Individual and Society: Durkheim and Simmel - Coursework Example

Individual and Society Individual and society Introduction Human beings are considered to be social beings since they live in groups, others in community or society and so on. Basically, human beings cannot live as a people independently without society. Without the society human emotions, maturity, intellect as well as liberty can no longer develop. The connection that exists between individuals and their society is not merely another physical, or a maybe functional unity, or even well planned systematic unity. The relationship is a columniation of a number of factors and activities. Greene & Kropf (2009) say that the society in general is responsible in controlling the movements, identity, insight and emotions of human beings. According to Lukes (2006) the society is what can be used to best define human beings. Humans are products of their society. The issue of individualism and society maybe seen as being complex and twisted but the most obvious fact about these two aspects is that they are in many ways intertwined together. Many sociologists as well as other scholars have come up with theories that try to explain the relationship that exists between individuals and the society in general. It has become a fascinating issue to many as society itself cannot even exist without individuals in it but at the same time, this same society shapes individuals. Two of the most profound sociologists, David Émile Durkheim and Georg Simmel came up with very unique and significant approaches to the above issues. The common factor in their work is the involvement of individuals in the society. Simmel (1950) sees the freedom of an individual as being primarily limited to the society they are in. Their success and even full realization of their power is so much attached to their society. Durkheim approach on individualism and the society Durkheim specifically aimed to see how the society could stay entire and bound together, particularly in a period when sharing ethnicity or religion was no more seen as imperative. Durkheim (1952) aimed to examine how factors like the laws, education, religion and other related structures influenced the cooperation of society. Durkheim saw these structures as very instrumental in shaping the society as whole. An individual’s perspective and aspect towards these structures had so much to do with the way the society would turn out to be. According to Dingley (2015) Durkheim work helped in understanding the role of each individual in the society. Society as the consolidated interaction of individuals Durkheim broke down the society as a result of all the interactions of individuals. The society to him was more than just human interactions but instead a combination of consciousness. By merging the interactions of individuals, one is able to describe a society. Durkheim called these individual interactions social facts. Social facts are more than simple individual actions but rather individual behavior of acting, reasoning, and feeling outside beyond an individual which are contributed with a coercive power by goodness of which practice control over them. While social facts are detected and experienced by individuals and therefore are more of internal nature to the individual, they are brought into being through associations with the external world. Examples of these social facts are thoughts, convictions, and suppositions. According to Seidman (2013) social facts are acknowledged through individual experiences yet brought into being through the interaction of the collective consciousness. An illustration for this is where individuals are able to acquire ideas and thoughts regarding the social set ups but these ideas can only be practical in a social perspective. In the example of religion, it will only make sense to have a particular belief and faith if there are other people sharing the same belief and faith. This brings in the aspect of interaction. Individual thoughts equally would make sense when subjected to interaction with other people in the society other than keeping them to ones self. According to Somek (2008) an individual can only make sense of their society if they are able to relate with the ideas and principles within that society. Durkheim sees collective conscience as a combination of beliefs, sentiments as well as ideas shared by members within a community or society. This basically means all shared sense of reality, identity, and morality based on common and similar experiences. Durkheim illustrates that individuals are able to learn what is right and wrong from other individuals in the society making morality one of the social facts. An individual’s conscience may develop internally involuntarily but this is an echo of what parents and other members of the society programmed an individual to behave. According to Rothbart & Korostelina (2006) the society plays a key role in defining the norms and behavior of individuals. This happens with continued learning and interaction with members of a society. Simmel approach on individualism and the society Georg Simmel approach on studying the society was a little different from Durkheims. His approach was based on the social culture and how individuals play their part in developing the society through cultural interactions and practices. Simmel saw culture as being spread by individuals through outside structures which have been established throughout history. Simmel defines the external structures as different social gatherings that are formed in a society. According to Greene (2008) the social culture is a result of individual’s practices which have been developed over time and now have been transferred into the society. In his effort to define the society, Simmel developed four areas of concern which formed basis of what a society is made of in relation to individuals. His concerns were based on the role of psychology to the society and not just individuals, the analysis and study interpersonal interactions, the change of society over time and existence of different levels in the society. Society as individual interconnection (Small group level) Simmel, just like Durkheim saw the society as interconnections of individuals but does not see it as a universal consciousness but rather as small group levels. Simmel illustrates that individuals thrive to work and interact within social groups other than remain alone. He goes further to categorize these social groups; a. The society; this is considered to be the highest unity of individuals which entails community and people sharing similar culture. b. Dyad; It is a grouping of two individuals and considered to be the most intimate but at the same time the most vulnerable due to the fact that it is the easiest to break making it the most unstable union. In most cases, when a conflict arises, the two individuals may not be able to solve the conflict without bringing in a third individual. A good example of dyad union is marriage which can easily be broken by divorce as well as the birth of a child. According to James (2012) the arrival of a child in marriage can easily bring challenges especially if the parties do not have better ways of solving conflicts. c. Triad; this is a union of three individuals which is considered to be relatively stable because three different people are likely to find ways of solving their conflicts. A good example is a family of a married couple with one child. The presence of a child can be solutions to most of the issues making the couple stick together. Freedom of an Individual Simmel recognizes the difference that may arise in regard to an individual’s equality and liberty. By unfolding the society into an era of national rationality was primarily based on the idea of natural equality for all individuals and that all limitations were established artificially. By removing these restrictions, there would be an emergence of a perfect man who is freed from the limitations and constraints of accidental preplanning and configuration. According to Maris et al. (2011) the society in general develops ideas and norms that leave individuals restrained within what it considers to be the universal standards of norms. Conclusion Durkheim and Simmel developed very different but at the same time very unique approaches to the society and how it relates to with individuals. One common factor in their approaches is that no individual can fully develop without being part of a society. Durkheim focuses on social facts which to him are tools and medium though which individuals are able to interact with the society. Durkheim sees individuals as products of the society and the opposite is also true. Individuals norms and morality are shaped by the society and the community. He also insists that whatever an individual regards as being right or wrong is basically what the society considers right or wrong. According to Freiherr von & Drieschner (2014) the society defines the norms and ethics and therefore it is hard for an individual to be part of a society without following these norms. Unlike Durkheim, Simmel sees the society as part of smaller social groups other than universal consciousness. Simmel’s illustrates that individuals prefer being in smaller social groups which gives them a sense of belonging. He categorizes these social groups as; society, dyad and triad. In conclusion, Simmel’s approach assumes the possibility of a perfect individual who would have developed into an independent individual if not subjected to social limitations. References: Top of Form Greene, R. R., & Kropf, N. P. (2009) Human behavior theory: A diversity framework. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. Top of Form Lukes, S. (2006). Individualism Colchester: ECPR Press. Top of Form Dingley, J., & Palgrave Connect (Online service) (2015) Durkheim and national identity in Ireland: Applying the sociology of knowledge and religion. Top of Form Seidman, S. (2013) Contested knowledge: Social theory today. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Top of Form Somek, A. (2008). Individualism: an essay on the authority of the European Union. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press. Top of Form Rothbart, D., & Korostelina, K. (2006) Identity, Morality, and Threat: Studies in Violent Conflict. Lanham: Lexington Books. Top of Form Greene, R. R. (2008). Human behavior theory & social work practice. New Brunswick, N.J: Aldine Transaction. Top of Form James, A. (2012). Brothers and Sisters in Adoption: Helping Children Navigate Relationships When New Kids Join the Family. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Top of Form Maris, C. W., Jacobs, F., & De, V. J. (2011) Law, order and freedom: A historical introduction to legal philosophy Dordrecht [etc.: Springer. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: a Study in Sociology (J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson, Trans.) Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work published in 1897) Simmel, G. (1950) the Stranger (Wolff Trans) New York: Free Press (Original work published in 1908) Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More