Wider Social Context in Understanding Individual Actions - Essay Example

TMA 02 – HOW DOES AN ANALYSIS OF THE WIDER SOCIAL CONTEXT HELP US UNDERSTAND INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS MORE FULLY? By Your Full Presented to Your Teacher’s Name Your Course’s Title The Name of Your University The City and the State Your University is Located in 14 December 2010 How Does an Analysis of the Wider Social Context Help Us Understand Individual Actions More Fully? In sociology, it is assumed that the individual is just as important as the group, and that the society at large, conversely, can also be representative of individuals within it. This is not to say that everyone in a society behaves and/or thinks the same way, but that no matter what the religious beliefs of individual people, their individuality is not separate from the society, or group, within which they live. As Silva (2008) puts it, “social circumstances are neither separate from personal life nor are they external” (102). This, consequently, means that the group is defined by the individual lives of the people who form it. Therefore, analysing the wider social context can actually go a long way in explaining to the sociologists why exactly the individuals in the society behave or act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way. Silva (2008) asserts that just like the genes that we inherit, our environment is also inherited, providing us “’holding’ through processes of identification at the personal and social levels” (p. 98). Most sociologists are of the view that an individual cannot be isolated from the wider social context, which is to say that the individual is not only a part of various social worlds, but is also connected to them. In the Introduction of Security: Sociology and Social Worlds, giving the example of a passport, it is asserted that an individual is always surrounded by their social worlds, in fact, an individual is embedded therein. To clarify it, an individual, who has a passport, is exercising their individualism by carrying the passport and presenting it to the local authorities at the airport. However, the fact that they have to present the passport for their identification as well as security clearance, and the fact that the passport is issued to them for just such a purpose in front of others, not to mention other material practices that go into presenting one’s passport to a local official, all point towards the fact that a person is not on their own, they cannot be taken out of the wide social context, but always form a part thereof. Not only are the various cultural and social norms included in the wider social context, but the social worlds that these norms are a part of are also a part thereof. Callon and Latour opine that, “sociology is only lively and productive when it examines all associations with at least the same daring as the actors who make them” (qtd. in Jordan, 2008, p. 26). Therefore, it is not only important to look at the individual, but the social world that they form a part of, for through the example of a wider social context, sociologists can glean the motivation behind individual actions. In the example Silva gives of the movie The Truman Show, where Truman’s life, unbeknownst to him, is actually a reality show, with everyone in his life being a hired actor. As per Silva the show is symbolic because it shows the tug of war between the individual and the circumstances they are born into. The wider social context, in this instance, is fake, and that is why, perhaps, it is easier to gauge the actions of Truman, however, “the film asserts the values of a social world that preserves the integrity of the individual” (pp. 104-105). As per Callon and Lamour, society at large is actually “a force capable of associating so many other sources that it acts like” an individual (qtd. in Jordan, 2008, p. 26). This basically implies that the society is not only made up of individuals, seen together as a group, but that it is, in itself, like an individual, ever capable of change, transformation and evolution. In fact, the society is actually easier to analyse than an individual. The routines and trends of the individual may suddenly change, but the society and its demographics essentially do not shift dramatically overnight. Hence, it would not be wrong to say that an analysis of a wider social context would actually be more reliable in trying to understand individual actions than to ask the individuals to logically explain the reason behind their actions. However, as Barnes says (in Jordan, 2008, p. 43), it is best not to forget “that the co-ordination that is actually achieved in specific collective settings may, and indeed invariably does, extend well beyond what is implied by reference to agreement in practice. Members may agree in how they do things and how they describe what they are doing, yet disagree about what specifically ought to be done.” This simply implies that no matter what the cohesion of a wider social setup, the individuals therein need not be fully agreeable to everything asserted therein. Individuals can maintain their identities while being part of the group. Interestingly enough, the meaning of “individualism” or the idea thereof shifts based on the various social relations that create particular social worlds. For instance, if a person, in their capacity as a parent of a sick child, goes to an office party where they are invited, only to find out that three other parents there have a child at home, sick with the same disease that the former’s child seems to be ailing from, it is only natural that not only will the person be a part of the group which constitutes the employees of the company, but will also belong to the social world where they have a sick child at home. In this case, the individual is not only part of the group of colleagues, but also of the group of parents with sick children at home who need to be taken care of (and of course the concerned parents will talk about their child’s sickness to others like them). In the same example as above, if the person is not invited at a party, but is at work, during office hours, they shall be bound by the practices that the office allows to its workers, thereby limiting their option to individuality. These limits on the individual, and their social relations, are actually placed there due to a need for security. Whether we take security to mean being safe from outside forces (whether natural elements, diseases or accidents), or being free of danger, or simply to be secure, security effects the constitution of both individual and social relations. As per Silva (2008), individualism is based on an individual’s account of relying on social institutions, while at the same time continuing on with their self-identity (p. 94). However, she also states that as the individuals cannot escape their social setup, “the need to change increases at the individual level” (p. 106), and that is what sets individuals apart from their social group. They want to be part of the wider social context, yet at the same time they do not want to be lost completely therein. Hence, to maintain a certain amount of individualism, they will tend to disagree or follow the beat of their own heartbeats so to speak. Again, as stated above, this does not affect the workings of the society at large, therefore, a wider social context is always easier to analyse. Moreover, it is natural in societies that even though individuals may be different, or be part of different circumstances, “broad pattern still exist” (Silva, 2008, p. 84). The security of an individual is linked to the “broad patterns of cultural arrangements” (Silva, 2008, p. 84). Thus, not only are we limited by whatever boundaries the society has placed on us, but we are also finding security in the cultural and social (as well as legal) norms that are present in our social relations. As quoted by Silva, Laing states, ‘A man [sic] may have a sense of his presence in the world as a real, alive, whole, and, in a temporal sense, a continuous person. As such, he can live out into the world and meet others: a world and others experienced as equally real, alive, whole, and continuous. Such a basically ontologically secure person will encounter all the hazards of life ... from a centrally firm sense of his own and other people’s reality and identity.’ (2008, pp. 94). Based on various cultural, religious and personal reasons, people create their home as a restricted setting. Silva iterates that the success of the individual, both as a part of the family and a part of the society at large, also depends on the political and economic resources available to them (p. 99). Thus, both the society and the individuals it comprises of form their relationships whether in the broader sense or not, based on security. The social and the individual are very much a part of each other. In the example given by Jordan regarding the PBET test conducted on the allotment he was given to grow vegetables on, Jordan asserts that nobody is an isolated individual, we are all interconnected. The PBET test in the allotment case was not done by some individual, it was actually the whole community, in one way or another, that decided to get the testing done. The resulting decisions mirrored just that; some of the people with allotments decided that now they had proof to go ahead and continue planting, whereas others were angry at the authorities for wasting their time and resources, the authorities were glad they did not have to do any further expensive testing, and some, like Jordan himself, decided they could not risk even a small chance of contaminating their family. In our regular home life, although we claim that we are not part of the social so much as we are the part of the individual, it is clear that most households, knowingly or not, follow the social “norms” of the day – whether it is the females seeking employment outside home, or men helping inside the home with children and other chores, these efforts although individual, are also part of the greater social scheme. In the Harry Potter context too, the individual and social are related. The individual action of the writer, or the reader did not make the book or the saga so good. It was actually the social awareness, and social need, of wanting to find a good piece of advice to hold on to, or some comforting words too, at an awkward stage of a person’s life (pre and early teens). The society we live in, consisting of individuals who form a cohesion, is actually geared towards liking the idea of “individuality” or “specialness” – the fact that this is on a social scale and not an individual one alone, further proves that there is a relationship between the social and the individual. As Jordan (2008) states, “decisions made on the reading or not of Harry Potter novels will have all the hallmarks of individuality, but such moments will be constructed on the basis of a range of psycho-social forces, some of which we can become conscious of and others of which are harder to grasp.” (p. 41). Word Count 1837 References Carter, S., Jordan T. and Watson, S. 2008. Introduction. In S. Carter, T. Jordan, and S. Watson eds. 2008. Security: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.1-16. Jordan, T. 2008. Security in the Social: Gardens and Harry Potter. In S. Carter, T. Jordan, and S. Watson eds. 2008. Security: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.17-46. Silva, E. B. 2008. Security, the Self and Home. In S. Carter, T. Jordan, and S. Watson eds. 2008. Security: Sociology and Social Worlds. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp.81-110. Read More