Category: Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim sociology is basic functionalism (Pope, 1975; Dew, 2007), he is the author of many classical texts, and one of those whom originated sociology (Lukes, 1985). In “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” (Durkheim 1954) Durkheim studied ritual practices, religious beliefs and their social explanations, Durkheim anticipated to explain ritual practices and religious beliefs thoroughly in a sociological context (Lukes, 1985). “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” and other Durkheim work like “suicide” (Durkheim, 1951), lead to argue Durkheim’s Functionalism, Taylor and Ashworth argued that Durkheim is a realist because he explained observable phenomena (Taylor & Ashworth, 1987). Durkheim contribution to public health is very important, his study of the connection between health and society helped to understand the social solidarity, and the social integration effect on mortality (Berkman, Glass, Brissette & Seeman, 2000). Durkheim’s work has been used in several public health concepts, such as social capital and anomie (Dew, 2007). “Dignity of the human person” is not a common concept used in public health (Dew, 2007). Durkheim’s interpretation of the Dignity of the human person is discussed in this paper, where medicine is recognized as a possible way to satisfy the role of the “Dignity of the human person”. However, public health as an institution appears to be a more appropriate contender. “Dignity of the human person”, “Individualism”, “cult of humanity” and “religion of humanity” all refer to the progression of society, and the associated shift of the importance to the sacredness of the individual (Chriss, 1993). The fact that there are many terms to the same concept, resulted in confusion (Chriss, 1993). These terms are used interchangeably by different translators, and even by Durkheim (Chriss, 1993). The religious ideal and the religious power captivated Durkheim, as they molded the lives of a society of believers (Durkheim, 1938, 1951, 1954, 1984).

Emile Durkheim wrote about social solidarity in “The Division of Labor”, he discussed solidarity concepts in two forms (Durkheim, 1984). On the one hand, the “mechanical solidarity”, which is a religiously based, homogenous and has compliance with standards via suppressive permissions and strict laws (Durkheim, 1984). The “mechanical solidarity” implies shared awareness that fully encases and subordinates each individual to the community (Durkheim, 1984). On the other hand, the “organic solidarity” of postindustrial and socially distinguished societies that are ordered and advanced morally, which is integrated by social independencies, and is heterogenous in nature (Durkheim, 1984). In the “organic solidarity” law is restitutive, and the labor division emerges (Durkheim, 1984). Through the evolution from “mechanical” to “organic” social solidarity, Durkheim sensed the progressive fading of traditional religion in Europe (Durkheim, 1954).

Inconsistently, Durkheim says things like religion is the start of everything, and religion will continuously be an element of social life (Durkheim, 1984). Furthermore, Durkheim also perceives the gradual fading of the religion power, as well as a universal drifting away from religion as societies evolve from “mechanic solidarity” to “organic solidarity” (Durkheim, 1954). The harmony of Durkheim’s contrasting positions is questionable. Durkheim’s effort to conceptualize the similar phenomena, through the continuous drift away from religion, and considering the remaining influence of religion as a primeval power in contemporary society (Durkheim, 1951, 1954). Durkheim’s effort to conceptualize the similar phenomena is a core to the issue of the nature of “Dignity of the human person” (Chriss, 1993). Instead of putting an end to religion or proposing that it would shortly turn out to be a rationally unimportant, Durkheim just transposed the nature of the religious power from social presentation “mechanical solidarity” to the sacredness of the individual “organic solidarity”, which is visibly demonstrated in the evolution of Durkheim’s writings starting in his paper on suicide (Durkheim 1951), and reaching over to his rearmost great work “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life” (Durkheim, 1954; Chriss, 1993).

Like religion, health is a shared concern to society (Dew, 2007). Several features of public health propose that it fills the religion role in modern society (Dew, 2007). Everyone goes through ill health and disability through their lives, individual participation in society relies on a specific state of health (Dew, 2007). In public health, the health of an individual is received in relation to the health of their community (Dew, 2007). Life expectation data are one of the ways to measure the success of the national public health (Dew, 2007). Although the idea of public health is a fundamentally shared illustration, health can be perceived as an individualistic quest, where the individual health can be outlined inside the idyllic population health (Dew, 2007). Social epidemiology as a science in supporting public health policy can be perceived as a new religion on the basis of its cause and its objective data (Dew, 2007). The social sources of disease and mortality are themes of social epidemiology, the goals of social epidemiology policies are focused at bettering harmful social impacts (Dew, 2007). The inadequate distribution in salaries, housing, education and other social aspects which lead to such inadequate consequences in relations of death rated and illness (Howden-Chapman, 2005). Social epidemiology as a science, has a demand for economic and social equity in terms of polices (Dew, 2007). In order to decrease well-being discriminations, the social discriminations must be reduced. In a population, everyone is somewhere on the slope, consequently such discriminations will affect every person in the society, this is a reflective idea of the influential and collective demand for social equity (Kawachi et al. 1999).

Public health acts as a buffer to anomie in limiting and regulating the individual’s never-ending pursuit of their own desires. Public health can also act a buffer to the flourishing capitalism as the argument of the need to regulate the economy and limit the extent of inequality in society. Conflict perception studies of public health have a tendency to position the institute as a problem in association with capitalism, or as a resolution with an emphasizing on social factors, lessening the capitalist influence and tendencies. An investigation of public health relative to the Dignity of the human person proposes a different emphasis. Public health is an institute that achieves an ethical monitoring purpose in modern society, and consequently as an institute is in disapproval with other institutes execution different monitoring roles or nurturing individuality. Individuality as a concept is not the resisting perspective, in this case the resistance is on a level of collectivity. The term resistance might not be the best definition, moderating different monitoring rules might improve defining the institutes relations. Influence can be absolutist when any specific monitoring rule governs from this viewpoint. Historically, that influence can be perceived as fading and waxing for different institutes, including the market, governments, academia and public health. Public health must not just be perceived as an adverse or helpful power. When uncontrolled, public health is absolutist. But public health itself can limit the undesirable influence of other institutes and confine anomic and selfish predispositions in modern society.

References

1. Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social science & medicine, 51(6), 843-857.
2. Chriss, J. J. (1993). Durkheim’s cult of the individual as civil religion: Its appropriation by Erving Goffman. Sociological Spectrum, 13(2), 251-275.
3. Dew, K. (2007). Public health and the cult of humanity: a neglected Durkheimian concept. Sociology of health & illness, 29(1), 100-114.
4. Durkheim, E. 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method, translated by S. A. Solovay and J. H. Mueller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Durkheim, E. 1951. Suicide, translated by J. Spaulding and G. Simpson. Glencoe: Free Press.
6. Durkheim, E. 1954. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated by J. Swain. Glencoe: Free Press.
7. Durkheim, E. 1957. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, translated by C. Brookfield. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8. Durkheim, E. 1961. Moral Education, translated by E. K. Wilson and H. Schnurer. Glencoe: Free Press.
9. Durkheim, E. 1974. Sociology and Philosophy, translated by D. F. Pocock. New York: Free Press.
10. Durkheim, E. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society, translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.
11. Howden-Chapman, P. (2005) Unequal socio-economic determinants, unequal health. In Dew, K. and Davis, P. (eds) Health and Society in Aotearoa New Zealand 2nd Edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
12. Kawachi, I., Wilkinson, R. and Kennedy, B. (1999) Introduction. In Kawachi, I., Wilkinson, R. and Kennedy, B. (eds) The Society and Population Health Reader: Volume 1, Income Inequality and Health. New York: The New Press.
13. Lukes, S. (1985). Emile Durkheim, his life and work: a historical and critical study. Stanford University Press.
14. Pope, W. (1975). Durkheim as a Functionalist. Sociological Quarterly, 16(3), 361-379.

The origins of religion have been disputed thoroughly over time. Whether an individual is a believer or not, it is hard to miss the influence of religion in society. Great architectural works, poems, art and literature have stemmed from religion globally. Since the early 20th century, secular scholarly traditions have accepted that religious traditions are merely tools, created in order to organise societies, and not necessarily accounts of divine intervention. They argue that the distinctions we have for religious fact, are often similar to that which we find in the region of fandom, and often with populist political figureheads. It is important however that this isn’t taken to be true by all, as religious affiliates would disagree, claiming that the origins of religion came from revelation.

“If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion.'(Durkheim, 1915) This quote by Durkheim encapsulates his later views on religion and its role within society perfectly. David Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist, who is commonly cited as one of the fathers of modern sociological thought. Throughout his life, his thoughts on the origins of religion altered dramatically.

In his earlier works, such as The Division of Labour in Society, he was a firm advocate of the idea that societies could have evolved and progressed throughout history without the medium of religion. However. later in life his views shifted to the idea that religious thoughts and their respective institutions are fundamental actors in the progression of global and historical societies.

By the time that Durkheim produced one of his later works, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (which will be referred to as Forms), he was of the mind that religion was in fact the most important institution within human societies, it was in its nature a fundamental part of the human condition. Essentially, in this piece Durkheim discusses that religion is a social phenomenon that deviates over the globe, yet is still at its core the same functional system.

He views religion as the product of humans, it is not something which originates from divine intervention, as most religious structures themselves would claim. He treats religion as a sui generis social system, and analyses it purely from a functionalist standpoint. In his works, namely Forms, he comes from the viewing platform of the famous ‘armchair anthropologist’. In short; he didn’t partake in his own fieldwork, he studied the fieldwork of others and based his work on that.

He uses ethnographic data curated from what was viewed to be the most ‘primitive’ religion of that time; the religion of Australian aborigines, which was fundamentally totemic. He used this religion, as he wanted to study the most simple form of religion possible, he wanted to discover the most essential elements of what is religious social existence.

The fact that Durkheim uses this method of ‘armchair anthropology’ is a strong criticism of his work. His methodologies, which cause misinterpretations of ethnographic data, and undermining of traditional religions are often seen as problematic. Even though his disconnect with these cultures hinders his understanding of the minutiae of their religious lives, the backbone of his ideas have been reaffirmed and adopted by many thinkers over the years.

In Durkheim’s discourse, he was not set out to search for the absolute origin of religion. He was investigating the social forces which are already at play that result in the emergence of religious life. These factors are outside our framework of time and the different cultural and geographical factors that are also at play.

He defines religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices, relative to sacred things,…, things set apart and forbidden– beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Durkheim 1895 pp.44) He states that religion can be divided into three fundamental elements, objects which are sacred, a decree of beliefs and ritual, and an active moral community.

This idea of the sacred is the most important, it is the pivotal point around which all religious systems revolve. An example of this may be the role of Jesus Christ in Christianity. He is very much sacred in thought, in text and in ritual. Statues of Jesus are sacred, much as other representations of him, may that be through the bread and wine shared in communion which is metaphorical. Another analogy is that of the sacred fire in Zoroastrianism. This symbolises the presence of ‘Ahura Mazda’, the Wise Lord in the world.

He contrasts the idea of sacred with what he terms the profane. This is that from which the sacred must be protected. This dichotomy is central to his theory. Zoroastrians would ensure that no pollutants from a human corpse, or other sources of perceived evil, would never come into close proximity with the sacred fire.

The social aspects of religion are also highly prized in Forms, as he spends a large portion of the piece stating his arguments against of Herbert Spencer, Tylor and Frazer, who locate the origins of religion in psychological phenomena. He argues that these interpretations of religion, as psychological phenomena must be socially learned.

Durkheim states, that religions come into being and are initiated into the societies reality through moments of what he refers to as ‘collective effervescence’. These are moments when the group of individuals perform a ritual, which unifies the group as they are brought together by shared thought and shared action. In these moments, members of the community generate a certain ‘emotional electricity’. This gives the participants are experiencing some kind of delirium and excitement. This creates the aura that individuals are somewhat lifted out of their own bodies and in contact with other worldly identities. This may be attributed to the communion service, where believers are partaking in the sharing of the flesh and blood of Christ.

Religious groups also project this energy onto an external symbol, this how small religious ideas transfer to the greater societal community. In this way, Durkheim follows that religious power must be either personified or instilled in a symbol. Sacred objects receive their power in this way, they receive the collective religious and spiritual energies from the society and retain this power of the community.

Durkheim came up with the term ‘Sacred Object’ and we might apply this to what we might call ‘God’ in Christianity. Alternatively, the sacred object might instead of relating to a supernatural figure or deity be describing the ‘spiritual energy’ of a community, which is something that all the members of a society will have a mental association with. This would encompass a range of concepts, the Judeo-Christian God, the Buddhist ‘Four Noble Truths’. Modern scholars even have used Durkheim’s sacred object to describe how the self is viewed in modern Western society, with all its vanity, competition and general self obsessiveness.

This idea of sacred object allows for Durkheim to explain that any one societies sacred object is the collective forces of the group put into any one ‘object’. Through the religion, individuals represent society and themselves. This means that the importance is from the power placed upon the object by the society, rather than the object in and of itself. This idea goes beyond the religious realm, since all socially derived meaning comes from this same structure. For example, any object which has social meaning i.e. money, passports are not important in and of themselves, but are important through the roles they fill in society. These religious rituals however must be repeated in order to reaffirm their role and purpose in the religious society.

Durkheim’s Sacred object as a concept allows him to offer an explanation of how any one society has a sacred object which symbolises the collective forces of the entire group. The religion is

If these forces aren’t repeated and reinforced, they will be forgotten. Religion cannot exist through mere belief, the reinforcement of repeated action through ritual for this force which generates the sacred object to be reinforced. These social forces that animate religious life are very real, and are felt by the participants.

Freud’s analysis of religion, is known to have laid the groundwork for scientific and psychological theories of religion. His works have been, for the most part, discredited by modern scientific thought, however his novel methods, which were more in the scientific tradition, to analyse religion have been highly influential for scholars in this field. Not in the sense of their content, but applying scientific methods to religious thought and cultural practice. Needless to say, it differs in many areas from that of Durkheim, which we will compare later.

Firstly, religion is viewed as somewhat of a defense-mechanism. In Freud’s earliest work on religion; ‘Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices”, through drawing parallels between obsessive-compulsive actions and religious actions, e.g. ritual cleansing.

He sees that these neuroses which surface as obsessive thought or anxiety have a counterpart compulsive behaviour in the religious sphere which supplies the same temporary relief by acting in such a way as the “pathological counterpart” of the formation of religion (Kung, 1982). He makes this claim, as there are many physical similarities we can draw between both of these circumstances. Both are concerned with purity; in cases of OCD many individuals have what appears to be an irrational fear of germs contaminating things. In religious circumstances, purity is a global factor that is often deemed as necessary for rituals to go ahead, this may take the form of celibacy, or establishing a sense of bodily purity before taking part in a ritual, such as the Islamic act of wudu; washing ones body before partaking in prayer.

Guilt, purity and repetition are aspects which are taken to be common factors of both of these ‘neuroses’. Another important aspect is the idea that these things don’t tend to change, individuals often don’t deviate off of the path from the ritually prescribed action, as they are trapped in a routine. This links to the guilt, with the neurosis in a non religious sense, this would be the bad feeling that someone who suffers OCD might have when they can’t clean. These are defense mechanisms to deal with the stresses of human experience, the neurosis that we get from daily life in society.

These factors stem from the inner feelings of disorder and anxiety, which are merely qualms of the human condition, and stems originally from the Oedipus complex, which has given Freud his notoriety over the years. As far as we know, humans are the only creatures that are aware of their own impending death, another source of stress and anxiety. The Oedipus complex stems from the Greek myth, where it was foretold that Oedipus would kill his father, and marry his mother. Clearly, unacceptable practices, and as such he was sent away. After many trials and tribulations, this was in fact what ended up happening, unknown to him, who had been brought up away from his parents. Freud takes the central themes of this story, and applies it to basic religious principles, thus establishing our relationship with God as the ideal father-son relationship.

All in all, in this text, Freud makes the grand statement that religion is merely an illusion, that humans have written into existence to fulfil their every wish. It’s not something which has direct truth, it is merely a tool in which humans use to establish ground in one’s life, and the illusion of control over anxiety inducing matters.

In ‘the Future of an Illusion’ Freud gives deeper insights into his theory of religious phenomena and how it has been such a phenomenal force in societies across time and space. He explains that humans have an instinctive need to create defence mechanisms, in the form of these routines that give us the illusion of control, i.e. the cleaning, and purifying rituals. These structures in society aid us with life, and the facts of our ultimate demise.

Much of Freud’s work has been deemed unscientific by the global scientific community. His infamous ideas of the id, ego and superego, and his most famous links with the Oedipus complex of classical scripture have been debunked in recent times. Regardless of this fact Freud is extremely influential in a more general sense as a scholar looking at religion, as he was one of the first of his kind.

Of both Freud and Durkheim, the core elements of their theories are at face value consistent. They both share the view that religion serves as a societal structure which is outside of theological concern, as we have seen in the analysis of these arguments. They are both of the opinion that Religious believers are mistaken, insofar as their beliefs are correlating with some cosmic religious phenomena beyond our ken.

They also clearly agree with the concept that religion is a projection of a collective ‘something’ onto another thing. In the eyes of Durkheim, there is the projection of this collective effervescence onto the profane, for example statues of Christ that instill awe and contemplation into followers. In the case of Freud, however, this is the collective neurosis of society, with followers of religion projecting their collective anxieties onto an object, ritual act, or a totem. For example, the act of washing for religious purity mirrors the act of washing for OCD.

Clearly, the most outstanding point from certainly Durkheim’s work on religious belief is that it is an integral element of human culture. He is a firm advocate that religious structures are aiding society in its functions and its evolution over time. Freud, gets to the same conclusion to some degree, however has the ideal of an ‘atheistic utopia’. Durkheim and Freud are both somewhat of the mind that modern society is one with a ‘terminal decline’ in what is referred to as ‘traditional religion’ (Lynch, 2012). Many scholars are of the mind that the influence of old religions are being replaced by the secular, ‘new gods’ which take the form of more modern, scientific ways of thinking and figures. Crome, has identified the old religious traditions as being replaced by ‘fandoms’ and hero worship, for football clubs, boy bands and science fiction (Crome, 2016). There are also allegiance to commercial labels, such as Apple and Nike, which are ‘worshipped’, in today’s ‘temples’ i.e. shopping malls. Furthermore, the the modern world doesn’t always allow for complex and grandiose religious ceremonies, for example the use of daxma (Towers of Silence) to dispose of the dead in the West is prohibited, which makes a struggle for Zoroastrians in the diaspora.

Durkheim himself was a known, vehement secularist. He was a firm advocate of the construction of the secularist French third republic, which was adopted after the fall of the Second French Empire. He was a firm believer in the idea that humans will ‘grow out’ of religion, as it was once a tool that we utilised to evolve, however in the modern age it has very little to offer. Through his sociological explorations of religion, which is a more subjective way of understanding the powerful realities of religion, he concluded that we no longer need these religious institutions to explain the likes of laws and morals that are necessary in society through myth and spirituality, even though it was vital when it was needed.

The predictions of these thinkers have proven to be somewhat contested in this sense. In the UK, far fewer people identify with traditional religious belief and religious institutions such as the church of England, which has been integral to the United Kingdom in politics and closely linked with royalty and power. However, Durkheim did fail to predict the role of religion in a world of globalisation that we now live in. This secular concept of ‘Western Europe’ is not what he predicted, because of the globalisation process. Individuals of different religions and cultures are living in these areas, they are ‘melting together’ (Lynch, 2012). Durkheim lived in an age of transition, the secularisation process was rife, and the Religion is often a cultural niche and is protected in such senses, as we now live in a world of interconnectedness, through global media and migration.

The methodology between the two scholars was very different and both from brand new disciplines. Durkheim, a sociologist and Freud was a psychologist. Different methods are used to come to terms with these central concepts of culture and society. Durkheim would be looking at groups of people as a whole, and how it affects the community, whereas Freud would be looking at how individuals behave within the group.

Durkheim can be accused of being too simplistic with his analysis of religion as he applies his theory to a large group of people, he is looking at the impact of religion on a society en masse. This allows for Freud as a psychologist to explain that which Durkheim’s theory cannot, such as that which is on the individual scale.

So we see there, are some similarities in their thinking, yet also there are ways in which that they are diametrically opposed. The origins of religion, is clearly according to these two thinkers, something which is organisational and fulfils an external purpose outside of the divine. If religious life is merely a tool to organise societies, then is seems that the origins do not add much knowledge. Freud and Durkheim were both groundbreakers, taking a novel approach when examining ancient structures in society. Both perspectives are new ways of thinking and psychology were new disciplines. However, despite the different methodologies they used, Durkheim looking at society at large, and Freud finding similarities between individual cases, they both ended up coming into similar perspectives in to how religion is dying out and secularism is key.

One of Durkheim’s greatest works, was ‘Suicide’ (Le suicide). For its time, this project was quite radical and challenging. Through the science of sociology, he was able to analyze the causes and factors that lead to suicide and for him it was a social phenomenon. Under the term suicide or voluntary death, Durkheim also included death that occurs as a result of manhood or self-immolation (Antonopoulou, 2008). It also included cases of customary death, such as ceremonies in various pre-industrial societies. Studying non-urban, non-industrial societies, he observed that suicide was a natural phenomenon related to collectivity and how collective consciousness influenced individual behavior. In all societies, there is a frequency of suicides, which are closely linked to social conditions, indicating that suicide is a social phenomenon.

The study of the phenomenon in non-urban societies was primarily to confirm the social nature of suicide, that is, the causes of the phenomenon are social and not related to individual psychology. Durkheim believed that the rise of suicides in Europe at the end of the century was linked to a more general crisis going through society and that social adjustments had relaxed. Through official statistics on suicides, Durkheim argued that as cold, real and irrevocable as the ‘individual event’ of suicide is, that one took his own life, the other so objective, given, and real is the social phenomenon of suicide, as reflected in the frequency of suicides that society presents. Rejecting the psychological, psychopathological, and even hereditary causes, the theorist looks for the social nature of the suicide phenomenon. It observes that the suicide rate is relatively stable at a given time in a given population of a particular region or country (Antonopoulou, 2008). The identification of the factors that cause the phenomenon of suicide and the types of suicide that it presents link the phenomenon to the structure, the ‘inner environment’ of the society in which it occurs. As a general conclusion, Durkheim holds that suicide is proportional to the degree of cohesion of a social group or wider society. So examining the degree of cohesion of the social group or larger group, determining the importance of factors such as religious beliefs, individuals’ marital status, altruistic or selfish behavior allow Durkheim to distinguish three types of suicide: egoistic, altruistic and anomic. (Craib, 2012).

Egoistic suicide is found in modern, urban societies. On the development of selfishness and personality, the pursuit on the part of individuals of their particular, personal interests and thus their liberation from strong social imperatives.

Durkheim saw a higher incidence of suicide in countries dominated by Protestantism rather than Catholicism. That is, Protestants commit suicide more easily than Catholics. This is explained by the fact that Catholicism is a religion that controls the consciousness of believers and is based on blind faith, tradition and hierarchy. On the contrary, Protestantism permits freedom of individual thought and conscience, and the Protestant is more a creator of his faith, thereby creating religious individualism. Altruistic suicide occurs in societies with a high degree of assimilation into the collective life. A total way of enforcing collective consciousness towards the individual can lead individuals to ethical commitments. Suicide can thus appear as a sacrifice, a duty of individuals, and in contrast to the selfish suicide, the ego is not a property of ourselves, but obeys something external to the group in which it participates (Craib, 2012).

Finally, anomic suicide occurs where the rules governing social life have become absent, and we no longer know how to behave or what to do in a situation or not. This is often observed in times of crisis and sudden changes (e.g. loss of wealth). These transitional periods or periods of crisis do not contribute to the social integration of individuals and there is a general confusion with old and new rules and social requirements.

Suicide infers the exhibition of purposely causing one’s own passing. The term suicide is applied to all cases of death coming about legitimately or in a roundabout way from a positive or negative exhibit of the casualty himself, which he understands will result the particular result. Mental confusion, including melancholy, bipolar unrest, schizophrenia, character issue, uneasiness issue, and substance abuse which joins alcohol dependence and the usage of benzodiazepines are some risk factors. Suicide is an intricate subject enacted by various complex segments. The failure to meet ones wants which may have been instilled as in front of calendar as youth may understand a wide collection of sentiments inciting people finishing it for various reasons. According to Emile Durkheim, suicide comes in four different sorts: egoistic suicide , altruistic suicide, anomic suicide, and fatalistic suicide. These suicides of different kinds are outcomes of different social factors. Along these lines, we will try to give a progressively through and through assessment of why people end it all by taking a gander at the sociological factor and explicitly according to Durkheim’s work.

We can see Durkheim’s theory of suicide the more obviously in the event that we look at the connection between the sort of suicide and his two hidden social realities which are mix and guideline. Coordinated here alludes to the quality of the connection that we need to society. Then again guideline implies the level of outside limitation on individuals. Self absorbed suicide is a significant reaction executed by individuals who feel completely disconnected from society. Commonly, individuals are incorporated into society by work jobs, binds to family and network, and other social securities. At the point when these bonds are debilitated through retirement or loss of loved ones, hence the probability of proud suicide increments. Older individuals, who endure these misfortunes most significantly, are exceptionally helpless to vain self destruction. High pace of selfish suicide are probably going to be found in social orders or gatherings in which the individual isn’t all around incorporated into the bigger social unit. This absence of combination drives o an inclination that the individual isn’t part f society, however this likewise implies society isn’t a piece of the person. The best piece of an individual; values, feeling of direction and our mortality originate from society. A coordinated society gives us these things, just as a general sentiment of good help to get us through the everyday little outrages and insignificant dissatisfactions. Without this, we are at risk to end it all at the littlest dissatisfaction.

Altruistic suicide is normally a consequence of exorbitant guideline of individuals by social forces with the ultimate objective that an individual may be moved to butcher themselves to help an explanation or for society on the loose. According to Crossman (2020) a model is somebody who ends it all for a strict or political reason, for example, the scandalous Japanese Kamikaze pilots of World War II, or the criminals that smashed the planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania in 2001. In such social conditions, people are so unequivocally incorporated into social wants and society itself that they will kill themselves with a ultimate objective to achieve aggregate objectives. Another instance of charitable suicide is the ‘Sathi system ‘ in India where the life partner needs to bounce into the fire at the memorial service of her significant other. In this manner, somebody demands living considerably after the passing of her better half, won’t be regarded in the general public any longer. In such a suicide regard and respect plays a significant factor.

Anomic suicide is a ludicrous response by a person who encounters anomie, a sentiment of detachment from society and a notion of not having a place coming about in view of debilitated social attachment. Anomie occurs during times of genuine social, monetary, or political change, which achieve fast and unprecedented changes to society and standard day by day presence. In such conditions, an individual may feel so befuddled and disengaged that they choose to end it all. This sort of suicide is commonly famous once in a while when society is rapidly changing inciting weakness. It is the sort f suicide that starts from unexpected and astonishing changes which Durkheim found by and large occurring during quick budgetary changes than in fiscal crisis. Durkheim directs the consideration toward suicide that is dynamically clear in crisis that brings out unsettling influence in one’s life instead of being attributed to destitution.

Fatalistic suicide was little talked about by Durkheim and in his theory of suicide and is the place he oversees something as opposed to selfish self destruction. Fatalistic suicide occurs under conditions of uncommon social rule achieving serious conditions and a renouncing of oneself and of association. In such a situation an individual may decide to end it all as opposed to continue driving forward through the severe conditions, for instance, the example of suicide among detainees. Stack (1979) the paper operational zed overregulation in political terms. A relapse examination utilizing United Nations information on 45 nations found that pointers of autocracy, for example, affirmations of military law and forbidding an ideological group, were fundamentally identified with the pace of suicide autonomous of the control factors. A one percent expansion in government endorse was related with a .13 percent expansion in self destruction. According to Durkheim subjection and abuse are a few instances of fatalistic suicide where the individual builds up a thought that they are foreordained by destiny to be in the specific circumstances and pick suicide as the best way to get away from those circumstances.

To finish up suicide is not an individual exhibit be that as it may, it is a social showing. Individuals end it all since they are not upheld by society or they don’t feel esteemed by their own family, if an individual has no assistance in his life and no one to consider him than they can feel valueless and this will provoke distress which may bring about self destruction. Suicide rates are related with how well an individual is consolidated into society and how much society oversees singular conduct. By and large suicide has some relationship with social standards or rules and the individual. Contrast in suicide rates were to be found in contrasts at the degree of social realities as various gatherings have diverse aggregate assessments, which produce distinctive social flows and later the suicide rates.

Reference

1. Crossman, A. (2020, February 11). The Study of Suicide by Emile Durkheim. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/study-of-suicide-by-emile-durkheim-3026758
2. Stack, S. (1979). Durkheim’s theory of fatalistic suicide: a cross-national approach. The Journal of Social Psychology 107(2), 161-168, 1979

Karl Marx formed a theory called the conflict theory where he believed that there was a conflict between the ruling class (bourgeois) and the working class (proletariat) in relation to the issuing of wealth and labor in society. In his analysis Karl Marx spoked on capitalism has being the main reason for inequality in society between the two social classes. “Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”. (Definition of CAPITALISM, 2018). Marx believe that people were being force into labor against their will as a mean to survive in capitalist society. This was because of the unequal distribution of labor within society with the ruling class capturing and maintaining more of the material means for production that ultimately means they own and controlled most of the materialistic sentiments. The societies that Marx spoked about where exploitation was evident is the feudal society and the capitalist society. “In a feudal system, a peasant or worker known as a vassal received a piece of land in return for serving a lord or king, especially during times of war”. (“feudal system – Dictionary Definition,” 2019). In that time workers were exploited by the lords or kings and were offered lands and protection if they work and fought for them. Marx also made mention of the economic driven factor that has a contributed to human beings being forced to act on the world in certain ways– to engage in material production. (Harman, C., 2012). With that being said, society has been shape and form on the basis that persons are to work for the means of survival, to meet their needs in a world solely owned and controlled by the ruling class (bourgeois). This has created the evolutionary theory called false consciousness; where workers (proletariat) are convince that working in society under exploitative conditions are normal. This has clouded their minds, preventing them from seeing the real reason for them working. Their inability to recognize this exploitation has created a greater opportunity for the ruling class to take advantage of their own views and beliefs. This enable the ruling class to exploit and rule over the working class continuously as a way to maintain their power and control over the material means of production. For Marx, however, the continuous exploitation has caused alienation amongst workers in a capitalist society fueling a more degenerate contemporary society that was evident then and now. Needless to say, this exploitation it has only been beneficial to the ruling class and not the working class creating a more unequal society and marginalization between the two classes.

Marx further went on to explain the base (forces of production and relation of production) and superstructure (religion, culture family etc.) in the development of society. Base refers to the production forces, or the materials and resources, that generate the goods society needs and the superstructure describes all other aspects of society. ( https://www.facebook.com/thoughtcodotcom, 2014). Marx philosophy on the base and superstructure derive from how the economic and material means of production forms our political, religious and cultural views in society. This means that without the base in society all other things would have been unrealistic and unimaginative as the base is a determinant of how things were formed and created base on a materialistic culture. Additionally, Marx saw an economic driven culture in materialism as a foundation of how society is governed and ruled due to the dependency for material things by both classes to exist and survive. Nonetheless, for social revolution, as stated by Marx it is not until the working class become aware of the exploitation from the ruling class through class consciousness before any changes can be made that will eventually lead to social equality amongst themselves and the ruling class.

Notably, in Durkheim’s work from a functionalists perspective his views on how society works and functions to maintain balance and equilibrium is somewhat different for Marx’s views. To simply put, Durkheim looks specially on what holds society together rather than a materialistic economic driven perspectives compared to Marx. Durkheim point of view focuses on social solidarity and its interdependence between people and society to work simultaneously with each other to maintain social order respectively. Durkheim’s argument is that there are two types of social solidarity – how society holds together and what ties the individual to the society. (“Sociology 250 – Notes on Durkheim,” 2019a). Durkheim view on mechanical solidarity or a traditional society is that, it was held together base on the dependence of one another within social groups that eventually result in the formation of bonds and strong relationships amongst themselves and others. This was expressed by Durkheim as the “collective conscience”. Collective consciousness refers to the condition of the subject within the whole of society, and how any given individual comes to view herself as a part of any given group. (“collective consciousness,” 2019). Hence, reality is created when individuals interact with one another. This is evident in the family and other close knitted social groups who shared common beliefs and values. In this traditional society social integration was of utmost importance as it was what held individuals together rather than the division of labour.

On the other hand, the organic solidarity or modern society is defined as social integration that arises out of the need of individuals for one another’s services. (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010a). In this society emphasis is placed on the division of labor and as a consequence individuals begin to differ from one another and commonality amongst groups begin to reduce; hence a reduction in the collective conscience. Due to this interdependence amongst individual it has change the way we function and operate in the modern society and as a result there has been an increase in individuality. What hold this society together is the dependency that individual have on each other to perform task. This increase individualism and division of labor in society result in the survival mode in humans to increase to satisfy their material needs as mention by Marx. However, Durkheim also made mention of social integration and system integration and how they both keep social solidarity together. Additionally providing the understanding of social facts (things that are external to individuals such as institutions and culture that affects their behavior) Durkheim insist that this is what control our behavior upon interactions and historical evolution. Durkheim argue that social facts is the bases of how social order in maintained as it regards to how persons go about their lives and the constraints placed on the behavior of individuals. In his analysis he believed that social facts could explain our actions and in his attempt to prove this his study of suicide showed how too much or too little integration and regulation can result in this horrendous act.

At the same time, Max Weber saw rationalization as the epitome of society. To him the increase rationalization by individuals is what constitute for the different types of social actions in the past and now. Rationalization was seen by Weber as an indication that individuals were moving from a traditional society to more of practicable and calculable one, all while achieving efficiency with minimum effort. This is to say that, as the society changes and the organization grows there was also changes in the way people think and act. The different types of social action that Weber speaks about are the traditional action, the emotional action, the value-oriented action and the value-free action. These types of action, for Weber, were merely used to examine the historical rationalization processes in a sociocultural aspect. With the different types of social action Weber was able to place meaning on each action as this was a way to assess whether they were the act of rationalization or non rationalization. Weber was also concern with the meaning that individuals associated their actions with and as a consequence he was able to analyze the shift from the traditional society to a modern society.

He then continued to analyze how rationalization has shaped the modern society as it was an influences in the creation of the bureaucracy. “Bureaucracy can be considered to be a particular case of rationalization, or rationalization applied to human organization”. (Elwell, 2019). Initially, bureaucracy was the most effective way to organize people in society to determine who does what as well as the rules and laws. This was how social order is maintained within the organization with the aim to maximize on efficiency. In addition to this, the bureaucratically structure organization was a way to manage task in accordance to the individual’s role. It is an ideal way to distribute power in hierarchies where each individual is assigned a task and each of them is dependent on each other to get the work done. Weber, however, saw this increase rationalization in the development of bureaucracy has a way to trap individual in a society that is base solely on rationality. This was termed the “iron cage” by Weber. It was concluded by Weber that as individuals become more rational orientated within the organization or society in which they operate, it reduces self expression and creativity and as mention earlier in Marx philosophy this can result in alienation as workers become more rational and efficient.

Moreover, as the growth of the rationalization and the bureaucracy begin to prevail in the modern society so does capitalism. In a capitalist society religion was used as a tool to constrain the behavior of individuals. Weber argue that religion was a major contributor to capitalism and he believed that it was through belief and culture that society was shaped. However, Weber wanted to understand the rational meaning that individuals attach to their religious belief in relation to their social action. (“Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science,” 2019). This was highlighted in his study of the Protestant work ethic which answered Weber’s questions. In some religious groups such as Calvinists they were provided guidelines and rules on how they should behave and base on this code of conduct it will determine their fate with god. Weber also look at the historical dilemmas that have change the perceptions as to how humans see religion— as well as the increase or motivated behavioral patterns of individuals that were influence by their leaders in religious groups. Nonetheless, based upon the increase rationalization in the modern society religion is no longer used as metric tool by individuals as a guide as to how they should behave. This is to say that individuals no longer hold on to religious beliefs to make decisions. Ironically, though this can be seen as a contradictory approach to Weber’s initial analysis by looking at individuals as a conceptual tool to prove the rational interpretation of social actions but to also incorporate the influences of the outside contingency or in other words to take macro-level approach to sum up the understanding on the overall reshaping of society.

Georg Simmel approach was to look at individual interactions and how groups that differ in sizes relate to each other. “For Simmel, society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals, and the sociologist should study the patterns and forms of these associations, rather than quest after social laws.’ (“Notes on Georg Simmel,” 2019). This was somewhat different from Durkheim and Marx analysis as they focus on social laws and rules that govern society. Simmel place emphasis on the size of the groups in relation to their social interaction by which he used it has means to understand the behavior or nature of the group in which the term “sociation” was coined by Simmel. The dyad (2) and the triad (3) in Simmel analysis focused on how individual relationships affects the group. The dyad is where many general social forms exist in their pure state, also the limitation two only two members is the a condition that gives rise to specific social forms. (“Simmel,” 2019). Simmel interpretation of the dyad is that there is a relationship with only two members that is fairly simple because of the dependence of the individuals in the groups. He also stated that they are able to maintain their identity even if there are variations within the groups, however, if one persons leaves the group the group then ends. Triad adds the possibility for two actors (of the triad) to be connected not only “directly” but also through their contact with the third actor. (Portier, Pardo, & Salle, 1996a). This group consist of 3 or more persons, however, in this group if a person withdraw the group can still function on its own. Despite that, the third member acts independently of the group. As the group begins to expand or increase it result in more freedom and adaptability as the there will be a reduction in commonality amongst the group. Georg Simmel saw the individuals as being created by society and is apart of the processes that unfold in society; he saw the connection between the individual and society as being interrelated. Simmel also tried to understand the social types in society which includes the stranger, the poor, the mediator etc. Based on his reasoning the term social types place individuals into categories in accordance to the relationship they have with others. Yet, according to Simmel philosophy on money he believed that it was structural tool used in comprehending the meaning that individuals attach to it along with the ramifications that it has on the individual and society. Simmel mention that as the monetary economy binds us more tightly to each other by allowing universal exchange and specialization, the individual faces a greater freedom of self-definition because their lifestyle is no longer necessarily tied to their trade. (Auerbach, 2015). This means that as the economy experience changes so those the individuals in society hence there are some advantages and disadvantages associated the value system. This is because of the value that affix to money in the modern society. He believed that money in the modern society contributed to autonomy and self liberation and not only that but money is used as a means of exchange that increases the social interaction between people in society. The downside, for Simmel, however, is that individuals are less dependent on each other as the acquisition of money has given them the opportunity of freedom of choice. He stated that as we transition from a traditional society to a modern society money can be seen as an agent when fulfilling persons’ goal and implies the accretion individualism

Nevertheless , W.E.B du Bois out of all the sociologist he was the only one who proved conclusively that racism and segregation among the blacks and whites as fueling factor for social classes, capitalism, colonialism, politics and the economy. In Du Bois analysis his dialectical approach was what spoke evidently on how is society possible. Notably, he was the only sociologist to take into account the racial injustice in society and how the ramifications of slavery for blacks as shaped and transformed their life or lifestyles. The ideology of Du Bois’ work dealt with the double consciousness as it pertains to American blacks and whites. Double-consciousness is a concept in social philosophy referring, originally, to a source of inward “twoness” putatively experienced by African-Americans because of their racialize oppression and disvaluation in a white-dominated society. (Pittman, 2016). This is where Du Bois presented the theory of the veil and the color line which in fact speaks about the how the black and white on either side both had different experiences in life. The veil creates a lifeworld distorted by a series of dualities: a duality of agency within an oppressive system, a duality in the formation of the self, and a duality in the understanding of the word. (Itzigsohn & Brown, 2015). Within this dual environment there has been constant conflict between the whites and the blacks where self consciousness of one group differ significantly from the other base on how each of the two classes perceive themselves. Ideally, one class saw themselves as being more prestige than the other while the other saw themselves as how they were perceived by the other side (whites). The color line, on the other hand, that Du Bois spoke towards had the same notion as the veil. The color line emphasis mainly on the inequality in society with the whites being the majority and brown and blacks as the minorities limiting upward social mobility for the oppressed (blacks & browns) due to the scarcity of power and opportunities. This was reflected in the political affairs in the United Stated where it was noted that even though there were changes in the laws (grandfather clause 1800 & Jim Crow law) blacks were still being treated unfairly. However Du bois spoke about how the blacks used religion and socialization as a an instrumental tool for them to gain and preserve self recognition and to deal with their position in society. In the capitalist society Du bois noted that the blacks were viewed as merely objects and not real people. As a result, the African Americans self perception began to deteriorate based upon the inflicting views by the white supremacy. This alluded to the gap between the blacks and the whites in the capitalist society which contributed to the unequal treatment and unequal distribution of labor regarding the material means of production. In this case for capitalism the white were given better positions than the blacks and were provided better working positions than compared to the African Americans. “Du Bois calls up the American Dream of capitalism as a system of limitless wealth and economic mobility”. (Robinson, 2019). This, however, had encourage the competition between the blacks and the whites where workers had to challenge their upward mobility in order to survive in the capitalist system. Nonetheless, the constant wedge between the both groups undermine social and economic prosperity producing a more racially divided economy and society. Above all, with his view Du Bois was able to understand the social construction of society and how humans affected the world

Finally, to conclude, each theorists had different perspectives on how is society possible. Some looked at it from a macro level to give meaning to the formation of society and the determinants that have shaped and influence our behavior. While others took a different approach as they look at how individuals action and association with society has contributed to the formation of society along with the the institutions that have played a role in the development of our actions and behavior to gain insight on societal cohesion. However, despite each individual’s views most sociologist have failed to highlight the contribution of slavery and the colonialism of black peoples has impacted their lives. Hence result of a racially bias perspective on how is society possible as most approaches were from the eurocentric stand point with the exception of W.E.B du Bois.

Karl Marx formed a theory called the conflict theory where he believed that there was a conflict between the ruling class (bourgeois) and the working class (proletariat) in relation to the issuing of wealth and labor in society. In his analysis Karl Marx spoked on capitalism has being the main reason for inequality in society between the two social classes. “Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”. (Definition of CAPITALISM, 2018). Marx believe that people were being force into labor against their will as a mean to survive in capitalist society. This was because of the unequal distribution of labor within society with the ruling class capturing and maintaining more of the material means for production that ultimately means they own and controlled most of the materialistic sentiments. The societies that Marx spoked about where exploitation was evident is the feudal society and the capitalist society. “In a feudal system, a peasant or worker known as a vassal received a piece of land in return for serving a lord or king, especially during times of war”. (“feudal system – Dictionary Definition,” 2019). In that time workers were exploited by the lords or kings and were offered lands and protection if they work and fought for them. Marx also made mention of the economic driven factor that has a contributed to human beings being forced to act on the world in certain ways– to engage in material production. (Harman, C., 2012). With that being said, society has been shape and form on the basis that persons are to work for the means of survival, to meet their needs in a world solely owned and controlled by the ruling class (bourgeois). This has created the evolutionary theory called false consciousness; where workers (proletariat) are convince that working in society under exploitative conditions are normal. This has clouded their minds, preventing them from seeing the real reason for them working. Their inability to recognize this exploitation has created a greater opportunity for the ruling class to take advantage of their own views and beliefs. This enable the ruling class to exploit and rule over the working class continuously as a way to maintain their power and control over the material means of production. For Marx, however, the continuous exploitation has caused alienation amongst workers in a capitalist society fueling a more degenerate contemporary society that was evident then and now. Needless to say, this exploitation it has only been beneficial to the ruling class and not the working class creating a more unequal society and marginalization between the two classes.

Marx further went on to explain the base (forces of production and relation of production) and superstructure (religion, culture family etc.) in the development of society. Base refers to the production forces, or the materials and resources, that generate the goods society needs and the superstructure describes all other aspects of society. ( https://www.facebook.com/thoughtcodotcom, 2014). Marx philosophy on the base and superstructure derive from how the economic and material means of production forms our political, religious and cultural views in society. This means that without the base in society all other things would have been unrealistic and unimaginative as the base is a determinant of how things were formed and created base on a materialistic culture. Additionally, Marx saw an economic driven culture in materialism as a foundation of how society is governed and ruled due to the dependency for material things by both classes to exist and survive. Nonetheless, for social revolution, as stated by Marx it is not until the working class become aware of the exploitation from the ruling class through class consciousness before any changes can be made that will eventually lead to social equality amongst themselves and the ruling class.

Notably, in Durkheim’s work from a functionalists perspective his views on how society works and functions to maintain balance and equilibrium is somewhat different for Marx’s views. To simply put, Durkheim looks specially on what holds society together rather than a materialistic economic driven perspectives compared to Marx. Durkheim point of view focuses on social solidarity and its interdependence between people and society to work simultaneously with each other to maintain social order respectively. Durkheim’s argument is that there are two types of social solidarity – how society holds together and what ties the individual to the society. (“Sociology 250 – Notes on Durkheim,” 2019a). Durkheim view on mechanical solidarity or a traditional society is that, it was held together base on the dependence of one another within social groups that eventually result in the formation of bonds and strong relationships amongst themselves and others. This was expressed by Durkheim as the “collective conscience”. Collective consciousness refers to the condition of the subject within the whole of society, and how any given individual comes to view herself as a part of any given group. (“collective consciousness,” 2019). Hence, reality is created when individuals interact with one another. This is evident in the family and other close knitted social groups who shared common beliefs and values. In this traditional society social integration was of utmost importance as it was what held individuals together rather than the division of labour.

On the other hand, the organic solidarity or modern society is defined as social integration that arises out of the need of individuals for one another’s services. (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010a). In this society emphasis is placed on the division of labor and as a consequence individuals begin to differ from one another and commonality amongst groups begin to reduce; hence a reduction in the collective conscience. Due to this interdependence amongst individual it has change the way we function and operate in the modern society and as a result there has been an increase in individuality. What hold this society together is the dependency that individual have on each other to perform task. This increase individualism and division of labor in society result in the survival mode in humans to increase to satisfy their material needs as mention by Marx. However, Durkheim also made mention of social integration and system integration and how they both keep social solidarity together. Additionally providing the understanding of social facts (things that are external to individuals such as institutions and culture that affects their behavior) Durkheim insist that this is what control our behavior upon interactions and historical evolution. Durkheim argue that social facts is the bases of how social order in maintained as it regards to how persons go about their lives and the constraints placed on the behavior of individuals. In his analysis he believed that social facts could explain our actions and in his attempt to prove this his study of suicide showed how too much or too little integration and regulation can result in this horrendous act.

At the same time, Max Weber saw rationalization as the epitome of society. To him the increase rationalization by individuals is what constitute for the different types of social actions in the past and now. Rationalization was seen by Weber as an indication that individuals were moving from a traditional society to more of practicable and calculable one, all while achieving efficiency with minimum effort. This is to say that, as the society changes and the organization grows there was also changes in the way people think and act. The different types of social action that Weber speaks about are the traditional action, the emotional action, the value-oriented action and the value-free action. These types of action, for Weber, were merely used to examine the historical rationalization processes in a sociocultural aspect. With the different types of social action Weber was able to place meaning on each action as this was a way to assess whether they were the act of rationalization or non rationalization. Weber was also concern with the meaning that individuals associated their actions with and as a consequence he was able to analyze the shift from the traditional society to a modern society.

He then continued to analyze how rationalization has shaped the modern society as it was an influences in the creation of the bureaucracy. “Bureaucracy can be considered to be a particular case of rationalization, or rationalization applied to human organization”. (Elwell, 2019). Initially, bureaucracy was the most effective way to organize people in society to determine who does what as well as the rules and laws. This was how social order is maintained within the organization with the aim to maximize on efficiency. In addition to this, the bureaucratically structure organization was a way to manage task in accordance to the individual’s role. It is an ideal way to distribute power in hierarchies where each individual is assigned a task and each of them is dependent on each other to get the work done. Weber, however, saw this increase rationalization in the development of bureaucracy has a way to trap individual in a society that is base solely on rationality. This was termed the “iron cage” by Weber. It was concluded by Weber that as individuals become more rational orientated within the organization or society in which they operate, it reduces self expression and creativity and as mention earlier in Marx philosophy this can result in alienation as workers become more rational and efficient.

Moreover, as the growth of the rationalization and the bureaucracy begin to prevail in the modern society so does capitalism. In a capitalist society religion was used as a tool to constrain the behavior of individuals. Weber argue that religion was a major contributor to capitalism and he believed that it was through belief and culture that society was shaped. However, Weber wanted to understand the rational meaning that individuals attach to their religious belief in relation to their social action. (“Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science,” 2019). This was highlighted in his study of the Protestant work ethic which answered Weber’s questions. In some religious groups such as Calvinists they were provided guidelines and rules on how they should behave and base on this code of conduct it will determine their fate with god. Weber also look at the historical dilemmas that have change the perceptions as to how humans see religion— as well as the increase or motivated behavioral patterns of individuals that were influence by their leaders in religious groups. Nonetheless, based upon the increase rationalization in the modern society religion is no longer used as metric tool by individuals as a guide as to how they should behave. This is to say that individuals no longer hold on to religious beliefs to make decisions. Ironically, though this can be seen as a contradictory approach to Weber’s initial analysis by looking at individuals as a conceptual tool to prove the rational interpretation of social actions but to also incorporate the influences of the outside contingency or in other words to take macro-level approach to sum up the understanding on the overall reshaping of society.

Georg Simmel approach was to look at individual interactions and how groups that differ in sizes relate to each other. “For Simmel, society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals, and the sociologist should study the patterns and forms of these associations, rather than quest after social laws.’ (“Notes on Georg Simmel,” 2019). This was somewhat different from Durkheim and Marx analysis as they focus on social laws and rules that govern society. Simmel place emphasis on the size of the groups in relation to their social interaction by which he used it has means to understand the behavior or nature of the group in which the term “sociation” was coined by Simmel. The dyad (2) and the triad (3) in Simmel analysis focused on how individual relationships affects the group. The dyad is where many general social forms exist in their pure state, also the limitation two only two members is the a condition that gives rise to specific social forms. (“Simmel,” 2019). Simmel interpretation of the dyad is that there is a relationship with only two members that is fairly simple because of the dependence of the individuals in the groups. He also stated that they are able to maintain their identity even if there are variations within the groups, however, if one persons leaves the group the group then ends. Triad adds the possibility for two actors (of the triad) to be connected not only “directly” but also through their contact with the third actor. (Portier, Pardo, & Salle, 1996a). This group consist of 3 or more persons, however, in this group if a person withdraw the group can still function on its own. Despite that, the third member acts independently of the group. As the group begins to expand or increase it result in more freedom and adaptability as the there will be a reduction in commonality amongst the group. Georg Simmel saw the individuals as being created by society and is apart of the processes that unfold in society; he saw the connection between the individual and society as being interrelated. Simmel also tried to understand the social types in society which includes the stranger, the poor, the mediator etc. Based on his reasoning the term social types place individuals into categories in accordance to the relationship they have with others. Yet, according to Simmel philosophy on money he believed that it was structural tool used in comprehending the meaning that individuals attach to it along with the ramifications that it has on the individual and society. Simmel mention that as the monetary economy binds us more tightly to each other by allowing universal exchange and specialization, the individual faces a greater freedom of self-definition because their lifestyle is no longer necessarily tied to their trade. (Auerbach, 2015). This means that as the economy experience changes so those the individuals in society hence there are some advantages and disadvantages associated the value system. This is because of the value that affix to money in the modern society. He believed that money in the modern society contributed to autonomy and self liberation and not only that but money is used as a means of exchange that increases the social interaction between people in society. The downside, for Simmel, however, is that individuals are less dependent on each other as the acquisition of money has given them the opportunity of freedom of choice. He stated that as we transition from a traditional society to a modern society money can be seen as an agent when fulfilling persons’ goal and implies the accretion individualism

Nevertheless , W.E.B du Bois out of all the sociologist he was the only one who proved conclusively that racism and segregation among the blacks and whites as fueling factor for social classes, capitalism, colonialism, politics and the economy. In Du Bois analysis his dialectical approach was what spoke evidently on how is society possible. Notably, he was the only sociologist to take into account the racial injustice in society and how the ramifications of slavery for blacks as shaped and transformed their life or lifestyles. The ideology of Du Bois’ work dealt with the double consciousness as it pertains to American blacks and whites. Double-consciousness is a concept in social philosophy referring, originally, to a source of inward “twoness” putatively experienced by African-Americans because of their racialize oppression and disvaluation in a white-dominated society. (Pittman, 2016). This is where Du Bois presented the theory of the veil and the color line which in fact speaks about the how the black and white on either side both had different experiences in life. The veil creates a lifeworld distorted by a series of dualities: a duality of agency within an oppressive system, a duality in the formation of the self, and a duality in the understanding of the word. (Itzigsohn & Brown, 2015). Within this dual environment there has been constant conflict between the whites and the blacks where self consciousness of one group differ significantly from the other base on how each of the two classes perceive themselves. Ideally, one class saw themselves as being more prestige than the other while the other saw themselves as how they were perceived by the other side (whites). The color line, on the other hand, that Du Bois spoke towards had the same notion as the veil. The color line emphasis mainly on the inequality in society with the whites being the majority and brown and blacks as the minorities limiting upward social mobility for the oppressed (blacks & browns) due to the scarcity of power and opportunities. This was reflected in the political affairs in the United Stated where it was noted that even though there were changes in the laws (grandfather clause 1800 & Jim Crow law) blacks were still being treated unfairly. However Du bois spoke about how the blacks used religion and socialization as a an instrumental tool for them to gain and preserve self recognition and to deal with their position in society. In the capitalist society Du bois noted that the blacks were viewed as merely objects and not real people. As a result, the African Americans self perception began to deteriorate based upon the inflicting views by the white supremacy. This alluded to the gap between the blacks and the whites in the capitalist society which contributed to the unequal treatment and unequal distribution of labor regarding the material means of production. In this case for capitalism the white were given better positions than the blacks and were provided better working positions than compared to the African Americans. “Du Bois calls up the American Dream of capitalism as a system of limitless wealth and economic mobility”. (Robinson, 2019). This, however, had encourage the competition between the blacks and the whites where workers had to challenge their upward mobility in order to survive in the capitalist system. Nonetheless, the constant wedge between the both groups undermine social and economic prosperity producing a more racially divided economy and society. Above all, with his view Du Bois was able to understand the social construction of society and how humans affected the world

Finally, to conclude, each theorists had different perspectives on how is society possible. Some looked at it from a macro level to give meaning to the formation of society and the determinants that have shaped and influence our behavior. While others took a different approach as they look at how individuals action and association with society has contributed to the formation of society along with the the institutions that have played a role in the development of our actions and behavior to gain insight on societal cohesion. However, despite each individual’s views most sociologist have failed to highlight the contribution of slavery and the colonialism of black peoples has impacted their lives. Hence result of a racially bias perspective on how is society possible as most approaches were from the eurocentric stand point with the exception of W.E.B du Bois.