The Extent to which Individual Lives are Shaped by External Constraints in Modern Societies - Literature review Example

THE EXTENT TO WHICH INDIVIDUAL LIVES ARE SHAPED BY EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS IN MODERN SOCIETIES WITH REFERENCE TO DURKHEIM By Presented to Introduction Emille Durkheim (1858 – 1919) was a French sociologist who was the proponent of the structural functionalism perspective. He saw the society as an entity made up of different organs and as such if one of them fails to meet the required societal targets then the performance of the whole society is held at stake (Durkheim, 1982). He likened societies with the human body in that if one of the organs is ailing the whole body actually suffers and cannot perform well. He was majorly concerned on how modern societies could maintain coherence and integrity when the traditional social and religious values have been replaced by modern and more complex institutions (Monivas, 2007). He sees the society as functional when all its parts operate smoothly and in synchrony and dysfunctional when the component parts are in disharmony. The societies that work functionally are characterized by cohesion, co operation and consensus while the dysfunctional ones are conflict ridden and class oriented (Dahrendorf, 1958). He believed that social objects are actors in real world and harmony is essential for the good performance of the society. He is entirely concerned with solidarity that holds individuals together in the society. Discussion Durkheim’s first sociological work was on division of labour in society (1893), in 1895 he published the rules of sociological method. He studied suicide rates among Catholics and Protestants and this served to distinguish social science from political philosophy (Ramp, 2005). He then presented the theory of elementary forms of religious life which compared the traditional religion to the modern one. He then developed the positivism view in sociology which aimed at discovering the structural social facts within the society. He viewed the social world in systematic terms where systemic needs and requirements had to be met to assure survival and function well when they reach a state of equilibrium (Kingsbury, 1993). The world is composed of mutually interdependent parts and they function as systemic wholes to maintain equilibrium. He began by distinguishing two types of solidarity: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. In the first, individuals differ little from each other; they harbour the same emotions, hold the same values, and believe the same religion. Society draws its coherence from this similarity. In the second, coherence is achieved by differentiation (Ritzer, 2008). Durkheim further argued that as society developed it moved from an organic state to a mechanical state characterized by modernity, urbanization and less intimate relationships. This state of affairs characterized by reduced solidarity levels in social undertakings would ultimately lead to the breakdown of social order hence anomie (Dahrendorf, 1958). Free individuals pursuing different functions are united by their complimentary roles. His work on religion Durkheim defined religion as obligatory beliefs which are united with definite practices which relate to the objects usually given in the beliefs. He divided religion into rites (determined modes of action) and beliefs (collective representations) (Mayer, 2004). He defined the preliminary forms of any religion to be the sacred and profane things. Sacred are the elements that are isolated and protected by powerful interdictions while profane are things which must remain a distance from their sacred counterparts. Religious beliefs are the representations which express the nature of sacred things and their relations with one another or with profane things. Religious rites are the rules of conduct which shows how one should behave in the presence of sacred things (Monivas, 2007). A religion thus arises when a number of sacred things are able to sustain relations of coordination and subordination so ac to form a unified system. He thus sought to explain the most primitive forms of religion by going down to the original history of man. He suggested that no human institution can rest on a lie and if any institution is not based on the nature of things then it encounters natural resistance which will eventually destroy it (Emirbayer, 1996). Individuals must go beyond the symbols expressed in religion so as to uncover the reality which it represents and the reasons which gives it its meaning. Consequently, all religions according to him are true and equal to the extent of the reality they express. He argued that we cannot understand the modern, more advanced and complex forms of religion except by analyzing how religion has progressed throughout history (Emirbayer, 1996). It is until then that we can hope to understand the causes which gave rise to it. He further suggested that the various religions compared were of the same class and possessed certain components and thus had some common elements. Some contexts such as time, space, class, number, substance and personality have been categorized as categories of understanding by philosophers. These categories are found in the primitive religious forms when they are analysed and so they are perceived to be a product of religious thought (Monivas, 2007). The most primitive forms of religion Animism According to animism, individuals sought to put the contrast between the mental representations experienced during dreams and the normal experience. With the destruction of the body in death, there comes the idea of a free wandering spirit in space. As the power of these spirits grew men resulted to appeasing them with favours, offering prayers and sacrifices ( Emirbayer, 1996). Men thus found themselves prisoners of this imaginary world. Naturism suggests that religion rests upon a real experience which arouses the religious ideas in the mind. Totenism The fundamental beliefs in the members of a certain totemic belief is that they are bound together by special kinship ties, not based on blood but on that they share the same name. The name is taken from a predetermined species and is passed down through generations (Monivas, 2007). The members of a certain totemic group are forbidden from killing or eating meat that comes from the totemic animal unless during mystic ceremonies. The violation of this rule is believed to cause death. The totem acts as a symbol and the emblem is engraved as an inscription upon the bodies of the members. Durkheim suggested that god is nothing more than the society apotheosized and that it is both physically and morally superior to the individuals. Durkheim argued that the soul, spirits and gods does not play any role in the nature and causes of totenism (Monivas, 2007). His work on suicide In his work on suicide, he demonstrated his sociological method by applying it to a phenomenon that appeared characteristically individual. He sought to find out how the society causes individuals to commit suicide (Goldberg and John, 2008). He thus analyzed statistical data on suicide rates comparing them into religious beliefs, sex, age, marital status and economic changes. He argued that the suicide rates depend upon the social context of an individual. Indeed Durkheim works on suicide are a sociological classic as it illustrates the differences between positivism (quantitative) and interpretism (qualitative) methods (Ramp, 2005). In Durkheim positivism, he argues that the social suicide rates as he termed it are as a result of external social forces weighing on an individual. Moreover, he states that there is therefore, for each people a collective force or a definite amount of energy impelling people to self destruction (Durkheim, 1982). The victim acts which at first seem to express only his personal temperament are really the supplement and prolongation of a social condition which they express. He further explained that more frequently than not, those who are ill integrated into social groups and those whose individuality has disappeared in the social group will commit suicide. Likewise when social values break down, when men find themselves without norms in a state of anomie as Durkheim called it, suicide increases (Kingsbury, 1993). He presented four models of suicide: altruistic, fatalistic, anomic and egoistic suicide. He relates each of these models to the degree of interconnectedness (integration) of individuals in the society. Altruistic suicide results from over integration of an individual into the social group. The individual here sacrifices himself on behalf of the society. Durkheim associates this kind of suicide with traditional societies that are characterized by mechanical solidarity (Poppel and Lincoln, 1996). He considered individuality to be less developed in these societies as members easily observe self destructive norms. Member’s values are thus so much integrated into the values of the whole society. It usually occurs in collectivist societies where the success of an individual is interpreted as success to the whole society while failure to reach a goal means that the whole society has failed. Fatalistic suicide is a product of over regulation of the individual by the society. It is where the individual feels powerless before the society or fate and simply gives up. This is simply attributed to prison suicides. The individual sacrifices themselves due to the feeling of giving up and thinking that the whole system is against them (Mayer, 2004). This mostly occurs in individualistic societies where ones success is attributed to their own struggles. In this case when they fail to attain a goal it may take a great toll of their lives and thus result to suicide. Anomic suicide occurs when low social regulation causes low social integration. An anomic condition is occasioned by rapid social change that makes people morally and socially confused and produces an increase in anomic suicide where anomie appears to be part of the collective force in society that impels people to suicide (Poppel and Lincoln, 1996). It occurs when there is a sudden change in the society beliefs, norms and ways of life and as such a state of normlessness occurs. A perfect example is the 1929 Wall Street crash. Egoistic suicide arises due to weakening or breaking of individuals links to the social group. In Durkheim’s view the greater personal and moral freedom found in protestant countries results in high suicide rates as compared to the catholic countries where one is likely to find morally integrated communities (Poppel and Lincoln, 1996). The norms in the Catholic Church are mostly integrative as compared to the Protestants which advocates for independent lives. Division of labour in society Durkheim attempted to explain division of labour and its importance in social cohesion. A good example is the turmoil and tension that was caused by industrial revolution (Dahrendorf, 1958). In the traditional society before industrial revolution people were used to the stone tools that were readily available. Then came the industrial revolution and people had to adapt to the changing situation. Consequently, division of labour brought about routines, broken down into dull repetitive tasks where workers lose the sense of their role in production that are less committed to the organisation process. Durkheim noted that when egoistic social behaviour sets in the influence of social values and norms is actually lessened and individualism sets in (Emirbayer, 1996). When people disregard the existing norms in favour of their own self centeredness then cohesion is not possible and the individuals suffer too. The rules of sociological method Furthermore, Durkheim sought to establish sociology as a science of social facts. He defined a social fact as a way of acting fixed or not that is capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint or every way of acting that is general in a given society and at the same time existing on its own independent of the individual (Ritzer, 2008). Social facts not only represent behaviour but also the rules that govern behaviour that is portrayed and which give it meaning. They are constraining in that if individuals do not follow the rules set they are penalised and face punishments. The rules of society are internalized by individuals through education and socialization. He distinguished normal social facts which occur within a society regularly from pathological social facts which occur less common (Ramp, 2005). A social fact is identifiable through the power of external coercion which it exerts or is capable of exerting upon individuals. Social science must embark on procedures to observe social facts in its pure state (Ritzer, 2008). However, certain social currents of opinions, whose intensity varies according to the time and country in which they occur impel us towards certain tasks in the society such as marriage, suicide, higher or lower birth rates. If the population clusters together in the cities instead of being scattered in the rural area, it is because there exists a collective opinion which imposes this concentration upon individuals. Social currents are the non material social facts which have the same objectivity and ascendancy over the individual. They are collective emotions existing in a group which have stronger impacts than any individuals own emotions. Durkheim believed that the different social institutions maintained a collective conscience (Mayer, 2004). People are socialised so that they share the same norms and values which the society upholds. Social institutions form social cohesion and solidarity and thus people are bound together through shared behaviour and beliefs. Through internalization, external constraints lead to change in individual’s behaviour in that people have to conform to the set rules and regulations no matter what (Durkheim, 1982). First they would not wish to be treated as outcasts in the society and sometimes they want to impress the authority. They follow rules because they do not want to be labelled as outlaws in the society. In this way external constraints actually shape the lives of individuals. Additionally, external constraints also affect the way in which people interact and express themselves. Societies actually help in socializing individuals from the family level, education set up, working places and religions. Through these people interact with each other while learning different values and meeting different personalities and characters. Individuals learn the virtue of accommodating their colleagues’ (Patterson, 2001). Values passed from the individual to the social world Religious ceremonies such as the Easter ceremony and Christmas among Christians and Id Mubarak ceremony among the Muslims, military parades where the soldiers must follow the set rules and regulations such as when the President is inspecting the guard of honour and in street demonstrations where each member is obliged to follow what the leader says (Goldberg and John, 2008). The individual participants in these are while acting themselves also expressing the nature of the collectivity to which they for the moment belong. Durkheim argues that there are some external constraints that have the power to coerce individuals in how they think and act. “When i perform my duties as a brother, a husband or a citizen and carry out the commitments i have entered into, i fulfil obligations which are defined in law and custom and which are external to myself and my actions” (Durkheim, 1982:50). These powers and social forces actually existed before individuals and so they exert direct pressure on them as they are outside them. They thus function independently from individuals. “The system of signs i employ to express my thoughts, the monetary system i use to pay my debts, the credit instruments i utilise in my commercial relationships, the practises i follow in my profession all function independently of the use i make of them” (Durkheim, 1982:51). Moreover, human beings are active, thinking and wilful actors in the society. They have a capacity for symbolization such that people interpret and give meaning to their immediate environment (Barmaki, 2008). Language as a system of symbols plays an important role in the process. The world around us, both the material and social world have no inherent meaning unless with the help of symbols. Individuals can only fully understand the meaning of symbols by taking into consideration the perspective of the others. Individuals use different types of monetary systems according to the countries and regions they occupy in the world (Mayer, 2004). This actually dictates the credit facilities people are expected to use such as the percentage of interest individuals pay on a loan taken. Different professions have their set rules and regulations which must be followed to the dot. Doctors perform their duties with the sole aim of saving lives bound by the Hippocratic Oath they take while lawyers follow the constitution of the land while defending their clients in law courts (Mayer, 2004). Different cultures have their own norms and morals and individuals are supposed to follow. If an individual rejects his culture then he is treated as an out group and may also experience rejection. Durkheim argues that these external constraints both constrain and influence what individuals do at a certain point in time. Not only are these types of behaviour and thinking external to the individual but they are endued with a compelling and coercive power by virtue of which, whether he wishes it or not, they impose themselves upon him. According to Durkheim the lives of individuals are majorly affected by the external constraints because they actually impose themselves on people (Durkheim, 1982). Conclusion Durkheim suggested that a homogeneous society usually has norms or codes of behaviour that are bound to emerge and when necessary become legalised to protect the unitary culture of the group. However where separate cultures deviate from the mainstream the minority groups will react by creating their own norms. Conduct norms are rules that reflect the attitudes of groups to which each of us belongs. They serve the purpose of defining behaviour as either appropriate or inappropriate (Mayer, 2004). In the society it is not a question of whether an individual is willing or is happy about performing a certain role or following the rules set but he has to perform it but people are obligated to do so. The society will thus punish individuals who do not conform to the norms and rules set. There occurs an element of group think while individual lives are coerced and pressured to follow the already set rules, regulations and norms (Patterson, 2001). When individuals resist these forces or violates the rules of law, the external constraints does not cease to exist. Durkheim views it necessary to conform to the ordinary conventions because if he does it or he does not the social distance at which he is kept yields the same results. When we struggle to break free from these rules and eventually manage, we are forced to fight against them. Bibliography Barmaki, R. (2008). The Relationship Between Justice and Freedom in Emille Durkheim’s Perspective. 1(1): 51-61. Dahrendorf, R. (1958). The Journal of Conflict Resolution. Toward a Theory of Social Conflict. 2(2)-170-183. Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules Of Sociological Method. London, Macmillan Press Ltd. Emirbayer, M. (1996). Durkheims Contribution to the Sociological Analysis of History. 11(2): 263-284. Goldberg, C. A. (2008). Introduction to Emille Durkheims “Anti Semitism and Social Crisis”. sociological Theory. Washington DC. Kingsbury, N. and John, S. (1993). Structural Functionalism. Family Theories and Methods Emerging During 1930-1945. New York. Mayer, K. U. (2004). Whose Lives? How History, Societies, and Institutions Define and Shape Life Courses. Research in Human Development. 1(3): 161-187 Monivas, J. R. (2007). Science and Religion in the Sociology of Emille Durkheim. 3(1): 17-30 Patterson, T. S. (2001). Constraints: An Integrated Viewpoint. 7(1): 30-38. Poppel, F. V. and Lincoln H. D. (1996). A Test of Durkheims Theory of Suicide – Without Comitting the “Ecological fallacy”. 61(3): 500-507. Ramp, W. J. (2005). Emille Durkheim: Sociologist of Modernity (Review). 30(3): 373-376. Ritzer, G. (2008). Modern Sociological Theory (7th edition). McGraw-Hill, New York. Read More