“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.
3 comments:
Suicide
I agree with the way you interpreted Durkheim. I know he can be a little confusing at times, but he makes valid points. The first quote, just like you, I agree on certain parts of it. I do think that we all have certain goals that we want to achieve. In life many of us strive to graduate college, have a family, and so on. I do not agree with Durkheim when he continues to say that if we do not achieve these goals we won’t be happy. Many of us change what is important to us. We don’t achieve certain goals because we as individuals have changed and that goal just is not as important as it once was.
Durkheim has thoughts of how we can only be truly happy if we think of things realistically. I agree. We need to be realistic with the items on our “want” list. If we know that we can or could possibly achieve these things realistically we won’t be let down.
Durkheim also makes the point that poverty stricken people are more protected from committing suicide. I disagree. I think that poverty stricken people are more devastated about what they don’t have compared to others and as a whole they want what many people can afford. Not only are they upset that they don’t have it, but they are upset that they can’t provide for their family like those people of higher socio-economic status. And those people who are so poverty stricken, that they are homeless, often are portrayed in the public eye as a burden, “dirtying the streets”. That is a lot of baggage to handle compared to someone of middle class.
I'm going to play devil's advocate a bit when it comes to certain arguments from this chapter and respective blog post and response.
I think Durkheim was trying to say that people with no goals and people with unlimited goals cannot be satisfied. If one does not strive towards any goal, their life becomes a stagnant mess, and happiness cannot be found. If the goal is unachievable, high levels of disappointment will arise and eventually one will give up hope. Like both the blogger and first responder said, challenging but realistic goals are most likely to bring happiness to one's life.
I agree with Durkheim about poverty stricken people being somewhat sheltered from suicide. Does that mean that no one who is poor has ever killed themselves? No. I think what Durkheim was trying to get across is that poor people have less to lose (before you get upset with me for saying this, hear me out...).
Poor people have less material goods, and those they do have are usually of less value than those who are considered to be a part of a high socio-economic bracket.
Let me switch gears quickly and let's consider children in both poor and 'rich' socio-economic brackets. A poor child probably lives in a neighborhood near families that have similar financial backgrounds. They have friends their age whose parents deal with the same money problems, work multiple jobs, and probably don't have extra money for the unnecessary luxuries in life (such as Ipods, vacations, etc). A child growing up in an affluent area, a rich suburb perhaps, has to deal with much more comparison. SO MUCH of middle and upper class America is about 'keeping up with the Joneses'. I've read a publication which said that 83% of families in middle and upper-middle class live above their means. When the kid from the rich area of town goes to school, they hear about the latest gadget their friends received and they immediately want it. The child hears about a fancy vacation in Europe and wishes their family could go. They feel embarrassment if they don't have the latest *fill in the blank with whatever is hip, trendy and cool*.
This doesn't mean the poor child doesn't want. I'm sure they want a Wii or a cell phone or whatever the item is just like any kid would. The difference is they don't see it around them. Their neighborhood isn't littered with people flashing their newest material good. However, the 'rich' kid does see this, and it create a deep-rooted issue: where nothing is good until I can have the latest thing, and happiness isn't achieved until I have the item.
Poor people do struggle, I know this. But let's make sure we're understanding the definition of poor (at least in America). We're not talking about the swollen-bellied children of Somalia. Poor people in America have it better off than most other countries. There are food stamps. There are shelters. There is Medicaid. I'm not saying everyone uses these systems, but they do exist here and not in some other countries.
To be labeled "poor" by the US government in 2009, you have to make $10,830(in a one person household) or less annually. That may not seem like a lot, but I bet most CMU students would fall into this category (If you work 25 hrs a week at $8/hr, and work EVERY week of the year, you still make $10,400, and that's not taking out taxes and social security.).
When you ask the happiest people you know what makes them happy, they are mostly likely to answer friends, a loved one, or family. Psychologists have done many studies on this. I'm sure you've all known someone that said money can't buy happiness. Poor people have less material goods, and are more likely to cherish what they DO have rather than cry in the corner about not having the newest Blackberry. They seem to be able to stretch a dollar more and are more likely to live within their means than those in upper-middle class. It also doesn't mean they have small goals, but maybe realistic ones. Are they going to be a millionaire? The odds of that aren't in anyone's favor. But do they want to have a family, have an honest job, stay close to religion,get a place of their own, avoid the risks that occur in poorer communities, and stay healthy.
People at the top of the socio-economic ladder have a lot further to fall than those nearer to the bottom. Yes, making just over 10,000 per year for a one-person household is humbling, but if you stumble, you can get back on your feet and get back to that place (or maybe higher) much more quickly.
Those who fall from the top of the ladder not only lose their money, but lose material goods, those things that they used to try to make themselves feel loved, worthwhile, and wanted. They can lose their shiny sports car, their house in the hills, the ability to pay for Jr.'s private school, lose their spouse, and lose the respect of their 'friends' in the neighborhood, who are now talking about how family X can no longer keep up with the Joneses. It seems like a lot worse to me.
And honestly, the children of Darfur aren't Googling themselves right now and having pity parties. Yes, they know they are poor (but SO many are in Darfur), and yes, they may be sad about it. But ask them if they're happy? I think they'd say yes. They're glad to be alive. They might be happy just to have one relative alive. They're happy they made it through another year without starving to death or being shot.
I think this is why we hear the stories of the middle class man shooting himself because it turns out he has a gambling problem, or an addiction to buying things and can no longer afford his lifestyle. You don't hear of Darfur children killing themselves because they didn't get Rockband for Christmas.
Everyone wrote really nice long comments for this article- I read "suicide" and followed it with much less trouble than his others. What I managed to glean was - don't shoot too high and you'll never be disappointed.
I cant help but feel the whole essay was saying you'll be much happier if you just choose to live in a constant state of mediocrity.
Which is not necessarily wrong
Post a Comment