An Argument Against Margaret Thatcher's Argument that There is No Society

Within Margaret Thatcher’s argument, lie many different flaws, which both limit the study of sociology, as well as the concept of simple logic. Sociology, the study of human society and social interaction, represents everything that Thatcher disagrees with. To Thatcher, it seems as if the population of England is no more than a socially alienated group where one seeks only his/her own interests, and has no relation to any other people.

This clearly embodies Thatcher’s lack of sociological imagination, as she clearly either does not want to acknowledge the presence of societies, or cannot. If she cannot, it is somewhat understandable. She’s a conservative. Thus with lack of society that is recognized and can be studied, to Margaret Thatcher, there is neither point nor reason to bother with sociology as a scientific study.

Even within the definition of society, which states that a society likely “is subject to the same political authority”, Margaret Thatcher still refuses to acknowledge even her own party as a society, making the English government the bane of sociological studies for eleven years, seven months, and twenty four days. However, any person, even those closest to Thatcher or those who are governed by Thatcher, can see a clear relationships between themselves and the people that they associate with.

Assuming that Margaret Thatcher was not simply given the right to act as Prime Minister, it is further impossible to claim that there is no such thing as society. Comparing England’s political scene to that of Chimpanzee Politics, and not claiming that Thatcher solves problems with feces, it’s seen that the power struggle of chimpanzees is highly similar to the political scenes, where there is a constant struggle for power, and usually the alpha male is challenged by a single new candidate.

On many ways, their political process also highly resembles the modern day campaigning process in the sense that they have to seek the approvals of others in order to assume the position of power, much how Luit must seek the approval of others before the overthrow of Yeroen. Just like how the chimpanzee struggle ends “before the conflict”, modern politics act in much the same ways, with a certain candidate in mind for each loyalty, despite any other advice or confrontations.

Ironically, Margaret Thatcher as the former Prime Minister of England (which itself is a status, another sociology term), essentially has executive power to preside over the populace. However in her statement where she disregards the concept of society, she also shows one of her largest faults. The position of Prime Minister, no one would logically claim that she rules over Jim, Bob, Robert, Eric, and Martin as individuals, but as a society as a whole.

Furthermore, given that she hails from England’s conservative party, it is seriously unlikely that she claims to represent the conservative interests of Jim, Bob, Robert, Eric, and Martin as individuals, but as the conservative party as a whole. It is physically and mentally impossible to cater to everyone’s personal needs, so while Thatcher relies on the suggestions of a society, she claims that such society does not exist. Regarding a specific word in her quote, by claiming “families” exist but society doesn’t, goes against basic Oxford English. Without even regarding sociology, the definition “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community” already points that a family is a form of society.

Margaret Thatcher’s claim that England is essentially a jumble of individuals, who have no social sense or tying, unintentionally portrays the masses that she governs as a compilation of people who live without friction and whom she governs for thus, no apparent reason.