Simply taking notes at this point.
Durkheim appears to take the following viewpoint, and please forgive the order of thoughts...
1. Durkheim, in his explanation of Anti-Semitism in France in the late 19th century, posited that France's moral and social conditions exhibited a diminished degree of social solidarity; a feeling of international embarrassment and inadequacy due to at least two significant military defeats in the prior40 years; an evolving division of labor without a full capacity to integrate all participants into the social fabric; a corresponding rise of militarism; a foul economy; creating a condition of moral and social deprivation keen in the development of Anti-Semitic feelings, attitudes, and behavior of an extreme emotional nature. These factored into a state of anomie, begetting a need for a scapegoat, in this case, Jews. The Dreyfus Affair demonstrated France's torn, social fabric; as two sides engaged in a military criminal court battle lasting 12 years, involving a Jewish Army Captain (Dreyfus), several general and field Army officers, espionage, conspiracy, four convictions of three different individuals (one whom fled the country to avoid imprisonment), community activists and intellectuals, government officials outside the military, politicians, journalists, and had the affect of separating the country into two distinct and opposing segments across the country.
2. Social Solidarity plays an important role in its development, maintenance, amelioration, and elimination of Anti-Semitism. To eliminate a burgeoning, growing or even pervasive Anti-Semitic attitude in a society, social solidarity must be restored and anomie appreciably diminished. Durkheim, taking a Functionalist's point of view, observed that Anti-Semitism proved to re-establish social order within France "by designating the Jew as adversary, it restored social solidarity, uniting society around hatred of the Jew” (Birnbaum 1995: Ch. 6: p. 20). Once again, what is seen and described as dysfunctional is in another sense a functional response to a dysfunction.
3. Durkheim maintained that France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 was extremely debilitating for the French peoples' international and accordingly self-esteem. This gave rise to a perceived need to avenge this defeat and a concomitant rise in militarism in France. The military was glorified and soon had a significant voice in state policy. Durkheim viewed this as one of many "disturbances of a collective order", and how these may lead to societal anomie, and to a "social malaise", which in this instance was personified by Anti-Semitic behavior and attitudes. Anomie, according to Durkheim, set in.
4. Once again, Durkheim's explanation for Anti-Semitism has a building-block quality to it and therefore increases its credibility. Please take a moment and think about his observations in today's world; his advocacy for certain ideals; and how these ideals correlate with a functional state of social solidarity in an organic and well-developed division of labor. (The key is the division of labor.) However, I must add a variable to this explanation. Durkheim posited that non-economic phenomena (i.e. a significant "catastrophe" having expansive, social impact with a resultant collective response) could create conditions for Anti-Semitism and other distorted responses without a rational foundation. Given our global society, the stability created by a well-developed division of labor and its correlative social structure, may not be reasonably attained. However, let's take a look some of his salient thoughts.
He advocated for: (a) equal justice for all; (b) equal opportunity for all; and (c) the growth and development of the individual as an ideal in the context of work and the social order, including fair treatment within law, more especially restitutive law in a predominantly organic environment. If these ideals are adhered to, a viable division of labor and social connectivity are realized within which all persons are actively involved; social solidarity is intact; and social ills, including anomie, are non-existent.
5. Are present-day disenfranchised and/or minority groups in some societies potentially in the same predicament? When anomie arises in a society, is it possible that such groups become scapegoats? Is a "deficient" division of labor without Durkheim's ideals the cause of the social ill?
6. The more equal opportunity for individualized growth within a society, based upon the potential one should experience within work (i.e. within a storng, extensive, and vibrant division of labor), the greater the social solidarity within an organically-oriented society.
7. Has the U.S. suffered a degree of anomie at certain points in time and responded as the French did in the 1890s into the 20th century? Does its social and political fabric remain, to some degree, in this mode? Do other countries suffer for the same reason? Does the dominant culture within the U.S., in times of extreme crisis, point to groups of individuals as the cause of the problem (e.g. Muslims after 9/11/2001 or immigrants from Ireland {19th Century} or Mexico {late 20th and present-day}). Did the country's citizenry "rally around the flag" against an "evilized" group in each case? If so, was the scapegoating only a sign or indicator of a greater social ill? Would Durkheim, if these are a reasonable examples, maintain that there is an inadequacy inherent to the U.S. division of labor? Is there equality? Is the ideal of individualism with equal rights and privileges borne out in practice? Are some left out of the economic and social systems? Is the widening gap between the poor and the rich a sufficient social ill to correlate with another variables to explain irrational behavior and attitudes? Are we involved in class warfare? Are these questions that should focus on the U.S. division of labor, or should we consider the rest of the world, given our reliance upon the rest of the world and its governments for survival? If so, what changes can or should be made?
Got to go. Have a good weekend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wonderful anlysis!
ReplyDeleteI really liked the way you presented Dreyfus affair, which was a political divide but Durkheim extracted sociological lens out of it.
And you have given a very good example that how anomie effects DOL.
"He advocated for: (a) equal justice for all; (b) equal opportunity for all; and (c) the growth and development of the individual as an ideal in the context of work and the social order, including fair treatment within law, more especially restitutive law in a predominantly organic environment. If these ideals are adhered to, a viable division of labor and social connectivity are realized within which all persons are actively involved; social solidarity is intact; and social ills, including anomie, are non-existent."
And the good part is that Durkheim did not protect Dreyfus as he himself was jew. Here he is more humanitarian and believes in the equality regardless of religion, gender or race. Of course discrimination is an anomie in any society and drags it towards Machanical solidarity by distorting DOL.
Roshan.