"Our selves are in fact profoundly social. It is a new born organism's transactions with other selves that allows a self to grow into being at all. George Herbert Mead, Dewey's sidekick at the University of Chicago, is the mother lode on this topic, if you don't want to go all the way back to the Buddha."

It depends on how you define social. Is it homo or heterogenius. While one should avoid crude subjective narcisism, the monolthic 'real' existing social needs to be avoided as well. If there is a social it is a contingency of subjects. It is not something that can put on a black board or codified in constitutions. Immanant Multiplicity is what I would call it. There is a line to be drawn between the likes of Stirner and Marx(though Stirner for me is better overall). The subject constructs as much as it is constructed by power.