The "social organism" : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » The "social organism" » The "social organism"

The "social organism"
methodology of sociology

Page: 1 2

The "social organism"

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 07/14/08 - 03:34 PM: Subject: The "social organism"	#1
In relation to the "undervaluation of sociology", which was the topic of a thread that has gone pretty far astray now, and that's why I am starting a new one to discuss precisely this matter, I came to think that typically the object sociology does study is the "social organism" very much like biology does study the human organism. Browsing though some old threads, I saw that many people are prompt to deny the relevance of a concept such as a "social organism" and they hinge their criticism on the fact that society has no intentionality of its own and is a mere aggregate of individuals. Well, that seems fair at a first glance, but can't we say, that the individual itself is not such an uncontroversial concept. Theoretically at least, can't we consider an individual as the mere aggregate of cells, each one being a mere aggregate of molecules, and each molecules in turn beiung the mere aggregate of particles, which, who knows, may have an intentionality as well (and ironically, of all the levels, it might be at this one, that we have the more reason to think of a genuine intentionality). About this, however, I believe it si a fair assumption of psychology to consider the existence of an individual intentionality, there are enough subjective and objective reasons to warrant this hypothesis. One may wonder however, whether this hypothesis may not be warranted at a social level ? And if not, is there some other concept, such as power or progress, which may be used as a methodological basis for doing sociology ? The social organism may not be strictly similar to the individual organism, but there still may be a possibility to consider society as an organism, simply endowed with motives and drives which are different from the individual. The main question, here, is then whether there really is such an organism, and if so, what are the motives and drives a sociologist should look for ? Basically, which concepts to use to account for the evolution of this organism ?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 07/14/08 - 04:20 PM:	#2
I've noticed the same thing. I mention something as being the desirable for society and someone will object with "society has no desire". I'm not even sure where they are getting that. I didn't mean that society was a separate conscious being, but I was using the term "desire" as an extension of the members of the society. I guess it is an instant strawman response. Whenever you have a group of individuals working together, they project a kind of common set of goals, desires and objections which may be entirely different than individual goals. Even animals understand that cooperation toward a common set of goals is often more effective than individual goals. We are simply talking abstractly about the group as if it had goals, desires and feelings because it is easier to process an "individual" than constantly consider votes. I've sometimes looked into symbiotic relationships and evolution. There are theories that claim that organisms evolved from symbiotic relationships between previously separate organisms. The organelles of a eukaryotic cell may have been separate external organisms that adapted to each other as a group. In a way, someone who wasn't married to the idea that humans are individuals might view a human body as a symbiotic colony of individual systems -- the neurological system housed inside the musculo-structural system along with the circulo-pulmonary system. None of these organisms can survive without the other any more, but they may be viewed as developing from a cooperative evolutionary path and be just as "individual". I think "individuality" and "identity" is probably a mistaken categorization anyway, and the cooperative entity known as society could be just as real as a single individual.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Ron C. de Weijze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 69

Posted 07/15/08 - 02:30 AM: Subject: Nothing really social about it	#3
Once you know the mechanism and machines of nepotism and favoritism, it is obvious that there is nothing social about a social organism. E.g. socialism is social to its own members, but it needs capitalism as the enemy. It can join islamism for it has the same enemy and it takes good care of its people (e.g. Hamas) but it wants to physically destroy its opponent. Edited by Ron C. de Weijze on 07/15/08 - 04:53 AM. Reason: Socialism is just an example. Subject title added.
Researching and developing a practical philosophy of 'Constructive Recollection'.

outofstep
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 07/15/08 - 09:19 AM:	#4
A social organism that is organized by nepotism is still social in character. It is just exclusive as well. Some animals violently excluded members of their own species from their local social groups. But these animals wouldn't be said to be not social on account of their exlcusivity, since the social organism is defined not in terms of its exclusive habits but rather its inclusive ones.

Ron C. de Weijze
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 69

Posted 07/17/08 - 01:20 AM: Subject: Marx was not a Marxist, Socialism isn't social.	#5
outofstep wrote: A social organism that is organized by nepotism is still social in character. It is just exclusive as well. Some animals violently excluded members of their own species from their local social groups. But these animals wouldn't be said to be not social on account of their exclusivity, since the social organism is defined not in terms of its exclusive habits but rather its inclusive ones. I do not agree. Social Reality is divided into groups. Within groups there is the so-called "social" aspect, to the exclusion of all other (non-affiliated) groups. Here lives the incrowd and outside of Rome there are the Barbarians. We have learned that, especially since the 1960s in EU, there are also the outcasts, those who disagree with the order as the enemy, the right-wingers of those days, would have it in society. That was no problem then, for society also took care of these Barbarians or Untouchables. However today, the mainstream of those contraproductive Hippies are in power because they organized themselves exactly as their enemies did. They took their seats in Parliament. They took over their jobs. They organized society according to the inverse power-scheme, but power nonetheless, even when their movement was about making Love Not War. Power now belongs to those who believe in Liberal Democracy, Socialism and Multiculturalism, based on the teachings of Marx and Muhammad. Those who believe that in terms of power schemes nothing has changed, are the new outcasts, between not within groups. However, they deserve to die in the streets, for they are antisocial, according to the Hippies' children in power, still making love and peace and money. They never knew the opposite anyway. Edited by Ron C. de Weijze on 07/17/08 - 01:24 AM
Researching and developing a practical philosophy of 'Constructive Recollection'.

outofstep
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 07/23/08 - 07:23 AM:	#6
There are two parts to the term social organism: social, which refers to the mere fact that humans associate with one another, and organism, which refers to the harmonious operation of various aspects of human association. I am not sure you're using anti-social correctly, but those anti-social people are still social in a certain respect. To say they are anti-social doesn't mean they are not social beings. It means rather that they have no regard for the feelings of others or social conventions, and so their anti-social character defies the "organism" part of "social organism", not the "social" part. Maybe our disagreement comes about as a result of the conflation of two senses of social. I am using it just to mean the association of people with other people. You seem to be using it in the sense of harmonious interaction, which I think correlates more with the "organism" aspect of "social organism".

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 07/24/08 - 07:32 AM:	#7
swstephe wrote: I think "individuality" and "identity" is probably a mistaken categorization anyway, and the cooperative entity known as society could be just as real as a single individual. Yes, I agree with that, the so-called individual has nothing but nothingness as its essence, it is merely the product of its social history (within the family first and within the larger groups such as school, friends, religion, nation,..., afterwards), even though beyond this existence, he can aim at free-will, but that's another matter. I believe it is important to recognize that the indiviudal is highly conditionned by society even though he is not totally determined by it. As for the discussion between Ron C. de Weijze and outofstep, I tend to side with with the latter. My understanding of "social" in social organism was merely descriptive, I did not intend to include any moral idea of inclusiveness. Besides an organism may have diseases, imbalances, I would even say he always has some, it's part of existence, so the social organism is never all-inclusive, all-balanced, harmonious, such a thing will never happen, history will never end. An organism is always adapting to its environment, always evolving, rejecting some parts of itseld while assimilating parts of its environment and transforming them. The social organism does just that, the viruses and bacterias of one time become the healthy contributors of another. Edited by enkidu on 07/24/08 - 07:42 AM

Dazed-and-Confused
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 04, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 07/31/08 - 06:53 PM:	#8
Endukid The basic description of an organism is: A living structure or system composed of many parts in which interdepend on oneanother. Also, like an organism society is self propeled and self sustained. However, unlike a typical organism, the societal organism feeds souly off its self and is fueled by the COLLECTIVE desire, passion and intent of its parts. Therefore I personally think that viewing society as an organism is a great conceptualization. Whether or not a societal or social organism is perfectly acurate to the true definition of a living organism, I believe that it is an accurate perception of a society which has an identity and intentionality of its mass cumulative individuals intentionalities and identities. I believe that it is correct to consider society as a social organism. As you have said however, many people will argue this by saying that society is not alive and does not have intentionality of its own because it is merely the aggregate of individuals. Clearly, those who say this have not comprehended the concept of a societal organism. When I think of a societal organism I think about the strong conections between a mass populations overall desire, based on the majority desire of its population, and its very influential relation to the individuals of that society. A society is self perpetuating and follows a cycle of perpetual influence. We are influenced by society and society is the product of us. If these cycles and interconections did not exist, and we truely had freewill because we were uninfluenced by our surroundings, then yes I believe that it would be correct to deny a societal organism. I find it facinating just how influenced people are by their surroundings. I know I am often times boggled at the irrationality of our actions which are so often derivative of our influences. When I think about it, it shows me just how limmited we our by our finite human perception. Even things like mathmatics which are often the only consistant in life have been quantifed from such a limmited human perception. Maybe its just me. Anyway these our my thoughts. Criticism is welcomed.

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 530

Posted 08/10/08 - 11:03 AM:	#9
The identity of society is a crucial piece of info that we lack. We tend to call it culture, I think, and no one really has culture defined. I'm not sure about what out-of-step said, though. The social organism is made between the people; Ron C pointed out how secular we are. That we are social beings is obvious; whether we have reached any semblance of harmony seems to be what most people in charge are against, I thus the extent of the social organism is in question. If the social organism doesn't go beyond family and friends, we haven't really transcended being social beings. The harmony in question is supposed to permeate beyond the borders to a collective... and we find our selves at step one again: We need to define culture. Across the world.
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

vykk_draygo
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2008
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 66

Posted 09/02/08 - 09:03 PM:	#10
I've had the same ponderings myself, including your rationale about individuals made of cells and molecules and so forth. One can also call upon a pantheistic view of the world in relation to this collectivity, i.e. galaxies are made of stars and planets, clusters are made of galaxies, and so forth into infinity. The term "organism" doesn't quite fit, but I must admit I can't conjure a better metaphor. The parallels are striking. For example, take a modern city. It fulfills all the characteristics of a living organism, given a little wiggle room in the definitions. Composed of cells... Yes, if "cells" can be redefined to refer to buildings and rooms. Organization... Any city that isn't organized in some way isn't going to last long. Energy use/Metabolism... Power plants. Homeostasis... Air conditioning & heating, plumbing, gaslines, etc. keep buildings at optimal functioning conditions. Growth... Ubran sprawl. Reproduction... The founding of new cities. The city itself doesn't assume the existence of human society, of course. But, without society, cities wouldn't exist. They are a product, and an excellent model, of the social organism.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?" H.P. Lovecraft

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.