Relationship between society and communication

Relation between Individual and Society

relationship between society and communication

The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the d) Educational associations; e) Methods of communication and; f) The family [14]. Social Relationships between Communication, Network Structure, and Culture This interweaving of network relations and culture is the main concern of relational . Social Exchange,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 42– The difference between communication and interaction is that of response,reply and reciprocity too. In communication,the receiver may or may not .

The middle-class usually experiences this because they are the ones who can easily adopt an innovation. Next, we also discussed the writings of Henry Jenkins, Interactive audiences, the collective intelligence of Media Fans wherein it attempts to define behavioral attitude of audiences, and the writing explains that the new participatory culture demands a new type of media these are: We also discussed the different communication behaviors among Filipinos in which it explains that there are only common forms of communication in the Philippine Society, there are also theories and perspectives that explain the different forms of communication on Philippine society.

The languages, categories, narrative, representation, audiences, institutions, technology and society are the holistic approach of media. We also have classified the different role of information-communication technology in changing communication behavior in the country. And most especially we have discussed the traditional beliefs in the Philippine context if this really affects the kind of communication process the Philippines has.

And how the modern people or how the youths adopt to this traditional beliefs. And how will it affect the future people in forming or building their culture as well as the communication process that they will do in order for them to have a good and very stable, not conflicting and balanced way of living. I have also learned that, the societal inequalities that continue to hamper growth of people-centered, human rights-based communication culture affect how Filipinos communicate. The forms of communication in Filipino Culture are Verbal, Written and Non-verbal forms which includes body language and symbolic language.

Other cultural determinants are Gender, Class and variations factors. While some of the communication theories and perspectives are the critical theories, functionalists, post- structuralism. And the last writing is the collection n of articles from the Asian current magazine which mainly is all about the digital world and how it changed the approach of the journalists.

At first I was thinking if there is really essential relationship between communication and society but as we go beyond our discussion, I realized that there is really essential relationship between communication and society. Society change over time, society may change overtime its main body like culture, norms, language, and politics, Religion, education, media etc, because of the demands of the people and also because of the needs of the people.

It is also the same with communication, before communication has a very few and limited theoretical frameworks but as time goes by more and more theories emerged about communication. Moreover, communication is essentially relative to society because we all know that one form of communication in the modern world is the use of media and because people want a faster and less hassle communication process they look for an alternative way and that is media.

relationship between society and communication

And you also feel that your million light years away from your friends and relatives, we knew that there are many good effects of communication to society and society to communication. Communication can be very helpful to those who want to have a good foundation and society because by communication they can truly express what they feel and what they want and establish a good relationship.

These social relationships are not evident, they do not have any concrete from, and hence society is abstract. Society is not a group of people; it means in essence a state or condition, a relationship and is therefore necessarily an abstraction.

Society is organization of relationship. It is the total complex of human relationships. It includes whole range of human relations. Now we can say that society is the union itself, the organization, the sum of formal relations in which associating individuals are bound together. Societies consist in mutual interaction and inter relation of individuals and of the structure formed by their relations.

Social Life As a human being man cannot live without association. Because individuals cannot be understood apart from their relations with one another; the relations cannot be understood apart from the units or terms of the relationship.

A man of society may be aided by the understanding of say, neurons and synapses, but his quest remains the analysis of social relationships [8]. The role of social life is clarified when we consider the process by which they develop in the life of the individual.

Social life is the combination of various components such as activities, people and places. While all of these components are required to define a social life, the nature of each component is different for every person and can change for each person, as affected by a variety of external influences.

In fact, the complex social life of our day his actions indeed, even his thoughts and feelings are influenced in large measure by a social life which surrounds him like an atmosphere [11]. It is true that, human achievement is marked by his ability to do, so to a more remarkable degree than any other animal.

Everywhere there is a social life setting limitations and pre- dominatingly influencing individual action. Because they work together, combine and organize for specific purposes, so that no man lives to himself. This unity of effort is to make society [12].

There are different kinds of social life and these are depends on various factors. These types of factors of social life are normal and for normal people.

Nevertheless, social life depends on different things such as a The political life; b The economic life; c Voluntary associations; d Educational associations; e Methods of communication and; f The family [14]. Man Is a Social Animal Though accurate information about the exact origin of society is not known still it is an accepted fact that man has been living in society since time immemorial. He cannot live without society, if he does so; he is either beast or God.

Man has to live in society for his existence and welfare. In almost all aspect of his life he feels the need of society. Biologically and psychologically he compelled to live in society. The essence of the fact is that man has always belonged to a society of some sort, without which man cannot exist at all.

Society fulfills all his needs and provides security. Every human took birth, grows, live and die in society. Hence there exists a great deal of close relationships between man and society. Both are closely inter-related, interconnected and inter-dependent. Relationship between the two is bilateral in nature.

But this close relationship between man and society raises one of the most important questions i. No doubt Aristotle said so long ago. However, man is a social animal mainly because of the following three reasons: Sociality or sociability is his natural instinct. All his human qualities such as: All this developed through interaction with others. His nature compels him to live with his fellow beings. The first case was of Kasper Hauser who from his childhood until his seventeenth year was brought up in woods of Nuremberg.

In his case it was found that at the age of seventeen he could hardly walk, had the mind of an infant and mutter only a few meaningless phrases. In spite of his subsequent education he could never make himself a normal man.

The second case was of two Hindu children who in were discovered in a wolf den. One of the children died soon after discovery. The other could walk only on all four, possessed no language except wolf like growls.

She was shy of human being and afraid of them. It was only after careful and sympathetic training that she could learn some social habits. The third case was of Anna, an illegitimate American child who had been placed in a room at age of six months and discovered five years later. On discovery it was found that she could not walk or speech and was indifferent to people around her.

All the above cases prove that man is social by nature. Human nature develops in man only when he lives in society, only when he shares with his fellow begins a common life. He knows himself and his fellow beings within the framework of society.

Indeed, man is social by nature. The social nature is not super-imposed on him or added to him rather it is inborn. It is said that needs and necessities makes man social.

Man has many needs and necessities. Out of these different needs social, mental and physical needs are very important and needs fulfillment. All his needs and necessities compel him to live in society. Many of his needs and necessities will remain unfulfilled without the co-operation of his fellow beings.

His psychological safety, social recognition, loves and self-actualization needs only fulfilled only within the course of living in society. He is totally dependent for his survival upon the existence of society. Human baby is brought up under the care of his parents and family members. He would not survive even a day without the support of society. All his basic needs like food, clothing, shelter, health and education are fulfilled only within the framework of society.

Media and society in the digital age: Rethinking the relationship

He also needs society for his social and mental developments. His need for self-preservation compels him to live in society. Individual also satisfy his sex needs in a socially accepted way in a society.

relationship between society and communication

To fulfill his security concern at the old age individual lives in society. Similarly helplessness at the time of birth compels him to live in society.

A nutrition, shelter, warmth and affection need compels him to live in society.

Media and society in the digital age: Rethinking the relationship | #mediadev | DW |

Thus for the satisfaction of human wants man lives in society. Hence it is also true that not only for nature but also for the fulfillment of his needs and necessities man lives in society. Society not only fulfils his physical needs and determines his social nature but also determines his personality and guides the course of development of human mind.

Development of human mind and self is possible only living in society. Society moulds our attitudes, beliefs, morals, ideals and thereby moulds individual personality. Man acquires a self or personality only living in a society. From birth to death individual acquires different social qualities by social interaction with his fellow beings which moulds his personality.

Individual mind without society remains undeveloped at infant stage. Thus, from the above discussion we conclude that Man is a social animal. His nature and necessities makes him a social being. He also depends on society to be a human being. He acquires personality within society. There exists a very close relationship between individual and society like that of cells and body.

Relation between Individual and Society Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau who believed that we lived better in the original state of nature than under civilization, and who was for that reason less positive about classic Greek civilization than his contemporaries.

The relation between individual and society has been an interesting and a complex problem at the same time. It can be stated more or less that it has defied all solutions so far. No sociologist has been able to give a solution of the relation between the two that will be fully satisfactory and convincing by reducing the conflict between the two to the minimum and by showing a way in which both will tend to bring about a healthy growth of each other.

Aristotle has treated of the individual only from the point of view of the state and he wants the individual to fit in the mechanism of the state and the society. It is very clear that relation between individual and society are very close.

So we will discuss here Rawls three models of the relation between the individual and society: His most telling argument against the utilitarian position is that it conflates the system of desires of all individuals and arrives at the good for a society by treating it as one large individual choice. It is a summing up over the field of individual desires.

Utilitarianism has often been described as individualistic, but Rawls argues convincingly that the classical utilitarian position does not take seriously the plurality and distinctness of individuals [15]. It applies to society the principle of choice for one man. Rawls also observes that the notion of the ideal observer or the impartial sympathetic spectator is closely bound up with this classical utilitarian position.

It is only from the perspective of some such hypothetical sympathetic ideal person that the various individual interests can be summed over an entire society [16]. The paradigm presented here, and rejected by Rawls, is one in which the interests of society are considered as the interests of one person.

Plurality is ignored, and the desires of individuals are conflated. The tension between individual and society is resolved by subordinating the individual to the social sum. The social order is conceived as a unity. The principles of individual choice, derived from the experience of the self as a unity, are applied to society as a whole. Rawls rightly rejects this position as being unable to account for justice, except perhaps by some administrative decision that it is desirable for the whole to give individuals some minimum level of liberty and happiness.

But individual persons do not enter into the theoretical position. They are merely sources or directions from which desires are drawn. Justice as Fairness The second paradigm is that which characterizes the original position. It has already been suggested that this is a picture of an aggregate of individuals, mutually disinterested, and conceived primarily as will. While not necessarily egoistic, their interests are each of their own choosing. They have their own life plans.

They coexist on the same geographical territory and they have roughly similar needs and interests so that mutually advantageous cooperation among them is possible.

relationship between society and communication

Thus, one can say, in brief, that the circumstances of justice obtain whenever mutually disinterested persons put forward conflicting claims to the division of social advantages under conditions of moderate scarcity [17]. Here the tension between individual and society is resolved in favor of plurality, of an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals occupying the same space at the same time.