Mead begins in the first few paragraphs with first, pointing out the fact that many sociologists accidentally confuse “conscious motivations for social behavior and its objective consequences” and therefore the “distinction between manifest and latent functions was devised.”
He then points out further that, “the motive and the function vary independently and that the failure to register this fact in an established terminology has contributed…to confuse the subjective categories of motivation with the objective categories of function.”I see it as how when you are a child and you are first learning the distinction between there, their, and they’re. You may use the wrong form of the word in the sentence but it was not your intentions to be mistaken, it just sort of happened. So, Mead tries to steer away from mistaken oversight by designating an appropriate set of terms.
First, he refers to manifest functions, “those objective consequences for a specified unit (person, sub group, social or cultural system)” which were intended. Second, he refers to latent functions, “unintended and unrecognized consequences of the same order.” He lists such analyses between the two such as: social stratification, propaganda as a means of social control (Hitler maybe used this, eh-hem), fashion, etc, which have been used. Since there seems to be such a variety of subject matter to distinguish between these two functions, Mead suggests there can be limitless “range of human behavior.” This leads to the heuristic purposes of the distinction, which aims to specify “uses to which this distinction can be put.”
I was a little confused why he started the next paragraph with what seemed to be an incomplete sentence: “Clarifies the analysis of seemingly irrational social patterns.” I assumed that this was referring to the heading of, Heuristic Purposes of the Distinction, Mead describes first how this distinction helps our view of “many social practices”, even when manifest function isn’t achieved. He gives an example of this in referring to Hopi ceremonies which were done to get rain to fall. Even though these people doing the “superstitious” ceremonies get labeled, “this in no sense accounts for the group behavior. It is simply a case of name calling.” I found this to be fairly true in respects to labeling people not only in our society, but in the past as well. The latent function of this behavior may for the group provide a purpose.
The problem (or consequence) occurs when the manifest function happens (in this case it rains) for as Mead says “for the meteorologist.” He/she understands that the ceremony didn’t cause it to rain but the fact that “the ceremony does not have this technological use.” Because of the concept of the latent function, there is a continued examination of the consequences of the ceremony for its group members. Basically, such ceremonies serve not real purpose but “ a means by which collective expression is afforded the sentiments which, in a further analysis, are found to be a basic source of group unity.”
Mead later goes on to discuss the reasons why sociologists should not stick with just the study of manifest functions. If they were to do this, then the sociologist would be determined in knowing, if in fact, a practice does actually achieve its purpose. By doing this they steer away from the “theoretic problems which are at the core of the discipline.” When sociologists study both functions, they extend their “inquiry in those very directions which promise most for the theoretic development of the discipline.
Mead concludes his view on these functions, which I find to be mostly pertinent even in our society, with “Proceeding from the functional view, therefore, that we should ordinarily (not invariably) expect persistent social patterns and social structures to perform positive functions which are at the same time not adequately fulfilled by other existing patterns and structures, the thought occurs that perhaps this publicly maligned organization is, under present conditions, satisfying basic latent functions…”
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Manifest and Latent Functions
Chapter 33: An Outline of the Social System [1961] Talcott Parsons
Talcott Parsons’ writing, “An Outline of the Social System,” is very in depth and multifaceted on the idea social system. The social system, at least in my opinion, appears to be a very detailed and complex concept. It begins to get complex when breaking down the different parts to the social system, including looking at the steps of the functional imperatives that make up the social system.
The first concept Parson discusses are open systems. He states how these are interchanging with the environing systems. Included within these open systems are other systems such as cultural, personality, behavioral, and physical environment systems. With that said though, there are also boundaries that come with it to keep some sort of order. This quote made what was just said make more sense for me on how a system is even established. Parsons writes, “When a set of interdependent phenomena shows sufficiently definite patterning and stability over time, then we can say that is has ‘structure’ and that it is fruitful to treat is as a ‘system’.” I feel as though this statement is referring to creating your own person system by allowing new external factors to influence your routine. Once you do something on a continuous basis, and allow other systems into your schedule, it can them be considered part of your open system.
As I mentioned previously, as system also has to have boundaries to keep order. A good example given by Parsons is the example of the American Constitution. Parsons explains how the Constitution has been stable for more than a century and a half. During this time though, American society has changed and new legal processes and legislation have been established. Despite all of the change, many of the basic rights and religious ideas have remained the same. This is due to certain boundaries that cannot be crossed. This kind of give and take can also be called, mediation. The original document still stands, but it gave up some things in order to make improvements and be current with society. Parsons continues to go on explaining the different parts that make up the rules and the entire makeup of an open system. I had a lot of trouble understanding each of these concepts and how they all fit together. When Parsons talked about social systems, he implied that a social hierarchy was in place. From my understanding Parsons’ is saying that those of a higher economic standing are a part of the “control” part of the social system. However, he does go on to say that our own personality structure and our patterning is based upon internalization of systems of social objects and the patterns of our institutionalized culture. Parsons’ section on “Categories on Social Structure” made more sense to me than the idea of open systems.
It is easier to understand the relations of social systems, culture, and the problem associated with values and norms within the social system. It was interesting that Parsons compared people as having their own systems. These systems have a lot of influence on the interactions between two individuals in an interdependent system. I enjoyed Parsons’ shows an illustration of the essentials of interaction by giving the example of playing chess. He explains that each person has some motivation and drive to win. Each player has particular strategies, but the player also knows that they cannot plan these strategies too far in advance because the game is not stable. The other player may make an unanticipated move, ruining the future plans of their opponent. Just like in interaction, a person cannot always predict what is next in their interaction with another. In order to have a stable system, things must then be generalized. In order for an interaction to be stable, both participants must have an idea of the same general outcome. Parsons’ used a statement that defines what a person’s role is in the social system. He states, “For most purposes, therefore, it is not the individual, or the person as such, this is a unit of social systems, but rather his role-participation at the boundary directly affecting his personality.” I feel that what Parsons’ is saying about social systems is that everyone is a part of them as long as they are having some sort of social interaction. People behaviors and processes may vary, but it is the stable outcome of interaction that makes social systems complete.
Manifest and Latent Functions [1957] Robert K. Merton
The difference between manifest and latent functions is between conscious motivations for social behavior and its objective consequences. It is indicated that the motive and the function vary separately and that the failure to record this feature in terminology has contributed to the unwitting tendency among sociologists to mix up the subjective categories of motivation with the objective categories of function. The adoption of the terms manifest and latent by Merton is used in a different context. A manifest function refers to “those objective consequences for a specified unit (person, subgroup, social or cultural system) which contribute to its adjustment or adaptation and were so intended.” A latent function refers to “unintended and unrecognized consequences of the same order.” The specific distinctions between manifest and latent terminology can result in heuristic purposes and has served in many analyses of social problems. The distinctions between the two terms are not to limit the possibilities with the usage, but these distinctions can be applied to specific usage and is explained here on in.
Heuristic Purposes of the Distinction
This distinction aids in sociological interpretation of social practices even though their manifest purpose is not reached. These practices are such that they are referred to superstitions and irrationalities. Therefore, the behavior cannot be reach rational purpose and is due to low intelligence, survival purposes, and sheer ignorance. It is name calling. It substitutes superstition for the analysis of the actual role of this behavior in the life of the group. With the term latent function, the behavior of the group may perform a function for the group, even though the function might be quite secluded from their confirmed purpose of the behavior.
The attention is drawn away from the behavior to another range of consequences. The attention is drawn to the individuals and why they are persistent with this behavior. With the Hopi tradition referred to in the book, the problem of the manifest function occurs, it becomes a problem for the meteorologists. Meteorologists agree that there is no technological use and the purpose and actual consequences do not coincide. With the concept of latent function, the analysis is turned to the groups conducting the ceremony. The ceremony has functions, but they have no purpose or latent. The latent function of ceremonies is for group identity and unity bring even the outsiders in for a common activity. Therefore, irrational behavior at times brings positive function. With the behavior that is not clearly attainable, social scientists are less likely to examine the latent functions of the behavior.
Manifest and latent functions goes further to the domains of behavior, attitude, and belief where the observer can apply special skills. The concern is largely in determining whether a practice instituted for a particular purpose and achieves the purpose. It is said that the sociologist should study of manifest functions rather than by the theoretical problems. This emphasis on the sociological view is that the association as a concrete group of human personalities informally involves many other interests. The inclusions of this concept can sensitize sociological investigators to a variety of major social variables, which are otherwise easily overlooked. It is precisely the latent functions of a practice or belief which is not common knowledge, for these are unintended and usually unrecognized social and psychological consequences. As a result, findings concerning latent functions represent a greater addition in knowledge than findings concerning manifest function.
It is stated that the social life isn’t as simple as it first appears. When people shut themselves off, it is easy to pass moral judgments about the practice or beliefs. The evaluations are usually either black or white. The evaluations in society are in part largely in terms of the manifest consequences of a practice or code, when we should be looking at it in terms of the latent function. Therefore, we should ordinarily expect the behavior to perform positive functions, which satisfying basic latent functions.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Chapter 25 The Souls of Black Folks
When reading W.E.B. Du Bois’ The Souls of Black Folk I was intrigued how he writes like it’s a story. Right off the bat he starts talking about two different worlds, the one he is in and the one everyone else is in. I am assuming he means a black world and a white world.
He mentions that people masked the question, “How does it feel to be a problem?” That people mask the question when it is posed, yet when it is directly spoken, the only thing you can say is nothing. Du Bois goes on to talk about how when you have only known “being the problem” what can you say. He goes into explaining that as a little boy he didn’t realize he was different until a little white girl refused his visiting card. After that he didn’t see a reason to rise above this “vast veil”. While he was beating his mates, others were getting the prizes and he realized he could read law or heal the sick and that’d show them. Yet he basically watched other black boys let their differences get to them and he and they ended up in prison.
Du Bois then goes on to talk about the well known term “double consciousness”. He defines this term as the black man being second in America and only sees himself through the eyes of which others in America see them. No true self consciousness. The world looks at him/them in amused contempt and pity. He says that there is always going to be a feeling of “twoness”.
Du Bois starts to talk about the history of a Negro American. He says that the history of a Negro American is the constant strife or fight between his own self consciousness and merging into a better person. All he wishes is that it was possible to be Black & American. It’s kind of like what is said in class, “What is more important to you, being American, being Black, being female?”
Du Bois then gets into the point about the Negro’s power. In history black man’s powers have been forgotten. Even after Emancipation the lack man hesitates which makes him appear weak. When really it’s what Du Bois calls “contradiction of double aims”. According to him, this is what creates the poor craftsman.
The only other thing I really got out of the chapter was about freedom. He says that “few men ever worshipped Freedom with half such unquestioning faith as did the American Negro for two centuries.” Basically saying that what the black man sees as freedom and what the white man sees as freedom are completely different.
Finally, he talks about prejudice. He defines prejudice as what sociologist explain it as, “the natural defense of culture against barbarism, leaning against ignorance,, purity against crimes, the ‘higher’ against the ‘lower’ races.” Du Bois mentions that this leads to the lowering of ideals and repression, contempt, and hate.
Chapter 22: The Stranger
Georg Simmel states that “the stranger” presents the synthesis, or combination, of being detached from every point in space and the attachment to any point, this is a reason as to why spatial interactions are important aspects of relationships among men and that they are considered to be symbolic of those relationships.
Simmel says that the stranger will not be spoken of as the usual meaning of the term, which is speaking of a “wanderer who comes today and is gone tomorrow, but rather the wanderer who comes today and stays tomorrow.” He means that the type of wanderer that will he will be discussing is the one that stays but can never really get over the way that he was able to come and go and he pleased. He is placed in a social circle but his relation to the people also in the circle are affected by the fact that he was not initially belong to the group but brings qualities to the group that are not natively in the group
When he talks about the stranger in human relationships Simmel says that the stranger is remote to people that are near and is close to those that are remote. He means that when it comes to the stranger the people that are remote don’t really seem to exist to us at all, “they are beyond being far and near.” These are the type of people that the stranger doesn’t think about at all.
All through history of economic activity the stranger makes himself a trader, which is only needed when goods are produced outside the group. Meaning a stranger is the only one in a group that communicates with other groups which makes the stranger himself relate to the ones that are farther away and not to the ones that are near. Trade can is only a suitable occupation for a stranger because the stranger is someone who joins a group where all the other economic positions are taken. The stranger is regarded with mobility with is comes to trade and to pure finance. Since he is regarded as mobile he come in contact with every person/position but rarely does he establish any type of bond with them.
Since a stranger has no roots to the place where he might settle he can look at the group objectivity unlike the others that live in the same group. Simmel believes that this can be related to aliens that are immigrating into a country. Objectivity can be seen with the stranger that moves on. It happens here because he then receives the most confidences of things that are kept hidden from everyone with who they are actually close to. Objectivity is seen as a positive type of participation and is seen as a type of freedom. It is seen this way because a man that is object is then not bound by his prejudices. He can look at every experience with clear eyes.
Since the objectivity that a stranger has he is more likely to have the more general qualities in common with the people that he does business with. They wouldn’t have to worry about trying to have more personal qualities in common with the stranger. Relationships are not determined only by the common interests but also the things they don’t have in common. The effect the commonality has on the relationship depends on whether it is because of the individuals in the relationship or because they both belong to the same group. The stranger is as close to the group as they fell because they belong to the same group but far from them because the similarities don’t extend beyond what connects them and a wide range of other people. A stranger is part of the group but at the same time people don’t become as close to him as they do to other members of the group because they don’t become as involved in the group as most people do in the group. Type rest of the post here
Chapter 25: The Souls of Black Folk [1903] W. E. B. Du Bois
Remembering that this chapter was written in the early 1900’s, Du Bois’ content concentrated on a the Black individual self within society. He describes quite clearly the social distance between the White Americans and the Black Americans, creating a type of “veil” among these Americans. Du Bois also made a point about Black Americans having a double consciousness (one black and one American).
This chapter’s main focus was on the Black self and the race’s relationship with the rest of American society. I’m sure, or at least hope, that we all know about the struggles throughout history among the black race in the
I think that it is safe to say that the Black population has made their mark in society since this particular theorist wrote this chapter. Although racism, prejudice and discrimination are still present within today’s general public, our country on the “racism front” has drastically improved since the days of Du Bois. As an example, I don’t think that anyone (Black, White, Red, Green…whatever) in the early 1900’s would believe that a Black man could become this nation’s President.
Overall, I don’t really feel like this chapter revealed anything different from what we have heard before (on the news, from our parents/grandparents, teachers, SOC-301 in class discussions). We all are aware of the black inequalities in this nation’s history. However, Du Bois does present his thoughts/information in a way that shed some light on these issues in a different way than I had knowledge of.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Chapter 19: The Types of Legitimate Domination
After reading Weber’s take on, “The Types of Legitimate Domination” it seems pretty clear on the way a government or a society has to be set up in order to maintain a community and in a civilized manner. Weber explains that there are basically three types of legitimate domination which comprised on rational ground, traditional grounds, and charismatic grounds. These types of dominations help to maintain the stability or the effectiveness of domination of another group of persons. Furthermore I will be focusing on the aspects of the concepts and levels that need to be taken to espouse the ideals of legal authority with a bureaucracy and its administrative staff. In order for legitimate domination to take place these ideas and steps need to be accepted by the community and followed.
The concepts that are mentioned consist with the willingness of a society to accept a legal norm and have it imposed with in that society and all the persons in it and its surrounding areas. Next would be after the imposition of the laws put on the society officials with in the administration in power must apply and hold to the rules set and enforced. Moreover the officials and the superiors of this system must subject themselves to the ideals that they have set and maintain their position through their actions and acts of authority.
In addition to that the people under the authority of the system in place should comply with the authority only as a ‘member’ and what he follows should be considered ‘the law’. Furthermore the member, who is under the authority of the superiors in power, shouldn’t have to ‘obey’ those who control them as themselves, but rather as a member of that society. It is basically saying that a person need be forced to have obedience they just need to have the societal obligation to adhere to the rules set forth by those in power.
There have been many types of authority with in societies but he purest of the types of legal authority would have to be one that has the ‘bureaucratic administrative staff’. In this type of authority there is only one superior or person in complete control and has the upper hand over the ranks of authoritative officials beneath him. The administrative staff then itself complies with certain criteria and guidelines that have to be implemented in order to maintain this purest form of legal authority.
Some of the attributes and restrictions that are compulsory to hold a position with in the administrative staff are that the person in this position they are ‘personally free and subject to the authority only with respect to their impersonal official obligations; then the staff is divided into different levels of offices with in the system; the administrative staff also has knowledge of what is needed to perform and sustain authority in their position; every position is opened to free selection (in other words not really elected yet they are appointed because they are the best qualified forth job); next the staff is obligated to as certain salary according to their rank in the hierarchy; the staff member treats this position as the main occupation they have. The system in which they are in consist of possible advancement in the in the system, which is only determined by the superiors of that system in call. Moreover the position is not choices that they official is making but that of his superiors and the person in question is not to take ownership of the methods or orders in which are given to them, although obligated to the disciple and control that the office demands from him as an official.
I think control over an individual is usually wrong but in this case legitimate domination over members with in a society is a way to prevent chaos and maintain a civilized form of obedience. Legitimate domination over a society is a good way for a community to not lose control over themselves and also have a sense of security of who they are and where they belong in the system.
Ch. 18 - Class, Status, Party
This chapter is all about the different status, class, and parties that people come from or work there way into. This is very different for him than it is to all of us since we don’t have these separations to the extent that they used to be. But it still defines where this feeling of power, or honor come from, which both deal a lot with each status, class, and parties.
Weber starts this chapter with status which comes from those who own property and those who lack property, which in today’s society would be the rich and poor. He breaks down status even further from property owners to what type of property they own such as warehouses, and then for the people who lack property that offer services down in to types of services the offer. Then there are status groups that are within statuses. These people according to Weber are those “whose fate is not determined by the chance of using goods or services for themselves on the market, e.g., slaves.” Of course we always have to remember this is not written in recent times, but in America today I would say status groups no longer exist since everyone has equal opportunity for everything.
One way Weber defines class from “economic interests,” when he defines class interest he explains how it’s not interest with if you like what task your doing or not but he states class interest as “the class situation and other circumstances remaining the same, the direction in which the individual worker for instance, is likely to pursue his interests may varey widely according to whether he is constitutionally qualified for the task at hand to a high, to an average, or to a low degree.” Being qualified at a low degree does not give a lot of interest to the person for whom the task is being followed through for; which leads to a lower class.
I think Weber contradicts himself when he says “property as such is not always recognized as a status qualification, but in the long run it is.” But he then later says “Both propertied and propertyless people can belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences.” If property in the long run is a status qualification how can people with out the same property status be in the same group?
For the ethnic segregation and caste system Weber states how “status group evolves into a closed caste. He then defines caste dealing with religion that have “distinct cults and gods.” I have always figured caste systems were always segregated by economic status only. I think we should all be thankful that caste systems aren’t to the full extent today that they were back then, even though some people look down on the poor when they have a lot of money.
Finally Weber comes to parties which are most of the time mixed from status and classes. Today besides Republicans or Democratic parties I would say Weber definition of parties is more like our organized clubs today. Weber defines parties as “their action is oriented toward the acquisition of social power, that is to say toward influencing social action, no matter what it’s content may be.” For example a club today is about the animal humane society, in which their social action is to save animals.
No matter what status, class or party people are or come from today’s society is all about choice and equal opportunity, unlike back in Weber’s time. I am very happy that our society as worked it way to what it is now.
Chapter 19 - The Types of Legitimate Domination [1914]
In Weber’s “The Types of Legitimate Domination,” he discusses how one group basically dominates over the other. Every type of domination/authority requires some type of voluntary compliance or obedience of one group to another. People may be motivated to comply, but they ultimately do it on their own will.
Legitimacy is just one basis for following domination. Legitimacy varies and can be accepted on so many different levels. This basically means that one had so believe a cause to be “noble” or “true” enough to follow and dedicate themselves to. Because there legitimate domination is so complex, it has to be classified in three different claims: rational grounds, traditional grounds, and charismatic grounds. Rational grounds are also known as legal authority and these are rules that people have rationalized to be true. We believe is a set of rules and give the right of enforcing those rules to another person or agency. A great example of this would be the police. We believe that stealing is illegal so we have the police catch criminals. Traditional grounds are a belief that some things are around so long that we don’t know why we even follow them anymore. The Queen of England has no real power, but there has always been a king or a queen “in charge” of England even if they do not have any legitimate power. Charismatic grounds are based on the notion that someone has exceptional character and is a hero in some sort of way. Any superhero is an example of this. They are looked at as a hero in the community for doing things that a “normal” person couldn’t do.
Legal domination can only work if certain specifications are met. There has to be a jurisdiction for the rules to be applied. Rules have to be enforced in certain areas. The rules that are formed have to be enforced by the government and also have to be in the interest of the government and have to be conforming with the previous laws laid down by the government. A person in authority is also held accountable by the laws that he enforces. Everyone “below” the leader does not necessarily have to follow him, but what he represents. These qualifications are what it takes to create “legal authority.”
Traditional authority is derived from old-time traditions and powers. The tradition is maintained throughout time and is manicured to fit a set of ideals and a projected image. Obedience is to the person not to the set of rules. The real administration (legal authority) is bound to their loyalty to the superior and is then given their responsibility. If there is resistance, it is against the leader, not the system. In the “pure” type of legitimate authority, it is impossible to create law or administration. This means that because the leader is god, judge, and jury, they are the final word at any matter. They are free to create policy or administration if feel it conforms with their rule. The leaders are expected to keep tradition that is passed down from their ancestors.
Charismatic authority is based on elevating a person based on their possession of extraordinary qualities. It is really interesting on how these charismatic leaders are looked at by the people that follow them. They are followed by people on their own free will. “Ordinary” people truly feel that the leader is truly genuine. People are in complete devotion to the possessor of the elevated quality, as the book states. The leader needs success to show the people that they need his “powers.” Once success fails, the leader has nothing to left to benefit the people and they move on to someone else. The leader needs to be surrounded by people that are tailored by the qualities they possess that make the leader look even more “god-like.”
I think that I understand everything that has been stated above. The last section, “The Routinization of Charisma,” completely confused me. I do not understand how charisma has anything to do with economics.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Chapter 18 Class, Status, Party
Weber starts this chapter on class, status and party out by saying that people want power, not just so they can make a ton of money but also for the honor that it brings with it, namely social honor. He goes on to say that power may not bring social honor but that it might be the other way around, being honored in society makes it more likely that you will be economically powerful. Because of the distribution of power in communities, classes, status groups, and parties are formed.
Weber defines “classes” in three ways. 1) people that have things in common that are 2) the things they have in common are the goods that they have and how much money they make and 3) are “represented under that conditions of the commodity or labor markets. I am not really sure what exactly he means with the 3rd part.
He says that the mode of distribution pretty much creates a monopoly for the rich and that the poor can’t even compete for the highly valued goods, only the rich can. Property and lack of property are the two categories that all classes fall into. I think that what he is saying is that the kind of property you can have differs; it depends on how much money you can make with it or off it.
People will pursue what they are interested in depending on how qualified they are for that position. I’m not quite sure if this is right but I think Weber is saying that people will also pursue what they want depending on how much of an issue it is for other people in similar situations. They will only do this as a result of a distribution of property or as a result of the structure of concrete economic order.
Weber says that classes are not groups. Social action isn’t necessarily accomplished by people of the same class but from different classes that have come together. He says that “class situations of the worker and the entrepreneur are: the labor market, the commodities market, and the capitalistic enterprise.”
Class situations are strictly economic but status situations include everything in normal everyday life that determine honor (or lack of honor). It can also be linked to class because class can bring honor, but it doesn’t have to be. It doesn’t matter if you have property or not to belong to the same status group. People within the status group usually live the same type of life style and normally you have to be in the same status group to marry (at this time). Weber is basically saying too I believe that in order to be a part of the status group you pretty much have to look the part to be accepted, meaning you have to dress like them, ect.
Toward the end of the article he talks about the caste system a little bit. He says that individual castes develop their own gods and cults because they are in no way supposed to mix with castes above them. Weber says that people of different ethnicities are told not to mix at all and have to stay in their certain designated areas and not interact with anyone else.
Weber says that some statuses are privileged and are allowed to do things that other statues are not. The high status people normally like to keep the wealth and status to themselves and they tend to monopolize goods. Everything that is in style has come from some status group who has monopolized that item.
Parties fit in to classes and status groups but are in the “sphere or power.” Parties always strive for a goal or cause. They do not have to be strictly class or strictly status parties; most times they are mixed.
I tried as best I could to get as much meaning from this article as possible. It was kind of hard to understand for me. It basically just outlines the definitions of classes, status groups, and parties and how each one comes to be and how it functions. I hope this is helpful but please elaborate on thing that I might have missed or misinterpreted
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
In chapter 17, the focus of Weber’s point is the comparison between capitalism and religious association, throughout the course of history. Weber immediately suggests that historically, religious affiliation may contribute in some way to one’s economic status or condition.
This argument can be seen through the many differences displayed within the workforce between both Catholics and Protestants. Weber points out that throughout the course history the common tendency for Catholics to remain in their field crafts and move on to become masters within that field is extremely different from a large group of Protestants. Weber points out that Protestants are known for being attracted to higher ranking, more skilled positions, such as administrative positions. This is believed to be explained by religious ideals expressed through environmental factors, such as the home (parental) and community. Weber continues by describing how the religious atmosphere promotes education, which ultimately contributes to the choice of occupation and pursuit of a professional career. Weber presents the idea that Protestants dominance in the business setting can also be contributed to an inherited wealth. Weber also suggests that this wealth shaped the areas where Protestants lived. These areas were more developed and wealthy; this wealth played a major role in providing them with the availability of education.
Rich Protestant towns also developed religiously at the same time. This phenomenon of the evolution of the church, during the same time as the increase in financial power left many seeking reform of the church’s control. At this time, a large number of people felt the church had too much control while others felt there was not enough, either way reform was desired. Weber points out that this reformation would not mean eliminating the control of everyday life, but substituting it for more lax practices.
Weber moves his discussion on to the concept of, “The Spirit of Capitalism”. The spirit of capitalism can best be described as one’s desire to accumulate wealth. In a capitalistic society, making money is an ethical standard of life, which is a want of all individuals who participate in it. According to Weber, man is dominated by the making of money to obtain material needs. Weber points out that, the current capitalistic economy forces the individual, if involved, to conform to the capitalistic rules of action. If the individual chooses not to follow the rules, they will be eliminated. This elimination is seen through what Weber calls, the economic survival of the fittest, where subjects are educated and selected.
Capitalism cannot flourish in a society where people are undisciplined, is an idea brought up by Weber. This is proven through the example of agricultural workers. Weber relates the topic of increased pay/increased productivity to that of discipline. He shows the reader that people practicing a more traditional form of capitalism, when placed with the opportunity of earning more was less attractive than that of working less. Many of those working men often faced the question, “what must I do to take care of my traditional needs.”
Later in the chapter Weber focuses on Protestant asceticism and the relationship to capitalism. He begins by describing how Protestant asceticism acted a powerful tool used against the spontaneous enjoyment of possessions or luxuries (restricted consumption). Weber highlights that wealth can be accumulated through saving, which in return can lead to investments and a spark in capitalism. He also noted that by making labor a religious calling to God, allowed the spirit of capitalism to flourish.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Chapter 17: The Protestant ethic and the spirit of Capitalism.
Chapter 17 describes the history of capitalism as it relates to religion. Weber points out, when comparing religious affiliation and capital in the very first paragraph, that the business leaders and owners of capital are overwhelming Protestant. He mentions that, at least in the time he wrote this, that this was true pretty much everywhere capitalism spread.
Weber says that the reason for these Protestant leaders being can be explained by historical circumstances, “In which religious affiliation is not a cause of the economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of them.” The reason for Protestant ownership of businesses and trade skills, Weber says, is that two important things were needed, wealth and education. In the 16th century he says that the majority of wealthy towns belonged to Protestantism. That brought him to asking the question, of why the rich Protestant towns were favorable to a revolution in the church at the same time as they were rising in power financially.
From what I understood from Weber’s point of view, the problem was the control the Catholic Church had. Depending on where you were at in the world at this time, it seems that some places thought they had too much control, some thought they didn’t have enough, but either way the general consensus was that some form of reform was needed.
As for the Protestants of todays society, (which for Weber would be early 1900s) Weber sees the Protestant control of many businesses as being a function of inheriting wealth. They apparently, in the past, have out proportioned Catholics in attaining higher education, compared to the general population. As confusing as that may be to read, basically it means in terms of the proportion of Protestants and Catholics furthering their educations, Protestants in the past won that fight and was able to pass down more material wealth.
Weber next starts to get into what he calls the spirit of capitalism. This phrase being in the title of the article one might expect a clear cut definition, but none is given. Weber instead points out how he feels the spirit of capitalism can only be built out of looking into the past, and makes an excellent point that other researchers, or just people in general, when looking at the same phrase, might analyze it in a completely different way and find different points they find important.
After quoting Benjamin Franklin for awhile, he finally gets to what I feel is a good description of how people feel about capitalism today. People work to get money, and they will do so for as long as they can. Weber points this out in the story about the retiree trying to convince his friend to retire as well, and his friend simply replies that “he wanted to make money as long as he could.” This is the difference Weber thinks, between the old capitalism, and modern capitalism. “Man is dominated by the making of money,” which is a great example, I think, of modern capitalism and according to Weber is actually an irrational and backwards way of looking at the “natural relationship.” Weber’s modern capitalism still stands today I think, as he points out, it is “economic survival of the fittest.”
Weber next gets into the idea of trying to maximize efficiency which overall should maximize profits. He makes an interesting point using agriculture, that in general when raising the wage of workers, efficiency actually goes down. Which makes sense if you think now that the wage is increased; the worker can make the same amount of money that he was before by actually working less. Weber calls this an example of traditionalism. As opposed to his modern capitalism idea, that people just want to make as much money as possible, in traditionalism people only want to make as much as they need to live on.
Later in the chapter, Weber starts talking about female workers. He basically calls them stubborn and points out that once they learn how to do something, they are resistant to changing their ways, even if the newer method is more efficient. He even takes a stab at intelligence and says that it is hard for females to “concentrate their intelligence, or even use it at all.” After belittling female workers, he gets to the point that females of this time were particularly religious and states the idea that “the chances of overcoming traditionalism are greatest on account of the religious upbringing.”
Asceticism and the spirit of capitalism is a different twist from the rest of the chapter. It starts to point out that as capitalism became more modernized, that luxury and “irrational use of wealth,” became more common and accepted. Weber uses the idea that capital is accumulated by saving money basically, which led to “productive investment of capital.” From what I get from this part of the chapter is that using traditionalism-like methods, such as saving money and not splurging on irrational things, led to accumulating wealth, which in turn led to investments and modern capitalism arising.
Although this was rushed a little because I thought it was due tonight and not last night, what I got out of this chapter, which obviously may be entirely different from other people, is that religious practices and traditionalism go hand in hand with capitalism. What I mean by that is what I understood from the chapter is, that the need for religious reform was caused by people wanting to be able to accumulate more capital. On that same note, the ways of traditionalism in the end, led to attaining more capital by saving all the money, and eventually changing mind sets and deciding to spend some of the wealth they accumulated which helps fuel capitalism to begin with. So although capitalism and religion have roots far in the past, through reform, and capital accumulation itself, it ends up just being a big circle where one affects the other and around and around it goes.
Chapter 16: Basic Sociological Terms - Russell
In reading this chapter I found that Sociology is concern with the understanding of social action. And this action is attached to an individual's social and pysical behavior. It is unimportant if is viewed openly for all to see or quietly express in the form of jesters.
Because behavior is such a rational and irrational act, it is still viewed as a scial act. And according to this idiot his methodological view is that which has more than one meaning. These actions are not always verbal; they can also be expressed physically, like in the form of a frown, or expressed by individuals in the form of hostility these are all considered as visible forms of physical action and yet they are still viewed as social action.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Chapter 15 "Objective" in Social Science
I am going to be perfectly honest when I read Max Weber’s piece on objectivity in social science I was slightly confused and I still do not fully understand all of what he was saying because he seemed to contradict himself with his main points.
Weber maintains that there is no way to explain social values scientifically because values are not scientific they are created by the culture and not scientific in any way. He believes that we should never try to mix values with science because they are two separate things that can not explain each other; but rather you can only use them to explain themselves, for example economics. Economics is treated as a science but the three laws of economics are based upon the values of those who said that they were the laws of economics and therefore is not scientifically valid because the whole “science” is based on cultural values and not fact.
Because you cannot use scientific fact to explain values you cannot use science to compare religions, or governments or anything social because society and values are not scientific, you must have a value oriented point of view. In other words one cannot detach from your social self when studying different societies because it is the only way one can understand it. According to Weber one must focus his thoughts inward when studying a society because it is futile to try and explain it intellectually.
This is where I begin to get confused because, from what I understand, Weber also argues that one must stay objective when studying sociology. Well at least as objective as possible being that total objectivity. How can Weber tell us that we must focus our studies inward and at the same time tell us to be as objective as possible? How can we be scientific in any way if society cannot be explained by science and only by values which cannot be explained in any intellectual way? Weber left me confused and with many questions which I tried to explain but only left me questioning not only Weber but myself.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Basic Sociological Terms [1914]
Sociology, to Weber is the mere understanding of what people do and why. When starting out reading this chapter, it was difficult for me to understand. I can only give you what I got out of this individually. Weber believes that understanding why one might choose to perform a certain action,can be looked at either on an emotional or a rational level. He also states that choices we make are not solely based on what we believe, but what the people around us believe, and how our choices will affect them also.
Sociology, to Weber is the mere understanding of what people do and why. When starting out reading this chapter, it was difficult for me to understand. I can only give you what I got out of this individually. Weber believes that understanding why one might choose to perform a certain action,can be looked at either on an emotional or a rational level. He also states that choices we make are not solely based on what we believe, but what the people around us believe, and how our choices will affect them also.
People constantly wonder, why it is we do the things we do? What drives us to act in such ways that seem right to us in a certain state of mind, but goes against what others see fit? Many times people think that we are emotionally driven individuals. Weber agrees to this to a certain extent, but also believes that, as individuals, we can base our actions on a rational level as well. That we do not always act on what we feel inside, but what we can logical see fit to do in certain situations. The question that arises is, whether one choose to do something because they know its right, or do they choose to do it because they feel it is right? He brings on the valid point of trying to understand the meaning behind it all. Why do we act as we do? What is behind it all?
He goes on to talk about irrationalism. This could help us to understand why we choose to go certain routes. He talks about how certain actions can be brought upon by a stressful situation. When looking at choices we make, we have to look at the question, would a person make the same decision and perform the same action if it was a similar situation but a less stressful one? An example that he uses in the reading is the stock exchange. Behavior that would have been seen on any other day, suddenly is changed in an irrational way, when a panic is brought upon an individual. However, when reading this, I kept going back to, what exactly is irrational behavior? I understand that it is a choose made without logically looking at the circumstances, but does irrational behavior always have to be looked at being something negative?
As I was reading, I found many of the Methodological foundations hard to understand. The way some of the things were worded made it difficult to read. When reading the section on motive, I found it a little easier to understand. However, I think this is because of the idea of motive that is already in my mind. He states: "Motive is a complex of subjective meaning which seems to the actor himself or to the observer an adequate ground for the conduct in question." What I think he means here is in way motive is justification for an action that you have performed. I know from my own terms that motive is a reason given to do something. When he states what he constitutes motive to be, it seems as though he is saying you have to be able to not only account for the actions you do and how they affect you, but also the people around you. They have to also see it fit to perform an action for a specific reason.
In the last part of the chapter he goes on to discus social action. What I got from this was that even though things may be done on a social level, or with the participation of others, when it comes down to it we are doing it for ourselves on an individual level. Everything around us can be done on a social level without doubt, an example he uses in the text is religion. Some may see religion as a social gathering or even, meeting with groups of people, or letting others reflect on your religious views. However, what Weber is saying is that it can also be done on an individual level, religion does not have to be looked at on a social level if you are for example, choosing to seclude yourself and pray on your own. He even talks about how as a whole we may do things similarly to one another, but in actuality it is just a common action in order to better ourselves. With this however, the common action that was performed was initially learned from one another. We may do things on an individual level, but it was something that was in the beginning learned from the other members of the society.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Chapter 16: Basic Sociological Terms [1914]
What is the definition of sociology and of social action? Weber goes on through the entire chapter to give a good explanation of the types and reasoning of why people do what they do. It’s as simple as that, right? Well, after reading this I now know that there are more reason to our actions than simply basing them on internal emotions. This piece of writing covers all kinds of rational and unrational explanations for why humans react the way they do to life processes. Now my interpretation may be a little off, but I am simply going to explain what I took from the chapter.
The section about methodological foundations got me a bit confused. Weber explains that there are two kinds, the actual existing meaning or the theoretically conceived pure type of subjective meaning. Basically, this is to determine whether an action is relevant, or if the action is based on a person’s emotion and meaning of the situation. The rational meaning can then be broken down. If a person is acting rationally, there must be a reason why. People can act logically and mathematically, or they can it can be more internal and be based on empathic or artistically qualities. For logic and mathematical reasons, individuals must have prior knowledge or they may think a problem through to find an appropriate answer before acting on it. Emotional means are not as high regarded since a person’s actions are based on no actual proven theories, but their internal instinct. I do somewhat agree with this idea from Weber. Sometimes people’s judgment can be clouded by their emotions, causing them to act irrationally. On the other hand though, some to the best instincts to acting come from internal drive.
I liked this statement by Weber. He states, “Every interpretation attempts to attain clarity and certainty, but no matter how clear an interpretation as such appears to be from the point of view of meaning, it cannot on this account claim to be the causally valid interpretation. On this level it must remain only a peculiarly plausible hypothesis…” What I believe Weber is saying here is that we can only try to predict why people take the actions they do. In other words, we may never know why people react in situations, so we must only try to observe and make predictions and hypothesis on why a particular course of action was taken.
I am going to skip ahead to the idea of social action. I actually found this to be the most interesting part of the chapter. This for me, related more to my idea of sociology and how people react in society. This section did cause me to develop a few questions though. Do we really act based on how our peers and other members of society act? Have we been conditioned to act certain ways and express dominant behaviors on matters simply because of our cultures? I felt that Weber’s statement of the cyclists was a good way to clearly define social action. He states, “A mere collision of two cyclists may be compared to a natural event. On the other hand, their attempt to avoid hitting each other, or whatever insult, blows, or friendly discussion might follow the collision, would constitute ‘social action’.” Perhaps they do not feel it is acceptable to react in a violent manner towards each other. The next example Weber used is more clearly related to what I believed was a main cause for people’s action in social situations. Weber gives the scenario of people all putting their umbrellas up during the rainstorm at the same time. He then says, “It is well known that actions of the individual are strongly influenced by the mere fact that he is a member of a crowd confined within a limited space. Basically I think Weber is trying to say that we sometime do things because everyone else is doing them. We are known to learn from others and mimic them. In our society, people usually feel the need to conform.
The types of social actions given make sense to the idea of crowd confined within limited space. In the least complex way of describing what these are, and how they affect people actions, they go as follows: 1. expectations set by the environment, 2. person beliefs or ethics, 3. emotional state, 4. doing what you have been taught. Each of these factors contribute to the logic or emotional reasoning based on a person’s actions. Some of these being rational or irrational, but overall, Weber believes that these are the keys in forming hypothesis and predictions.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Chapter 15: "Objectivity" in Social Science
I had to have read this piece by Weber 3 times and only came away asking myself more questions than produced answers. Reading this stuff makes me wish I could have had just ONE opportunity in life to talk 1 on 1 with all of these sociologists and see if I'm on the right track in my analysis.
In “Objectivity in Social Science”, Max Weber’s critical point was his concern of whether people making sociological arguments factored their evidence off of their own personal values or just off of simple, concrete facts. This makes the reader ask themselves a few questions: 1. Does objectivity apply only to values, only to facts, or both? AND 2. Can objectivity be used to show that one value is equally superior to another? As confusing as it is to really come up with a clear answer to these questions, one other factor must be criticized before moving forward: Weber’s methods. Some of his evidence/ideas are described in ways that he has tried to make statements that deny the ability for science to overrule his position. “Whoever accepts the proposition that the knowledge of historical reality can or should be a ‘presuppositionless’ copy of ‘objective’ facts, will deny the value of the ideal-type….Every conscientious examination of the conceptual elements of historical exposition shows however that the historian, as soon as he attempts to go beyond the bare establishment of concrete relationships and to determine the cultural significance of even the simplest individual event in order to “characterize” it, must use concepts which are precisely and unambiguously definable only in the form of ideal types” (212-213).
The answer to the above questions at the beginning is tough at first to answer because Weber kept a two-way approach to value-free social science. From what I’ve read, he believed that ultimate values could not be figured out just by using a simple fact-style analysis. Therefore, while comparing different religious, political or social systems, one system could not be chosen over another without taking a value or end into consideration. On the other hand, Weber believed that once a value, conclusion, end, purpose, reason or perspective had been established, then a social scientist could attempt an investigation without values into the most effective means within a system of bringing about the established end. Similarly, Weber believed that objective comparisons among systems could also be made once a particular end had been established, acknowledged, and agreed upon, a position that allowed Weber to make what he considered objective comparisons among such economic systems of capitalism and socialism.
Even though Weber maintained that ultimate values could not be evaluated objectively, this belief did not keep him from believing that social problems could be scientifically resolved, that is, once a particular end or value had been established. One might think that Weber is just craving attention for coming up with numerous viewpoints in this section, but he cleared the air for every reader in the following: “Now all this should not be misunderstood to mean that the proper task of the social sciences should be the continual chase for new viewpoints and new analytical constructs” (216).
Let’s see if I can come remotely close to understanding this: Weber wants the people with the values (mostly religious folks) and the people with the facts and materials (mostly government folks) to come to a rationalization that the human institutions were not developed by materialism and facts, but by religious values. It’s appropriate to call into question Weber’s methods because it can be argued that Weber premeditated the fact that if he based his whole argument on religious values, then nobody in this world could then argue against him. This is because religious values are very tough, if not impossible, to justify scientifically (That is, to break down reason by reason, etc.) as opposed to arguments based off of concrete facts, which can be replicated with research. Last I checked, religious beliefs cannot be replicated because none of us were around to see Jesus born and begin this universe. Therefore, we can only stand strong by our values.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Suicide
“No living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are sufficiently proportioned to his means. In other words, if his needs require more than can be granted, or even merely something of a different sort, they will be under continual friction and can only function painfully. Movements incapable of production without pain tend not to be reproduced. Unsatisfied tendencies atrophy, and as the impulse to live is merely the result of the rest, it is bound to weaken as the others relax.”
In the first paragraph Durkheim jumps right into things. I think this paragraph really dives into Durkheim’s view on this idea of anomie. After reading further I was able to concentrate less on the idea of living beings and more on this idea as it applies to humans. In a way I think that what Durkheim is saying is true. In order to survive a person’s needs must be met, but Durkheim is talking about way more than a humans basic needs and this is where I find that I disagree with him. I think that he is saying that we all have certain goals in life we want to achieve, which is true, but if we don’t reach these goals we can never be happy, and I think this is completely false. Sure when people don’t get exactly what they want out of life they tend to get upset about it but I don’t think a majority of the people start to lose their will to live just because of that, and that’s what I thought Durkheim was saying with this.
“Unlimited desires are insatiable by definition and insatiability is rightly considered a sign of morbidity. Being unlimited, they constantly and infinitely surpass the means at their command; they cannot be quenched. Inextinguishable thirst is constantly renewed torture.”
Unlike the last passage I found myself agreeing with Durkheim here. I think these insatiable desires are just ways of keeping people busy. It’s almost like people are searching for something that can end their thirst for happiness. I don’t even know if that makes sense but it seems like Durkheim is saying that people who can’t be happy with what they have are always looking for something that will end that unhappiness for good and it isn’t possible for them because they aren’t able to keep their desires in check.
“To pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness.”
This quote follows directly with the last one and only reinforces the same idea. He’s telling us in a different way that these goals these people are trying to reach can’t be and unless people can stop reaching beyond their grasp they can’t be happy. The sentence after this one discusses the idea of hope but the truth is hope can only go so far; that hope won’t get a person through life.
“To achieve any other result, the passions first must be limited. Only then can they be harmonized with the faculties and satisfied.”
In those two sentences I almost feel like Durkheim is trying to teach people how to fix the problem of these unattainable goals. He’s saying that as long as people make smaller more attainable goals happiness is possible. People have to look at their lives and see what resources they have available to them and with those resources they can make more realistic goals and then it will be much easier to satisfy those goals.
“In the case of economic disasters, indeed, something like declassification occurs which suddenly casts certain individuals into a lower state than their previous one. Then they must reduce their requirements, restrain their needs, learn greater self-control…But society cannot adjust them instantaneously to this new life and teach them to practice the increased self-repression to which they are unaccustomed. So they are not adjusted to the condition forced on them, and its very prospect is intolerable; hence the suffering which detaches them from a reduced existence even before they have made trial of it.”
In this paragraph Durkheim is telling us that sometimes the feeling of anomie isn’t our fault. Sometimes economic disasters occur beyond our control and it sends people into a downward spiral. Suddenly people are now lower on the socio-economic ladder than they have ever been and the goals they could reach before are now unattainable. Society doesn’t tend to bounce back quickly either so people are stuck in a situation they’ve never been in before and they go into a big rut. I find this is all too real to us right now. In the state of our economy I can’t help but to agree with Durkheim. My grandfather lost over one million in the stock market crash and is only left with a small amount of money for his retirement. Like everyone else he is more stressed and isn’t sure what to do now. He seems to have lost hope and that is why I was able to relate to this particular passage so well. So I agree that people can lose themselves when something like an economic collapse happens but I think that people are able to bounce back and look at more positive things. Then again I may be a bit of an optimist.
“Poverty protects against suicide because it is a restraint in itself. No matter how one acts, desires have to depend upon resources to some extent; actual possessions are partly criterion of those aspired to.”
It is here where I find myself disagreeing with Durkheim most. I don’t think that people who are living in poverty are more protected against suicide than those who aren’t. Sure it’s true that their resources are limited most and with what I’ve said above that should mean that they have set lower goals but I can’t say that I think that’s true. I think people who are in poverty are more at risk when it comes to suicide. I think they are more susceptible to living unhappily because they most likely have the most unattainable goals, but I could be wrong about that. If what Durkheim is saying is true then I would think that people in poverty are happier than those who aren’t. I’m just saying that because in previous passages Durkheim hinted that those who are able to achieve their goals are happy and those who can’t are doomed to a life of unhappiness, and if that’s true then those in poverty have much smaller goals in life and are able to achieve them more often so in a way they should be the happiest people in the world. Now if I were to ask children in Darfur if they’re happy I doubt they would tell me yes. I could be reaching a little too far here but that’s what I got from that passage.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Chapter 13: The Elementary Forms of the Religious LIfe
In Chapter 13 Durkheim begins by explaining why he feels his methods for studying religion are best. He explains that in the past people studying religion have started with their assumptions and made hypotheses that were set up to get the answers that they wanted them to. Also they chose to study religions that fit into the points they were trying to make. Another downfall of most of the religion study going on a this point Durkheim points out is that many religions are very much comprised of things of secondary importance and it is hard to find what is primary and necessary to the religions and what has simply been added on over time because of the changes made over time.
In “lower societies” as Durkheim puts it, religion is more primitive, there is less development of individuality and personalities and religious beliefs are less differentiation. Therefore, Durkheim argues that studying more primitive religions makes it easier to see what is primary, what the religion is truly centered on, “Since the facts are simpler the relations between them are more apparent. The reasons with which men account for their acts have not yet been elaborated and denatured by studied reflection; they are nearer and more closely related to the motives which have really determined these acts…”
This idea makes sense to me, because time has a way of complicating things, and taking organizations further from their purpose. As an example, it would be much simpler to see what the true meanings, goals and purpose of Christianity were in the days when Jesus was alive or when the apostles were alive and the purpose was clear, what Jesus wanted was all that was important and his words were still fresh. It would be much harder to see what was of primary importance hundreds of years latter when the Catholic church had become a political power and largely corrupt, it would be very hard to study it then and see what was truly important to the religion.
Another distinction that Durkheim feels is very important is that between a religion and religion in general. Religion in general has many important characteristics but it is impossible to find these things by looking at a particular religion, it is imperative that those studying to look at many different religions if it is going to be possible to see what is true of religion in general. Durkheim specifies that it is not the surface level things they have in common that is important, not the rituals and visible things that are important, but things like cosmology (an idea of how the universe began and the structure of it) and some sort of divinity, though Durkheim points out that it is a mistake made because of the religions of familiarity that it must have a god. I think he makes good points here as well, that religion is a hard subject to study objectively, but it is important if people are to make points about generalized religion.
Durkheim points out that knowledge, science, and philosophy have roots in religion. He points out that the domain of religion has been narrowed in recent history. That religion used to be the authority on all realms of life instead of it’s narrow domain in peoples lives now. It used to be that everything in life was dictated by what religion said about it, now even more than when Durkheim was alive. Now church and state are legally separated, and most people feel that religion is a thing for Sunday mornings and not a way to live their lives.
Aristotle called the intellectual ‘roots of our judgment’ categories of understanding. Durkheim explains that these ideas: time, space, class, number, cause, substance, personality, etc. are necessary frame which allows us to understand things. He goes on to say that this is a sort of logical conformity that we all must adhere to in order to be able to understand one another. These are the things that we must assume everyone else is on the same page, and therefore allows social interaction. Because of the importance of these ideas they are intensely internalized. And If someone operates outside of these walls it makes them ‘inhuman’ in a way because it isn’t possible to be social, and therefore not a human. It is an interesting idea to think of an intellectual frame work that is what allows us to interact with each other. Think of how much must be assumed for people to interact.
These categories of understanding are found in primary religion Durkheim explains, “They are born in religion and of religion; the are a product of religious thought” This is also showing how much religion is a part of all of life, and how much religiosity shaped how life evolved and is a part of things that today we wouldn’t consider religious.
He goes on to split thought into two different kinds. Durkheim splits it into empirical (provable or verifiable by experience or experiment) and thought which is more complex, and less provable, more intellectually fathomable . He compares them to the individual and how the individual within society. He explains that, “There are two beings in him: an individual being which has its foundation in the organism and the circle of whose activities is therefore strictly limited, and the social being which represents the highest reality in the intellectual and moral order that we can know by observation - I mean society.” He shows that by being a part of society a man can rise above the limitations of his singular physical boundaries. Durkheim explains that society raises the need for the individual to rise above the limits of himself and religion is a way for him to do just that.
Religion is often a way for a person or people to become more important that they are as individuals, but society in the same way can be a way that people go beyond the limitations of being just one person. Religion can also give purpose to society that makes it more stable. For example feudalism relied heavily on religion as a way to keep things the way they were. By saying that it was God that said those who were power belonged there it gave much higher purpose to those ruling. Religion also allowed peasants to believe that they were not just toiling away with no reward, they could believe that they were going to be rewarded in the next life.
Imperfect societies forming the ideals and perfection of religion may seem unlikely, but Durkheim says that this makes as society develops an ideal develops along with it. “For society has constructed this new world in constructing itself, since it is society which this expresses. Thus both with the individual and in the group, the faculty of idealizing has nothing mysterious about it. It is not a sort of luxury which a man could get along without, but a condition of his very existence.” Also, religion isn’t only the perfect and ideal, there is divinity symbolizing evil and bad things too. He argues that religion is really an extension and exaggeration of real life, a reflection of society. Durkheim shows that religion is sort of like an intellectual answer to society. He suggests that religion is an explanation for the feelings we have but cannot explain though empirical, so they are explained by morphology. Durkheim suggests that, Showing that to construct a society an ideal is necessary.
This makes sense because society is not perfect or ideal, but when constructing a society there is an ideal which is trying to be reached. When making something new, or when growing it is hoped that it will be better, that it will be good, even though it isn’t always. This could be part of the reason that there is always an ideal created alongside the creation of a society.
“There can be no society which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and the collective ideas which make its unity and its personality.” This is Durkheim’s explanation for the physical manifestations of religion is that they what reminds people, what keeps the truth of their beliefs fresh. I think he is saying that these physical, empirical actions of religion is not the point of religion and more of the particular, not the general religion that it is much more important to understand, which is why ideas must be studied not just actions.
He ends with a section pointing out that there is a turning over of these ideals, along with the turn over of society. This brings back his point that it isn’t the ideal at odds with the real, its that two ideals are at odds with one another. I think this is an interesting point because whenever there is war or revolution it is the ideals that are told to the population, it is the ideals that make people willing to fight for one side or the other despite that there is often more pressing issues more based in reality that the war is really being waged over.
The beginning of Protestantism for example this was a clash of ideals, some felt it was better for individuals to have a more direct relationship with the Bible and with God. While others still held the ideal that what they were doing was right and the Church should have control over these things. It was not the ideal clashing with reality, it was the ideal associated with the reality clashing with an ideal that would be part of a new reality.