Social Fact by Durkheim
Durkheim looks at the social fact as a characteristic illustration of common experiences. To confirm his assertions on social facts, Durkheim emphasizes that one has to look at the way in which a child is raised. Through his illustration, Durkheim identifies various features including acknowledgement of education as a continuous effort aimed at shaping behaviors of children as they grow. Emphasis is put on the constraining aspects; and in the event that the constraints are not adhered to; then this is because constraints leads to the emergence of habits and internal tendencies. This renders redundancy to the constraints though they are not eradicated as they still remain to be the source from which habits emanates (Durkheim and Lukes, p 5).
Spencer argued that these methods are rejected by a rational education thereby letting children conduct themselves with complete freedom. However, since this pedagogic theory has not been tested, it has to be accepted merely as a personal opinion as opposed to a fact that can contradict the observations noted earlier. These facts are made instructive because education is aimed at socializing individuals. Therefore, the process of education offers the historical fashion in which social beings are established. The incessant pressure which children are subjected to is the pressure of the social milieu to shape the children and that teachers and parents are only representatives and intermediaries in the whole process (Durkheim and Lukes, p 6).
Stratification by Davis and Moore
There is no doubt that societal stratification exists in virtually all societies around the world. The societies all over the world need to distribute their members in social positions and make them carry out the duties associated with their respective positions. There is an observation that jobs that are regarded as the most unpleasant in the societies are nonetheless undertaken. In the same breadth, those jobs that are regarded as the most difficult and strenuous are also undertaken.
Davies and Moore looked at these assertions and presented their arguments to explain the scenarios. In their observations, Davies and Moore noted that:
If the duties associated with the various positions were all equally pleasant to the human organism; all equally to societal survival; and all equally in need of the same ability or talent; [then] it will not make a difference who got into which positions, and the problem of social placement would be greatly reduced (Davis and Moore, p 243).
However, this is not the case as some positions are regarded as being more pleasant compared to others. Also, some positions need specialized talents and training compared to others, and that some are functionally relevant than others. There is also the need for diligence to be upheld when performing duties associated with the positions (Davis and Moore, p 243).
According to Davies and Moore, positions are undertaken despite the attributes associated with them because the society makes sure that the less essential positions are not able to compete effectively with more essential positions. In this case, individuals are forced to take the unpleasant jobs as they do not qualify for the prestigious ones. On the other hand, difficult jobs may require strenuous training and only few people can manage to undertake such jobs. These individuals are attracted to the jobs by handsome rewards that come with such jobs. The heavy rewards act to motivate individuals to undertaking such jobs (Davis and Moore, p 244).
Social fact and Stratification
Durkheim is of the view that social facts are emanates from constraints which are known to influence human behavior. In this case, it can be asserted that social facts relates to stratification as explained by Davis and Moore. This is because the society is responsible for defining the social facts and social stratification.
Works Cited
Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E. Moore. Some Principles of Stratification. American Sociological Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, (1944): pp. 242-249. Print.
Durkheim, Émile, and Steven Lukes. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press, 1982. Print.