Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Causality and Effects
Durkheim challenged the classical economist view of the causes of
division of labor stating that the economists are wrong to think that
human pursuit of happiness caused them to divide up labor to seek
greater leisure time and happiness (Durkheim 1997:180). Instead,
Durkheim sees the primary cause of the division of labor as a necessary result of
population growth and condensing (Durkheim 1997:205). Essentially,
because populations were growing and people were in close proximity,
they divided up labor in order to more efficiently produce the means of
sustenance as well as a way of reducing conflict. Unlike Marx, Durkheim
believe conflict is a natural state of mankind when individuals have
overlapping functions and can get in the way of one another's success;
however, when labor is divided and tasks are separated in a way so that
the scientist can be successful in conjunction with the business owner,
politician, etc. since they serve different functions in society and
therefore do not often come into points of contact where they might
have competing interests (Durkheim 1997:210). Of course, through this
division of labor, organic solidarity increases while mechanical
solidarity (and the collective conscious) decrease, so that the
individual opinions and personal beliefs are able to grow (Durkheim
1997:146).
While individuals continue on a path of diversity that allows for individual circumstances, Durkheim notes that society becomes increasingly rational due to a necessity to focus on what is universal since "[w]e can onlyponder effectively upon the general" (Durkheim 1997:232). In some ways this presents a conflict, although Durkheim does not acknowledge it as such, the reason behind this appears to be that Durkheim sees a need for individuals to be connected with one another in a way similar to mechanical solidarity as he sees organic solidarity as only functioning when a society has first established a 'sameness' (Durkheim 1997:222-223). Durkheim believes in a need for a level of collective conciousness, and he feels that collectivity formed through rational thought leads to a reduction in categorization of the collective consciousness and allows for greater free development of individual variations (Durkheim 1997:233). Contemporary theorists have questions this idea of rationality leading to increased freedom, with C. Wright Mills declaring that this focus on rationality has led to a loss of reason and what he refers to as the conversion of people into "The Cheerful Robot" (Mills 1963:236-246).
I would argue that rational thought has, in many ways, allowed greater freedom such as that described by Durkheim, although I would also tend to agree with Mills that a blind faith in rational thought without an eye to reason can lead to inhuman decisions if the only rationality is the thought of personal gain. However, if the rationality is an objective view of the consequences for the larger system, and not just the immediate gains, then I think many of the negative consequences of rationality are mitigated as most of the negatives of rational thought are due to a blindness of future consequences in favor of the immediate effects, but this is often difficult (if not impossible) with pure logical thought. To dismiss rationality is, according to Durkheim, to dismiss the universal and to dismiss the ability to effectively ponder the general, which I would argue would prevent us from seeing the forest among the leaves and prevent us from being able to effect the system in a positive manner (Durkheim 1997:232). Still, the pure logical positivism professed by Durkheim has limitations that we should be equally cautious of as following this to the letter would prevent us from seeing the leaves from the trees and blind us to the possible larger impact that simple causality often cannot see, so while the particular may defy the understanding (I'm assuming Durkheim means understanding of causality, mechanisms at play, etc.) they are still necessary to "keep things real" (Durkheim 1997:232). We need to keep both the forest, trees, and leaves in perspectives in order to understand how to effect change as well as to keep things in proper perspective, we should not as some social theorists seem to suggest throw the baby out with the bath water and completely reject the Enlightenment focus on rational thought (Ardorno 1991:53-84). I don't believe Mills was calling for an end to rational thinking within the social sciences but rather a need to rethink the focus and add an element of reason to the objective views of science.
Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1963. Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. New York, NY: Oxford U. Press.
While individuals continue on a path of diversity that allows for individual circumstances, Durkheim notes that society becomes increasingly rational due to a necessity to focus on what is universal since "[w]e can onlyponder effectively upon the general" (Durkheim 1997:232). In some ways this presents a conflict, although Durkheim does not acknowledge it as such, the reason behind this appears to be that Durkheim sees a need for individuals to be connected with one another in a way similar to mechanical solidarity as he sees organic solidarity as only functioning when a society has first established a 'sameness' (Durkheim 1997:222-223). Durkheim believes in a need for a level of collective conciousness, and he feels that collectivity formed through rational thought leads to a reduction in categorization of the collective consciousness and allows for greater free development of individual variations (Durkheim 1997:233). Contemporary theorists have questions this idea of rationality leading to increased freedom, with C. Wright Mills declaring that this focus on rationality has led to a loss of reason and what he refers to as the conversion of people into "The Cheerful Robot" (Mills 1963:236-246).
I would argue that rational thought has, in many ways, allowed greater freedom such as that described by Durkheim, although I would also tend to agree with Mills that a blind faith in rational thought without an eye to reason can lead to inhuman decisions if the only rationality is the thought of personal gain. However, if the rationality is an objective view of the consequences for the larger system, and not just the immediate gains, then I think many of the negative consequences of rationality are mitigated as most of the negatives of rational thought are due to a blindness of future consequences in favor of the immediate effects, but this is often difficult (if not impossible) with pure logical thought. To dismiss rationality is, according to Durkheim, to dismiss the universal and to dismiss the ability to effectively ponder the general, which I would argue would prevent us from seeing the forest among the leaves and prevent us from being able to effect the system in a positive manner (Durkheim 1997:232). Still, the pure logical positivism professed by Durkheim has limitations that we should be equally cautious of as following this to the letter would prevent us from seeing the leaves from the trees and blind us to the possible larger impact that simple causality often cannot see, so while the particular may defy the understanding (I'm assuming Durkheim means understanding of causality, mechanisms at play, etc.) they are still necessary to "keep things real" (Durkheim 1997:232). We need to keep both the forest, trees, and leaves in perspectives in order to understand how to effect change as well as to keep things in proper perspective, we should not as some social theorists seem to suggest throw the baby out with the bath water and completely reject the Enlightenment focus on rational thought (Ardorno 1991:53-84). I don't believe Mills was calling for an end to rational thinking within the social sciences but rather a need to rethink the focus and add an element of reason to the objective views of science.
Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1963. Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. New York, NY: Oxford U. Press.
posted by Mike Oren # 9:32 AM
Post a Comment