The coercive power of social structures - Essay Example

The coercive power of social structures Introduction The debate between structure and agency in sociological contexts has been raging for years. Both sides have valid points in the way in which they structure human behavior and the way in which decisions about behavior are made. The nature of a social structure is to create boundaries within which a society functions. In creating these boundaries, individuals are pushed towards certain types of behavior that conform to those which are conducive to the continuation of the group. A society is like an organism, and it will fight to thrive to the point of coercive measures in conforming the behavior of members toward the betterment and support of the group. In creating a stronger social structure, coercive power within the group will help to force the individuals towards making decisions that fall within the boundaries of the group. Social Structures Social structures are constructions of groups of people in which common elements have created some sort of connectivity between individuals. According to Martin (2009), social structures “come from the crystallization of relationships” (p. 2). One can turn to Georg Simmel for his theories on social structures in which the relationships formed a web in which connections were made between individuals that were tied by a common thread. Society is then identified as a “set of permanent interactions” (p. 2). In looking at the combined theories of both Simmel and Durkheim, it can be said that while society seems like something that is outside of the individual, in truth, it is the “aggregate of our actions” (Martin 2009). Social constructions are the systems through which society is enacted. The social structures that are built within a society are strong and can hold a great deal of power over the individuals within those societies. The nature of a social structure is to be defined by the ways in which it creates rules for the individuals within the group to live. Those rules are defined by a set of different ideas, such as law, social conformity, social appropriateness, and religious constraints. The rules that are developed are dependent upon the purpose and the focus of the social structures. Conformity, even when non-conformist ideas are a part of the structure, is almost universally accepted as the way in which to get along with the group as a whole, rather than to set oneself outside of the social structure. The way in which a group has decided to define themselves is crucial in understanding how to be a part of that group. Clay-Warner (2008) describes the intense shared emotions that a social group will have as “collective effervescence”, a concept that was defined by Emil Durkheim (p. 1). This is accompanied by rituals that will define the sacred from the profane, creating structures from which the definitions for the group are created. Hochschild defined the nature of emotions as they relate to social structure as: feeling rules, emotional labor, surface acting, and deep acting (Clay-Warner & Robinson, 2008, p. 3). These aspects of social structure help to define roles, provide social exchange, and shape the way in which the structure is created. Kemper argued that two-dimensions of social structure are universal, that of power and status. Through power and status, members are able to create a much more defined position within the social structure and influence the direction in which the structure will continue to grow. It is the nature of a social structure to shift, move and change. Within this structure is found an unspoken truth about the structure that allows for all of the members to follow the same line of thinking and conform to an unspoken set of rules that are not to be broken if one wants to stay within the group. Coercion from the social group will take many forms. The forms of pressure that will emanate from the group will create a coercion in which the members will either conform or separate from the others. Rebellion means separation from the group, thus it is only done out of the will to separate, even though the consequences may be more stern that expected. Coercion, however, is the method of pressure in which the member feels both oppressed by and included by the group. Coercion Byman and Waxman (2002) define coercion as “manipulating an adversary’s policy choices and decision making” (p. 30). The primary definitions of coercion are about force and sometimes violent ways of directing the way in which a person or entity will respond or think. In looking at the definition of coercion, one might think that it is outside of the boundaries of most social structures as they try to adhere to loving group in which nurture and growth are possible in order to maintain the stability of the group. However, the way to argue about coercion is not in trying to deny that it is force or to suggest that it is a metaphorical coercion, but to redefine the adversary within the equation. The adversary to social structure is not the individual, but the impulse to go against the grain. According to Byman and Waxman (2002) coercion has two key insights. The first is in finding pressure points and the other is in escalating dominance, as a coercive power increases the costs that an adversary will appreciate during the course of developing rebellion. In the case of social structures, the cost for rebellion will get higher and higher, the more one rebels. In the application of coercion to the nature of a social structure, the only way for the structure to survive is to provide higher costs than the benefit of rebellion. One of the problems in modern society is that the nature of rebellion is to find others who rebel, thus finding social groups in which to express non-conformity. Through the use of coercion that should bring a member back into mainstream society, the hedonistic nature of rebellion when it is associated with a social group, means that mainstream society coercion is losing its power to maintain members. There all kinds of social groups; gangs, bike clubs, drug dealers, and etc., that can provide this alternative to mainstream social interaction. In this case, it is not working. Organized crime can be an alternative to being a law -abiding society in which certain aspects of social structuring has replaced mainstream structures. What social structures confront is not the individual, but the ability for the individual to choose. The individual is welcomed into the social group, promises of love and support providing context for needing to belong to a social group. The coercive nature of a social structure is not defined by its placement of the individual in an adversarial position, but in putting their rebellious nature in conflict with the structures that are in place. Coercion is defined by its attack on desires, not on the individual. Coercion will confront corrupted beliefs that might lead the individual away from the group. Structure and Agency Agency refers to the ability of an individual to conduct their behaviors independently, while structure refers to the nature of the individual to conform. In discussing the debate between agency and structure, the strategic relational solution can help to explain the place of coercion in the equation of decision making processes. According to Landman (2006), “the strategic relational approach suggests that all choices take place within certain selective contexts and that any decision is always made in relation to certain constraints” (p. 55). In other words, how a decision is made is defined by the way in which the self is situated within their own social role. Within this role, they are held in position and create decisions that are based upon the way in which their social structure has defined the right answer to the question that is relevant. An example of this might be seen within the confines of a specific religious affiliation. As an example, a Christian will look at a dilemma and find a way in which to frame the problem in context with their religious views, then the decision is made by the individual based upon those constraints. There are written rules and unspoken rules. The unspoken rules are based upon the behaviors that are exhibited by the majority of the members of a group. These behaviors will inform a member of not only how to behave, but how not to behave. Those who do not adhere to these cues will find that their behavior is attacked by the rest of the group. As a society, human beings wish to believe that they make their decisions through agency, the ability to assess a situation and independently make a decision. However, there is only a scant amount of truth to this concept. An example of the way in which personal choice seems relevant, but isn’t can be seen in the idea of wearing a burqa. In Muslim religion, it is mandated that women cover themselves and to act modestly. Women who grow up in this religion see this as an act of respect, a way in which to show their respect and to be respected through defining themselves as ‘good’ women. However, in the West the idea of the burqa is offensive, the idea that a woman must cover herself completely a way of oppressing her. In Muslim, this notion is not considered a part of the decision to wear a burqa, where wearing one in the West positions a woman to high ridicule rather than respect. The decision to belief in fully covering oneself or to be revealed to the world is not a decision made of agency, but through socially structured belief sets. Neither society is wrong, just very different in how they coerce their members into behaving in a predetermined capacity. The age of enlightenment saw a rise in the belief that agency was a driving force for behavior and decision making as it was addressed and attended to by reason. The concept that reason was the foundation of behavior and decisions opened the door to defy convention, however, the majority of people during the period continued to conform. The general belief was that they chose their behaviors independent of the pressures around them, thus they provided their own frameworks in which to decide (Cote & Levine, 2002). However, this belief is not supported by the very conformist nature of most people as they were a part of one group or another. Conclusion The nature of society is defined by the way in which a collective is created through structuring beliefs and behaviors in such a way as to find conformity within that group of people. In order to combat disassociation from the group, thus weakening the group, coercion is built into the system in such a way as to make it painful to not conform to the structure. According to Rubinstein (2001), “systems of meaning…including not only the beliefs and values of social groups, but also their language, forms of knowledge, and common sense, as well as the material products, interactional practices, rituals and ways of life” define the social structure (p. 2). Anything that threatens these portions of the social structure must be confronted through coercive measures so that challenges to the system cannot be allowed. Society makes it painful to be a non-conformist. In doing so, the nature of the social structure is protected and the culture in which the social structure has been built, can go forward towards growth and nurture. References. Byman, D., & Waxman, M. C. (2002). The dynamics of coercion: American foreign policy and the limits of military might. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Clay-Warner, J., & Robinson, D. T. (2008). Social structure and emotion. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press. Cote, James E. & Charles G. Levine. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture: A social psychological synthesis. London: Routledge. Germov, J., & Poole, M. (2007). Public sociology: An introduction to Australian society. Crows Nest, N.S.W: Allen & Unwin. Landman, Todd. (2006). Studying human rights. Abingdon: Routledge. Martin, J. L. (2009). Social structures. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Rubinstein, D. (2001). Culture, structure & agency: Toward a truly multidimensional society. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage Publications. Read More