Introduction Emile Durkheim presents an argument for crime’s benefit to society from The Rules of Sociological Method, 1938. Daniel Patrick Moynihan presents the opposing view in an issue of the American Scholar, Volume 62, in the winter 1993. Durkheim’s argument centers on peer pressure. Crime could disappear if it was offensive enough to society as a whole, thus socially forcing individuals committing such crime into socially pressured good behavior. Moynihan argues a different perspective, centering his argument on the desensitizing of humanity to violent crime.
Durkheim
Emile Durkheim’s sentiments offered in the Rules of Sociological Method suggests crime is needed to balance social standards and controls. Further, he suggests although not a rational choice, assist is setting moral boundaries. He mitigates little …show more content…
He is quoted to have said "Everyone, "is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” (Moynihan, 1993)
As a scholar, who held numerous positions at prestigious universities, he could have expanded in more detail his redefinition of deviancy. Although the article exhibits highlights of them though out, his points on altruism, and opportunistic example were lack lustered by the overriding theme of normalizing.
Moynihan was very successful politician,
Conclusion
Durkheim and Moynihan dedicated their lives to the social conscious of society. Each served with distinction in their fields; thus contributing much to society, education, and the overarching discipline of social science. Many years separate the two, yet one can feel certain that although on differing sides in this case, their overall goal was similar. Moynihan provided a more comprehensive argument, primarily because it was a better sourced argument. All of the elements were there.
• introduction
•
Durkheim
Emile Durkheim’s sentiments offered in the Rules of Sociological Method suggests crime is needed to balance social standards and controls. Further, he suggests although not a rational choice, assist is setting moral boundaries. He mitigates little …show more content…
He is quoted to have said "Everyone, "is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” (Moynihan, 1993)
As a scholar, who held numerous positions at prestigious universities, he could have expanded in more detail his redefinition of deviancy. Although the article exhibits highlights of them though out, his points on altruism, and opportunistic example were lack lustered by the overriding theme of normalizing.
Moynihan was very successful politician,
Conclusion
Durkheim and Moynihan dedicated their lives to the social conscious of society. Each served with distinction in their fields; thus contributing much to society, education, and the overarching discipline of social science. Many years separate the two, yet one can feel certain that although on differing sides in this case, their overall goal was similar. Moynihan provided a more comprehensive argument, primarily because it was a better sourced argument. All of the elements were there.
• introduction
•