Social Control Is a Matter of Coercion - Essay Example

? Social Control is a Matter of Coercion Number and Number Number of Words: 2,261 Introduction The study of social control in sociology is all about the process on how society as a whole function through the use of political intervention. As part of requiring each individual to act upon or conform to the rules and regulation implemented within a given social group or state, sociologists are focused on examining the impact of human behavior, religious beliefs, and differences in culture and tradition on social order. In general, a society is considered weak in case there is a poor social control. Aiming to improve the effectiveness of social control, it is a common practice to use of political or legal intervention as a way to prevent social disintegration such as the case of civil war. In reference to the study contribution of Durkheim and Weber, this report will focus on determining whether Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness and Weber’s concept of legitimate authority are strongly in support of the use of coercion in the maintaining social control. In Reference to Durkheim’s Concept of Collective Consciousness Durkheim defined collective consciousness as “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society” (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 53). In line with this, Cotterrell (1999, p. 66) explained that Durkheim’s collective consciousness is pertaining to a wide-range of common sentiments and beliefs of the people within a given society. In general, collective consciousness is very broad concept in the sense that it includes moral diversity issues and differences of each individual’s personal beliefs, attitude or sentiments with regards to the laws implemented within a society. Through the use of “collective representation” which often materializes out of social association, it is possible for us to have a better idea on how a group of people “envisions itself and its surroundings” (Baert and da Silva, 2010, p. 17). Since the concept of collective consciousness is composed of the sum or overall beliefs among a large group of individuals within a society as a whole, the study of sociology considers collective consciousness as something that is similar to the organ system which represents what most people or the majority believe is “right” (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 53). By omitting or paying less attention to the beliefs of the minority, it is possible on the part of sociologists to be able to clearly determine and identify distinctive characteristics within a given society. Considering the fact that collective consciousness is referring to the “totality of beliefs and sentiments” of majority of people in a given society (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 53), Durkheim argued that collective consciousness is the most effective basis to be considered when managing social order such that the presence of “collective conscience is a source of social solidarity” (Sussman, Steinmetz and Peterson, 1999, p. 199). It simply means that the absence of collective consciousness could result to a failed social solidarity. According to Durkheim, social facts are “a category of facts which present very special characteristics like acting, thinking and feeling eternal to individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him” (Evans and Pourcel, 2009, pp. 300 – 301; Zlatev, 2008, p. 360). It means that each individual within a given society should be moulded by external forces such as the use of government intervention in order to make these people comply with the socially accepted norms, duties and responsibilities as prescribed by the laws and social beliefs, customs and traditions especially. This concept generally applies to the aspect of social control. Since each person has their own individual rights to perceive things around him or the will to make their individual decisions, the use of coercion or regulation of the social facts becomes a significant part of the social structure in order to achieve social order (Zlatev, 2008, p. 360). By nature, human beings are predisposed not to abide with the social laws. It only means that in the absence of social constitution, human beings tend to become “self-constituting” rather than “social beings” (Lehmann, 1993, p. 93). Social beings in this context mean that people within a given society abide with the norms and social practices that are commonly moulded by the constitutional laws. On the other hand, self-constituting in this statement is referring to individuals who are non-social and does not follow the rules and regulations that are set under a given constitution. Considering the fact that the process of socialization or the process of persuading each individual to support one thought or one goal under the said constitutional laws, resistance to these external forces is more likely to occur along the way. For this reason, Durkheim explained that social control in the form of either “coercion, constraint, or restraint” is necessary to control the opposition side from preventing the entire society from being able to reach a common goal or understanding (Lehmann, 1993, p. 95). In line with this, Baert and da Silva (2010, p. 17) explained that by constraining the nature of social facts through the use of coercive power, it is a lot easier to convince people to comply with the social norms being practiced within the society. Through the use of coercive intervention (i.e. implementing laws), it is possible to protect the people from being punished as a result of their non-compliance with the socially accepted practices and beliefs. As explained by Durkheim, the use of power or coercion as a form of social control is widely used within a given society in the form of implementing laws or the use of religious intervention (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 50). Through the use of these types of coercion in controlling the society, the government or group of people will be able to solve organizational struggle and conflicts which may arise out of developing different point-of-views concerning a subject matter (i.e. political issues or socio-economic issues like discrimination in work environment, the use of stem-cell in the study of medicine, etc.). This is the primary reason why the presence of legal or religious power is often considered as a useful weapon among the elite individuals. Durkheim strongly believed that “the law is intertwined with morality and religion” (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 51). It means that moral issues and religious beliefs could sometimes serve as the foundation behind the development and implementation of constitutional laws. Considering the fact that criminal actions are considered immoral and socially unaccepted practice, repressive laws that are composed of the penal laws are used as the basis in punishing individuals who would perform actions that are not in accordance to what is socially accepted as moral actions (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 85). The main purpose of punishing the wrong-doings is to allow each individual to restore their collective or common consciousness by constantly reminding the members of a given society that anyone who does not abide with the law will be punished based on the repressive laws. Despite the significant relationship between law, morality and religion, there are a lot of people who are aware that the presence of law, as a form of social control, is a type of coercion that all members of a given society are required to abide. Unlike the coercive power associated with the use of constitutional laws, there are some people who are left unaware that the presence of church institution is another powerful source of social control. Although Durkheim does not focus much concerning the social control that is present within a religious group, Cotterrell (1999, p. 50) explained that a church is similar to a community wherein the church leaders has the authoritative power to control the minds, attitudes, and religious beliefs of their church members. In Reference to Weber’s Concept of Legitimate Authority Based on Weber’s concept of legitimate authority, the patterns of social relationship of people within a given society can be structured based on their social beliefs and considerations such that the social order is legitimate provided that the power relationships within a social complex is generally accepted by the people and that the power of their superiors are wholeheartedly accepted by the subordinates (Preston, 1996, p. 105). It means that social order is legitimate, effective, efficient, and stable given that people who were given the legal authority within a social rank or social status are “voluntarily respected” by people in the lower ranks (Johnson, 2004, p. 92). On the contrary, the need to make use of coercion is necessary in case people within the society started questioning the legitimate authority of their superiors (ibid). Weber focused on analyzing domination and authoritative power based on legitimate authority such that authority is pertaining to a person’s legitimate power based on the social structure and that power is given to each person based in their legitimate position in the society (Johnson, 2004, p. 92). Depending on the historical condition and cultural system, Weber identified the types of authority can either be legal rational authority that is present in modern bureaucracy (i.e. state or corporation) – based on the rational bodies of rules, traditional authority – based on time-honored traditions or customs, or charismatic authority – based on personal qualities of the leader (Johnson, 2004, p. 92; Preston, 1996, p. 61, 105). Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness considers the use of coercion as a form of social control is necessary in order to maintain social order (Cotterrell, 1999, p. 50). On the contrary, the use of coercive power or oppression is not accepted in the practice of legitimate authority. It means that people who tend to temporarily obey individuals with authoritative power only because of “fear” is not considered legitimate. In other words, Weber’s concept of legitimate authority considers power that is based on pure coercion is considered unstable and is not effective in terms of maintaining social order in the long-run (Gibson, 2005, p. 280). Applicable to the government or private business organizations, the legal rational authority is a type of authority wherein the legitimate power is based on rules and regulations that is implemented in the form of constitutional laws or codes of conduct within a given society (Johnson, 2004, p. 92; Preston, 1996, p. 105). Under this type of authority, people are expected to voluntarily abide with the laws and social traditions with no questions asked simply because the people respect the legality of such power (Andersen and Taylor, 2008, pp. 513 – 514). For example: Given that the local police are given the authority to search houses upon presenting a search warrant, the local citizens should respect the authoritative rights of the local police officers to search a suspect’s house or premises. A good example of traditional authority can be observed in England wherein the British royal family has been widely respected concerning their role in the sovereign of the Commonwealth monarchy. Since it has been a tradition on the part of the English people to give respect to the British royal family, this group of elite individuals holds the legitimate authority when it comes to their social duties (i.e. charity works, social and cultural activities, and State visits) or ceremonial obligations throughout the United Kingdom. Traditional authority can also be observed in a tribal family or religious groups wherein the dominant person can either be the head of the family, a priest, a patriarch, or the influential leaders. Often times, the use of traditional authority are based on culture or myths that are connected to sacredness. As explained by Weber domination that is based on traditional authority “rests upon the cultural belief in sanctity of daily routines” (Gerth and Mills, 1958, p. 297). Applicable to political, military, or religious groups, the use of charismatic authority is referring to the legitimate power wherein people would naturally comply with what a charismatic leader would suggest (Preston, 1996, p. 62). In most cases, charismatic leaders are capable of inspiring other people just by simply being themselves. In other words, coercive power is definitely not a significant part of having charismatic authority. Within this context, the use of coercive power is absolutely not considered as something that is legitimate. Conclusion Considering the fact that Weber closely examined authority or power based on the bureaucratic, traditions, or personal qualities of the organizational or state leaders, his contribution in the study of sociology enable us to gain better understanding on how the local institutions are currently experiencing the different types of authority including ways on how social order can be attained. One of the significant differences between Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness and Weber’s concept of legitimate authority is that Weber does not consider the use of coercive power in order to maintain social control. It means that people within the lower ranks or the subordinates are expected to voluntarily give respect and follow what is being dictated by their organizational or state leaders. For this reason, Weber highlighted the importance of having a higher social status or social ranks as a way of benefiting from the privilege associated with having high position within the society. Unlike the concept of Weber’s legitimate authority, Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness is strongly in support of using coercion as an effective strategy in terms of maintaining a sound social control. As part of maintaining peace and order within a society, Durkheim discussed the relationship between criminal activities and punishment. Even though social control is evident in the case of religious groups, Durkheim emphasized the fact that coercion in social control can be observed in the form of repressive or constitutional laws. In line with this, any person that fails to abide with the constitutional law will be punished based on what is being stipulated under the constitutional laws. *** End *** References Andersen, M., and Taylor, H. (2008). Sociology: understanding a diverse society. Thomson Wadsworth. Baert, P., and da Silva, F. (2010). Social Theory in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Polity Press. Cotterrell, R. (1999). Emile Durkheim: law in a moral domain. Stanford University Press. Evans, V., and Pourcel, S. (2009). New directions in cognitive linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gerth, H., and Mills, W. (1958). Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. NY: Oxford University Press. Gibson, J. (2005). Community resources: intellectual property, international trade and protection of traditional knowledge. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Johnson, C. (2004). Legitimacy processes in organizations. Elsevier Ltd. Lehmann, J. (1993). Deconstructing Durkheim: a post-post-structuralist critique. Routledge. Preston, P. (1996). Development theory: an introduction. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Sussman, M., Steinmetz, S., & Peterson, G. (1999). Handbook of marriage and the family. NY: Plenum Press. Zlatev, J. (2008). The shared mind: perspectives on intersubjectivity. John Benjamins Publishing Co. Read More