Social Integration - Science topic

1.   In 1897, Durkheim published his seminal work on Suicide using two key constructs – “social integration” and “moral regulation” (emphasising religion, but also mentioned about regulation by law, social norms, etc) to explain that for a society to function (then), these two key constructs need to be in equilibrium.

2.   This framework was developed during rapid changes in lifestyle (at that time) facing European society due to industrial revolution, new economic theory of division of labour, capitalism, some elements of discussion on socialism, free market, individualism, changes in governance, family structure, gender roles, Catholics vs Protestants practice, income disparity, urbanisation, (in context of that time), etc. It seems United States was more concerned on domestic matters during this period. Another feature of Europe at that time was its colonisation and empire building interest. Against this backdrop Durkheim tried to develop his framework for a functioning society – of which there can never be a stable equilibrium all the time.

3.   One of the products of disequilibrium is suicide. To him suicide is a product of society disequilibrium and not just a mental illness. He argued that it is like mortality rate and homicide rate. Naturally at the individual level, there are differences how an individual react to external forces in the society and there are bound to be some groups who are more prone to depression and suicidal behaviour. However, he noted the suicide rate is stable across major European cities then (think the various local governments started to have some statistics gathered sometime in early 19th century in Europe) throughout certain time period, but each country has slightly different suicide rate. To Durkheim, if there is sudden and continuous rise in suicide rate of a country, it shows certain societal forces in work which may make the society in disequilibrium, and if persists for too long a time, may paralyse a society. Thus, as a philosopher and sociology, his focus was not on individual aspects, but on the suicide rate.

4.   We may interpret his framework is more to explain a macro phenomena in the society, something like a macroeconomics framework which can never be quantified and which can never be perfect. However, as I believe at the base of human being, there are certain elements which do not change in time. Lifestyle can change, the way we eat and live, and work can change, our roles can evolve, but certain basic emotions internal to the psychology of a human being remain similar 100 years ago and today … things like joy, sadness, anger, melancholy, depression, etc. Certain so-called human’s tendency like anger, lust, greed, attachment, ego, etc., will also be there, but maybe expressed in different manner. There is also greed for power and influence in the society then and now. I supposed some of the emotions we discussed today in relation to suicide besides mental health, like, hope, meaning in life, purpose of life, faith (whether religiosity or philosophical, or faith in other perspective for those without an official religion), love, usefulness, etc., also remain similar.

5.   Thus, wouldn’t his two building blocks of level of “social integration” and level of “moral regulation” (through certain mix of religion, laws, social norms, etc) which he insisted as something important to sustain a society throughout a period of time important? If we were to reject this notion, then some of his other works build on these two big pillars may be shaky?

6.   Durkheim developed his framework during a period of rapid change brought about by industrial revolution. We are now three to four decades into our so-called information revolution age, driven by advent in technology, IT, internet, and changes in urbanisation, globalisation, changes in family structure, gender roles, work roles, lifestyle, materialism, politics, different forces working against the society, etc. Will these two building blocks of “social integration” (as against social isolation) and “moral regulation” still important building blocks for a society to function today?

Does anyone know of a valid instrument to measure social integration theory?

Social integration vs alienation?

Why social integration programs for refugees in the United States are focusing on employment services as a central mechanism, excluding other key variables, such as language, education, health, traditions, housing, social connections and cultural belonging?

I am developing a brief educational intervention for recently arrived refugees into the U.S. and would like to norm an evidenced based instrument for pre/post test purposes.  I have come across a few, like the Quick Discrimination Inventory, but wold like to know what other options are out there that may not be popping up in the literature.  Any suggestions would be great.  Thanks!