One of essentials for societies, to live in welfare and to reach a certain level of quality of our lives, is an ability or capacity to collaborate and to show solidarity. But this solidarity means different things in different societies.
A mechanistic solidarity is something that we attribute to a pre-capitalist society. It is a type of solidarity that is build on the following principle: We are all on the same boat, so … don’t rock the boat. This form of solidarity is characteristic for societies in which people in general deal with the same type of labour. Like a farmers’ society, fishermen society, etc. People have very similar life and very similar needs. If someone would do something against fisherman’s chances to do well at sea, he would hurt everyone’s chances to provide for themselves and their families. All society would be hurt by it.
An organic solidatiry is something that we attribute to a capitalist society. It is a type of solidarity build on the much different principle: We need to work together and help each other because we simply cannot function without each other. This sort of mentality is linked to societies in which labour is divided (keep the division of labour in mind for later); in which people each choose their own role and profession, train themselves in their own field, etc. And to perform those various different roles, we need individuals to be different from each other, so that they are all best prepared for their respective role.
Sameness versus Individuality
The reason for opening this topic is to shed a light on personal choice – the degrees of freedom, the options, the expectations and demands that we impose on those. I believe (with this gradual move towards capitalistic society that is going on) different generations have different views and that this fact might be causing frictions between us.
The difference between the two societies is big. One exists in a spirit of sameness, and the other in one of individuality. Sameness comes with (more or less) same expectations for each member of a given society, and individuality comes with need for personal expression, and openness and freedom in personal decisions. In a new society, we need people to be different, to have and to polish different talents, have different trajectories in their lives, and so on. And the social glue that holds everything together is not the we are all on the same boat metaphor, but the interdependance.
Intergenerational harmony
A while back I switched my area of focus and emphasis from psychological to sociological topics. And one I soon came upon was Émile Durkheim, a french sociologist, and his work published in 1893 entitled The Division of Labour in Society (or in original french Da la division du travail social). That is where he makes that distinction between the two aforementioned societies.
For me, this distinction outlines really well where the challenge lies, or where views of different generations (or other groups of people) might clash and oppose themselves. If those convictions in the background remain unnotices and unchallenged, that this clash and misunderstanding and negative emotions of one towards another might go on. But … maybe there is a mending for those intergenerational disputes and unpleasancies ..?
Conclusion
This is first post with a topic from field of sociology, but there will be many more to come. One of the most influential ones, I believe, will be a mirroring technique and mindset, that gives us a tool and an understanding to foster social inclusion and to live better with diversity and differences that are not only present, but also needed and valuable for us in this modern society. Social experiences definitely matter; and therefore bringing out social topics matters just as much.
Paradim 