Comparison between Social Theories of Emily Durkheim and Erving Goffman - Coursework Example

SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Comparison between social theories of Emily Durkheim and Erving Goffman and the connection between the structures of our societyand the kinds of people we are. Emily Durkheim: (April 15, 1858 – November 15, 1917) was a French sociologist whose contributions were instrumental in the formation of sociology and anthropology. His work and editorship of the first journal of sociology (LAnnée Sociologique) helped establish sociology within the academy as an accepted "science sociale" (social science). During his lifetime, Durkheim gave many lectures, and published numerous sociological studies on subjects such as education, crime, religion, suicide, and many other aspects of society. He is often referred to as "The Father of Sociology". His book - Suicide: In the preface of suicide Durkheim says,” There can be no sociology unless societies exist, and societies cannot exist if there are only individuals." In this quotation and throughout his book Durkheim insists that society constitute a reality in itself, and could never be reduced to individuals. The proper focus of sociology was not the individual, but social facts which for Durkheim deal with attributes of society, not of individuals. Durkheim argued that if acts like suicide were purely individual in nature, they would fluctuate wildly from year to year. Social facts in contrast would be far less likely to exhibit such wide fluctuations, because societies seldom change that rapidly. Durkheims famous study of suicide took suicide rates as a dependent variable. Durkheim argued that two central variables--social integration and normative regulation--were independent variables that explained variation in suicide rates. He said that individuality can prosper only in a free society that promotes voluntary bonds between its members. In ‘Le Suicide’ Durkheim argues that collective social forces hold the upper hand for suicide than extra social or individual causes. In this book Durkheim argues that suicide is something which primarily results from a lack of integration of the individual into society, and it provides an incredibly detailed and complex understanding of the impetus for suicide as well as on it psychological and physical impact not only on the victim but also on their family and society in general. Erving Goffman: June 11, 1922 – November 19, 1982), was a sociologist and writer. The 73rd president of American Sociological Association, Goffmans greatest contribution to social theory is his study of symbolic interaction in the form of dramaturgical perspective that began with his 1959 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life and was developed throughout his life. Goffman became one of the most influential sociologists of the twentieth century and cultivated a sociological social psychology. Goffman studied at the University of Chicago. He would go on to pioneer the study of face-to-face interaction, or micro-sociology, elaborate the "dramaturgical approach" to human interaction, and develop numerous concepts that would have a massive influence. His book - Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates: In his book ‘Asylums’ Goffman says “Society is an insane asylum run by the inmates”. Total institution is a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life. A mental hospital is one such example which is discussed in this book. This book boasts of a general examination of social life in these establishments, drawing heavily on two examples that feature involuntary membership - mental hospitals and prisons. These places are suggested in a broader sense. It particularly deals with the initial effects of institutionalization on the social relationships the individual possessed before he became an inmate. Comparison of ideologies of Durkheim and Goffman: Emile Durkheim’s Suicide is by far one of his most important and significant works, as it addresses the phenomenon of suicide and of its social grounds and effects; in this book Durkheim argues that suicide is something which largely results from a lack of integration of the individual into society, and it provides an incredibly detailed and complex understanding of the thrust for suicide as well as the psychological and physical impact not only on the victim but also on their family and society in the broad-spectrum. Emile Durkheim, one of the founders of modern psychology, shows in his books as well as in his other works, examines religion in society in terms of animism, naturism, totemism, myth and ritual, and as well he takes up the query of the actual origin of religion, which, for him, “means discerning the underlie elements that lie beneath the essential forms of religious thought and practice” On the other hand when we take a look at Goffman and on his views regarding the same subject matter, we can see that there are some similarities but there are also many differences, and one of Goffman’s books in particular shows all of this. Goffman gives an incredibly detailed description and analysis of both process and meaning in mundane interaction, and also writes from a symbolic interactionist perspective, emphasizing a qualitative analysis of the component parts of the interactive process. Through a microsociological analysis and focus on unconventional subject matter, Goffman explores the details of individual identity, group relations, the impact of environment, and the movement and interactive meaning of information. His perspective, though limited in scope, provides new insight into the nature of social interaction and the psychology of the individual”. He is known for his use of a very ‘dramaturgical’ approach, and this is actually one of the most major similarities that relate him and Durkheim and his ideals. Goffman works by exploring the nature of group dynamics through a certain discussion of teams and the relationship between the performance and the audience, as this is considered as being one of the most major variables in his theory and discussion overall. The issue of the ‘team’ is incredibly significant to Goffman’s theory in general, as he uses the concept of the team in order to be able to illustrate in his own way the work of a group of individuals who “co-operate in performance, attempting to achieve goals sanctioned by the group. Co-operation may manifest itself as unanimity in demeanor and behavior or in the assumption of differing roles for each individual, determined by the desired intent in performance”. Goffman’s view on structure and agency in terms of sociology are incredibly different than any other for many reasons, one of the most major being that in regards to his theories of self preservation, and according to him, we are “always on stage” and that consequently then, that causes us to be performers. He believes that our performances should be known as ‘fronts’, and that this is the part of an individual’s performance which regularly functions in a more general and fixed fashion, basically in order to be able to define the particular situation that is present for those who observe the performances. Furthermore, he believes that it is these ‘fronts’ which separate the front from the back stage and “A way to help explain Goffman’s theory on what the front stage and back stage mean in our society would be to categorize them, therefore better understanding them.” (Burns, 1992). Goffman has been one of the most hailed and represented figures when it comes to the studying of symbolic interactionism, as one of his firmest and most noted points is that we are social creatures and that as a result we are constantly craving social interaction. One of the most important and notable links that can be made between Durkheim and Goffman is one which may be made in an inquiry into the concept of spontaneity, as in Goffman’s book The Presentation of Self, he makes note of the importance of spontaneity as an aspect of the performance of life overall, “as the actor seeks to create a front that does not appear to be contrived. Spontaneity allows for the realization of the ‘true’ self, an idealized type of interaction that allows the individual to realize a desired face” (Simpson & Spalding, 1952). Then on the other hand with one of Durkheim’s books in particular, The Division of Labor in Society, we see how Durkheim describes a macrosociological model of spontaneity as a “finely articulated organization in which each social value…is appreciated at its true worth”. However Durkheim, who is mostly concerned with the issue of labor, at the same time describes a certain type of social interaction which, just like Goffman’s model, reaffirms the existing social environment through the notion of ‘truth’, and that each separate individual is bound in a way to the contemporary social organization, while at the same time attempting to be able to realize a certain sense of freedom that comes from telling the truth. Thus we can conclude a number of different things, several which are of particular importance, and namely the fact that social theory and the social sciences in general are of the utmost importance, and how the two theorists which have been discussed here – Durkheim and Goffman – compare to one another in regards to their theories and beliefs, in particular in regards to their separate understandings on structure and agency. Both Durkheim and Goffman have intelligent and educated perspectives, and although their views definitely have their similarities they have their differences as well, and all of these have been discussed in detail here. We have also seen from this review just how traditional some of the social theories that are present in the world today actually are, as well as what they general basics were to begin with, when compared to now. For Goffman, society is not a homogeneous creature. Although Goffman is considered a symbolic interactionist, he tried to rectify the symbolic interactionism. He says that we must act differently in different situations. Works Cited Simpson, G., & Spaulding, J, A. (1952). Suicide: A Study in Sociology by Emile Durkheim. London: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday. 1990. Alpert, H. (1959). Emile Durkheim: A Perspective and Application, American Sociological Review, 24 (4), 462-465. Burns, T. (1992). Erving Goffman. New York: Routledge. Ditton, J. (1980). The View from Goffman. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Simpson, G., & Spalding, J. A. (1952). Suicide: A Study in Sociology by Emile Durkheim. London: Routledge. Emile Durkheim’s sociology. Berrios, G., & Mohanna, M. (1990). Durkheim and French psychiatric views on suicide during the 19th century. A conceptual history. British Journal of Psychiatry 156, 1-9. Cheng, A. T. A. (1995). Mental illness and suicide: A case-control study in east Taiwan. Archives of General Psychiatry. 52, 594-603. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Retrieved may 30, 2007, from http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/xgof.htm Recent Subject of Notes. (1850). Harper’s Magazine. Retrieved may 30, 2007, from http://www.harpers.org/subjects/ Read More