Study Guides (238,408)
Canada (115,131)
Sociology (201)
SOC334 (22)

Sociology of Power 334 09-25

3 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Alberta
Ariane Hanemaayer

SOCIOLOGY 334 DEBATING SOCIAL POWER Why is it that Jacques Plouin has to defend Durkheim's model of violence. "Durkheim's theoretical work is often regarded as being uninterested in social struggles and hence ill-equipped as a tool for understanding violence, which is most frequently associated with an excessive use of force ... Should we conclude from this that violence is a blind spot in the Dirkheimian model in so far as it is not the subject of a general theory?" - but this means that people are going into Durkheim with their own preconceived notion of violence. - but is there actually a blind spot in Durkheim when it comes to violence? where did this paradigm of durkheim come from? every textbook tells us that EMILE DURKHEIM is the major architect of STRUCTURAL- FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM. Talcott Parsons invented this phrase. If anything, Durkheim was creating a positive social science, not a functionalism. Understanding this role of a function was a response to a lot of other french thinkers using Herbert Spencer and biological metaphors and functional explanations. Because of these dogmatic interpretations laid out by Parsons in the early years of North American sociology, Durkheim has often been criticized of being limited by his model of societal consensus. Their criticism goes like this: THE CONSCIENCE COLLECTIVE IS ONE TOTALITY, ALL-ENCOMPASSING MORAL FORCE. IF EVERYONE ALWAYS BEHAVES ACCORDING TO THESE RULES, HOW DO WE EXPLAIN CONFLICT (ENTER CONFLICT THEORY IN YOUR FIRST YEAR TEXT BOOK, SOUND FAMILIAR?). BUT Durkheim's argument has two dimensions: ONE: religious rituals were the first instances where we can see social power. "the force that isolates the sacred being and holds the profane ones at a distance is, in reality, not in that being; it lives in the consciousness of the faithful. thus the faithful feel it at the very moment that it acts on teir wills to prohibit certain actions and prescribe others." therefore, the social produces (ie causes) an effect of constraint and necessity: through its moral force, we understand our obligation to do particular things, like acting a particular way in religious places with religious things. TWO: our own understandings of CAUSE AND EFFECT emerged from ancient religious ritual and primitive conceptions of magic. -this argument has an EPISTEMOLOGICAL component to it: our theory of knowledge has a social history! why do we need a theory of power without violence or coercion? POWER DOES NOT LAY IN THE INDIVIDUAL you are born into a world with particular customs and understandings. you dont have the power to creat
More Less

Related notes for SOC334

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.