BookTalk.org

I bet you've never been asked that before. It's another forced choice, and in this case I'd think it likely that most members of a free-thinkers' online forum would side with Mill, who was all about the sanctity of individual liberty, rather than with the late nineteenth-century sociologist Emile Durkheim, who believed in the submersion of some individual liberty in the interest of the whole society.

Here's Jonathan Haidt's quote from John Stuart Mill: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." This position rests on the Care and Fairness foundations, as Haidt points out.

Here is Haidt's own description of Durkheim's vision: "The basic social unit is not the individual, it is the hierarchically structured family, which serves as a model for other institutions. Individuals in such societies are born into strong and constraining relationships that profoundly limit their autonomy...[Durkheim] warned of the dangers of anomie (normlessness), and wrote, in 1897, that 'man cannot become attached to higher aims and submit to a rule if he sees nothing above himself to which he belongs. To free himself from all social pressure is to abandon himself and demoralize him.'"

Haidt further observes that "a Durkheimian society cannot be supported on the Care and Fairness foundations alone. You have to build on the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations as well...The American left fails to understand social conservatives and the religious right because it cannot see a Durkheimian world as anything other than a moral abomination."

DWill wrote:I bet you've never been asked that before. It's another forced choice, and in this case I'd think it likely that most members of a free-thinkers' online forum would side with Mill, who was all about the sanctity of individual liberty, rather than with the late nineteenth-century sociologist Emile Durkheim, who believed in the submersion of some individual liberty in the interest of the whole society.

Having been a student of Sociology & Anthropology I have, in a way, been asked this question - had to write an exam paper on it. Our question was something like what is the relationship between the individual and society - kind of on the order of a chicken and egg question - totally separate, equal players, totally entwined and indivisible. Even though I have my problems with E. Durkheim and believe he made errors, between my two choices I'd have to go with Durkheim.

Saffron wrote:

DWill wrote:I bet you've never been asked that before. It's another forced choice, and in this case I'd think it likely that most members of a free-thinkers' online forum would side with Mill, who was all about the sanctity of individual liberty, rather than with the late nineteenth-century sociologist Emile Durkheim, who believed in the submersion of some individual liberty in the interest of the whole society.

Having been a student of Sociology & Anthropology I have, in a way, been asked this question - had to write an exam paper on it. Our question was something like what is the relationship between the individual and society - kind of on the order of a chicken and egg question - totally separate, equal players, totally entwined and indivisible. Even though I have my problems with E. Durkheim and believe he made errors I'd, between my two choices I'd have to go with Durkheim.

I'd like to be able to live as a Millian myself, enjoying the freedom that it entails, while living in a society that has a strong Durkheimian flavor and thus good social stability. That's having it both ways. It means that I have to accept some things that I have an intuitive reaction against, such as religion and nationalism.

DWill wrote: I'd like to be able to live as a Millian myself, enjoying the freedom that it entails, while living in a society that has a strong Durkheimian flavor and thus good social stability. That's having it both ways. It means that I have to accept some things that I have an intuitive reaction against, such as religion and nationalism.

Do we have to take the religion and nationalism? Can't we do without???

can we take what we find of value in Mill and Durkheim and leave the rest.

i thought the same with the Plato, Jefferson and Hume trilemma.

i would have thought that we can give a listen to all 5 of these dudes and take what we find useful from each of them without disregarding what we find of value in the others.

the Mill and Durkheim duality seems to be another way of expressing the individual and society duality and the best course to me seems to be honour both as to deny either one is to deny part of the whole.

i'm definitely more Mill at heart but every day i deal with Durkheim.

Do we have to take the religion and nationalism?

one nation under god sheesh it's a crap hand to be dealt. maybe it takes millenia to get out of some messes.

There is often a false dichotomy in that people criticize individualists as if they advocate a bunch of isolated, selfish people going about their business. But no serious thinker has ever denied the importance of social institutions.

incisive point Dexter

I want to agree with Dexter and youkrst, and I think if we do look at the U.S.A. as a success story, as we can despite our large warts, we might judge that our success has been in balancing individuality with agreement to form a collective. E pluribus unum and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" combined well for a large part of our history. What some researchers and social critics have been saying about U.S. society of the last half century or so is that the collective has become ever weaker over time. Robert Putnam wrote that famous book in 2000, Bowling Alone. He chronicled, according to one review, "how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures– and how we may reconnect. Putnam warns that our stock of social capital – the very fabric of our connections with each other, has plummeted, impoverishing our lives and communities." That seems like a warning based on loss of Durkheimian social cement.

We probably can't have it both ways, fully. We have to give up something on each end to keep the compromise going.

Dexter wrote:There is often a false dichotomy in that people criticize individualists as if they advocate a bunch of isolated, selfish people going about their business. But no serious thinker has ever denied the importance of social institutions.

It's even a little weird to hear of such criticism from Americans, who are known to be among the most individualistic people in the world. I hear of groups being criticized because they're liberal, conservative, atheist, libertarian, etc., but not really on the basis of individualism. That seems to be an American common denominator.

I think of libertarians as exemplifying individualism--and I think they go way too far.