Conflict vs. Order;

The Battle for the Superior Sociological Method

Tracy Phernetton

Order Sociology: From the perspective of an Order/Functional Sociologist the first thought or idea that might surface regarding school shootings is the concept of society and community and the need for individuals to feel “apart of” the group mind in order to be a healthy and motivated individual. So with that said, the first question that an Order theorist might ask specifically in relation to the individual who did the shootings is, “What social condition or lack of social conditioning did this individual encounter that may have influenced and drove him/her into such an isolated/alienated position?” Since the Order theorist is concentrated on the social glue that harmonizes and unifies such a differentiated society, the focus on the shooter’s lack of ties and societal contracts would be the main suspect in analyzing the event of a school shooting.

Conflict Sociology: From the perspective of a Conflict theorist the main focus would be on the social inequalities, social stratifications, social problems and social “conflicts.” A Conflict theorist would blame the individuals’ raging violent rampage on capitalism and the dehumanization of individuals because of the extreme oppression that is experienced in a capitalistic society. Karl Marx even went as far as to believe that when individuals are alienated as a result of this oppression, the people could loose their “elementary human wants.” A Conflict sociologist would probably see the school shootings as a negative response from the oppressed individual who could not find opportunity or a chance of social/economic advancement. The other possible conflict viewpoint would see school shootings as a rebel yell and/or the destabilization of the emotional systems of the people that ultimately drove these school shooters to such careless, detached isolation.

Meaning Sociology: Much like Order theorists, Meaning sociologists like Mead, Cooley and Simmel generally see human gestures to be socially constructed, symbolic processes and by-products of the “social-self.” Social habits and the social roles are the defining elements of the “self” in relation to the community. Since sociality is seen as something “mental,” for Meaning theorists, one could argue that the event of a school shooting would be a manifestation of an individuals’ “frame of reference” contributed to the anti-social violent act.

However, it is important to note that from the view of a Meaning sociologist the fundamental component that might formulate their question regarding an individual that shoots up a school would be based on the understanding that there is constant struggle that exists for humankind; the struggle between the individual and society. Social interaction can be an array of constant competitive-driven, jealous exchanges. The main question, then, might be, “What role was this individual playing society? Or even better, “How might have the underlying disposition and self-concept mixed with that individuals’ societal frame of reference’ produce such an outwardly/external violent act?”

I believe that even though it may be difficult for the average human being to place themselves outside and/or objectively above their own personal/cultural biases; it is still very much an imperative sociological goal that can be achieved for sociologists whom are willing to confront, examine and admit their personal/cultural biases. When someone sees their personal experiences and cultural familiarities as “right,” or as the most relevant, then that person is doomed to a limited understanding of society as a whole.

There is also a tendency for sociologists and sociology students to gravitate towards the issues they feel are most important regarding the study of society. It would be to the benefit of sociologists to leave their personal baggage at the door when venturing in the field of research and observation.

Since I believe that Sociology is both one of the greatest disciplines, yet one of the most mysterious fields in the world of intellectual paradigms, it is my strict opinion that Sociologists who are true to the discipline itself, have an obligation to be detached and unemotional when observing, studying, analyzing and surveying society. I like to compare this “value neutral” goal to the reality that Eagles endure. Eagles are naturally symbolic figures that embody the ability to rise above their landscape and can teach us grounded’ humans the significance of seeing the “whole pattern” (or big picture) in life. Like the Eagles’ ability to “ascend” above the entirety of the natural world, sociologists should also seek the higher, unattached position when attempting to assess the many existing patterns and landscapes that make up society.

What is the concept of the “Sociological Imagination” if sociologists aren’t willing or “able” to see society from an objective view? It’s not only possible for this objectivity to be achieved, but I would argue that the “value neutral” objectivity should be the main intellectual mission of a sociologist. Just because society is not as impersonal as the solar system, shouldn’t make the study of society and social structures personalized evaluations based on personal calculations. The constant variable in sociological research seems to be the sociologist conducting the research. But this doesn’t have to be. I forecast a new elevation in sociological theory and study; and that is the unification of Physics and Sociology. It is in this very new and rather extraordinary field of “SocioPhysics,” that I see the issue of “value neutral” objectivity as being a bridge into a much more scientific methodology in Sociology.

Durkheim: Alienation is one of the main causes of suicide. Durkheim sees alienation as the individual’s breakaway from the group mind; therefore the individual experiences the feeling of “not belonging.”

A) Marx: Alienation is felt on two levels, because of two major social constructs; Religion and Economic. Marx believes that real life alienation is caused by economic inequality and the “inner life” or the consciousness of man that feels alienated is a result of Religion.

B) Weber: The actual word “alienation” is not used by Weber; however he tends to view the economic/capitalistic inequities as the cause and rise of the concept of “rationality.” Unlike Marx, Weber viewed the alienation that occurred in society was partly due to the technological advancements and scientific logics that were beginning to influence the social systems and even the economic system.

There is an unusual paradox in social/human societies. The paradox is that organization and order are a parallel reality that exists among the social chaotic differences. Conflict and disorder are just as real in the organized society like poor people are real in the wealthy society. The opposing forces of society tend to generate the organization of society. Freedom and order are interdependent parts of the social system. The human desire for freedom could be equal to the social desire to be an individual. Order theorists view the conflict of the world as a playground for opportunity and advancement that stems from the individual’s freedom to attain that success.

Conflict-focused theorists tend to view society as a deceptive playground that is filled with false hopes and ambiguous dreams that can only be attained by a limited amount of people. Order theorists view that same reality of conflict as the cornerstone of the humans’ rise and gain, amidst the competitive system that can further the individuals’ self-reliance and maximize the individual’s chance of achievement. The need for order is sometimes seen as making the unequal landscape an equal playing field, and erasing the competitive nature of the economic struggle. Freedom is seen from the conflict theorist as the ability for anyone to have the access to everything. Freedom in a conflict-focused viewpoint is the equality and sameness, based on the unification of the economic divisions that created the struggles.

Order theorists see freedom as having the individual power to either influence themselves into economic power or digress themselves into economic complacency. Diversity and economic differentiations are not seen as victim-producing concepts, but instead are seen as the free flow of capitalism and opportunity that this Nation prides itself in. Order and freedom are debated on the basis of the different concepts that can produce or not produce that order and freedom. In other words, every person wants freedom and order, but not everyone agrees on the way one can achieve those two primary human elements.

Honestly, I had to look up just what exactly would be defined as the “human condition.” After finding a few different variations on the phrases’ meaning and definition, I have come up with a two-parted, paradoxical conclusion regarding my opinion of the human condition and whether it is improving or declining.

This philosophical question tends to carry a variety of angles and foundational points of reference that could see the answer as being different from each angle. I can see the answer to this question in a rather dualistic way, that may seem wishy-washy, but it is in fact a realistic conclusion to a multiple-layered inquiry. As I can see, the human condition it self, could be seen as a collective explanation of the flow. As for the opinion on whether or not it is improving or declining is up to the individual human and his/her consciousness of themselves, and how he/she is interacting with the collective flow. So the psychological dynamic of self-awareness and the human mind’s capacity for the imagination to be the source for the individuals’ determination of concluding, and/or envisioning either hope or hopelessness, light or darkness, despair or ecstasy.

Pessimism and optimism seem to be the measurable variations on the ruler that calculates whether or not humans see life as a struggle or as a gift. It is also true for these two extreme opposite psychological/emotional perspectives to ebb and flow and move in and out of one’s viewpoint almost daily, as if humans were strung along by a linear continuation that involved regular collisions with contradiction and disruption. Moods, attitudes, and emotional optimism are compilations of the harmonious synchronizations that seem to have influence on individuals. These influences could include personal problems, such as receiving an award or promotion at work, or receiving a gift from a sweet someone that loves you. The same operation works in the pessimistic direction too. A fight with a loved one or getting fired can bring the individuals’ self-awareness down into moods and attitudes that carry the air of injustice and unfairness. After understanding this imperative explanation on the foundational perceptions that can be influenced either negatively or positively, we can now move on to why I see the answer as a paradoxical demonstration of differing, individualistic points of views on the collective flow.

From looking only at the external factors of the “human condition” one could argue that it looks as if we might as well just throw in the towel, because the doom and gloom of the end times is near. Bees are disappearing, talks and threats of nuclear weapons being used, and the rise of insane kids killing everyone in sight; these signs alone could influence the moods of many humans to see the “human condition” completely deteriorating. However, the external and physical events and manifestations don’t necessarily give an accurate account of the internal human experience. Internally, people are spiritually re-defining themselves and this can be seen by just looking at the Spirituality/New Age section growing in Barnes and Noble book stores.

“Conflict before clarity,” someone once said to me. They said it to me at a time in my life that nothing seemed to going my way. I had just got out of Chemical dependency treatment for my Alcohol “issue,” and this person shared that simple philosophical phrase with me. It hit me hard and it drove a deep spiritual understanding that is still embedded in my whole being and personal philosophy today. It means that suffering, struggle and despair do need not be the defining aspects that create a collapse of the entire system. It proposes that the negative experiences that one may endure or encounter in life can be truly defined in how well one re-creates and re-defines him/her self in spite of the suffering, struggle and despair. I then finally saw my alcohol “issue” as a blessing. It was a blessing because with the confrontation with struggle gave my heart and mind the ability to truly comprehend strength and re-envision what gratitude really meant.

The human condition is experiencing a little bout with “conflict before clarity,” I believe. The more we see conflict as the dead end; we will see the decline of the human condition. The more we see the clarity that can rise above the conflict; we will see the human condition improving. That is my paradoxical answer.

2008 Tracy Phernetton