The Histories of Individuals and Societies - Essay Example

The Histories of Individuals and Societies Introduction It has been argued that Individuals and societies exist in a complementary relationship. However, the nature of this relationship has been a cause of controversy among scholars. With the main argument being that human beings are a product of their environment, the role of society in defining human behavior has been pursued through several theories (Durkheim 77). Structural functionalism is one such theory that attempts to explain the relationship between human beings and society. Developed from the ideas introduced by Durkheim, the theory looks at the role played by social institutions in the formation of different attitudes and personalities towards culture. In an effort to best understand the concepts of individual and society, this essay will look at Durkheim’s arguments on the relationship between the two together with the arguments of other scholars. The concepts of social institutions, solidarity, latent and manifest functions, anomie and Parsons action theory will be critically analyzed together with their relevance in understanding the concepts of individuals and societies. According to (Durkheim 123) societies consist of small units structured in a manner that sustains social order. These units define the culture and norms which determine how individuals in these societies act and behave. These units are also referred to as social institutions and they include social structures governed by a given set of rules. He goes further to argue that these structures are necessary to tame man’s insatiable desires. Without structures to control his desires, social order cannot be achieved or maintained. Every man would set out to pursue his different interest and conflicts would most likely occur. This does not mean that the present society is rid of conflicts. It means that the social norms and cultures reinforced by social institutions have lessened conflicts by defining the role of individual in society and what is expected of them by society. To best understand the concepts of individuals and society, it is vital to interrogate the concept of solidarity as discussed by Durkheim. Labor is an integer part of maintaining stable relationships in society. Through work, social interaction is fostered between individuals and a sense of common belonging is ensured. Through labour, societies are able to achieve a sustainable state of stability. Despite the difference in the types of societies, the role of labor is an integral part of defining how much an individual is attached to his society. He introduces the concept of mechanical and organic forms of solidarity as characteristics of primitive and modern societies respectively. Primitive societies create a less need for competition dictating that people act in a similar manner by sharing similar labour roles. However, the situation changes when it comes to modern societies. Human beings are presented with the challenge of surviving and have to scramble for limited resources to survive. This introduces the concept of division of labour. Despite the difference in the labor structures in these societies, labour remains an integral part of social development for societies and it defines an individual’s place within society. Society has been contextualized as an important social feature in human life. Despite the inability to physically capture it, it has the ability to shape thoughts of individuals who may choose to either conform to or rebel against its norms. According to (Kingsbury and Scanzoni 45) to best understand how society affects individual actions, it is vital to integrate Merton’s concept of latent and manifest functions. Merton looks at the two concepts in his structural functionalism. According to his arguments the role of the individual within the society is best understood upon the differentiation of the two concepts. The role of every human being and every action is better understood when both the latent and manifest functions of the respective actions are clearly understood. Understanding these aspects can best shed light on the role of society in sustaining deviant behaviours. In this context, human beings and society are connected in terms of the role they play in society and how these roles contribute to social order and stability. The attempt to look at individuals and societies also calls for the interrogation of the concept of the anomie as discussed by Durkheim in his theory of Anomie. When social conflicts occur, it has been blamed on an individual’s inability to exercise self control. However, Durkheim looks at the role played by the society in social conflicts. He uses the concept anomie to denote the state of conflict in society that arises from a lack of adherence to norms. Additionally, he argues that anomie is an integral part of society and no society can be without a certain percentage of anomie. Crime is a social fact that cannot be done away with. In this argument, he partly reinforces Merton’s argument that explains why such dysfunctional institutions are still persistent in society. The role of crime in society has always been controversial in the sociological explanation of society. However, when placed within the anomie theory, crime is no longer classified as a dysfunctional structure of society but as a structure through which its latent function brings people together in their effort fight it an agreement (Michele 132) supports. Durkheim’s anomie theory is further developed by Merton (Kingsbury and Scanzoni 177). However, despite their agreement that individuals participate in crime due to social pressures derived from society, the two disagree on how valuable this vice is to society. Merton is not in agreement with the idea that crime is a source of social interrogation. He argues that the persistence of crime is an indicator of the failure of social norms that govern different societies. Through the structuralism theory, he criticizes society as having the potential to create the worst out of individuals. He argues that the society defines human beings in terms of the ambitions and aspirations they are allowed to achieve. However, it is the same system that fails individuals through the inability to provide them with the necessary means to enable these ambitions. Failure to achieve dreams and ambitions results in a high anomie tendency. Through his critical approach, he argues that fact that anomies are a direct result of a system failure, the failure in the system is manifested in the failure in individual character. This critical approach relates to (Durkheim 123) arguments on suicide. According to him the inability to fit in or to effect proper social structure to support the fluid social organizations may lead to the anomie of suicide. The society will always pose a challenge to individuals. Since human beings are social creatures, they are thought to thrive on a sense of accomplishment and belonging. He uses the example of the American society which is highly competitive and goal oriented. Such a society is faced with a high rate of suicide tendencies since more individuals are faced with the challenge of having to meet the success goals set by the society. Even those who reach these goals are not satisfied as they want more. Clearly, individuals are presented as being at the mercy of the society. Very few have the will to resist this social pressure leveled on them by society. Basically, when placed against the individual, the society is partly to blame for anomie. Despite this agreement with Merton, the difference attached on the value of crime to society is persistent. According to (Durkheim 125) the idea of the collective consciousness is what makes individuals susceptible to anomie. Since societies in themselves are under rapid change, it is difficult to sustain these changes since the structures that are needed to support new social realities are not easily adaptable. He argues that individuals are defined by society but they have no power to define society since it is a grander force than them. In this respect, he argues that the inability for societies to adopt new structures with the same speed with which they adopt changes is what leads to anomies. Basically, he agrees with Merton since these changes define new realities for individuals but fail to provide them structures for reaching these realities. In this instance, an individual will turn to crime as an alternative to achieving the new social realities since the structures at his or her disposal are in effective. This goes a long way to prove that an individual will always exist in a complementary relationship with the society. Society is an integer part of an individual’s personality such that an individual makes it his or her goal in life to align his or her actions and goals with those of the society. According to (Parson 77) individuals have one single role in society and this role is to fulfill the needs of society that are aligned with achieving social order. He tries to predict the kind of society that would exist had each individual lived according to personal rules. The question of individual needs and goals is addressed as the main course of conflict in society. Human beings are not necessarily conformists by nature; however, in their attempt to survive, they will react differently to social norms but with a similar goal of ascertaining their existence. Through his action theory, he interrogates the nature of human action. He looks at individual decisions as a product of social norms. Human beings act best with what is known to them. Since they acquire knowledge and experiences from their surrounding, they are bound to restrict their reasoning to the social and cultural norms that define their respective societies. His structural functionalism is quite similar to that of Merton. They both pursue the concept of the individual as that which is subject to the ever changing society. Merton introduces five new concepts that define human character within the society. It does not matter the type of individual one becomes, in the end what an individual chooses to be is based on his or her attitudes towards the social norms governing his existence. (Parson 56) argues that social conflicts arise as a result of conflict of interest. However, it is not only the conflict of interest between individuals but it is also when there exists a conflict of interest between individual and collective goals set by the society. The conflict forces individuals to act against the set norms an action which society terms as an anomie. Criticism Structural functionalism as a theory which attempts to explain how the society functions as a system highlights the role of society in defining an individual. Through the concepts discussed in the essay, the theory largely draws from practical situations and explains how individuals are subject to social demands. However, the theory is limited in how it looks into the importance of individuals in defining their own personality (Dillon 45). If human beings are entirely a product of the society does this mean that the question of individual character is irrelevant in defining human beings? No two people are similar in terms of character. Despite the fact that they could have been raised within the same social norms, individuals differ a great deal and this difference is not entirely dependent on their world view but other biological factors. The theory also fails to look into the question of how society defines normal. Through the creation of the concept of the anomie, the scholars have already demonstrated that they are confined to society’s way of thinking. The definition of normal is subject to change depending on society and structuralism in its attempt to explain how anomies occur should pursue the nature of these definitions and their overall effect in creating social order (Dillon 89). For example how does a society define madness? This definition may include people with mood disorders who are not necessarily mad, with the rising number of people with mood disorders; this definition may give the impression that society has registered an increase in crazy people when the problem lies with the society’s definition of normalcy. Structuralism would better explain how societies function if they looked into the structures that govern social institutions rather than look at the social institutions themselves. Finally, the question of how anomies occur as explained by structuralism is subject to contention. Through the arguments presented by the sociologist whose ideas have been included in this essay, individuals are presented as mere puppets which are subjects to their societies. For example (Durkheim 126) looks at Pentecostal religions as social institutions that contribute to suicide through the inability to create and sustain religious order. He fails to recognize important aspects of human character that also contribute to individual choices. The freedom of choice and the question of free will are not addressed. Instead, individuals are not held responsible for their actions and the blame is passed onto society. An integration of both human and social causes of anomalies would better explain the occurrence and persistence of crime. Failure to look into the human causes is a failure to recognize that the society is full of people who have failed to achieve the collective goals but have not turned to crime or suicide as a solution not because they are immune to social pressure but are ascertained in their self worth that they would not tread their lives for anything. Relevance of the Study The knowledge on individuals and societies is relevant when it comes to understanding the present day society, human behavior and possible causes of deviant behavior. The study equips one with the necessary theoretical tools needed to handle challenges arising from complex behaviours. Through this study, the structures of oppression that exists within societies can also be identified and rectified as a basic step for solving the social ills in the modern society. Conclusion Durkheim is considered the founding father of structural functionalism since the theory was propounded on his ideas. The incorporation of his ideas and those of other sociologist in the understanding of the concepts of the individuals and society leads to the conclusion that individuals are products of their environment (Durkheim 145). Social institutions are the smallest units of society’s equivalent to body organs. Through these units, the society is brought together under similar norms and social order is then maintained. It has been established that individuals exists in a relationship with the society, a relationship that places the society at a superior position to that of the individual. The individual’s inferior role places him at a disadvantage since he has no other basis of defining his or her character. Through structural functionalism, the limitations of society and its effects on individual character is pursued. Further, this limitation is looked at in terms of its role in the creation of anomies. Works cited Dillon, Michele. Introduction to Sociological Theory, Concepts and their Applicability to the Twenty- First Century. MA: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Print. Durkheim, Emile. Rules of Sociological Methods. NY: Simon & Schuster, 1982. Print. Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. NY: Simon and Schuster, 2014. Print. Kingsbury, Nancy., and Scanzoni, John. Sourcebook of Family Theories & Methods. NY: Springer Publications, 1993. Print. Parsons, Talcott. The Structure of Social Action: Marshall, Pareto, Durkhein. NY: Free Press, 1967. Print. Read More