THE UNEASY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS SOCIETY

Individualism has now reached its peak!  Today, even in the few truly repressive societies still in existence, it is becoming increasingly possible for one to live an individual existence free from the conventions and restrictions of the laws and practices of the geographical country one may happen to find oneself in.  This is facilitated by the established notion of globalization and fed by the ubiquity of Internet access.  In the individual's mind, the concept of nation and state is fading fast, to be replaced by the notion of global citizenship or, in fact, non-citizenship.    

So, superficially, modern conditions seem to have paved the final victory of the liberals over the socialists. With Adam Smith's endorsement, the individual can afford to consciously ignore the common good in the pursuit of his own self-interest.  If the theory of the 'invisible hands' cannot be taken too seriously, then the next best thing to do is to take full advantage of it!  Turning the tables, the individual is now bigger than his society, with the latter becoming merely a vehicle for fulfilling his quest for self-gratification.  So, instead of society existing for an individual to maintain his dignity and self-worth, society has become a battleground for expanding narcissistic monstrosities.  Everywhere, societies are under attack in the guise of individual rights and freedom.

Sentimentalists like me can only recall with fondness the intellectual constructs of not too long ago, the social contract theories that purportedly examined, for all of posterity, the origin of society and the state's legitimate authority over the individual.

To remind ourselves why ,even today, I think an individual should still rationally give up his natural freedom in exchange for the benefits of political order, let's examine two classical works:

Englishman Thomas Hobbes'(1588-1679) idea of Leviathan published in 1600 is a philosophical attempt  to discover the natural laws of political obligations  independent of religion. Based on his mechanistic view of the universe, he posited that in a state of nature, ungoverned human beings are in a state of equal insecurity in the struggle for survival with a desire for glory. No justice nor morality  is present to provide the satisfactions of civilization, but in seeking peace instead of war, individual rights are mutually surrendered in a binding contract for everyone. This contract is enforced by the transfer of all power to a single entity - the sovereign. The assumed absolute power of the sovereign forbids any exemption from its justice.

In contrast, the Swiss, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote in The Social Contract in 1762 that humans in the state of nature are amoral and only motivated by appetite, instinct and the need for self-preservation.  Yet, people can potentially  be good and civilization can be a corrupting influence. To address his own lamentation that 'man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains', he hoped to establish a new conception of political obligation and state legitimacy where humans can be both ruled and yet free - free to exercise moral choice. This is achieved by making the people as a community jointly sovereign, but at the same time all are subject to the law. The law will not serve only individual rights, but the common good as dictated by the general will. The general will is not the will of the majority nor the sum of the wills of self-interested subjects, but the result of group decision-making by moral and civic-minded citizens.

In re-examining either case, it makes us realize again that we need society to provide stable, secure, varied and favorable conditions for the development of our full potential for happiness and self-fulfillment.  So, in the final analysis, an individual is an essential part of his society and society provides the necessary platform for his very survival.