Noel Evans and the author with the assistance of
Brian Massumi. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 1985.
Gerhardt, Uta. Ideas about Illness: An Intellectual and
Political History of Medical Sociology. New York:
New York University Press, 1989.
Morris, David B. Illness and Culture in the Postmodern
Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.
Sontag, Susan. Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1978.
Stein, Michael. The Lonely Patient: How We Experience
Illness. New York: William Morrow, 2007.
Jennifer McClinton-Temple
individual and society
Human beings have always tried to come together
in groups, not only to live in a way that ensures an
escape from pangs of solitude but also to attain a
collective strength against a common enemy, be it
animals, other humans, or the wrath of nature. Even
so, the relationship between the individual and soci-
ety has always been simultaneously rewarding and
conflicting. An endless debate exists over whether
an individual—the basic unit of the society—should
be able to claim greater attention to his personal
rights and privileges, or the society—the alliance of
individuals strengthened by their mutual consent—
should be empowered to overlook one for many.
The tension inherent in such a puzzling relationship
becomes apparent from the subtle contradiction in
defining each. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th
edition) defines an individual as a “single human
being as distinct from a family or group,” whereas a
society is the “sum of human conditions and activity
regarded as a whole functioning interdependently”
(emphases mine), and this “distinctness” of an indi-
vidual struggles against the societal stipulation for a
merging “interdependence.”
The brightest minds have long endeavored to
solve this conundrum. Every age has generated the-
ories with clashing conclusions on this subject. The
Greek philosopher Plato argued that an individual,
not being self-sufficient, cannot live alone. Aristotle
more considerately highlighted not just man’s “need
of ” but also his “desire for” society. Nevertheless,
for both the society was more important than the
individual. The Stoics envisaged a brotherhood of
mankind; the Epicureans instead openly avowed
an individual’s conscious self-interest, which was
strikingly individualistic for its time. The Roman
statesman Cicero rejected Epicureanism in favor of
the Aristotelean view. The Middle Ages, under the
banner of Christianity, revived the idea of a universal
brotherhood and emphasized the society’s being a
“natural product” since it arises out of an individual’s
“natural” sociability. Even during the transition from
the medieval to early modern times, society was
prioritized over the individual.
The early modern era promoted the social con-
tract theory. The 17th-century English philosopher
Thomas Hobbes, believing the pre-social man to
have been antisocial, averred that mutual fear pro-
duced society. For John Locke, who dismissed this
theory, man merely executed the laws of nature in
a pre-political rather than a pre-social situation. To
the French philosopher Montesquieu, societal struc-
ture depended on a proper balance between such
factors as climate, religion and customs. The 18th-
century philosopher David Hume and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau blamed property and social classes for
creating inequality among individuals in a society.
Immanuel Kant and George Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, opposing the egotism of contemporary Ger-
man romanticism, discouraged “pure” individuality.
After the advent of the Industrial Revolution,
the French philosopher Claude-Henri de Rouvroy
Saint-Simon thought that the “industrial society”
of the 19th century was “healthier” since it cre-
ated partners, not subjects. Karl Marx, in contrast,
famously prophesied the bourgeoisie’s downfall due
to modern industry and the consequent rise of a
classless society. Utilitarianism advocated “greater
good for a greater number.” Yet individual rights
had already started gaining priority over those of a
group, and the term individualism was also coined.
Moreover, with the German philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche declaring the death of God, all binding
factors that had kept social obligations alive so far
seemed to crumble, and individuals were suddenly
left with a dangerous kind of freedom encumbered
with a responsibility for every decision taken.
With the two devastating world wars of the 20th
century, no wonder older traditions lost their worth
for the trauma-ridden individual. Such despair of58 individual and society