Does "society" even exist?

[Jacob Cliff]

A simple question, but one asked by a lot of objectivists and individualists. Does society even exist? Is it not just a collection of autonomous individuals - can we really speak of "society" as an actual, independent entity? In the words of Ayn Rand,

"[S]ince there is no entity such as society, since society is only a number of individual men--this meant some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."

How is Rand's view on society, or the individualist view, exactly wrong? To me, it seems fairly accurate - that man is independent and that society is merely the collection of individual, autonomous men acting out of their rational self interest.

[Rafiq]

As it happens, there are no individuals either, since individuals are merely composed of a conglomeration of cells - which are themselves composed of elements.

It is a stupid notion, but one doesn't need to look toward objectivists: a popular trend in today's pseudo-biology circles deals precisely with this - the notion that "society" is merely composed of individuals who are subjugated to autonomous biological processes.

Of course, the notion is stupid. No individuals are "autonomous", how does one measure this "autonomy" in any real way? Did "individual humans" in some of the first societies construct their own languages, mythological narratives about the world, and so forth? Think about how stupid this idea: It amounts to the notion that an individual is sufficient unto themselves. How? Is it really a coincidence that individuals hold the ideas, act in the ways they do, in accordance with history? of course, for these scum, "history" is something outside of individuals - i.e. that "autonomous individuals" conform to by merit of their "skills".

These are not philosophic questions though. These are questions reserved for 9 year olds (not to insult you, I am insulting Rand). It is patently obvious that society exists, and that society is not the sum-total of autonomous individuals, because individuals themselves believe in big others which encapsulate their own holistic constitution: A god, an idea, evolutionary forces that shape extra-biological behavior, metaphysical "individualism" disguised as biology, nature, ETC.

Where does this "rational self interest" derive from? Where does it come from? Are people born with a "rational self interest", if so, how does that account for history, the changing of the coordinates to which one can fulfill their "self interest". I am sure in societies where it was a high honor to be sacrificed to the gods it would have been one's self-interest to do so (just as it might be for Islamist suicide bombers), protesters on hunger strike, etc.. What is "rational self-interest" (as opposed to "irrational self interest") and how does abstracting it denote an essential basis for it?

[ComradeAllende]

I find Rand's quote interesting, partly because of the formation of an intellectual society (the Objectivists) devoted to her teachings. Are the Objectivists just a mass of self-interested libertarian scumbags, or are they more than that? Are they a movement (however puny and elitist) devoted to a particular philosophy that defines both their social and private lives? If so, then Rand's assertion is refuted by her own attempts to convert others to her philosophy.

[Hatshepsut]

Does society even exist? Is it not just a collection of autonomous individuals - can we really speak of "society" as an actual, independent entity?

The analogy "person is to society as cell is to body" is weak for a number of reasons. For one thing, a person can live without society for a long time but a cell doesn't survive more than a few minutes if removed from the body, except under certain special laboratory conditions. People can also make decisions independently, while cells are commanded almost entirely by hormone signals from other parts of the body. All cells in one person's body are genetically identical, but the people in a society are genetically diverse. They may be diverse culturally and linguistically as well.

Ayn Rand still has it all screwed up. She claims that society doesn't exist. Atlas Shrugged has this fantastic, mostly invisible character, John Galt, who's fucking rich, commanding an enormously expensive and sophisticated economic establishment he has created entirely by himself, or perhaps with the aid of a few friends. It's absurd. The human race would go extinct within a few generations if it had no societies. Rand thinks the acts of lone individuals make wealth but they do not. Only a society can produce.

A Randist private property state, which requires armed enforcers to maintain its property relationships, hardly exists upon individual will. And her dream conditions at best provide the good life for the 0.5% of human beings lucky enough to find themselves on top of the social pyramid. Modern capitalism never made that pyramid go away; it just made the base broader and the apex higher.

[BIXX]

Of course society exists but it still sucks. The question isn't for me whether or not it exists but what it's historical role in relation to individuals has been.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A simple question, but one asked by a lot of objectivists and individualists. Does society even exist? Is it not just a collection of autonomous individuals - can we really speak of "society" as an actual, independent entity? In the words of Ayn Rand,

"[S]ince there is no entity such as society, since society is only a number of individual men--this meant some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."

How is Rand's view on society, or the individualist view, exactly wrong? To me, it seems fairly accurate - that man is independent and that society is merely the collection of individual, autonomous men acting out of their rational self interest.

How are individuals "autonomous", exactly? Individuals, for one thing, can't exist without society; without the material and cultural heritage of the human species and the large-scale social institutions required to reproduce and transmit it, humans would be, not individuals but simple animals without culture or complex thought. And if individuals act in their self-interest, why does capitalism still exist? Whenever people get the idea that they can simply act as they please, social structure gets in their way. (Consider the fate of various "socialist" voluntary communities, for example.)

[RedWorker]

This reduces to the question of idealism vs. materialism.

[Luís Henrique]

A simple question, but one asked by a lot of objectivists and individualists. Does society even exist? Is it not just a collection of autonomous individuals - can we really speak of "society" as an actual, independent entity? In the words of Ayn Rand,

"[S]ince there is no entity such as society, since society is only a number of individual men--this meant some men (the majority or any gang that claims to be its spokesman) are ethically obliged to spend their lives in the service of that gang's desires."

How is Rand's view on society, or the individualist view, exactly wrong? To me, it seems fairly accurate - that man is independent and that society is merely the collection of individual, autonomous men acting out of their rational self interest.

I suppose you have assembled your internet connection all by yourself - or that you think that internet connections grow in trees.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

The analogy "person is to society as cell is to body" is weak for a number of reasons. For one thing, a person can live without society for a long time but a cell doesn't survive more than a few minutes if removed from the body, except under certain special laboratory conditions. People can also make decisions independently, while cells are commanded almost entirely by hormone signals from other parts of the body. All cells in one person's body are genetically identical, but the people in a society are genetically diverse. They may be diverse culturally and linguistically as well.

What fundamentally defines a person, regardless of his propensity toward survival or physical difference, is the social order - without this, there is nothing autonomous about the individual for it probably couldn't even walk. People might "seem" to be able to make decisions independently, but that is different from making 'individualistic' choices independent of society. Even "independent" decisions are owed to an articulation of choices that are produced on a social level, even the act of deciding and the conditions which define it are mandated on a social level. People in a society, finally, are not culturally and linguistically diverse. If there are subcultures in a society, this only forms a part of a wider cultural totality.

muslim communities in Europe are not the same as muslim communities in the Near east. If society exists by merit of the argument that it is "merely composed of individuals", all I mean is that that is just as ludicrous as saying a body does not exist because it is merely composed of cells, or organs (organelles at that) - if you will. Individuals compose a society, but the sum-total of their relations determine the individuals. Even the first human societies had vast and intricate rituals, language, etc. to reproduce themselves. Individuals never simply 'existed', they always constructed conscious narratives about the world in ways that conformed to society.

[Hatshepsut]

Autonomy and independence are matters of degree, rendering the two words a bit vague. But revolution, leading to reconstitution of an existing society, would be impossible if the revolutionaries could not think differently than the rulers. We also intend that most people survive the revolution in the capitalist society and go on to live in the communist successor society. Whereas a "revolution" among someone's body cells is called cancer, which doesn't involve any conscious thought by the cancer cells and ends up killing the entire body. Although there are dependence relationships in both cases, I avoid the analogy. A human body is a top-down thing, where a single original cell generates all the others. Societies organize from the bottom up instead.

I agree that society isn't just a collection of individuals (or I would't post here). It is a definite system with its own requirements and its own ability to shape the people who grow up in it.

[Rafiq]

Well, society is also constitutive of antagonisms. Hence the possibility of revolution.

[Comrade Jacob]

Aye, society exists son. Shit it may be but it be there.

[code_red]

Society exists because we are all essentially dependant on one another. For example, an Architect has no value without a builder. The builder has no value without people to go in the building. An author has no value without a reader. We are not autonomous individuals because we rely on each other every day.