In order to understand why, we must first understand society.
Social contracts typically offer some form of mutual benefit and impose some mutual obligations or constraints. Citizens who are party to these agreements, for example, explicitly or implicitly accept obligations or responsibilities (paying taxes, voting, obeying rules and regulations, etc.) in return for benefits and protection by a state (e.g., maintaining order, fostering citizen well-being, and providing for education and health services). Social contracts also reflect a much wider principle, namely that human relationships should be regulated by agreements. Viewed as part of the Enlightenment project, much early social contract thinking evolved in a period of the expansion of the state, and the expansion of individual civil, political, and social rights (Mills 1997).
Given the roots of social contract theory, it is not surprising that many argue that existing contracts are not neutral, and have not been applied equally to all members of society (Nussbaum 2006). Social contracts have prioritized power of some over others and have served as exclusionary tools for domination (Pateman and Mills 2007). Patriarchal, racial, and imperial structures have shaped the modern world and have left a legacy in modern society (Pateman and Mills 2007). As a model of governance, the social contract has been continually contested and challenged, particularly in relation to the way that the theories of social contracts have in reality codified and legitimated men’s domination of women (Pateman 1988) or the subordination of one race to another (Mills 1997)
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art12/
Notice the first sentence and them talking of benefit and obligation. All societies are set up thru members contracting amongest themselves for mutual benefits and obligations. And how do they enforce these benefits and obligations? They create a government to govern every member according to what the whole thinks is in its best interest thru reps.
At any point in time, you can look up any society you want, and its always going to be the same thing. Benefits for obligations. Thats just the way it is, no one could even explain another way society could form.
Medieval society was built around feudal obligations – duties men owed to their social superiors in return for being allowed to live off the land. Perhaps the most important tool in recruiting an army, these obligations were used to recruit lords and gentry to serve as knights and men-at-arms, through the obligations they owed the king. They, in turn, were owed service by people living on their lands, who were obliged to turn up with specific armour and weapons depending on their wealth.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/8-ways-soldiers-recruited-medieval-england.html/2
And here again, we come back to that old, benefits for obligations thing.......
Understanding the relationship between the individual and society is one of the most difficult sociological problems, however. Partly this is because of the reified way these two terms are used in everyday speech. Reification refers to the way in which abstract concepts, complex processes, or mutable social relationships come to be thought of as “things.” A prime example of this is when people say that “society” caused an individual to do something or to turn out in a particular way. In writing essays, first-year sociology students sometimes refer to “society” as a cause of social behaviour or as an entity with independent agency. On the other hand, the “individual” is a being that seems solid, tangible, and independent of anything going on outside of the skin sack that contains its essence. This conventional distinction between society and the individual is a product of reification in so far as both society and the individual appear as independent objects. A concept of “the individual” and a concept of “society” have been given the status of real, substantial, independent objects. As we will see in the chapters to come, society and the individual are neither objects, nor are they independent of one another. An “individual” is inconceivable without the relationships to others that define his or her internal subjective life and his or her external socially defined roles.
The problem for sociologists is that these concepts of the individual and society and the relationship between them are thought of in terms established by a very common moral framework in modern democratic societies, namely that of individual responsibility and individual choice. Often in this framework, any suggestion that an individual’s behaviour needs to be understood in terms of that person’s social context is dismissed as “letting the individual off” of taking personal responsibility for their actions.
Talking about society is akin to being morally soft or lenient. Sociology, as a social science, remains neutral on these type of moral questions. The conceptualization of the individual and society is much more complex. The sociological problem is to be able to see the individual as a thoroughly social being and yet as a being who has agency and free choice. Individuals are beings who do take on individual responsibilities in their everyday social roles and risk social consequences when they fail to live up to them. The manner in which they take on responsibilities and sometimes the compulsion to do so are socially defined however. The sociological problem is to be able to see society as a dimension of experience characterized by regular and predictable patterns of behaviour that exist independently of any specific individual’s desires or self-understanding.
But wait, there is more......
The relation between individual and society is very close. Essentially, “society” is the regularities, customs and ground rules of antihuman behavior. These practices are tremendously important to know how humans act and interact with each other. Society does not exist independently without individual. The individual lives and acts within society but society is nothing, in spite of the combination of individuals for cooperative effort. On the other hand, society exists to serve individuals―not the other way around. Human life and society almost go together. Man is biologically and psychologically equipped to live in groups, in society. Society has become an essential condition for human life to arise and to continue. The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical rather than sociological because it involves the question of values. Man depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and encompassed by culture, as a societal force. It is in the society again that he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups. The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the starting point of many discussions. It is closely connected with the question of the relationship of man and society. The re- lation between the two depends upon one fact that the individual and the society are mutually de- pendent, one grows with the help of the other.
So before the state, before the union, before MUH REPUBLIC, you had the society, and the society(we the people) were sovereigns with no one to govern but themselves ( as individuals known as citizens ) who conform to the norms, occupy statuses (such as evidenced by your PERSON) and become members of groups (like political groups )
Your were not free the moment you pledged obligations that your reps could decide upon for the "public good".
IV.������ Social Organization
Social organization refers to the network of relationships among a society�s members.� These relationships make it possible for members to satisfy both their individual needs and the needs of society as a whole.� When we think of social organization we must think of it as a product of the interaction of culture and people itself consisting of 5 elements:� (1) individuals, (2) social positions, roles & statuses, (3) groups, (4) classes, and (5) stratification.
A.������� Individuals
Every society must cope with a constant turnover in its membership and older members die and newer one are reborn.� The means by which society copes with a turnover of membership is socialization.�Socialization is a complex process that begins as soon as the infant is capable of discerning that its actions generate reactions, and that some of those interactions are pleasant while other are not.� The socialization process is never entirely successful.� The concern for self which is part of our genetic heritage, together with the individuating nature of learning, combine to limit the extent to which people are to subordinate their personal interests to those of society (45).� Most of the time, however, most individuals conform to their society�s standards, partly because of their desire to obtain the rewards and avoid the penalties that can be expected, and partly because they have internalized society�s standards (46).
B.������� Social Positions, Roles, & Statuses
Individuals who occupy positions in a social structure are expected to fulfill a number of social roles.� These roles emerge and develop in response to recurring needs and problems in societies.� Roles in societies, like roles in theaters, have distinctive behavioral expectations and requirements attached to them.� The behavior requirements and expectations that are attached to real life roles are the norms discussed earlier.� It is important to recognize that roles differ greatly with respect to the prestige or social honor accorded them (46).
Groups
In most societies, individuals are organized into a variety of units we call groups.� These range from small family units to giant corporations.� Sociologists limit the term �groups� to an aggregation whose members (1) cooperate to satisfy common or complimentary needs, (2) have shared norms, and (3) have a sense of common identity (47).
Classes
Inequality is a fact of life in every human society.� Some individuals always control more of the society�s resources than other do and enjoy more than their share of benefits.� Human societies differ greatly, however, in the amount of inequality present among their members.� Class or stratum is defined on the basis of some important attribute that is the same for all members of the class and that influences their access to power, privilege and prestige (48).
Stratification
Viewed as a whole, all of the statuses and class systems of a society constitute its system of stratification.� Stratification systems vary in a number of important ways, such as wealth, power, prestige, and race.� Stratification is one of the major sources of conflict within societies.� No system of distribution can satisfy everyone, since there is no obviously right or fair way to distribute society�s resources.
You had obligations to the other members of your society before you had the state, the union or MUH REPUBLIC. Subjects have obligations to people other then himself.
No republic is going to save you, no union is going to save you, no state is going to save you. You want to be free, then you can not be a part of a society. It gets no more plain then this, can you understand the words coming out of my mouth?
Good luck citizens.
No man is an island,
ReplyDeleteEntire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
John Donne