I want your opinion

[synthesizing_id]

Do people shape society or does society shape people? Reasoning?

[loe]

As society doesn't exist without people, in the first place people will have to shape society.

Then it depends on the people and/or "strength"/"might" of the society if it can influence people in reverse.

Just my opinion...

[Cunninglinguist]

One is neither the cause nor the other the effect, but in the broadest scope there exists a mutual or reciprocal dependence (a category of relation so often forgotten!). That both elements can shape each other, as we have all personally experienced, indicates a circular relationship, which, again, is only possible through a mutual or reciprocal relationship.

{Edit: P.S. as an afterthought, if we haven't all experienced this kind of circular relationship but, rather, one with a single direction, the question of the relationship would never be posed as the answer would be intuitively obvious. But, then, where does this apparent dilemma come from? I think the dilemma for most people consists in an inability to pose the question with both accuracy and precision. For example, the question here only strictly allows the two answers that either one is the cause and the other the effect or vice versa, both of which are wrong. Then, to stay within the bounds of all possible answers we find ourselves quite stumped. Indeed, in such situations we must question our questions!}

[Oniw17]

Society is people. How could you separate them? But I get the question.

Everyone in every society grows up with a set of beliefs that are impressed upon them at school, by various media, by family, by people on the streets, and by friends. Eventually, those individuals become a part of society, influencing it as they will, although usually after a considerable degree of assimilation to what was society before occurs. So they both influence each other, but society has more means to influence individuals than any individual has to to influence society(imo, of course).

[russellb]

Does it have to be an either/or? A view of social determinism obliterates autonomy, however to view things in terms totally of autonomy ignores the influence that a social system may have on organizing any given individual's life. The question is, how do we answer the question? Perhaps philosophy is more about the coherent organisation of thought rather than providing a definitive answer. Therefore one examines the implications of one view, its opposite and indeed their synthesis to produce an increasingly elaborate but always consistent understanding. I m afraid i can't do any better than that.

[cafolini]

One is neither the cause nor the other the effect, but in the broadest scope there exists a mutual or reciprocal dependence (a category of relation so often forgotten!). That both elements can shape each other, as we have all personally experienced, indicates a circular relationship, which, again, is only possible through a mutual or reciprocal relationship.

{Edit: P.S. as an afterthought, if we haven't all experienced this kind of circular relationship but, rather, one with a single direction, the question of the relationship would never be posed as the answer would be intuitively obvious. But, then, where does this apparent dilemma come from? I think the dilemma for most people consists in an inability to pose the question with both accuracy and precision. For example, the question here only strictly allows the two answers that either one is the cause and the other the effect or vice versa, both of which are wrong. Then, to stay within the bounds of all possible answers we find ourselves quite stumped. Indeed, in such situations we must question our questions!}

Very good points.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do people shape society or does society shape people? Reasoning?

I thought it was fairly obvious that it's both.

[cafolini]

I thought it was fairly obvious that it's both.

Obvious perhaps in USA. But in more than half the world, society (culture) shapes the people, intimidates the people, often assasinates the people, and tortures the people physically or verbally.

[Thomas Novosel]

While reading the topic of this post i decided to show my own interpretation on the matter of whether "Society affects people or people affect society"...

Society is the convergence of multiple people that have various ties (family, emotionally, bussiness transactions etc.) and so one persons actions may cuase another person to counteract creating a chain of actions and reactions that shape society. BUT since people enter and leave any society quite often, there interests may conflict with society and may have to allow them to alter there interests.

EXAMPLE:
A man loses his job and has to move to a new town he was a farmer... He moves to a small mining town in the mountains, and since unable to farm he must mine to sustain himself. (Society changing a Person) As such the man himself may become more "gruff" (unsure whether or not this is a word), and may tend to appreciate daylight more than he previously did...

But let's say this farmer moved to the mining community and decided he would rather be a writer and start a local newspaper, he has just affected the community by creating a daily tangible object that people will read, he has created jobs, and his writings and other reporters and writings will the influence the public's interpretation of the town. (People influencing Society)

It is more of a forked decision cycle community... and when i say that i mean that there are multiple paths that travelers of life may choose from and that their decisions will impact another persons decision towards which path to take. Which intern creates groups of people that chose similar decisions and paths in their life and they WILL gravitate towards eachother. The groups will become larger and larger until an individuals interests can be associated with the groups interests. And there would be multiple groups I assure you becuase there are multiple paths in life, these groups will have conflicting ideals or anything that can have more than one point of view (they like chocolate cake, they don't like chocolate cake). The groups may separate into sects (these people share the same ideas as another person but this person likes to cook). Making an intricate web that we call society.

[Thomas Novosel]

Obvious perhaps in USA. But in more than half the world, society (culture) shapes the people, intimidates the people, often assasinates the people, and tortures the people physically or verbally.

Yes, true "More so" obvious in the USA,... but around the world when a person stands up for themselves it can affect society (ie: the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, where Lenin started an uproar and unified the outcry of unhappiness towards the government and led it to be overthrown and reassembled but under anothers ideals). But sometimes someone standing up against whats wrong or they think might change goes partially unnoticed, becuase if one person is unhappy with something there is bound to be silent others with the same ideas? Such as if a village is being looted and all the other inhabitants go along with it except for one man, the one man will surely die or be beaten or something, but the other inhabitants will watch and think he was in his own right to defend his property. That old mans death may become the rally cry for his neighbours the next time someone loots the village. So he would have impacted society, almost never immediately but surely he will impact society over time (he will affect someone if not through his actions but by, as sad as it is to say it is oh so true, being a statistic).

[Jair]

The problem is that society is considered an entity. That view is fundamentally false. There are only people influencing people. Eliminate the middleman and the vicious cycle is transformed into the meaningless question, "Do people shape people, or vice versa?"

[Thomas Novosel]

But it is an entity isn't it? Becuase of all the connections and ties that the multiple people within it create with one another? So maybe not an entity, such as a being or item tangible or not, but is rather a social entity, which would be the relationships of these people that dwell within society. And so the status of the relationship ebs and flows, and may become bowed at times, due to stress in the economy or religious problems oir anything that might occur, this stress that makes relationships bend affects the people that comprise these relationships.

[Jair]

But it is an entity isn't it? Becuase of all the connections and ties that the multiple people within it create with one another? So maybe not an entity, such as a being or item tangible or not, but is rather a social entity, which would be the relationships of these people that dwell within society. And so the status of the relationship ebs and flows, and may become bowed at times, due to stress in the economy or religious problems oir anything that might occur, this stress that makes relationships bend affects the people that comprise these relationships.

I actually do believe that you have a point. Emergence is one of the newest theories in science. However, no matter what characteristics the whole has, it is ridiculus to completely distinguish it from its components.

It's like asking the question, "Does a square make its edges, or do the edges make the square?" Regardless of the fact that a square has many characteristics not found in straight lines, it is still impossible to ask that question, in my opinion.

[Gertrude73]

Society is people. How could you separate them? But I get the question.

[OpalRoulken]

I think this question falls into the same category as ''Which came first, the chicken or the egg'' - a chestnut for which we still haven't found a strong enough hammer to crack.