The grid and group theory is used by Mary Douglas as a tool to go beyond the dichotomy. For Douglas, the priority is to use social life as the basis for understanding how people come to know the world they live in. The ‘grid’ axis refers to the individually oriented aspects of social structure, whilst the ‘group’ axis refers to the strength of group ties. The grid axis thus measures how governed and constricted the individual is. Douglas explores past the dichotomy by considering the effect on the individual - both positive i.e allowing one to act, and negative - being the limitations of one’s actions. Douglas, thus, acknowledges that the individual is neither entirely separate to, nor entirely attached from society. Douglas further theorises
…show more content…
Elias believed that to say an individual is embedded into society is to give priority to society. Similarly, to say that society is purely the collective of many individuals is to give precedence to the individual. Both are problematic. This argument is at risk of being reductive, however Elias redeems his argument by acknowledging that individuals cannot solely have power within themselves. Similarly to Douglas, Elias believes that all individuals are interdependent. With interdependence comes power relations, which in turn create societal forces. So, society does not ever determine an individual’s actions, however it can affect negatively or positively one’s actions. Elias draws the conclusion that if individuals, then, are neither powerless nor wholly unable to influence others and society can act both negatively and positively, the dichotomy between the two concepts has been bypassed. Continuing with this theme, Christina Toren also believes that humans are interdependent. Toren chooses to focus on social relations and sociality rather than society, although she recognises that these concepts are derived from society. By focusing on these concepts, Toren moves past the dichotomy of the individual and society, as she acknowledges that these concepts ‘denote dynamic social processes’ (Toren, 1989, p.74) rather than a system that exists independently of the individual who is to be socialised. The individual in question in Toren’s argument: children. A baby is acted on by others, at the same time, it is also the subject of its own actions and thus comes ‘into consciousness in and through social relations’ (Toren, 1989, p.75) and also with the ‘social relation with itself’ (Toren, 1989, p.75). Ultimately, humans are both producers and products of their
Elias believed that to say an individual is embedded into society is to give priority to society. Similarly, to say that society is purely the collective of many individuals is to give precedence to the individual. Both are problematic. This argument is at risk of being reductive, however Elias redeems his argument by acknowledging that individuals cannot solely have power within themselves. Similarly to Douglas, Elias believes that all individuals are interdependent. With interdependence comes power relations, which in turn create societal forces. So, society does not ever determine an individual’s actions, however it can affect negatively or positively one’s actions. Elias draws the conclusion that if individuals, then, are neither powerless nor wholly unable to influence others and society can act both negatively and positively, the dichotomy between the two concepts has been bypassed. Continuing with this theme, Christina Toren also believes that humans are interdependent. Toren chooses to focus on social relations and sociality rather than society, although she recognises that these concepts are derived from society. By focusing on these concepts, Toren moves past the dichotomy of the individual and society, as she acknowledges that these concepts ‘denote dynamic social processes’ (Toren, 1989, p.74) rather than a system that exists independently of the individual who is to be socialised. The individual in question in Toren’s argument: children. A baby is acted on by others, at the same time, it is also the subject of its own actions and thus comes ‘into consciousness in and through social relations’ (Toren, 1989, p.75) and also with the ‘social relation with itself’ (Toren, 1989, p.75). Ultimately, humans are both producers and products of their