Problems of Social Disintegration, Essay Example

As compared to the traditional and medieval society, there has been increased social disintegration in contemporary society. One of the factors promoting social disintegration is the increased freedom of individuals. In the past, people were limited governments, aNd religion. Human nature created a need to belong in the community and was influential in establishing kingdoms, fascist governments, and even religious entities. However, it is notable that these entities created order in the society, and even if there was no individual freedom, there was a sense of belonging to a particular. It is also important to note that social disintegration has some benefits because it gives an individual some freedom to act on their impulses to be spontaneous and follow their passions. However, it is impossible to have a civilized society through social disintegration as the social order governs all societies. Social disintegration is happening because of the oppressive nature of past governments as characteristic of the fascist ideology and the fact that more people are craving their freedom. In contrast, even after having a chance to pursue their freedom, people still work in social groups, showing the importance of social integration. With this in mind, social disintegration problems can be avoided by integrating individuals with the same ideologies, passions and establishing a universal moral ground that can govern all individuals.

Components of a Fascist Ideology

Fascist ideologies contributed significantly to social disintegration. Fascism ideologies employed by governments such as those by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were negatively previewed because of their effects on people, which led to the need to break from such governments. The Fascists movement commenced in Italy and spread through Europe. They were characterized by creating rituals and symbols that believed in a higher cause among the population. For instance, the Nazis thought they were superior to the Jews, and they deserved to live, and the Jews deserved to die. Therefore, they were united by the government and the creation of a higher cause, which was to ensure superiority over other nations. When considering the integration of religion and the government, it is clear that the two were deeply intertwined from the German example that it was hard to understand the difference between the two. Hitler was given almost god-like status, evidenced by how he was received in the meeting. This is clearly stated by Dewer, who says that “The rise of national polities that pretend to represent the order, discipline, and spiritual authority that will counteract social disintegration is a tragic comment upon the unpreparedness of older liberalism to deal with the new problem which its very success precipitated” (Dewey 53). With this integration, it was hard for people to resist his ideas as Hitler appeared to be all-powerful, hence enabling fascism.

Another component of the fascist ideology is strong armies. Any attempt by an individual to gain their freedom and go against the government could have been quickly thwarted by a strong military and state police presence. For fear of the torture that would befall a person, most people preferred silence, overacting on their impulses to rebel in a movement that seemed to have its way in everything. The existence of brutal punishment, torture chambers, and labor camps was enough for people to prefer the fascist ideologies rather than suffer the consequences of wanting their freedom.

It is also clear that fascism flourished because of a common enemy and the need for a strong government. When considering the Nazis in German and the Italian fascist government, it is clear that there were several similarities. One of the similarities is that they both had strong government leaders, Italy being led by Mussolini and Germany-led by Hitler. The two countries needed someone strong to protect their interests in the world arena and therefore established fascist governments. Another similarity between the two is that they had a common enemy, mainly the rest of the world, who could not agree with their forms of government. To protect their forms of government, they had to join and emphasize fascism as the best way to promote their sovereignty.

Another component of fascism is the obsession with national security. In fascist governments, it is clear that the people submitted so willingly to the needs of the government because they were assured of their national security. For instance, the Nazis felt “threatened” by the Jews and that their population was increasing than the local native Germans. Moreover, they felt that ideologies passed around by other countries such as the UK or the USA comprised their ideologies and, therefore, needed to defend their doctrines by showing their superiority. All these components because of the lack of human freedom as the people choose to focus more on the societies’ needs at the expense of their individual needs.

Fundamental Obstacles to Human Freedom According to Fromm

According to Fromm, there are several obstacles to human freedom. One of the obstacles to human freedom is their perspective on its importance. Dewey explains that “The serious threat to our democracy,” he says, “is not the existence of foreign totalitarian states. It is the existence within our own personal attitudes and within our own institutions of conditions which have given a victory to external authority, discipline, uniformity and dependence upon” (Fromm 14). Therefore, it is clear that when people perceive their freedom as unimportant compared to social concepts in their society, they are likely to lose their freedom. Offering examples by comparing how the people of Germany were willing to forfeit their sovereignty, Fromm explains that there were instances where an individual felt that they did not need their freedom, and as a result, they ended up losing it.

Another reason that human beings lose their freedom, according to Fromm, is because of their adaptation to different social issues. Human beings easily adapt to situations that might be unfriendly to them. Even in the worst of situations, as long as humans are being given their basic needs, including food, drink, and sleep, they are likely to be willing to firefight their freedom (Fromm 76). Adapting to different situations is usually easier and more predictable instead of fighting for what people believe in. For instance, if a person is enslaved and is being given food and enough sleep time by the owner, they are likely to find it easier to agree to that condition rather than try to run away for their freedom and risk losing their lives in the process.

Another reason that people give up their freedom is because of fear of social isolation. In society, most people have the same beliefs, and when one tries to divert from the beliefs, they are considered to be a social outcast, and they can no longer interact with the community effectively (Sørensen et al. 1). In fear of isolation from society, many individuals forfeit their freedom. Additionally, individual people feel that they are powerless because they cannot influence a community. On the other hand, when they conform to the community’s expectations, they think that they are powerful, and as a result, they find that it is easier to lose their freedom and remain as powerful.

Fromm also explains that people lose freedom by accepting their insignificance and submitting themselves to a higher power outside themselves, such as religion or government (Fromm 70). As a result, they fail to perceive themselves as necessary and focus on doing what religion or the government is advising them to do, and in the process, they lose their individuality and their freedom. According to Fromm, this has been used by religious leaders and world governments to bring social integration to society.

How This Applies to The Contemporary Social and Political Landscape

In contemporary society, freedom has been lost but is in a completely different perspective. In some countries, such as the United States of America, people seem to have a lot of freedom because of democracy. In other countries that are war-laden such as Palestine or Afghanistan, human freedom appears to be curtailed by war. However, the two nations have one thing in common that affects their freedom, and that is the fact that people have to work. The basic human needs include eating and sleeping. Food and houses to sleep in cost money, and without working, people cannot get the money. A free person should not have to be directed by society on how they should live, but currently, everyone has to work to eat, and therefore they surrender their will.

It is also clear that human beings who are perceived to be completely free are spontaneous, and if their spontaneousness does not earn them enough money, they are perceived to be crazy. Fromm (204) gives an example of artists and argues that they are the only ones that are genuinely free, but they can only be considered as such if they are successful. Therefore, society is ready to brand anyone who moves from the social norms as crazy, which makes it hard for them to be accepted in society. Therefore o9ne has to adapt to society’s expectations, hence comprising their freedom but gaining acceptability.

Events worldwide have proven that people who choose their freedom over society’s expectations usually have a hefty price to pay. For instance, society’s perception of a marriage is a union between two people: a man and a woman. However, some people find that they are attracted to people of the same sex, and society perceives this to be highly wrong that in some extreme cases, such people are subjected to violence. To avoid feeling unwanted and isolated from society, the individuals might prefer to conform to the society and get married to [people of the opposite sex even if they desire to be people of the same sex.

Recommendations

However, when considering society, it is evident that living in a socially integration is crucial (Jo et al. 1). People can be doing what they feel like, including oppressing others or even killing others. Therefore even if human freedom is essential, it is important to avoid society’s disintegration. One way of avoiding this is by creating a society where human freedom is allowed as long as it does not inhibit another person’s safety or freedom. For instance, society should stop judging people based on their beliefs as long as their beliefs do not cause harm to other people. For instance, if a person chooses to be an atheist, they should not suffer from rejection in a society that is full of religious people. However, a person should not have the freedom to kill a person just because they have offended them. Instead, there should be a better way of dealing with the issues by focusing on morality.

Another way that freedom can be achieved in society is by stopping the obsession with wealth. As Fromm (247) states, many people are victims of their wealth because they toil too much to gain more and more wealth instead of seeking out what makes them happy. If people focus on their passions even though they can only get enough to sustain their daily living, they will be free and live on their terms. However, in a society that has focused more on the power brought about by wealth, many people can’t acquire their full freedom. For instance a person can be focused more on making some music that can give him money even if their true passion is teaching small children. In this case, the person has sacrificed their freedom that is enjoying time with children for a superficial course that is making music for money.

As earlier stated, human freedom is greatly inhibited by the fear of isolation and alienation. However, there has been an increase in individual freedom in contemporary society where people can enjoy their own company even more. Therefore people can manage to be on their own and focus on their interests without feeling that they have been alienated from human society. However, the interests should not surpass the social contexts. For instance, someone may aspire to rule the world, and three-year they can alienate themselves from people who do not support their claim and later hurt them. Therefore, a person’s freedom should be supported to some extent as long it does not inhive other people’s freedom.

Conclusion

Fascism increased the need for social disintegration as people lost their freedom, and they have been trying to recover it. However, while fascism led to the loss of human freedom, contemporary society also threatens human freedom in other ways. It is also clear that human freedom comes at a hefty price that many people cannot pay. Social integration is therefore important for both society and the individual. For society, social integration provides a standard of conduct that enables people to relate with others peacefully. With this in mind, it is clear that human freedom cannot be fully achieved because there is usually a change of situations in the society that ,limits their freedom.  For individuals, social integration gives people a feeling of belonging as human freedom can lead to their isolation. It is, however, important to understand that human freedom is still crucial, and it can be enhanced by the embracement of different needs by society. Therefore, society should support individuals’ freedom as long as it does not affect other people’s freedom adversely.

Works Cited

Fromm, Erich. Escape from freedom. Macmillan, 1994.

John Dewey, Freedom and Culture, G. P Putnam’s Sons, New York, 1939.

Jo, Eun-Bi, Rang Hee Kwon, and Minsoo Jung. “Contextual effects of social integration and disintegration on health status: evidence from South Korea.” BMC Public Health 20.1 (2020): 1-9.

Sørensen, Tom, et al. “From sociocultural disintegration to community connectedness dimensions of local community concepts and their effects on psychological health of its residents.” Psychiatry journal 2013 (2013).