Seventeenth century philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke offered important segues into the discipline of sociology.

Unlike É

mile Durkheim, who came about later and is considered the Father of Sociology, they believed that society can be reduced to the level of the individual. They believed that anything we can observe about a society—people's actions and behaviors—we can also find in a single person.

Durkheim disagreed. He believed that much like a water molecule, which acquires unique characteristics different from those of the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms that constitute it, people have distinct characteristics that arise only at the societal level.

A good way to think of Durkheim's theory might be to consider what he calls "collective representations"—beliefs or sentiments held by groups of people. Examples are myths, religion, and language—"social facts" as Durkheim calls them that exist outside the individual. Another example is "social currents"—crowd behavior and public opinion.

At the bulk of my discussion, here, however are the beliefs of Hobbes and Locke. Though differing slightly from one another, they both belief that when people come together to form a society, no new characteristics arise as a result of this union.

So for them, what is most important about a society are the qualities of the individuals that constitute it.

Both Hobbes and Locke believe that— by nature—humans are self-interested and concerned primarily with self-preservation. Beyond this, the two diverge.

On one hand, Hobbes believes in a harsh state of reality. He believes humans are egoistic and immoral beings—that we're really just in it for ourselves, we don't care about others, and if not for a governing body, we would exist in a state of chaos—a "state of war" as he calls it.

His solution to this problem is to have individuals hand off all of their freedom to an absolute sovereign for protection. In this way, we can still preserve ourselves by giving up our rights to a greater power.

On the other hand, Locke believes that in addition to being self-interested, we are also moral. That is to say, our natural state is not one of chaos. We can reason, for example, that it's not right to harm others and so we don't do it.

Though he too believes we need some sort of governing body, he believes it should be very limited in its power. It can be dissolved at any time if it becomes corrupt.

So what does this mean for us? Okay, it probably doesn't matter, but I happen to have an exam on it this Monday, so for intents and purposes of this article, it does.

So who is right? If either?

Are we naturally egoistic and in a savage state of chaos, or are we more or less moral creatures who can self-regulate our society?

I would argue we're a mixture of both. Here's why.

First off, both theorists claim that humans are self-interested, and I would argue that this is true. I would argue we are empathetic as well, but this gets into the ideas of some other thinkers that I'm not going to address here.

We're self-interested in that, at the end of the day—even, say, if you care about someone else's happiness and success more than your own—we still want to be happy and successful ourselves. Of course! Why wouldn't we? People like to be happy. This is in our nature, according to both theories.

Also, we're self-preserving by nature. We have self-defense mechanisms. Think of fight or flight responses, for example.

So for Hobbes, are we immoral egoists? I don't want to say yes. So, no. We're not. But let's be honest. We get jealous. We generally want to come out on top. I would argue not that we want to see others fail but that we do always want to win ourselves. Perhaps we want it both ways.

We would like to win our sporting match, even if we didn't play our best or if the other team is clearly more deserving. We want to pass our test even if we didn't study. We want to succeed, is what I'm trying to say.

So do we live in a state of chaos? Sometimes. Fights break out over stupid things, we've all witnessed it. We yell at each other when we think we're right. We slam doors and break things. We like to talk about ourselves and our beliefs. We need alone time to get away from it all. Does this not suggest a bit of turbulence?

As for Locke, I would argue his theory also has merit. The common person does not want to and will not go around hurting other people. We have common sense enough to not always fight and disturb each other. We have morals. We don't need a government, for example, telling us what to do all the time.

So yes, we're a mixture. So what?

I would argue in a world that moves faster and faster each day, we don't consider our natural state very often. Rarely do we think, what would I do if there was no government? We don't think, am I being egoistic and immoral right now? We don't think what in my nature is at the heart of my action?

It's not necessary to consider how we would act naturally if there were no government or societal pressures because, alas, we have never known a world without these two entities, nor will we ever.

The way we are wired matters only to a certain extent before governmental and societal forces take over. These are the entities we observe day to day. We think would it be weird if I wore that outfit? Is it taboo to talk about this? Is this legal? What happens if we get caught? Is it acceptable to start singing in the middle of this religious service? Can I drive 100 miles per hour on the expressway if no one is around?

I would argue simply that it is interesting to consider where we would be and how we would act in a truly natural state. What, I wonder, is the true essence of us?