|
strangeways
Joined: 2004-05-22
Location: online
 User Profile |
Hi all :)
I'm interested in issues of social integration, particularly with regard to the stranger’s role in this respect.
To me it seems that in sociological theory we have two positions that addresses this issue explicitly, namely those represented by Georg Simmel and Zygmunt Bauman.
According to Simmel the stranger makes new types of sociation possible. His classic essay on the stranger, The Stranger (1908), states this quit clearly:
“[...] to be a stranger is naturally a very positive relation; it is a specific form of interaction.”
Against this Bauman has a rather bleak view on the role of the stranger. In his by now classic Modernity and Ambivalence (1991) he states the following:
“The stranger threatens the sociation itself - the very possibility of sociation. [...] the stranger saps social life itself."
I’d like to hear your opinions on this issue. To make the discussion less messy, try to state a (sociological) definition of both the stranger and social integration. This should make it more clearly to others why or why not you think the stranger contributes to the integration of modern society – that is if cause if you believe that modern society is integrated at all.
I will not state my own definitions yet but promise to do so, at some point during our discussion.
That's all folks: Fire at will :)
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
What if I don't have a definition, or not just one of the concept?
|
|
strangeways
Joined: 2004-05-22
Location: online
User Profile |
I’d like to hear your opinions anyways.
I only wrote "try to state..." not that you have to state your definitions 
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
Personally, I don't want to decide: I'd prefer to sit on the fence. This is not because I don't want to make up my mind, but because I don't believe that there's only one effect that is important. I would very strongly suspect that there are a number of social mechanisms that are linked to the stranger, and the two you outlined in your original post may be just two of them... Now, I can live perfectly happily with two seemingly contradictory social mechanisms because I don't regard social phenomena as something happening in vacuum. That means that the concext is an important factor in determining which social mechanism actually will take place.
|
|
strangeways
Joined: 2004-05-22
Location: online
User Profile |
Originally written by dir on 2005-03-15 9:32 AM
Personally, I don't want to decide: I'd prefer to sit on the fence. This is not because I don't want to make up my mind, but because I don't believe that there's only one effect that is important. I would very strongly suspect that there are a number of social mechanisms that are linked to the stranger, and the two you outlined in your original post may be just two of them... Now, I can live perfectly happily with two seemingly contradictory social mechanisms because I don't regard social phenomena as something happening in vacuum. That means that the concext is an important factor in determining which social mechanism actually will take place. Sounds very interesting. I agree that the stranger is an ambivalent figure in sociological theory - please elaborate on your view(s) on social integration and disintegration.
If modern society is not integrated – what is your definition of integration?
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
Society is not one way or another: it's many things at the same time. You can find aspects of integration, but also aspects of disintegration. What makes the whole thing interesting, of course, is that the state of affairs is in constant flux.
|
|
strangeways
Joined: 2004-05-22
Location: online
User Profile |
Originally written by dir on 2005-03-16 9:38 AM
Society is not one way or another: it's many things at the same time. You can find aspects of integration, but also aspects of disintegration. What makes the whole thing interesting, of course, is that the state of affairs is in constant flux. Once again I must say that I agree. Under modern conditions we find both aspects of disintegration and integration. Some would even say that under modern conditions we have integration through disintegration – that integration and disintegration are paradoxically connected.
I think the concept of social integration/disintegration along with the concept of the stranger are (or ought to be) among the most central concepts of sociology. To further this discussion I would be happy if you would define your concept of “social integration/disintegration”. If you find it necessary to make your point, then feel free to also define the concept of “the social”.
That modern society is a complex mess doesn’t mean that we can’t observe it selectively. I’d say we have to observe it selectively to be able to say anything meaningful about it.
Look at this discussion as a what-if and if-then thought experiment - just for the fun of it and to inspire each other to look at social reality in new and surprising ways 
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
Originally written by strangeways on 2005-03-17 4:13 PM
I think the concept of social integration/disintegration along with the concept of the stranger are (or ought to be) among the most central concepts of sociology.
I can't disagree with that. Just think of the many concepts that have been used to describe this: from organic and mechanical solidarity (Durkheim), to primary and secondary group (Cooley), to gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Tönnies), to social capital, to community (what have you...)...
To further this discussion I would be happy if you would define your concept of “social integration/disintegration”. If you find it necessary to make your point, then feel free to also define the concept of “the social”.
You're right; but then once we define these terms, we practically decide to go down one road – one view of social integration. I'm happy to discuss any of the possible routes, but not this very moment...
That modern society is a complex mess doesn’t mean that we can’t observe it selectively. I’d say we have to observe it selectively to be able to say anything meaningful about it.
That modern society is a complex mess means that it's more interesting to observe...
|
|
dunce
Posts: 414
Joined: 2003-11-15
Location: Notts
User Profile |
The stranger can be seen in the recent war an Gypies that The Sun has decided to generate - which Michael Howard has jumped upon as not prejudism but rather common sense. In doing so Howard has tapped into a way that many cultures define themselves through "Othering". In constantly (and in turn defending his stance) restating that the prejudice towards this unpopular minority group is simply common sense is reinforcing the advocates of the Sun's campaign that they are "normal".
What perhaps is most feared about gypsies is at one hand their lack of integration in our normal society as settled owners of private property. The stranger in this context becomes what gadamer believes all humans are - habitat-less. Is this therefore what the stranger then becomes a human that is never intergrated to a particualr place or time? Subsequently does this highlight that the modern social world is integrated (if arguing in such terms is necessary). 
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
Does identification not almost always work by what it is not?
|
|
dunce
Posts: 414
Joined: 2003-11-15
Location: Notts
User Profile |
Perhaps within a culture that regards opposites as defining features, if this is the case within modern society then the messiness becomes rather clearly defined groups with no fragmentation, which is not in vogue for explaining what's been described the contextual "nature" of identity.
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
I cannot follow where your clearly defined groups come from... If I identify mostly through what I am not, surely I can still identify against many others out there... I can still have multiple identities depending on the context (thus messiness), can I not?
|
|
dunce
Posts: 414
Joined: 2003-11-15
Location: Notts
User Profile |
Yeah you're right - perhaps I was thinking much in binary. I guess I'm guilty of the joke: there's only 10 kinds of people who understand binary those who do and those who don't.
|
|
dir
Joined: 2004-06-13
Location: UK
User Profile |
LOL 
Yeah, there's a danger to think in binary terms... I find myself trapped in this kind of thinking sometimes... (very sad). My theory, though, is that it is in the interest of some to have the world appear as binary (black and white), since it's much more manageable...
|