues: “Human actions and their reactions are the only reality and we cannot regard societies or systems as having an existence over and above individuals.” [21] .

Culture and Personality View: How Individual and Society Affect Each Other? Or How Individual and Society Interacts?

Both the above views are incomplete. In reality, it is not society or individual but it is society and individual which helps in understanding the total reality. The extreme view of individual or society has long been abandoned. Sociologists from Cooley to the present have recognized that neither society nor the individual can exist without each other. This view was laid down mainly by Margaret Mead, Kardiner and others who maintained that society’s culture affects personality (individual) and, in turn, personality helps in the formation of society’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 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. Both are interdependent on each, other.

The individual should be subordinated to society and the individual should sacrifice their welfare at the cost of society. Both these views are extreme which see the relationship between individual and society from merely the one or the other side. But surely all is not harmonious between individual and society. The individual and society interact on one another and depend on one another. Social integration is never complete and harmonious.

Conclusion

The wellbeing of nations can occur at the cost of the well-being of their citizens, and this seems to have happened in the past. Yet in present day conditions, there is no such conflict. Society 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 individual. A very wide scope is given to the natural development of the energies of the individual in such a manner that in the end. Society will benefit the best by it. While society reaps the best advantage of the properly utilized and developed energies of the individuals, an attempt is made to see that the normal and sometimes even the abnormal weaknesses of the individuals have the least possible effect on the society. Spirit of service and duty to the society is the ideal of the individual and spirit of tolerance, broadmindedness and security of the individual is the worry of the society. There is no rigid rule to develop the individual in a particular pattern suitable to the rules of the society. Society demands greater sacrifices from its greater individuals while the fruits of the works of all are meant equally for all. The general rule is: the higher the status and culture of the individual are, the lesser his rights are and the greater his duties are. A sincere attempt is made by the sociologists to bring to the minimum the clash between the individual and the society, so that there will be few psychological problems for the individual and the society both. The inherent capacities, energies and weaknesses of the individual are properly taken into account and the evolution of the relation between the two is made as natural as possible. Human values and idealism being given due respect, the development of the relation between the two is more or less philosophical.

THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIETIES(by Walter Fritz )

[8]How important is our society to us? Is it just something nice to have? Could we even do without it? Let's think about what proportion of the quality of life of a person depends on his own efforts and what part is due to his belonging to a society. At first sight it seems that nearly all is due to his own efforts. But if we imagine how we would live without the knowledge and the material things accumulated by the society in which we live, we would realize that we would live without electricity and water, because we have not invented the generation and use of electricity nor build water works. Previous members of our society have done this. There would be no tools, machines, and no books. All this has been created by previous generations; not by ourselves. We could not even make tools, for instance a pair of pliers; there would be no iron (released from the ore), nor tools or machines to work the iron with.

Probably the greatest advantage for the IS, member of a society is having access to its accumulated knowledge. Since the life span of a society is so much greater than the life span of an individual IS, this accumulation is considerable.

Another advantage is the possibility of cooperation, the division of labor. Each member learns only part of the accumulated knowledge. So he (or she) has to learn during less time and so can be productive for a greater portion of his life span. He works using the part of the total existing knowledge he has learned, and supplies the other members with the results of his work. The society facilitates this exchange by standardizing measures of time, weight, length, and so on, and issuing money. This allows each member to reach its objectives much easier than without a society; it permits to have a better standard of living. For instance most of us do not have the knowledge of an architect or the machines of a construction company. So we let them build our house instead of building it ourselves. Finally, within a society, by cooperation, the common defense is much easier. The society is very much stronger than individual members.

We see, that it is of fundamental importance for human beings to belong to a society. Without our society we would be reduced to living like wild animals.

REFERENCES

1. Wikipedia, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; This page was last modified on 12 May 2015, at 18:42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

2.Yogesh, 12-most-important-characteristics-of-society-1061-words.html,

http://www.preservearticles.com/2013082333385/society-

3.Dilip Chandra, Characteristics-of-Human-Society(Updated on February 6, 2014),

http://dilipchandra12.hubpages.com/hub/Characteristics-of-Human-Society

4.F. M. Anayet Hossain^*, Md. Korban Ali, Relation between Individual and Society

Open Journal of Social Sciences
Vol.02 No.08(2014), Article ID:49227,7 pages 10.4236/jss.2014.28019 ,

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

5.Walter Fritz, THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIETIES,

http://www.intelligent-systems.com.ar/impsoc.htm

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. MacIver and Page (1965) Society. Macmillan and Company, London, 5-6.

2. Green A.W. (1968) Sociology: An Analysis of Life in Modern Society. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 10- 14.

3. Horton, P.B. and Hunt, C.L. (1964) Sociology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 67.

4. Lenski, G., Nolan, P. and Lenski, J. (1995) Human Societies: An Introduction into Macro Sociology. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 11.

5. Maryanski, A. and Turner, J.H. (1992) The Social Cage Human Nature and the Evolution of Society. Stanford Univer- sity Press, Redwood City, 119.

6. Quoted from Ritzer, G. (1993) The Mcdonaldization of Society. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, 39.

7. MacIver and Page (1965) Society, op., cit., 21-23.

8. Sanderson, S.K. (1995) Social Transformation. Blackie Press, 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, S. (1972) A New Philosophy of the Just Society. The New York Review of Books & Company, New York, 34-39.

13. Giddens, A. (2009) Sociology. 6th 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 University 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. 6thEdition, op., cit., 87.

20. Abrahamson, M. (1988) Sociological Theory, op., cit., 19.

21. Hauser, A. (1982) The Sociology of Art. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 43-46.

Further reading

Effland, R. 1998. The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations Mesa Community College.
Jenkins, R. 2002. Foundations of Sociology. London: Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 0-333-96050-5.
Lenski, G. 1974. Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc.
Raymond Williams, "www.flpmihai.blogspot.com", in: Williams, Key Words: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Fontana, 1976.
Althusser, Louis and Balibar, Étienne. Reading Capital. London: Verso, 2009.
Bottomore, Tom (ed). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 45–48.
Calhoun, Craig (ed), Dictionary of the Social Sciences Oxford University Press (2002)
Hall, Stuart. "Rethinking the Base and Superstructure Metaphor." Papers on Class, Hegemony and Party. Bloomfield, J., ed. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1977.
Chris Harman. "Base and Superstructure". International Socialism 2:32, Summer 1986, pp. 3–44.
Harvey, David. A Companion to Marx's Capital. London: Verso, 2010.
Larrain, Jorge. Marxism and Ideology. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1983.
Lukács, Georg. History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1972.
Postone, Moishe. Time, Labour, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.