Utilitarianism and Society Though it

Utilitarianism and Society

Though it arose through the disciplines of philosophy, political science, and economics, utilitarianism or rationalism has many implications for sociology. Because it is concerned with the individual and the decisions of the individual, this theory holds that people are rational, make rational decisions, and are, generally, selfish, or at least they hold their best interests at heart. The question that society poses is whether or not individuals are rational actors at all, and whether or not their rational actions in their own self-interest can end up benefiting society. The two (the individual and society) can be reconciled by the fact that "utilitarianism does not begin and end with the individual; it goes on to balance the interest of all the individuals in the group, as Bentham's theory of utilitarianism suggested. The reformer argued that people not only think about what gives themselves pleasure and pain, but also allow themselves to think about the pleasure and pain of others, becoming compassionate and allowing the survival of society (131). In the 1950s, when the individual was brought back into society, the implications of this way of thinking on society were fully developed. While this reading has discussed many important applications for utilitarianism, or rationalism, I thought the most interesting aspects of the reading were the description of Homans's law, as well as the discussion of sociological markets. Both of these ideas have great implications for the field of sociology.

First, Homans's law is a theory that has significant implication for the individual, society, and the study of sociology. In fact, it is this theory that most accurately explains what others outside of the sociological discipline call peer pressure. Homans's law states that "the more individuals interact with each other, the more they come to like one another, the more similar they become to one another, and the more they tend to conform to a common standard" (134). This is of great interest to the individual because it attempts to explain groupthink and other group dynamics. In fact, Homans's theory allows sociologists to question whether or not an individual really exists. If an individual is simply a person who conforms to what other people are doing and thinking, then the ability of humans to think individualistically is questioned. In addition, this theory has implications for the individual, in that the individual in this model must always be on his or her guard against conformity if he or she wants to remain unique. Further, Homans's theory, which argues that groups following this process "develop a group culture that didn't exist before," and "enforce their standards on each other," has serious implications for society (135). Although Homans argued that the only time that this theory works is when "interaction…occurs within the same level of authority" (135), this clearly suggests how societies can become complacent under the most egregious terms, like dictators, tyrannical government, and even horrors like those that occurred during the Holocaust. If one group member likes the others and wants to be accepted by them, it is possible that this group member would engage in the egregious behavior, or at least accept it, simply to be a part of society. Thus, this theory has drastic sociological implications as well, as it can change the way that students of sociology think about how society forms and creates values. Although I do not agree with Homans's theory in entirety -- I wonder how the issue of sub-cultures comes into play -- I think this was one of the more interesting concepts in the reading because I can see its application on so many levels.

Second, in addition to Homans's theory, I found the explanation of sociological markets, and their comparison to economic markets to be the second most interesting part of this reading. While I have long been familiar with economic markets and the trends that cause shifts, like supply and demand, thinking of sociological concepts in terms of markets was new to me. In understanding what sociological markets are and their difference from economic markets, however, I was able to draw some conclusions about societies. While economic markets have to do with "quantitative summaries of the things that are produced in order to be exchanged, sociological market models are concerned with the pattern of the social structure that constitutes the change" (145). While economics looks at numbers and finances, social markets are concerned with equality, privilege, and opportunity for individuals or groups of people. One stunning example of the social economic theory that the reading gives is that of education. Even though more people are graduating from high school, college, and graduate and professional school, social mobility -- or "the chances of rising higher on the social scale than one's parents" is falling (146). Just like when there is more money in the market, when more people have attained educational statuses, it is difficult for them to actually get ahead of others, and even more difficult for those who are not educated to get ahead.