Poll: "no such thing as society"

[Eddi]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

Was she right or was she wrong?

And why????

This is what I think:

I don't think you can have "individual men and women" without a "society"

As humans are social beings

I believe that human beings are to societies as honey bees are to honey bee colonies

"there is no such thing as honey bee colonies. There are only individual honey bees"

This is laughable and nonsensical

It denies reality

Also, she contradicts herself

Families are a unit of social organisation

A family is a kind of social group

The social and the individual are mutually constitutive, to understand humanity and individual humans you need to consider both

It makes no sense to deny either the social or the individual

 

[Stevicus]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

Was she right or was she wrong?

And why????

This is what I think:

I don't think you can have "individual men and women" without a "society"

As humans are social beings

I believe that human beings are to societies as honey bees are to honey bee colonies

"there is no such thing as honey bee colonies. There are only individual honey bees"

This is laughable and nonsensical

It denies reality

Also, she contradicts herself

Families are a unit of social organisation

A family is a kind of social group

The social and the individual are mutually constitutive, to understand humanity and individual humans you need to consider both

It makes no sense to deny either the social or the individual

I'm not sure how anyone can say that "there is no such thing as society." Not that I ever took Margaret Thatcher all that seriously, but if there's no such thing as society, then there's no such thing as a government, laws, or the office of Prime Minister (or President, for that matter). No flag, no military, no nation - and no reason to want the Falkland Islands back. Is that what she intended to say?

 

[Eddi]

Is that what she intended to say?

I suspect she was being deliberately obnoxious for short-term rhetorical reasons

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

Was she right or was she wrong?

And why????

This is what I think:

I don't think you can have "individual men and women" without a "society"

As humans are social beings

I believe that human beings are to societies as honey bees are to honey bee colonies

"there is no such thing as honey bee colonies. There are only individual honey bees"

This is laughable and nonsensical

It denies reality

Also, she contradicts herself

Families are a unit of social organisation

A family is a kind of social group

The social and the individual are mutually constitutive, to understand humanity and individual humans you need to consider both

It makes no sense to deny either the social or the individual

Here is another version: We are social individuals who live in groups as individuals. We are not hive or pack animals nor solitary, we are social.
Individuals in groups. Go figure.

 

[Eddi]

Here is another version: We are social individuals who live in groups as individuals. We are not hive or pack animals nor solitary, we are social.
Individuals in groups. Go figure.

Yes

That is my belief

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Mrs. Thatcher was dead wrong. Not only are we a social species, we are, according to E.O. White, a eusocial species. Our brains are actually hard-wired to mirror what is going on in the brains of people around us. This is the most powerful possible way to establish connection and communication with others, not just those in your immediate family. In fact, it is through this unconscious imitation, or mimicry of others' facial expressions, postures, vocal intonations, accents and even speech patterns that we facilitate becoming quickly at ease with those who are not members of our close family. That alone shows conclusively that we are evolved to be social creatures.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mrs. Thatcher was dead wrong. Not only are we a social species, we are, according to E.O. White, a eusocial species. Our brains are actually hard-wired to mirror not what is going on in the brains of people around us. This is the most powerful possible way to establish connection and communication with others, not just those in your immediate family. In fact, it is through this unconscious imitation, or mimicry of others' facial expressions, postures, vocal intonations, accents and even speech patterns that we facilitate becoming quickly at ease with those who are not members of our close family. That alone shows conclusively that we are evolved to be social creatures.

Yeah, then there are those of us, who are neuro diverse and do that differently, but we don't really count.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

As a justification for a certain set of social, economic, and political policies, it certainly makes sense to make that assertion, but I find it ludicrous to assert there is no such thing as society...even economics operates assuming that transactions occur within societal settings...

 

[ChristineM]

Margaret Thatcher famously said "there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families"

Was she right or was she wrong?

Its a typically conservative thing to say, i.e. we are selfish and you are worthless.

As you say humanity is social, without it civilization could not have begun, morality could not have been honed, religions could not have formed and we'd still be living on the savannah in Africa.

 

[Stevicus]

I suspect she was being deliberately obnoxious for short-term rhetorical reasons

Politicians have a knack for that sort of thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Its a typically conservative thing to say, i.e. we are selfish and you are worthless.

As you say humanity is social, without it civilization could not have begun, morality could not have been honed, religions could not have formed and we'd still be living on the savannah in Africa.

Well, only the real true majority counts and since we are both as humans a case of a minority, we don't count. Only we as the majority count.

 

[Stevicus]

Well, only the real true majority counts and since we are both as humans a case of a minority, we don't count. Only we as the majority count.

I think in terms of society overall, those who "count" might be more of a legal distinction - at least in terms of human rights and basic citizenship rights within a given jurisdiction. Of course, minorities still have rights and still count in that sense (although this perception has changed and fluctuated throughout history, based on political factors). But I guess it's never that cut-and-dried.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think in terms of society overall, those who "count" might be more of a legal distinction - at least in terms of human rights and basic citizenship rights within a given jurisdiction. Of course, minorities still have rights and still count in that sense (although this perception has changed and fluctuated throughout history, based on political factors). But I guess it's never that cut-and-dried.

Not for all societies. Some function as in effect without minority rights. You can even find those in societies with minority rights, who deny those because everything comes from the majority.

 

[Stevicus]

Not for all societies. Some function as in effect without minority rights. You can even find those in societies with minority rights, who deny those because everything comes from the majority.

Well, as I said, it's never that cut-and-dried in practice. Historically, the majority have generally been without rights, while rights were reserved only for a select few at the top.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suspect she was being deliberately obnoxious for short-term rhetorical reasons

She had plenty to work with as to what was contained in her head.

 

[Revoltingest]

What an age we live in, eh.
There is no society. There is no race.
Yet most arguments are about those things that don't exist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I hate to write this, and I vow never to have to ever write it again, but...

To be fair to Margaret Thatcher (ugh, writing that felt like torture...) the full quote in which she made this statement does add at leas a degree of nuance to her position that I think is worth discussion:

“I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”​

A quote by Margaret Thatcher

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope wi...

www.goodreads.com

Now, putting aside her gross characterisation of people as somehow being responsible for requiring the government's assistance in certain areas, I think the observation that "society" is not a monolith, but a structure made of individuals who first must contribute to society in order for entitlements to exist is worth thinking about. Thatcher couches it all in individual responsibility, which is patently absurd: how can all people be expected to meet similar obligations? How can someone who is prevented from work due to disability be expected to meet a similar obligation to an able-bodied person in order to meet their entitlement for welfare, etc.? But an interesting way of thinking about it is that the entitlement of of one can be a result of the obligation of another; a state cannot exist without safety nets without at least some individuals working to build, maintain and fund those safety nets. In this sense, Thatcher isn't saying "society literally doesn't exist" as much she is saying "society is the word we use to describe the collective efforts of the individuals in society", so when you make a requirement OF "society" you are really relying on the work and funds of individuals pooling together to generate the wealth or support that allows "society" to provide for you.

Of course, this is an EXTREMELY generous reading of Thatcher's comments, and we all know that the history of her premiership didn't exactly instil in people the idea that she genuinely valued all individuals the same way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What an age we live in, eh.
There is no society. There is no race.
Yet most arguments are about those things that don't exist.

Well, they have never existed as objective like gravity. They are social constructs both.
But they are covered by this:
The Thomas theorem: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.
But that is also not real, as it is sociology and not objective natural science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, they have never existed as objective like gravity. They are social constructs both.

These things don't exist, yet are so recognizable.
If one spends too much time gazing at one's navel,
one begins to confuse reality with lint.

 

[Stevicus]

What an age we live in, eh.
There is no society. There is no race.
Yet most arguments are about those things that don't exist.

There is no spoon either. Just a spork.