Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social order
The theories associated with social structure
What is the social order
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social order
This essay will compare and contrast two social science views about the ordering of social life. It will look at what social order is and how it effects our daily lives and explore the differences and similarities between the work of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault. It will consider Buchanan’s and Monderman’s views on ordering public space to highlight Goffman’s focus on the way individuals interact with each other and Foucault’s emphasis on authoritative knowledge by authorities or experts. Social order is the term used to describe a ‘stable social situation in which connections are maintained without change, or else change occurs in a predictable way’. (Taylor S, 2009, p173) Each of us is an individual with our own thoughts and experiences however we are also beings that need to interact with each other for social contact and reassurance. It is in these moments that the behaviours we use, and the behaviours we expect others to use, enable us to live together with an understanding of the rules that are imagined and practised in daily life. Social order is constructed and shaped by society, therefore there are many different types of order within different environments and cultures, as well as different social orders which co-exist in the same society. Individuals can change and adapt, choosing a social order that fits with their needs at any particular time. In order to maintain the social order there is a set of unwritten norms we are expected to live by. These norms are defined as ‘shared sets of values or expectations about how people will or should behave’. (Silva E, 2009, p307). Sociologist Erving Goffman and social philosopher Michel Foucault both concern themselves with the wider understanding of how society is produc... ... middle of paper ... ...lva E, 2009 p322) In conclusion, it would be very hard to co-exist in society without some sort of order and structure. Both scientists present their cases for social order through a significant amount of evidence collated from either practical observations, as in Goffman’s case, or historical observations, as in Foucault’s case. Neither Goffman or Foucault's theories offer a perfect solution to production of social order but both can be used at particular times and places because social order differs with time and place. Goffman’s theory looks at the individual and their impact on society whilst Foucault looks at the individual as a feature of society. They both use knowledge, discourses and authority to convey their imagined social order in public spaces and it shows that when we put these theories into place we can all live together within a harmonious society.
This essay focuses on two theories of Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault on how society is ordered; it will attempt to show how these two theorists approached understanding society and how it is ordered, as well as look for any similarities or differences between the two theories. When looking at how social order is constructed, it is not only important to study the role of the individual, but also the role of the state or government. The part they play in the order and rules of every day interactions. Social order refers to unspoken rules of conduct in everyday life, or stable social situation in which connections are maintained without change or if change occurs it is in predictable way. (Taylor, 2009, p.173). in addition these case studies; Buchanan report (1963), Monderman thesis (1980) will be linked to Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, to help us to understand how order is attained and maintained by individuals, authorities and institutions, in certain places, and in different contexts as well as how social order is constructed at different historical moments. This essay concentrates on Goffman’s and Foucault’s theories, claims, and concepts, by comparing and contrasting their ideas on social order and who makes the order, the evidence that they draw upon, and the different levels of social life each theorist chooses to focus upon. Both Goffman and Foucault are concerned with the wider questions of how society is produced and reproduced, but specifically how social order is made and remade. At the same time, both also seek broader ways of understanding singular issues in interaction. Goffman focused on the individual, interactional order, and performances, while in contrast Foucault focuses on discourses, power, knowle...
Blau, Peter M. 1977. “A Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure” American Journal of Sociology 83(1): 26-54. Retrieved March 20, 2014 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2777762).
This example of making social order continues to be challenged throughout our lives when these basic rules are forgotten and when people are reminded of them, social order is remade and without social order, everyday lives will become volatile, unpredictable and dangerous.
“Social conformity has been practiced in societies around the world since ancient times,” and the reason it is so effective is that humans have an inherent need to be accepted as part of a group (Sadat). Furthermore, Hossna Sadat reports that:
(Flynn 1996, 28) One important aspect of his analysis that distinguishes him from the predecessors is about power. According to Foucault, power is not one-centered, and one-sided which refers to a top to bottom imposition caused by political hierarchy. On the contrary, power is diffusive, which is assumed to be operate in micro-physics, should not be taken as a pejorative sense; contrarily it is a positive one as ‘every exercise of power is accompanied by or gives rise to resistance opens a space for possibility and freedom in any content’. (Flynn 1996, 35) Moreover, Foucault does not describe the power relation as one between the oppressor or the oppressed, rather he says that these power relations are interchangeable in different discourses. These power relations are infinite; therefore we cannot claim that there is an absolute oppressor or an absolute oppressed in these power relations.
...easily controls and manipulates the way individuals behave. Although there are no true discourses about what is normal or abnormal to do in society, people understand and believe these discourses to be true or false, and that way they are manipulated by powers. This sexual science is a form of disciplinary control that imprisons and keeps society under surveillance. It makes people feel someone is looking at them and internally become subjective to the rules and power of society. This is really the problem of living in modern society. In conclusion, people live in a society, which has created fear on people of society, that makes people feel and be responsible for their acts. Discourses are really a form in which power is exercised to discipline societies. Foucault’s argument claims discourses are a form of subjection, but this occurs externally not internally.
Goffman and Foucault view social order as a result of socially constructed patterns. However, each thinker derives to these pattern in a distinct way. In other words, both authors identify an invisible social order. For Goffman, this order is a result of s...
As people socialize, they create interactions whose products are influential to act back upon the people to determine or constrain actions. Moreover, social interactions may be likened to a theatre whereby people are the actors as the rest of the people are the audience. These other people actively observe the role-playing and respond by reacting to the performances. However, people’s behaviors tend to change when they are alone as they get rid of the roles they play in front of others.
Social norms are really important to our society’s functioning. If certain norms were not followed it is almost certain chaos would ensue. Not only do we follow social norms in order to prevent chaos, we also follow them to avoid the consequences of not following them, especially if the functional perspective is accurate. On occasion though, breaking subtle norms that we may not think about often can prove to have interesting results.
Psathas, George, Theoretical Perspectives on Goffman: Critique and Commentary, Sociological Perspectives, Fall 1996 pp. 383
Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?
First, institutions control nearly all of the individual’s time. Second, institutions control the individual’s body. (Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” 79-81) As such, “the operation of these institutions implied a general discipline of existence that went far beyond their seemingly precise ends” (Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” 81). Institutions control the entire livelihood of the individual such that his time and body may be transformed into productive labor time and labor power. For example, in school, the individual does not only learn arithmetic and other like subjects, but also the correct, most efficient way to accomplish such.
As society changes and technology advances, the methods and frequency of social interaction will undoubtedly change with it. Yet, no matter how drastic these changes, Goffman’s conceptualizations of presentation of self within social interaction will hold true. As long as the human race exists, and as long as social interaction occurs between people, Goffman’s ideas will remain ever present. The challenge lays in our interpretation these of concepts, and our effective, or ineffective, application of them to everyday life.
Human nature is not simply a measure of our human tendencies. It is both individual and collective. It does not explain why events happen. Instead, it explains the subconscious of each individual in the instant that events happen. The social order that best fits human nature is one where the informed opinions of everyone creates decisions and causes action. Madison’s argument for and against factions, Aristotle’s idea of ultimate happiness, and Locke’s concept of popular government and human rights all offer a significant component to the larger concept that is human nature. While some may argue that we will only fully understand human nature when we are met with death, still we can begin to capture a slight understanding to what governs human nature and the political order that helps it grow.
...Henslin, James M. "Social Structure and Social Interaction." Essentials of Sociology: A down to Earth Approach. 10th Ed. 10th ed. Pearson, 2013. 112. Print.