Durkheim’s theory of religion



Social Order via norms

Norms

cultural phenomena that prescribe & proscribe behavior

external criteria for evaluation

require sanctioning to be effective

Examples of Norms

We have shared views on how to behave in the following situations:

Weddings, Funerals, Baseball games, Birthdays, Classrooms, Church, Odegaard, tourists

Goffman on Norms

Society has norms about interaction between strangers:

“The welfare of the individual ought not to be put in jeopardy through his capacity to open himself up for encounters.”

4 types of positions:

Exposed positions

Opening positions

Mutual openness

Evasions

How norms ( order

To the degree that people comply with pro-social norms

Their behavior will be predictable

They will act cooperatively

What is the content of norms?

Value theory readings talk about the internalization of norms, but fail to explain their content

Freud says we internalize the parent, but doesn’t specify what super-ego tells us to do

Durkheim says we obtain purpose/regulation from society; doesn’t say what that purpose is

Horne: 2 ways to explain the content of norms (& how they arise)

(1) Norms emerge from patterns of individual behavior

Individuals do things (for whatever reasons)

The more they do the same things, the more these acts come to be expected

When these acts are expected, they are imbued with a sense of “oughtness”

People then react negatively to deviations from expected acts

(2) Norms curb externalities, individual behaviors that have consequences for others

Norms emerge when

Behavior produces externalities; People recognize a right to sanction these behaviors; The group has the ability to enforce its decisions

The enforcement of norms

Whatever their origin, to be effective norms have to be enforced

Sometimes, enforcement is relatively costless

Unconscious enforcement – requires no effort by enforcer

Sometimes, enforcement is costly

Why do people enforce norms?

Benefits of doing so outweigh the costs

Yet there is a temptation to ‘free ride’

Not to enforce norms & let others do it

Why reward others for enforcing norms?

Even if everybody gains if norms are enforced, everyone has an incentive to free ride

Fehr and Gachter

Their experiment reveals that individuals often punish free riders without any reward

B/c free riding causes strong negative emotions, and most people expect these emotions in response to free riding

Evidence (F & G)

Most punishment by above-average contributors, imposed on below-average contributors

Punishment increases with the deviation of the free rider from the average investment of others

Threat of punishment works because free riders anticipate the negative emotions their behavior causes

Opportunity to punish immediately deters free riders

Instances of costly enforcement

Suggests that values are responsible for the enforcement of norms

That people will punish free riders even when this behavior is costly indicates that it is driven by values

Other studies….

• Human emotions such as love and guilt serve an adaptive role in our evolution, helping guide our behavior toward actions in our long-term interest (e.g., helping others), rather than just pursuing our own selfish, short-term ends (See Frank, Passions Within Reason)

• “People want freeloaders punished, study finds. “Live and let live is fine at first, but over time, sanctions preferred” Free riders become ardent sanctioners.

▪

Conjoint and disjoint norms

• Conjoint norms: Targets of a norm are enforcers

• Disjoint norms: Targets of a norm are not enforcers

Critique of Normative Theories

Normative theorists do away with inner conflict

People are “oversocialized” in these theories

Hard to explain deviance: if norms so strong, why so much crime, so little cooperation?

Norms are inherently ambiguous, so how can they produce S.O.?

Ambiguity of Norms…

Ambiguity surrounds the definition of the situation

Ambiguity surrounds the definition of the norm

The ambiguity of norms, con’t

The desire for smooth interaction is core motive for individuals to give up their own material interests for the sake of others

Actors share desire for interaction to occur without strain, so often alter their own behavior to ensure this result – choosing to “satisfice” personal outcomes for harmony

In responding to a particular interaction context, people select from among a set of possibilities. It is rare that a single behavior is judged the only appropriate option.

Implications of normative ambiguity

Even if internalized (i.e., become a value), norms may not produce social order

If not internalized, norms must be enforced. If people unwilling to enforce norms, who will?

This leads to the next set of solutions to the problem of social order

Planning Ahead

Lotsa reading & studying!

Tuesday: Power & Authority theories. Bring any midterm questions to class & office hours

Optional Prep: Hobbes & Engels: ID assumptions & do boats. Weber: ID 3 ideal types of legit order. Willis: Describe level of SO & relate to legitimacy.

Thursday: Bring a pen; leave all personal belongings at front. Exam will take less than an hour.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download