Organicism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Philosophy) Tag: 2017 source edit |
Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
The central premise of organicism relates to the origins of the State. Unlike in {{wp|social contract}} theory, which contends the State is a construct based on consent from individuals in the state of nature, organicism contends that humans are social animals and, from their beginning, humans were created to have social relationships with other humans. Organicist philosophers argue that society is merely the sum of social relationships, and that consequently, man's place is within society. Emerging from this, it is argued society and the State are essentially the same thing; in the words of Duinsha, it indicates that "man's relation to the other - in the family, in the tribe, and in the State - are in no way ''different in kind'' and are merely different arrangements of the same phenomenon". Organicists say that this indicates that man cannot consent (either explicitly or otherwise) to be subject to a state because they also cannot, for example, not consent to be a member of a family. Organicists are clear that this is not to say that individuals "cannot disapprove or otherwise not attempt to disassociate" with the State just as they disassociate from families, but nonetheless "they are still subject to them". Most proponents of organicists express this in the shorthand expression that "society and the State are indistinguishable". | The central premise of organicism relates to the origins of the State. Unlike in {{wp|social contract}} theory, which contends the State is a construct based on consent from individuals in the state of nature, organicism contends that humans are social animals and, from their beginning, humans were created to have social relationships with other humans. Organicist philosophers argue that society is merely the sum of social relationships, and that consequently, man's place is within society. Emerging from this, it is argued society and the State are essentially the same thing; in the words of Duinsha, it indicates that "man's relation to the other - in the family, in the tribe, and in the State - are in no way ''different in kind'' and are merely different arrangements of the same phenomenon". Organicists say that this indicates that man cannot consent (either explicitly or otherwise) to be subject to a state because they also cannot, for example, not consent to be a member of a family. Organicists are clear that this is not to say that individuals "cannot disapprove or otherwise not attempt to disassociate" with the State just as they disassociate from families, but nonetheless "they are still subject to them". Most proponents of organicists express this in the shorthand expression that "society and the State are indistinguishable". | ||
Most early organicists developed this theory, best exemplified in Lucius Duinsha's "''Contra the Social Contractors''" (1768), based on the {{wp|Book of Genesis}}, citing that Adam and Eve were created together. While many humanists and liberals rejected the organicist conception of human relationships, a "second wave" of thinkers were bolstered by the advent of {{wp|Evolution|evolution}} and scientific approaches to the development of human relations. | Most early organicists developed this theory, best exemplified in Lucius Duinsha's "''Contra the Social Contractors''" (1768), based on the {{wp|Book of Genesis}}, citing that Adam and Eve were created together. While many humanists and liberals rejected the organicist conception of human relationships as "scriptural, that is, based on superstition", a "second wave" of thinkers were bolstered by the advent of {{wp|Evolution|evolution}} and scientific approaches to the development of human relations. These thinkers, called "scientific organicists", argued that man's participation in society is not only ordained by God but "reflected by plain science...as observed by the relations of pack animals as in men" (Rebin, 1882). | ||
Organicists get their name from the application of their theory on the origin of the State, saying that States and societies develop "''organically''" with each other throughout history. Organicism exists contrary to most other ideology, particularly orthodox {{wp|socialism}} and liberalism, which argue that certain constructions of the State utilize power structures which are contrary to human nature. From the organic origin of the State, organicists espouse what's called the principle of limited applicability. When used in practice, this view allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach to constructing political positions. | Organicists get their name from the application of their theory on the origin of the State, saying that States and societies develop "''organically''" with each other throughout history. Organicism exists contrary to most other ideology, particularly orthodox {{wp|socialism}} and liberalism, which argue that certain constructions of the State utilize power structures which are contrary to human nature. From the organic origin of the State, organicists espouse what's called the principle of limited applicability. When used in practice, this view allows for a flexible and pragmatic approach to constructing political positions. | ||