From: prs9k@brain.med.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr)
Subject: Society and the Individual: The Sociological Gambit :-)
Summary: Trashing the libertarian/objectivist position again!
Keywords: libertarianism, objectivism, anthropology, sociology
Organization: Neuroclinical Trials Center, University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:42:52 GMT

I cannot believe that I am going to try and refute the religion of
the Libertarian Church of the Most High Truth Revealed (smile when
I say that... :-)  ) but I figured I have all these anthropology
books collecting dust on my shelves, I might as well put them to
some use.

To my mind, the fundamental dilemma every Libertarian/Objectivist
must face arises from the nature of the individual and its origin. 
Many people here have argued that they were "born" the way they
were and while there have been some minor course corrections along
the way, the nature of their fundamental "individuality" remains
the same throughout.  Others have taken a less bio-determinist view
saying that their individuality is a natural outgrowth of their
upbringing, but that this individuality is based upon laws which
are "natural and right".  In neither case is there a social
presence apart from some admittance of family involvement.  No
acknowledgement of socio-cultural forces apart from the Hobbesian
"collective individuality" which is generated by our "social
contract".  Society, if it exists, is nothing more than the
aggregate decisions made by "rational individuals" acting in
concert with other "rational individuals".

There are two questions begging to be answered in all this.  First,
what is the nature of the individual?  And second, what is to be
made of these interactions between "rational individuals"?  There
are other questions which can be asked, but I will try to confine
myself to these two questions.

For my sources, I will rely heavily upon the introduction to
Dumont's seminal work on the Indian Caste system _Homo
Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications_ .  

In the introduction to _Homo Hierarchicus_, Dumont is attempting to
situate the Indian Caste system in the realm of western ideas.  He
remarks upon our obsession with the ideas of equality and liberty,
two forces which are diametrically opposed to those expressed
through the Caste system.  By way of this discussion, he elaborates
upon the position of sociology and the individual in Western
thought.

"Our two cardinal ideals are called equality and liberty.  They
assume as their common principal, and as a valorized
representation, the idea of the human <individual>: humanity is
made up of men, and each man is conceived as presenting, in spite
of and over and above his particularity, the essence of
humanity....  This individual is quasi-sacred, absolute; there is
nothing over and above his legitimate demands; his rights are
limited only by the identical rights of other individuals.  He is
a monad, in short, and every human group is made up of monads of
this kind.  Common sense finds no problem about the harmony between
these monads.  Thus is conceived the social class, or what is
called at this level 'society'. that is an association, and in some
respects even a mere collection, of such monads.  there is often
claimed to be an antagonism between 'the individual' and 'the
society', in which the 'society' tends to appear as a non human
residuum: the tyranny of numbers, an inevitable material evil
running counter to the sole psychological and moral reality which
is contained in the individual." (Dumont 1970 [1980]: 4-5)

Dumont has a keen perception of the ways in which we in the west
are constructed.  His description covers many of the same turf we
have all been running over and sets the stage for the elaboration
of these ideas.  He asserts that in societies which propound the
inviolability of the individual, where there is a constant
exposition on liberty and equality, there is a certain hollow ring
to the whole construct.  There is something missing.  He goes on to
discuss how even the social sciences are infused with this kind of
asociological foundation.  Sociology, though, is also founded upon
the idea of the "social nature of man".


"To the self sufficient individual it opposes man as a social
being; it considers each man no longer as a particular incarnation
of abstract humanity, but as a more or less autonomous point of
emergence of a particular collective humanity, of a <society>." (5)

Thus sociology is founded upon the premise that there IS a
sociological realm to be studied and that that realm consists of
more than a collection of individuals who are merely interacting. 
Each human being is perceived as a point on the long chain of
humanity, she is both individual being and member of humanity. 
This is known as the "<sociological apperception>".  It is, as Marx
wrote, "society which thinks in me".

This society is a difficult thing for many folks to understand or
even accept (e.g. Libertarianism or Objectivism).  We need to raise
that first important question and that is the genesis of the
individual.  Dumont uses the example of the child as evidence of
the existence of a social reality.


"Our idea of society remains superficial so long as we take it, as
the word suggests, as a sort of association which the fully formed
individual enters voluntarily and with a definite aim, as if by
contract.  Think rather of the child, slowly brought to humanity by
his upbringing in the family, by the apprenticeship of language and
moral judgement, by the education which makes him share in the
common patrimony - including, in our society, elements which were
unknown to the whole of mankind less than a century ago.  Where
would be the humanity of this man, where his understanding, without
this training or taming, properly speaking a creation, which every
society imparts to its members, by whatever actual agency?" (5-6)

It is only through a complicated set of biological and sociological
circumstances that an individual is socially produced.  There are
no individuals prior to society because there are no human beings
prior to society.  Humans are social animals, we aggregate not out
of some capitalistic desire to exploit one another, to compete and
to get ahead, but because it is in our very nature.

Animal ethologists have noted similar behaviors in non-human
primates like chimps and apes.  They travel in bands and tribes
with very clear social organization.  Youngsters are taught right
and wrong and are brought up with a sense of community.  Human
beings are exactly the same.

In this brief essay I have tried to lay the foundation for a
resonable approach to the study of the individual and society. 
Rather than bracket off "the individual" as a static variable in
the equation, I have shown that the individual is quite dynamic,
shaped and shaping society through time.
-- 
PHIL SCARR        \      We are Microsoft...     /          (o) 804.243.0229
 University of    /     OS/2 is irrelevant.      \          (f) 804.243.0290
 Virginia,        \     UNIX is irrelevant.      /        prs9k@Virginia.EDU
 Neurosurgery     /     Openness is futile.      \     prs9k@Virginia.BITNET
 HP-UX is my life!\ Prepare to be assimilated... /   ...uunet!virginia!prs9k
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex