Introduction

What is the purpose of society? This deep question has been explored from philosophical angles (pondering what society ought to achieve) and sociological ones (observing what functions society does serve). Classical thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Rousseau debated the ideal aims of social organization – from securing justice to ensuring survival. Later philosophers and theorists (Marx, Nietzsche, Rawls, etc.) added new interpretations, including the role of society in fostering human potential or individual greatness. Sociologists such as Durkheim and Marx approached the question differently, analyzing how societies cohere, whose interests they serve, and how they enable cooperation in practice. Below, we survey classical and modern viewpoints on society’s purpose – ranging from maintaining order and survival to promoting justice, economic exchange, human flourishing, or even providing a stage for heroism and immortality. We also contrast collectivist versus individualist perspectives on whether society exists mainly for the whole or for the individual.

Philosophical Perspectives on Society’s Purpose

Classical Antiquity: Plato and Aristotle

Ancient Greek philosophers offered some of the earliest reflections on why society exists. Plato argued that society (the polis or city-state) is essential both for practical needs and for moral order. In The Republic, he notes that no person is self-sufficient; we all have many needs, so humans band together into communities to help one another . As Plato’s Socrates puts it: “A State… arises, as I conceive, out of the needs of mankind; no one is self-sufficing, but all of us have many wants.” . Through division of labor and cooperation, society enables each person to specialize in what they do best – farmers, builders, weavers, etc. – and then exchange goods and services to mutual advantage . In other words, an early purpose of society is ensuring material survival and efficiency: by working together and trading, people live better than they could alone. Beyond mere survival, Plato believed the highest purpose of a well-ordered society is to achieve justice and the virtuous life. He famously defines justice as each class performing its proper role in harmony (rulers ruling with wisdom, warriors defending, producers supplying needs) so that the whole is healthy. Justice, for Plato, is “the bond which joins men together in society,” a virtue that makes both individuals and the collective just and good . Thus, Plato’s ideal society exists to cultivate virtue and harmonious order, aligning each part of the community (and each part of the soul) with the good . In sum, Plato saw society’s purpose as twofold: material cooperation (to meet needs through specialization and trade) and moral cooperation (to achieve justice as the highest good).

Plato’s student Aristotle echoed some of these ideas with an emphasis on human flourishing. Aristotle viewed humans as naturally social or “political animals” who can only fully realize their potential in a polis (community) . A famous Aristotelian claim is that while the city-state may form “for the sake of life” (i.e. to secure mere living), it “continues in being to secure the good life.” . In other words, the basic formation of society helps us survive, but the higher purpose of society is to enable humans to live well – to develop virtues, attain happiness (eudaimonia), and flourish. Aristotle argued that the polis is a natural outgrowth of simpler associations (family, village) and is the telos (end or goal) of human social nature . Living in society provides law, culture, and education, through which people become fully human and excellent. Thus, in Aristotle’s view, “the state came about as a means of securing life itself, [but] it continues in being to secure the good life” . Society’s purpose is not only to preserve life and order but to cultivate human virtue and fulfillment on a higher level than any isolated person could achieve.

Social Contract Theories: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

Moving to early modern philosophy, social contract theorists asked why individuals would form organized societies and what goals these societies serve. Thomas Hobbes offered a stark answer: the primary purpose of society is to maintain order and security. In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes imagines life without society or government – the famous “state of nature” – as a condition of war of “every man against every man,” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To escape this anarchy, individuals collectively agree to surrender some freedoms and establish a sovereign power. Hobbes writes that “the final cause, end, or design of men… in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war [in the state of nature].” . In other words, people create society and government to protect themselves – to ensure peace, safety, and survival by enforcing laws. Society’s fundamental purpose, for Hobbes, is to impose order (through a powerful sovereign or “Leviathan”) so that individuals are saved from violent chaos and can live in relative security . The collective authority keeps everyone “in awe” and deters wrongdoing, allowing cooperative life in place of bellum omnium contra omnes. This is a strongly collectivist but also individual-security oriented view: individuals submit to an authority for the sake of their own preservation and comfort.

John Locke, writing a few decades later, had a slightly more optimistic view of the state of nature but agreed that society is formed to protect fundamental human interests. Locke asserted that people join in a commonwealth above all to secure their natural rights – especially the rights to life, liberty, and property. “The great and chief end of men’s uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property,” Locke writes, using “property” in a broad sense to include lives, freedoms, and estates . In Locke’s social contract, civil society’s purpose is to establish known laws and impartial justice to safeguard rights that would be insecure in the state of nature. Government by consent thus serves the individual: it exists to protect each person’s life and liberty and securely enjoy the fruits of their labor . This view (which deeply influenced liberal political philosophy and the American founding) sees society as a “co-operative venture for mutual advantage” (to borrow Rawls’ later phrase) – individuals cooperate and form governments so that everyone is better off, their persons and possessions safer than if each were on their own. Society, in Locke’s individualist-liberal perspective, is instrumental: it is for the benefit of individuals, not an end in itself. It should maximize the freedom and welfare of its members, not subjugate them.

Another classic social contract theorist, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, had a complex view of society’s purpose – at once critical of society’s corruptions and hopeful about a just social order. Rousseau famously opens The Social Contract (1762) with “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” By this he meant that in the “state of nature” humans had a kind of natural freedom, but existing societies enslave individuals through inequality and domination. Yet Rousseau did not advocate a return to anarchy; instead, he imagined a proper social contract that could redeem the purpose of society. According to Rousseau, the ideal society is one governed by the general will of its members – essentially a collective agreement to pursue the common good, in which each person equally has a say. This kind of social arrangement would harmonize what society is for: “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” . In Rousseau’s vision, society’s purpose is to secure freedom and equality for its members by uniting them under a general will that reflects their collective interests. Each individual, by joining the social contract, agrees to protect every other, and in obeying the law (which he prescribes to himself as part of the sovereign people) he maintains his autonomy. Thus, an ideal society allows individuals to achieve moral liberty – freedom through obedience to self-imposed law – and protects everyone’s life and property as well. Rousseau even describes the social contract’s fundamental term as each of us putting “his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will”, creating a collective body in which “each member is an indivisible part of the whole.” . In summary, Rousseau believed society is for the common good: when rightly organized, it maintains order and security like Hobbes and Locke envisioned, and it promotes justice and freedom by ensuring no one is subject to another’s private will, only to laws they gave themselves. This is a more collectivist philosophy than Locke’s – society is a moral community aiming at the general welfare – but it is meant to benefit every individual, allowing each to “remain as free as before” in the state of nature while gaining the advantages of cooperation.

Modern Philosophical Views: From Nietzsche to Rawls

As philosophy progressed into the 19th and 20th centuries, new perspectives on society’s purpose emerged, often challenging earlier notions. One strikingly individualist viewpoint came from Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche was skeptical of conventional morality and collectivist ideals; he valued the exceptional individual – the creator, the genius, the “higher man” – above the herd. In his work (e.g. Thus Spoke Zarathustra), Nietzsche suggests that the highest justification of society is as a breeding ground for great individuals. He went so far as to say “Mankind ought constantly to be striving to produce Great Men – this and nothing else is its duty.” . In this radical view, the purpose of a culture or society is not the well-being of all its members equally, but the production of excellence – the cultivation of human greatness that transcends the ordinary. Society exists in order to bring forth the rare genius, hero, or Übermensch; the rest of humanity and its toils are, in a sense, a means to that end. This Nietzschean perspective sharply contrasts with egalitarian or collectivist theories: it unapologetically prioritizes individual greatness (for the few) as the loftiest aim, rather than the common good of all. Such a view highlights the tension between individualist purpose (focusing on personal achievement and glory) and collectivist purpose (focusing on the welfare or morality of the group as a whole). Nietzsche’s stance is extreme, but it raises the provocative idea that perhaps society, through its stories, values, and opportunities, is there to allow some individuals to reach sublime heights (artistic, intellectual, political) that would immortalize them and give cultural meaning to life.

More mainstream modern philosophy tended to return to questions of justice and mutual benefit. In the 20th century, John Rawls – a hugely influential political philosopher – reexamined the foundation of society in his A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls starts from the premise that “society is a cooperative venture for mutual advantage”, one that “is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests.” . By this he means: by cooperating in a society, people can produce and share more goods and live better than each could alone (identity of interests), but they also conflict over how those benefits are divided (each wants a larger share). Therefore, Rawls argues, the purpose of a well-ordered society is to equitably coordinate social cooperation – to set fair terms of cooperation such that everyone benefits and no one is exploited. He famously emphasizes justice as the first virtue of social institutions. Society’s structures (laws, institutions, economy) should be arranged to uphold principles of justice and fairness, balancing freedom and equality. In Rawls’ vision, if free and rational individuals were to design society behind a “veil of ignorance” (not knowing their own class, talents, etc.), they would agree on principles that guarantee basic liberties for all and ensure any social or economic inequalities work to the advantage of the least well-off. This hypothetical contract reveals what the purpose of society ought to be: not simply maximizing total wealth or utilitarian happiness, but creating a fair system in which each person’s rights are respected and cooperation is mutually beneficial . In short, modern liberal theory (exemplified by Rawls) sees society as for the benefit of all individuals, and it must be structured justly so that it advances the good of each member in a fair way. This continues the tradition from Locke and Rousseau that society should protect individuals and enhance their lives – but with a refined focus on distributive justice (fair allocation of the benefits and burdens of social life).

Between Nietzsche’s individualist elitism and Rawls’ egalitarian liberalism, many other modern thinkers added nuance to the question of society’s purpose. For example, Karl Marx (more on him below in sociology) was also a philosopher who saw existing societies as serving particular class interests rather than any universal purpose. Marx would say what people claim is society’s purpose (e.g. “justice”, “order”) is often an ideological mask for the ruling class’s purposes. In his words, “your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all” – implying that laws and moral norms in class-divided society serve the dominant bourgeoisie rather than some abstract common good. Marx’s normative vision, however, was a classless society (communism) in which the free development of each person is the condition for the free development of all – essentially aligning individual and collective purpose (we discuss this more later). Other 19th-century thinkers like John Stuart Mill argued that society should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number (utilitarianism) while respecting individual liberty (“the sole end for which society may interfere in the liberty of action of any individual, is self-protection”). Communitarians in the late 20th century (like Michael Sandel or Charles Taylor) countered that shared values and community goals are crucial, suggesting society’s purpose cannot be understood only in individual terms (they emphasize purposes like cultural identity, civic virtue, solidarity). In contrast, libertarian thinkers (like Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand) have maintained that society exists solely to protect individual rights and liberty, not to pursue collective goals – echoing Locke’s view that individual freedom and property are paramount. Thus, within philosophy, there remains a spectrum: from visions of society as an organic whole with a common good that transcends individuals, to visions of society as a contractual framework meant to serve individual ends (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

Sociological Perspectives on Society’s Function

Where philosophers often debate what society should aim for, sociologists tend to ask: what functions does society serve and how does it actually work? Early sociological thinkers in the 19th century tried to identify the key needs that societies fulfill and the principles that hold societies together. Two foundational figures, Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, offered influential but different answers – one emphasizing social cohesion, the other social conflict and power. Later sociologists like Max Weber added insights about rational organization and meaning.

Émile Durkheim: Cohesion, Solidarity, and Moral Order

Durkheim (1858–1917), often called the father of sociology, believed that society has a reality of its own, beyond the sum of individuals. He sought to understand what holds society together and what purpose its various institutions serve. Durkheim’s answer was that society’s fundamental purpose is to create social cohesion – a sense of solidarity and moral unity that binds individuals into a collective. He viewed society as an integrated system (much like a living organism) in which different parts (institutions like family, religion, education, economy) each play a role in maintaining the whole . This is known as the functionalism approach. For Durkheim, one key function of society is to provide a shared value system – a “collective conscience” – that regulates individual behavior and gives people common ideals . Without social rules and norms guiding us, our individual desires could become limitless and self-destructive (a state Durkheim called anomie, or normlessness). Thus, society exists to furnish moral regulation and social integration: it teaches us norms and values, connects us to others, and thus prevents chaos. Durkheim famously observed that even seemingly personal acts (like suicide) have social causes – e.g. people are less likely to take their own life when they are tightly integrated in a community with clear norms, whereas breakdown of social ties or norms (anomie) leads to higher suicide rates. This underscored his view that human beings need society’s influence to thrive. Society gives meaning and purpose to individuals by making them part of something greater. “Social integration,” wrote Durkheim, is key to a healthy society . For example, religion for Durkheim was not truly about gods, but about the community venerating its own values – he said “society is a reality sui generis” with its own sacredness, essentially “a living myth of the significance of human life” that offers people a hero-system and meaning . In Durkheim’s functional perspective, then, the purpose of society is to nurture social solidarity and stability. Laws, morals, education, shared beliefs – all these “social facts” function to cohere the group and curb purely individual impulses . Society exists to bind individuals together into a harmonious whole, much as organs are coordinated in a body. When it functions well, society provides “unity and purpose” to individuals’ lives – giving them a sense of belonging, identity, and duty toward something beyond themselves. This collectivist emphasis echoes some philosophers (e.g. Plato’s idea of social harmony), but Durkheim’s is an empirical claim: without the glue of society, individuals fall into despair or disorder. Even aspects like economic cooperation or division of labor, in Durkheim’s view, ultimately serve to increase social interdependence and organic solidarity (in modern societies, people rely on each other’s specialized roles, creating cohesion through mutual dependence).

In short, Durkheim sees maintaining social order, integration, and shared morality as the core function of society . The individual benefits because society restrains selfish passions and provides a supportive network and collective purpose. This is a decidedly collectivist picture: the needs of society (for stability, continuity, common values) shape and sometimes outweigh the desires of individuals. Yet Durkheim would argue individuals want that – we crave belonging and meaning which only society can provide. As he put it, society is not just an aggregate of individuals but a “system of interrelated parts” that works to keep itself going . One might say, from a Durkheimian perspective, what society is for is to be society – to exist and persist by perpetuating the bonds and norms that allow humans to live together.

Karl Marx: Conflict, Class Interests, and Change

Karl Marx (1818–1883) approached society from a very different angle, focusing on power, economic interests, and conflict. Marx did not think society had a single harmonious purpose; instead, he saw any given society as divided by class interests, with its institutions serving the dominant class. In Marx’s materialist conception of history, the structure of society (its class system, government, ideology) is largely determined by the mode of economic production. Thus, one might say the practical purpose that current societies serve is the production of material life and the reproduction of the class structure. For example, under capitalism, society’s institutions (laws, politics, culture) function to enable the continuous production of goods (industry, markets) and to protect the capitalists’ property and profit. The legal system and government, Marx argues, are tools of the bourgeoisie to enforce conditions favorable to them – “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class,” he wrote . So whereas a philosopher like Locke claimed government exists to protect everyone’s property, Marx would retort that in capitalist society it really exists to protect bourgeois property above all. The lofty ideals (freedom, justice, etc.) are often ideological veneers. “Your very ideas… are the outgrowth of your bourgeois production and property,” Marx says to the ruling class, “just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all.” . In other words, society’s laws and norms serve the purpose of preserving the power and exploitation relations (the bourgeois exploiting the proletariat) that define the capitalist system.

From a Marxist sociological perspective, then, asking “what is society for?” yields a critical answer: in a class society, society functions to further the interests of the ruling class and to perpetuate the conditions (economic relationships) that allow that class to extract surplus from labor. There is nothing eternal or harmonious about this – it is a historically contingent state of affairs, maintained by force and ideology. However, Marx also had a vision of a future classless society (communist society) which would fulfill a very different purpose. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels describe the goal of revolution as creating an “association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” . This aphorism captures a potential normative purpose for society: a truly human society would be organized so that each individual can fully thrive (develop their talents, satisfy their needs), precisely because the community as a whole thrives and there are no class antagonisms. In such a society, social arrangements would exist to empower individuals collectively rather than to oppress one group for another’s benefit. Marx imagined that once class conflict is resolved, the state (as an instrument of class rule) would wither away, and cooperative management of production would allow abundance and freedom for all. In essence, society’s purpose would become the common flourishing of individuals without the distortions of power and exploitation. This resonates with the earlier idea of society enabling human potential – but through collective ownership and solidarity rather than hierarchical control.

In practice, Marxist sociologists analyze phenomena like how education systems can serve to reproduce class structure (by socializing workers to be obedient, for instance), or how politics in society is a struggle between classes over resources. They see conflict (more than consensus) as the driver of social dynamics. So, unlike Durkheim who emphasized integration, Marx emphasized that different groups have different aims (e.g. workers want better conditions, capitalists want profit) – so society doesn’t have one single purpose except insofar as the dominant group imposes one. The “purpose” of feudal society was to maintain the nobility’s land and labor force; the “purpose” of capitalist society is to accumulate capital. These are not conscious purposes of all members, but implicit in how the society is organized. It’s a decidedly cynical (or realist) view: society exists to satisfy the demands of its economic system, not necessarily the needs of every individual.

Yet, Marx also believed in human emancipation. His critique implies that if we overturn the class system, society could be repurposed entirely. Freed from class exploitation, society could become truly human – where politics and production are organized by the people for the people. In that sense, Marx would agree with philosophers like Aristotle or Rousseau that society should enable our higher potentials and freedom – but only after a radical transformation of its structure. Until then, any talk of “justice” or “order” is, in Marx’s view, usually serving the status quo of power.

Max Weber and Others: Rationalization, Exchange, and Meaning

Beyond Durkheim and Marx, other sociologists added further perspectives. Max Weber (1864–1920) argued that modern society is characterized by increasing rationalization – the organization of life according to efficiency, calculable rules, and bureaucratic systems. One could say the purpose of society has shifted (in modernity) to maximizing instrumental outcomes like economic productivity and administrative efficiency. Weber studied how bureaucracies, capitalist markets, and scientific thought displace traditional values in favor of a rational pursuit of goals (profit, state power, etc.). He was hesitant to ascribe an overarching “purpose” to society, because he saw it as a pluralistic arena of different value spheres (economic, legal, religious, etc.). However, Weber noted a kind of irony: in trying to efficiently meet human needs, society can become an “iron cage” of rational control that may stifle individuality and meaning. So if earlier societies were about shared meaning (religion, communal values), modern society’s de facto purpose seems to be systemic efficiency and wealth generation – a huge departure. (Think of how contemporary societies often prioritize economic growth, technological progress, and bureaucratic management of populations as key goals.) Yet, this very rational structure leaves people asking “what is it all for?” – a question Weber thought was ultimately answered by individual value choices, not by society as a whole.

Another aspect is the economic exchange purpose. Classical economists (like Adam Smith) and economic sociologists would highlight that societies allow trade and specialization which vastly increase wealth. Adam Smith observed that humans have a propensity to “truck, barter, and exchange,” and in society this leads to division of labor and prosperity. We saw a hint of this in Plato’s Republic with specialization . From this angle, a key purpose of society is material prosperity: by pooling resources, dividing tasks, and trading, society enables a higher standard of living and mutual benefit. Many social scientists note that large-scale cooperation (markets, firms, etc.) is only possible with social structure (norms of trust, contracts, etc.). So facilitating economic exchange and mutual benefit is a central function. For example, even Hobbes acknowledged that commerce could be an alternate solution to chaos (Anthony de Jasay argued people can peacefully cooperate through exchange without a big state) . Modern capitalist society, arguably, puts economic growth and exchange at the forefront – sometimes at the expense of other values. One could cynically say in a capitalist era society’s purpose has been reduced to producing and consuming goods (hence people’s identities revolve around work and consumerism).

Sociologists also examine how society provides a framework for identity and meaning (beyond Durkheim’s focus on cohesion). For instance, symbolic interactionists suggest that society is the stage on which individuals build a self through interaction and receive recognition from others. This links to a theme from philosophy: Hegel’s idea that we seek recognition from other self-conscious beings, and that the evolution of society (law, state) creates conditions of mutual recognition (some interpret Hegel as saying the state’s purpose is to resolve the master–slave struggle and grant all citizens recognition as free individuals). Contemporary social theorists like Axel Honneth explicitly argue that the purpose of social institutions is to foster relations of recognition – e.g. love in family, rights in the legal sphere, esteem in the economy – which each individual needs to develop a healthy identity. If people are not recognized (e.g. denied rights or dignity), society is failing its purpose in that view. This resonates with the idea that society should allow individuals to feel valued and “seen” – a more psychological take on what society is for.

Society as a Stage for Individual Greatness and Immortality

An intriguing thread in both philosophy and social thought is the idea that society exists partly to provide a stage for individuals to achieve recognition, greatness, or even a form of immortality through their contributions. This concept takes an individual-centric twist on society’s purpose: beyond serving collective survival or order, society gives individuals an audience and context that can remember and honor their achievements.

Historically, we see this in the ancient quest for glory (kleos). In Homeric legend, warriors like Achilles seek immortal fame through heroic deeds, and it is the society (the community of poets and storytellers) that preserves their name forever. The building of monuments, the writing of history, the accolades of one’s peers – these social products grant a kind of immortality to individuals who excel. The Greek philosopher Aristotle noted that honor (recognition from society) is one of the rewards humans crave, though he thought true happiness lay in virtue itself. Nevertheless, in many cultures, a strong motivation for contributing to society (whether through military heroism, artistic creation, or public service) is the promise of being remembered and esteemed by one’s community and posterity. In this sense, society functions as the memory of human achievement – without society, one could accomplish feats but there’d be no one to acknowledge or record them.

Modern theorists have examined this idea deeply. The cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that much of human activity is driven by a fear of death and a desire to achieve symbolic immortality. In The Denial of Death (1973), Becker argues that every society provides what he calls an “immortality project” or “hero system” – a set of values and symbols that allow individuals to transcend their death by participating in something lasting and meaningful . He writes, “society itself is a codified hero system, which means that society everywhere is a living myth of the significance of human life, a defiant creation of meaning.” . In plainer terms, society tells us what counts as “heroic” – whether it’s military valor, economic success, saintly virtue, or artistic genius – and in pursuing these culturally defined heroics, individuals feel their lives matter in the grand scheme. Becker suggests that “the main task of human life is to become heroic and transcend death,” and thus “every culture must provide its members with an intricate symbolic system” for earning that feeling of heroism . For example, one society might immortalize great warriors, another great philanthropists or scientists. Either way, the purpose of society here is existential: it gives members a framework to achieve self-esteem and meaning by contributing to something that outlasts them. When Becker says “this is what society is and always has been: … a structure of customs and rules designed to serve as a vehicle for earthly heroism” , he implies that we create societies not just to live, but to live in a meaningful way – by earning validation from others and leaving a legacy.

This idea links back to philosophers like Hegel, who (in the Phenomenology of Spirit) spoke of the human “struggle for recognition.” The formation of states and ethical communities, in Hegel’s story, eventually allows for universal recognition – each person is recognized as a free citizen, which slakes the thirst for recognition that a master-slave dynamic could never satisfy. In a sense, society (especially a just society) provides a stage on which individuals achieve dignity and recognition of their value from others. Even democratic elections or artistic fame can be seen through this lens: society offers the laurels of recognition (be it office, awards, memorials) to those who distinguish themselves.

An extreme celebration of society-as-stage-for-greatness, as mentioned earlier, came from Nietzsche. He believed only a very few individuals (the “higher men”) attain true greatness, but they require a cultural context to do so – a set of values they can redefine, an arena in which to prove themselves. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche remarks that throughout history, the well-being of the many has often been sacrificed for the sake of the few great (an observation, not necessarily an endorsement), and that one could justify such sacrifice if it produces truly great individuals. This provocative stance essentially flips the collectivist ethos: instead of individuals existing to serve society, society exists to produce genius and excellence. “Mankind must work continually to produce great individuals,” Nietzsche asserts, “this and nothing else is its task.” . So from this view, the telos of society is the creation of the exceptional – artists like Shakespeare, leaders like Napoleon, prophets like Zarathustra – who give human life its fire and its advancement. The rest of society, in Nietzsche’s eyes, might function as supportive background or even as the “herd” whose opposition spurs the great minds to overcome. It’s a dramatic rethinking: society as the springboard for individual transcendence.

Between Becker’s psycho-existential theory and Nietzsche’s aristocratic radicalism lies a subtler notion: society as a theatre of achievement. In a free society, individuals can strive for various forms of success (scientific, economic, athletic, etc.) and gain social recognition – praise, titles, records, reputation. Society thus serves as the collective that acknowledges and remembers accomplishments. For example, consider the Nobel Prizes or national honors: these are societal institutions explicitly created to recognize individual greatness in science, literature, peace, etc. Part of their purpose is to inspire others and to ensure the great contributors are not forgotten. Likewise, public monuments and historical writings enshrine individuals’ legacies. All this suggests that one role of society is to be the custodian of human glory – without a society, one might be objectively “great” at something, but greatness is inherently a social concept (it means nothing if there’s no one to appreciate it).

Even in everyday life, people seek recognition and esteem from their community (as sociologist Charles Cooley noted with the “looking-glass self” – we partly see ourselves as others see us). Societies provide avenues for this: careers, competitions, social media in modern times – platforms where individuals can gain approval or fame. One could argue (as some do about modern society) that a portion of social life is increasingly about performance – individuals curating an image and chasing validation (likes, followers). While this can be criticized, it underscores that society functions as an audience. The idea of “individual greatness” needing a stage ties into the individualist perspective: the ultimate value is the individual’s achievement, and the collective’s role is to witness and perhaps enable that. This is in tension with strictly collectivist views which might regard too much focus on individual renown as vanity or as undermining equality.

Collectivist vs. Individualist Perspectives

Across these viewpoints, a fundamental dichotomy emerges: collectivist versus individualist understandings of society’s purpose. This is a classic debate in social thought.

  • Collectivist perspectives hold that society’s purpose transcends the individual – the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and individuals should serve the common good or play roles that sustain the community. In such views, society exists for the sake of society itself or for its collective members as a group. We see this in Plato’s philosophy: the ideal state demands individuals do their designated duties for the justice and harmony of the whole, even censoring or educating them to fit the collective plan. The individual finds purpose by contributing to the common virtue. Rousseau, too, with his general will, is collectivist in that the individual must sometimes be “forced to be free” (i.e. compelled to obey the general will), suggesting the collective decision is authoritative over any private will. Durkheim’s sociology is explicitly collectivist: he argues the group has primacy and individuals are shaped by social forces; our very morality and identity come from society . From Durkheim’s angle, the collective consciousness and social solidarity are sacred – an individual acting only for himself outside social norms is deviant or anomic. Even Hobbes, while starting from individuals’ fear, ends up advocating an absolute sovereign to which everyone must submit – essentially subsuming individual wills into one will for the sake of order . In collectivist ideologies (e.g. certain forms of nationalism, communism, or religious communalism), it’s often said that the individual’s interests should be subordinate to the greater good of the community, whether that’s defined as the nation, class, or humanity as a whole. Society, in this view, is like an organism – each person is a cell or organ that has its function and whose health depends on the health of the whole. A collectivist might say the purpose of society is mutual support and common development, but not necessarily to maximize each person’s whims; rather, to achieve something together, be it survival, glory, or moral goodness.
  • Individualist perspectives, on the other hand, argue that society exists for the individual – as a framework to protect individual rights, enable personal freedom, and help each person pursue their own goals. In these views, the ultimate unit of value is the individual, and the collective is merely a means to improve individual lives. We see this clearly in Locke: government is a tool to secure each person’s life, liberty, and property ; if it fails, people can dissolve it. The individual’s well-being is the raison d’être of the social contract. Likewise, John Stuart Mill argued society should never suppress an individual’s liberty except to prevent harm to others – implying society’s role is chiefly to facilitate maximum freedom for individuals to flourish as they wish. Modern libertarians push this to an extreme, seeing any forced sacrifice of individual interest for “society” as suspect. Ayn Rand, for example, claimed “Man – every man – is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others,” denouncing collectivism and asserting that the only moral purpose of society is to protect individual rights so creative, productive people can function. Even Rawls, though concerned with fairness, ultimately designs society so that each person gets a fair chance at a good life (his principles are about justice to individuals). Individualist thinking is also reflected in capitalist economics which assume society prospers when individuals freely pursue their self-interest (guided by an “invisible hand” towards mutual benefit). Here, society’s functional purpose becomes to enable voluntary exchanges and personal enterprise, with the idea that this yields overall prosperity. The more radical individualist views, like Nietzsche’s or some heroic conceptions, explicitly put individual excellence or happiness at the center – the value of society is measured by how well it allows its most gifted members to thrive or how much freedom it grants each person to become who they want to be.

It’s important to note that many philosophies try to balance these poles. For instance, Aristotle can be read as balancing individual and collective: the state exists for the good life of its citizens (a collective end), but that good life consists of individuals achieving virtue and happiness (individual fulfillment). Marx’s communist ideal interestingly synthesizes individual and collective: “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” – implying no conflict between individual self-realization and collective well-being in an ideal society. That slogan suggests a reconciliation: society should be arranged so that by contributing to the whole, each individual’s own potential is fully unlocked (and vice versa). Similarly, Durkheim believed that in modern “organic” solidarity, individuals could have more freedom and differentiation, but still be bonded by mutual dependence – each person pursues their specialty but needs others’ specialties, uniting egoism and altruism. Rousseau wanted each person to identify their own will with the general will, aligning personal and common interest.

Nonetheless, tensions persist. We see them in debates today: Should laws prioritize community welfare or individual choice? Is society like a family where we have duties to care for each other, or like a service provider that individuals can opt in or out of for their benefit? Different political systems embody different answers (collectivist ones aiming at equality and solidarity, individualist ones emphasizing liberty and personal success). Even within one society, there can be a split – for example, one argument for social safety nets and public education is a collectivist notion of shared uplift, whereas arguments against them might invoke individual responsibility and freedom from state interference.

A table of comparison can highlight this contrast:

Collectivist View 🔸 Society for the GroupIndividualist View 🔸 Society for Individuals
Key Idea: The community or state has its own interests above or apart from those of any single person. The individual is a member of the social whole and should contribute to the common good.Key Idea: The individual is sovereign. Society is a means to enhance each person’s life. The collective has no goal other than what individuals jointly decide (or it simply emerges from their choices).
Purpose of Society: To maintain unity, order, and shared values; to achieve goals we can only achieve together (e.g. justice, security, national greatness). Example: Plato’s republic striving for justice as a whole ; Durkheim’s society integrating individuals into a moral community .Purpose of Society: To protect individual rights, freedoms, and interests; to allow each person to pursue happiness or greatness in their own way. Example: Locke’s government securing life, liberty, property for each ; Nietzsche’s view that society should foster great individuals .
Role of the Individual: Part of a larger organism. May need to sacrifice some desires for the sake of social harmony or survival. Identity comes from social roles (e.g. mother, citizen, soldier). Rousseau: each alienates himself completely to the community to become an indivisible part of the whole .Role of the Individual: Autonomous agent with their own ends. Society should not force an individual to live for others. Identity is self-chosen. Mill: individuals should be free to act as they want so long as they don’t harm others – society’s only role is preventing harm, not dictating the good life.
View of Social Order: Often top-down or organic – a strong authority or strong shared culture guides individuals. Order is primary (an ordered society allows members to live). Hobbes: without an absolute sovereign enforcing order, life falls apart . Confucianism (an Eastern example) also stresses order, hierarchy, and duty in society as analogous to a family.View of Social Order: More bottom-up or contractual – order emerges from the agreements and spontaneous interactions of individuals. Laws are justified only as mutual agreements for mutual benefit. If an order doesn’t serve individuals, it lacks legitimacy. Society is flexible and can change as individuals’ needs change.
Benefit to Individual: In exchange for loyalty/conformity, individuals get security, a sense of belonging and identity, and access to communal goods (public order, culture, support in need). One’s life gains meaning by being part of a enduring group or cause. Durkheim: society provides meaning and “a warmth which carries the individual along” .Benefit to Individual: In exchange for cooperating with others’ rights, each person gains freedom to pursue their own happiness, protection from force/fraud, and opportunities for self-development. The measure of society’s success is how well it serves each person’s well-being or achievement. As a saying goes, “society exists for the individual, not the individual for society.”

Both perspectives acknowledge that cooperation is beneficial – they differ on who the ultimate beneficiary is (the collective entity or the individuals) and on whether individual interests can be justifiably overridden by collective goals. In reality, healthy societies try to find a balance: for instance, enforcing some duties (taxes, laws) for the common good while preserving personal freedoms and opportunities. A purely collectivist society can become tyrannical (suppressing individuality), and a purely individualist society can become atomistic and lack solidarity (everyone for themselves). The debate continues in fields from political philosophy to public policy to culture (e.g., “rugged individualism” vs. “it takes a village” mindsets).

Conclusion

Exploring the purpose of society reveals a rich tapestry of interpretations. Philosophers from Plato to Rawls have offered normative visions: society should enable justice and virtue, secure our rights and safety, and perhaps help us live meaningfully or greatly. Sociologists from Durkheim to Marx have provided analytical lenses: society functions to hold people together through shared norms, or to allow large-scale economic cooperation, or to uphold a certain group’s dominance – and it evolves with human needs and power dynamics. Some views emphasize order, survival, and stability (Hobbes’ peace, Durkheim’s solidarity); others emphasize freedom, justice, and mutual benefit (Locke’s rights, Rawls’ fairness); still others highlight growth and exchange (the material prosperity from division of labor) or the higher aspirations society makes possible (art, science, “immortality projects”). The idea that society is a stage for individual recognition and immortality adds a poignant insight: we seek not just to live, but to live in a way that is acknowledged by others and remembered. Collectivist perspectives remind us that without a cohesive group, individuals would flounder – we owe our language, culture, and security to society. Individualist perspectives remind us that the moral worth of that collective is to be measured by how it treats its members – each person’s life matters, and society should serve those lives, not vice versa.

In truth, these purposes intertwine. A society that maintains order and ensures survival creates the platform upon which it can promote justice, enable exchange, and cultivate human potential. By cultivating human potential, society may in turn produce those extraordinary individuals whose achievements inspire future generations (fulfilling that stage-for-greatness role). And when individuals strive for greatness or recognition, they often advance knowledge, art, or social progress, which feeds back into the collective good. Thus, one might say the purpose of society is multi-dimensional – at once to provide for basic needs, to coordinate for mutual advantage, to define and uphold shared values of justice, and to give individuals a context in which their lives can have significance beyond themselves. The balance and emphasis among these facets differ by thinker and culture. Our ongoing task is to shape our societies such that collective well-being and individual flourishing enrich one another, making society not a cage but a stage on which all can thrive together, safely, justly, and meaningfully.

Sources:

  • Plato, Republic – origin of the state in mutual need ; justice as social harmony .
  • Aristotle, Politics – the city-state exists for the good life beyond mere life .
  • Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan – social contract to escape state of nature for security .
  • John Locke, Second Treatise – society’s chief end is protection of property (life, liberty, estate) .
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract – general will to secure everyone’s preservation and freedom .
  • Émile Durkheim – society as an integrated system maintaining solidarity and a collective conscience .
  • Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto – in class society, laws = ruling class’s will ; vision of classless society: “free development of each = free development of all” .
  • John Rawls, A Theory of Justice – society as a cooperative venture for mutual advantage requiring fair terms of cooperation .
  • Friedrich Nietzsche – society’s duty to produce great individuals .
  • Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death – society as a “hero system” giving meaning and symbolic immortality to individuals .
  • Additional analysis on collectivist vs individualist views .