Sociology's Impact - Essay Example

Reading in Social Science Although the ideas behind sociology go a long way back in human history, sociology as a scientific study did not emerge until recently. “Sociology as a scientific discipline emerged in the early 19th century as an academic response to the challenge of modernity: as the world was becoming smaller and more integrated, people’s experience of the world was increasingly atomized and dispersed. Sociologists hoped not only to understand what held social groups together, but also to develop an antidote to social disintegration” (English, 2006: 6). The main premise of this new science was that all human life passed through predictable historical stages. If these stages could be recognized and patterned, then the cures for many of the ills that had befallen the cities might be found. To find these patterns, a scientific approach was required. Although the term ‘sociology’ was actually coined by Auguste Comte in 1838, the man most credited with bringing recognition to this field is Emile Durkheim. To understand Durkheim’s importance to the field, it is necessary to understand not only how he formulated his ideas, but what those ideas are and how they have remained an important aspect of social science as well as those points of contention other experts have formed regarding these ideas. Durkheim was born in 1858 in Epinal France as the son of the Rabbi of Epinal and the Chief Rabbi of the Vosges and Haute Marnie. The men of the Durkheim family had been rabbis for generations, stretching back as far as Emile’s great-grandfather, and Emile grew up professing this was his intention as well. “He studied Hebrew, the Old Testament, and the Talmud, while at the same time following the regular course of instruction in secular schools” (Coser, 1977: 143). However, shortly after his Bar Mitzvah ceremony at age 13, he increasingly turned away from the Jewish traditions leading up to his arrival in Paris (Dunman, 2003) at which time he had rejected Judaism and declared himself an agnostic (Coser, 1977: 143). However, religion would continue to be a primary interest of his throughout his life work as he investigated the phenomena of religion as it occurred in various cultures. It took Durkheim three times to pass his entrance examinations to the Ecole Normale Superieur, but he finally succeeded at the age of 21. It was here that he became friends with Charles Renouvier and Emile Boutoux, who were both philosophers, as well as Numas-Denis Fustel de Coulanges, who was a historian (Dunman, 2003). Renouvier felt that Kant’s categories of representation are constructed with elements of moral choice and free will derived from experience. “Renouvier also rejected Kant’s distinction between phenomena and numina; the phenomenal and the real are, for Renouvier, virtually identical” (Tekiner, 2002). He rejected any distinction between knowledge and moral belief determining all knowledge depends upon a ‘will to believe’. Durkheim was able to use information gleaned from Coulanges regarding various cultural histories to determine that the categories of representation are actually socially determined and objective presentations (Lukes, 1973: 54-58). These ideas also led to Durkheim’s development of ethical and cognitive theories. “What he admired in Fustel de Coulanges and learned from him was the use of critical and rigorous method in historical research. To Boutroux he owed an approach to the philosophy of science that stressed the basic discontinuities between different levels of phenomena and emphasized the novel aspects that emerged as one moved from one level of analysis to another” (Coser, 1977: 144). Bourtroux’ approach would prove to be a major characteristic of Durkheim’s development of sociology. Thus, a great deal of his formative influences can be traced to the friends and influences he encountered at school. There were also other theories floating around that had significant impact upon Durkheim. These included the positivist theories of the Marquis de Condorcet, Claude-Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte immediately following the French Revolution. Positivist philosophies “expected the ideal forms of society would eventually appear as a result of the progress of reason, science, technology and industry” (Tekinor, 2002). Positivism introduced the concept of a gradual progression of development that moves in a mechanical fashion from a state of lower to higher order. Saint-Simon felt a reconstruction of society was needed that would shift perceptions to focus on love of the poor and lowly, supported by the sciences. Comte worked to reform society with the development of a positive social science, differing from Saint-Simon yet succeeding in developing a strong enough following to see some of his ideas put to work (“The Philosophy of Positivism”, 2003). Durkheim was able to take what worked of these approaches and apply these to his theories, gaining himself enough respect within academe to instill a class in sociology in 1887. “This was the first time a French university opened its doors to this previously tabooed subject” (Coser, 1977: 145). With this recognition, he was able to begin expanding his ideas and develop his theories. This respect was based, in part, upon Durkheim’s introduction of functionalism to the field of social science. According to Durkheim, society was made up of a complex set of social facts that existed in and of itself. Although individuals came and went, there remained a fixed set of rules, actions and attitudes that remained more or less constant. Durkheim made the analogy between society and an organism to illustrate this concept, pointing at the way various organs work together to maintain a healthy and productive whole. This was what he indicated happened within society as each individual member, understanding his proper roles and function through a series of understood social facts, worked together with others to maintain a happy and healthy whole. Social facts are ways of behaving and thinking that limit the ways in which people participate in these actions. “The system of signs I use to express my thought, the system of currency I employ to pay my debts, the instruments of credit I utilize in my commercial relations, the practices followed in my profession, etc., function independently of my own use of them. And these statements can be repeated for each member of society. Here, then, are ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that present the noteworthy property of existing outside the individual consciousness” (McIntosh, 1997: 207). These social facts, taken together, create a central value system for a given society. When everyone within that society understands these rules, the society is able to function with few problems. Durkheim was one of the first people to explain the existence and quality of different parts of a society by reference to what function they served in keeping the society healthy and balanced. The definition and recognition of social facts enabled Durkheim to take his theories further in the new modernized world. This was introduced with the concept of anomie. “Anomie, simply defined, is a state where norms (expectations on behaviors) are confused, unclear or not present. It is normlessness, Durkheim felt, that led to deviant behavior” (“Durkheim’s Anomie”, n.d.). In a purely mechanical society in which all or most of the members of the group belong to a single ideological set, Durkheim said it was easier for people to abide by the rules and roles expected of them. However, as societies become more complex, more organic, individuals have greater difficulty identifying the group to which they belong. “Anomie thus refers to a breakdown of social norms and a condition where norms no longer control the activities of members in society” (“Durkheim’s Anomie”, n.d.). This deregulated condition could also be applied to individual states and was Durkheim’s explanation for suicide. On the greater societal level, Durkheim observed that “social periods of disruption brought about greater anomie and higher rates of crime, suicide and deviance (“Durkheim’s Anomie”, n.d.). Thus, anomie can be seen as the reason for society’s ills and a restructuring of social facts, such that each member of society can find their proper place within it, would reduce the rates of undesirable behavior. Durkheim’s contributions to the field of sociology remain deeply significant even today. He is known as the father of sociology for gaining recognition for the field, but also for the basic tenets upon which that field is based. He did this by asking and then responding to “the first and most obvious of questions about which any student of social reality doing empirical work must wonder. How is it that individuals hold particular sets of values, and not others? And how is it that persons with ‘similar backgrounds’ are more likely to hold the same set of values than persons of dissimilar backgrounds? We know the answer so well that it no longer seems to us a question” (Wallerstein, 1998). Yet, it required someone asking this particular question to call to mind the idea that there was something larger at work. His scientific approach to finding the answer provided the methodological prestige necessary for institutions to recognize the new science. By determining “there exist social groups which have explicable, rational structures” (Wallerstein, 1998), Durkheim was able to assert that many of the behaviors of groups of people could be predicted based upon their established institutions and how these traits contributed to many of the social ills that were occurring in the urbanized centers, particularly regarding suicide. In these explorations, of Durkheim and of those who followed him, impact has been made upon other areas of research. One of the areas which was particularly impacted by Durkheim’s work remains religious studies. This came about largely because of his work on suicide, understanding it to be the result of individuals’ lack of group identity and cohesiveness. “Religion, he concluded, functioned as a ‘prophylactic’ against suicide not because of what it does or does not preach or teach to its adherents (in other words, not because of its content) but, instead, because of the role its all-consuming rituals and institutions play in bringing individuals together as a group, thereby providing them with not only a sense of belonging but also a sense of what it is to be a particular sort of individual” (Emile Durkheim, 2006). In making this claim, Durkheim pointed to the Jews as primary examples of the type of cohesive system that reduces deregulated individuals. This was attributed to the fact that their society had been historically separated from other societies by law or by custom, forcing adherents to create a more cohesive and self-reliant society. The implications of these findings also had an effect upon theories of individual behaviors, as the role of society was taken into account as a possible contributing factor, thereby having widespread effects in psychology. Social work was also affected as the ideas regarding the most appropriate methods of assisting individuals shifted to take societal resources and barriers into account. Even the legal system underwent forms of readjustment as the degree of culpability was re-examined and assessed for punitive measures. However, as with all theories and ideas, in order to prove effective, it must have some detractors that strive to prove against the ideas proposed. There has been considerable criticism offered against Durkheim’s theories from a social science perspective. Wallwork (1972: 112), for instance, can find no evidence in recent anthropological studies that supports the claims Durkheim made regarding primitive societies. Wallwork indicates that primitive societies often demonstrate a higher or lower degree of specialization and retain strong ideas of individuality regardless of occupations in direct opposition to Durkheim’s assertions. Also approaching Durkheim from a social scientific perspective, Miller (1988) indicates that much of Durkheim’s work is based upon the presumption of a harmonious social system and ethical relativism. However, there had been no evidence to support that such a condition existed and therefore was not based upon the objective assumptions held within the groups studied. These findings were based upon criticisms offered by Ginsberg in 1965 in “Durkheim’s Ethical Theory”. Others have concentrated on the facts that he used to support his claims and observations. What these criticisms don’t do, however, is look at Durkheim’s view of morality as a collective phenomena – what Durkheim understood as the basis for society and the glue that holds it together. The basic argument underlying most of Durkheim’s theories is the concept of morality as it exists to perpetuate and benefit the entity labeled ‘the society.’ “Durkheim was always consistent in declaring that the individual’s service to society was the only goal for moral action. Durkheim’s wording in his explanations for the origin of society, however, is consistently inconsistent” (Dubeski, 2001). Dubeski indicates that Durkheim had basically four answers to the question of the origins of society which he used interchangeably depending upon the audience to whom he was addressing. The first indicated that societies formed as individuals came together, but he did not indicate where these individuals came from. Another explanation he offered was that new societies formed from the break up of old societies while a third turned to the religious explanations that formed such a strong basis for much of his other work. The biggest issue with the religious argument was that Durkheim suggested the development of a societal conscience was dependent upon the violation of societal conscience, which had to exist prior to its development in order to be violated, presenting an unsolvable quandary (Dubeski, 2001). A final explanation was that society was developed as a collection of individual consciences past and present. These ideas taken together indicate how much Durkheim’s unique perspective influenced the development of his ideas. “Instead of basing moral theory on the nature of existence, he based his views of existence on his faith in a particular view of morality” (Dubeski, 2001). In this sense, Durkheim was actually little more than a grand illusionist, presenting his moral and ethical ideals as scientific fact obtained through methodological research. Personally, I find it difficult to blame a man for using less sound principles or methods to draw his conclusions when he is inventing a new science. Having the perspective of hindsight and numerous researchers in the field ahead of me, it is easy to point to his methods and say he could have done better. There remains a great deal of individual ideology involved in Durkheim’s theories and his research does not seem to be based on the most accurate facts available. Some of his conclusions seem to fall short of full explanations. It is a limitation of his time that he could not see the fracturing of the individual among the many different social roles they are expected to play within a given 24 hour period. While I believe Durkheim contributed greatly to the field of sociology, especially in bringing it the academic recognition it needed, I believe his greatest contribution was in presenting future scientists with a wide range of questions regarding the dynamics of societies as well as the role of the individual within them. References Coser, Lewis A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. (2nd Ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace. Dunman, L. Joe. (2003). The Emile Durkheim Archive. Accessed December 6, 2006 from < http://durkheim.itgo.com/biography.html> “Durkheim’s Anomie.” (n.d.). Sociology at Hewett. Accessed December 6, 2006 from “Emile Durkheim.” (2006). The University of Alabama. Accessed December 6, 2006 from < http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/aboutrelbiodurkheim.html> English, Ronald W. (2006). A Primer on Introduction to Sociology 101. Charleston, WV: Capital High School (Adjunct Professor). Ginsberg, Morris. (1965). “Durkheim’s Ethical Theory.” Emile Durkheim. R. Nisbet (Ed.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 142-152. Lukes, Steven. (1973). Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work.. Stanford University Press. McIntosh, Ian. (1997). Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader. New York: New York University Press. Miller, W. Watts. (1988). “Durkheim and Individualism.” Sociological Review. Vol. 36, N. 4. “(The) Philosophy of Positivism.” (2003). The Radical Academy. Accessed December 6, 2006 from < http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilpositivism.htm> Tekiner, Deniz. (2002). “German Idealist Foundations of Durkheim’s Sociology and Teleology of Knowledge.” Theory and Science. Vol. 3, N. 1. Wallerstein, Immanuel. (1998). “The Heritage of Sociology, The Promise of Social Science.” Fernard Braudel Center for the Study of Economies, Historical Systems and Civilizations. New York: Binghamton University. Accessed December 6, 2006 from Wallwork, Ernest. (1972). Durkheim: Morality and Milieu. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Read More