Clarity..

what's is society and how can we understand function?

How is technology shaping society?

Can I suggest to read Zuboff Surveillance Capitalism 2020...which neatly links sociology, political economy in our era of social technology.

Dear Bob, thanks for this triggering question. Today there is a lot of not much reflected discourse on society, but we are quite far away from a shared concept. Personally I observed the following (unsatisfactory and irritating) ways of using the concept of society: a sociological angle means a reference beyond the individual subject; sometimes society is used as it were a geographical space: Austrian society; an anthropomorphic use is widely spread: you treat science as a human being, e.g. "we have to tell society, society does not listen, society does not like these people etc". Referring to Durkheim I would have a look at his Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, with him the sociological aspect is collective, normative, exterior. "La caractéristique essentielle èes faits sociaux] consiste dans le pouvoir qu'ils ont d'exercer, du dehors, une pression sur les consciences individuelles." (Les règles de la méthode sociciologique, 110) Luhmann treats society as a kind of language. Society is probably a historically and geographically bound device for communication, understanding, sense-making, active, it is coercive and exterior. The problem for a researcher is that he never holds a paramount position. He is not God's eye. But he has  to use the very device he wants to explore. This makes the hermeneutic character of sociology.  In the history of humanities an important point was when Ferdinand de Saussure used Durkheim's definition of fait social, to define langue. Today grand theory has gone, and it becomes even more difficult to define society in a general way. For instance in the work of Orlando Patterson you find concepts like social death, slavery, freedom bot not a general definition of society. Nevertheless the questions you ask are necessary ones.

Bob,

Interesting and, as Charles noted, necessary question as sociology does not seem to contribute as much to the study of suicide as in the past. I concur with Charles but would like to cite another perspective. Psychology and psychiatry have come to dominate suicide research, probably because suicide is viewed as a phenomena affecting individuals, most of whom are felt to have mental illness. Be that as it may, except for part of so-called psychosocial factors, the social, let alone societal, side of suicide is rarely considered from the perspective of sociology. Perhaps the most appropriate and available role for sociologists in suicide research is studying suicide prevention at the group, community or population levels. Of course, suicidology is and must be interdisciplinary but addressing the dynamics of suicidality in social aggregates seems a good place to start (or maybe re-start?).

Best!

Tony

Look at surgeon in relation to suicide and the focus on a few different sociological perspectives talcott Parsons. engels, zmarx also Mead their views in differents aspects of sociological thinking are the core blocks or foundation for your question.

Dear Charles, Tony, Georgina, you all make me learn by the day. I am still pouring over Durkheim's four books, as he is seen as a father of sociology, and he connected sociology to religion and to suicide. So, I thought it was a good starting point. However, I realised he probably started his serious work when he was doing his doctoral thesis which was later published as the Division of Labour. He debated on some economic thoughts and concepts by people like Adam Smith, Weber, et.al., but I think his focus has been on "society", morality issues, social integration, some social system for the society to work in harmony and prosper. He was trying to define well-being instead of just economic productivity and economic goods. He introduced his word "anomic" (something like not in line with some social norm) of which he later extended to form one of his four concepts of suicide. He tried to see society as given - a "social fact" as there are some social norms, governance, social institutions, etc., which Adam Smith would have probably termed "the invisible hands" that sort out the equilibrium of these forces. Those individuals that cannot be integrated into the society may be seen as "social misfits", "socially isolated". He did elaborated on some basic emotion stuff from psychology views (e.g. depression, hope, loneliness, meaningful in life, etc), but he seems to want to view things from the very macro perspective, he views those individuals who cannot fit into the system, thus, committed suicide, as a product of society whereby the "integration" and "regulation" elements are not in equilibrium. So far from what I read, to build on this, one will need to have some thoughts of what is society, how they think society should function, etc. Then see this as an external factor, a "social fact" that no one individual can influence. There is no society without individuals, and individual needs to interact with another individual in this social system which is assumed to be in some sort of in a range of equilibrium for every individual to function and to live a life on earth. He did touch on some of the factors we are discussing today like external stressors, mental health, depression, social isolation, etc., but he focused on the society (or maybe I should say the macro side of things?) while individual is the micro side of things? I may be wrong ... pls forgive me. I did try to view from psychological point of perspective in that basic emotions of human being are more stable than societal forces and other man-made goods. Basic emotions perhaps are closer to God-created elements. One can be depressed 100 years ago and commit suicide, and one can be depressed today and commit suicide. Ways of doing it may be different, and reasons for making that person depressed may be different too. I am not sure, but I think statistics may not show prevalence of babies or children committing suicide (I think most analysis start from teenage above) ... thus, it may point that it is not a natural tendency of a human being? But something learned from the society and something as a product of societal interaction? Some people may be more prone to depression than others ... I think psychiatric field currently find it has to do with some hormones called serotonin and this SSRIs has become first line treatment against clinical depression, general anxiety disorder, etc. As much as I like Durkheim because his framework is more holistic and complete, but somehow I feel certain building blocks may have changed with the time. On the ground, the frontliners are dealing with people who are forever busy with work, health, family, and friends matters. Most reasons for suicide can also be linked to these factors. This is particularly true in key Asian countries. But to argue that there is some constant external "social fact", it may be tied to some social norms which I think are more stable in European context at that time. They were trying to come out with explanation to cope with rapid changes in lifestyle due to industrial revolution and division of labour (people find less meaning in their work as they don't see the whole product). He did some sabbatical in Germany. I would think, if I am not wrong, those basic psychological emotions precipitating suicide will be similar; probably more classification under DSM-V, etc. However, what is the function of society nowadays? What is the equilibrium expected? Or people no longer care as they are busy trying to make a living and to raise a family. Maybe religious institutions and the academia may have less influence on what society should be compared to a century ago? Nowadays it seems businessmen and politicians are groups who probably most influence what society should be. We are 3-4 decades into the information/ICT revolution which change our lifestyle, and with globalisation, multi-cultural cities, borderless world, etc. Thus, perhaps just by looking at social integration and moral regulation may not suffice to develop a macro theoretical framework, although it may not be totally wrong, as social isolation is very related to depression, feeling of hopelessness, usefulness, meaningfulness, etc. (the person may feel he cannot cope being an active member of the community or society, or don't find real meaning participating in it, more so, things are getting more stressful and pace of life is getting faster). For morality, Durkheim turns to the study of religion. But these things are getting so diverse now ... there is no compass, there is no "ideal" state or "ideal" society ..., maybe, perhaps, sociology can help to explain certain phenomena - of which many may involve external reasons and some internal reasons, but since we may have very little influence on external factors, we focus on internal factors on the individuals which we hope we can somehow influence or intervene ... through counselling, and/or medication, etc ... maybe, perhaps ... Durkheim himself passed away think quite young at about 60 years old, and some commented he felt into deep depression after the passing away of his son, and he never recovered.

I have started reading Durkheim again. Colateral damage of your questions. I found on my bookshelves: The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim by Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith. This deals with a contemporary understanding of Durkheim. What could be Durkheimian sociology today? A wonderful thing about that book is that they pay tribute to the complexity of Durkheim and recognize that he his a person with several faces.

Hi Charles ... hahaha. I hope it's a positive damage. I am reading his four books interchangeably. Well, as you know, I am new to these from the theoretical and academic side of things. I think his doctoral thesis was on more socio-economics based on Division of Labour (that time debating with Adam Smith Laissez Faire and Weber). They were undergoing rapid Industrial Revolution era. He started to use the term "anomic". He then expanded to Rules of Sociology and then to Suicide. Finally, his work culminated in the "Elements Forms of Religious Life". Unfortunately I don't read French ... so some of the interpretations are affected by the different translators and commentators. I will get the Cambridge Companion you mentioned. I think there is still something in his building blocks of sociology/society, that people still quote his work here and there. I think we may have different notion of society nowadays given that physical space is not a constraint and we are influenced by people and events all over the world at a fast speed. During his time, he has to do sabbatical in Germany to learn what's happening in German and whether his theories are applicable there. I haven't finished reading and thinking ... obviously; but from "Suicide", he took 30-years data from ten European countries for comparison. He argued empirically that suicidal rate was quite stable across time (though may be different across countries), that it is more stable than normal mortality rate. He took into account external events like economic downturn, some wars between European countries then, gender role of women then, and other social issues and social norms then. I drew a matrix using his two construct of "social integration" and "moral regulation" and I have four quadrants instead of just four extreme factors. His family was clergymen for a few generations and his childhood ambition was to be one as well. But he gave up his faith in Judaism when he was in universities and probably when he started venturing into all these social science stuff. He passed away quite young at about 60 years old. Some stated that he never recovered from a deep depression after his son died (think France and Germany was having one of their battles then and his son was involved in combat). It crossed my mind  whether there was any self-infliction or physician-assisted element involved then. From your comment of how people treat "society" today, it crossed my mind this morning when I woke up that if we suddenly woke up one day and find that all other people have disappeared from this physical world of Earth, will many of sociological concepts still be relevant? I would think he is fairly complicated and complex having to deal with social science issues then of which at that time involved elements from many disciplines such as economics, theology, psychology / human behaviour, philosophy, politics/governance, etc., as we categorised them now. He even went into legal concepts from the perspective how it governs society. I understand Harvard started to recognise sociology as a separate discipline and set up its school of sociology much later. You can email me directly at [email protected] if you like. Sometimes I find it a bit tricky to keep track of certain threads of discussions using this platform. Warm wishes, Bob.

Hi Charles, I just received my hardcopy of "The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim by Jeffrey C. Alexander and Philip Smith". It's a good compilation. I am at page 50 now. I am still one third or half-way through the four original writings of Durkheim. I am also going through Max Weber, Sociology of Religion (trans Parson). Seems there are similar strands across. He has been said to be a persons of several fates ... interests in his work went up and down (or rather down first, then up) when society are facing much changes due to capitalism, free economy, etc. I am not sure whether we are going through a resurgence of his interest after a few decades into our new information revolution age, new form of globalisation, urbanisation, financial economics, social inequality, and new forms of society. However, basic human needs and basic societal needs to be functional appear to change slower. I am not sure whether the recent China's President challenge to "Academics must remake Marxism for 21st century, says China’s President Xi JinPing", without rejecting capitalism and free economy, may put many sociologists into the forefront of civilisations again ... Bob ([email protected])

There can be no fixed definition of the term society, because history is always in the making. Practically and empirically, we can observe that group dynamics is the core of social processes and societal fabric. Human inter-and transactions change over time; this is especially important for our exponential age. My approach is to observe the change of (total) value preferences in a given population; the contiuum (flow) is from (total) entropy vs. (total) cohesion.

The cohesional factor seems to be paramount.

https://bigsss-css.jacobs-university.de/social-cohesion-2020-groningen/social-cohesion/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_physics

Jesus Christ is the compass for salvation while avoiding black mood and suicide thru a close relationship with Him.

Dear Mr. Lew! I would approach your work from an "Asian", "a European" and an "American" persprective, an would compare the results from each of the regions to one another. There is a useful set of definition for society considering the settings within your work (Cambridge Dictionary):

A) "a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done. All the people in a country, or in several similar countries, can be referred to as a society" > Examples here provided:

1) "a classless/multicultural/capitalist/civilized society

2) These changes strike at the heart of British/American/modern society."

B) "an organization to which people who share similar interests can belong"

© Cambridge University Press 2020, Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/society

Science crosses today continents and evolves via digital (virtual) channels:

Michael A. Peters & Tina Besley (2018). "The Royal Society, the making of ‘science’ and the social history of truth" Educational Philosophy and Theory 51:3, 227-232

Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00131857.2017.1417180?needAccess=true

Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely

Clarity..

what's is society and how can we understand function?

How is technology shaping society?

Can I suggest to read Zuboff Surveillance Capitalism 2020...which neatly links sociology, political economy in our era of social technology.

After this entanglement, you can perhaps address suicide.

The pressing dynamic are the flows of human in transnational spaces...and how technology adding and shaping one relation to the world.

Remember too US and Euro have different insights in how issues resolved.

After this entanglement, you can perhaps address suicide.

The pressing dynamic are the flows of human in transnational spaces...and how technology adding and shaping one relation to the world.

Remember too US and Euro have different insights in how issues resolved.

In the complexities of the globalized world, we try to find our ways through the mess and blow some meaning into our otherwise absurd lives. This is what Albert Camus calls the 'absurdity of existence' because of the conflicting views between humans and the universe. When reaching the harsh truth that there is no inherent meaning in life , more people are afflicted by suicidal tendencies. However, amidst the boring routines and problems of daily life, we have to stand firm and search for ways of making life more meaningful. As such, the society to which we belong should create ways of facilitating hope and happiness for its members.