"No such thing as Society"

The title of this thread is related to a famous quote by Margaret Thatcher, in which she essentially gave her reasons for her social policies (which boiled down to slashing all forms of wellfare, closing coal mines and declaring class war on anyone who wasn't upper class). The rest of the quote goes on to say that "There are only individuals".

What I wanted to ask is peoples opinion on this, do you think she was right, wrong or simply trying to coin a pithy phrase?

Now much as I dislike Thatcher, and how I personally disagree witht he idea that there is "no such thing as society", I myself do not LIKE society. My family tends to have a small network of friends and family members and all of us from my grandparents down don't actually LIKE getting involved in large community projects. I think most of us are still in favour of social help programs and doing/paying our part... well most of us would just rather help out than be part of it.

If a person makes part of their existence entirely dependent on a different individual, that is society.

Exactly which parts are better off under the domain of the community, and which parts are better off in the realm of individual responsibility (and what "better" means, exactly) presently remains up for debate.

Funny thing, I've heard those five words countless times but I don't think I've ever heard the exchange they're a part of.

I expect she means that society isn't what the person she's answering claims it is, but I can't say for sure because I don't know the context.

We all support each other to a certain extent. We all have or will at some point get jobs and something resembling a command structure in most of those jobs. We all pay some taxes to support the structure of the government that makes laws and decisions on defence and infrastructure spending even if there are no social welfare policies. And we all depend on each other to produce certain items that we cannot produce ourselves. We all depend on each other to a certain extent.

Furthermore, history proves that there will always be some of us who run into trouble, and often before going on to do worthy things. So some mechanism for supporting those down on their luck has to be thought of and just about every society starting from Rome had some sort of mechanism for supporting the down and out (Bread and Circuses.)

To say there is no such thing as society is the most stupid, vapid, ideologically driven piece of drivel ever to come out of a British politicians mouth. Well, I suppose peace in our time might rival it.

edited 14th Aug '11 2:58:36 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Essentially, it became the defining comment of that evil witch's policy of greed, selfishness and serving only yourself at the expense of everyone else. And it has resonated through Parliament and the rest of the country ever since.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Well ironically we were taking things too far in the opposite direction before she came to power. The problem is that she then leapt five miles to the right. We needed a conservative and we got a reactionary.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Okay, after a bit of research a couple of points come to light.

1. It was an interview given to Womens Own, a magazine mostly concerned at the time with knitting patterns and housekeeping, with a weekly curiosity piece which on that week was an interview with Thatcher.
2. What she said was that people need to take responsibility for themselves. The same way that we complain about people suing the council because they tripped over a loose paving slab, or suing a restaurant for serving them hot coffee+
   ^{you can expect I know the fuller story of the famous one but I'm listing it as an example}
   , if you trip over a paving slab then you have to accept some responsibility for not looking out before you blame society for allowing loose paving slabs.

It was a sweeping statement, badly worded and arguably belittling toward Womens Own that she didn't think their interview was important enough to give the same attention as a major political publication. Wrongly, it turns out because this 'lesser' interview is what came back to haunt her for the rest of her life. It is possible to find a grain of truth in it, that you should watch your feet when you walk and not complain about needing to, that you should check the temperature of food before putting it in your mouth and not complain about needing to, but the wording is so terrible I could never actually say it was anything but a bad thing to say.

I don't see anything objectionable in the sentiment; "society" is ultimately the sum total of individual interests, anyhow.

The amusing thing about Thatcher and Reagan is how their individualist/libertarian rhetoric stood in sharp opposition to their overall authoritarianism; the bait-and-switch seems to have paid off, seeing as most folk associate individualism and the free market with two of their worst proponents.

Enjoy the Inferno...

The so-called individual is just as vulnerable to reductionism as society.

Question: if I file a frivolous lawsuit and win, aren't I taking responsibility for myself?

Society exists. Sure, it exists due to individual actions, but the result of individual actions is something not only quantitatively, but qualitatively different. This one is not about to claim that society is "greater than the sum of individuals" - but it is different, and has emergent properties individuals composing it do not possess.

However, this one is inclined to agree that, while society most surely exists, and denying it's reality and it's impact upon individuals is just as strange as denying an impact of other environmental factors, society does not have any inherent value. It is only as valuable as it benefits each individual within it. Preservation of "society as a whole" (or, rather, it's current form, as nothing short of wiping out all sapient life*

would destroy society) means nothing if it's destruction would benefit individuals composing it. Current form of society is only as valuable as it benefits of stifles individuals, and should be adjusted accordingly.

Does this one place individual above society in importance? Yes. But it is frequently misunderstood. Society as a form of organisation and society as all it's members are not the same. This one places individual above society as formation, but not above other individuals. Society as a "whole" is unimportant for this one. But each member of society is important.

Does it make any sense?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common