Society is a human product essay

“Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality. Man is a social product”

mediaimage – the answer consists of three components and I want to consider them in series. The first essential component that we need to understand is that the society is a human product. “Just as it is impossible for man to develop as man in isolation,Society is a human product essay Articles so it is impossible for man in isolation to produce a human environment. Solitary human being is being on the animal level (which, of course, man shares with other animals)”(

Society can neither be created nor exist without the human. I think that it can be obviously seen from an example of Robinson Crusoe before he met Friday in story of the same name by Daniel Defoe. When he lived on an island there was no society at all and he could not create it by himself alone. He lived among animals and as animals. It was impossible for Crusoe to develop human states inside of him. The second element is an objective reality.

Although the intricate form of this element, it is very easy to understand it. It means that the society or the world, we are living in, exists even if I (you, we, they etc) do not exist. By the moment of my delivery there already was the sun, the moon, my country, my city, my parents and so on. But when I grow older and begin to understand that all these exist it is very difficult for me to understand its genesis. The last component is that man is a social product. It is very difficult, but important to understand – the above example of Robinson Crusoe can illustrate it. When Crusoe met Friday they began to communicate in some way, they taught each other the basics of their native languages and thus they have gain an opportunity to build some kind of relations and society. So society is a human product, but man is a product of society – these concepts are interconnected.

2) How do structural functionalist address the question: How are societies maintained?

“While the most admirable of humanitarian efforts are sure to run counter to the individual interests of very many in the community, or fail to touch the interest and imagination o the multitude and to leave the community divided or indifferent, the cry of thief or murderer is profound complexes, lying below the surface of competing individual efforts, and citizens who have been separated by divergent interests stand together against the common enemy” ( To explain this citation I would like to turn back to the example of Robinson Crusoe. While living alone Crusoe was like an animal, but with the appearance of Friday he maintains the society. Everything started from the intercourse – when they learned to understand each other. They found common interests such as economical and social. Economical consisted in mutual feeding, hunting, defending and living. Crusoe had weapons and could defend himself, hunt more effectively and Friday could collect roots and fruits, hunt little animals etc. Thereby they combined their efforts and realized the division of labor which, of course, made their life easier. Social interests consisted in knowledge, customs, traditions and some others – each participant brought in something new and gained something new for himself. Sometimes they had discrepancies and had fallen out when their interests crossed. But when Friday’s tribe tried to find and kill him, Crusoe helped him, in spite of their quarrels because he understood the importance of their little society. “… Owing to the combination of an abstract political, economic, or rather rational mechanism for the satisfaction of specific needs with concrete unity of a social group, the new institution is also the best intermediary link between the peasant primary-group and the secondary national system” ( Indeed, Crusoe and Friday formed a social group, which had mutual interests. They united in order to satisfy their common needs and goals. But their relations were not equitable – Friday performed the unskilled labor and thus he presented peasant group but I think he was not hurt as far as he could not be a leader.

3) How does conflict theory address the question: Is inequality of social classes inevitable?

According to the article of Ralf Dahrendorf “Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society”, we still have classes because the society at least divides into groups of interests, which have their own interests, demands, missions and goals and usually intersect, conducting these groups to the collision. “…society has quasi-groups and interest groups, it has classes also. Like its precursor, advanced industrial society is a class society. Concept and theory of class are still applicable” ( – it means that the above groups defend their interests, which often intersect with interests of other groups. Interest groups try to get the authority, they try to enter to the government and perform other actions. Some of them receive what they want, others do not, but it only intensifies their struggle. If they come to power they could resolve most of their problems and achieve most of their targets but at the same time they would intersect the interests of the other groups and violate their rights. In their turn the other groups would try to throw down those who govern and grasp the power from this point this story usually comes to the very beginning and everything repeats. The existence of these interest groups, cause the existence of classes. “The dominating groups of industry were at the same time the dominating groups of the state … Conversely, the subjected groups of industry were as such excluded from political authority…” ( – inequality of social classes indeed is inevitable and I consider that it will always exist. Because of class society some people have better life and some have worse. Poor men blame rich for all their troubles – poverty and diseases, misfortunes and so on. Rich men have everything they want and, of course, authority. Then the poor try to grasp the authority and reckon with their offenders – it is called class struggle. The complete equity does not exist, it is abstract concept because there always can be found people whose rights are violated or they do not like something. Those people would try to find their own justice, but if they find this justice it may hurt others.

4) How does feminism address the question: How is racial/gender oppression possible?

“… the strong prenatal beliefs in African-American communities that foster early motherhood among adolescent girls, the lack of self-actualization that can accompany the double-day of paid employment and work in the home, and the emotional and physical abuse that many Black women experience from their fathers, lovers, and husbands all reflect practices opposed by African-American women who are feminists” ( This citation gives a specific example of race and gender oppression. I think that it shows us that such oppression often occurs because of the differences in “black” and “white” cultures, customs, traditions and comprehensions of life. It can be applied to class concept. Let’s imagine that there are two classes – black and white. Black class is oppressed by white and its leaders and activists struggle for their rights. They prove that they are not worth than white and try to throw down the unfair power of white and establish the fair power of black but it would be fare only for black and unfair for white. That is how it can be explained from the position of sociology.

“People experience and resist oppression on three levels: the level of personal biography; the group or community level of the cultural context created by race, class, and gender; and the systemic level of social institutions. Black feminist thought emphasizes all three levels as sites of domination and as potential sites of resistance” ( Oppression on the level of personal biography, for example, is when an employer got to know some facts from personal life of a subordinate (such as sexual orientation, shady ties etc) and decides to fire the subordinate. Such oppression does not allow people to change fundamentally their lives and start them a new one. While being young most people make mistakes but less can forget about them and start from a new sheet. Oppression because of race, class and gender does not need to be explained, because it is practiced everywhere – females often considered to be bad chiefs, black people often considered to be uneducated and able to perform only unskilled labour, it is often considered that if you wear slovenly clothes you can not attend public places, women considered to be bad politicians and many other examples can be given. Oppression on the third level is exposing “…individuals to the specialized thought representing the dominant group’s standpoint and interests”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Society is a human product essay

The Role of Authority and Liberty in a Just Democracy

I have this one contention to make and prove in this essay: that the essence of all just authority stems from the common natures of mankind, and that the essence of all just liberty stems from the common differences of mankind. No political theorist will be at odds with me on this one point of my thesis: authority and liberty are diametrically opposed acts. Authority implies a limitation, a regulation, a restriction, an inhibition of the desires. Liberty implies no limitation, no relugation, ro restruction, no inhibition of the desires. But then there is the question of, “To Whom?” To whom is this liberty, and to whom is this authority? For a man to be allowed to steal property whenever he wishes will be a liberty to himself, but authority to the one whom is his target. For a man to be disallowed from a certain activity is an act of authority. When a man is allowed the right to freedom of speech, it is liberty to himself and an act of authority to the one who hears it. These are simple and confined cases of activity and the role of might or justice as it might appear. When we are judging an entire society, an act of authority is an inhibition on a certain action or activity that is enforced against all members of the commonwealth. Likewise, an act of liberty is this lack of authority, a lack of regulation, inhibition, or restriction — liberty is the right to commit a certain action without deterrence.

There are several ways in which our political theorists,The Role of Authority and Liberty in a Just Democracy Articles old and modern, have examined the problems of society. It always seemed to be either in the view of a liberationist versus that of a slaver. Yet these words might be slanted to describe it accurately, and depending upon the ones examining the situation, the words will be switched. For example, when we speak of liberty, it is the whole of society allowing something. While liberty is highly thought of, few would agree that we ought to have the freedom to murder and pillage. Furthermore, when we think of restriction or inhibition or oppression, we think very low of it, yet there is a consensus that such restrictions and oppression should be applied in the case of murder and pillage. An individual might have a well thought out argument, but once they say “there should be limits to freedom,” it is assumed that they are Fascist oppressors. Allow me to draw another example of liberty and authority. During the formation of the United States as a nation, developing from the revolutionary fighters to statesmen and politicans, during this time, it became a battle of Federalists versus anti-Federalists. The argument of the Federalists was this: that as a united front, the same laws that apply in one state ought to apply in another state, or at least with some degree of authority. The Federalist argument was, essentially, an Authoritarian argument. The anti-Federalist argument was the underlying idea that one state can make its own laws that are different from any other state, and that no state (or states) can make laws on the territory of any other state. One might even decide to follow this argument to its logical conclusion and grant every town or large city its own laws without interference from the outside world’s political spectrum. The anti-Federalists were essentially Libertarians. When I apply these terms Authoritarian and Libertarian, it is not so much to make a value judgment or to take the side of one over the other. Rather, it is to help simplify the argument at hand; and, as I just said, authority is wholly agreed upon when it is enforcing the right to life and the right to protection from murder, etc., etc..

To better help illuminate the dilemma that society is presented with, it is best to take into consideration the different motives that each person has. In the case of the Federalist versus the anti-Federalist, there are two motives, both of which seem to stem from the same sense of liberty, independence, and security. For the anti-Federalist, there is the fear that the other states might create some arbitrary policy, some awkward and idiotic statute, that would infringe largely upon his own rights and his own freedoms, while it hurt the other states none at all. In the case of the southern states versus the northern states prior to the civil war, the great dilemma was over slavery. Southern states were afraid that a Federalist policy would allow the northern states to dictate the rule on their own land. The situation could be turned around entirely. A northern state, during the formation of the nation, could potentially fear the other states enforcing a law allowing slavery on their state in a Federalist decision. So, understandably, the motive behind the anti-Federalist was a Libertarian argument, with the essential good belief that the people of a single state or province are enough to make wise, sound, and just policy.

Now, let’s examine the motive behind the Federalist, the individual whose primary ideal is that the laws of a nation are uniform where necessary. What is the motive for this Federalist? It is for the idea that there should be one basic, essential, humane code that reigns throughout every state. That the basic rights to which mankind should be endowed are the same in one state as any other state, and that nobody should ever have to avoid certain states because a certain right of theirs might be too important. For example, a Federalist might believe that the right to religion is the most important right of all. To him, the praise and worship of the lord has taken so many forms and has filled so many lives with contentness, that it should be respected no matter where the religious nomads decide to travel. Even if in a state that is inhabited by intolerant neanderthals, every citizen in this nation should have their right to religion protected. The anti-Federalist is afraid that the collective of states will ignore their rights, while the Federalist is afraid that a single state will ignore their rights or the rights of others who are equally deserving. Essentially, their desires are the same: to create a just society, where the rights of all are respected. The way of going about it is where their argument springs up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Role of Authority and Liberty in a Just Democracy