Connection with Emotions

Audre Lorde was a black lesbian writer who considers it necessary to think in depth about men and women’s roles in society. Although Lorde was a feminist as we can consider Gilman, she shares more characteristics with Du Bois’ ideas and academic writing style. For example, she justifies the connection with our emotions as a way to criticize current social gender agreements,"But as we come more in touch with our ancient, non-European consciousness of living as a situation to be experienced and interacted with, we learn more and more to cherish our feelings, and to respect those hidden sources of our power from where true knowledge and, therefore, lasting action comes" (Lorde 1984). Also, Lorde considers that the White academic style denies the use of artistic expressions in academic writing because white-men logic is not attuned enough with such language. Therefore women need to restore links with our inner emotional spaces to recover from and fight back men’s oppression over women. Du bois also prefers an academic style which lets him connect with his black folks emotions, “The style is tropical-African. This needs no apology. The blood of my fathers spoke through me and cast off the English restraint of my training and surroundings” (Du Bois 1904 as cited in Appelrouth & Edles, 2008, p. 276). Although emotions have been forbidden from the academic language, Lorde and Du Bois write their academic papers in that way because that helps them to express the oppression they were feeling and how they feel it. According to Du Bois and Lorde, “White” logic avoids people connection with their emotions because they can realize that the way things are told and explained in White society do not include dissident points of view.

Do you consider that to write from the standpoint of our emotions could it be way to start breaking oppression?

Appelrouth Scott & Edles Laura. Clasical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. California: Pine Forge Press, 2008.
Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. California: Crossing Press, 1984.

Mead's and the formation of the self

Although Mead considers that individual and society establish a dialectical relationship (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008), he is not taking into consideration structural and social constrains that manipulate the formation of self and the individual relationships. Mead emphasizes a predominant role of individuals in society,
“The individual possesses a self only in relation to the selves of the other members of his social group; and the structure of his self expresses or reflects the general behavior pattern of his social group to which he belongs, just as does the structure of the self of every other individual belonging to this social group.” (Mead, 1934 as cited in Appelrouth & Edles, 2008, p. 343)
Thus, Mead’s theory suggests that structural conditions are not directly involved with the formation of self; on the contrary, that the self only is formed through the continuous relationship within individuals who do not suffer the influence of the social structure they live in. This vision makes it difficult to analyze the pressure that the social structures, such as government systems or religious beliefs, play in the formation of the self. Furthermore, his assumptions would lead one to consider that structural social factors and global political interests are not relevant in the construction of societies.

Have religion, politic, or media a role to play in the formation of the self?

Weber's Social Change

Max Weber considered that social change is achievable by two different ways. The first way is when a charismatic leader, with extraordinary skills, changes the establishment (Allan, 2008). The second way is when people question the legitimacy of the system because they do not trust it anymore (Allan, 2008). However, it is the combination of both that could generate changes. Charismatic authority needs the awareness, comprehension, and participation of a large portion of society, in other words, it needs that most part of the people become critical about the legitimacy of the current system. When these two forces (a charismatic leader and a general critique of the system) act together, social change is truly achievable.
Can charismatic leaders change traditional or rational-legal authority only with their wonderful skills or do they need support from their people?

Durkheim's and Marx's concepts on Religion

Durkheim’s ideas of religion help to clarify its formation, but his ideas are incomplete because he does not consider how and why religions, after their formation, have been used and perpetuated. Although Durkheim’s gives a fair explanation of the formation of the sacred and in consequence the formation of religion, he is not taking into account Marx’s idea of religion as a domination tool. Furthermore, he considers that religion and society are linked tightly to one another, “If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of the religion” (Appelrouth & Edles 138). Thus, he is establishing a strong link between both religion and society. Durkheim’s concept of religion implies a power that is generated almost inherently from the collective experience. Those ideas are remarkably explicit when he explains the connection between rituals, symbols, and the sacred, “Rituals create high levels of emotional energy that come to be invested in symbols; such symbols are then seen as sacred, regardless of the meaning of the truth-value of the beliefs associated with the symbol” (Allan 85). In Durkheim’s theory, religion occurs as the natural outcome of living in community. He is emphasizing the idea that religions are formed from the people that join in a collective. Durkheim’s theory is naïve since is not taking into account the role that elites’ interests play in the support of certain religious pursues. Is religion a natural product of society or it is a tool of oppression?

Allan, Kenneth. The Social Lens: An Invitation to Social and Sociological Theory. California: Sage Publications, 2007.

Appelrouth Scott & Edles Laura. Clasical and Contemporary Sociological Theory. California: Pine Forge Press, 2008.