1. |
On the whole, both of their theories have
similar points of view in characteristics of moral rule. However, they use different terms
to explain that.
 |
2. |
In brief, although both Durkheim and Mead
are dealing with the internalisation of social controls, they hold different perceptions.
|
[Conclusion of a long and comprehensive essay]
 |
|
3. |
Comparing Durkheim and Mead's above
theories, it is considered that men have to conform to the morality of the society in
order to accepted our social function by society. Men can do nothing to change the society
but are socialised through internalisation of social control.
 |
4. |
To conclude, Durkheim explains the
internalisation of social control in terms of morality, obligation and desirability whilst
Mead stresses that individual's past experience and assumption of attitudes from others
constitute the present act.
 |
5. |
As a conclusion, Durkheim and Mead also
express their ideas on the internalisation of social control, however, they are different
from each others. Durkheim uses the fact of moral acts, and the characteristics of moral
reality to analyse the ideas. But Mead uses the "I" and the "me"
approach. Therefore, the analysis of the theories of Durkheim and Mead are not the same in
many ways.
 |
6. |
In conclusion, both Durkheim and Mead's
theories of the internalisation of social control state clearly that these are 2 elements
present in a moral rule: the norms and the desire of the members. These two elements
independently have their own contributions to the conduct but they are also inter-related.
The different combinations of proportion of these two elements constitute different moral
rules according to different culture, social class and ethnic groups. One more final point
to add is that the novel nature of an individual's desire leads to the change of social
norms and this adds novelty to the experience of one's life. |
|
See Commentary |