NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... posted. The empire was still faced with the problem of keeping a standing army in order to protect itself from would be invaders, which required two things money and men (Weber # 26 p. 405). Because of the lack of labor landowners would eventually side with the protection of the workers that were being recruited (Weber # 26 p. 407). As a result the empire turned to barbarian mercenaries with the promise of land to keep their standing army (Weber # 26 p. 407).
To pay for this army the empire had to reorganize public finances, on the basis of taxes (Weber # 26 p. 408). However it was too late as the structure of the cities were turning from that of a natural economy to that of barter. What has been described by Weber is the transformation of a society from that of the basis of commerce to barter. It was more of a description of recovery than transformation in that the society had built itself entirely upon a substructure of slavery that was eventually and abruptly pulled out from underneath it. However, Weber largely accredits this to the decision of one individual, the decision of Tiberious, even though admitting that the Roman state had long been in decline (Weber # 26 p. 400). If Weber had explored this further, employing his use of counter factual, he might have come to a different conclusion.
Noting that even if Tiberious had not decided to call of the war of conquest there still was not enough incoming slaves to supply Rome with the numbers that they needed. Thus Weber's theory that Rome fell due to internal factors would have still held but not because of one individual's decision, but that the society was built on a slave based structure that could not maintain. The relationship in which Durkheim viewed the individual and society is largely explained in his work "Suicide." It is in his description of atomic suicide that Durkheim explicates his perception of the individual and upon completing this explains the function of society upon the individual's life. Durkheim viewed the individual as a creature with unlimited desires (Durkheim # 32. c. v.
p. 247). That is that humans were different from other animals in that the latter "depends on purely material conditions" while the human "needs are not dependent on his body" (Durkheim # 32. c. v.
p. 246 - 47). That is humans were different from other animals in that they are not satisfied when their biological needs have been fulfilled. "Thus, the more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of filling needs" (Durkheim # 32. c. v.
p. 248). Because, individuals are naturally instable such desires must be held back by external controls, for Durkheim, by societal controls in the form of a collective authority (Durkheim # 32. c. v. p. 251).
Durkheim viewed that society played a function in that it demonstrated "a regulative force (which) must play the same role for moral needs which the organism plays for physical needs" (Durkheim # 32. c. v. p. 248). Therefore society fulfilled a function as a social control on individual aspirations in that "each in his sphere vaguely realizes the extreme limits set to his ambitions and aspires to nothing beyond. At least if he respects regulations and is docile to collective authority...
Thus, an end or a goal are set to the passions" (Durkheim # 32. c. v. p. 250). Durkheim notes that under normal conditions the collective order is maintained by the majority of individuals in society.
Durkheim notes that such collective order can not be maintained by society over individuals by custom or force alone, stating "the spirit of unrest and discontent are latent; appetites superficially restrained are ready to revolt" (Durkheim # 32. c. v. p. 251). Therefore the bond in which individual's accept from society is not physical, but a moral or social constraint (Durkheim # 32. c.
v. p. 252). Durkheim states that " (h) e is governed not by a material environment brutally imposed on him, but by a conscience superior to his own, the superiority of which he feels" (Durkheim # 32. c. v.
p. 252). When these social regulations break down, the controlling influence of society upon the individual is momentarily incapable of exerting an influence leaving individuals in a state of any (Durkheim # 32. c. v.
p. 254). What Durkheim refers to as anomie is a condition of "normlessness" that can occur in the whole of society, such as a disaster, or in an individual, such as the case with atomic suicide (Durkheim # 32. c. v p. 254).
However anomie does not refer to a state of mine rather to an aspect of the lack of stability provided by the social structure over the individual. Further that it is the result of "man's activity's lacking regulation and his consequent suffering" (Durkheim # 32. c. v. p. 258). Thus with out a mechanism of common norms to control individual aspirations and desires individuals are left without moral guidance to the pursuit of their infinite goals.
The mechanism of socialization between the individual and society is very important and demonstrated by Durkheim through his acknowledgement of egoistic suicide. "The bond that unites them with the common cause attaches them to life and the lofty goal they envisage prevents their feeling personal troubles so deeply. There is, in short, in a cohesive and animated society a constant interchange of ideas and feelings from all to each and each to all" (Durkheim # 32. c. iii.
p. 210). Egoistic suicide results from an individuals "excessive individualism" as an individual feels distant from society (Durkheim # 32. c. iii. p. 210). Durkheim notes that there must be a reason for an individual to suffer through life's trials.
Therefore life not only limits our aspirations by providing a goal but also acts as a mechanism of cohesion in dispersing the weight of life's trials. "Egoistic suicide results from man's no longer finding a basis for existence in life; altruistic suicide, because this basis for existence appears to man situated beyond life itself" (Durkheim # 32. c. v. p. 258). In either form of suicide it is demonstrated Durkheim's perception of societies influence, as both mechanism of cohesion and control, over the individual in the society. For Durkheim the nature of social reality is one of control, that society exists to limit the individual's limitless aspirations.
Simmel expands on the dualistic nature of the individual and society that was touched on by Durkheim. For Simmel there is a dialectical conflict between the individual and society. Simmel largely differs from the pre-mentioned theorist in that he returns to the individual, by analyzing how the individual deals with modern society and the development of individual personality within it. In concern to the dualistic nature of the individual and society Simmel states that " (w) e lead, as it were, a doubled, or if one will, a halved existence. We live as an individual within a social circle, with tangible separation from its other members, but also as a member of this circle, with separation from every thing that does not belong to it" (Simmel # 37. d.
p. 259). Simmel argues that we can never truly understand the individuality of another and that all relations between individuals are determined by the degrees of this incompleteness (Simmel # 36. b. p. 10). There for we do not view an individual as a perception of what traits make them an individual, rather we perceived them by the categories that we have form as a "general type" or those traits that are shared with society (Simmel # 36.
b p. 10). This categorization of the individual from "singular" to "typical" requires that the individual makes a leap in judgment about the other (Simmel # 36. b. p 10). That is that the individual will take on characteristics of the general type in which we perceive them thus filling the gaps of individuality with the preconceived notions received from society (Simmel # 36.
b. p. 10 - 11). Thus we perceive the other not as an individual, but as a member of our own realm of society (Simmel # 36. b. p. 11). Simmel notes that social individuals move between the two extremes of individual and society.
Those aspects of our individuality that we keep to ourselves have a dual affect upon our interaction. In the first place it has an affect upon the psychological structure of the individual and, second, those aspects have an affect upon the social structure (Simmel # 36. b. p. 14).
This dual nature leads to Simmel's notion of society as a "structure which consists of beings who stand inside and outside of it at the same time" (Simmel # 36. b. p. 15). Therefore, Simmel would have largely disagreed with Durkheim's notion that society was a material mechanism of constraint, but argue that society was not external or constraining in that it is individuals that reproduce society through their own individuality and constraints causing social change.
In conclusion it is best to not side with one theorist over another, but view each theorist as providing a different perception into the same room. What insights might be obstructed by one theorist may be in perfect sight of another. With this advantage we can come to a better understanding of the nature of social reality by comparing each theorist perspective and noting how one builds off of the other. Marx's sociological approach largely focused on the materialist base of society; however his perception of the individual's place in society was largely shaped in contrast to the young Hegelians view of ideas being the catalyst of social change. Weber returned our attention to the need for agency by demonstrating the role in which the individual play in societal change. However it was only until the works of Durkheim and Simmel that the role of individual interaction and society is brought to the forefront.
Durkheim largely viewed the individual as needing society as a mechanism of constraint to the aspirations of an eternal goal. Finally, Simmel was able to expand on Durkheim's dualism by noting that society could be viewed as more than a mechanism of constraint rather as an accumulation of individual interaction. Either through a combination or as individuals each theorist distinct view of the relationship between the individual and society demonstrates a new understanding towards the nature of social reality.
Free research essays on topics related to: v p, standing army, atomic suicide, b p, social reality
Research essay sample on Marx Weber Durkheim And Simmel The Individual Society
