Essay Writing by Manoj K Jha 

Model Answer

Question #1. Best for an individual is not necessarily best for society.

The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.

                                                                                                                    James Baldwin

Individuals are generally driven by animal spirit and self-interest. They are also driven by a longing for freedom. Individuals try to realize their freedom goals by any means without paying much heed to the consequences of their actions on society. Society on the other hand tries to set norms and conventions for saving the communities from disorder and anarchy. Society tends to develop conventions that guide and bind individuals in their day-to-day life to behave in a particular way. Such conventions, however, curtail freedom and free will. There is a perpetual conflict between individual interest and social interest and apparently it seems that what is best for individuals is not the best for society.

Freedom is cherished by individuals as the most desirable goal, but the state feels that freedom without reasonable restrictions leads to disorder and anarchy. In economic wisdom, saving and thrift is good for individuals, but at societal level if there is too much thrust on saving, it has an adverse effect on aggregate demand, which may lead to recession. In the theory of public finance, a difference is made between private finance and public finance. Private finance aims at maximizing private benefits whereas public finance aims at maximizing social advantage. These examples show that what is best for individuals, may not always be the best for society.

With the advent of modernity and democracy and welfare state, a process of reconciliation between individual freedom and dignity and social obligation started. This reconciliation was made possible by adopting constitutional means and rule of law on one hand and civil right movements and civil societies’ intervention on the other hand. Some rights of the individuals were defined as non-negotiable fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and equality of opportunity. On the other hand, the theory of social contract advocated giving up some individual rights for the benefit of social order.

Society is an agglomeration of individuals. The individuals, their values, their beliefs, their preferences and priorities, their actions, their culture, their mores and manners, etc. express the collective aspirations and collective will of a society. A society cannot be conceived without individuals. But the “collective” notion of society has come increasingly under pressure and in conflict with individual aspirations of freedom and personal well- being. The deviation between collective well-being and individual freedom became more prominent with evolution of individualism, capitalism and philosophies like existentialism and new concepts of justice, equality and welfare. There have been occasions, and more often than not, that individuals do not share societal values and goals. They pursue their own self-interest rather than making sacrifices for the common good. Apparently, it seems agreeable that what is best for an individual may not be best for society.There are contexts in which collective action and well- being is more important than individual thoughts and preferences.

Coming together should be considered something positive for people and communities. When thoughts come together, that can be more positive than an individual thought. Societies can do miracles together and if individuals and groups are divided, it saps the strength of a society for progress and change. Team India, for example is an oft used word to express the power of collective action. Collective actions make movements like “swadesi” or “Quit India Movement” during the freedom struggle, and “Chhota Parivar, Sukhi Parivaar” and “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao” in Independent India.

But the relationship is not so straight and simple. Society has an imprint on individuals and individuals have their bearing on society. The relationship, therefore, is both exclusive and mutual. In modern times, the dreams and aspirations of people may be believed to be articulated and expressed through democracy, but people even in democracy are not equally free and equipped to express and enjoy their freedoms as individuals. It is in fact, not the question of system, be it capitalism or socialism- but how responsive and responsible a system is towards aspirations of individuals for freedom, equality and justice that make a system good or bad. Capitalism is based on the principle of “laissez faire” and therefore, it is assumed that there is freedom of enterprise and choice, but these choices are limited by various forms of inequality. Socialism, on the other hand, is a collective or totalitarian system that does not permit creation of “billionaires” but aims at giving basic minimum needs to all the members of society through a system of government interventions, contrary to laissez faire. Thus, there are many who believe that in capitalism man exploits man while the reverse happens in socialism. No system is very conducive for freedom and dignity unless it decides to be so and remains committed to these ideals.

The above discussion leads us to some very pertinent questions. Are individuals’ interest and social interest mutually exclusively, contradictory and conflicting? Are individuals a product of a society or they influence and produce the society we have. Are individuals and her/his aspirations drawn from society or it is they who design it? These questions are not easy, nor are their answers! But there is a wide consensus among thinkers that society and individuals are bound by deep relations; individuals have their umbilical cord connected with society and society is made and unmade by its people- the values, shame and glory brought by individuals become that of society as a whole.

Individuals and societies are both- simultaneously mutually exclusive and inclusive. They are mutually exclusive with respect to freedom and creativity. Bruce Lee explains this idea succinctly thus: “Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system. They are mutually inclusive in terms of social obligation, collective responsibility and realization of shared dreams. Individuals, therefore, should be free to pursue their free will and self-interest but they should also not forget their social responsibilities and commitments. Society and state often pursue contradictory goals. What is conceived as an individual's natural or fundamental right, may be problematic for the state. The former US President Thomas Jefferson recognized this conflict and said: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

It does not mean that individual acts are always guided by self-interest which is at loggerheads with social interest. People also stand up against social malaises and raise their voices of protests, lead movements for justice, change and progress which is in social interest in medium and long terms. But these people initially seem to be working against existing societal beliefs and interests. Notwithstanding their honest intentions, they are seen as villains in the beginning. These law breakers are eventually remembered as Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Gandhi, Bhim Rao Ambedkar, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, etc., because they rose against existing social norms for making the society better than they inherited.

All Individual voices for freedom, equality and justice, whether they are in consonance with society or not, are worth pursuing. People often break laws and social conventions to express their freedom or to ask for justice. About breaking the laws and conventions Martin Luther King Jr. said, “ I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

A society that nurtures individual freedom and creativity and creates good environment for individuals to realize their potential leads to wealth creation and empowerment of the poor, the weak and deprived. The most important institution which gives or robs freedom, equality, justice and dignity is society. The social values determine the state of human rights. State is making of society and a state is bound to act in accordance with social aspirations. A sensitive and responsible state is an expression of social values. Such a state empowers its people. The former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee rightly pointed out: “Empowering the individual means empowering the nation. And empowerment is best served through rapid economic growth with rapid social change.” All this is better possible through good governance and participatory democracy. The state may use various means like positive discrimination, subsidies, free education and health services, etc., to unleash the potential of vast majority and even minorities in the best interest of those individuals and natpositiveions.

Individuals can have initiative and drive for their personal growth and achievement, but they can also act as an agent of change, progress, equality and justice. An individual who is enhancing his capacity and bettering his performance is an asset for the country. A citizen who is paying taxes and complying with the rules and laws of the country is a good citizen. The capacity of an individual as a positive agent of personal and social growth is immense. Producers are profit maximizers at individual levels, but they also need to fulfill their corporate social responsibilities. Individual nations need to create wealth, but for the global society they need to fulfill their sustainable development commitments. Individual attitude and mindset are very important for change and progress. Malaises like corruption, slavery, civil wars, exploitation of the weaker sections can be eradicated if individuals change their attitude.

Individuals can act as agents of change and progress by being truthful, honest and courageous. This is very nicely brought out by Jack Canfie: “One individual can begin a movement that turns the tide of history. Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement, Mohandas Gandhi in India, Nelson Mandela in South Africa are examples of people standing up with courage and non-violence to bring about needed changes.” It is important what the men in a society think and do. A society becomes more livable and beautiful by the efforts of right intended and inspired men and women. Harry S Truman rightly pointed out: “Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.” Men thus work not only in their self interest, but also for social change and progress.

It is not possible to segregate individuals from society and society from individuals. They have a mutually reinforcing and complementary relationship- both regressive and positive. Crony capitalism is an example of a regressive relationship between society, state and individual. Individual benevolence and an aware and law-abiding citizen full of social commitment reflects a positive relationship. The relationship is two ways - what individuals do matters to society and state and what society or state does matters to individuals. Good citizens make great nations and great nations care about freedom, equality and justice for people. Where states are responsive and sensitive and have constitutional remedies and complaint redressal system, individuals do not have discontent or grudge and they contribute in governance and efforts for growth and development. On the other hand, where citizens participate in politics, economy, and the society with democratic engagement and patriotism, the nation is bound to become strong and beautiful. To conclude we can remember Fredrick Douglas remarks: “Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.”