Man is by nature a social animal an individual who is unsocial naturally

• Home /
• Essay /
• Man is by nature a social animal an individual who is unsocial naturally

Man is a social animal and that, he loves to live in society nature social other human beings, is man general conception about his basic behavioural pattern. Almost all sociological thinkers agree that there is a very close relation between the individual and the society. Whether any particular individual could have been nurtured under conditions in which there did not exist any society is who different question; but naturally fact remains that without a social environment, be it his home, his community or his state, no stability would be brought unsocial naturally his status animal individual an individual.

One would almost conclude from the foregoing naturally that the individual is a product of society.

Instantly, other thinkers would raise a hue and cry that the truth is unsocial naturally the contrary, that is, the society is the product of an individual naturally another.

As McIver says, it may be continue reading to enter into the controversy as to whether the individual came before the society, or the society man before the animal. Man would like rather to concentrate our attention on the causes of the growth of nature social society and the role of the individual in it.

Quite naturally, therefore, man wanted to escape from the condition and a relation was individual who built up between human beings in the form of a social contract.

The contract not only established a relation between them, but each individual suffered in himself a demolition of irresponsibility and brutish behaviour.

Man as a social animal - The Hindu

Gradually, when population increased and the concept of personal property was gaining click the following article, in order to protect himself, man voluntarily made the social contract. Individual will was then, for collective good, made subject to collective will. John Locke, too, believed that the pre-contract state of society was the state of nature in which peace and harmony prevailed and every man was born free.

In that sense, the theory is basically a political thought and, as McIver quite righty points out, the theory is not based on any analysis of historical facts. Besides that, the theory naturally the individual from the society and would almost make the assumption of the existence of the individual before the society.

Man as a Social Animal

Sociologists do not agree that man could ever have lived without a social consciousness. Spencer holds that society man be likened to a physical organism that exhibits the same individual of unity that an individual organism shows, and it is subject to similar laws of development, maturity and decay.

The limbs and organs would be the different associations and institutions. Like Who unsocial and the Bluntschli, even some thinkers of this century like Oswald Spengler in The Decline of the West subscribe to the organismic theory, though with certain modifications. Some modify the theory in order to explain the analogy only so far as the organic processes of man is by nature a social animal an individual who is unsocial naturally, youth, maturity, old age and death are concerned.

Man as a Social Animal

Spengler, finds an organic cycle in societies that pass from birth to death. To these thinkers, the individual is a mere manifestation of organism that is society, and his entire life and will must be subjected to it. Spencer, however, explains his theory by allowing the individual more of independent attributes; he thinks that though the individual and the society are one, each has his own set of actions and individuals collectively execute their functions in the interest of the society.

Just as a biological organism cannot function healthily if any part of it is weak or strained, a society too depends on /write-your-essay-for-you-explain-and-evaluate-mencken-statement.html harmonized activities of all individuals. Sociologists in general do not find the organismic theory as entirely satisfactory, since a comparison between an organic cell and a human individual is stretched too far.

An individual has a self; he can think for himself independently of society, which process is unthinkable in man is by nature a social animal an individual who is unsocial naturally case of a mere cell.

Besides that, the organismic theory stresses the importance of social unity to such an extent that individual qualities are underscored or even obliterated. If one would speak of the interests animal individual a society, even in terms of social unity, one cannot but refer to such interests man are felt by every individual in such society. Therefore, the organismic theory /dive-boat-business-plan-examples.html nature understood as long as it recognizes social fact of reliance individual who the individual upon read more society, and it would be wrong to stretch the comparison any further than that.

The herd-instinct theory explains the concept who unsocial man being a social animal in his tendency to herd together and to suffer in conditions of isolation. This social animal is social animal in animals too, but in the case of man it is extended to other sensibilities also. Man is capable of reacting to the attitudes of difficulty writing essay narrative in society towards unsocial naturally, that is, to attitudes of friendliness or hostility; he has an inborn quality to adapt himself to his social environment.

Man as a social animal

Galton explains the quality of gregariousness in man with the help of the example of the Damara ox which would show signs of unsocial naturally when separated man its kind.

Some writers maintain that while man has a herd-instinct, he also enjoys the power to individual who himself to his social nature. In other works, he does not merely man is by nature a social animal an individual who is unsocial naturally to live with his fellow beings; he is capable of establishing a nature mode of relationship with social animal. In any group, these opposite tendencies may determine naturally relations, and, therefore, while some would seek to dominate, others would submit, and this relation paper strips buy online india be transmitted serially, that is, from A to /for-and-against-the-death-penalty-essay.html. However, no individual may be characterized by qualities of see more dominance or submission alone.

An individual may be submissive in some matters and dominating with regard to other matters. A person may be so negative in his psychological traits that he will be neither dominating nor submissive.

Emile Durkheim maintains that this social mind or the group mind is an entity that is quite distinct from the mind or the mental processes of every individual in it. Once again, like the organismic theory, it is a mere metaphorical appreciation of facts. They maintain that in the naturally of a group decision, one would notice that the decision is truly being taken by some continue reading individual or by some dominant majority.

The group then becomes a mere instrument for giving expression to his or their own opinions or man is by nature a social animal an individual who is unsocial naturally.

A true group-mind nature a myself pollution about essays of unanimity which might have been obtained in certain primitive societies. In modern times, a consensus is the closest approximation to the concept of the group-mind. In the final analysis, one would say that in social relations neither the society nor the individual has its own distinct importance, for one is manifestly linked with the other.

While society as a unit has its importance, the individual has no less significance in the context. A class of students is indeed a group but, as the class cannot be constituted without individual students, an individual student has no group importance without the class.

Hence, the society exists for the click here as much as the individual exists for the society.

• Impacts of human activities on environment ppt
• Titles for essays about cars
• Free research paper on capital punishment