Problems with Ideals?

Weber’s work is both interesting and continues to be useful today and by exploring the stratifications of class and leadership demonstrates that he was willing to engage the complexity of society, but the ideal types that are used as a measure throughout his work seem to limit his utility to a minor extent. It is understandable to use these ideal types, but the fact remains that people are limited and erroneous. For example, the ideas that bureaucracy stems from the human desire to be organized is a fine assertion, but the idea that this will lead to absolute domination from a system that gives no regard to emotion or general human chaos is not a claim that follows reason. Seeing how Weber was aware of this being an ideal, it is doubtable that he thought this would ever be obtained, but this begs the question of what utility does creating this ideal type provide rather than simply making observations on existing bureaucracies?

Weber's Rationalization

As I look around the world I can see the obvious rationalization all around. From the way that we import and export trade, to our communications, to transportation. Besides tribal places in third world countries, I seriously can not think of one single aspect of world life has not been rationalized in some way by bureaucracy. Can you think of any???

Durkheim and Crime

not only that the way remains open to necessary change, but that in certain cases it directly proposes these changes... crime [can thus be] a useful prelude to reforms."

I think this quote refers to social change in a sense. I think what Durkheim is saying is not necessarily about crime per se, but more about deviating from the social norm. If enough people do the same thing over and over than eventually it will become part of the norm. The example that comes to mind would be the decriminalization of medical marijuana in New Mexico. Most people, some not all, see smoking marijuana as a crime. But, are the people who are going through chemothereapy or who are suffering from glaucoma committing a crime when they use medicinal marijuana to ease their ailments? They are not smoking for recreational use they are smoking because they have found it eases their pain. People kept on doing this and doctors kept prescribing it eventually it became legal. There was a change that was made. Soon after other states began to legalize medical marijuana. Another example that was given in class was the subject of gay marriage. Gay people are choosing to get married and some churches are allowing them to. Their marriage is recognized in the eyes of God, but their marraige is not recognized by the states. Eventually according to Durkheim this act of gay people getting married will bring about change and it will become legal. My question is, are there other acts of deviating from the norm that will eventually be a prelude to change and reform in today's society?

Durkheim and the Arab World

When applying Durkheim to modern sociological study, most obvious to my mind are the fundamental differences between the societies of the Middle East and the US and the conflict which may or may not be a direct result of those differences. It can be assumed, based on Durkheim's description of mechanical solidarity (Appelrouth & Edles, pgs 105-106, 2008; Allan, pg 87, 2007), that many Middle East societies could be classified as such. Many of these societies are unindustrialized, tribal communities with strong familial attachments. They are tied to one another through common moralistic beliefs. Their system of law and punishment is driven by moral agendas and upheld by the group.
On the other hand, the US has organic solidarity, as described by Durkheim (Appelrouth & Edles, pgs 106-108, 2008; Allan, pg 87, 2007). We are an industrialized nation in which people depend on one another not through familial connections, but utilitarian necessity. We are connected based on what other people can provide us. People in the US are quite individualistic, their actions are generally independent of the group and their connection with the collective consciousness is loose, generally through an intermediary.
It is my opinion that conflict between these two groups, is driven , in part, by the differences in their social structure. Durkheim describes, in The Division of Labor in Society (Appelrouth & Edles, pgs 104-110), the conflict that can arise from forced division of labor. I see the clash between the Middle East and the US being one possible product of this conflict. US capitalism and the division of labor which it promises to introduce, is viewed as a threat to the mechanical solidarity of the tribal life currently adhered to in much of the Middle East. With the expansion of capitalism, driven largely by the US, it is no wonder that some in the Middle East view it as a threat to their way of life. Capitalism threatens to dismantle the close familial and tribal connection present in that part of the world for generations. Durkheim, in my opinion, has very accurately predicted the ensuing conflict.

What other connections can you see between Durkheim's theories and Middle East/US conflict?

Durkheim, Suicide, and Wall Street

For the application Durkheim’s work with suicide seems most available. Durkheim argues that social institutions that regulate desires and social changes are the primary factors in suicide. Using this, examining the current economic situation which has been riddled with several high profile suicides should prove enlightening. It would be hard to argue that the American society put easily obtainable limits on the desires due to the capitalistic accumulation inherent to The American Dream. Also the current economic situation is clearly devastating which can be considered a social change. As a result Durkheim would project an increase in suicides. Data is not yet available, but current scholars are projecting that there will be similar results, though not yet immediately (Idov, 2008, http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/53341/ ).

Does the article (link provided) support Durkheim's argument?

Durkheim and Crime

"Imagine a society of saints, a perfect cloister of exemplary individuals. Crimes, properly so called, will there be unknown, but faults which appear venial to the layman will create there the same scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary consciousness. If, then, this society has the power to judge and punish, it will define these acts as criminal and will treat them as such." (Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method)

Durkheim indicates that crimes is a function not of criminal intent, but of the variation of individual moral and ethic codes from a mainstream agreement as to proper actions. In modern society, the range of individual behavior and accordingly their moral and ethic codes continues to grow. The internet has helped foster further variation in behavior due to the ability to find other people of similar ideas, reducing the pressure to be like the "mainstream."

If Durkheim is right, and the current trend towards further individuality continues, then the range and amount of criminal activity should continue to increase for years to come. Do you agree or disagree with this statement, and why?

Are we really unique individuals?

Social facts in Durkheim’s own words “ every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations”(Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). In his view individuals within a society were subject to following social facts not only if they were aware of them but also when they were oblivious to their existence (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). Many of the norms we follow have been instilled in us since birth and we have been enculturated into society. It is just “the way things are” and we follow unknowingly. This we do collectively as a group or society, the individual may believe that he/she came up with their own individual ideology but it has been the outside influence that has provided the “materials” so that such “individuality” can be created by the person (not from within but from without). What are some things in our present-day society that we follow without even questioning? Think hard, what maybe some things that we ascribe to without even knowing?
Applerouth, S. & Edles, L. D.2008.Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory:

Text Readings.Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.