Weber's answer, while certainly embedded in the perspectives and conceptualization of his own day, was very clear in one major respect. The social act is a process of taking someone into account...in some way. He also said it is being oriented to others. While Weber tended to see this in terms of a direct and physical sense, he also hinted that it actually could be more.

In other words, a social relation is an orientation to others, taking them into account. This is easiest to understand in a direct and conscious/intentional sense...treating someone in a brusk manner, being with someone, or understanding someone to be a danger, etc. Yet, to avoid being with someone, either intentionally or simply "in effect", is no less an orientation to them. Ignoring or not knowing someone takes them into account as well as anything direct does. Just as power is in the "not doing" of something, inaction is a kind of action. Not paying attention to something or someone takes them into account...the lack of consciousness makes no difference.

The social act...the taking into account of others...isn't accidental nor is it learned. How to orient, why to orient, when to orient...these are learned. To be social is to be human...the degree to which one is permitted to be social will determine the quality of the accounting. This stems from our nature...in fact, is our nature...from our universal human "need for relatedness." (Fromm) Put simply, we can fulfill our need to take and be taken into account in a variety of ways. Killing or hating someone is no less an orientation to them than is loving, liking, or caring. You can orient yourself to someone by means of a bullet...or a hug. To be deprived in some manner from learning more biophilic (life-giving) ways limits what kind of humanness emerges in those conditions.