Dust Bowl
"Our whole social environment seems to us to be filled with forces which really exist only in our own minds." -- Emile Durkheim
I was thinking about the shootings in Atlanta this morning as I was sweeping the kitchen floor. The Beatles' "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" was playing. The line, "I look at the floor and see it needs sweeping" stood out, immediately reminding me of Durkheim's line about a late-stage society being "a disorganized dust of individuals."
Durkheim, along with Max Weber, organized the studies known as the social sciences. Durkheim's concentration in sociology was primarily on the factors that were associated with social coherence versus those connected to social disintegration. Might the theories of a man w3ho died 103.5 years ago be of value today? If so, is it possible that a crank old man, educated by way of the abacus and overhead projector rather than computers, translate these theories in a meaningful way?
There was confusion even in Emile's lifetime. His "sacred-profane dichotomy," which has to do with society's religious cohesion, has often been mistaken for placing a value judgement on religion. Yet it has nothing to do with "good versus bad." Let's consider it in another way, that may make more sense in today's world.
When I was a student, more than a half-century ago, Walter Cronkite of CBS News was recognized as the most trusted man in the country. Those at ABC and NBC delivered the news in as close to Walter's manner as possible. Thus, while the country was divided on issues such as the war in Vietnam and Civil Rights, it was possible to engage in discussions and debates, based upon interpretations of the same set of facts.
Today, there are the television networks, 24/7 cable news, talk radio, and a massive quantity of internet sites of inconsistent quality, for people to get their information. It is hard to discuss politics in general with a person who "knows," for example, that Barack Obama is an Islamic atheist, born in Kenya, who sought to destroy our nation. And it is near impossible, if not totally impossible, to debate one who "knows" that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
"Yes," you say, "but what about Durkheim's ideas about the impact of 'social facts' and a 'collective consciousness'?" Let me be clear -- I not only appreciate your mentioning these, and agree that they are both extremely important. "Social facts" are those things that exist in and of themselves, and often have an independent reality not connected by the group or individual's beliefs. Durkheim used the example of suicide. For sake of this discussion, I'd use the example of our society's environmental practices: the fact that humanity is, in effect, committing species suicide by poisoning the natural world is independent of if Ted Cruz believes in the human role in climate change. Ted doesn't have any meaningful connection to the great outdoors, for heaven's sake.
The "collective conscience"-- which he also refered to as the "common consciousness" -- is the sum total of the belief systems within a society. Again, "belief systems" can include, but is not limited to "religion." When the society shares these same value systems, it forms the glue that holds things together. An important factor in this, Durkhein noted, was the emotional responses insures common responses in given situations. But when, for example, half of the population believes in science (independent of individual religious beliefs), while the other half puts total faith in a religion (and does not trust them there scientists), the glue no longer holds. And those emotional responses are at risk of shutting out the potential for rational thought.
I imagine that if anyone has read this far, they recognize that all of this is factoring into our current societal disintegration. In my opinion, the largest division in our society is between the collective of conscious people and the collection of unconscious republicans. We tend to recognize that our country has numerous sub-groups that form overlapping identies for the vast majority of people.
One of these sub-groups, which we will refer to as "white people" for sake of accuracy, contains a significant number of folks who are convinced that they are America. They view the non-white people as less than fully American. And they are convinced that their ownership of America is threatened by "others" who are, in fact, just as much American citizens as they are.
Within this sub-group, I would like to focus upon a specific segment, the young males, ages 15 to 25. Within this collection, there are numerous important factors, including education, economic class,and more. They include issues that result in what is known as "dysfunctional families," which in turn create the roles for the children (hero, lost child, scapegoat, caretaker, etc). While the children of dysfunctional families can overcome the associated negatives of any role and become healthy, high-functioning adults, not everyone does. More, even in relatively "normal" families, there can be children who take on characteristics of these roles.
For those familiar with family systems, it is not difficult to recognize those children and young adults who are most at risk of illegal and/or violent behaviors. Add factors such as racism and right-wing media's influence, along with a shit-stirrer like Trump, and as awful as the violence is, it comes as no surprise. More, one can anticipate the differences that this violence may take -- from the group invading Congress on January 6 to the quasi-incel in Atlanta.
What was his motivation? A "really bad day"? Sexual frustration? Oh, race played no role? Bullshit. Look at the family system he grew up in. An adopted Asian-American brother who is extremely successful in life, compared to his being a "loser." Despite a seemingly "normal" family life, a fuck-up in a society where a large percentage believe that violence is an acceptable form of problem solving, of dispute resolution.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Nice to see you WaterMan. Was going to check on you today 
