What is Social? How is the term "social" understood?

What is social? – a pesky student piped up this question at a Masters level lecture on social policy at a prestigious university. The lecturer was dumbfounded and responded angrily

 “How dare you make such silly questions. This is basic stuff. Go and check the definition from a book.”

Photo source: Wikimedia commons

“Stupid” questions are often the most valuable ones. By questioning even fundamental assumptions occasionally, we manage to make quantum leaps in knowledge.

Different ways of understanding Social

Try to look up the word social from any textbook on Sociology. 

For example in Sociology: by Anthony Giddens (6th Ed.2009), in the index, the word social is always qualified. As such social is not listed, though there are lots of words like social change, social interaction, social mobility etc.

Photo source:

Sociology is defined as the scientific study of human life, social groups, whole societies and the human world as such. Here social structure is a concept. The social context of our lives is seen to be structured or patterned rather than being random assortments of haphazard events. Here we are still using the concept social to define itself.

One way to understand social is to contrast it with the individual. 

What happens inside your head is in the individual domain, what happens outside your head, in the interplay with other individuals is in the social domain. One of the most famous of these usages is Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) “Social contract”, which claims that an individual is under an implicit contract to conform to the “general will” in return for the benefits of belonging to society.

Many parents, educators and law enforcement understand social by contrasting it with “anti-social behaviour”. Social behaviour considers the needs, interests and intentions of other people while anti-social behaviour like vandalism or terrorism does not.

Screenshot of Mumbai terrorist from news media

Karl Marx (1818-1883) defines humans as social beings, who cannot survive and meet their needs without social association and must enter into relations of production ‘independent of their will’.

A zoologist makes no difference between humans and other animals and defines social as 

“Living in communities consisting of males, females, and neuters, as do ants and most bees.“

In areas dominated by religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, where reincarnation is a core belief, the strict dividing line between human society and nature with animals disappears. People believe that a human being can be reborn as an animal living in the forest. In Hinduism life ideally has four phases: Brahmachari (student), Grihasta (Householder) Vanaprasta (forest dweller or Hermit in semi retirement) and Sannyasi (the renounced one in full retirement). So animals also belong to the social dimension.

How different cultures use the word social

Photo source:

• In British slang: social refers to social security benefit. “My husband hates going down to the social to sign on.”
• In American slang: What’s your social? Means ‘What’s your social security number?’
• In the Canadian Prairies it is a dance, held often also to raise money for a young couple about to be married.

Photo source:

Etymology:

"Characterized by friendliness or geniality," also "allied, associated," from M.Fr. social (14th century.), from L. socialis "united, living with others," from socius "companion," probably originally "follower," and related to sequi "to follow."

Is there a uniform concept of social inclusion?

Photo source: Wikimedia commons

Hunter-gatherers like the San people from Namibia, who live exactly like they have done for the past 10 000 years have social, economic and gender equality but ‘social’ is defined on the basis of kinship and band/tribe membership. They have no full time leaders, politicians or artists and no concept of privacy or property. 

Do they understand ‘social’ in the same way by contrasting individual with tribe or band?

What exactly is the social and who can belong is always a matter of contention. 

• Are men and women allowed on equal terms, are immigrants given the same jobs, equal pay and status? 
• What happens to people who differ from ‘norms’? 
• Can people who conform to every single norm but are attracted to their same sex, function as priests, teachers or judges? – These are very hot contemporary topics and the degree of acceptance tends to ebb and flow across epochs.

The concept of ‘social’ inclusion varies among cultures and time periods. In ancient Athens, citizenship was reserved for male Athenians (if both parents were Athenians). Women and slaves could never get it.

Photo source: Wikimedia commons

Among the Native Americans and Canadian First Nations, the Two-spirits (previously Berdache) were people who mixed gender roles. The Berdache dressed and functioned as both. Some of these also had the most prestigious positions in their societies: 

• ceremonial roles among the Cheyenne
• foretelling the future for the Winnebago and Ogala Lakotans 
• ritual functions for the Sun Dance among the Crow, Hidatsa and Ogala Lakotans.

“The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires. “

William Arthur Ward.

Understanding social inclusion through social conflict

The great Arab Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) in his six-volume work The Muqaddimah (Introduction) criticises historical descriptive approaches and advocates a new science of social organisation. His central concept is  asabiyyah or group feeling and how groups or societies with strong asabiyyah dominate others with weak asabiyyah. 

Photo source:

So, getting back to the teacher’s reactions to the ‘stupid’ question, could we imagine that the lecturer’s reaction was meant to inspire students to learn to use library resources for their research? 

You would be tempted to say "Yes, but..!"

My wise research supervisor once told me that good butt muscles are as important as brains, patience and method for success in research.

Not Only Humans But Animals, Even Bacteria are Altruistic

There is not a single human society, past or present, where altruism of some kind is not considered a superior characteristic. 

Altruistic behaviour is seen to arise out of soulful maturity. Sacrificing oneself for the greater good of many is the ultimate act of self-negation and the true mark of a hero.

What is the Definition of Altruism in Everyday Language?

Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness. 

Altruism is a divine quality that is considered to distinguish the noble from the base. We humans always like to think that we are the pinnacle of development, created in the image of divinity but is it always so simple?

Photo source: 
When we are ashamed of some kind of behaviour, we label that behaviour as animal. Rather conveniently we forget that we as humans are indeed biped primates belonging to the 

• Family Hominidae
• Order Primates
• Class Mammalia
• Phylum Chordata
• and Kingdom Animalia. 

Of course, we never ask other animals what they think of us humans on this issue of superiority, especially the fact that there is no record of any animal acting stupidly out of deliberate choice as many humans do repeatedly.

Would animals laugh if we told them that only the higher primates of the family Hominidae could practice altruism? Yes they would. Altruism is not uncommon in the animal world. Even the lowly bacteria consistently exhibit altruism.


Definition of Altruism in Evolutionary Biology

Photo source:

The definition of altruism in evolutionary biology is, however, slightly different. In evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to the organism itself. These costs and benefits to the organism are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. 

Thus, by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce, but boosts the number other organisms are likely to produce. This is a clear trade-off, which improves the well-being of the group. 

Altruism in Salmonella Bacteria and Animals

Salmonella bacteria sacrifice themselves for the greater good. As they enter the digestive tract, it’s a hostile world as other bacteria have dug themselves into good strategic positions. So the salmonella ‘select’ one in six microbes during cell division as an advance group. As they dig into the intestinal tissues, they cause the human defence system to inundate the tract. This clears away all the other bacteria, when colonization by other salmonella can begin. To paraphrase the great Winston Churchill, “Never in the field of intestinal conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”

Dogs often adopt orphaned human babies in Argentina, squirrels, cats, ducks and even tiger cub triplets. 

Huani feeds the tiger triplets and her own puppy at the Paomaling Zoo in Jinan, China. Photograph: Lu Chuanquan/Xinhua/AP

Dolphins regularly support sick or injured animals by swimming under them and pushing them to surface so that they can breathe. One extreme example of altruism is the Stegodyphus spider, which has a unique system of matriphagy, when the offspring actually eats the mother. Felix Warneken and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology present experimental evidence that Chimpanzees often help other species, even humans without any reward.

Neanderthal Man Became Extinct Due to a Lack of Altruistic Behaviour

James Shreeve, in his book The Neanderthal Enigma: Solving the Mystery of Modern Human Origins. New York: William Morrow & Co, 1995, presents his theory of why the Neanderthal man became extinct. 

Photo source:

Shreeve says that Neanderthal man was an exaggerated case of Me, Myself and I. In time, Neanderthal man became extinct because of an inability to produce altruistic and cooperative behaviour towards other Neanderthals, especially the females and children of their own clans. 

The ability to share experience, artefacts and values with others created culture in the weaker Cro-Magnon man helped them survive and evolve.

Criticism of Altruism

Critics of altruism in nature (e.g. Trivers 1971) say that it is only delayed self-gratification as we are altruistic in the expectation of future returns of favours. 

Photo source:

Even when it is disadvantageous to us and entails sacrifices, it is ultimately genic self-interest, they say. 

What People Say About Altruism

Photo source:

Altruism is a vision of a higher call for some:

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness. - Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Others are pragmatic and want to have the cake and eat it too. 

I would rather be kept alive in the efficient if cold altruism of a large hospital than expire in a gush of warm sympathy in a small one. - Aneurin Bevan 

Then there are hardliners: 

If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject. - Ayn Rand

And realists: 

Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. - Richard Dawkins 

Reference:

• Dawkins, R., 1976, The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Fletcher, J. A. and Doebeli, M., 2006, ‘How Altruism Evolves: Assortment and Synergy’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19: 1389-1393
• Hammerstein, P., 2003, ‘Why is Reciprocity so Rare in Social Animals? A Protestant Appeal’, in P. Hammerstein (ed.) Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Trivers, R.L., 1971. ‘The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism’, Quarterly Review of Biology, 46: 35-57