There isn't really a point...just stuff to think about.
Aside: I wish I knew how to link things...someday I'll figure it out.
French Sociologist Rousseau believed that the social order kept people from reaching a perfect state. His methodology: Imagine what man's natural state would be if it was divested of all he had acquired in society. Think about your life without language or rules and only sensations. In Rousseau's opinion the natural state of man would be ideal because it would be enough in itself to satisfy the senses, we would desire and need only what is in our environment, thus there would be no discard or waste. He had to account for the change from man's natural state to his social state. These are things that caused the social state of man: increased population, natural disasters (brought people together), and adaptation of the natural conditions to suit man. Obviously with so many people and changing conditions, discord is inevitable and war at hand. His solution was for humans to form a pact to unite for the collective good. But under what pull? Why and how would this happen?
Durkheim answers this question...MORALITY.
This is WAY out of context...or in the wrong timeline...but so interesting to compare this to the change going on right now in our country, all over the world to a more abstract, freer kind of thinking, a trend away from the mechanical, and a revolt (sort of ) against the mainstream moral laws, religious sanctions, etc...Is it good or bad? What will come next?
According to Durkheim, morality ultimately unites man, and the way society is organized determines what morality is. How is our society organized? It seemed to be based first on morality and religion...is that still true?
In a mechanical society, the groups are small, people are more alike, and exist together because of their basic beliefs...
These things produce what Durkheim calls the collective conscience: reality sui generis, or emergent reality...A shared morality can also create very repressive laws, but people go with it because they all believe in the good of their cause, they are caught up in their own shared morality. He uses the term "mechanical solidarity", and refers to this as when individuals act as a unit, in a way that does not require thoughtful organization or the use of reason.
Durkheim also concludes that a mechanical society will evolve to become an organic society. Organic - excessive focus on the individual which causes lack of social and emotional support, lack of moral agreement...lots of people with lots of different morals and ideas of the ideal, freedom from environment, norms, rules, etc...lots of room for interpretation.
...but less regulation of man's apettite makes man want more and more and more and more and man is never happy
Which is better?
Durkheim's solution was also for humans to behave in a way that is good for the society as a whole.
French Sociologist Rousseau believed that the social order kept people from reaching a perfect state. His methodology: Imagine what man's natural state would be if it was divested of all he had acquired in society. Think about your life without language or rules and only sensations. In Rousseau's opinion the natural state of man would be ideal because it would be enough in itself to satisfy the senses, we would desire and need only what is in our environment, thus there would be no discard or waste. He had to account for the change from man's natural state to his social state. These are things that caused the social state of man: increased population, natural disasters (brought people together), and adaptation of the natural conditions to suit man. Obviously with so many people and changing conditions, discord is inevitable and war at hand. His solution was for humans to form a pact to unite for the collective good. But under what pull? Why and how would this happen?
Durkheim answers this question...MORALITY.
This is WAY out of context...or in the wrong timeline...but so interesting to compare this to the change going on right now in our country, all over the world to a more abstract, freer kind of thinking, a trend away from the mechanical, and a revolt (sort of ) against the mainstream moral laws, religious sanctions, etc...Is it good or bad? What will come next?
According to Durkheim, morality ultimately unites man, and the way society is organized determines what morality is. How is our society organized? It seemed to be based first on morality and religion...is that still true?
In a mechanical society, the groups are small, people are more alike, and exist together because of their basic beliefs...
These things produce what Durkheim calls the collective conscience: reality sui generis, or emergent reality...A shared morality can also create very repressive laws, but people go with it because they all believe in the good of their cause, they are caught up in their own shared morality. He uses the term "mechanical solidarity", and refers to this as when individuals act as a unit, in a way that does not require thoughtful organization or the use of reason.
Durkheim also concludes that a mechanical society will evolve to become an organic society. Organic - excessive focus on the individual which causes lack of social and emotional support, lack of moral agreement...lots of people with lots of different morals and ideas of the ideal, freedom from environment, norms, rules, etc...lots of room for interpretation.
...but less regulation of man's apettite makes man want more and more and more and more and man is never happy
Which is better?
Durkheim's solution was also for humans to behave in a way that is good for the society as a whole.
posted by KariBryant @ 6:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home