Future Modernization

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Sociology, Émile Durkheim, The Division of Labour in Society
  • Pages : 5 (1246 words )
  • Download(s) : 138
  • Published : January 23, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Future of Modernization Paper
*
* Gaylene Rincon
*
* December 9, 2012
*
* SOC/120
*
* Chris Jones
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Future of Modernization Paper

*
*
As I analyzed the different modern theorists from Chapter 16, Social Change: Modern and Postmodern Societies, (Macionis. 2011) which are, “Ferdinand Tönnies: The Loss of Community, Emile Durkheim: The Division of Labor, Max Weber: Rationalization, and Karl Marx: Capitalism,” and based upon the supplied information, I think the United States has manifested modernization in society through the theory described by “Emile Durkeim: The Division of Labor.” She was a French sociologist that developed an interest in the theory of the German sociologist Ferdinand Tőnnies’s who developed his modernization theory from “Gemeinschaft,” which meant that people are basically combined no matter the dividing factors that might be present. * According to Chapter 16, (Macionis. 2011), it stated, “Durkheim explained that preindustrial societies are held together by “mechanical solidarity,” or “shared moral sentiments,” which means participants of such a society belief, everyone fundamentally are alike, performing the similar work and going along together in a harmonious manner. Durkheim explains that, “Modernization was marked by an increasing division of labor, or specialized economic activity.” To put it into more simple terms he believed, “Modern societies are held together not by likeness but by differences. All of us must depend on others to meet most of our needs.” Although, Tőnnies and Durkheim theories were parallel in thinking they slightly examined modernity differently. Tőnnies’s understanding of modernization was Gesellschaft, lost “social solidarity,” because when people loss bonds through the “natural” evolution in growth from a small town tight knit community into a big city it becomes, “artificial” and “mechanical,” which to him is a “natural” process, because people naturally loose ties from their small town community, when the growth of big city emerges. * However, Durkheim argued Tőnnies view of “natural,” isn’t something to consider normal, because in his viewpoint there is nothing normal or “natural” about his theory. Therefore, Durkheim labeled modern society as “organic” and he said, “it is no less natural than any other.” Durkheim didn’t believe that the natural process of modernization was as he labeled “traditional societies” as “mechanical,” because he believed they were regulated and disciplined. * Durkheim didn’t view modernization as a loss of community; but it was based more upon an economic division through labor choices, and the intrinsic change was due to the process of transformed interests. Durkheim views were more complex, but had a more positive view about the modernity. He thought societies division was mostly based upon economically mutually dependent elements. * According to our text (Macionis. 2011), it describes mass societies have social diversity and are rapidly changing, could Durkheim understand this as the process he described as “organic” a process that change produces economically dependent elements, become transformed interests and demands? Therefore since people are faced with life decisions daily, especially those with greater capital, it can produce an array of various choices. These choices produce different paths, lifestyles, relationships and even religious contingency in search of a “true self.” Is searching for the “true self” considered “organic” or as Tőnnies called it “natural?” * According to a dissertation called, “Building a Harmonious Socialist Society under the Vision of Modernization Author: Zhang, Juxiang; Guo, Huaru Publication info: Asian...
tracking img