Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Sociology Sociological Theory from Durkheim to Weber and Mead and Hall Sociological Theory from Durkheim to Weber and Mead and Hall Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Mead, Stuart Hall 1) According to Durkheim, what produces anomie in society? (10) Durkheim focuses on the stability of society, and discusses the social causes of suicide. His work shows how ideology contributes to stability, and he describes abnormal conditions as anomie. Durkheim states, “in normal conditions the collective order is regarded as just by the great majority of persons …[b]ut when society is disturbed by some painful crisis or by beneficent but abrupt transitions, it is momentarily incapable of exercising this influence [of limiting desires]” What this means, is the dysfunctional and unbalanced state the populous mass has when there is rapid change in society, for better of worse. Anomie is the product of transition that leads to the incapability to know what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’. This is the consequence of the people’s solidarity in society, which suggests that laws benefit everyone to the same degree. Thus, the loss of laws, which is also the loss of limits, causes a loss of comprehension. Anomie, in its literal sense means “a lack of norms”, a condition in which society has when society has no norms. Durkheim refers directly to a state of economic turmoil, which he describes as “juridical and moral anomie in which economic life is actually found” . Juridical and moral anomie is describing the state a society has when there is an absence of laws, or a confusion of laws (juridical), and when the masses feel they have a lack of norms in terms of morality (moral). In order to understand Durkheim, one needs to assert the fact that Durkheim believed that people did not know if they were violating the law or not, for their status was in anomie. He felt tremendous confusion on what the right thing was, and, he saw that the economy was unregulated. It was not established what fairness was between the buyer and the consumer. The economic order had no occupational ethic upon which everyone agrees. His description of juridical and moral anomie was a conclusion to his reasoning that followed that: “the most blameworthy acts are so often absorbed by success that the boundary between what is permitted and what is prohibited, what is just and what is unjust, has nothing fixed about it” . Modern examples of this statement can be found with the scandal that followed with former President Clinton and his encounter with Monica Lewinsky. His affair seemed to be shadowed by his success in driving an economy and handling his job well. Another example of juridical and moral anomie in today’s society could be the deforestation of the rain forest, which has some significant ecological effects, and the wealth that comes from processing the wood. In turns, success forgives the blame. This is what Durkheim felt. He saw that if a society has no regulations, and if society is not open, anomie occurs and increases suicide. Durkheim states that “liberty is itself the product of regulation” leading to the knowledge that “I can only be free to the extent that others are forbidden to profit from their physical, economic, or other superiority to the detriment of my liberty.” Hence, one needs limits to acknowledge one’s happiness or success. In short, anomie is the chaotic state that leads one to say ‘is this right, or is this wrong?’ and leaves the person clueless about the answer. 2) Distinguish between Weber’s use of the term class and status. In your answer discuss (a) the definitions of class and status (b) what kind of actions one would expect from a class (c) what kind of actions one would expect from a status group. (10) Weber, unlike Marx, defines class and status more precisely. His use of these terms are not of economic classes, such as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in Marx’s vocabulary, but defines a more specific group of people. Class, according to Weber, is the “casual component of their life chances” . ‘Life chances’ implies the patterns of opportunity that appear in life, but what determines the possible life chances? Weber determines that people are shaped by a common cause, which is something that is going to limit or expand their life’s chances. An example of such, would be a child born during a war, this would greatly affect, and direction his life, in comparison to another child born into a royal family. This common cause is what Weber depicts as ‘status’. Unlike Marx, the uses of these two words are more precise in the vocabulary of Weber, and his explanation of one’s life chances as someone born with different but yet similar economic possibilities. Marx eliminated this, with the abdication of two classes: owners and non-owners. Weber’s full, detailed definition of class is as follows: “We may speak of a “class” when (1) a number of people have in common a specific casual component of their life chances insofar as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor markets. This is “class situation.” With this, Weber describes all types of individuals and all the factors that can affect or direction their lives. For example, (1) implying that either born on the streets or born in a palace, the possible directions are very different and affect each one's respective survival chance. (2) states that some are born in different yet similar economic conditions, and thus survive accordingly, and thirdly (3), “condition of commodity” implies that some labor activities fluctuate, such as a 'lobotomist' today is no longer performing lobotomies, for such a practice has been extinct, but a natural gas owner would be in a state of frenzied ecstasy, especially if he resided in Northern California. Weber describes status as social honor. He states that: “social honor is distributed in a community between typical groups participating in this distribution we call the “status order.” The prime example of contemporary low social honor, hence status, would be a wealthy drug dealer. This drug dealer is extremely wealthy but has low status, because his job or occupation is one that is degrading and labeled “bad”. Weber describes three orders of ranking in society: The first being the ‘income order’ which ranks members of society according to their income. The second division of the first order being the “economic order” which ranks individuals on their personal wealth, on the basis of how much they are valued in society. The second being the “social order” that ranks in the guidelines of ones appearance, ones education level, and so forth. Social order, also as ‘social status’, is possibly clarified with the following example. A Status ranking of a male dominated society would suggest that men have more respect because of their status, and this example is functional with any other kind genre. Status is the prestige one has in society, it is the respect one gets in society, and excludes the economic factor that is a recurring factor in the previous order, and subdivision of social forms of ranking. In the early days, priests were highly regarded and widely respected and they gained no income from their job, but being a priest was something considered to be honorable. The third order of ranking is the “legal order”, which implies that some people who don’t have any documents don’t have any rights, and could be treated differently. In today’s modern society, this legal order could apply to gay and lesbians, children under the age of sixteen, individuals with no documents, and also to clergymen, such as the Bishop has more rights than a nun, and so forth. The economic factor is, once again, excluded from this order of ranking. Thus, class and status have different terminologies than Marx, and as one can perceive, they are also increasingly precise. Weber asserts that, “[i]n contrast to classes, Stande (status groups) are normally groups” which is the basis of organization. Status groups (Stande) are almost anything else that is not economic, and so that status groups expect similar life styles or style of life. Status groups can be defined by small, slightly insignificant actions, such a becoming embarrassed over something. This is a clear indication of social status, for what embarrasses one person signifies their limits of normality and basis of life. If you, the reader, feel uncertain about your status group, ask yourself the following question, and the answer might say it all: “Who would you like to be associated with/ see about with?” “In content, status honor is normally expressed by the fact that above all else a specific style of life is expected from all those who wish to belong to the circle.” This question will define the margins of your status groups. Such contemporary examples of this could be the golf club, or an extremely selective club with membership, etc. Status groups define themselves by style, such as submission to fashion, an almost intent social intercourse. A homeless citizen is a status situation, as much as a wealthy citizen is a status situation. Weber understood the importance of underlying status honor and status group, because “stratification by status goes hand in hand with a monopolization of ideal and material good or opportunities…” Thus, implying the manners in which one is raised in enhanced by their status. The importance of a status group is its ability to remove itself from the circles of life that it wishes not to participate with. Think of today’s modern membership clubs, that allow members of the affiliated only, and all are excluded. This is the corner stone to remaining a status group alive, for if it opens itself to the general public, dissolving the criteria’s needed to enter into the circle, the status group loses the “preciousness” of its own status. If Stanford University allowed all to enter, it would not be beneficial to the institution, for its level of admission would no longer exist and the fact that any person in the spectrum of high and low statuses can enter, diminishes the status of the institution. In brief, class is related to production and status is related to consumption, which is not always economic rationality. Take caviar as a prime example of wealth for wealth, which represents a certain class, and status, when it has no direct correlation to the product itself, and is essentially a question of status, and sometimes of fashion. Fashion is in constant movement, such as status can change with economic wealth. New wealthy people will change what is considered normal for those belonging to that particular status groups, and in turn, affect the direct of fashion (even if it’s a relatively small influence). Status influences one class position and influences ones wealth, and so wealth influences ones status. However, both class and status are influenced by the legal order. Status groups and class are all subjected to social action. 3) Give an example of an individual (an actual person or a type of person) who has legitimate authority. In your example explain the source of the person’s authority. (10) To have legitimate authority, one must start by looking at Weber’s paper entitled “Legitimate Authority”. The discussion Weber undertakes is that having power will get what you want in “social action”, and must be in social action in order to be validated, for if it does not exert a pressure on someone or thing, it is doing very little to disrupt anything, and thus can be brushed aside and ignored as a bell ringing in a vacuum. Power, is something many undertake to mean authority or domination, and a distinction must be made. Domination is defined by Weber to imply “the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” As Weber suggests, power is but power, and can be used for good or ill, but legitimate authority is certainly not power, but a type or power. Some forms of power which are not exerted as a form of domination, “implies a minimum of voluntary compliance” , because people put themselves in positions of domination for the simple reason that people have a interest in obedience by a “custom and material calculation of advantage” , which could come from traditional backgrounds embedded in a person, a personal advantage factor, and/ or a purely affect ional purpose. However, as Weber portrays, domination requires a staff, “that’s is, a special group which can normally be trusted to execute the general policy as well as the specific commands.” And to ‘calculate one material and custom advantage’ on the basis of purely economics will not create a stable situation; “Purely material interests and calculations of advantage as the basis of solidarity between the chief and his administration staff result, in this as in other connexions , in a relatively unstable situation.” Domination needs to establish itself as some form of legitimate domination, hence, legitimate authority. To do this, Weber suggests that people have self-interest in complying with others, and suggests three methods of identifying legitimacy in an exertion of dominance. “There are three pure types of legitimate domination. The validity of the claims to legitimacy may be based on: 1. Rational grounds – resting on a belief in a legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under the such rules commands (legal authority) 2. Traditional grounds – resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them (traditional authority); or finally, 3. Charismatic grounds – resting on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (charismatic authority).” Weber’s first distinction as ‘legal authority’ is based on a rational grounds, which rests on the belief of the laws, and rights of people, qualifications, degrees and educational values. A reasonable example of a legal authority could be judge, who, through his legal position, asserts that he has a more broad knowledge of the law than most, and thus is a legitimate form of (legal) authority. A police officer would also qualify as a legitimate authority, and portrays this so with the presence of a badge, uniform, etc. The state, then, has a monopoly on legitimate forms of violence. Authority that comes from an institution is legal authority, rational and bureaucratic authority. When the military, when serving the peoples interest and rights, is an upheaval of resistance, and a legitimate from of authority. When the military stops serving the people, or does keep its people’s interests at mind, it is an illegitimate abuse of power. Consequently, the state’s legitimate authority extends to violence, and violence is not a legitimate form of authority. Crime, the act of exerting force, is an illegitimate form of authority as it uses force and violence as its means, and cannot be regarded as a genuine form of authority. The Christian Pope is a traditional authority, which places figures in position of authority under basis of practice, and time-enforced credentials. The father in a family could be considered the “boss” of the family, because of his gender, and this is a suitable form of traditional authority. Although, in the 21st century, many traditional authoritative figures have been slowly destroyed, some still remain, and is still a form of legitimate authority, because their influence is a moral, and has tremendous power in shaping, directing, and influencing people’s lives. Without traditional authority, ministries would not exist. The royal family would also be jeopardized so traditional authority does have a place in society. Thirdly, charismatic authority is an authority on the basis of a person’s exemplary personality. Very much distant from the other forms of authority, as this primarily focuses on the individuals characteristics, and leaves out economical, educational, and others, out of its spectrum of allowance. Martin Luther King was an exemplary figure that became an authority through his vivid speeches, his strength, his visions, and his dreams. On the other side of the scale, one has Hitler as a legitimate authority, a charismatic authority which manipulated, convinced millions on the basis of his manner to speak, to manipulate and his obsessions. Although Weber distinguishes these three types of authority, one rarely sees just one of these qualities applied directly to just one person. In most circumstances, people have multiple uses of authority, such as charismatic and legal, a combination of these three, because real people do not exactly fit or fill these definitions solemnly. From these, charismatic authority seems to be the one with the most “authority/power”, as history shows. Charismatic authority leads to a threat in traditional and legal authority, such as Ghandi telling his people to break the laws in a form of protest. Martin L. King instructing people to resist laws, all in the name of human rights. Nevertheless, if charismatic authority is a stronger authority than legal, or traditional, the one weakness of charismatic authority, is that it disappears with itself. When the proclaimed charismatic authority disappears, dies, vanishes, he takes the authority with him, takes his authority ‘to the grave’, so to speak. And so, Weber transitions this argument into the form of bureaucratic control, which, once established, is very hard to disassemble it, and thus prevails the authority. 4. Give one example of an actual bureaucratic organization. Describe how that organization has three typical characteristics of a bureaucracy as described by Weber. (10) Weber describes a bureaucracy as a “modern officialdom” in his essay entitled “The Bureaucratic Machine” . Today many institutions function under the principles of a bureaucracy, which has specific criteria’s in order to be considered a bureaucracy, in which Weber describes. He states the following as characteristics of a bureaucracy: 1. A fixed and official juridical area is established having legal authority and regulating duties are fixed in a regular manner. 2. The Authority is distributed and delimited. 3. Qualified people are hired in which there is a structured way in verifying qualifications/standards 4. Written records are kept to insure that, unlike charismatic authority that takes with it its authority, the documents will stay and regulate abstractly to the best-of-the-ability of the next person on the job. 4. Dehumanizes people because the members transform into figures and numbers. Thus, a bureaucracy can symbolize any institution that remains, after people come and go. Today, many forms of bureaucracy constitute a major slice of our lives, and one amongst many of these examples, could be a Presidential home (such as the white house) The President of any given country, providing we remain in the range of democracy, constitutes the foundational elements of a bureaucracy. For clarity’s sake, I will focus on the United States of America’s Presidential ‘office’: the white house. Being made up of members that work in specific areas to accomplish the tasks needed, the white house is almost a perfect definition of a bureaucracy as it is explained. In the white house, one finds “fixed and jurisdictional areas” which are governed by legal authority, such as rules and regulations. The white house is subjected to same laws that everyone is. The white house has also a distribution of authority amongst the present members, and is delimited. As the president to any other member of the white house, whose authority is of the highest degree, in comparison to a secretary and the vice president. In the white house, “qualified people are hired”, for, if they were not qualified, one must seriously question the ability this government has. Excluding the white house, this is constant request amongst any company, institution, bureaucracy, that seek workers. One cannot work without the necessary qualifications, even for the most elementary job. Furthermore, ‘written record’ are kept, which sustain and pro-long the livelihood of the white house, which is in constant transition between members but fully stable in its position and function. The people might change, but all inside stays the same. Last, but not least, the dehumanization of the people are apparent when they are not composed of important positions, one addresses them by their function, and not by their persona. It is an interesting fact to consider that a “bureaucracy inevitably accompanies modern mass democracy in contrast to the democratic self-government of small homogeneous units.” A special correlation between democracy and a bureaucracy exists, because it is supposed to serve equality and supposedly reflects the consent of the governed, hence the people. But bureaucracies are the institutional level of equality, almost the industrial materialization of the concept of democracy, making my example an extremely valid one. 5. Stuart Hall describes five elements of the way national cultures are formed by discourse. Give one example of the discourse of American culture to illustrate one of five elements described by Hall. (10) One element of the formation of national culture found in the United States of America is the symbolism that ‘Thanksgiving Dinner’ represents. Stuart Hall describes one of the elements of national culture by its struggle and almost ‘death-of-the-nation’ incident in which thanksgiving dinner has come to cherish. He states that: “ Most modern nations consist of disparate cultures which were only unified by a lengthy process of violent conquest” The traditional American dinner illustrates the creation of America. For, if it were not for the longevity of the pilgrims that colonized America, today’s America might look very different than ‘America-as it could have been’, and thus, the scare of being obsolete creates national symbol, a national link with every single American citizen. Thanks giving day, is a day when one is thankful for all the things in his/her life, and thus recognizing the fragility of life and being thankful for life. The civil war movement established national culture bringing hidden meanings in the confederate flag. The struggle between the south and the north prevailed to establish one nation under one flag, although we still find in America many forms of anger and struggle amongst the south and north, as well as blacks and whites, and an increasing minority hate attacks. Part B. Comparison of Durkheim and Mead 6. Compare and contrast what Durkheim and Mead have written about the way societies maintain common understanding. Durkheim asserts in his essay “The Cultural Logic of Collective Representations”, that there is a collective representation in peoples mind. The divergence between an individual representations that portrays itself through certain memories, understanding, peculiar associations that are fundamentally individualistic and personal, have also shared meaning in society. This implies the collectivity of thought is the power/trance like state a society brings when something above human experience, calls the sensations that large groups feel in effervescent. A power that is above them. Therefore, a collective gathering creates an increase in energy, psychic energy, which is the power of society. The consequence of this is that it charges our feelings, and thus asserts itself as real. “Nothing is ever founded on a lie” , and accordingly traditional people feel their strength or their shared values through the rituals that they expose, and they feel the intensity of what they believed as a group and through the process of the ritual. Collectivity opens up feelings and sensations that are real, and thus the experience is real, then it is real. This is why people refer to the Christian cross, because it replaces the process of the experience in one. Symbols and rituals can rewrite collectivity, and convey the experience and can replace the collectivity or the reminder. Although it is but an image that is being represented, that portrays a meaning, it is real to the user because it what we judge ourselves by, and communicate by, and give meaning to, is in the representation. Thus, culture is a shared meaning of beliefs and representation, even if one does not share the same the experiences and values, one cannot dis-aknowledge them. Nevertheless, if one does not feel that the collective representation fulfills his/hers wishes or desires, or fulfill their expectation, or representation, one becomes a rebel. One cannot be distant from it, for if one acknowledges it, then, consequently, and inherently, they become part of it. As collective representation builds itself up, it spreads. Durkheim suggests that the image one has of oneself is what really shapes society. The reflection of our images, gives a sense of unity and solidarity in society. This is what Mead discusses, in his essay entitled: “The I, The Me, and The Self”. Mead suggests that society has three components that influence its presence and its progress, and Mead identifies these as the “I”, the “Me”, and the “Self”. These factors influence society and its progress, but it is also equally true to state that these components are the result of society, and the product of society, because one produces the other but one also leads to another. Mead states that the Self is both subject and object, implying that when one ‘hears themselves’ before they talk, is seeing your words as an object. Mead establishes that the fundamentals in society rely on the self being translated as an object, as the idea that one sees himself, in society, as an object. This is the correlation, Mead and Durkheim have when identifying common representations found in society. Unlike Durkheim, Mead concentrates more on the idea of image in society and the question of identity, whilst Durkheim places more emphasis on collective representations in society. Durkheim evokes the concept that a joke is shared meaning amongst members of a certain group, and the joke only works because it HAS collective representation in society, and allows us the great benefit of understanding each other in society. But shred meaning is specific to a group, or can be culturally based, in which, many a times it is. Mead considers that people see others through interaction, almost through a looking glass of action, as interaction leads to an awareness of the self. Durkheim and Mead have a close relationship in the understanding of identity and symbols in society, but the one distinction that can be made, is the field of practice in which they exert their knowledge. Durkheim has an increased focus on the meaning of representations and how this is transmitted to the public, or the masses. Mead, on the other hand, works in the same playing field but has an increased curiosity and understanding of the sole person in society and how he functions in society, his roles, and his Self. Thus, Durkheim and Mead are extremely valuable theorists in understanding the collective representations of shared meaning in society, Mead puts forward the notion that one needs to develop an awareness of specific others in the context of parents, brothers, friends, suggesting that one needs to acknowledge himself through others. And this leads to an awareness of orientation through others, almost recalling the cliché line of “If your friends jump of a cliff, will you?” that I am convinced everyone child was asked when attempting to justify something by stating that others do it. Nevertheless, Mead says that this invaluable in gaining orientation and brings forth awareness of the generalized other, which are transcribed into the mass traditional symbols and actions. Given this, Durkheim follows up with the idea that “ the ideal society is not outside of the real society; it is part of it.” and that it is sui generis, implying that society is one of a kind. Above all, collective representations, mass traditional symbols, are more enduring, have more weight, and force in the world than other symbols. For it is this collective representation impression, that spreads the notions that one accepts, as opposed to individual representation that is bound to you exclusively, and that it is affected by your immediate touch, and limits your world. Durkheim being a conservative thinker, he strives for stability and has a sense that, in the goodness of society will prevail as the dominant force eventually. As an optimist he states that the potential for society to correct itself and produce much goodness is grand. Mead believes that that the “me” is recognizing oneself in the generalized other, having all the information internalized, falling on Durkheim’s individual representation perception. Meads isolation of the “me”, as a socialized self having internalized all the information gathered in society, could be the alliance of the beginning of the collective representation, and he continues to insinuate the idea that the “me”, allows one to live comfortably in society, because it’s the “me” that replaces the “I”, which can be understood through Durkheims individual, and collective representations of idea. If individual, representation is only limited to ones touch, and is affected by it personally, and the collective representation being an embedded though of wide spread agreement, then the “me” is the collective though that affects one, but only as it would affect the “me”, and the “I” is still hidden in the individual representation, that is affected personally by events, and its limited to one’s spectrum of life. In individual representation, as a form to express individuality as an “I”, affects the “me”, and the collective representation through interaction. As Mead suggests that interaction cause one to re-create the patterns of society. As raising a child can have different effects on the child depending upon the method used to raise him. Many roads can be chosen, and they all lead to a different place. Mead’s emphasis on individuality is due to his distinction that implies the “me” as the self seen in society, the “I” as a spontaneous, improvisatory and the self, and the self as an object. Thus, Durkheim believes that individual interaction leads to wide spread notions of collective representations, and the morality of jokes and that society is inherently good, and Mead suggested that one is made of three, and these components interact to provide common social understanding Bibliography: Word Count: 4995
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.