G1: Marx, Spencer, and Rousseau: Marx believes in a society that functions through conflict. For him, the Bourgeoisie (Owners) and the Proleteriat (Workers) are in constant conflict with each other, because the workers are being exploited for their work while the owners profit from it. Industrialization leads to an increase in lost jobs causing workers to lose their source of income, while owners continue to profit even more. The contradiction to industrialization is that owners are producing more products at a cheaper price making more profit, but this is at the cost of the workers jobs that in turn cannot buy the products being produced. In either case, the worker is suffering which can ultimately lead to a revolt against the owners. Spencer believes in a conflicting society as well. Spencer applies natural selection to humans in that it is survival of the fittest. Spencer believes that poor people are poor because they are maladapted. War is a critical component of society. This can apply to businesses and factories for Marx: if factories are maladaptive they parish. For Spencer, increased freedom limits freedom because of the idea of war and conflict. There is a lack of trust among the individuals because of this increased freedom so they must create a strong group bond, which leads to increased social cohesion. Rousseau also believes in a conflicting society being functioning. For him it is the idea of war of all against all. Individuals are constantly fighting each other. Rousseau believes in civil liberty vs. natural liberty. In civil liberty the community gives your rights and liberties to you. Natural liberty on the other hand says that your rights and liberties are no longer protected. For Rousseau, you trade your freedom for your life and protection. You must agree to give up your rights for your protection. While this society is not based completely on conflict, conflict would exist if individuals did not give up their rights. Rousseau’s role of coercion says that you must follow the contract or you get punished, and should be compelled to follow the will of the people. For Marx and Spencer, if you do not follow the guidelines set by society, you are punished. For Spencer, this means that you are essentially removed from society because you are not adapting appropriately. For Marx, not following the rules can either result in a revolt with the proleteriat or lack of a source of income because they don’t properly integrate into the bourgeoisie/proleteriat ideal.

G2: Durkheim, De Tocqueville, and Simmel: Durkheim and Simmel are both similar in that they focus on how society functions as a whole as groups instead of individually. Durkheim specifically states, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For Durkheim, concepts have no meanings when they are strictly about individuals, but if you study the individuals, you can learn about the group. Durkheim also believes that groups have emergent properties. This refers to a characteristic that a set of phenomena has but individuals do not. Emergent properties in groups, according to Durkheim become social facts. Similar to Durkheim, Simmel studies people in groups. For Simmel, the larger the group is, the more likely they are to include different people and elements. This gives more to study in the group, because it becomes more and more different as it continues to grow. The smaller the group though, the more homogenous it is. Simmel also points out that groups can exist within groups and can combine with other groups adding to the characteristics of that group. Simmel talks about dyads and triads. In dyads, all members must want to remain members otherwise the group will die. In a triad, the group must lack intimacy, because with intimacy, two members are linked together, making them a dyad, not a triad. This opposed to a dyad that is held together by intimacy. If that intimacy is broken, it threatens their existence. As the group grows, the number of relationships and dyads can form within the group. For both Durkheim and Simmel, characteristics of the group influence things about it. For Simmel, it influences whom they interact with, while Durkheim it shows how they interact. Durkheim also focuses on mechanical and organic solidarity, which explains the relationships between society and individuals. Mechanical solidarity is based on similarity and is a strong bond that keeps you connected to society. Organic solidarity on the other hand is a weak connection that gives you more freedom to move around, but if you differentiate yourself too much, you can be disconnected from the society. This concept is what Durkheim defines as anomie, or normlessness. You have no expected behaviors, no direction, values, or beliefs. Similar to Durkheim, De Tocqueville believes that individualism leads to isolation. For Durkheim, having organic solidarity gives you individualism. Breaking from that bond completely leads to isolation or for Durkheim, depression. De Tocqueville believes in a democracy, which works off the notion of majority rules. Majority in this case carries a moral status. In studying how groups interact, it is important to know that in many cases, culture and majority can take power in a society. In terms of how groups interact, what the majority believes to be right might cause others to exclude themselves. For De Tocqueville, majority carries a form of moral status and cannot be wrong. With this majority power, we end up preventing liberty because we are basing our behaviors and beliefs off of what society might judge us on. This determines whom we interact with and how we interact with them. If you do go against this majority, like what might happen in Durkheim’s organic solidarity, you are excluded from the group. You restrict your because you are unwilling to go against the majority.

G3: Smith, Weber: In a bureaucracy, society is made up of different levels, the top level being the individual in charge. This person is essentially elected to be in charge and in doing so is given the power to make decisions. These decisions are based on majority; the majority voices their opinion through votes. Weber also describes three different types of legitimate authority; rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic. Weber says that in a bureaucracy we all become zombies, but without it, we would not interact. In bureaucracies, we are forced to interact with one another. Bureaucracies are used because they are the most efficient way of getting things done. As organizations grow larger, they become more and more complex making a bureaucracy the only efficient way. Similar to Smith’s beliefs, Weber says that a division of labor makes a bureaucracy more efficient. The problems with bureaucracies are that they do not respond well to problems that it is not designed to handle. With more problems though, the bureaucracy can grow and restructure to try and solve the problem, making it become more efficient, but when initially presented with something they can’t do, it becomes inefficient. Weber also describes an iron cage of bureaucracy meaning that you are stuck and can’t get out. Because bureaucracies are the most efficient way to get things done, we can’t fix it. Smith’s division of labor has the same underlying characteristic of efficiency. In division of labor, jobs are broken down into smaller parts with only one individual doing a single part as opposed to multiple individuals doing many parts. This means more products will be produced, making them less rare, more readily available, and cheaper. The downside to this is deskilling the laborer. For Smith individuals went from having a vast amount of skills to only being specialized in one task. While they are more skilled in this one task, they are only able to do that task. This makes them harder to replace, but also harder to find a job if they lose that one because they do not have as many skills. In a larger society, there is more deskilling as opposed to a smaller society (clan) where everyone is interchangeable because they all have the same skills and talents. Smith’s economies of scale can be explained as the larger the business, the better off they will be. This is similar to a bureaucracy in that the larger the group is, the more bureaucratized they become, making them more and more efficient. Parson’s holds similar beliefs to Weber with the way that systems work. Parsons thinks that you should think about life in terms of systems. These systems consist of a set of connected parts that all serve a purpose, similar to a bureaucracy or division of labor. If there is an issue within the system, everything is affected. The same goes for the division of labor or a bureaucracy in that if one part is not functioning, the rest along the way are affected, usually negatively. For Parsons, all systems are fundamentally the same and he wants to show that this is not necessarily and good thing, but it shows that it is functioning. All systems are divided into parts and face the same issues. They all must have adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance. Since factories and bureaucracies can be seen as a system, they too have this in common meaning that they are all made of connected parts that must work together in order to function properly. When the system is not working properly, it is in a state of disequilibrium, or unstable. When this happens, the system or individuals in the systems adjust their behavior accordingly to match work around the disfunctioning state. Parson’s describes a Scaler property that the components within a system are also systems and they function together, but they also function against each other.

SMITH SOCIOLOGY OF EMOTIONS.

G4: Misfits – Hobbes: There are a few theorists that I am not sure what group they belong in based on differing ideas from what I’ve outlined. Hobbes believes in the idea of war of all against all. We are constantly in a state of war. In this idea, the way to resolve the constant war and paranoia is to create a sovereign and grant them absolute power. In doing this, we give up our right to kill to the sovereign and in exchange, they have the power to protect the people. This absolute power is called the Leviathan. The rights that we give the absolute power also gives them rights to make decisions in other areas as well. The only way to create a sovereign is through war/conquest or agreement. There are not exceptions to this; it is the concept of majority rules. If the sovereign believes that the majority of society will agree with the decision, then that is the decision that will be made. Hobbes is similar to Spencer in that a majority is a monarch, but instead a single person is in charge. This is also similar to Marx’s beliefs on factories; the owners are in charge, but they are not given total power over an individual like the Leviathan. Kant believes that we should be free when we are not at work. He also believes in public and private reason. Public reason is a personal argument while private reason is being objective. For Kant, he believes that individuals need to be enlightened. This means acceptance of responsibility to think. An example of this is with artificial agreement; we should believe that teachers believe in the subject they teach. Mead focuses on the development of the self and individual mind. Mead talks about gestures and how one gesture can evoke a response of another gesture from an individual but no communication occurs. Mead also talks about the nature of the self. He distinguishes between the “Me” or social self, and the “I” as the response to “Me.” In other words, the "I" is the response of an individual to the attitudes of others, while the "me" is the organized set of attitudes of others, which an individual assumes. I placed all of these into their own group because I don’t feel their beliefs match up well enough with others. Kant does believe in freedom of speech, which contradicts what De Tocqueville says that freedom of speech does not actually exist because of societal norms and beliefs. Hobbes initially wanted to relate to Marx, Spencer and Rousseau because of the natural state of war, but in none of those is a distinct, overarching power, which made me question that. Although Hobbes is trying to get rid of fear, which ends up creating more fear.