Content uploaded by Hamid Sarfraz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hamid Sarfraz on Jan 30, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pakistan Juornal of Psychological Research Vol.12, Nos. 1-2, 1997, 45-60
ALIENATION: A THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
#
Hamid Sarfraz
Department of Sociology
University of Balochistan
Quetta,Pakistan
Alienation, although an abstruse concept, has ever been a phenomenon of
central concern in the sociological analysis. Initially, in theological
writings, it denoted separation from the God. The social-contract theorists
considered alienation as propitious to inception of a new social order. To
Hegel (1949) it was a disastrous social phenomenon while to Marx (1963)
alienation was a destructive socio-psychological dilemma of the capitalist
society. Durkheim (1976) and Merton (1957) termed it anomie relating it
with objective social conditions. Seeman (1991) developed an analytical
model for apprehension of alienation identifying six variants of the
phenomenon on the basis of their genesis and consequences.
The word alienation, originated from a Latin noun alienatio
which in turn is derived from a Latin verb alienare meaning to ‘take
away’, ‘remove’, or ‘cause a separation to occur’, was initially
popularized in theological writings. In Bible, Paul characterized the
gentiles as ‘darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life
of God’ (Ephesians 4:18). While commenting on the spiritual death,
Calvin (1854, p. 219) wrote ‘spiritual death is nothing else than
alienation of the soul from God’. Not only the Christianity but also
the Hinduism and the Buddhism had interpreted alienation in terms
of separation or dissolution from God (Kanungo 1982, p. 9). The
main cause of alienation to most of the theologians was worldly
(material and sensuous) involvement and in order to avoid spiritual
alienation they encouraged alienation from the physical and social
world. The primitive Christianity preached that the world belonged
to the devil, nature was the enemy, and the body was a prison
(Kanungo 1982, p. 9). According to Kaufmann (1970, p. liv), ‘the
sages of the Upanishads sought to estrange their disciples from
nature, from society, from their own bodies, and from whatever they
might consider their own selves’. Work alienation was desirable if
work was a means to satisfy personal material (physical), social, or
#
Corresspondance concerning this article should be addressed to Hamid Sarfraz,
Department of Sociology, University of Balochistan, Quetta.
46
Hamid Sarfraz
ego needs. In Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita, karma (work) was
considered desirable only when it was performed as a pure sense of
duty without any attachment to its outcomes or without any desire
for personal gain (Kanungo 1982, pp. 9-10). In Muslim Sufism, the
state of Maraqba resembles to estrangement from the outer world
and, even, from the individual himself.
German Idealistic Approach
The German idealistic philosophy introduced the notion of
alienation, in to the modern sociological literature. Although some
social-contract theorists like Grotius (1853), Hobbes (1950), Locke
(1947), and especially Rousseau (1947) have also used the concept
to explain man’s surrender of his personal rights, liberty, powers,
and control to the general will of the community or organization, but
they assumed alienation as desirable. It was Hegel (1949) who put
the concept of alienation on an analytic footing and laid the
intellectual foundation for understanding the problem of alienation
in modern society (Fromm 1941, 1966). He was much influenced by
Rousseau’s discussion of alienation as a surrender of personal self
and control and also by Schiller’s (1954) theological use of the term
as a state of separation. That was the reason that Hegel used two
distinct German words entausserung (surrender or divestiture) and
entfremdung (a state of separation) for describing the dual nature of
alienation (Kanungo 1982, p. 11). In his book Phenomenology of
Mind (1949), he has used these two words interchangeably as
different types of alienation. According to Hegel (1949), alienation
is of two types. In the first form, the individual experiences a state
of separation. He ceases to identify with the ‘social substance’ or the
social, political and cultural institutions. It is neither intention nor
the deliberate action of the individual to be alienated. It is rather
imposed alienation. In the second form of alienation, the individual
himself surrender or transfer his rights to someone else. ‘It involves
a conscious relinquishment or surrender with the intention of
securing a desired end: namely, unity with the social substance’
(Schacht 1970, p. 36). Hegel suggested that first type of alienation is
undesirable for the individual while the other one is desirable; thus,
in order to avoid imposed alienation, the individual should surrender
himself for a unity with the social system which results in the self-
fulfillment of mankind. In this way the ‘universal essence of man’ is
realized.
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
47
Marxist Perspective
Marx (1963) was much influenced by Hegel’s notion of the
‘universal essence of man’ in his thinking on human nature but most
part of his belief in the universal nature of human being was referred
to the productive activity or labor. ‘Labor, according to Marx
(1932), represents ‘existential activity of man, his free conscious
activity – not as a means for maintaining life but for developing his
universal nature’ (Kanungo 1982, p. 13). ‘For Marx, man’s essential
characteristics are those of individuality, sociality, and
sensuousness’ (Schacht 1970, p. 74). To Marx, alienation means,
That man does not experience himself as the acting agent in
his grasp of the world, but that the world (nature, others, and
himself) remain alien to him. They stand above and against
him as objects, even though they may be objects of his own
creation. Alienation is essentially experiencing the world
and oneself passively, receptively, as the subject separated
from the object (Fromm 1966, p. 44).
Marx perceived the ‘process of alienation expressed most force-
fully in work and in the division of labor, but he also speaks of
religious alienation, of political alienation, and of alienation from
one’s fellow men’ (Coser and Rosenberg 1976, p. 395). While
explaining alienation of labor he wrote:
First, that the work is external to the worker, that it is not a
part of his nature, that consequently he does not fulfill
himself in his work but denies himself, has a feeling of
misery, not of well-being, does not develop freely a physical
and mental energy, but is physically exhausted and mentally
debased.... His work is not voluntary but imposed, forced
labor.... Finally, the alienated character of work for the
worker appears in the fact that it is not his work but work for
someone else, that in work he does not belong to himself but
to another person (Marx 1976, p. 398).
Marxian view of alienation, if critically analyzed, gives rise to
some questions. ‘The Marxian concept of alienation not only implies
a lack of control, autonomy, and ownership over one’s job, it also
implies submission of labor to the direction of another person’
(Kanungo 1982, p. 15). But facts do not support this assumption. If
someone works under the supervision of some senior group member
(e.g., in a research organization) it may not necessarily be alienating
48
Hamid Sarfraz
the individual. That individual may have complete self-fulfillment.
‘Schacht (1970) pointed out that such conceptualization suffers from
the problems of both over and under inclusiveness’ (Kanungo 1982,
p. 15). Moreover, Marx has that much over-emphasized the
productive activity and the alienation of labor that ‘the role of other
human needs, such as the physical and the social ones, has been
completely disregarded’ (Kanungo 1982, p. 16). But still Marxian
notions play a fundamental role in the contemporary theorizing
regarding alienation.
Weberian Thought
After Marx, Weber (1930) and Durkheim (1976) added a lot to
the concept of alienation. Weber treated the concept of alienation
very much similar to the Marx. As Gerth and Mills (1946, p. 50) put
it, ‘Marx’s emphasis upon the wage worker as being “separated”
from the means of production becomes in Weber’s perspective,
merely one special case of a universal trend. The modern soldier is
equally ‘separated’ from the means of violence, the scientist from
the means of inquiry, and the civil servant from the means of
administration’.
Both of them were convinced that workers’ individuality or
personal worth is determined by their labor and the working
conditions which deny an expression of individuality, result in
alienation. But contrary to Marx, Weber asserted that Protestantism
provided the basis for capitalism by increasing the work involve-
ment of entrepreneurs thus ‘the spirit of the Protestant work ethics is
the key to the realization of man’s potentialities to the fullest extent’
(Kanungo 1982, p. 20). In his view, capitalism was helpful in
reducing alienation rather than increasing as it was assumed by
Marx. For Weber, an involved worker is ‘a type of man, bred by free
associations in which the individual have to prove himself before his
equals, where no authoritative commands, but autonomous
decisions, good sense, and responsible conduct train for citizenship’
(Gerth and Mills 1946, p. 18). Weber advocated the freedom to
make decisions, assuming personal responsibility, and worthiness of
the individual on the basis of his achievement at work. On the
whole, he perceived alienation as a function of the work setup which
‘cannot provide an environment that satisfies the needs of
entrepreneurs for individual autonomy, responsibility, and
achievement, it will create a state of alienation in them’ (Kanungo
1982, p. 20).
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
49
Anomie
Durkheim (1976) viewed alienation as the consequence of a
condition of anomie, or ‘the perceived lack of socially approved
means and norms to guide one’s behavior for the purpose of
achieving culturally prescribed goals’ (Durkheim 1976; Blauner
1964; Shepard 1971). It was rather a new explanation of alienation,
quite contrary to the previous ones. Durkheim (1976) asserted that if
human needs are not proportionate to the available means, no
individual can be happy. But usually human needs are unlimited
because all these needs are not bio-genic which may not exceed the
physical demands of a body. Most of the human needs are social,
and in a competitive society, these needs are ever increasing. ‘the
more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only
stimulate instead of filling needs’ (Durkheim 1976, p. 416). In order
to live a happy life, the human passions first must be limited. As ‘the
individual has no way of limiting them, this must be done by some
force exterior to him.... the force can only be moral’ (Durkheim
1976, p. 416). But the passions can only be halted to the limits
considered as just. Beyond these limits, it is very difficult to control
human desires by means of coercive force or just the social norms.
Therefore in the dysfunctioning of these social norms (a state of
anomie or normlessness), the individual cannot adjust himself in the
changing social order and, consequently gets alienated. Elaborating
this point, Durkheim (1976, pp. 419-422) says,
Man’s characteristic privilege is that the bond he accepts is
not physical but moral; that is, social.... But when the society
is disturbed by some painful crises or by beneficent but
abrupt transition, it is momentarily incapable of exercising
this influence.... In the case of economic disaster, indeed,
something like a declassification occurs which suddenly
casts certain individuals into a lower state than their previous
one.... It is the same if the source of the crisis is in abrupt
growth of power and wealth. Then, truly, as the conditions
of life are changed, the standard according to which needs
were regulated can no longer remain the same; for it varies
with social resources, since it largely determines the share of
each class of producers.... The limits are unknown between
the possible and the impossible, what is just and what is
unjust, legitimate claims and hopes and those which are
immoderate. Consequently, there is no constraint upon
aspirations.... Ultimately, this liberation of desires has been
50
Hamid Sarfraz
made worse by the very development of industry and the
almost infinite extension of the market.
To Durkheim (1976), this process leads to a state where social
norms may be present but the individual feels unable to help him in
achieving culturally defined goals. He conceptualized this state as
anomie which necessarily results in alienation. Anomie is often
considered a post-industrial phenomenon. As Blauner (1964, p. 24)
observed, industrialization and urbanization of modern society have
‘destroyed the normative structure of a more traditional society up-
rooted people from the local groups and institutions which had
provided stability and security’. When people feel themselves
unstable and insecure, they become socially isolated. ‘In social-
psychological terms, this variant of isolation seems to stem from the
frustration of social and security needs, the need to belong to groups
for social approval and social comparison’ (Festinger 1954; Maslow
1954).
Durkheim’s concept of anomie was further refined by Merton
(1976). He described anomie as ‘breakdown in the social structure,
occurring particularly when there is an acute disjunction between
the cultural ... goals and the socially structured capacities of
members of the group to act in accord with them’ (Merton 1957, p.
162). He identified five modes of individual adaptation to this ends-
means dilemma: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and
rebellion. The ultimate resultant of innovation, ritualism, retreatism,
and rebellion is more likely to be the alienation. Innovation and
rebellion lead to establishment of a new normative system and,
consequently, to social isolation. Similarly, ritualism and retreatism
results in self-estrangement.
In the contemporary sociological thought on the subject of
alienation, there is a long list of social scientists who have made
very precious contributions to various aspects of the concept, theo-
retically as well as empirically. For example, Miller (1967) con-
ceived of alienation in terms of ‘the lack of intrinsic pride or
meaning in work’. Likewise Blauner (1964, p. 15) suggested that
‘alienation exists when workers are unable to control their
immediate work processes, to develop a sense of purpose and
function which connects their jobs to the overall organization of
production, to belong to integrated industrial communities, and
when they fail to become involved in the of work as a mode of
personal self-expression’.
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
51
As the alienation is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, the need
for disentanglement of its varied meanings has always been craved.
To fulfill this need, Seeman (1991) proposed six major variants of
alienation (powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, self-
estrangement, social isolation, and cultural estrangement) in order to
integrate various meanings of the concept.
Variants of Alienation by Seeman (1991)
1. Powerlessness
This phenomenon was at first discussed by Marx in terms of
‘lack of control’. Seeman (1976, p. 403) developed it as ‘the
expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own
behavior cannot determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or
reinforcements, he seeks’. He asserted that powerlessness is a socio-
psychological phenomenon rather than an objective condition in
society. Although the social conditions are important from causal
standpoint in the explanation of powerlessness but ‘the objective
features of the situations are to be handled like any other situational
aspect of behavior -- to be analyzed, measured, ignored,
experimentally controlled or varied, as the research question
demands’ (Seeman 1976, p. 403). This definition of powerlessness
resembles Rotter’s (1966) conception of the ‘externals’. As
Kanungo (1982, p. 25) pointed out,
Rotter distinguishes two types of people, internal and
external, on the basis of their differential learning history.
Early socialization experiences condition the externals to
perceive themselves as pawns controlled by external forces.
Internals, on the other hand, are conditioned to perceive
themselves as capable of controlling their own environment.
Thus, externals would very much resemble people
experiencing the powerlessness variant of alienation.
Seeman (1976) recognized this resemblance as useful in creating
a closer bond between the learning theory and the theory of alien-
ation; but he also indicated a problem that ‘these two constructs,
though intimately related, are not generally used to understand the
same things’ (p. 404). Although Seeman’s conception of
powerlessness seems applicable to all the events but he himself
restricted its implication to the socio-political events only. Seeman
(1976, p. 404) said, ‘I would limit the applicability of the concept of
expectancies that have to do with the individual’s sense of influence
over socio-political events (control over the political system, the
52
Hamid Sarfraz
industrial economy, international affairs, and the like)’.
Powerlessness, in other words, might be said to be a sensed inability
to control events and their consequences.
2. Normlessness
This variant of alienation has its roots in the concept of anomie
as conceived by Durkheim (1976) and Merton (1957). Traditionally,
‘anomie denotes a situation in which the social norms regulating
individual conduct have broken down or are no longer effective as
rules for behavior’ (Seeman 1976, p. 406). Merton (1957) asserted
that anomie is a failure of institutionally prescribed means or
conduct to achieve culturally prescribed goals. In such a situation
‘the technically most effective procedure, whether culturally
legitimate or not, becomes typically preferred to institutionally
prescribed conduct. As this process of attenuation continues, the
society becomes unstable and there develops what Durkheim called
‘anomie’ or normlessness’ (Merton 1976, p. 427). Following
Merton’s analysis, Seeman (1976) assumed that the anomic situation
may lead to low predictability in behavior (meaninglessness) as well
as the belief in luck (powerlessness). The idea of normlessness has
been used in both the sociological as well as psychological contexts
like personal disorganization, cultural breakdown, reciprocal dis-
trust, and so on. Seeman (1976), while following Merton’s lead,
defined the anomic situation for an individual as ‘one in which there
is a high expectancy that socially unapproved behaviors are required
to achieve given goals’ (p. 407). According to Seeman this version
of alienation is independent of the other two (i.e., powerlessness and
meaninglessness). In short, normlessness is a situation in which the
individual feels the previously approved social norms no longer
effective in guiding his behavior for the achievement of culturally
defined or personal goals.
According to social-influence theory, the individuals depends
upon group norms for self-evaluation and for evaluating their abili-
ties and opinions (Festinger 1954). Group norms usually provide
information regarding behavioral standards. When these useful
information for self-evaluation are not provided by the group, the
individuals perceive themselves separate from the group as well as
its norms. As a result, they experience a state of normlessness.
3. Meaninglessness
This category of alienation indicates a cognitive phenomenon
when ‘the individual is unclear as to what he ought to believe --
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
53
when the individual’s minimal standards for clarity in decision-
making are not met’ (Seeman 1976, p. 405). According to Seeman
(1976) this type of alienation refers to the individual’s sense of
understanding the events in which he is engaged. In the state of
meaninglessness, individual’s ability to predict about social
situations and the outcomes of their own and others’ behavior is
diminished.
Meaninglessness is independent of the first category, i.e.,
powerlessness because the expectancy for personal control over
some events, sometimes, may not necessarily coincide with the
cognitive clarity of these events. Some other sociologists have
viewed the meaninglessness as individual’s failure to understand
‘the very events upon which life and happiness are known to stand’
(Dean 1961, p. 754) or what is going on in the world today
(Middleton 1963). Indicating towards the use of the concept by
other social scientists, Seeman (1976) wrote,
The post-war German situation described by Adorno was
‘meaningless’ in the sense that the individual could not
choose with confidence among alternative explanations of
the inflationary disaster of the time.... In Mannheim’s
depiction, the individual cannot choose appropriately among
alternative interpretations (cannot ‘act intelligently’ or ‘with
insight’) because the increase in functional rationality, with
its emphasis on specialization and production, makes such
choice impossible (p. 405).
For Seeman, these alternatives may involve either the simply
descriptive beliefs (interpretations) or the beliefs involving moral
standards (norms for behavior). In either of the case, the ‘meaning-
less’ individual is likely to have a low level of confidence in
predicting the consequences of acting on his belief. This aspect of
alienation may be characterized by ‘a low expectancy that
satisfactory predictions about future outcomes of behavior can be
made’ (Seeman 1976, p. 405). In simple words, meaninglessness is
sensed inability to predict behavior outcomes. Kanungo (1982, p.
26) suggested that meaninglessness may also be termed as
incomprehensibility or inability to understand one’s complex
environment or goals. It may also ‘represent purposelessness or the
lack of any goal or goal clarity (not because of goal complexity, but
because of an unstructured goal or the simple absence of any goal)’
(Kanungo 1982, p. 26).
54
Hamid Sarfraz
4. Self-Estrangement
The fourth variant of alienation, self-estrangement was most
extensively used by Fromm (1955, p. 120) in The Sane Society, ‘By
alienation is meant a mode of experience in which the person experi-
ences himself as an alien. He has become, one might say, estranged
from himself’. Similar was the description by Mills (1951, pp. 184-
188) that ‘in the normal course of her work, because her personality
becomes the instrument of an alien purpose, the salesgirl becomes
self-alienated.... Men are estranged from one another as each secret-
ly tries to make an instrument of the other, and in time a full circle is
made. One makes an instrument of himself and is estranged from it
also’.
Seeman (1971, p. 136) himself admits that self-estrangement is
an ‘elusive idea’ but he goes on to operationalize the concept.
‘According to Seeman, a person is self-estranged when engaged in
an activity that is not rewarding in itself but is instrumental in
satisfying extrinsic needs, such as the need for money and security’
(Kanungo 1982, p. 28). For Seeman (1976), as for Marx also, self-
estrangement is generally ‘the loss of intrinsic meaning or pride in
work’ (p. 410). Making the concept more manageable, he poses,
One way to state such a meaning is to see alienation as the
degree of dependence of the given behavior upon anticipated
future rewards, that is upon rewards that lie outside the
activity itself. In these terms, the worker who works merely
for his salary, the housewife who cooks simply to get it over
with, or the other-directed type who acts ‘only for its effect
on others’ -- all these (at different levels, again) are instances
of self-estrangement. In this view, what has been called self-
estrangement refers essentially to the ‘inability of the
individual to find self-rewarding — or in Dewey’s phrase,
self-consummatory — activities that engage him’ (Seeman
1976, pp. 410-411).
Marx has used this idea of self-estrangement as an important
element in his analysis of alienation. Following his tradition, many
sociologists placed self-estrangement at a central position in the
phenomenon of alienation as all the other variants seem to end in
self-estrangement. Attesting this belief, Blauner (1964, p. 3) writes,
‘When work activity does not permit control (powerlessness), evoke
a sense of purpose (meaninglessness), or encourage larger
identification (isolation), employment becomes simply a means to
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
55
the end of making a living’. Likewise, Faunce (1981, p. 135) says,
‘The worker who feels powerless and who sees the work place as
meaningless and normless is unlikely to be very concerned with the
goals of the work organization and is therefore isolated or alienated
from it.... A person who is isolated ... in any social situation is
necessarily self-estranged in that situation’.
In motivational terms, Blauner (1964) observed that whenever
individuals find their environment (either the work place or the
whole society) unable to provide opportunities for the satisfaction of
self-actualization needs through the expression of their
potentialities, they become self-estranged.
5. Social Isolation
When an individual finds that he can no longer share the norma-
tive system for the attainment of his goals due to its ineffectiveness,
he may develop norms of his own to guide his behavior (‘Innova-
tion’ in Merton’s model). Having his own normative system,
different from others, the individual feels himself separate from the
society and its normative system. His dissociation from others and
overall social system leads to a perception of social isolation
(‘rebellion’ in Merton’s model). This concept is more commonly
used in the intellectual context ‘where writers refer to the
detachment of the intellectual from popular cultural standards’
(Seeman 1976, p. 408). According to the reward values perspective,
socially isolated individuals ‘assign low reward value to goals or
beliefs that are typically highly valued in the given society’ (Seeman
1976, p. 408).
From the standpoint of social-influence theories, every individu-
al fulfills his need to belong, to love, and to be loved by others by
adhering to the group norms as a member of that group (Jones and
Gerad 1967). If the group norms are too restrictive and in conflict
with the individual’s personal goals (i.e., need affiliation), the group
loses its normative influence on the individual and, as a
consequence, the individual becomes isolated from the group. Social
isolation, like self-estrangement, stems from normlessness and by a
cyclic process results in normlessness again.
6. Cultural Estrangement
This final variant of alienation is characterized by ‘the indivi-
dual’s rejection of, or sense of removal from, dominant social
values’ (Seaman 1991, p. 351). The culturally estranged individual
feels that his ideas and opinions about the important as well as
56
Hamid Sarfraz
everyday affairs are different from those of people in his primary
and secondary groups. He feels himself maladjusted hence unable to
actively participate in the community life. When he finds his ideas
inconsistent with those of the masses, either he becomes retreatist or
innovator. Cultural estrangement is a little bit different from the
remaining types of alienation. Powerlessness, self-estrangement, and
normlessness represents a negative judgment of self while cultural
estrangement does not necessarily represent a negative judgment of
self, but often means quite the opposite, that the individual is
sufficiently secure in his judgment of self to be independent of his
values (Kohn and Schooler 1983, p. 90).
While keeping in view Diaz-Guerrero’s work on socio-cultural
premises (SCPs) and active-passive dichotomy, cultural
estrangement seems characteristic of active endurers of stress
(AEsS) as ‘one would expect a far greater number of majority
shared SCPs and more organic SCP systems in PES (passive endurer
of stress) societies than in AES societies’ (Diaz-Guerrero 1967 a, p.
86). Passive endurers of stress try to ‘agree with others, enduring
their actual disagreement to avoid active interpersonal stress’ as
obedience and authority is considered far more important in PES
societies (Diaz-Guerrero 1967 a, p. 86).
The Epilogue
Although these all variants of alienation seem conceptually
independent of one another but actually they are inter-related in one
or the other way. According to Faunce (1981, p. 135)
They may form a causal chain in which one or more types of
alienation tend to produce another. The combination of
powerlessness, meaninglessness, and normlessness is very
likely to result in isolation: People who have little control
over the factors that affect the achievement of a goal, who
are unclear about what the goal should be, and who feel that
whatever the goal is it cannot be achieved through approved
means frequently respond by placing a low value upon
achievement of that goal and are consequently alienated
from a society in which it is typically highly valued.
From motivational standpoint, the frustration of basic needs may
result in alienation. For example, frustration of need for belonging-
ness may lead to social isolation while frustration of need evaluation
may end in feeling of normlessness. Social-influence theories also
support the idea that absence of two basic social influences (i.e.,
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
57
normative and informational) may determine isolation and
normlessness forms of alienation respectively. In the framework of
active-passive syndrome typology, the items used to measure ‘views
of life’ (Diaz-Guerrero 1973, pp. 199-203) can also be interpreted in
terms of alienation. All the variants, except cultural estrangement,
represent various sub-syndromes of passivity while activity can be
translated in terms of cultural estrangement.
Seeman (1991) developed alienation as a phenomenon in which
the individual perceives himself as: unable to control socio-political
events occurring around him; unclear about his beliefs (either inter-
pretations or norms) and the world around, unable to make
decisions, and thus unable to predict consequences of his own
behavior; facing disjunction between his personal goals and socially
approved means to attain those goals; different from others and the
normative system in the society, hence separated from others and the
society at large; and, as a consequence, estranged from himself.
CONCLUSION
The preceding discussion reviews theoretical development in
conceptualization of alienation. The early theological use of the
concept denotes alienation as a state of separation from the God and
alienation from the physical world was appreciable behavior. The
German Idealistic school of thought introduced a new dimension to
the concept. Alienation was analyzed in terms of a catalyst to
change in social order. Early Social Contract theorists like Grotius,
Hobbes, Locke, and especially Rousseau supported this version.
Hegel, much influenced by German Idealistic Philosophy in his
thought, tried to put the concept as analytical tool to society. He
perceived alienation as a consequence of social disruption. Marx
also promoted the same view but he perceived capitalism as a prime
factor to the genesis of alienation. To him non-satiation of
individual’s intrinsic needs may lead to estrangement from work,
from the product, from the fellow workers and even from himself. In
other works individuals get alienated. Contrary to Marx, Weber
perceived capitalism as a remedy to alienation.
Durkheim (1976) termed normlessness (a form of alienation) as
anomie. To him presence of too many
norms to follow and not a
single one that individual can relate to his subjective conditions can
result in anomic feelings. Merton used the concept of anomie in a
different perspective. To him, this condition stems from disharmony
between culturally defined goals and institutionalized means to
attain those goals. Both of them were of the opinion that social
58
Hamid Sarfraz
conditions can give rise to individual feelings of normlessness, i.e.,
anomie.
Seeman elaborated the concept of alienation by fragmentation of
the phenomenon into six variants named powerlessness,
normlessness, meaninglessness, self-estrangement, social isolation,
and cultural estrangement. His analytical scheme provides a model
for understanding the genesis of alienation by precisely defining its
variants and distinguishing them on the basis of factors which cause
these feelings. He has incorporated various theories given by his
predecessors, in order to explain his typology of alienation. There is
a great need for identification of factors behind individuals’ sense of
alienation in order to reveal factors to under-utilization of human
potential which consequently affects human development. Seeman’s
model may be a viable scheme of analysis for the understanding of
this potentially disastrous or ennobling socio-psychological dilemma
of humans called alienation.
REFERENCES
Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and
his industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calvin, J. (1854). Commentaries on the epistles of paul to the
galatians and ephesians. (translated by William Pringle). Edin-
burgh: Calvin Translation Society.
Coser, L. A., & Rosenberg, B. (1976). Sociological theory. New
York: MacMillan.
Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement,
American Sociological Review, 26, 753-758.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1967 a). Socio-cultural premises, attitudes
and
cross-cultural research, International Journal of Psychology, 2,
(2), 79-87.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1967 b). The active and the passive syndromes,
Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 1, (4), 264-272.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1973). Interpreting coping styles across nations
from sex and social class differences, International Journal of
Psychology, 8, (3), 193-203.
Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1991). Historic-sociocultural premises (HSCPs)
and global change, International Journal of Psychology, 26, (5),
665-673.
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
59
Durkheim, E. (1976). Anomie and suicide. In L. A. Coser & B.
Rosenberg (Ed.) Sociological theory (pp. 415-424). New York:
MacMillan.
Faunce, W. A. (1981). Problems of an industrial society. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes,
Human Relations, 7, 117-40.
Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York: Avon.
Fromm, E. (1955). The sane society. New York: Rinehard and
Winston.
Fromm, E. (1966). Marx’s concept of man. New York: Frederick
Ungar.
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in
sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grotius, H. (1853). De jure belli ac pacis, (translated by W.
Whewell), New York: Basic Books.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1949). Phenomenology of mind, (translated by J. B.
Baillie). New York: MacMillan.
Hobbes, T. (1950). Leviathan. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Jones, E. E., & Gerad, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social
psychology. New York: Wiley.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach.
New York: Praeger Publishers.
Kaufmann, W. (1970). The inevitability of alienation. In Richard
Schacht (Ed.) Alienation (pp. xiii-lvi). London: George Allen &
Unwin.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An
inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Norwood, New
Jersey: Ablex.
Locke, J. (1947). An essay concerning the true original, extent and
end of civil government. In Ernest Barker (Ed.) Social Contract
(pp. 1-206). London: Oxford University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York:
Harper.
Marx, K. (1963). Early writings, (translated and edited by T. B.
Bottomore). London: Watts.
60
Hamid Sarfraz
Marx, K. (1976). The notion of alienation. In L. A. Coser & B.
Rosenberg (Ed.) Sociological theory (pp. 397-401). New York:
MacMillan.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe,
Illinois: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1976). Social structure and anomie. In L. A. Coser &
B. Rosenberg (Ed.) Sociological theory (pp. 424-433). New
York: MacMillan.
Middleton, R. (1963). Alienation, race, and education, American
Sociological Review, 28, 973-977.
Mills, C. W. (1951). White collar. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Miller, G. A. (1967). Professionals in bureaucracy: Alienation
among industrial scientists and engineers, American Socio-
logical Review, 32, 755-68.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal
versus
external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs,
80(1) (whole No. 609).
Rousseau, J. (1947). The social contract. In Ernest Barker (Ed.)
Social Contract (pp. 237-440). London: Oxford University
Press.
Schacht, R. (1970). Alienation. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday.
Schiller, F. (1954). On the aesthetic education of man, in a series of
letters, (translated by Reginald Snell). New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press.
Seeman, M. (1971). The urban alienation: Some dubious theses
from Marx to Marcuse, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 19, 135-143.
Seeman, M. (1976). On the meaning of alienation. In L. A. Coser &
B. Rosenberg (Ed.) Sociological theory (pp. 401-414). New
York: MacMillan.
Seeman, M. (1991). Alienation and anomie. In Measures of person-
ality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 291-371), New
York: Academic Press.
Shepard, J. M. (1971). Automation and alienation: A study of office
and factory workers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
London: George Allen and Unwin.
Alienation: A Theoretical Overview
61
Received: July 7, 1996.
