|
Sociology
Sociological Theory Chapter 3:
David Emile Durkheim was born in the French town of Epinal in 1858. He grew up in a happy, tight-knit, and respected family a similarly tight-knit (and segregated) Jewish community. David (his Hebrew name, which he would later drop for his more French-sounding middle name, "Emile") did not fulfill the expectations of his father (a prominent rabbi) and family by carrying on a long family tradition of rabbinical service. Durkheim, in fact, abandoned his religious beliefs altogether in his teen years, and spent the rest of his life as an "agnostic" (neither believing nor disbelieving in God). Though he was not religious per se, we will see that Durkheim (unlike Marx) viewed the social practice of religion positively. As was mentioned in Chapter One, Durkheim regularly escorted his aging mother to temple (this was relayed to me by Stjepan Mestrovic, the Durkheim scholar, who interviewed Durkheim's grandson). Durkheim's career was very conventional, and yet in a sense it was not. He was both a successful scholar and the person who challenged and radically transformed the French education system. Durkheim attended the Ecole normale superieure, a prestigious university in Paris, but felt that it was based too much on traditional subjects (e.g. ancient languages and philosophy). Durkheim preferred rigorous scientific investigation, which he believed could be applied to solve the real problems of a society that had not adjusted to the changes of modernity. An example of such a society - and one that must have been quite a shock for a young man raised in a small Jewish community - was Paris, a place Durkheim no doubt perceived to be full of moral corruption and social disorganization. The problem was that social science, at the time, was still undeveloped in the world. Though the field "sociology" had been invented (discovered?) by the Frenchman Auguste Comte in the middle part of the 19th Century, only a few academics engaged themselves with the subject, and in France there were no sociology departments. To put it simply, Durkheim changed all this. Soon after finishing his own education with a doctorate from the University of Paris, he landed a position at the University of Bordeaux in 1887, where he was the first French professor to be allowed to develop and teach the subject of sociology. In 1902, he was offered a position at the Sorbonne (one of the most prestigious universities in the world, then and today). Durkheim's influence continued to grow over his life span. During his relatively short life (he died at the age of 59, not long after learning his only son was killed in World War One), he created the first French sociology department, created and regularly contributed to a widely read sociological journal (l'Année sociologique), influenced the French education system by training and selecting teachers, and had a major impact on the way society was studied and understood that lasts into today.
IN A NUTSHELL Religions distinguish between what is sacred and profane. It is the group/ society that makes something sacred. Through religious activities, society creates and reaffirms the "collective representations" (norms, values, and beliefs) that hold society together. These collective representations, taken as a whole, make up the "collective conscience" of society, which is experienced by individuals as an external force with the power to shape and constrain behavior. Participation in rituals also brings about the psychological phenomenon of "collective effervescence" - an emotional high and feeling we are part of something bigger than ourselves. Magic - the practice of using "spells" to affect the world - is different than religion in that it does not recognize the sacred, is not collective, and is used when religion fails to provide security. Society is a real thing, existing at the "social level of reality." Other levels of reality "below" the social include the psychological, biological, chemical and physical. Things from one level are made up of components from the level below them, and yet have new characteristics that those lower components do not have. Social facts are characteristics of society that result from collective representations, exist at the social level of reality, and can be measured indirectly by social indicators: empirical signs such as suicide rates. Societies begin with a simple division of labor (few occupations). As the population grows, resource scarcity creates competition, which creates innovation, new technology, and new occupations that allow more resources to be generated. This allows population growth, and the cycle starts all over. Eventually, society becomes highly specialized into many occupations, and many institutions. Simple, "mechanically solid" societies are held together by the similarity of individuals, have few occupations, little individualism, and "repressive law." Complex, "organically solid" societies are held together by mutual dependence of many different kinds of individuals, have many diverse occupations, great individualism, and "restitutive law." Social change requires adjustment. When society changes too fast, it cannot agree upon collective representations, the collective conscience weakens, and society enters into a state of "anomie." Human beings have two sides, a selfish side and a social side (Homo duplex). An anomic society yields an underdeveloped social side so that the selfish side dominates, causing problems for the individual and society. The individual, unable to reach fulfillment, feels hollow and empty, and may commit suicide. Egoistic suicide occurs when a person's social bonds are loosened or lost. Anomic suicide is caused by a weakening of the collective conscience (anomie). Altruistic suicide happens when individuals are too strongly bonded to their society. Fatalistic suicide results when the collective conscience of the society is so strong that the individual feels helpless. Without a strong attachment to society and/ or stable collective representations to guide behavior, individuals and groups are likely to engage in deviant behaviors such as greedy business practices, corrupt politics, and many types of crime. "External inequality" results when selfish individuals and groups use their power to create unfair inequalities instead of inequalities based on merit (which Durkheim calls "internal inequality"). Individuals are less likely to commit egoistic suicide and some kinds of crime when they maintain strong social attachments to others. Preventing anomic suicide and other sorts of anomie-inspired deviance requires a new institution, "the corporation," based in the workplace that establishes and enforces collective representations, strengthening the collective conscience. Children should receive a moral education in school, from firm but fair teachers, that emphasizes individual dedication to the group's welfare. In general, moral action is action that promotes group/ society welfare rather than just the individual's. The exact collective representations that would promote such welfare depend on the characteristics of the society in question. REMEDIAL SOCIOLOGY bonded - attached and/ or committed to other people or a group. The attachment is often an emotional one, but could also be a duty or dependency. civilized - see introductory chapter section entitled, "Sociology: A Child of the Modern Era" collective - done in groups, especially large ones deviance - breaking a norm of a particular group empirical - detectable by the senses. "Empirical evidence" can be plainly seen (or heard, or touched, etc.) folkway - a custom that, if broken, does not result in a severe reaction. E.g., wearing socks is customary in most situations, but failing to do so is not likely to cause the norm violator to be rejected socially. function - an effect that tends to increase the unity of the group or society (i.e. keeps it together). Certain types of culture or social organization may be "functional" for a society or group. individualism - a concern with the self (your thoughts, your desires, your benefit) as opposed to the group. institution/ social institution - rules/ patterns of behavior developed by a society to deal with basic problems. Examples include marriage, work, politics, education. internalize - not just learn but accept as true; take for granted merit - characteristic of the individual, such as talent or drive, that makes the individual worthy of the rewards society has to offer (money, status, etc.) monogamous - societies that allow a marriage to be made up of only two people (male and female) can be described as "monogamous." The marriage can also be described as "monogamous." moral indignation - anger caused by another person doing you wrong (the anger feels justified). norms - rules, whether formal (laws, written regulation) or informal. polygynous - societies that allow a man to have more than one wife can be described as "polygynous." The marriage can also be described as "polygynous." population density - how many people per how much land area. High population density means a lot of people are living in a small area of land. primitive - having a low degree of technology, such as hunter-gatherer societies resources - anything valued in a society. Typically used to describe material resources such as money, land, spouses, cars, etc. socialization - a process in which people teach other people how to behave, feel, and think according to the rules of society. E.g., you were socialized first by family, then school and friends, then your boss and fellow workers, etc. symbols - a stimulus, detectable by the senses, that has meaning only because the group or society has attached meaning to it. E.g., language, a stop light, a hand gesture. values - things we value. A given person or society could value most anything: money, family, achievement, beauty, etc. IDEAS THAT MADE IT 3.1 Sacred and Profane All religions distinguish between what is sacred (set apart and held in awe) and profane (for everyday use; not sacred). It is the group/ society that makes something sacred, treats it as sacred, and reacts when the sacred is "profaned." Because all societies have religion in one form or another, Durkheim guessed that religion must have an important function for society. In his book Elementary Forms of Religious Life, his goal is to discover that function. Durkheim believed that the problem of finding a common function (among such a variety of religions) could be solved by isolating the one thing all religions had in common. This common characteristic, whatever it was, might have something to do with the general function of religion for society. Durkheim began by noting what all religions do not have in common. They do not, as many think, all have a god, gods, or even a belief in a "higher power." Buddhists, for instance, do not worship the Buddha or consider him a god. Animists believe that all things (e.g., streams, plants, rocks) are alive and have the power to influence the world of humans. Durkheim goes on to discuss several other characteristics of religions that we might think are shared by all, but in fact are not shared. These include belief in an afterlife, belief in an immortal soul, and belief in what could be called "the supernatural." What all religions do have in common, Durkheim argues, is a recognition of the sacred. I.e., all religions distinguish between sacred things and profane things. Sacred means set apart from everyday use, and held in "awe." Awe means a mix of fear and reverence (to revere something is to love, cherish, and worship it). So, something is sacred when (1) the group/ society develops special ways to deal with it, touch it, say it, etc., and (2) the group/ society perceives it as "awesome." Most anything can be sacred: a name (e.g., the name of a god), a belief (e.g., "There is only one god, and his name is Allah"), an object (e.g., the Bible), a person (e.g., a priest or saint or prophet), a ritual (e.g., marriage), etc. Profane doesn't mean bad, it just means normal -- not sacred. Anything that is not sacred is profane. Profane things are used in everyday ways rather than given special treatment, feared, and revered. A beer mug is an example of a profane object. You use a beer mug, but you don't hold it in awe (well... maybe you do). You can use it to drink out of, fill it with change, keep a fish in it, or whatever. There are no special rules about handling it, it's no big deal if you break it, and you probably aren't offended if a friend says he doesn't like your beer mug. It's not good or evil, it's just profane. It's just a beer mug. The communion chalice used by some Christian religions, on the other hand, is a sacred object. During the ritual of communion (a ritual in which the faithful symbolically drink the blood of Jesus Christ), the chalice is handled in a special way, and only by certain people (the priest, the altar boys, etc.). The priest does not take it home and eat ice cream out of it, and he certainly doesn't use it for a spittoon. He may not wash it with other dishes - there is likely to be specific rules about how it is to be cleaned and stored. What makes something sacred? Well... we do. A person learns to fear and revere sacred things, and treat them in a special way. He or she learns this, from others, during religious activities and everyday life. ------------------------------------ In Your Terms Rachael, age 5, and her mom arrive at their Catholic church, where many people have already gathered and are waiting for the weekly Sunday Mass to begin. Rachael opens her mouth to ask a question, and before she can get more than a syllable out, Mom shushes her. "We're in church - keep your voice down!" she hisses. Mother and daughter walk down the aisle past rows of pews and stop at one. Before taking a seat, Rachael's mom "genuflects." She kneels quickly, and makes the sign of the cross. She instructs Rachael to do the same. "Left to right," Mom reminds Rachael as she goes through the short ritual. Rachael is learning, early in her life, how to treat sacred things. As time goes by, it will feel natural for her to react to the sacred in certain ways, and very unnatural to treat the sacred improperly. Eventually, she will experience an emotional reaction to the sacred, as if sacred things radiate some sort of mystical power. At age 16, when she and her boyfriend sneak behind the altar to make out during church camp, Rachael feels she is doing something very, very wrong (of course, that just makes it all the more exciting...). ------------------------------------ When you shout out "Jesus Christ!" or "God damn it!", and your grandma smacks you for "taking the Lord's name in vain," you have experienced the sometimes intense social reaction to "profaning the scared." You have taken a sacred name, and used it in an everyday manner. Grandma's mad because you have disrespected God, but Durkheim interprets the situation differently. For him, sacred things are reflections of society. I.e., the sacred symbolizes society, so when you profane the sacred, you are really attacking society itself. The link here should be clear: it is we who make things sacred, we who invest energy into keeping things sacred, and so it is we who are offended when the sacred is not given its proper respect. To attack the sacred is to attack the collective - to go "against society." Durkheim focuses on clearly religious objects because religion is such an old and universal institution, but there are certainly things a society holds sacred that are not directly associated with religion. In America, some people are horrified when they hear of the American flag being burned or stood upon. The recent attack on New York's twin towers was in a sense not just an attack on individuals: the World Trade Center was more than a couple of buildings - it was a symbol of American dominance and economic power. To remove it was not only to kill people and damage the economy, but to deal a mighty insult to the American people collectively (American society itself). 3.2 Function of Religion Through religious activities, society creates the sacred norms, values, and beliefs that hold society together. Religious rituals serve to bring people together and reaffirm those norms, values, and beliefs. Participation in rituals also brings about the psychological phenomenon of "collective effervescence" - an emotional high and feeling we are part of something bigger than ourselves. Magic - the practice of using "spells" to affect the world - is different than religion in that it does not recognize the sacred, is not collective, and is used when religion fails to provide security. So, for Durkheim the sacred represents society. Thus, what we are doing, when we treat sacred things properly, is paying homage to society itself. I.e., we are symbolically respecting, praising, and demonstrating our fear and reverence for society. It is now that we can talk about the function of religion for society. Remember that a basic question for Durkheim and other sociological thinkers of his time (and later times -- see Talcott Parsons) is, "What keeps society unified -- especially in the rapidly changing period of modernity?" Durkheim argues that social unity is ultimately maintained by participation in collective rituals, especially religious ones (though he argues that as societies become more advanced, other institutions tend to perform functions similar to religion, see sections 3.6, 3.7, and 3.12). Religious rituals draw individuals away from their personal concerns and orient them towards the sacred (that is, society). This is the basic answer to the question of the function of religion, but there is much more to it than that. Participation in collective rituals (religious or otherwise): 1. Initially creates the norms, values, and beliefs shared by our group/ society. As soon as we were able to use symbols (especially language), we used them to create a religious culture. This culture included symbolic representations of society (e.g. gods), but it also included rules about how members of society should behave, what they should believe, what goals they should strive for, etc. (e.g., the Ten Commandments). Through collective interaction., people decide what objects, beings, ideas, etc., will be sacred. Once created, religious culture helps us organize ourselves in society. 2. Affirms and reaffirms those norms, values, and beliefs. For a culture to keep existing, members of society must be regularly reminded of it. By gathering in a group and chanting, singing, reciting oaths, observing a period of silence, etc., we are reminded of the rules/ beliefs of our group. 3. Demonstrates to us the power of our group/ society. This reaffirmation of religious culture comes across strongly because it is experienced collectively. Individuals are shown, clearly, that a large body of people believes in the religious ideas of the society. ------------------------------------ In Your Terms Rachael, now age nine, stands in the pews in St. Matthew's and declares, along with a churchful of other Catholics, that she believes "in one God, father almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God..." Rachael continues. She has recited this oath, outlining what Catholics believe about the "mysteries of faith," hundreds of times now. For years she didn't understand the meaning of the words, but by now she has a handle on it. It stays in her head not so much because she has tried to memorize it, but because she hears it resounding through the cathedral, repeated by 600 other Catholics, once per week, every week. Durkheim spoke of the reaffirmation of norms, values, and beliefs during religious rituals because religion seems to be our oldest social institution. But if we think about it, there are other collective rituals that serve a similar purpose, even though they are not formally religious: "I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America..." The pledge of allegiance, a sacred oath, is like the Catholic statement of faith quoted earlier. It is taught early in life, before children understand its meaning, it is spoken collectively and seriously, and it mentions norms and values considered important to the group/ society. ------------------------------------ 4. Uplifts us -- makes us feel part of something bigger then ourselves. As we take part in collective rituals (chanting, dancing, etc.), we experience what Durkheim calls collective effervescence -- a bubbling up and spilling over of emotion. This is experienced by individuals as a feeling of euphoria, warm security, and a sense that one has become part of something bigger than the self. It is a psychological phenomenon created by the presence and collective action of the group, but may be experienced as the awesome power of spirits, gods, or other supernatural forces. ------------------------------------ In Your Terms After inadvertently imbibing the lysergic acid diethylamide (a.k.a. LSD) one of his "friends" spiked his beer with, Gene's experience of collective effervescence at the Grateful Dead concert is especially memorable. The musicians spend twenty minutes warming up, each member seemingly doing his own thing, until the sounds come together in fantastic harmony. As the band plays song after song, the Deadheads (fans) become more and more in tune with the music, swaying, singing along, fornicating in front of thousands of people, etc. For Gene, the energy of this scene is almost palpable... tangible. The hairs on his neck stand up, he feels the ecstatic tingle of collective effervescence. The entire crowd is on the same wavelength (except maybe that one guy over there who just sprouted antlers...) - there is a togetherness, a shared consciousness that Gene can't explain or describe. Tears pour from his eyes as he realizes he has never felt so much a part of something whole, real, and... large. There's more than one way to have a "religious" experience. ------------------------------------ These outcomes of religious participation all contribute to the grand function of unifying society. Look up the origins of the word religion in your dictionary and you may find that one possible origin is from the older form "religare," which means "to bind together" (another interpretation is "to bind back" -- see section 3.8). Religion, according to Durkheim, is the basic "glue" that holds society together. Durkheim distinguishes the collective phenomenon of religion from the individual practice of magic. Though magic seems similar to religion superficially (on the surface), its functions are different. Durkheim points out that: 1. Whereas religion may involve (often collective) requests made to divine powers (e.g., through prayer), magic involves the belief that the magic practitioner can directly affect the world through the use of magic words, gestures, goat's blood, etc. 2. Magic is always done individually, whereas religion is by its nature collective. A person may go to a "psychic" (or call one for $5.99 a minute, for entertainment only) or witch doctor or whatever to practice magic, but there is no congregation, no "church of magic" as Durkheim (1912) puts it. 3. Magic is used in societies that practice religion, by people who feel religion or other traditional institutions are not helping them feel secure. Turning to magic is often a desperate attempt to influence a very uncertain situation, such as combat, sports, the weather, or whether or not your worst enemy gets stomach cancer (people have used magic to "curse" enemies for millennia). 4. In magic, nothing is sacred. Magic objects, words, etc., are used for utilitarian purposes (see #3). Sometimes, as in the practice of voodoo, sacred things from one religion (in this case Catholicism) are profaned in magic spells. Voodoo dolls mimic the crucifixion; holy water, pictures of Mary, and rosary beads might be used in a spell, etc. For any Wiccans who might be reading this, I have already heard the protest that the practice of casting magic "spells" is often done in groups - so is that practice magic or religion? I'm not sure what Durkheim would say; my best advice is to read ahead to the Weber chapter (4) and look up "ideal types." 3.3 Collective Representations and Collective Conscience Collective representations are the norms, values, and beliefs shared by members of society. These collective representations, taken as a whole, make up the "consciousness" or "conscience" of society (i.e., the "collective conscience"). The collective conscience of society is experienced by individuals as an external force with the power to shape and constrain behavior. In some sense we have already discussed Collective Representations - the norms, values, and beliefs held collectively by the group/ society. Obviously, there must be some kind of interaction for these things to be agreed upon, or at least to allow them to be spread throughout the population. Durkheim saw religious activity as the sort of interaction that created and maintained collective representations (as discussed in section 3.2, the Function of Religion, above). While the term "collective representation" is a mouthful to say and may seem complex, the concept is fairly simple. We use the word "representation" because norms, values, and beliefs are symbolic - they "represent" certain rules and ideas held by society. We use the word "collective" because these representations are collectively held (held by a group of people or whole society). Collective representations come about through social interaction, but at the same time they allow social interaction. People in society would have a hard time interacting without some common rules about how to do so (e.g., norms). Shared (collective) representations not only direct our behavior, but cause members of society to think in similar ways, believe similar things, seek similar goals (values). When people in a society make sense out of the world in similar ways, cooperative interaction is easier to accomplish. Of course, when representations are not collectively shared, there are other consequences (see sections 3.7 through 3.11 for more). Because representations are collectively held, we can speak of society having a collective "conscience" or "consciousness." The translation from Durkheim's French has been interpreted as both "collective conscience" and "collective consciousness." For simplicity's sake we will use conscience here, but what he probably meant was both: society has a conscience in that there is a shared morality; it has a consciousness in that it encourages that morality (those shared norms, values, and beliefs). We often hear people saying things like "society wouldn't approve," or "you're going against society." These statements make society sound like a conscious creature with a will of its own - and Durkheim agreed wholeheartedly with such an idea. Durkheim understood that society was not literally a creature (some earlier thinkers, like August Comte, did not make this disclaimer!). He understood that the collective conscience existed in the minds of society's members - that they were required to keep it in existence. But he also believed that members of society experience the collective conscience as if it were a force outside themselves. And after all, society's norms, values, and beliefs do have an effect on individuals, because other members of society (a force outside the self) will put pressure on individuals to conform. So, for all intents and purposes, the collective conscience is an external power that influences your behavior. Durkheim said it both shapes what you do and constrains you from doing what you shouldn't (he liked the word "constrain" rather than "control," because it is too simple to say that society directly controls us as if we were puppets). Further, the collective conscience in a sense has an existence outside specific individuals: if one member of society dies, the collective conscience lives on. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms Alanna, age 17, sits with her parents at the dinner table and fills out applications for several different colleges. While the thought of continuing her education (after finally graduating high school) fills her with dread, she feels an enormous pressure to get on with it. In her family, in her neighborhood, and in her society, there are certain paths that people take, and certain things people do and don't do. You finish high school, do four years of college, start a career, find a spouse, raise kids, and die (or turn 40, which is really, really old, and pretty much the same as death in Alanna's opinion). These expectations were more or less what her parents encountered when they graduated from high school. They are society's norms, values, and beliefs, and they are being passed down to the next generation, and constraining that generation. In Alanna's case, the collective conscience shapes her life path and constrains her from pursuing her true calling: drinking beer and hanging out in the skate park. Without a collective conscience, says Durkheim, Alanna and others would pursue their selfish desires without concern for "what society thinks." More to the point, the absence of a collective conscience would mean that society doesn't think anything - that there are no shared norms, values, and beliefs. Such a society is not really a society at all - just a bunch of disconnected individuals doing whatever they feel like. We will have more to say about such a condition later (see sections 3.8 & 3.9). -------------------------------------- Again, it may sound as if Durkheim was arguing that this thing, the collective conscience, was real in the same sense that you and I are. The truth is, he did believe this -- though it is not as simple as that! This brings us to the next topic, Durkheim's idea of the "social level of reality." It is on this level that collective representations, collective conscience, and other "social facts" exist. 3.4 Social Realism Society is a real thing, though it exists in a different way than individuals, at the "social level of reality." Other levels of reality "below" the social include the psychological, biological, chemical and physical. Things from one level are made up of components from the level below them. Though a particular thing is made up of these more simple components, it has new characteristics that those components do not have (e.g., water has different characteristics than its components, hydrogen and oxygen). What is society, really? You can't point to it. Does it really exist, or do we just use the simple word "society" to describe a bunch of things that are too complicated to be fully explained one at a time? Some would say that society doesn't really exist -- that it's just a word we use to describe millions of actions of individuals. If this is the case, I guess we sociologists may be wasting our time! Durkheim certainly thought society was real. For him, the idea that it was just a mass of individual actions was like saying that an individual human being was just a mass of living cells. Yes, the individual is made up of cells, each in a sense doing its own thing. But it is not enough that we look at individual cells -- there is a way to look at the whole organism. For instance, a psychologist can understand the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of a person without knowing much at all about the nerve cells that make up the human brain, or the molecules and atoms that make up the nerve cells. An individual person can be studied "in and of itself" -- on its own terms, without reference to smaller biological units. Society, said Durkheim, is no different. Of course society is made up of thinking and behaving individuals -- of course society can't exist without these individuals. But at the same time, something special happens when individuals come together. Societies have characteristics that its individuals don't, just as molecules have characteristics that its atoms don't, just like an individual has characteristics that his or her cells don't. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Water is a molecule made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. If we analyze water by taking it apart, we would conclude that it has the characteristics of these atoms: it is flammable, it floats in the air, etc. Obviously, we would be wrong in our conclusions about water if we analyzed it in this way. To understand water and other molecules, as any chemist can tell you, requires that we come to understand the special properties that arise from the relationships between atoms. The relationship between hydrogen and oxygen, in water, is such that the effects of these atoms on fire is changed. In the same way, the relationships between people in society are such that society takes on characteristics that its individuals don't have. -------------------------------------- This logic can be applied to any number of social phenomena, from a single relationship to a whole society. Let's start with a single relationship: a marriage. Isn't a marriage a real, stable thing as much as the individuals who make it up? Don't we refer to two married people as "a couple," "the Jones," etc.? Can we understand a marriage by separately interviewing each member of the couple, or must we see what happens when they come together? When people marry, they create a "marriage," and this thing - that has been brought into its own special existence - has characteristics different from the individuals that created it. For example, married couples make decisions differently than individual people do, they develop habits of living different from when they were single, their goals may change, their interaction with others changes, etc. The thing that is created when a husband interacts with his wife is different than the thing that is created when that same man joins his friends for the weekend. These are two separate social entities, with different motives, different patterns of behavior, different effects on others, etc. In general, collectives (groups, societies) behave differently than individuals, and cause individuals to behave differently than they would alone. Until you enter into a relationship with another person, or a group, you can't be sure what the full range of your behavior is. A man who hates violence, and would normally not harm another person, might willingly take part in an assault on other men in the context of a military unit. Individually, the men making up that unit might not be capable a killing someone in cold blood - collectively they may be capable of atrocities. Marriage and the military are institutions - parts of society. They are just two examples, but by thinking about their creation we can imagine how all society is created. The institutions of marriage and military are made up - like the rest of the collective conscience - of collective representations. By acting in accordance with these, individual people make these institutions a real part of society with their own special characteristics. Marriage can certainly be spoken of as if it is its own "thing." Men and women, throughout society, can laugh and joke about the things nearly all marriages have in common. Likewise, any two people who have both been in the military can talk about it and its strange characteristics, and laugh knowingly. The military exists in their minds - in the way that they share representations - and in its continual practice in the real world. These institutions exist as surely as you and I do. They were here long before we were born, and they will be here when we are gone. But again, where is society? How do we point to it, or to its particular characteristics? Durkheim argued that society exists simultaneously with other things, but on its own "social level of reality." He described five levels of reality, as shown by the table below. Table 3.41: Levels of Reality Level Made Up Of Examples of Things Existing at this Level Social Minds the economy, rules, fashion, discontent Psychological Brain Cells (the brain) thoughts, feelings, opinions, knowledge Biological Organic Molecules organs, cells (the body) Chemical Atoms glucose, fat, proteins, acids Physical quarks, muons atoms As you can see, while all the examples from one level exist at the same time as examples from another, they exist in a different sense -- a different way. Further, if you study the table carefully, you should notice that examples from a certain level are made up of things from the level below it. This scheme of reality should not be too hard to understand; it is to some degree common sense. It is likely that Durkheim was not the first to use it, and he certainly wasn't the last (I recently saw the same idea used in a zoology textbook -- without citing Durkheim!). It seems clear that complex things are composed of less complex things. As science advances, we find ourselves studying the components of atoms themselves ("quarks" and so forth). It should also be clear that we can study and analyze a certain level without necessarily having to refer to other levels. 3.5 Social Facts and Indicators Social facts are characteristics of society that result from collective representations, and exist at the social level of reality. They can be measured indirectly by social indicators: empirical signs such as suicide rates and other statistics about a society. As sociologists, our goal is to understand the characteristics of our society. For examples of such characteristics, take another look at table 3.41. Durkheim used the term "social facts" to describe these characteristics that exist at the social level. Some sociologists include collective representations as examples of social facts, but what Durkheim meant by social fact was a characteristic of society that results from shared (collective) representations. There is a subtle difference here. A collective representation is a shared norm, value, or belief; a social fact is the collective action in society that is the consequence of those norms, values, and beliefs being shared. The collective conscience is a social fact, but so is any other characteristic of society with the capacity to shape and constrain the behavior of individuals. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Carrie, a second-semester college freshman, sits with her friends at her favorite fast food restaurant and eats lunch. Carrie is eating a double-cheeseburger with extra bacon, a behavior that keeps her cholesterol level at a hearty 293. Carrie is not the only American eating lots of red meat and cheese every day: the fact that a great number of Americans do this is a social fact. It is the behavior itself (taken collectively, at the societal level) that Durkheim would call a social fact. On a list of characteristics of American society we would have to include: "saturated fat eating." This behavior is certainly linked to collective representations (norms, values, beliefs). Americans collectively share the belief that red meat and cheese are appropriate things to eat. We value these foods (i.e., we see eating them as a desirable goal), and eating them is a norm in our society (specifically, a type of norm sociologists call a "folkway"). -------------------------------------- Other common examples of social facts might be institutions in practice (e.g., the practice of monogamous marriage in the US or polygynous marriage in any number of other societies). Social problems are also social facts, and Durkheim is well known for studying the problems of modern society (see sections 3.8 through 3.11). Durkheim realized that social facts are not easily observable, but suggested there are ways to measure them. We mentioned (in his biography) that he believed that science could be used to study social reality, just as it was used to study the other levels of reality. If social facts could be measured empirically, then relationships between social facts could be determined, and this would help us understand society better, predict social phenomena, and deal with social problems. But how do we measure characteristics existing on the social level? According to Durkheim, specific individuals making up society cannot tell us much about the whole - so we can't learn much about society by examining one individual. But just as there are ways to measure characteristics of the whole body without looking at each individual cell, there are ways to measure characteristics of the whole society without researching each member of it. Turning back to the analogy of the body once again, if a physician wants to understand the health of an individual, he or she must discover the facts of the patient's physical condition. This can be accomplished by measuring indicators of this condition. Such indicators are not the facts themselves (and in fact, they may not be perfect indicators) , but they give us an idea of what those facts might be. The doctor can ask the patient questions, observe his or her behavior, take his or her temperature, pulse, etc. Once enough of these indirect indicators of the facts have been checked, a reasonable guess as to what the actual facts might be (in this case, the ailment of the patient) can be made. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Sam feels sick. He has a fever, headache, and pain in his lower back. He feels fatigued and gets tired easily when he tries to do something. All of these symptoms are indications of a disease, but they are not the disease itself. The disease may be a "fact," but one that cannot be deserved directly. The indicators are not perfect - the same indicators may be present for diseases other than this one. Still, the disease does exist. It is real, and we have a word for it (say, influenza!). -------------------------------------- In the same manner, there are indicators of social facts. Just as Durkheim used the term "social facts" to describe the sometimes unknowable factual characteristics of society, he used the term "social indicators" to describe the things we can measure to try to discover these facts. The best way to understand the concept of social indicators and their relationship to social facts might be to use a famous example, Durkheim's (1897) study of (and paper named) Suicide. This topic will be discussed in more detail in other sections (3.8, 3.10), but for now it is enough to say that Durkheim used suicide rates as an indicator of how unified a society was. So, in this case, "social unity" (later we will use Durkheim's term "moral integration" instead) is the social fact in question. Durkheim argued that a society's suicide rate was an indicator of its degree of unity: if people are killing themselves quite a bit, this is a good indication that individuals are not well bonded to society. To recap: Suicide rate (social indicator) Social Unity (social fact) The goal was to study real characteristics of society in the same way anything else in the world is studied -- and with his study of suicide Durkheim demonstrated that this could be done. He tapped a social fact by empirically measuring a social indicator. Durkheim opened the door to studying social facts. Thanks to him, any of us can, and many of us have, identified and measured them, though we may not think of ourselves as having done this. A strong example of a commonly studied social fact is social inequality - the degree to which resources in a society are unevenly distributed. Many people, sociologists and otherwise, think of inequality as being a real trait of society (i.e. a social fact), and many ways (indicators) have been developed to measure it. For instance, we might compare the average income of the richest 20% of the population to that of the lowest 20%. Or we might look at differences in unemployment rates between groups, or differences in mortality rates, or crime victimization rates, or any other measure that can be argued to be an indicator of inequality between segments of a population. Of course, there is probably no perfect social indicator, and any given indicator may be more or less valid. The researcher must try to find good indicators, and those who read the research will ultimately judge if this was accomplished. For instance, is it best to measure poverty by income, or health, or feelings, or what? Clearly, the indicator used must somehow "get at" the whole population or a great deal of it. Durkheim used public records to study social unity, drawing not only on suicide rates but other statistics such as divorce rates, marriage records, mental health, religious affiliation, the price of food, and others. We could talk more about this subject, but it is best reserved for a book on research methodology, not theory! Let us end this section by noting that Durkheim hoped social indicators could be used to study social facts, so that a greater understanding of society could be gained and used to make improvements. As much time as he spent explaining how society is created and maintained, Durkheim's big concern was its capacity to fall apart in modern times. He tried to understand this, and suggested ways to prevent it, as we'll see in the second half of his Ideas that Made It. 3.6 Division of Labor in Society Societies begin with a simple division of labor (few occupations). As the population grows, resources become scarce. This scarcity creates competition, which creates innovation (creativity, invention of new technology). This new technology allows new occupations to come about, and more resources to be generated. More resources allow increased population growth, and the cycle starts all over. Eventually, society becomes highly specialized into many occupations. With the development of these occupations comes new institutions, so that we go from having just one (religion) in primitive society to having many (religion, family, education, medicine, etc.) in modern society. It is generally believed by anthropologists that in "primitive" societies there are fewer occupations. This is a common-sense notion as well - just look around your high-tech society and try to imagine how many kinds of doctors, engineers, and managers exist. Every year, new specializations are invented for such fields. In the distant past, a doctor treated you for any problem you had; today there are not just ear-nose-throat doctors, but ear doctors, nose doctors, and throat doctors (or something like that!). We can compare the modern world to the primitive. In the most simple societies, there tend to be only a few jobs: hunters, gatherers, elders, and kids. What job you have in such a society is based on your age and sex. As a child, your job is to play, and perhaps help the adults with certain tasks. As a man, you hunt and protect the tribe from threats. As a woman, you gather food like berries and nuts and grubs, and take care of the children while the men are out hunting. As an old person, you tell stories and give advice. While this is a simplified version of real hunter-gatherer society, it is more or less accurate. Durkheim claimed that this basic division of labor changes -- specifically, it becomes more complex -- in a predictable way. The process can be broken down into several steps: Natural population growth increases population density. Increased population density uses up resources, making them scarce. Resource scarcity creates competition for limited resources. Competition for resources encourages innovation, including the creation of new occupational spheres. New ways of gathering resources allows population growth, and the process of division starts again (first step). The division of labor is thus a continuous cycle - a self-perpetuating cycle that creates more and more occupational complexity as the society moves through time. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Manuel, age 20, lives in a crowded barrio in East Los Angeles. He lives with his parents and three younger siblings, and goes to college full time at UCLA. As a student, Manuel has little time for a regular job, but in the summer he finds he can make a few hundred dollars a week mowing lawns. This summer, he contacts last year's customers and finds most of them no longer require his services - other kids from the neighborhood have beat him to the punch. It seems there are plenty of unemployed teenagers and college students with lawnmowers, and not that many lawns to mow. After some thought and asking around, Manuel decides to specialize himself a little in the lawn-care profession. He buys a weed-whacker and some hedge trimmers, and charges a small fee for a quick trim. Because most kids in the neighborhood don't provide these services, Manuel is back in business. As the years go by, and families grow, others will no doubt cut into Manuel's customers -- just as they did before. But hopefully by then Manuel will have finished his degree in "recreational science," a specialization that certainly didn't exist in his society a few decades earlier. -------------------------------------- Although Durkheim may have overestimated the impact of population growth, it should be clear that competition in a society can encourage innovation. As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention." People find new ways to make a living when they have to. In any case, whether we buy Durkheim's reasoning or not, it is a fact that societies will tend to become more occupationally complex over time. Any history professor will confirm this statement. Durkheim noted that, as a society moves into the future, institutions divide and specialize as well. Modern society, he argues, has many institutions: work, religion, education, recreation, family, politics, medicine, etc. Traditional (primitive) society, on the other hand, has only one: religion. This statement may sound confusing: how can a society have religion and not, say, family and medicine? Of course, primitive societies do more than just practice religion. Durkheim's point is that it is hard to distinguish between religion and other institutions in simple societies, because all cultural activities in such societies have a religious component. Further, in such societies, the concept of "religion" is unknown to society members. If you were to ask such a person about their religious practices, he or she would probably say something like, "What is religion? These activities you mention are simply what my people do. This is our way of life." In simple societies, people don't mentally separate their activities into different institutions. Work, family, education - everything that society members take part in -- is part of one system of thought and action. For Durkheim, this system (religion) is the first social institution - and it is the institution from which all others sprang. With an understanding of the division of labor, we can imagine how more distinct institutions formed over time. In a primitive society, each man played a broad role that included hunting, war, possibly fatherhood activity, religious participation, etc. When scarcity and competition make it impossible for every man to take part in all these things, we begin to see some men break off into more specialized roles: the village fisherman, the shaman, the war chief. Very primitive societies, contrary to popular belief, do not have people who are particularly "shamans." It is only with greater technological development, larger size, and complex organization that we see such specialized roles emerge. The image of the Indian "chief" in the modern western movie is similarly a myth - there was no political specialization of that type. More likely, many individuals considered "wise" helped make decisions collectively in tribes. The truth is, we don't start seeing people screaming orders at subordinates until we become more "civilized." Let us compare the primitive man to one from such a complex society. This modern man can choose a more specialized role because more and more specialized institutions have emerged through necessity and innovation. Being a warrior is no longer a job held by all men in such a society, but by certain men (and possibly women) who make a career out of it. In a primitive society, each man makes his own weapons, knows how to stalk game, knows the sacred words to religious rituals, etc. In modern society, one man makes one sort of tool and sells it, another farms but can't make guns, another is a full-time, professional minister. Once there was simply "what we do" (religion); now there is agriculture, the military, religion, industry, etc. We need not compare today to 20,000 BC to see the way institutions have diversified. Compare the typical American farm family about 100 years ago (around 90% or more of the population could be classified as farmers at that time) to a 21st century family. In 1900, a person was born at home (not in a hospital), educated there (not in a school), and worked there (not in an office or factory). Unless there was a school available nearby, probably the only institution separate from family was church - and, like the family, that would have been a very important and wide-reaching institution indeed. Today, the average American (about 80% of the population) lives in or near a city. The institutions that person takes part in are many, and very much separate from each other. Children go to school, possibly different ones, outside the home. Each parents takes off for a different workplace each morning, sometimes leaving even young children in another institution (childcare) specialized for the task. If the family attends some sort of church, it may or may not even know most of the congregation by name. In the 21st century, for most Americans, religion is just one of many institutional activities. If a person goes to church at all (and most don't go regularly), that church plays much less of a role in his or her life than it would have only a century earlier. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Granny Wolf was born in the year 1910, and grew up on her family's farm in rural Oklahoma. Both of her parents, her father's parents, and her siblings lived and worked on the farm. Besides church events, which took place at least three times per week, the family rarely left the area. A trip to town, 20 miles down the road, was big event. Granny visits her granddaughter's family in Phoenix, Arizona. She watches as this 21st century American family moves frantically from one institutional activity to another, typically not having much time for any particular one. "These days," says Granny, "people don't have much time to spend with kin. The kids are at school all day or with the sitter. Even on the Lord's day you got 'em off to soccer practice, karate, girl scouts, or what have you. The whole time I been here we only sat down to supper on one occasion. What's wrong with folks these days?" Granny finds the complexity of modern life disturbing, and Durkheim would not entirely disagree with her. We will see what he had to say about it in the sections that follow. -------------------------------------- It may seem unbelievable that all this complexity started with just the one institution, but even today there are remnants of religion in outwardly non-religious institutions. Consider education. The first universities in medieval Europe were essentially extensions of churches and monasteries, with students and teachers being members of the clergy. Even much later, we find colleges, hospitals, and other institutions commonly founded by churches. Further, though we are well into the 21st century, we Americans are reluctant to cast off the last remnants of religion remaining in institutions like politics and education (right now, there is debate regarding the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance - and it still says "In God we trust" on our national currency). 3.7 Organic & Mechanical Solidarity Societies characterized by "mechanical solidarity" are held together by the similarity of individuals. These are simple societies with few occupations, little individualism, and "repressive law." Societies characterized by "organic solidarity" are held together by mutual dependence of many different kinds of individuals. These are complex societies with many diverse occupations, great individualism, and "restitutive law." For Durkheim, the division of labor in society is an enduring social fact, and one that has an important impact on the way people live their everyday lives -- as well as on the way society keeps itself together. Remember that Durkheim believed the unity of society depends on people creating and agreeing upon collective representations. In a simple society, this agreement is more likely because people are very similar to one another. This makes sense when we remember how similar people's lives are in simple society. Like Marx, Durkheim thought the way you live and work has an impact on how you think and what you believe. When you live in the same environment as everyone else, make your living the same way, have the same kinds of problems, enjoy a limited range of hobbies, know the same people, etc., it seems likely you are more likely to think the same way. Durkheim said that in the most simple societies, we should find the most complete agreement on collective representations (i.e., we will find the strongest "collective conscience"). Another way to put this is to say that people in such a society are not very good at "thinking outside the box." There is very little individualism -- people don't think of themselves as unique individuals with unique perspectives, but as members of a group. It is the group that is important, not the individual. Conformity is high, deviance is rare. Durkheim used the term "mechanical solidarity" to describe the unity of people in simple societies. He used this term because he thought of society members conforming automatically ("mechanically") - almost as if they were machines or robots responding to commands. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: (Interview with Ook-luc-nuk, member of mechanically solid society) Interviewer: "So, Ook - may I call you that? Ook, what's your take on deforestation? Ook-luc-nuk: "I don't understand the question." Interviewer: "Well, there seems to be a bit of logging around here. Your neighbor, Koo-luc-nuk just told me that the tree you bagged your first flying squirrel in got hacked down last week." Ook-luc-nuk: "No, I mean, I don't understand the part about 'what do I think?' I don't think anything about it. We know the great tree spirit will devour the heretics in its mighty, toothed knot-hole." Interviewer: "Gee, that's the third time I've heard the great tree spirit mentioned. So do you really believe this thing will come after-" Ook-luc-nuk: "Again, I don't believe anything. We know the tree spirit lives in the sacred glen, and that it will pull up its roots and hunt down the intruders like so many juvenile, flea-infested flying squirrels." Interviewer: "Gotcha. Say, speaking of bug bites, do you have any idea what this welt on the back of my neck might be? It seems to be getting bigger." Ook-luc-nuk: "Looks like you angered the mighty Blood Tick Spirit. Put your affairs in order." -------------------------------------- In addition to the simple division of labor and similarity of belief, Durkheim argued that mechanically solid societies are more likely to respond to deviance in an emotional and extreme manner. He called law in such societies "repressive." Repressive law is the usual in mechanically solid societies because norms are so strongly shared - so sacred - that breaking them creates tremendous moral indignation (see Sacred and Profane, section 3.1). In simple societies, there are no formal police forces or separate criminal justice systems, but members of the community will respond in a manner they feel to be commensurate to the insult society has suffered. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Joe the Inuit (Eskimo) has been caught hoarding food rather than sharing his catch with the rest of the tribe, as is the norm in the resource-scarce arctic. For years, other members of the tribe have shared with Joe, even though his fishing skills rarely yield enough to even the score. Spontaneous public action follows the discovery of Joe's deviance. He is man-handled from his home, stripped of his furs, and left several miles from the camp, beaten and confused. Knowing that his chances of survival without his group are small, Joe makes his way towards polar bear territory, hoping for a slightly quicker death. Such is the price of betrayal in a society with a powerful collective conscience. -------------------------------------- Let us extend Durkheim's basic argument to more complex societies. In modern society, a great number of occupations have come about, which means that people live -- and make a living -- in a large variety of ways. No argument need be made here that people in modern society tend to have different viewpoints! Individualism is high: people like to think of themselves as "unique," "special." There are thousands of different religions, scores of political philosophies, differences of opinion about how children should be raised, etc. In such a society, which Durkheim described as having "organic solidarity," the question becomes: how do we hold ourselves together when we're so different (i.e., when the collective conscience is weak)? In a nutshell, the answer is mutual dependence. Though we can't agree on everything, we are so limited in our occupational skills that we depend on others to help us do what we can't. We all need to eat, but only farmers grow food. We all want cars, but only automakers supply them. We all - yes, each and every one of us - want to learn as much about sociological theory as humanly possible, but... well, you get the picture. Durkheim uses the term "organic solidarity" because modern society is like a body made up of many specialized organs. Each organ (occupation) is different, and yet each needs the others to survive. Your brain needs your heart to pump blood to it, but your heart needs your brain to tell it to pump. Similarly, the rancher needs the automaker to build him a truck, but the automaker needs the rancher to raise the beef for his hamburgers. Because we need each other so much, we're prepared to overlook many differences in opinion about how life should be lived. Another way to put this is, in organic solidarity, collective representations are not well-shared (again, the collective conscience is relatively weak). Of course there are still a few that are mostly shared - but in present day America it would be hard to find a norm, value, or belief that every one of the 280,000,000 members of our society could agree upon. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: Dr. Vaughan the psychology professor calls Jim the plumber to fix a stopped-up drain. While Jim is at his house, the professor overhears Jim screaming at an employee over his cell phone. Though Dr. Vaughan would never think of talking to anyone that way - and although he may have some good "anger management" advice for Jim -- he holds his tongue. The professor's chief concern is getting his sink working, and he doesn't want to jeopardize a good business relationship by forcing an awkward confrontation. Jim clearly has different ideas about proper social behavior than Dr. Vaughan, but Jim's employee relations are really not the good doctor's business. -------------------------------------- The counterpart of "repressive law," found in organic solidarity, is what Durkheim called "restitutive law." As the name suggests, restitutive law emphasizes restitution - repaying the person who was done wrong - rather than punishment of the deviant. In organic solidarity, says Durkheim, society is harder to insult (and thus demands less emotionally-charged punishment) because people are so different from each other that they find it hard to agree upon what is really right and wrong. For instance, some people called for impeachment upon learning of Bill Clinton's sexual improprieties, others went out and bought a box of cigars... In modern society we are more concerned with getting compensated for our losses (restitution) than punishing the one who hurt us (repression). If someone breaks your nose, you're probably more interested in a large court settlement than in seeing the offender get publicly flogged. More to the point, there isn't enough collective moral outrage at the broken norm (and nose) for anything so drastic to happen. There are exceptions to this, of course (lynch mobs, vigilantes, etc.), but they are more common in the past (when we were more "mechanical," the collective conscience stronger) than today. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: One night while out driving around, for fun Eric runs over his neighbor's annoying poodle while it is tied up in the front lawn. The neighbor complains to the police, who agree that the tire ruts match Eric's truck, but advise the neighbor not to bother with the complaint, as the offense is minor, will waste the court's time, and will probably result in no more than a small fine. Though Eric's neighbor is furious about his dog's murder, the rest of his society barely bats an eye. He calls a lawyer and sues Eric in a civil court, and Eric finds he must sell his truck to pay the neighbor damages, which include landscaping fees, pain and suffering, and professional mourners for the dog's funeral. 3.8 Homo Duplex & The Malady of Infinite Desire Human beings have two sides, a selfish side and a social side. When the collective conscience is weak, the social side becomes underdeveloped and the selfish side dominates, causing problems for the individual and society. The individual, unable to reach fulfillment, feels hollow and empty, and may commit suicide. Homo Duplex The idea that people start "evil" or at least "selfish" -- and require socialization to overcome these anti-social tendencies -- is not a new one. Freud (1923) used the term "id" to describe the part of the mind that desires immediate pleasure all the time, and the term "superego" to describe the part of the mind that has been filled with society's expectations. Durkheim, similarly, believed in what he called "Homo duplex" - the idea that people have two "sides": social and selfish. He thought that, without a tight-knit social group to teach you what is and isn't acceptable, your "social side" remains undeveloped. This allows your "selfish side" to get out of control, and cause problems (to be discussed soon). It is clear that, for a society to function (and everyone in it to live and thrive), members of that society must not be allowed to do whatever they want. People figured this out a long time ago, and learned to create and accept rules that both protected themselves from the selfish behavior of others, and protected others from their own selfish actions. In healthy societies, people "internalize" (learn and accept) norms, values, and beliefs that tend to constrain selfish behavior. In Durkheimian terms, many of society's "collective representations" encourage individuals to control their own desires and behave in a way that benefits the group. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: During the span of time people have lived in societies, they have developed a large number of sayings that suggest the individual should give up his or her own satisfaction for the good of the group or society. What is interesting is that many of the examples below can be found in some form in very different societies from our own. Cheaters never prosper. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Thou shalt not kill (or steal, or covet the neighbors wife, etc.). It is better to give than to receive. No means no. Hard work pays off. Forgiveness is divine. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Do the job right the first time. Be patient. Silence is golden. Actions speak louder than words. Together we stand, divided we fall. Honesty is the best policy. Don't be a sore loser. Turn the other cheek. Confession is good for the soul. Cowards die many times before their death. Don't toot your own horn. In reality, one could profit tremendously (at the expense of others) by acting in opposition to much of this advice... and that is exactly why we try to teach members of society to follow it. -------------------------------------- Individuals who are able to control themselves would be said by Durkheim to have a well-developed "social side." Again, this will only happen when an individual's group/ society properly socializes him or her. Without society to put this "cap" on desires, the individual will become overwhelmed by these desires, causing great suffering to both that person and society. But wait a minute, you might say. It's clear how one's group could suffer from excessive desire in the individual - but how does the individual suffer from being a selfish ass? To understand this, think back to a saying you're sure to have heard at one time or another (and if not, now will do): "Children need rules," or "Children need boundaries." If you understand this, you understand the importance of placing a cap on desires. The statement is not about children needing boundaries so that adults can put up with them, it's about children needing boundaries to maintain their own mental stability. If you let a child do whatever he or she wants, that child will cease to appreciate pleasurable things, because when life is nothing but pleasure, pleasure loses meaning. The child will continue to try to find fun things to do (that will likely cause the destruction of property), but will increasingly perceive these experiences to be hollow. It's kind of like eating nothing but ice cream: in time, ice cream loses its appeal and you long for some Brussels sprouts. Or, remember how you felt after a few weeks of summer vacation -- how you actually got bored of being out of school, and wished you could take that three months of leisure in smaller installments? Or pornography: sure its fun to watch for the first four hours... Its not only children who need rules about how much pleasure is enough. What if, instead of there being rules against extra-marital sex, married people were allowed to go out and pick up sex partners anytime they wanted? As a married person, instead of being satisfied that you were getting what you're entitled to, you'd be worried about missing out on all that romance! When the sky's the limit, quenching those desires becomes a chore. When you're allowed to do whatever you want, you always worry that you're not getting as much pleasure as you could. At some point the unconstrained individual burns out - realizes that no matter how much desire is fulfilled, how much pleasure is achieved, true satisfaction is impossible because there is no definition of what constitutes "enough." We need to know how much is enough, and society is the thing that tells us. -------------------------------------- In Your Terms: (excerpts from Chris Farley's obituary as reported 12-19-97 on the CNN website: www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9712/18/farley.obit.3/) CHICAGO (CNN) - Chris Farley, the oversized comic who spent five seasons on TV's "Saturday Night Live" and later starred in several movies, was found dead Thursday in an apartment. The cause of death was unconfirmed, although Chicago fire officials told Reuters that Farley died of an apparent heart attack. Farley, 33, was an alumnus of Chicago's famed Second City improvisational comedy troupe, where he developed his frantic characters. Police said his brother John called 911 after he found Farley on the floor in the entranceway of his 60th-floor apartment in the John Hancock skyscraper in downtown Chicago. Former "SNL" comic Al Franken was in CNN's New York studios when he learned of Farley's death and said it was "not a shock." "Chris had some problems. Eating was one of them," said Franken, who knew Farley for years. "This was obviously something he couldn't conquer. This is very sad." Franken, who created the character of recovering addict Stuart Smalley on "SNL," said he and Farley had "a lot of talks" about his weight. "He struggled with this, very hard. He had periods where he was under control and periods where he wasn't." When Farley joined the "SNL" cast, Franken said he told him, "You can lose 40 pounds and still be the fat guy." In an US magazine article this year, Farley's manager Marc Gurvitz said he was worried about the comic, even though he felt his long battle with alcohol and drugs was under control. "He's got a big career and a great life ahead of him," Gurvitz told the magazine. "But will he go the route of John Candy if he's not careful? Of course he will." Candy, another Second City alum, died of a heart attack in 1994 at age 43. Franken said it was Farley's vulnerability |