Individuals and the Society
When we view ourselves from a broad perspective, we can truly appreciate how insignificantly we really are; one in billions currently, out of all the people that have lived throughout history. When we choose to view history, there is often a back and forth debate about the impact of individuals versus a society. Is history made up of brilliant individuals who innovate, inspire and all other manner of things to guide the masses? Or is history rather made from the collective actions of many individuals, of groups of people being able to achieve newer and newer heights? As with everything in life, it's a combination of those things, and the ability to truly grasp how the world works is something beyond the capacity for human beings to ever understand (although if it is possible that's quite a scary thought). An individual can exist without a society, but a society cannot exist without individuals. Therefore, what is there that we can hope to gain by examining the dynamic between these two? First off, we can examine history, both on a personal and global scale, and see consequences for actions and thus adapt ourselves for a more desirable different outcome (a fancy way of saying being reflective on past events and using it to grow and change). Secondly, in determining each ones relative value, we can determine where to ultimately focus our efforts, what will overall create change (apply what we learned to the present). Finally, this sort of retrospective on life can ultimately change our view on life itself, and our place within it.
In most educational systems, a lot of emphasis is about learning about events and famous historical figures. It highly pushes the idea that history is made from the actions of a few capable individuals. As Loeb points out in Soul of a Citizen, we tend to enjoy or are simply narratives like the one about Rosa Parks about individuals with spontaneous acts of courage and bravery shaping history. As Loeb points out, however, is that this hardly paints the full picture, as it completely leaves the actions of those that helped lead up to the event and those that took action afterwards. Rosa Parks did not start a sudden revolution that gave people the courage to speak and act, rather, she was just a small part of a bigger movement and just happened to have the most media attention. It is here where we must be careful as to how we define "individual" and "society". An individual can be very clearly understood as a single person, but what about a society? So in the example of Rosa Parks, she is clearly the individual; yet there are more than one "societies". Maybe what society was was composed of the people that were on that bus that day? Maybe it was the people in the city? Maybe all the white people of America, maybe all the people in America? Perhaps it is all the people in the world? And what about those in the NAACP that helped organize the bus boycotts, aren't they a sort of society as well? With this in mind, we must come up with a definition of what constitutes as an "individual" and a "society".
Ultimately is there is no objective truth behind these terms, we merely need to use what is most useful to us. So in this case, all that there needs to be to define "individual" and "society" is that a "society" is bigger than the "individual" and that the "society" must be comprised of in some way, shape or form of these "individuals". Yes, it's a little contrived, but all sorts of definitions of social constructs are. So when reflecting upon history, both grand and trivial, what can we say about the roles of individuals and a society? Generally speaking, the smaller the scale, the more the individual matters. For example, when you think about who has shaped you, it's probably people that you can name and put a face to. We think about our friends and family, about our teachers and coaches, so on and so forth. Even when we're thinking generally, it's not that big at the end of the day. The people you meet on the road or the supermarket is technically part of "society", but is still comparatively small to something like the whole country. This can be rather important when thinking about past traumas and how that affects us. It is also important when examining the minds of those that do the unthinkable. What lead them to ultimately do what they did was probably caused by the ill-intentioned actions of others. While these actions may be reflective of a society as a whole, it ultimately comes down to individuals and what they do. Looking at school shooters, they've generally lived lives where they were constantly harasses for mental health issues that they had, reflecting societies views towards mental illness. However, these aren't necessarily the views of absolutely everybody, in other words, this constant harassment is coming from literally everybody, but by individual people. This is, in many senses, rather concerning simply because of how little control we really have over individual instances. Try as we might to wipe out bullying, it's not as though it's going to disappear entirely, and what remnants are left will have astounding impacts on people's lives.
So now, what about when we widen our scale a little bit, how important is the individual in shaping a society? As stated previously, the impact of individuals tends to be largely overstated. Nevertheless, individuals do have quite a lot power, even when they're not perfect. Let's examine Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as portrayed in the film Selma. Dr. King is an example of someone who receives far too much credit in the Civil Rights Movement, as in many cases he is the only sole member that people can regularly quote. However, we cannot ignore how much of a centerpiece and a rallying point he was. In the film, we see how everyone looks at King for guidance and deciding what actions to take next. It weighs heavily on him, and he is always questioning if he made the right choice. While there are a number of influential figures presented, it is King who leads the successful march over the bridge. Just the day prior, they chose not to march even though they were allowed to due entirely to the fact the he turned around. While the Civil Rights Movement was held together by many leaders and the multitude of citizens of America, King was definitely a focal point and a key player in securing equality for all.
So then, are leaders merely the people that organize societies and movements? To a certain extent. It is impossible to deny that history is shaped by influential individuals. Yet history will always ignore the society that built them up in the first place. Technically speaking, the people that grew the crops, the people that transported them, the people that cooked the food, and the people that served it to Dr. King were just as important as he was. That is to say, he could have never done what he did without a society that provided food, water, shelter and an infrastructure to build the world that he lived in. As Soul of a Citizen and I Am point out, there is power in the seemingly insignificant and mundane. This is true in both the sense that change is built upon many small actions, and in the sense that for change to happen a society needs to simply to be running. In this sense, even the common man and woman as an individual can shape a society. We'll probably never see it ourselves, but it happens. Think bout the Butterfly Effect, or not even that but the interconnected world that we live in. Say, for example, someone buys a hamburger. Nothing much, but the fast food chain gets paid for its service. That money may end up in an employees paycheck This employee then uses this money to pay a babysitter for their services. This babysitter is saving up money to build a computer. On this computer this babysitter solves a problem about folding proteins, which would eventually save millions in the future. The point is, a societies are built upon and changed by individuals no matter how small or big they may be. For all of us individuals, it means that simply by doing our best everyday, and jumping at every possible opportunity, we can move mountains.
In most educational systems, a lot of emphasis is about learning about events and famous historical figures. It highly pushes the idea that history is made from the actions of a few capable individuals. As Loeb points out in Soul of a Citizen, we tend to enjoy or are simply narratives like the one about Rosa Parks about individuals with spontaneous acts of courage and bravery shaping history. As Loeb points out, however, is that this hardly paints the full picture, as it completely leaves the actions of those that helped lead up to the event and those that took action afterwards. Rosa Parks did not start a sudden revolution that gave people the courage to speak and act, rather, she was just a small part of a bigger movement and just happened to have the most media attention. It is here where we must be careful as to how we define "individual" and "society". An individual can be very clearly understood as a single person, but what about a society? So in the example of Rosa Parks, she is clearly the individual; yet there are more than one "societies". Maybe what society was was composed of the people that were on that bus that day? Maybe it was the people in the city? Maybe all the white people of America, maybe all the people in America? Perhaps it is all the people in the world? And what about those in the NAACP that helped organize the bus boycotts, aren't they a sort of society as well? With this in mind, we must come up with a definition of what constitutes as an "individual" and a "society".
Ultimately is there is no objective truth behind these terms, we merely need to use what is most useful to us. So in this case, all that there needs to be to define "individual" and "society" is that a "society" is bigger than the "individual" and that the "society" must be comprised of in some way, shape or form of these "individuals". Yes, it's a little contrived, but all sorts of definitions of social constructs are. So when reflecting upon history, both grand and trivial, what can we say about the roles of individuals and a society? Generally speaking, the smaller the scale, the more the individual matters. For example, when you think about who has shaped you, it's probably people that you can name and put a face to. We think about our friends and family, about our teachers and coaches, so on and so forth. Even when we're thinking generally, it's not that big at the end of the day. The people you meet on the road or the supermarket is technically part of "society", but is still comparatively small to something like the whole country. This can be rather important when thinking about past traumas and how that affects us. It is also important when examining the minds of those that do the unthinkable. What lead them to ultimately do what they did was probably caused by the ill-intentioned actions of others. While these actions may be reflective of a society as a whole, it ultimately comes down to individuals and what they do. Looking at school shooters, they've generally lived lives where they were constantly harasses for mental health issues that they had, reflecting societies views towards mental illness. However, these aren't necessarily the views of absolutely everybody, in other words, this constant harassment is coming from literally everybody, but by individual people. This is, in many senses, rather concerning simply because of how little control we really have over individual instances. Try as we might to wipe out bullying, it's not as though it's going to disappear entirely, and what remnants are left will have astounding impacts on people's lives.
So now, what about when we widen our scale a little bit, how important is the individual in shaping a society? As stated previously, the impact of individuals tends to be largely overstated. Nevertheless, individuals do have quite a lot power, even when they're not perfect. Let's examine Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as portrayed in the film Selma. Dr. King is an example of someone who receives far too much credit in the Civil Rights Movement, as in many cases he is the only sole member that people can regularly quote. However, we cannot ignore how much of a centerpiece and a rallying point he was. In the film, we see how everyone looks at King for guidance and deciding what actions to take next. It weighs heavily on him, and he is always questioning if he made the right choice. While there are a number of influential figures presented, it is King who leads the successful march over the bridge. Just the day prior, they chose not to march even though they were allowed to due entirely to the fact the he turned around. While the Civil Rights Movement was held together by many leaders and the multitude of citizens of America, King was definitely a focal point and a key player in securing equality for all.
So then, are leaders merely the people that organize societies and movements? To a certain extent. It is impossible to deny that history is shaped by influential individuals. Yet history will always ignore the society that built them up in the first place. Technically speaking, the people that grew the crops, the people that transported them, the people that cooked the food, and the people that served it to Dr. King were just as important as he was. That is to say, he could have never done what he did without a society that provided food, water, shelter and an infrastructure to build the world that he lived in. As Soul of a Citizen and I Am point out, there is power in the seemingly insignificant and mundane. This is true in both the sense that change is built upon many small actions, and in the sense that for change to happen a society needs to simply to be running. In this sense, even the common man and woman as an individual can shape a society. We'll probably never see it ourselves, but it happens. Think bout the Butterfly Effect, or not even that but the interconnected world that we live in. Say, for example, someone buys a hamburger. Nothing much, but the fast food chain gets paid for its service. That money may end up in an employees paycheck This employee then uses this money to pay a babysitter for their services. This babysitter is saving up money to build a computer. On this computer this babysitter solves a problem about folding proteins, which would eventually save millions in the future. The point is, a societies are built upon and changed by individuals no matter how small or big they may be. For all of us individuals, it means that simply by doing our best everyday, and jumping at every possible opportunity, we can move mountains.
Comments
Post a Comment