Human Society

  • K. William Kapp
Part of the Studies in Social Life book series (SOSL, volume 6)

Abstract

Any attempt to consider human society as a distinct form of organization and to introduce the social as a special category, separate and distinct from the inorganic and the organic levels of organization, may give rise to a fundamental objection. Thus it may be argued that if the social denotes a specific form of association between human beings, it is at best only a “highly special case of association and as such ... restricted in significance, humanly interesting, of course, but a matter of detail rather than of an important principle.”1 This objection to the whole attempt of distinguishing the social as a special phase of nature and a distinct category of description and interpretation overlooks, as Dewey also pointed out, the purely formal character of the concept of organization or system. The fact that all existent reality can be viewed as manifestations of structure or organization in the generic sense of these terms does not make it superfluous to inquire into the specific characteristics and distinguishing features exhibited by each. On the contrary, it is precisely the formal character of the concept of organization or system which makes such an inquiry necessary and fruitful.

Keywords

Social Action Social Process Human Society Inorganic Matter Human Infant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Dewey, Philosophy and Civilization (New York, Minton, Balch and Co, 1931), p. 81.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Ibid., pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    “Biological evolution depends upon natural selection... cultural evolution depends on cumulative tradition, which was made possible when mind and its products became capable of self-reproduction and self-variation.” J. Huxley, “Man’s Place and Role in Nature”, in L. Leary (ed.), The Unity of Knowledge op. cit. p. 86.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Ibid., p. 86.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    We cannot do more than refer the reader to the pertinent literature: Commons, 1890–1900; Hawtrey, 1930; Niebuhr, 1932 and 1953; Russell, 1938; Carr, 1939; Brady, 1943; Preiser, 1949; Galbraith, 1952; Perroux, 1950; Mills, 1956; Lynd, 1956. Nor can we deal here with those factors and situations which may call for and have led to a high degree of political centralization and may give rise to the concentration of total power in the hands of particular groups in society. Among these situations are external aggression and invasion, internal decay, the need to organize activities which require central coordination, and the allocation of large amounts of human and natural resources to the development of irrigation systems on a broad territorial basis or the need to counteract socially destructive pursuits of private objectives in modern industrial societies. For a systematic treatment of these aspects of the use and misuse of power in society see Barrington Moore, Jr. Political Power and Social Theory (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1958)Google Scholar
  6. 4a.
    K. A. Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism (New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    E. Schrödinger, What is Life and Other Scientific Essays (New York, Double-day and Company, 1956), p. 15.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Huxley, op. cit., 1955, p. 88.Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    W. Tritsch, Die Wandlungen der Menschlichen Beziehungen, Die Deutsche Weltschau (Stuttgart, Die Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1952), p. 153.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    See, however, Mario Einaudi, The Roosevelt Revolution (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1959).Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    “The twin tests by which we can tell a society from an organism or a machine (on this showing) would be the freedom of its parts to regroup themselves.” K. W. Deutsch, Organism and Society: Some Models in Natural and Social Science, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 18, No. 3, July 1951, p. 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 10.
    J. Dewey, op. cit., p. 83.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    H. L. Whiteway, Scientific Method and the Conditions of Social Intelligence, (St. Johns, Newfoundland. Trade Printers and Publishers Ltd., 1943,) p. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1961

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. William Kapp
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität BaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations