Chapter 2 Mechanical Solidarity or Solidarity by Similarities
In this chapter, Durkheim argues that repressive law reflects a society characterized by mechanical solidarity. In mechanical society, solidarity results from similarities between people. People act and think alike with a collective or common conscience that allows social order to be maintained. Deviation from the norm in a mechanical society is considered a crime and it is subject to punishment. Penal rules express the basic conditions of collective life for each type of society (32). Crime disturbs those feelings that in any one type of society are to be found in every healthy conscious (34). In 'Lower forms' of society (those most simply organized) law is almost exclusively penal or repressive e.g. religious law. The unchangeable character of penal law demonstrates the strength of the resistance of collective sentiment to a given crime and the reverse is true. Panel rules are presented with clarity and precision while purely moral rules are fluid. According to Durkheim, collective conscience or common consciousness is the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society that forms a determinate system with a life of its own. Durkheim defines an act as criminal when it offends the well defined state of collective consciousness (39).
It is actually public opinion and opposition which constitutes the crime. An act offends the common consciousness not because it is criminal, but it is criminal because it offends that consciousness. A crime is a crime because we condemn it (40). All crimes floe directly or indirectly from the collective conscience (43). The role of an authority with power to govern is to ensure respect for collective practices and to defend the common consciousness from its 'enemies.' In lower societies, this authority is greatest where the seriousness of the crime weighs the heaviest. Here the collective consciousness posses the most power (43). Primitive people punish for the sake of punishing causing the offender to suffer solely for the sake of suffering. However, nowadays society punishes in order to instill fear in potential criminals (46). Yet, punishment has still remained an act of vengeance and expiation (atonement). What society avenges, and what the criminal must expiate, is the 'outrage to morality' (47). It is the attack upon society that is repressed by punishment.
Punishment is a 'reaction of passionate feeling, graduated in intensity, which society exerts through the mediation of an organized body over those of its members who have violated certain rules of conduct' (52). Punishing crime sustains the common consciousness. Two consciousnesses exist within humans: one which represents individual personalities and the other which represents the collectivity. The force which is shocked by crime is the result of the most vital social similarities and its effect is to maintain the social cohesion that arises from these similarities (61).
Punishment publicly demonstrates that the sentiments of the collectivity are still unchanged (despite the deviant ways) of the offender and thus the injury that the crime inflicted on society is made good. Therefore the criminal should suffer in proportion to his crime. In fact, the primary intent of punishment is to affect honest people (63). In this chapter, Durkheim shows that a social solidarity exists because a certain number of states of consciousness are common to all members of the same society. This is the solidarity which repressive law embodies.
On the other hand, in industrial society, division of labor is complex. People are allocated in society according to merit and rewarded accordingly. In order to maintain social order in industrial (organic society), moral regulations were required due to massive violation of human rights. Such societies use restitution laws to bring order in society. Durkheim believed that transition from mechanical or organic society brought social disorder, crisis and anomie.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
EMILE DURKHEIM: DIVISION OF LABOR IN SOCIETY
Chapter 1: The method of determining this function
In chapter one, Durkheim establishes the role of division of labor. Division of labor increases both the productive capacity and skill of the workman, it is the necessary condition for the intellectual and material development in societies. Labor it has a moral character which is very important to society. Durkheim states that immoral actions (such as crime and suicide) tends to increase in industrial society and do not contribute to credit of civilization. Thus morality is very important in society and society can not live without it. Division of labor can promote morality and its true function is to create a feeling of solidarity between two or more people (17). Durkheim elucidates that similarity and dissimilarity can cause mutual attraction. Dissimilarity causes attraction because of complementarily. Different people are inclined to unite because we possess different qualities that complement each other.
To explain how the division of labor contributes to feelings of solidarity, Durkheim uses an example of a married couple. Men and women are attracted to each other because they are different, therefore, seek each other with passion. He claims that if the division of labor between the sexes were reduced to a certain point, material life would disappear, only to leave behind sexual relationships. The division of labor goes beyond purely economic interests; it constitutes the establishment of a social and moral order sui generis. Durkheim acknowledges that in marriage people are also bounded because of their similarities. In this sense, they are bonded outside the division of labor (22).
Durkheim asserts that great political societies cannot sustain their equilibrium save by the specialization of tasks; the division of labor is the source…of social solidarity. Durkheim states here that Comte was the first to point out that the division of labor was something other than a purely economic phenomenon. Comte argued that it was the 'continuous distribution of different human tasks which constitutes the principal element in social solidarity' (23). The division of labor has a moral character because the needs which it fulfills for social solidarity, order, and harmony are moral needs (24).
According to Durkheim, the most visible symbol of social solidarity is law and claims that solidarity and law are linked. He defines law as the organization of social life in its most stable and precise form. Life in society can not increase without legal activity. Thus all the essential varieties of social solidarity are reflected in law (25). We can classify different types of law to see which types of social solidarity correspond to them. Two types of law exist. The first type is repressive (covers penal law), which imposes some type of 'damage' on the perpetrator. The second type is restitution, which does not necessarily imply any suffering on the part of the perpetrator but consists of restoring the previous relationships which have been disturbed from their normal form (covers civil, communal, procedural law). Custom is not opposed to law and it forms the basis for it.
In chapter one, Durkheim establishes the role of division of labor. Division of labor increases both the productive capacity and skill of the workman, it is the necessary condition for the intellectual and material development in societies. Labor it has a moral character which is very important to society. Durkheim states that immoral actions (such as crime and suicide) tends to increase in industrial society and do not contribute to credit of civilization. Thus morality is very important in society and society can not live without it. Division of labor can promote morality and its true function is to create a feeling of solidarity between two or more people (17). Durkheim elucidates that similarity and dissimilarity can cause mutual attraction. Dissimilarity causes attraction because of complementarily. Different people are inclined to unite because we possess different qualities that complement each other.
To explain how the division of labor contributes to feelings of solidarity, Durkheim uses an example of a married couple. Men and women are attracted to each other because they are different, therefore, seek each other with passion. He claims that if the division of labor between the sexes were reduced to a certain point, material life would disappear, only to leave behind sexual relationships. The division of labor goes beyond purely economic interests; it constitutes the establishment of a social and moral order sui generis. Durkheim acknowledges that in marriage people are also bounded because of their similarities. In this sense, they are bonded outside the division of labor (22).
Durkheim asserts that great political societies cannot sustain their equilibrium save by the specialization of tasks; the division of labor is the source…of social solidarity. Durkheim states here that Comte was the first to point out that the division of labor was something other than a purely economic phenomenon. Comte argued that it was the 'continuous distribution of different human tasks which constitutes the principal element in social solidarity' (23). The division of labor has a moral character because the needs which it fulfills for social solidarity, order, and harmony are moral needs (24).
According to Durkheim, the most visible symbol of social solidarity is law and claims that solidarity and law are linked. He defines law as the organization of social life in its most stable and precise form. Life in society can not increase without legal activity. Thus all the essential varieties of social solidarity are reflected in law (25). We can classify different types of law to see which types of social solidarity correspond to them. Two types of law exist. The first type is repressive (covers penal law), which imposes some type of 'damage' on the perpetrator. The second type is restitution, which does not necessarily imply any suffering on the part of the perpetrator but consists of restoring the previous relationships which have been disturbed from their normal form (covers civil, communal, procedural law). Custom is not opposed to law and it forms the basis for it.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Insights into the communist manifesto
In the communist Manifesto, Marx argues that capitalism creates two classes i.e. the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat, classes live in antagonism. The bourgeoisie possess all the means of social production while the proletariat do not own any means of production. This creates social inequalities since the resources are concentrated in a few hands Marx discusses the process of advancement of capitalism. With the dissolution of the primeval communities, people who were involved in small or middle businesses were swept away and became part of the proletariat. The feudal society under went revolution with advancement from small to giant modern industry. This evolution was accompanied by the political advance of the bourgeoisie class. In the capitalist society, man is never free and is reduced to exchange value. The bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat, fostered by political and religious notions.
According to Marx, the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionalizing the instruments of production and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society (476). The constant demand for products keeps the bourgeoisie in ever changing social relations with the globe, creating relations between the producers, consumers and other participants in the market chain. The bourgeoisies centralize production and monopolize the market, compelling all nations to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production. Currently, this can been observed in the multi-national corporations that have dominated the value chain right from production to consumption. Their businesses are constantly moving across nations in search for cheap and other means of production to maximize profits. In the process, local laborers are being exploited. Since government and trade policies tend to favor capitalists, they, are better placed to take advantage of cheap labor.
With the extensive use of machinery and division of labor, the work of the proletarians has loses all individual character. Man becomes an appendage of the machine, his value diminishes and his exchange value is restricted to the means of subsistence. Marx predicts that the ever expanding union of workers, facilitated by improved means of communications, will empower workers to revolt and battle the bourgeoisie class. However, organization of the proletariat into political party is constantly weakened by competition among workers themselves. Marx advocates for abolition of private property and increase in social status in production. Marx predicts that in future, capitalism will be ruled out and replaced with socialism and communism. With abolition of bourgeoisie, individuality will be abolished; together will freedom under the bourgeoisie condition (free trade, free selling and buying). Although Marx predicted abolition of bourgeoisie property, we note that current governments are still capitalistic and even those that tried to adopt communism failed to achieve it.
Source:
Tucker, R. c. 1978. 1972. The Marx-Engels Reader. Second edition.
According to Marx, the bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionalizing the instruments of production and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society (476). The constant demand for products keeps the bourgeoisie in ever changing social relations with the globe, creating relations between the producers, consumers and other participants in the market chain. The bourgeoisies centralize production and monopolize the market, compelling all nations to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production. Currently, this can been observed in the multi-national corporations that have dominated the value chain right from production to consumption. Their businesses are constantly moving across nations in search for cheap and other means of production to maximize profits. In the process, local laborers are being exploited. Since government and trade policies tend to favor capitalists, they, are better placed to take advantage of cheap labor.
With the extensive use of machinery and division of labor, the work of the proletarians has loses all individual character. Man becomes an appendage of the machine, his value diminishes and his exchange value is restricted to the means of subsistence. Marx predicts that the ever expanding union of workers, facilitated by improved means of communications, will empower workers to revolt and battle the bourgeoisie class. However, organization of the proletariat into political party is constantly weakened by competition among workers themselves. Marx advocates for abolition of private property and increase in social status in production. Marx predicts that in future, capitalism will be ruled out and replaced with socialism and communism. With abolition of bourgeoisie, individuality will be abolished; together will freedom under the bourgeoisie condition (free trade, free selling and buying). Although Marx predicted abolition of bourgeoisie property, we note that current governments are still capitalistic and even those that tried to adopt communism failed to achieve it.
Source:
Tucker, R. c. 1978. 1972. The Marx-Engels Reader. Second edition.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Social Power
What is the nature of social power?
A dictionary definition of power is the ability to do or act, or the possession of control or command over others. Power is a measure of a person's ability to influence the environment around them, including the behavior of other people. Social power is the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes. Thus social power can constrain other people’s action and on the other hand, it can facilitate action in a given context. In social processes were we are involved with other people, our ability to satisfy our desires is determined by our ability to influence people with power or resist their efforts to influence us in ways we do not want. The ability to influence or resist is social power.
There are several forms of power and these include:
1. Economic power - to control production, resources and labor; to buy or control things with money or credit; and to influence consumption, production, prices, wages or other market conditions.
2. Government power - to formulate rules and policies that govern people’s action and behavior.
3. Physical or coercive power - to coerce behavior of others e.g. through use of force or violence. Although coercive power tends to be the most obvious, it is not effective because it causes resentment and resistance within the target audience.
4. Knowledge power - built by being well-informed and up-to-date with information. Possession of knowledge fosters persuasion of others.
5. Personal power - power of an individual in a given position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. This is the most obvious and also the most important kind of power.
Nature of social power
Social power is transmutable and fluid because it can be changed from one form to another in a given context. For instance, governmental power can be easily changed by war. Other forms of power in local communities such as kinships in Uganda may not be easily changed due to cultural or institutional norms that govern election of kings (a king rules a kingdom for as long as he is alive). However, it also flows across generations. This implies that social power is not static but flows among individuals, generations, and within and across institutions.
Social power can be active or passive. Individuals that recognize the power they have use it to influence others. However, individuals who fail to realize what power they have tend to be passive for example citizens who do not vote.
Social power does not come in separate pieces. Social power is organized into systems or structures of power such as organizations, family, community, religion, interest group, class, movement, political party, etc. All components or individuals within a given social organization influence or are influenced by a given form of power. Consequently, this influences the outcomes of the system.
Social power influences people’s freedom to satisfy their desires and the reverse is true. For example, people with lots of money (such as capitalists) can successfully influence other people (e.g. the workers) who may not have as much money. Marx discusses how capitalists use money to manipulate workers. Marx argues that money can transform an individual and their identity from bad to good. Money turns man’s powers into something which in itself is contrary. Therefore, the more power one has the less freedom the other party has to realize their desires. To be able to resist influence from people with power, it is important that we are conscious and aware of our desires and of possibilities for expressing and fulfilling them. We need the means and opportunities for satisfying our desires and address restrictions, coercion and, other factors that hinder self-determined realization of our desires.
Social power influences realization of democracy. Societies or social organizations were some people have more power as compared to others lack of democracy. This leads to unequal distribution of resources and opportunities thus generating social inequalities. To minimize social inequalities, social power should be equitably distributed among members of social organizations. I use the term equitable because practically it is difficult to realize equal distribution of social power.
In conclusion, social power is of significant importance to communities or social organizations due to the fact that it enhances social change and development. However, this can only be achieved in communities with equitable power distribution. Foucault noted that there is no society without power relations. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction.
References
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_democSocPwrAnal.html
http://changingminds.org/explanations/power/french_and_raven.htm http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.power.en.html
A dictionary definition of power is the ability to do or act, or the possession of control or command over others. Power is a measure of a person's ability to influence the environment around them, including the behavior of other people. Social power is the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes. Thus social power can constrain other people’s action and on the other hand, it can facilitate action in a given context. In social processes were we are involved with other people, our ability to satisfy our desires is determined by our ability to influence people with power or resist their efforts to influence us in ways we do not want. The ability to influence or resist is social power.
There are several forms of power and these include:
1. Economic power - to control production, resources and labor; to buy or control things with money or credit; and to influence consumption, production, prices, wages or other market conditions.
2. Government power - to formulate rules and policies that govern people’s action and behavior.
3. Physical or coercive power - to coerce behavior of others e.g. through use of force or violence. Although coercive power tends to be the most obvious, it is not effective because it causes resentment and resistance within the target audience.
4. Knowledge power - built by being well-informed and up-to-date with information. Possession of knowledge fosters persuasion of others.
5. Personal power - power of an individual in a given position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. This is the most obvious and also the most important kind of power.
Nature of social power
Social power is transmutable and fluid because it can be changed from one form to another in a given context. For instance, governmental power can be easily changed by war. Other forms of power in local communities such as kinships in Uganda may not be easily changed due to cultural or institutional norms that govern election of kings (a king rules a kingdom for as long as he is alive). However, it also flows across generations. This implies that social power is not static but flows among individuals, generations, and within and across institutions.
Social power can be active or passive. Individuals that recognize the power they have use it to influence others. However, individuals who fail to realize what power they have tend to be passive for example citizens who do not vote.
Social power does not come in separate pieces. Social power is organized into systems or structures of power such as organizations, family, community, religion, interest group, class, movement, political party, etc. All components or individuals within a given social organization influence or are influenced by a given form of power. Consequently, this influences the outcomes of the system.
Social power influences people’s freedom to satisfy their desires and the reverse is true. For example, people with lots of money (such as capitalists) can successfully influence other people (e.g. the workers) who may not have as much money. Marx discusses how capitalists use money to manipulate workers. Marx argues that money can transform an individual and their identity from bad to good. Money turns man’s powers into something which in itself is contrary. Therefore, the more power one has the less freedom the other party has to realize their desires. To be able to resist influence from people with power, it is important that we are conscious and aware of our desires and of possibilities for expressing and fulfilling them. We need the means and opportunities for satisfying our desires and address restrictions, coercion and, other factors that hinder self-determined realization of our desires.
Social power influences realization of democracy. Societies or social organizations were some people have more power as compared to others lack of democracy. This leads to unequal distribution of resources and opportunities thus generating social inequalities. To minimize social inequalities, social power should be equitably distributed among members of social organizations. I use the term equitable because practically it is difficult to realize equal distribution of social power.
In conclusion, social power is of significant importance to communities or social organizations due to the fact that it enhances social change and development. However, this can only be achieved in communities with equitable power distribution. Foucault noted that there is no society without power relations. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction.
References
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_democSocPwrAnal.html
http://changingminds.org/explanations/power/french_and_raven.htm http://foucault.info/documents/foucault.power.en.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)