Lesson: Liberal Perspective, Social Individual, Household, Family, Nature etc

For a person who prefers to have systemized information, in such a way that every concept is related to another in a very rigid and defined manner, hearing about all these concepts in our lecture "forces my finger towards an itch in my scalp." First of all, I understand that the only conventional information we have about "social reality" lies within perspectives and uncertain, or inapplicable even, theories. But this does not negate a systematical orderliness within the perspectives and the concepts that lie within. What I want to do, or write, in this blog entry is arrange all these unconnected concepts, to other known facts of reality, in such a way that I can cleanly comprehend what is being delivered. 

First of all, what is the social contract and the talk about the relevance of the individual in the formation of a nation? So, the social contract is supposedly about the agreement between the civilian and the ruler, and how this agreement forms the creation of the state. Proponents of this idea are Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau. A little internet search shows us that these people were all active before the 1800's and inactive after. This part of our World Timeline is essential to note because Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory came during the 1800's and not before. Bio-evolutionary speaking, which is the most scientific perspective, humans are bonded together way back before they were "humans." Socio-power relations can be traced back by simply referencing an evolutionary concept known as "herd behavior." In short, the simple answer to the question of the creation of nations and states is that it is innate and evolutionary. As noted by evolutionary-biologist W.D. Hamilton, It is a "prey-behavior" in the sense that the weak increases its chances of survival by coordinating with other individuals of similar features. The reason as to why this behavior exists is because it was somewhat tested and it worked, otherwise known as 'natural selection.' 

This 'nature-answer', however, becomes vague and unconvincing once the concept of 'freewill' is introduced. But, seeing as cooperation does increase chances of survival wherein survival is almost 100% valued upon by all humans, then it is not so surprising anymore. Then again, authority may fall into tyranny, as shown in history, and civilians might enter a state wherein inclusion within the society endangers their own survival. In that case, the 'ruler' is not innately controlled by 'benevolent' genetic traits but is free to act in any manner he wishes. So, perhaps, by then, the social contract theory applies. But to clarify, I do not think the "agreement" is between the 'state' and the 'individual' but rather it is between 'state' and 'nature.' What is at conflict, by this point, is the survival of the many and the tyrannical will of the powerful. Survival is instinctual whereas will is individualistic. This leads us into thinking that it is not a "contract" at all in the sense that "contract" implies agreement between agents. It is simply the will of the powerful that creates the organization. 

What is the Liberal Individual? John Locke talks about "reasoning human being" and "owning property." There are also mentions of "liabilities", "obligations", "rights", and "duties." 

Let's see...the liberal individual is suppose to make up what is society. However, judging from my earlier analysis, there should only be a limited "liberal individual", and the ruler marks the person with the greatest liberty. The majority should be "natural individuals", as they represent the mandate of nature and survival. John Locke, himself, is a part of the wealthy or the aristocrats. The liberal individual are the people who have bypassed naturalistic mindsets, and bypassing that mindset allows one to gain "reason" and education, as well as owning property. "Liberal individuals" also have the conscious freedom of following social legalities and norms or not, hence "liabilities" "obligations" etc. 

There is now a similarity between what I refer to as the "natural individual" and the "social individual." They both have no choice but to conform because they cannot afford to be discarded by society, unlike the rich. They cannot afford this because of survivalist reasons.

What if we apply the ideas mentioned in international relations? Hobbes talks about the 'vacuum of power' between nations, who represent liberal individuals, but what if these nations are not liberal individuals? After all, the closer one's desire for survival, the more 'naturalistic' it is. Perhaps states are simply animals with no common enemy; no predator to prey upon them aside from themselves. There is fear and distrust because there is strong survivalist mindset.