Sociology covers such a vast variety of human issues that, through digesting a significant amount of material produced by it’s members, one becomes incredibly attuned to the general functionality of human society, almost like tapping into nature or taking a psychedelic drug. Similar to the way a psychologist or carpenter might have special tools to help patients or construct certain objects, sociology has terminology and examples that allow one to analyze and address deeper concerns that are more human than could be addressed by any other field. In fact, several of the founders of sociology who fought for it’s validity as a science considered and made an excellent case for sociology as representative of the apex of all the sciences. They had created frameworks for proper methodologies of research, a standardized writing form, and detailed prospective uses of the science.
One of the most positive aspects of the science is its ability to draw stronger connections between human nature and reality than by mere commentary on experience. The suggestion of this work is much more significant, however. It produces results that properly define society and explain social realities. These realities are certainly subject to change, but they are nonetheless more accurately represented through proper research than by speculative observations of individuals who are further subject to influences of discourse and many other factors.
Sociology is a fluid science. It’s purpose, focus, and direction followed by the community of researchers, academics and masters is in perpetual motion. The greatness in it, however, is more pure. The fact that, within a major human society, there exists a sector of the world devoted to complete rationality and objectivity in viewing human conditions and behavior, side by side with the world that is living it, is a potentially major advantage to humankind.
This widely misunderstood and misinterpreted science is often, and quite easily, undermined and therefore under-utilized. Much of the difficulty of establishing its validity in the real world is due in part to the utter and relentless inability of individual human beings from separating from their inner mental workings and eliminate all bias—even if for the sole purpose of enhancing understanding of the world through objectivity. Not only are individuals significantly unable to make such separations of self and the world, but sociologically produced data can have bizarre and traumatic impacts on an individual’s self, particularly when realities are discovered to be significantly varied from the individual’s assumptions as interpreted through experience. The argument here is that it is this type of disconnection and static in transmission that creates a negative response to sociology and a rejection of it, much the way that the heliocentric model of the galaxy was initially received by a society that had little tolerance for it at the time of Copernicus and Kepler as described in the work of Thomas Kuhn.
As such, sociology remains primarily a realm of academia, with little influence in the actual world aside from certain studies that address issues of which particular groups use for lobbying purposes, or to simply continue the dialogue of the intellectual understanding of the world as understood in sociological terms.
What exactly is sociology? While a definition may provide insight, it is better to more broadly state that it scientifically explores human behavior as pertaining to how humans structure themselves socially, from governance to economics, class and race, sexuality to deviance, cultural changes and religious influence on behavior, and even toward the relationship between humans and the physical world they live in, impact, and recreate. While many people learn through storytelling or reading, which basically allows individual’s minds to absorb and make sense of stories for the purpose of creating a level of morality or simply for stimulation, sociology aims at interpreting social realities. Therefore, history is not divided the way historians divide it into eras based on use of metals in human history or dynasties or with reference to the time of major events in particular religions, nor is it divided the way anthropology might examine shifting cultures based on their use of the earth or enhancement in language or devastating events that uprooted a once thriving culture. Rather, sociology’s perception of history is more complicated. It is not concerned with examining ancient Egypt, for example, in order to awe at the mysterious approaches to life and death or cultural significance of hieroglyphics of that era. Instead, it will use the concept of slavery in ancient Egypt as a cross reference for understanding what factors led to social changes in that area of the world after the fall of Egypt, mostly as a means of delineating aspects of human society that may or may not be universal, to provide better understanding of our world or further defining human nature. So, perhaps an ancient society adopted a religion that embraced the idea of reincarnation, and therefore persons were more willing to be enslaved on the idea that, in another lifetime, they may trade places with a member of another class…sociology is concerned with this for the purposes of understanding if and how such relationships with religion, for example, affect and are affected by society.
In fact, sociology’s take on history is described primarily by terms of “traditional” societies to “modern” society.
Bias is a major topic in and of itself. What is bias? It’s not nearly as easy for people to admit or acknowledge their own bias as they think. It is something that can be so engulfed in our minds that it has formed neuro-pathways in our brains that are imprinted to the point that, even when we expand our minds, there is a limited realm of possibilities.
Western thought generally has a very difficult time discerning this, as seen throughout much of legal writing aimed at creating a legal structure that is more just and fair to everyone or at least to persons that have been in situations that unduly negatively affect them. The term bias in legal writing is often used to describe people’s personal objectives as the purpose of their actions. In other words, their self-interest. While still common, yet rarer, bias is also referred to as implicit in the system of institutional workings. For example:
The American legal system, and most others, define crimes using language that is clear enough, yet still subject to argument by lawyers handling specific cases. This certainly presents potential for bias on the basis of individuals involved in the process of determining a defendant’s fate. Additionally, there is no discussion as to the situation in life in which a defendant was placed in or dealing with. The entire case is established by the elements of the crimes, only occasionally getting into some of the metaphysical aspects of “intent”, where the legal system requires a guilty mind termed mens rea. The concept of a mens rea requirement, coming out of Roman antiquity though likely from predecessor cultures, could be debated as to its use as a means of defining whether a person is guilty is not of a crime. As fascinatingly deep as this concept could get, it is not argued that, although conceptual and metaphysical and not necessarily applicable for determining fate of every individual, still serves quite a positive functional purpose in the area of criminal culpability in modern society. It is not an argument against such a concept posed here. Rather, it highlights the fact that there may be systemwide bias that results in injustice, depended on viewpoint. That, the individuals who handle cases, whether a judge, or an attorney, or even members of Congress who define crime using significant amounts of experience and extensive studies presented by various lobbying groups, may have bias and purpose in their actions consistent with their own personal ideals of justice or even purely self-interest whether based on personal experience or desired outcomes such as financial gain, is irrelevant. For, even if acting as an emotionless drone, carrying out a bureaucratic task, there still exists bias in the system that affects members of different parts of society differently and this variation is capable of producing unfairness if considered as uneven results.
This is positively a result of a massively integrated society that permits the existence of various subgroups within its boundaries/jurisdictions. People familiar with the concept of a America being a “melting pot” of immigrants may also understand the concept of “salad bowl” wherein there is more ability of the member cultures to maintain their own identity while still being a part and living among the other groups in this large and diverse country. It is the contention of this writing that some of the systemic bias is an inevitable result of the difficulty of humanity flowing through time and grappling with creating a balance between the salad bowl and melting pot ideas, and not due to any significant evil by any individual. This type of reasoning is only made possible by a background of sociology, replete with a host of intellectual works and research designed to define the social world objectively.
Further, a significant amount of societal injustice could just as easily be seen as a result of the changing of society globally, wherein the individual has been endowed with significantly more responsibility, arguably than any other time in human history. Sociology terms this the “individualisation[ INDIVIDUALISATION: ELABORATE.] of society” and the vastness of aspects impacted in society as a result of this process is immense.
Imagine the many routes one can take through a city to reach a destination on the other side of town…the focus is still limited to the existing roads. Now imagine, instead of getting in a car and taking roads, perhaps calling a friend who knows a helicopter pilot to take you, to possibly putting a jet-pack together to fly across town, to getting even more creative by thinking about what even is on the other side of town that you want to get to, and flexing that need into leveraging someone into bringing themselves or a particular item to you, eliminating the need for travel at all. Quite an exercise…a good tool to use every once in a while when stuck in a rut. The point is that the realities that are built in the minds of individuals as pertaining to social realities are similarly grooved into individual’s subconscious’ and therefore continue to influence the world, and could expanded and/or recalibrate intelligently to enhance the world or progress to more utopian ideals. Sociology provides an incredible
Marxism is more than the theories upon which Marx discussed economics. Marx’s view was that this intricate structure he described was nearly universal to humankind. He viewed humanity so objectively, that he considered the natural way in which they form their relations are inherently around class structure.
You, the reader, will have an incredibly difficult time understanding or tolerating such a viewpoint, not because it is directly insulting, but because it studies human beings in a sense that acknowledges nothing spiritual about them, nothing special or unique, but scientifically. The way a person might view a colony of squirrels in a way that doesn’t acknowledge a spirit but rather that there is a population problem, for example, purely as a result of slow neighborhood traffic, abundance of trees and roofs, and no tops on trash cans, etc. The purpose of sociology is always in question. However, the purpose in taking such an approach is not to dehumanize us as creatures, but to gain insight and in truth into our very nature. Perhaps this depth of understanding will lead to truths so as to propose changes and create mentalities that amend and harmonize our nature with the realities of the world. Perhaps it’s aim is purely academic. Nonetheless, the permeation of certain complex and sensitive truths into the minds of scholars and society thereafter can have adverse consequences.
How do we use it?
Currently there are many practical applications of social science in our world. Sociologists gather data to enhance legislative lobbying as an example. Unfortunately, however, it’s practical application to the human world is like anything human’s ever set out to do…it often fails and is abstract and has unforeseeable results and is subject to bias (not in the methodology or results or even interpretation of the results, but in the actual application of policies that seem like brilliant solutions moving forward. Some endeavors will be more successful than others.
Forgetting about the earlier criticism of the use of psychology in modern society, it nonetheless can be of better value to the world toward something resembling justice and a step toward utopianism…if that’s the aim, of course. One of the aspects of psychology that could be very useful toward democratizing the world is a thing called psychological measurement. It is a tool for understanding some aspect about a group of people and their views or ways of thinking about a particular issue or topic.
What about the Law?
The Law is a man-made system in which, as time passes and social mores morph, it has the remarkable ability to flow and change as particular cases come before well-respected members of our judicial system and society, to which they analyze and begin forming a more specific body of law around a particular realm of social life—economic-related or any other realm of life. The thing that few people may fully be able to comprehend is the nature of law as inherently subjective. Specifically, law is essentially a giant mind created collectively by the society adhering to it, making it subjective. In other words, it’s subject to opinions on morality and ethics influencing judgement. This isn’t something like bias in a particular decision, it’s something general about law itself, in that is is a projection of the given society of which the law and it’s particularities are implemented. It is something collectively created and therefore, no individual can be said to be “responsible” for any particular law and it’s influence on an aspect of the law that someone might disdain. If understood in this manner, one can make a more significant distinction between law and sociology, where sociology aims and achieves a significantly greater amount of objectivity.
So does law make the world better? Or does the world change independently of the law’s influence? Is the law simply improved by increasing it’s intricacies like carefully carving a diamond over a long period time? How in the world can law keep up with a society that moves faster than it…which it always does?
These are questions this section hopes to discuss—a sort of metaphysical analysis of the nature of law and society.
For a brief example: we know economic laws support peoples private property interests, but the degree might be so rigidly that earthly resources cannot be maintained to support the massive amounts of people born to those who simply procreate without thought for the economic future of these lives they bring into the world. The law will naturally change or adapt to support this generation out of a moral sense of human rights without regard to the point in time in the past when some hundreds of millions or so humans had children in a moment. While the lack of foresight as to future conditions is all relative, the standard could very well be so low that all social structures are jeopardized wherein all human existence would suffer drastically in conditions so horrific by modern standards that its as though humans, in their momentary nature, failed to realize the importance of maintaining a keen eye on future possibilities, as time will inevitably pass. Is it fair for the law to fail to reward those with foresight and instead devalue those persons currency by printing more support the masses? As a sophisticated socialist, I say yes within reason.
But first, let’s discuss something about the changing nature of society.
It is my contention that the nature of modern man, acting in an individual capacity (see Individualization in Modernity and how evidence abound suggests mental personalization is increased significantly: my guess it is its part of the natural tendency of people to keep themselves in some sort of sacred individual identity despite the fact that physically we are just a species akin to billions nearly identical insects or fish species) and in an attempt at self-interested pursuits, becomes simultaneously un-political in nature. Despite the inherency of social relations at the core of human existence, being, and function, undeniably political in all aspects, the focus of his interactions will remain ambiguous and in avoidance of substantive dialogue. This type of behavioral pattern is made possible solely by the bureaucratic institutionalization of the mode of production. The necessary political decision-making is done from the viewpoint of selected individuals making their best efforts at what heir imagination will allow them to understand would be for the “greater good” of their respective constituents. Still, the level of detachment by these actors from the realities of
People in bars and restaurants are forced to check someone’s ID to make sure they are of legal drinking age even when the person is obviously over 55 years old. This is the stupidity that ensues in this highly regulated society. Out of the fear of being liable…for which the penalty is a fine ($). Macro-level society has become so engulfed by the concept of money that they take on insane forms of behavior and their level of consciousness has been reduced to infancy.
To be continued…