The Connections between the Structures of Our Society and the Kinds of People We Are - Coursework Example

Compare the ways in which Durkheim and Goffman have understood the connections between the structures of our society and the kinds of people we are The development of various human activities is depended on a series of factors. These factors define the framework in which people at all levels of society think and act. However, the response of people to their environment cannot be always estimated in advance. People can follow their own willing and proceed to an activity which is not in accordance with their environment’s standards and expectations. Personal perceptions and the social background are likely to influence a person’s ability to be differentiated from his/ her environment acting independently. The above ability of individuals is represented by the concept of agency. Agency is often related with the social structure which is a term used to explain not only the types of teams developed within the society but also the criteria used for the categorization of people to specific classes based on their religion, their gender, their racial background and so on. The issues of agency and structure as described above have been extensively examined in sociology. Both the above concepts are considered to be important in order to identify the behaviour of individuals in modern societies. Of course, the views of sociologists on agency and social structure present differences; however they all emphasize the importance of identifying the needs of human and to use them in order to explain their needs. Current paper examines the concepts of agency and structure as they are presented in the work of Durkheim and Goffman. Two particular works of the above theorists are used to develop this study: The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life of Durkheim (1912) and the ‘Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Other Inmates’ of Goffman (1961). The explanations given by Durkheim and Goffman regarding the content and the role of agency and structure have many similarities – they also have certain differences which are highlighted in the sections that follow. The fact that these two theorists lived in different periods may be the reason for these differences. All potential influences on the work of these sociologists – referring specifically to the concepts of agency and structure – are analytically presented. Durkheim on structure and agency Society has a crucial role in the development of individuals’ perceptions – as it is accepted by both the above theorists. More specifically, Durkheim notices that ‘it is society that has consecrated the individual and made of him the thing to be respected above all; the progressive emancipation of the individual thus does not imply a weakening but a transformation of the social bond’ (Durkheim, 1912 cited in Giddens, 1995, p. 120 and Ratner, 2000, 414). The above view can lead to the assumption that agency – i.e. the ability of people to act independently – is depended on social structure. Since the society has a catalytic role in the development of respect towards a person, his/ her reaction without the consent of the environment (either close, family/ friends or greater, job) would be considered as a severe offense – the individual acting in this way should not enjoy the respect of the society. Furthermore, in the introductory section of the work of Durkheim Elementary Forms of the Religious Life it is noticed that ‘personal agency was ascribed to natural occurrences when early humans, held captive by their language, took their own metaphoric descriptions of natural events literally’ (Durkheim, 1912, p. xvii, in 2001 edition). In other words, society has been closely related with agency since the appearance of the initial forms of society. Then, agency was highly developed leading individuals to act independently – still there were bonds and dependencies but they didn’t have the influence on persons’ decisions like in modern society. The style of life in the first period of the human life was possible an explanation for that – in accordance with the above view. The relations between structure and agency was then expressed through the construction of sacred objects – which had specific forms and were offered to commonly accepted entities - considered as having exceptional powers in accordance with the beliefs of a community. Regarding this issue, it is noticed by Durkheim that ‘whether the efficacy of a sacred object is imagined in a abstract form or attributed to some personal agency is not the main point’ (Durkheim, 1912, p. 196, in 2001 edition). The most important issue, in accordance to Durkheim was the fact that the above initiatives of individuals were the result of their respect for their society – as it was then considered to be represented by the community. Using the example of the offering of sacred objects – which is an initiative based on specific thoughts and personal perceptions – Durkheim emphasizes on the importance of social structure for humans – even in periods when the concept of society – as it is today – was not known and people were not engaged to specific social and cultural ethics – referring to the non-existence of relevant legal framework. Even under these conditions, humans followed social stereotypes showing that social structure could influence their life and that agency was limited by the social norms and ethics. The views of Durkheim have been evaluated in the literature using different criteria. In this context, Giddens (1995) supported that ‘Durkheim was, in a certain sense, positively influenced by utilitarianism’ (Giddens, 1995, 129). The Durkheim’s view on the dependency of agency on social structure is also emphasized by King (2004) who noticed that in accordance with Durkheim ‘agency is not properly a property of the individual but emerges rather from the social relations in which individuals are embedded; in different relations humans have different agency’ (King, 2004, 198). In the same context, Godlove (2005) mentions that Durkheim supports the idea that ‘we are enjoined to ponder the role played by veiled, hypercomplex social forces that are partly autonomous and partly generated by associating agents across history’ (Godlove, 2005, 214). A different aspect of Durkheim’s views on agency and structure is presented by Willis who supports that ‘while Durkheim adopted some forms of naturalism in his approach, he did not imply that humans were unable to exercise agency’ (Willis, 2005, 117); she adds however that in accordance with Durkheim ‘societies were constructed of a set of moral and ethical norms into which individuals were born’ (Willis, 2005, 117). In accordance with the above, Durkheim’s view on agency and social structure can be presented as follows: agency is an indispensable part of human life showing the ability of individual to follow his/ her own perceptions and thoughts; however, this ability – and willingness – is often not developed in practice; human acts under the influence of the ethics and principles of his social environment. Goffman on structure and agency Goffman also deals with the concepts of agency and structure but from a different perspective; In his work ‘Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Other Inmates’ Goffman tries to explain the relationship developed between the ‘total institutions’ – i.e. institutions like prisons, hospitals and army camps – and their inmates. The actions of inmates are depended on the perceptions of inmates on their environment but also of their personal perceptions – as they have been influenced by their life within these institutions. The views of Goffman on structure and agency can be derived primarily from the definition of ‘total institution’ – as given by Goffman: ‘a total institution may be defined as a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals … together lead an enclosed … round of life; in prisons the main focus is on the world of the inmate, not the world of the staff; a chief concern is to develop a sociological version of the structure of the self’ (Goffman, 1961, p. 11-12). In accordance with the above definition, the life of inmates is developed within the context of the total institution’s rule; there is no much space for the development of agency – i.e. of making personal choices and acting against the existing social rules which is in this case have the form of the rules of the institute. In total institutions agency is almost eliminated; inmates have to follow the rules set by the administrators and not his personal perceptions/ wishes. The above view is in opposition with the comment of Kim (2003) who referring to Goffman noticed that ‘aspects of Goffman’s work on social order and agency reflect characteristics of modernity’ (Kim, 2003, 55). On the other hand, there would be no reason to reject the influence of Goffman on modernity – even under the terms that he supports the potential limitation of personal freedom under the influence of specific environmental conditions. In‘Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Other Inmates’ the lack of power of the individual to state his own willing is expressed through a reference to specific facts. In total institutions the power of the administration (representing the social structure) is expressed from the beginning. When entering the total institution the individual has to follow specific rules. In this context, it is noticed that ‘the admission procedure can be characterized as a leaving off and a taking on, with the midpoint marked by physical nakedness’ (Goffman, 1961, in Jewkes et al., 2006, p. 174). The power of social structure is being continued for the days or even years that follow – up to the exit of the inmate from the total institution – in the case of prison the exit of inmate may not occur. In other words, the total institution has a decisive power over the life of inmates; in fact, total institution has been characterized by Goffman as a barrier to the life of inmates. More specifically, it is stated that ‘the barrier that total institutions place between the inmate and the wider world marks the first curtailment of self’ (Goffman, 1961, in Jewkes et al., 2006, p. 174). In accordance with the above, the efforts for elimination of agency start quite early in the total institutions – from the admission phase. Goffman uses the behaviour of employees in total institutions in order to show the gradual limitation of personal willingness and the development instead of the willing of society; the latter is represented by the director and the employees of the total institution. Trying to emphasize the above issues, Goffman notices that ‘in total institutions these territories of the self are violated; the boundary that the individual places between his being and the environment is invaded’ (Goffman, 1961, in Jewkes et al., 2006, p. 178). The limitation of personal willing is a normal consequence of the psychological pressure that the inmate suffers within the institution. The above issue is highlighted through the following comment of Goffman: ‘in some total institutions the inmate is obliged to take oral or intravenous medications, whether desired or not, and to eat his food, however unpalatable’ (Goffman, 1961, in Jewkes et al., 2006, p. 179). In accordance with the issues developed above, Goffman like Durkheim accepts the superiority of social structure over agency; the latter has no much space to be developed either because individuals feel obliged to follow the rules and the ethics of their social environment or because they cannot act differently – as in the case of total institutions. The only difference between Durkheim and Goffman – referring to their views on agency and structure – is the fact that Durkheim does not reject the development of agency in particular social conditions. Using Durkheim’s theory on agency we could come to the assumption that an individual can act independently from his environment – even if he is generally influenced by it – because of his personal perceptions on a specific issue; in other words, in accordance with Durkheim personal willingness to act cannot be eliminated – no matter the social conditions in which a person lives. The views of Goffman lead to another assumption: there is no case for a person to act independently especially when living in conditions similar to those of a total institution. Bibliography Durkheim, E. [1912] The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Translated by Carol Cosman, Oxford University Press, 2001 Goffman E. (1961A) Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental patients and Other Inmates Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. First published New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1961 Giddens, A. (1995) Politics, sociology and social theory: encounters with classical and contemporary social thought. Stanford University Press Godlove, T. (2005) Teaching Durkheim. New York: Oxford University Press Friedman, G., Starr, H. (1997) Agency, Structure, and International Politics: From Ontology to Empirical Inquiry. London: Routledge Henry, S. (1983) Private Justice: Towards Integrated Theorising in the Sociology of Law. London: Routledge Jewkes, Y., Johnston, H. (2006) Prison Readings: A Critical Introduction to Prisons and Imprisonment. London: William Publishing Kim, K. (2003) Order and Agency in Modernity: Talcott Parsons, Erving Goffman, and Harold Garfinkel. New York: SUNY Press King, A. (2004) The structure of social theory. London: Routledge Willis, K. (2005) Theories and practices of development. London: Routledge Rubinstein, D. (2001) Culture, Structure & Agency: Toward a Truly Multidimensional Society. London: SAGE Read More