The third paradigm is included under Rawls’s discussion of the congruence of justice and goodness, and of the problem of stability. It is described as a good, as an end in itself which is a shared end. This paradigm is distinct both from the conflated application to the entire society of the principle of choice for one person and from the conception of society as an aggregate of mutually disinterested individuals. The idea of a social union is described in contrast to the idea of a private society. A private society is essentially the second model as realized in the actual world. It stems from a consideration of the conditions of the original position as descriptive of a social order. Over against this notion of private society, Rawls proposes his idea of a social union  . It is one in which final ends are shared and communal institutes are valued.
Besides, the relationship between individual and society can be viewed from another three angles: Functionalist, Inter-actionist, and Culture and personality.
Human cannot survive without society and societies cannot exist without members. Still there may be conflicts between the individual and society; one can imagine that social systems function better when they have considerable control over their individual members, but that this is a mixed blessing for the system’s members. Likewise can competition with other societies strengthen the social system, while wearing out its constituent members? This idea was voiced by Rousseau (1769) 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
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:
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.
Man depends on society. It is in the society that an individual is surrounded and encompassed by culture, a societal force. It is in the society again that he has to conform to the norms, occupy statuses and become members of groups.
The question of the relationship between the individual and the society is the starting point of many discussions. It is closely connected with the question of the relationship of man and society. There is two main theories regarding the relationship of man and society .They are the social contract theory and the organismic theory.
Society is an abstract term that connotes the complex of inter-relations that exist between and among the members of the group. Society exists wherever there are good or bad, proper or improper relationships between human beings. 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. Social relationships invariably possess a physical element, which takes the form of awareness of another’s presence, common objective or common interest  . 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 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  . 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. In government, in religion, in industry, in education, in family association―in everything that builds up modern life, so men are cooperating. 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  .
The Protestant legacy is still evident in Dutch literature, the contemplative character of which has a moralistic tinge. This is easily explained: in the sixteenth century the Reformation, which permeated Dutch intellectual life, emphasised individual responsibility to God and society. The Northern Netherlands’ most distinguished writers-the humanist Erasmus, the baroque poet Vondel, the free-thinker Multatuli, and the nihilist sceptic Ter Braak - were all moralists. Even when they resorted to irony or satire to make their point, they were always either allies or rivals of priests and preachers.
Even in the late twentieth century, now that Dutch society has been thoroughly secularized, the contemplative element remains. Almost all contemporary authors integrate the situations, events and characters they depict into a form that resembles a parable: reality is not only described or transformed into art, it also serves to illustrate a particular vision of life or society. This is especially characteristic of those writers who have drawn their material from World War II.
The relationship between individual and society is ultimately one of the profound of all the problems of social philosophy. It is more philosophical rather than sociological because it involves the question of values.