According to Durkheim, Marx, Weber, and Mead acts by individuals had a basis on social norms, values our cultures upheld, legislation and laws, religious settings, socioeconomic class, consciousness, and belief. To them, social actions and relations could be deciphered by discerning the ways by which certain symbolism, structuralizing, or organisation are comprehended by individuals and how diverse these individuals translate the relations differently. The theories they came up with tend to view actions as resultants of careful individual deliberations and actions. They view individuals in any action as rational decision-makers, able to way options and decide on the best way to act. The ideas of these sociologists are important in understanding various events in contemporary society. This paper seeks to analyze the application of Durkheim, Marx, Weber or Mead’s sociology theories on various topics in contemporary society.
The sex scandal revolving around Larry Nassar, a former US Olympic doctor shocked the world. Over 156 women whom he reportedly raped came forward to testify against him in court. Most of them claimed he sexually abused them when he was treating them. Larry’s position on the Olympic team was quite powerful, and his victims were condemned to be quiet for fear of losing their position on the team, or discrimination. Some even shied away from telling family members for fear that they would be judged. Most of them reportedly were assaulted when they were young girls, who had earlier contemplated suicide (“Larry Nassar case,” n.d.). Larry Nassar, while pleading guilty to the charges against him, was contrite for the pain and horror he had caused the victims. He was handed a 175-year jail term.
Weber’s theory perceived the world as of social action, his big aim is to come up with a comprehension of how individuals act. He asserted that every social action had a meaning connected to it, by a sense of our interactivity. Weber would have viewed Larry Nassar as a squalid individual who took advantage of those whom he treated knowing they were vulnerable, to accomplish his surreptitious sexual desires (Stoetzler, 2017). Larry probably knew that his victims were intimidated by his positions and thought they would never bring his deeds into the light. Weber would have thought of Larry as an authority who, regardless of mistreating his female patients, the victims felt they could keep up with his misdeeds for their career fulfilment. Since it had become intolerable for the victims, many came together to sue Larry in Court.
Mead’s discussion of the child, as a phase in life where it mattered since a person’s self, was developed. In the case of Larry, the abused, who at the time we’re young children, felt their selves had been destroyed. Society and authority on its part failed to act earlier to the claims of some of the victims (“Mead, George Herbert | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” n.d.). Despite complaints being registered at the Olympic committee about Larry’s behaviour, it did nothing to avert further harm. However, Mead would have considered education a provision of the social institutions which opened up the minds of the victims as they, after completing their studies, opened up about the abuses, in a view to getting justice not only for themselves but also for the other victims.
The theories of French socialist, Emily Durkheim would have majorly focused on the effect of Larry’s assault on the victims. Some of Larry’s victims felt dejected and subsequently harboured suicidal thoughts (“Sociology 250 – Notes on Durkheim,” n.d.). According to Durkheim, a person would want to commit suicide if they feel that society has isolated them, which he described as “egoistic suicide” but since these individuals felt that the society has failed to control their behaviours of Larry and provide directions to survivors of assault, some would have resorted to “anomic suicide”. Durkheim would have also considered the victims to be very judgmental of the society since their selves would reflect on the degraded values and attitudes of the society. Durkheim could have foreseen Larry’s deeds not only as impulsive but also adulterous since, at the time of the assault, he was married and had caused conflict for going against the societal norms, and further embarrassed not only his victims but also mortified himself.
Marx, on the other hand, could have had a different approach to this scenario. Since he viewed the family as the traditional authority, he would have expected the parents of the victims to continuously check with their children and the behaviour of those who treated them. The children fully trusted them such that they could have believed that if they did nothing in the face of their abuse, they would not open up to them. Probably, Marx would have also based his condemnation of Larry’s religion, since he believed religion was an equalization factor. The alienation of the victims of Larry could be explained in Marx’s alienation where he contends that we always alienate ourselves from bad people (Han, 2010). Marx would have lambasted Larry for not taking his victim’s feelings into consideration and defiling them.
An upcoming trend in contemporary society is the use of service dogs. Service dogs refer to dogs that have been individually trained to work or undertake certain tasks for disabled people. For instance, the tasks could include; guiding blind people, alerting deaf people, moving a wheelchair, alerting and protecting when they are attacked by a seizure, reminding a person with a mental disorder to take their medicine, calming an individual with post-traumatic stress disorder when they are attacked by anxiety, amongst other roles. Apparently, legislation has been put in place to govern the use of service dogs. In the US the legislation serves to define the meaning of service dogs, limitations of the use of service dogs and places where service dogs are allowed (“ADA Requirements: Service Animals,” n.d.). The effects of the use of service dogs on other people around those who use service dogs have not been catered for, especially those who are allergic or fearful of the dogs.
Max Weber, in his classical theories, had recognized the possibility of human-animal interaction in sociological analysis. He asserted that so long as animal mannerism is subjectively comprehendible, he conceptualized the possibility of formulating a sociological relationship between men and animals whether tame or wild animals (“The Sociology of Human-Animal Interaction and Relationships,” n.d.). He envisaged a possibility of animals comprehending orders, rage, adoration or hostility and acting according to them by instinct and past experience. Weber’s ideas on animal-human interaction were initially disregarded by the other sociologists, but it is apparent that contemporary society could have based its reliance on dogs for service upon Weber’s concepts. Weber would have definitely applauded the use of dogs for service, especially since it seems noble, by helping the disabled access some services.
George Mead, albeit often discussing non-human animals in his works, he applied animal behaviours portrayals as a framework against which he contrasted the scheme of human acts. He established the basis upon which the construction of perspective which later became representational interactionism; maintaining that even though animals were social creatures, their interactivity revolved around simple and instinctive conversing by just gestures; for instance, the growling of dogs or hissing of dogs (“The Sociology of Human-Animal Interaction and Relationships,” n.d.). Mead perceived that animals were deficient in capabilities of symbol application, and thus were incapable of negotiating to mean and turn to take as equal interactants. Animals’ behaviour, he asserted, was limited to the attainment of just basic objectives such as looking for food or protecting their territories since they would not use language. He described animals as devoid of mind, self or emotion. Therefore, Mead would have totally thought it was absurd to have dogs performing some of the roles and responsibilities dogs have been delegated.
Marx’s theory of labour processes seemingly supports human dominance over nature which includes animals. Marx asserted that attainment of purpose was significant in any labour process. Perspicaciously analyzed, Marx would have supported the service dogs by a recall of a number of facts; he contended the use of natural objects, including animals for labour processes, and he considered nature as something humans could use to achieve their own aims. Marx believed that nature could be transformed, and used as a value to implement purposefulness (Bogumil, Huq, Luery, & Kelly, n.d.). In his ideas on human beings’ master over nature, he integrated human development and human progress as related entities aimed at the achievement of the welfare of the human community. In this view of benevolence, the dog service is giving human beings that I believe Marx would have probably supported the use of dogs to help the disabled.
Bullying cases are not new in our contemporary society and have been passed from one generation to the other. Bullying in contemporary society since the use of the internet and social media platforms have provided bullies with a larger space from whence they can harass other users. Even in public institutions like schools, bullying is rampant, despite the efforts of administrations to curb them. A bully may just be a sadistic individual or could be a person who has personal problems but pass them unto another helpless individual (Brown, n.d.). Normally, bullying portends psychological and sociological effects on the victim. The effects of bullying include, but are not limited to; being hurt, annoyed, fearful, and even depressed. It is so disheartening to note that bullying cuts across ages, ethnic backgrounds, races, gender or social classes such as workplaces and even public hospitals.
George Mead’s theory of “generalized other” helps us access the bases of bullying. He claims that the self is created by interpersonal interaction by the use of symbols, gestures or language and that communication aids give us a comprehension of how we are viewed by other people. A person’s identity is thus created by perceptions of the social environment and makes them take the social identity as the true self. Bullies are thus people who are hell-bent on destroying others’ self-esteem and interest in social circles, therefore claiming their place in the social environment by exercising their perceived power over others. Mead would have thought that communication amongst people was the solution to bullying (Stoetzler, 2017). He would have asked people to always communicate positively with each other and to reproach those who bullied others and not be part of a bullying incident. His exhortation for consideration of other people before oneself would be appropriate since no one would want to hurt another. This could have solved bullying in schools and workplaces.
Durkheim, on the other hand, would have placed bullying in what he had called “chronic anomie” which was caused by fragmentation of human behaviour to individualism which portended effects as grave as suicide. Durkheim would have contended for the development of societal common values and integration of individuals into the society in schools (Bogumil et al., n.d.). He would observe that the school systems needed dire scrutiny of the education system to achieve its aim of socializing individuals for the attainment of interpersonal peace. This would also help counter loneliness, insufficiency of social bonds, depression, and breakups which are the major causes of bullying. This would in turn help to avert possible suicides amongst people.
Marx’s theory on conflict gives us a glimpse of Marx’s thoughts about a society fraught with bullying as he perceived the contemporary society as capitalist-oriented, based on exploitation a form of bullying at the extremity. He felt that since there would be a social class feeling oppressed, that was a ripe recipe for the antagonism in the society. He averred that the way to comprehend a society was through concentration on the economic organization (Han, 2010). Apparently, bullying at workplaces and public institutions occurs since some people will feel powerful while others feel powerless, therefore, Marx would have thought that the best way to counter bullying was institutional changes that prohibited exploitation of workers or other people, and probably putting in place laws to govern bullying.
Anxiety and stress are two broad social problems that many people face in our contemporary society. From a Marxist approach, the recent cases of stress and anxiety are the materialistic account; that the contemporary society has focused on wealth and profit accumulation at the expense of human needs (“Full text of Sociological Theory Classical Statements,” n.d.). Class struggles shapes anxiety, stress and other mental health conditions people undergo, as they try to manage their feelings and emotions. Marx, opposing capitalism that has deprived people of the ability to control life, exploitation at its peak and competition at every step of life, therefore, alienating and distorting those who cannot meet their basic needs, would think the best way to mitigate and avert anxiety and stress was by the creation of societies that placed prominence on meeting human needs and not wealth accumulation.
Durkheim’s theoretical explanation of human behaviour is based on social organizations and forces. He argued that a stressed and anxious person must be motivated to do so by social forces and organizations. He conceptualized that a person’s degree of integration within a certain group would determine their well-being. His three explanations of suicide clearly elucidate his belief in societal integration into personal life and how external forces had catastrophic effects on a person (Oelkers, n.d.). Therefore, with the rise in cases of anxiety, stress, and depression in the current society, Durkheim would have pushed for state changes in economic structures so as to accommodate individuals, and probably advocate for the building of institutions of mental care and wellness centres to help anxious and stressed people maintain their mental health.
Mead’s assertion that thinking was a personal monologue could be a basis for how he viewed anxiety and stress. As a stressed person would engage themselves in some sort of conversation even sometimes by use of gestures of despair, Mead saw this as a symbol that had a social meaning. He, however, perceived that the self and mind of any individual were based on societal and community habits and that these institutions were constraining (“Mead, George Herbert | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” n.d.). Analysis of Mead’s theories points that a stressed or anxious individual is so owing to what the society holds unto them, therefore as a reaction to this, an individual’s mind would go berserk. Mead would have therefore urged the social setting to be more accommodative and not exert pressure and expectations on the minds of its members, to avoid stress and anxiety.
On the other hand, Max Weber considered human beings as prominent over the rest of nature, that people gave meaning to actions or processes. Anxiety and stress may be viewed as caused by pursuing rationality, and people could be pushed out of existence. Weber saw that the social rules and regulations, including enforcement by authority, meant much to people, of the expectation of people to be hard workers, in their careers in order to be more stable. He deemed that people were controlled by influential forces (Bogumil et al., n.d.). His bureaucracy theory could have led him to think that in order to make everyone be happy and not stressed in the social life, it was important to restructure organizations in the hierarchy so that there was shared responsibility and authority, a delegation of roles to ensure specialization, rules, and regulations of any procedures needed to be formalized and fairness be upheld in any undertakings. He would have also contended for the formation of legal structures and corroboration with the church to build values for everyone.
Street racing entails an illegal car competition on public roads. With the rise of social media use, teenagers and young adults are able to hook up and plan their competitions. Many lives have been lost in this competition, sometimes even involving other members of the public when the drivers of the racing cars cannot control their cars (Queally & Cruz, 2018). Street racing has created a hubristic group of people, who are always on the opposite side of authority like the police, always looking not only to race but also to engage in other illegal activities such as drug abuse. Street racing has become a worry not only for parents but also for the government since it is viewed as a death trap for young people.
Weber, a strong believer in authority, that is the police, would have thought the formation of a fully enabled department of police to deal with street racing as more appropriate. He probably would tie the effects of a car to his assertion that machines were controlling us and our behaviours. He would urge parents to take authority over their teenagers, give them the requisite direction in life, and show them the ills brought about by street racing. He would also expect institutions like schools to give moral guidance to teenagers to discourage them from participating in such lethal games, which were life costing (“Full text of Sociological Theory Classical Statements,” n.d.). He would also question the influence of films and videos on the mentality of kids that has since seen them acquire a large following and subsequent behavioural influence into participation in street games.
Probably, George Mead’s imagery representation of the game stage in his theory would best help us understand how teenagers and youngsters are motivated to participate in these street games. Teenagers learn from others the street racing and also want to experience the same. So they would look for friends who can agree to join them play these games. They may never meet the people who started the street races but through society, they have acquired some kind of “expertise in the game” (“Mead, George Herbert | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,” n.d.). Mead would have urged the participants in the game to think of how their parents or relations would feel if they lost them, and advocate for the development of legitimate games that could interest these kids to turn away from the lethal game.
In general, the classical theories developed by Mead, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim about our societies may not have immediately applied to their times, but it is apparent they apply to contemporary society. These wide topics mean that our society, in 2018, has had a catastrophic effect on individuals. Society has raised expectations high up for individuals, while the economic fragmentation cannot support all of us, leading to stress, depression and mental breakdown amongst, especially many youths. These topics are just a small representation of the very many other theoretical issues our societies and individuals are grappling with including; sexual irresponsibility, corruption in government institutions, wars among nations, terrorism, religious intolerance, fall of traditional values and replacement by modern cultures, cases of suicides just to mention a few. To fathom these theoretical issues, a person needs to clearly examine action related to any issue, the possible outcome and after tying the issue with the relevant theory, come up with the best course of action. The theories integrated together, are advocating society rearrangement in order to obtain social order where every individual can be accommodated.