Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Unit 1, Part 2, Activity 1: Read Durkheim’s Rules of Sociological Method, Macmillan, 1982, 50 - 60. Apply Durkheim’s argument, identify a social fact and consider your relationship to that fact: in what ways is it ‘external’ to you, and how does it ‘constrain’ you?
[S]tructure is systematic and patterned,
while agency is contingent and random;
… structure is constraint, while agency
is freedom; … structure is static, while
agency is active; … structure is
collective, while agency is individual.
Hays, 1994, p. 57
Common in social theorizing are dualities such as those described above by Hays. Another duality could be that while structure is social, individual is psychological or biological. In The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim argues against social philosophers and others who contend that social phenomena are no more than epiphenomena of individual biology or psychology and as such, social phenomena are reducible to and appropriately studied as fields of biology or psychology. One could say that for those social theorists, the social is always personal; there are no impersonal phenomena. However, in language, monetary currency, law, time, and other social phenomena, Durkheim observes social facts that are wholly impersonal because they cannot be created or changed by an individual; these social facts are not reducible to an individual. Consequently, he describes social facts as “external” phenomena because they are exogenous to the individual mind, objective, and observable. Moreover and arguably most importantly for Durkheim, these facts represent constraining forces on the individual.
Social facts are essential to the education/socialization of any individual, and every individual becomes (or is) a social being. Having been born and raised in the United States (U.S.), I have communicated and continue to communicate both orally and in writing in the American English language in order to be educated, employed, and otherwise active in the society. Since my birth, I have been exposed to and taught the rules and structure of the American English language and its applications. At no time have I or any other individual created any of the rules or structure of the language nor can I or any other individual change them; the American English language has and continues to exist externally to me and all other individuals. Moreover, no one, including me, forces it upon herself to learn and use the language nor has a political dictator forced me or any other individual to learn and communicate in the language upon punishment of death or imprisonment. However, I cannot act as if the language did not exist or were different than what it is.
The American English language is objective and both empowering and limiting. It is empowering because any individual, such as I, can use it to identify oneself and communicate with others within the society to obtain what s/he wants and needs. At the same time, American English is limiting because it constrains self-expression and communication with others to a particular set of sounds and symbols that I or anyone must duplicate in order to be understood by others in the society. If I were to do something as mundane as to order a restaurant meal in a different language, such as Ojibwe or Finnish, I could be understood and successfully responded to; however, it is more likely that I would receive silence in return, a simple request to communicate in English, or harsh words that other languages are not welcome by that audience. Most likely I would have to restate my order in English in order to get what I want. Although English is not the official language of the U.S. as codified by law, it is an obligation, nonetheless, of living in the country.
A social fact, such as the American English language, is a collective creation not reducible to the sum of actions of (separate) individuals. Although it is external to any individual and coercive, it becomes internal through formal and informal education and voluntary when an individual personalizes that collective creation. For example, American English is my primary and preferred language to hear, speak, read, and write; and I do not feel coerced to use it. However, it is easy for me to imagine my immigrant Finnish grandparents experiencing the frustrations and fears of having to learn and use a language that was until they emigrated unnecessary and undesired. The American English language, like any social fact, is both a product and a force of a particular society.
REFERENCES:
Class Notes to Structure & Agency in Modern Sociological Theory.
Durkheim, Emile. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method, 8th edition. The Free Press, New York.
Gidden, Anthony. 1972. “Introduction: Durkheim’s writings in sociology and social philosophy” in A. Giddens (ed.) Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 - 50.
Hays, Sharon. 1994. “Structure and Agency in the Sticky Problem of Culture” in Sociological Theory, vol. 12, no. 1 (March), pp. 57 – 72.
Sharrock, Wes. 1987. “The Individual and society” in R.J. Anderson and W.W. Sharrock (eds.) Classic Disputes in Sociology, Unwin Hyman, pp. 126 – 56.
[S]tructure is systematic and patterned,
while agency is contingent and random;
… structure is constraint, while agency
is freedom; … structure is static, while
agency is active; … structure is
collective, while agency is individual.
Hays, 1994, p. 57
Common in social theorizing are dualities such as those described above by Hays. Another duality could be that while structure is social, individual is psychological or biological. In The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim argues against social philosophers and others who contend that social phenomena are no more than epiphenomena of individual biology or psychology and as such, social phenomena are reducible to and appropriately studied as fields of biology or psychology. One could say that for those social theorists, the social is always personal; there are no impersonal phenomena. However, in language, monetary currency, law, time, and other social phenomena, Durkheim observes social facts that are wholly impersonal because they cannot be created or changed by an individual; these social facts are not reducible to an individual. Consequently, he describes social facts as “external” phenomena because they are exogenous to the individual mind, objective, and observable. Moreover and arguably most importantly for Durkheim, these facts represent constraining forces on the individual.
Social facts are essential to the education/socialization of any individual, and every individual becomes (or is) a social being. Having been born and raised in the United States (U.S.), I have communicated and continue to communicate both orally and in writing in the American English language in order to be educated, employed, and otherwise active in the society. Since my birth, I have been exposed to and taught the rules and structure of the American English language and its applications. At no time have I or any other individual created any of the rules or structure of the language nor can I or any other individual change them; the American English language has and continues to exist externally to me and all other individuals. Moreover, no one, including me, forces it upon herself to learn and use the language nor has a political dictator forced me or any other individual to learn and communicate in the language upon punishment of death or imprisonment. However, I cannot act as if the language did not exist or were different than what it is.
The American English language is objective and both empowering and limiting. It is empowering because any individual, such as I, can use it to identify oneself and communicate with others within the society to obtain what s/he wants and needs. At the same time, American English is limiting because it constrains self-expression and communication with others to a particular set of sounds and symbols that I or anyone must duplicate in order to be understood by others in the society. If I were to do something as mundane as to order a restaurant meal in a different language, such as Ojibwe or Finnish, I could be understood and successfully responded to; however, it is more likely that I would receive silence in return, a simple request to communicate in English, or harsh words that other languages are not welcome by that audience. Most likely I would have to restate my order in English in order to get what I want. Although English is not the official language of the U.S. as codified by law, it is an obligation, nonetheless, of living in the country.
A social fact, such as the American English language, is a collective creation not reducible to the sum of actions of (separate) individuals. Although it is external to any individual and coercive, it becomes internal through formal and informal education and voluntary when an individual personalizes that collective creation. For example, American English is my primary and preferred language to hear, speak, read, and write; and I do not feel coerced to use it. However, it is easy for me to imagine my immigrant Finnish grandparents experiencing the frustrations and fears of having to learn and use a language that was until they emigrated unnecessary and undesired. The American English language, like any social fact, is both a product and a force of a particular society.
REFERENCES:
Class Notes to Structure & Agency in Modern Sociological Theory.
Durkheim, Emile. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method, 8th edition. The Free Press, New York.
Gidden, Anthony. 1972. “Introduction: Durkheim’s writings in sociology and social philosophy” in A. Giddens (ed.) Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 - 50.
Hays, Sharon. 1994. “Structure and Agency in the Sticky Problem of Culture” in Sociological Theory, vol. 12, no. 1 (March), pp. 57 – 72.
Sharrock, Wes. 1987. “The Individual and society” in R.J. Anderson and W.W. Sharrock (eds.) Classic Disputes in Sociology, Unwin Hyman, pp. 126 – 56.
