Sumblog#3 Our week with Emile Durkheim

      Emile Durkheim's writing was lost on me. Without Professor Barry's translation (lecture), the ideas of integration, regulation, animoe, collective representation et.al would've flew over my head like a champagne cork seeking freedom. I knew Mr Durkheim was trying to relay something valuable and important, but I couldn't decipher what it was. Based on the struggles of group and classroom discussion, I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone. After lecture however, re-reading the material became nothing short of damn good education (feel free to quote me on that).
     That being said, I've selected  a nugget from Emile Durkheim's idea of collective representation for this blog.

     Durkheim alludes to Plato's cave allegory in support of the idea that "...we all use the same words without giving them the same meaning." (Lemert; p75). This is so true at every age/stage of life. It is the reason birds of a feather flock together, it's why teenagers hate their parents, and it's why the very young and very old tend to get along so well. Like minded individuals seek like minded individuals. When we talk about love, sacrifice, desire, wisdom, or any other collectively considered  attribute/idea can we ever reach final consensus? According to Durkheim, only when we reach the sacred. Absolute Truth is unchanging and impersonal (Lemer; p75).
     When the meaning of a word changes between enough individuals, then the collective meaning of a word eventually changes. Considering that words are nothing more than "condensed knowledge" (class discussion), knowledge itself then becomes mutable - in a social context.  Whether or not knowledge actually changes, or simply our collective level of knowledge changes remains up for debate.

     Autistic individuals think in pictures more so than the rest of society. Autism is only beginning to be understood in the last 20-30 years. Historically, people with autism were considered retarded/dumb and relegated to institutions - this was TRAGIC and untrue!
      http://www.grandin.com/inc/visual.thinking.html 
     Temple Grandin is perhaps America's most famous person with autism. She wrote a book called Thinking in Pictures that conveys how many people with autism see words.
     People with autism are very frequently word literalists. Sarcasm, euphemisms and allegory do not work well with autistic individuals. A helpful cultural reference may be Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory. He is a popular tv character that displays many traits associated with Asperger's Syndrome (a type of autism).  
     Autism is a very concrete example of how "...we all use the same words without giving them the same meaning." (Lemert; p75). While autism is an easy example to see this concept, it applies at every level of life, for every moment of life, for every person alive. Durkheim went a step further and applied this at a social level. I think he nailed it.
     
         

Sumblog#2 Karl Marx

   
        In our class discussion we defined ideology as being a "belief system" that comes from "people". We further determined that it is the bourgeoisie of a given culture which determine the predominant ideology of a given age. Karl Marx pursued this point with his ideas on "Estranged Labour" (Social Theory, 29-33). 

     The whole concept of "estranged labour" (aka alienantion of labour) is what I found most interesting in reading Karl Marx. 

     Two parts of  Marx's definition of estranged labour are: "...that labour is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his essential being;..." and " His labour is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labour. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it." (Social Theory, 31). 

     I tend to agree. 

     Generally speaking, we take jobs to satisfy other needs - ie: pay the rent, buy food, support loved ones, get money to acquire desirable things, etc. On occasion, our selected jobs may fulfill a portion of our personal needs, but I've yet to meet anyone that (honestly) declared they love everything about their job. So at some level Marx was correct in stating that "...labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification." (Social Theory, 31).

     It could be well argued that this is a good thing. Self-sacrifice is not inherently evil.  

     However, to my mind, too many people deny their essential selves in pursuit of money. They abandon too much of their humanity in pursuit of the material (Materialism). I see this in the Black Friday stampedes every year after Thanksgiving. I see it in co-workers "choosing" to work 60+ hour work weeks even though they have all they need. And I see it in the "for profit" medical industry - amongst others. 

     This ties in with my initial paragraph thusly:  if the bourgeoisie control the ideology - and the ideology is materialism = success,  then we are indeed being enslaved (at least partially) as Marx suggest.

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhyL7yAs5R0

      

      I've included this song because it lryically conveys my personal feelings about the logical extension of  Marx's ideas in the physical world.  

#1. Wealth should not necessarily defined in terms of money.

#2. United labourers will have a greater voice.

#3. Live a life of purpose.

      One big happy lovefest right? 

Sumblog#1: The Sociological Imagination

     Greetings reader! This blog post briefly covers my thoughts regarding C.Wright Mills philosophy on the "sociological imagination".

       I don't recall covering much of this topic in class, but I found the concept intriguing. In brief, and condensed down to two sentences, the sociological imagination is  "...the capacity to shift from one perspective to another - from the political to the psychological; from examination of a single family to comparative assessment of the national budgets of the world; from the theological school to the military establishment; from considerations of an oil industry to studies of contemporary poetry. It is the capacity to range from the most impersonal and remote transformations to the most intimate features of the human self - and to see the relations between the two" (Lemer Charles; 267).

       Zoinks and wow! That's a pretty all-encompassing look at things.  ...I like it.

       I had to wonder who has the ability to do all that. A deeper read clarified that  Mr. Mills wasn't infering one person possesses all this insight (...or was he?).  Rather, if a "sociological imagination" can become more commonplace, then "... - human reason itself - will come to play a greater role in human affairs" (Lemer Charles; 268-269).

                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQdUtBWZEo

       The above clip from the final episode of Northern Exposure reveals characters and contains no dialogue. One can observe the people and make assumptions, observations and guesses. What you can not possibly know, (unless you viewed the previous 100 episodes), is what brought them together, who they are, and most importantly - the relevance of this moment. Because I was invested heavily in this program, my insights will probably be more accurate and useful. And whether we are talking about a tv show or the real world, honest personal investment usually provides a better understanding of things. 

       In your personal life there are situations, programs, and events where you  have vastly superior knowledge than anyone else. You are able see how the smallest thing can affect large events - or how large events can affect personal ones. 

       This the sociological imagination in a nut-shell. 

       Perhaps if we were to all use our sociological imagination in conjunction for the common good,  there would be more ...common good. I believe this is the rational behind C. Wright Mills "Sociological Imagination" theory, otherwise, of what use is it to anyone?