Talk:SOCI370/Durkheim

In relations to the four types of Suicide coined by Durkheim, I definitely agree with Gisung's entry on how in Asia there has been a high level of anomic suicide based on the level of achievement in education by the expectation of family and friends. On social media and news platforms, there have been increased news stories on how students predominantly in Asia have committed suicide due to parent's and peer's expectation of achievement in the academic aspect of their lives. If focusing on education in Asia, it is seen to be more competitive in terms of ranking at school, thus influencing parents to put a greater deal of stress on their children to get high marks and even if they do, parents would always tell them to do better. This can lead to anomic suicide because there low regulation and because they couldn't achieve or reach certain goals or to satisfy their peers and family, they feel overwhelmed and commit suicide. They find no meaning to live because they believe they can never do enough to satisfy those around them.

Interesting! I thought the same social issue for higher suicide rates among students in Asia. But, I guess it is because of high regulation on students' daily lives and low integration they can feel from their parents. The helicopter mothers manage the entire schedules and life plans for their kids. Their ultimate goal of life is to make their kids socially successful, which eventually makes them to overcontrol their kids. It is mothers who get a complete authority and regulation over their children's lives, not the children themselves. Also, due to high academic goals and pressures dominantly put on students by their mothers (or, parents), there would be very small capacity for students to feel warmth or intimacy with their parents that results in low integration.

Durkheim's proposal of capitalism and anomie can be seen in the contemporary world. One of the most prominent examples is that of the third world countries such as Tibet. Tibet has consistently been scoring the highest on the Happiness Index Scale, and there have been a lot of explanations as to why, most prominent explanation being their Buddhist way of life. To break it down more, we can apply Durkheim's perspective which suggests that an increase in wealth leads individuals to create more goals, in order to accumulate more money. When these goals are not met, or the amount of wealth is no longer sufficient to keep individuals happy, an increase in suicide occurs. Durkheim suggests that poverty protects against suicide as desires no longer depend on resources, and instead on social relations. He states, that this is the reason why some many religions emphasize constant self discipline. And we can see its success in Tibet under Buddhism.

I think Tibet is a very good example. It's not because Tibet is the third world country, but Tibet strictly regulates influx of western, industrialized, capitalistic cultures. Tibet even restricts the number of tourists that can visit in a day in order to prevent any harm or influence those tourists from the other cultures can have on their own. Tibetan build their own way of living that further strengthens national solidarity. Any cultural influence of other countries that possibly encourage possession of resources and value of capitals is kept away. Being away from mainstream industrialized, capitalistic westernized culture, Tibet maintains happiness and solidarity among people.

I think that one way Durkheim would approach your point is that Tibet benefits from maintaining a strong cultural identity that resists external change from other societies. In a world where Western nations have colonized other peoples and left their cultural impression behind them, Tibet is a rare case where this influence was actively mitigated. Durkheim would likely consider this a social fact because Tibet is a variable that was not affected by Western colonialism in the same way as other nations, and the outstanding difference is their resistance to this influence. I would say that from Durkheim's perspective, it is worth investigating whether Tibet is the world's happiest country in part because of their cultural cohesion. This cohesion increases solidarity among Tibetans as an "in-group," and their religious alignment provides a clear understanding of morality. Both issues are considered to benefit a social group according to Durkheim's theory of sociology.

I agree that with more wealth does not bring more happiness. As the fact that every person has a greedy mind deep inside, with more wealth, it would only bring more dissatisfaction. How much wealth is enough? There is never an end on this question. As one accumulates more wealth, his/her quality of life increases. With the increase in quality of life, the cost also increases. As a result of this, there is the cycle which is there will be an end to how much money you have is enough. However, if you are like Bill Gates, I'm sure with that amount of wealth it would be enough. But how many people are like Bill Gates around the world? Just a handful of people. So for the average individual, more wealth may not increase the satisfaction on life.

Nayantara, I agree with your comment on how Durkheim's proposal of capitalism and anomie is happening in our contemporary society. In my opinion, the idea of anomie and people committing suicide comes from capitalism. In countries that capitalism works best have people committing suicide than third world countries that are in poverty. When people go through an increase in wealth and to become successful, they work so much that they forget what the meaning of life is to them, so when taking away the wealth they receive leads to anomie. The more money people chase in a capitalist world, the easier for them to commit suicide when they are not able to get commodity and wealth in the long run. I believe that third world countries are more happier and healthier than rich countries because they do not work too hard and they accept whatever they get, but in countries where capitalism plays the most, the people are less happier and healthier and they have higher chances in committing suicide and going through depression.

Nyantara, I agree with your example of Tibet and would also like to contribute another example to anomic suicide in the opposite case. If you take many of the First Nation groups in Canada as examples of communities that feel out of place of the dominating western society, one can have a clearer picture of the anomie these groups feel. This would explain the higher suicide rates among the community members in relation to the social circumstances they are put under by the rest of society.

I agree that there has been a lot of pressure put on todays generation of kids growing up to have a good future and a lot has changed since even our parents grew up like how getting a university degree is expected of kids today where before it was a big accomplishment. I agree that parents have filled the head of millennial's that if you work hard then you can accomplish anything but I'm not too sure if setting lower expectations is the answer to solve disappointment. I think that maybe kids should be encouraged to take more risks to try and reach there dreams instead of falling into what is becoming routine by going to school and hoping to get a job once you graduate because its turning into a mindset where if you graduate people expect a job and everything you dreamed of.

I agree, Lucas. There is a routinized behaviour that can limit our risk-taking ability and comfort. I feel that our understanding of expectations in this conversation is more structural than we think. I would argue that the child, the agent, is not in control of their expectations. Thus, one cannot simply lower their expectations to increase degrees of happiness or mitigate losses of happiness. I think Durkheim would argue that the regulation is a shared, structural creation of expectations and desires. I feel like Weber would chime in to say that capitalism, accumulation, and the shift of rational social action from Wertrat to Zweckrat embeds these high, ever impressive expectations within the parents, children, and so forth. Ultimately, the expectations are social facts, external to us, that we come to accept as we progress.

Lucas, I agree with your comment. I think the reason that the pressure that is put on todays generation of kids growing up to have a good future is very different than how our parent or grandparent were growing up. The reason that todays generation kids are being pressured to follow this routine, go to university, get a degree, then find a job is because the way capitalism has corrupted out generation. Where ever capitalism is used the most, the more social pressure we will have in surviving. In our western society, we are always taught we have to go to school in order for us to have a good future but we are not aware that the same routine will not allow us to be free and overcome the social pressure we are going through. During our parent and grandparent generation, capitalism was just not in use so they did not have to follow a routine and always work to survive. In our generation, we are always striving to become rich and be better than others, have better materials, we are forgetting that capitalism is reducing our personal desire and making our social regulations something to live for.

Hi Lucas,

When you say that "parents have filled the heads of millennials", there's an interesting point in and of itself right there. Obviously, the generation prior to our own had different ideals and values. However, at the same time I don't believe that such a body of thought could have wholly arisen from one generation in such a way, and so dramatically.

It's interesting to note how this can also be explained in the frameworks of other theorists. For instance, the work of Gramsci and Marx suggest that a cultural hegemony has been formed and instilled which states that anyone can be successful and have a 'good future' so long as they work hard and earn the right credentials. As such, it leaves me to wonder whether or not parents are the ones filling the minds of millennials with such a mindset, or if this bourgeois notion has been instilled into their social expectations and is now simply being reproduced, where the effects are more strongly visible in the unrealistic expectations for millennials and generation Z.

I find myself in agreement with Jaden's thoughts on how a bourgeois notion in today's society might be a factor in these expectations of millennials rather than parents being the sole influencers of the mindset to succeed. I think that through capitalism and globalization there is higher regulation in society and amongst individuals because there comes more pressure to abide by societal norms and follow the broader notion of what it means to be successful today. Society has an immense influence on individuals in which they abide by the norms which determine individual pursuit. This regulation limits the individual and produces a set of rules for each sphere of life in which actions of the individual become predictable. The collective consciousness acts as a moral power to help keep society in line and one that subjects individuals to regulation in all aspects of life.

I agree with Jaden in terms of the influence society and its hegemonic ideology have besides (if not above) the agency of individual parents over their children. I would however like to also share a thought on Millennials and the expectations placed upon them that slightly differs from what has been agreed on so far. I found surprising to read that the perception of what has been set as our generation’s expectation is that of success and realization of meritocracy through hard work. I felt that, instead, I and my peers have been growing up with the notion of a precarious and unstable future ahead, scarce if not unlikely possibilities for success, and a quite given up consciousness taht hard work may not really be enough for someone who does not have birthrights to happiness. I then realized that my surprise may depend on where I’m from and the different cultural and economic context I grew up in. Indeed, I feel that our generation in Southern Europe (and probably in many other places even more, I just speak from my own experience) has been fed a lot of the anxiety and fear coming from what Bourdieu calls precaritè, and which increasingly characterizes post-industrial societies, especially in Western Europe and especially after the 2008 crisis. Not only youth unempolyment is stably elevated, but those that are employed face temporary/on call or unpaid jobs as normal routine, and many struggle to achieve independence from their parents’ household before they are in their 30s. If anyhting, our generation has been told that they would have to sweat and that most likely they would not get much more than crumbles anyways. Although it is oversimplified, this context is one where expectations upon youth are increasingly leaning towards emigration and career development abroad, and, paradoxically, they are still pressuring and high but also rather pessimistic.

I agree with Miaoting's point on how society is restricted or limited by a social contract, and how those who don't see the necessity to abide by the social contract tend to face a problem of 'broken equilibrium state of need and satisfaction'. I also liked the example of living in a neighborhood, however, even for Durkheim, how restricted can a social contract be? To what extent can the social contract rule over individual private life? How much of an individual's privacy is compromised to achieve that balanced state with society?

I like to think about the boundary between personal desire and social regulation as well. I noticed that Durkeim mentioned this too in his arguments about personal desire on page 67, where he notes that different social class and historical eras have varied limits for people's private rights/desires. In ancient times, people have so much personal space but are subject to a more imbalanced power relationship that makes a few people have absolute control of the majority others. In contrast, there are more relative equality between people in today's society, at least in most industrialized countries, where many people have access to many valuable resources. However, the trade-off is that humans in our overpopulated-earth have to respect eachother's rights, where the social contract comes into play. Connecting to Weber's idea of the iron cage, I guess many people are no longer free to enjoy some of their privacy and personal space because of the advanced technologies that we have today, such as the social media. For instance, celebrities are often the biggest targets online for their speech and behaviors.

In response to Namra's questions; I think that some of these queries could be connected to our earlier reading of "Organic and Mechanical Society". In this reading Durkhiem states that in a society held together by social contracts, individuals need to be free to choose how they will specialize in such a differentiated society. Society holds different expectations of behaviour for different roles, for example it may be expected that a doctor will stay at work and away from home for long hours at a time, while a stay-at-home parent would be expected to remain close to the home and with their children. In such a way individuals can partially negotiate the social contract that holds them to society through the roles they pursue.