SumBlog3

French sociologist Emile Durkheim had two big contributions in the field: ideas about integration and regulation and (2) religion. Durkheim's thoughts on religion were really unique and ground-breaking at the time.  For the first time we realized that we can look at religion as a way of understanding ourselves, our culture. This idea that the belief of God exists because many individuals believe in God was something I've never thought about before. He states that religion exists outside of us and as a group we share ideals. Religious groups also have assigned meaning to everyday objects and symbols - for example the cross. A cross is really just a cross, but to Christians it symbolizes more - crucifixion, protection, Jesus and more.
Here are some designs which become more if you are a member of the religious group:

 

Durkheim refers to these objects or symbols as "the sacred." These designs and other objects have something more powerful to them than what meets the eye. An interesting example not in religion is the swastika. Before Hitler used it as a symbol for the Nazis the design meant good luck! I think this is a good example of a symbol that has not lost it's scared meaning in Western culture. However; this swastika sign is a favorable one in Hindu culture. It's a case were the "sacred" part depends where and how you grew up! Below is a very interesting video about the history and describes the meanings of the symbol throughout the world's history.  Before Nazi Germany - it was a peaceful sign.

 



Before WWII, even in the United States the symbol was a very positive one as seen in these old photo and postcard. Just a few decades ago in America and throughout the world, this simple design carried a different meaning than it does today for many people in Western culture.

 

SumBlog2

As Lemert (2013) states, "In the 1860s, Marx was the dominat intellectual and politial force behind the working people's movement..." (p. 28).  Marx really gave us (his) clear view on working people and their relationship to others in society.  He divided society into this working class and the property owners - other names such as haves (property owners) and have-nots (laborers) are interchangable. Marx felt the have-nots/workers were not treated well and through their production of commodities, actually became a commodity themselves.

These quotes from Marx's "Estranged Labor" (1844) help illustrate his thoughts (and I can't say them any better):

"The worker puts his life into the object; but now his life no longer belongs to him but to the object."
 
"...the worker becomes a slave of his object, first, in that he receives work; and secondly, in that he receives means of subistence."

He goes on to say that the labor is external to the worker, and it is not voluntary but forced labor. Marx believes that these workers who are on the production line lose themselves. They are creating a product because they have to earn a living, but essentially, it's taking over their lives; they have no outside life. It seems that the workers' lives are the work. This immediately made me think of one company in particular: Apple.

There have been many reports by the media that Apple's suppliers, namely Foxconn, are overworking their employees and submitting them to unsafe conditions. Investigations into the company show that employees work excessive overtime, sometimes seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand for such long periods of time that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Additionally, under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products.

I think this is a good example of the laborers' work becoming the commodity. The employees are living and breathing their work, seem to have no personal time to develop themselves and are in some kind of slave-like situation. I think Marx must be rolling in his grave regarding the labor force assembling and producing Apple products. Check out this video and think about it:

Lemert, C. (2013). Social Theory: The multicultural, global and classic readings. (5th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

SumBlog1

The Parisian Henri de Saint-Simon saw France in a time when the people were rising up and questioning religion and the monarchy. Saint-Simon thought science was a way to help us understand social phenomena and human interaction and relationships. This, itself, was a pretty new concept since before this time people didn't really believe we had the power or authority to study ourselves. Although he understood its importance, Saint-Simon was critical of the status quo and the monarchy. In his hierarchy he put "new thinkers", scientists and entrepreneurs at the top.

This idea of giving merit to those who achieve is very interesting to me. If we were all on the same playing field in our level of the hierarchy - what determines achievement? We almost force people to move to the next level up by celebrating their successes. We are happy for them, that they have created something amazing or had an insightful idea; however, these triumphs push those above us and have some sort of control over the lower levels. Additionally, it makes me question: how do we choose to reward these people who've we decided to give merit? Perhaps, we show them more respect and seek them out for ideas and advice.

In this painting by Giovanni Pannini The French Ambassador to the Holy See Leaving St. Peter's Square (1757), we see people sharing thoughts and ideas and listening to one another. Even though there may be an intellectual hierarchy, it doesn't appear to dramatically affect the everyday encounters during this time.  I could look at this forever!

Now, we give athletes trophies and huge amounts of money, a diploma (paper) and a ceremonial cap and gown show academic achievement, but in France during the late 1700s and 1800s we weren't giving such physical prizes. These new thinkers were creating advancements in medicine and technology which were bettering people's lives. It appears mere acknowledgement and employment of these ideas was enough to separate the classes. By allowing them some extra freedom to expand their knowledge, we could, in turn, propel our lives forward with technology and enrich our daily conversations.

Here is a a painting done by Joseph Wright An Experiment on a Bird (1768). The image itself is powerful, but the idea behind the painting is just as provoking. The body language and expressions give way to the feelings: interest, disgust, thoughtfulness and curiosity. I'm still left with some questions to consider. Why are we giving so much more powerful to these "new thinkers"? Are there repercussions, or only advancements? How does this change the hierarchy for the common people at the time?