Relation of Individual to Society - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Relation of Individual to Society Sociologists have different perspectives regarding how society is formed and how the individual relates to the society. Some theorists such as Hobbes and Weber emphasise on individual as independent of society hence existing before formation of society while others like Durkheim emphasize on society as an external reality existing outside the individual. As such, society is real while for others individual is real. There is thus a lot of controversy as to whether society is shaped by individuals or it is the individuals who shape the society. Although, all are in agreement as to the existence of government, the two schools of thought differ in the way citizens should be governed or the power vested in governments. To try to understand individuals and the society, the paper will discuss the works of Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Thomas Hobbes who are the earliest founders of sociology. Emile Durkheim (1857-1917) His conception of society is based on realism which views society as an external reality existing outside of individuals and can be studied as such (Morrison 2006, p. 150). His theory therefore, is based on the idea that society exists before the individual, and that individuals are shaped by the structures and mechanisms of society. He (Durkheim) conceives the individual as acting in pursuit of his own interests but constrained by the social facts of society. In his study, he regarded individuals as members of a social system hence they are social actors who observe and interpret facts of the external world. The social facts in this case refer to language, religion, economy, and law and other beliefs and values that exist in society and determine the actions of individuals. He considered them as real and therefore referred to society as “Sui-generis” (Roberts 1997 ch.6, par 11) meaning the society is real. As observed by Morrison (2006, p. 152) Durkheim asserts that the external framework of the society is made up of structures and mechanisms that constitute realities and make individuals members of society. He gives an example of how the class structure determines the rank and position of individual in social hierarchy. According to him, these structures and mechanisms are objective and given at birth and possess power and dispositions that affect people’s actions by placing restrictions on them. Individuals as pursuits of own interests have senses, and therefore engage only in those activities that are beneficial to them. In the process of trying to achieve their goals, they exchange with other individuals in the society thus develop mutual relations and act in solidarity guided by what Durkheim refers as collective conscience. Solidarity and collective conscience unlike the society are not given. In his work, Durkheim stressed the importance of the role played by rules, values and beliefs and asserted that the authority of the society superseded that of an individual. In this case, the society is said to have a collective conscience as opposed to individual conscience. To live in harmony, social solidarity is vital and thus he recognised two kinds of social solidarity; the mechanical and organic solidarity. He also emphasised the role of division of labour in enhancing movement of individuals from mechanical to organic solidarity. As observed by Morrison (2006, pp. 160-165) Durkheim regarded mechanical solidarity as one that exists in primitive or traditional societies. Each traditional society has values and beliefs that become the norms which individuals must conform to and these form a code of ethics for the society. Deviation from the norm is considered pathological and a crime punishable by use of repressive laws. He (Durkheim) recognised the role played by religion in the integration of society as the provider of moral ground on which to judge individuals or the religious law. It thus becomes the moral duty and obligation to conform to moral authority. If an individual fails to obey the law, he/she would feel guilty hence is forced to retrace his steps. People at this level of solidarity are similar and have a common identity dictated by societal values. According to Berberoglu (2005, p. 16) Durkheim asserted that social solidarity is not given but develops as society develops, or becomes civilised. Civilisation involves growth of cities, urbanisation, industrialisation, and improved transport and communication. Individuals move from villages to cities or to other regions leaving their families behind thus weakening social bonds between them. Work in factories is divided into small units such that each individual specialises in one task leading to complex division of labour and consequently individualism. The interests of individuals start conflicting with those of the society leading individuals to move to higher order which Durkheim referred as organic solidarity (Morrison 2006, p. 166). However, Durkheim distinguished between economic divisions of labour (DOL) by Adam Smith with social division of labour. The former leads to alienation of individuals in society while the latter brings about more cohesion as people cooperate in their work. He explained that DOL led to specialisation hence more interdependence among individuals and the rise of indirect cooperation. DOL is thus the bridge between mechanical and organic solidarity. In his study, Durkheim associated organic solidarity with modern society. It is characterised by density of society, individualism, development of institutions beyond society, increased social reliance, and linking of individuals indirectly to society. Since individuals are of diverse backgrounds, they are no longer bound by the societal norms; people live private lives away from families and religion. The position in society is defined by occupation rather than kinship and stability of organic solidarity is enhanced through use of contracts (Berberoglu 2005, p. 20). Failure to obey the contract is punished through restitutive laws. As observed by Craib (1997, p. 210) organic solidarity resulted in conflict between individual and societal interests; individuals are more autonomous yet are expected to be more cohesive. Utilitarianism claims that increased DOL leads to increased happiness due to high productivity but in modern society, Durkheim asserts that economic progress leads to increased suicide and not happiness (Morrison 2006, p. 199). This is due to the fact that as individualism increases, religious solidarity diminishes leading to a state of anomie. Morals norms are essential in keeping goals, expectations, and desires achievable and once they are eroded, uncertainty about goals and values creeps in leading to unhappiness and consequently crime and suicide. In his study, Durkheim recognized four types of suicide: anomic, egoistic, altruistic, and fatalistic. Anomic suicide resulted from dissatisfaction and disappointment as a result of not achieving objectives due lack of clear goals and expectations. Lack of social integration on the other hand, was attributed to egoistic suicide. In this case, he compared suicide rates among the Catholics and Protestants. He observed that Catholicism is more integrated as believers have shared beliefs while Protestants have no shared beliefs hence the religion is disintegrated. As a result, suicide was high among Protestants than Catholics (Hughes, Sharrock, & Martin 2003, p.55). Altruistic suicide was attributed to too much collectivism which makes individuals willing to sacrifice their life. Religion and state have an important role to play in society in inhibiting anomie. They should provide values upon which goals are measured hence integrate the society and provide social solidarity. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) In his study, Hobbes used the state of nature theory to explain the relationship between individual and the society. Contrary to Durkheim, Hobbes conceived individuals as in existence before the society hence society is shaped by individuals. He believed men were born equal in body and mind, and has innate rights outside the society and lived in a state of nature just like animals and guided by laws of nature. All men and animals lived in a state of war and fear as they were all vulnerable as each would use any means to defend themselves and survive; it all depended on the strength and tactics so even the weak could defeat the strong ones (Loptson 1998, 175) In the nature of man quarrels between men arise from three principles: competition, diffidence, and glory. Competition is for gain; diffidence is for security purposes, while glory is for reputation. In his study (Roberts.2 1994, entry). Hobbes asserted that in state of nature, men are self-seeking and without civilization, they would destroy one another to suit their purpose. Each individual’s action is driven by the passion and goal to achieve something in return but not for free. For example, in mourning, individuals participate because they anticipate such an event would happen to them in future. Lopton (1998, p. 176) observed that in uncivilized state, men did not have language hence could not communicate their needs and ideas with each other; that is why war was inevitable. They made discoveries as they tried to find means of survival but could not share them due to language barrier. In later years, they discovered speech and this is what differentiated them from animals and the basis for formation of society. According to Lopton (1998, p. 176) Hobbes asserted that language was formed by giving meaning to objects and communicating about them. The process of communication involved four steps: private reason, public reason, contract and force. Private reason according to Roberts (1994) involved observing objects, thinking about them, giving them notes, and thereafter recall the things and give them meanings. Each individual would give an object a meaning and therefore, no communication would take place without an agreed meaning. Public reasoning thus involved giving common signification for objects. The development of speech allowed individuals to communicate their ideas and hence it was easier to conduct exchange but since by nature humans are selfish, no help was given for free; individual had to get something in return. Hobbes asserts that in state of nature, promises were not possible as people were always in a state of war. A contract to govern the exchange in the society could thus not be honoured hence the need for a social contract with a sovereign individual who could oversee the process and compel individuals to perform their contracts (Lapton 1998, 174). In this sense, a state or governing body was inevitable. However, since individual could not always agree, sometimes the contracts were forced on individuals; therefore, men forced themselves to live peacefully by accepting the rule of anyone who could establish order. According to this discourse, sovereign power was necessary and the state had the right vested on it by individuals to exercise control of ideas (even language) and weapons for the sake of peace (Roberts 1997 ch.6, par 38). In his leviathan studies, Hobbes tried to justify the legitimacy of an absolute power of the king by asserting that in state of nature; people fantasize about utilizing others for selfish desires, people are obstacles to achieving ends; one fantasizes their death, and is an end, or means to an end. To secure civilization, sovereign power was needed. However, once the individuals agreed to form a government, the decision was binding and not subject to changes unless it ceased to protect them. The government used force and violence to enforce peace and people accepted the violence for as long as it resulted in prosperity in terms of commerce and industry (Lapton 1998, p. 173-176). Besides absolute sovereignty, another institution that would secure peace is religion. He explains that it does so by threatening the believers with hell for ever after. According to him, the relation between individual and society is that the society was formed to protect individuals from their irresponsible animal egoistic tendencies. This is by the use of an absolute sovereign who would oversee all societal matter and ensure compliance but it has no right to dispossess individuals of their fundamental rights. Max Weber (1864-1920). Weber conceives the society as an abstraction and individuals as real. He differs with Durkheim in that he does not believe in values but on general agreement by individuals. Though he agrees with Hobbes that state control of ideas and weapons is important, he differs with him on the use of absolute sovereignty and favours government legitimacy. He gave three types of legitimate authority: traditional, rational/legal, and charismatic (Morrison 2006, p. 276). His theory is based on social action and he considers four types of social actions. The first action is goal-oriented conduct whereby individuals seek to fulfil self-interest. The second type is value-related conduct whereby individuals seek absolute value at expense of external success. These individuals thus derive satisfaction from the value of behaviour such as religion. The third category involves behaviour aimed at releasing tension. Here an individual does not think rationally but acts on impulse to gratify needs. The last category is traditional action which is present in everyday lives and the most commonly used (Roberts 1997 ch.6, par. 42-49). According to Weber, social action possesses some characteristics. First, the action must have a relation with action of others and have a meaningful understanding; whether the persons are known or unknown. Secondly, social action has to be oriented to behaviour of other animate things. Social action is also a result of cooperation and struggle between society members and the individual (Morrison 2006, p. 275-278). In his study, Weber divided social relations into two types of solidarities just as Durkheim’s mechanical and organic solidarity (Morrison 2006, p. 278). The one which corresponds to mechanical solidarity is communal solidarity and represents the subjective feelings shared by members of the community. Associative solidarity corresponds to organic solidarity and is present in modern societies. To Weber, the society is thus undergoing a process of rationalisation. This process involves use of scientific methods in conducting social life such that individuals rationally calculate every benefit they would get out of an association. Here then emerge professional politicians and bureaucratic organisations which would be an inescapable condition in the society. Weber advocates for charismatic leaders who are elected by popular vote hence he is an advocate of democracy. He is not in agreement with Engel that revolution by the proletariat would result in communism or end of the state; rather, it would lead to increased bureaucracy (Roberts 1997 ch.6, par. 55-61). These bureaucracies are managed rationally as opposed to subjectively which is present in communal societies. Everything is carried out according to procedure hence careful calculation and decision making according to Weber is the conclusion of this rational calculation. Weber observed that authority in these bureaucracies is manifested by increased control, impersonality and increased knowledge and is goal-oriented. Taylor and Spencer (2004, p.25) saw bureaucracies as a threat to the freedom of an individual since he/she is constrained by rules and procedures. Weber opts for a democratic form of organisation where legitimacy is given by the governed and the charismatic leader chosen can lead change. References Berberoglu, B., (2005), An introduction to classical and contemporary social theory: a critical perspective, 3rd ed, Rowman and Littlefield, US, 16-20 Brym, R and Lie, J., (2010), Sociology: your compass for a new world, 2nd ed, Cengage, USA, 348-354 Craib, L, (1997), Classical social theory, OUP, London, 210-250 Hughes, J., Sharrock, W., and Martin, P, (2003), Understanding classical sociology, Sage, London, 54-61 Morrison, K., (2006), Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. 2nd ed. Sage, London, 150-231, 273-357 Loptson, P., (1998), Readings on human nature, Broadview Press, Canada, 173-176 Roberts, A, (1994), Peoples and ideas systems. Available at: http://studymore.org.uk/bio.htm [Accessed 20 April 2012] Roberts, A., (1997) Social science history for budding theorists. London: Middlesex University. Available at:http://tudymore.org.uk/ssh.htm [Accessed 20 April 2012] Taylor, G., and Spencer, S, eds, (2004), Social identities: multidisciplinary approaches, Routledge, Oxon, 20-25 Read More