The rumination of the "underground man," and more broadly, the focus of the Existentialist readers we’ve encountered thus far, narrow in on the apparent growing contempt for the individual, and subsequent growing obsession with the group, with society, with the era, with world history, etc. These authors, and I presume the authors will will encounter going forward, are realigning the philosophical paradigm from the nature of the group - or of humanity as a whole - to the peculiarities of individual experience.
Despite my being an aspiring sociologist, an aspiring observer of patterns and commonalities in group behaviour, I too attribute the upmost value to contemplation on the uniqueness, the curiousness of individual experience. But these two concepts are not in the least bit contradictory. It would be naïve of the Existentialist to deny that social conditioning exist, to deny that one is not socialised into specific roles and scripts from birth. And it would be equally naïve of the sociologist to purport that conditioning controls the individual, that it determines one’s actions. Conditioning certainly suggests, encourages, and discourages certain behaviours, and does so by penalising nonconformity with alienation. It would be absurd that anyone deny the truth of such a phenomenon. But sociology qua sociology is not prescriptive; it is does not tell one how to live, but rather informs us of particular material frameworks in which we live. Yes, sociology qua sociology is an academic practice, and therefore practice itself, the actually process of sociological inquiry, prioritises rationality over freedom. However, the conclusions drawn from sociology provide us with a better paradigm through which we regard our freedom. Or in other words, to what degree we have been tugged about by norms and the status quo. It is then up to the individual to decide how s/he will continue living, to what extent s/he wants to individuate; if the individual so desires, s/he can break from conformity, and weather the tide of alienation and ridicule provided by the mainstream. Or, one can continue to float lazily down the mainstream, kept afloat by the buoyancy of normative behaviour.
Sociology highlights the ontological scripts that society provides us. It does not, however, write an alternative one.
(Despite Dr. J’s admonition that I refrain from speaking further about Sociology, I regard the blog as outside the classroom’s jurisdiction.)
I agree how Schaeffer said that socieology studies patterns in group behavior to suggest individuals to act in certain way to bring better outcome. It is difficult to believe in both sociologists' ideas and existentialists' ideas. Because sociology studies the pattern, it does not look at the reason or the will behind it. However, we study why humans do certain actions or choose to do something that looks obviously less favorable. This idea of free will can be the most "advantageous advantage" or denial of the perfect formula to happiness or advantage. As sociologists suggest, Psychologists also suggests many ways of living and how to treat an individual in their sensitive or critical period. The values for every individual can be different and I believe that having either sociologists view or existentialist view is also one's free will. Therefore, neither one is right and without knowing everyone's singular experience, we cannot determine which free will is more advantageous.
ReplyDeleteI can see the connection between sociology and existentialism in respect to the individual experience but I can also see how sociological views might overpower existentialist views rather than contribute to it. I do not entirely agree that social conditioning gives the individual a choice to how s/he wants to live. If one were to be socially conditioned but then chose to break away from the pack, are his/her values still not at least influenced by external factors of the group even if those values differ from the norm? If an individual were to have a unique set of morals to his/her singular experience, would it be necessary or even a good idea to observe the group? Maybe the two do not relate to each other too well. Those whose values are created from inside and those whose are created from outside can be split into different modes of evaluation, which puts everyone in a group with at least some similar group behavior. Perhaps the two studies should not be thought of together because, how I see it, the attempt to individuate is roped back into the mainstream.
ReplyDelete