Society and a Human in Inseparable and Inevitable Relations - Essay Example

Individual and Society s Sociology Department Society and a human have always been in inseparable and inevitable relationswith each other on the way of development through centuries. The society is generally perceived as the force implying a set of factors necessary for an individual to construct his/her identity and develop as a personality. Being a complex mechanism, society incorporates a great number of cells with the new ones emerging constantly. Being born, an individual is completely unaware of rules, norms and laws regulating life of his/her parents and other members of society. Yet in the course of socialization, which is generally defined as acquisition and adoption of skills, dispositions, knowledge and attitudes accepted in the society (Weidman et al., 2001, p.18), an individual is likely to transform into more or less efficient and complete social element. Socialization implies that an individual internalizes the social world, absorbs ideals, cultural norms and values of the society he/she lives in and develops skills necessary for functioning within it. Dimitriadou et al. (2013, p.314) state that the process of socialization is controlled by the community, or society, itself: the society regulates acquisition of social behavior norms by its members influencing the process on both primary and secondary stages of it through the special structure. From the sociological perspective, socialization is perceived as a set of agents and institutions intended to motivate, direct, form and limit the process of personal development of a human. Thereby, agents of socialization are concrete people responsible for transmission of cultural norms and social values, and institutions of socialization are seen as formations and establishments directing the process. Thus, such understanding of socialization presupposes the cogent relations between the individual and the society he/she lives in and, moreover, direct influence of the society and social structures existing in it on formation of the individual’s personality and further functioning within this specific community. However, sociological studies have been suggesting rather controversial viewpoints on the role of society and social structures in socialization of the individual and the latter’s level of self-sufficiency within the society. One of rather popular views of the issue presupposes that the individual has no influence and opportunity to make own decisions, while the society possesses power and control over his/her life and self-actualization, creating various circumstances. Social contract theory views the society as a restraining power established ages ago, which binds and controls the individual and is a “great hurdle in his/her development” (Begum & Batool Awan, 2014, p.116). At the same time, David Gauntier’s extension of the theory implies that people are held together and adhere to existing order due to reason and rationality (Friend, 2015). Dukheim’s perspective of relations between the individual and the society depicts society as the set of structures producing social facts that “have a deep effect on the thinking and actions of individuals” (Begum & Batool Awan, 2014, p.116). Therefore, the individual is perceived as a being completely dependent on social factors and functioning in a certain way due to their pressure. This issue gives rise to the dilemma of relations between structure and action, whereby structure is a social structure, “the enduring, orderly and patterned relationships between elements of a society” (Abercrombie et al., 1988, p.228), and action is committed by social actors. The extent, to which an individual is unrestrained to construct his/her actions independent of the society, forms foundation to a number of approaches, which develop the view of the entire process of society’s functioning and an individual’s role in the process of socialization. Thereby, education as an integral aspect of socialization is thoroughly discussed and analyzed within this field. Further, the key approaches towards individual/society relations will be considered, particularly, the theory of Pierre Bourdieu, and their attitude to education as an element of socialization will be analyzed. Two extreme theories In social theory, there are two radically different theoretical paradigms studying relations of the society and the individual, structural functionalism and social constructivism. According to the framework of structural functionalism, social reality viewed from the macro-level perspective incorporates objective structures shaping the society. The society, in its turn, is considered a complex system with countless “building blocks” functioning to insure its stability and welfare (Macionis, 2010, p.14). Structures are defined as social norms (cultural codes, traditions, rituals and customs, taboos, laws etc.), social institutions, social strata, groups and classes. Being based on regulations and independent from people’s will and conscience, these structures determine values, motivations and actions of individuals. The paradigm of social constructivism, in its turn, implies that social actions of people construct certain elements and social reality as a whole, and external structures cannot be considered completely entitative. In this approach, social perceptions and ideas, interpretations of individual and collective experience and means of communication play the key role. In other words, within this paradigm, the individual is seen independent and active in constructing social structures with his/her actions and behaviors. Bourdieu’s theory The golden mean between these two extremes was found by Pierre Bourdieu, the founder of structural constructivism. His philosophical anthropology is a conception of recognition/nonrecognition of the individual by the society. According to Bourdieu’s views, the individual is motivated primarily by his lust for recognition, which can be satisfied only socially, via social structures that can give a person a certain position and set various tasks. Social recognition is a fundamental existential goal seen by people as a way to endow their lives with some sense. Bourdieu opposes his theory to structuralism affirming the individual’s submission to structural regulations and to constructivism depicting social reality as a product of free choice of social actors. The social world is formed by structures that are constructed by social actors themselves. Generally, this perception coincides with constructivist formula, yet formed structures, in their turn, determine doings and behaviors of agents, which is close to structuralist views. This means that Bourdieu seeks to overcome the fundamental opposition between the individual fully dependent on objective social structures and the free and rational agent (Swartz, 1998, p.9). Hearlson describes Bourdieu’s approach as follows: “Bourdieu devises a logic of practice that assesses strategic humans as they are both structured by the wider culture and structuring the wider culture” (Hearlson, 2014, p.12). Social life of an individual isn’t a mere aggregate of his/her behavior, as it experiences certain influence of social structures. However, “these structures do not necessarily control and dominate agents” (Tabb, 2011, p.1): the agent is free enough to act autonomously yet without being granted freedom of existentialism. Viewed from structural-constructivist perspective, we are free to act at our disposal instead of merely actualizing cultural codes, but our actions are driven by dispositions internalized in the process of socialization. Socializing ourselves and thus transforming from mere bodies into individuals, we don’t form an opposition to society, instead, we are “one of its forms of existence” (Bourdieu, 1980, p.29). Here, another affined theory should be mentioned. Similar view of the individual’s role in society was expressed in the structuration theory created by Anthony Giddens: according to this theory, social reproduction originates from reciprocally dependent relations of social structures and human agency (Gauntlett, 2002). Repeating their actions and behavior patterns, human agents eventually reproduce social structures and, in case of ignoring or interpreting them in a different way, can change them. As Jones and Karsten (2008, p.129) put it, “Giddens proposes that structure and agency are a mutually constitutive duality”. Going back to the views of Bourdieu, we have to mention that – given relative freedom of action for the agents – society acquires such feature as profound inequality. Although agents can form their behavioral patterns by themselves and thus reproduce social structures, agents tend to base their decision-making process on the principles that are not controlled by them. Therefore, “agents classify themselves, expose themselves to classification, by choosing, in conformity with their tastes, different attributes, clothes, types of food, drinks, sports, friends which go well together, and which they find suitable for their position” (Bourdieu, 1990, p.132). Society is the place of constant struggle and controversies giving rise to inequality and differences that eventually construct social reality. Social virtually means differences, which lead to certain hierarchy, and culture is viewed as a system of symbols and implications that contributes to reproduction of social inequality. Therefore, the term ‘habitus’ introduced by Bourdieu and referring to the structure of acquired dispositions imposed by social structures virtually becomes a product of each actor’s position in social space; as such, it is empirically variable and class-specific (Weininger, , p.131). Education In the developed society, education constitutes the basis for socialization and a set of social structures regulating people’s class and occupational affiliations. Generally viewed as an instrument aimed at transmission of values and norms of the dominating culture, education enables social reproduction to certain extent and preservation of cultural values accumulated by the humanity. Moreover, education system poses a kind of social filter sorting people according to their occupations, classes and cultural capital they possess. Thereby, according to Bourdieu, education is the system legitimating social and class inequalities and virtually restraining the individual from moving to another habitus. Gaspar (2003), too, mentions connection of basic problems in education and relations between society and the individual. Higher classes possess greater cultural capitals and thus are enabled to attain greater success in education and in further life; whereas lower classes are generally restricted in their opportunities due to inferior cultural capitals. Although success in educational achievements can depend on individuals’ gifts and talents, educational systems of developed countries are typically designed to discriminate students belonging to lower classes from attaining greater success and higher positions in their further professional activities. Considering this situation from Bourdieu’s standpoint, it is possible to say that educational credentials are the instrument enabling reproduction of social inequality, as individual belonging to higher classes seem to deserve places in higher social structures (for instance, good universities). At the same time, “educational credentials may not be necessary to secure privileges at all, but only to legitimate them» (Sullivan, 2002, p.144). It is also important to keep in mind that exceptions are possible: sometimes individuals belonging to lower classes yet possessing greater cultural capitals (which are not necessarily connected to financial capitals) can achieve greater success in education and – by getting educational credentials – pass from one habitus to another, but such precedents are generally unlikely to change the social structures or challenge the entire system. Instead, they are rather likely to “strengthen it by contributing to the appearance of meritocracy” (Sullivan, 2002, p.146). Therefore, although being restrained and disadvantaged in their attempts to achieve educational success and get credentials that will insure higher social position in future, lower-class individuals are not seen as discriminated, as outcomes of the competition as considered legitimate. Moreover, as Bourdieu himself calls it, the modern educational system is characterized by "a tendency to prefer eloquence to truth, style to content" (Bourdieu, 1967, p. 335). Thus, the position of Bourdieu implies that individuals possessing educational credentials automatically become entitled for the dominant positions in the society, and by this education successfully legitimates inequality and maintains certain status quo. Drawing conclusion from the abovementioned theoretical material and facts, it possible to say that relations of the individual and society described by Bourdieu appear to be rather controversial in terms of education, as the latter is a powerful instrument of regulation for separate individuals. Judging by the situation in the educational system, one can assume that structuralist-constructivist framework cannot be applied to it to the full extent, as society uses education as a powerful regulator for individuals’ position and actions, though there are cases when individuals succeed in challenging the system. However, considering Giddens’ theory, it is possible to say that many agent need to construct their actions in a different way or ignore certain social structures in order to affect the latter. References ABERCROMBIE, N., HILL, S. & TURNER, B. S. (1988) The Penguin dictionary of sociology. London: Penguin books. BEGUM, S., & AWAN, A. (2014) Individual and Society: A Socio- Philosophical Account of Iqbals thought. South Asian Studies (1026-678X), 29, 1, pp. 115-123. [Online] Available from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.adams.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=cea3f775-b537-4c07-9f68-65d519e15150%40sessionmgr110&vid=0&hid=117 [Accessed March 31, 2015] BOURDIEU, P. (1967) Systems of Education and Systems of Thought. International Social Science Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 367-388. [Online] Available from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000186/018691eo.pdf [Accessed March 31, 2015] BOURDIEU, P. (1980) Questions de Sociologie. Paris: Editions de Minuit. BOURDIEU, P. (1990) Logic of practice. Stanford University Press: California. DIMITRIADOU, A., PIZIRTZIDOU, E., & LAVDANITI, M. (2013) The Concept of Socialization in Nursing Education. International Journal Of Caring Sciences, 6, 3, pp. 314-318. [Online] Available from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.adams.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ae2059ab-188d-498d-9a64-1dfa6ae97630%40sessionmgr114&vid=0&hid=117 [Accessed March 31, 2015] FRIEND, C. Social Contract Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH3b [Accessed March 31, 2015] GÁSPÁR, L. (2003) School-question. Chances for development of knowledge capital in Hungary. (in Hungarian) Budapest, Hungary: Okker Kiadó. GAUNTLETT, D. (2002) Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. HEARLSON, A. (2014) The Promise of Pierre Bourdieus Social Theories of Practice for the Field of Homiletics. Practical Matters, 7, pp. 10-26. [Online] Available from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.adams.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=dcb12e0c-60c4-4c54-aeda-449e94695668%40sessionmgr110&vid=0&hid=117 [Accessed March 31, 2015] JONES, M., & KARSTEN, H. (2008) Giddenss Structuration Theory and Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 32, 1, pp. 127-157. [Online] Available from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.adams.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=960c0c13-4c7e-45a3-8e8e-0d3c98186f82%40sessionmgr110&vid=0&hid=117 [Accessed March 31, 2015] MACIONIS, G. (2010) Sociology, 7th Canadian Ed. Pearson Canada Inc. SULLIVAN, A. (2002) Bourdieu and Education: How Useful Is Bourdieus Theory For Researchers? The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 38 - 110. [Online] Available from http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/library-media/documents/BOURDIEU%20NetherlandsJournal.pdf [Accessed March 31, 2015] SWARTZ, D. (1998) Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. TABB, E. (2011) Outline and assess Bourdieu’s explanation of social inequality. University of Essex: the Undergraduate Journal of Sociology, vol.6, SC301. [Online] Available from https://www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/documents/pdf/ug_journal/vol6/2011SC301_EmilyTabb.pdf [Accessed March 31, 2015] WEIDMAN, J. C., TWALE, D. J., & STEIN, E. L. (2001) Socialization of Graduate and Professional Students in Higher Education: A Perilous Passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol.28, number 3, Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. [Online] Available from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457710.pdf [Accessed March 31, 2015] WEININGER E.B. (2004) Pierre Bourdieu on Social Class And Symbolic Violence. In WRIGHT, E. O., BREEN, R., GRUSKY, D., WEININGER, E., AAGE SORENSEN, A. & PAKULSKI, J. (Eds.) Approaches to Class Analysis. Cambridge University Press: 2005. [Online] Available from http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Found-c4rev.pdf [Accessed March 31, 2015] Read More