First, let me say that I agree with this post in most every way. I do not think that there is a society, culture, or other social environment created by man that suits the needs of the whole. Of course, we have some that work better than others; I am willing to say that capitalist society can serve the elite well, as socialism can serve the lower class well and anarchy can serve those with strong feelings of independence. The forms of government, economy and social networking that make up the greater "society" are, in themselves, complex beings, making the whole issue of a working society a very complicated one. Our nature may be to form groups to accomplish tasks, but possibly not at the level or in the manner in which we generally tend to go about it in the present day. This argument asks me the questions: Are humans meant to form groups so large that no one person can comprehend the entirety of it, the way we do with countries? Are we meant for smaller groups that interact with each other, such as states, or are we destined for even less regulation than that? Or is this just a consequence of living in a society that promotes individualism to a species that truly values interdependence? "Man is a social animal" holds great truth, but is it correct that we place such a value on this idea that we overlook the ways in which man values independence?
If human nature drives us towards independence while society drive us towards interdependence, wherein can we find the proper balance?
No comments:
Post a Comment