Blog 3

This week, I found Durkheim's theories to be quite interesting.  What I enjoyed most were his thoughts on religion. Durkheim believes that all great social institutions have been born in religion.  In fact, he believes in this so much, that he goes on to say later that the idea of society is even the soul of religion. Humanity has reaped the benefits of religion, because religion directly affects the "moral life" of society.  He even goes on later to talk of an ideal world.  He explains that society creates a sort of "ideal world" in which it only exists within the realm of thought, but we attribute a higher sort of dignity to it. Durkheim thinks that, "A society can neither create itself nor recreate itself without at the same time creating an ideal... The ideal society is not outside of the real society, it is a part of it" (Lemert, 2013).  

Durkheim expresses this idea that religion is "sacred". There is "sacred" and there is "profane". Sacred is what is considered something added to and above the real.  When he was talking about his in our reading, there was a quote that really caught my attention.  He says that when man reaches a state of high effervescence (or enthusiasm) he "...does not recognize himself; he feels himself transformed and consequently he transforms the environment which surrounds him" (Lemert, 2013).  I found this statement to be very profound, because isn't that why many people find religion so intriguing?

To me, religion was always very intriguing because my friends who had a solid foundation of faith in their lives were just different to me. The way they acted, the way they treated others, their demeanor...it was so different from what I was used to.  I saw that contrast, and I wanted what they had. So, I sought after it.  If your faith is authentic, others take notice. Whether that was what Durkheim meant by that quote, I guess I'm not really sure, but that's how I interpreted it.  When you are transforming the world around you by just simply being a part of it, you are living, breathing proof of something that changes us from the inside out.  And in my opinion, that's not a transformation that can come on one's own accord.

 

Blog 2

I found Karl Marx's idea on "Estranged Labor" rather interesting. Now, I'm not the biggest Karl Marx fan, but I do think he makes some valid points.  He shows the great strain between property owners & the property-less workers.  He talks of four different types of estrangements that a worker can feel. 

For one, they can feel an estrangement of worker from the product of his work.  A property-less worker receives no fruits for their labor.  Everything they make contributes to the world outside them.  Second, they feel an estrangement from activity of production.  Their work is their survival, and exists beyond oneself.  Third, they experience an estrangement from "species-being" or human identity. Work becomes their life purpose, and they are not gaining anything from the work they are slaving over, so their life purpose feels empty.  And fourth, there is an estrangement from man to man.  Because the workers product is owned by someone else, the worker regards that person as alien and hostile.  

I think what made this idea so interesting to me is that Marx is essentially raising the question, "What does it mean to be human?" There are core parts of our being that make us, well, human.  We crave a sense of belonging, we desire fulfilling a "life purpose", we seek creative expression and independent thought.   We get bored with monotonous droning of everyday life. We desire the pains and triumphs of progression.  We dream of leaving our mark on the world. These are the things that separate us and make us human.

These are also the things that cause us the most misery when left unfulfilled.  Marx gets this point across when speaking of the property owners and the property-less workers.  There is a great unrest in the property-less workers.  They become mere brutes in the process of bringing products to the consumers. Workers who experience this today feel that sense of dissatisfaction. 

I tried to make this connection with what keeps workers morale up in modern society.  I found an article called  "11 Things That Make Workers Happy", which you can check out here! This article talks about things like offering room for growth. If we feel like we can't make improvements, or work towards a higher goal, we lose that drive.  Workers like those exampled in Marx's theory do not have an opportunity to work their way up, or experience progress in any way, which causes unrest.  There are tons of other great tips in this article that were interesting to read as well. Overall, I may not agree with everything Marx has to say, but I do feel that estranged labor is something that can occur throughout any time in history.

Blog 1

This week, one of the most fascinating sociological thinkers that we discussed (in my opinion) was Alexis de Tocqueville.  His ideas on different social topics, I feel, still hold true today.  It's intriguing when you find a thinker from as long ago as the 19th century, that can still be considered "relevant" in modern day America.  

One topic of his that I found thought provoking were his thoughts on social change.  When I initially read this, it was the topic that I got the least out of.  I did not quite understand what he was getting at, and I struggled with connecting his ideas.  After further delving into the topic in a group setting, I was able to connect the dots.  

When Tocqueville discusses social change, he gives his views of the French Revolution.  He does not think that this brought about as much change as many had hoped.  He did not think that there were enough advantages in result of the French Revolution- one of those being a change for social classes. Although peasants could now become landowners, they were..."prevented from bettering themselves mentally and materially... strikes us today as so inhuman...they were left in a state of ignorance and often destitution worse than that of the serfs, their forefathers" (Tocqueville).  This further illustrated his notion that increasing wealth leads to greater unrest.

I feel like we see this on our society today. We live in a culture where what you have is never enough. Our society does not praise character, but rather success. Just when you think you've reached a point of being satisfied, there is still the aching that maybe something else will fill that hunger inside us.  We feel that if we can only be making a little more money, buy that bigger house, get that new car...THEN we will finally find rest. But, we never do.

I feel that I connected to his ideas quite well.  His final idea, that increasing wealth can have an outcome of greater unrest, is quite accurate both in the 19th century as well as today.  Social class has always been an issue, and it does not matter how much wealth is accumulating, because that will not abolish social hierarchies.  Humans are self-serving by nature, therefore accumulating more wealth will not be accompanied by equally distributed wealth. There will always be the discontented feeling that we want what someone else has.  In my opinion, that will never be something we can achieve. Even Tocqueville recognized this early on. 

This is a quote that I have to remind myself of often.  Tocqueville was right when he thought that having more of something does not always lead to contentment.  Sometimes it's good to remind ourselves that we don't have to have what our neighbor has- sometimes what we have is enough.