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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Chapter 16: Basic Sociological Terms - Russell
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)