جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "واقعیت اجتماعی" در نشریات گروه "علوم اجتماعی"

The social problem is one of the most important concepts in the field of sociological studies that lacks common semantic coordinates. In each of the modern and postmodern approaches, this concept has a different definition and the choice of each of these approaches leads to determining different paths in the face of the concept of social problem. This has led to ambiguities in social policy-making and has hampered the path of social decision-making. Because every decision requires research foundations that, if based on it, can make the right decisions. Accordingly, this article attempts to answer the nature and definition of the social problem and the indicators of recognizing a phenomenon as a social problem by relying on the ontological positions of the most prominent thinkers of the modern and postmodern approach, Emile Durkheim and Jean Baudrillard.

The research method is comparative study. In this method, first the selected books are studied in depth, then based on the main concepts of the research, they are purposefully summarized. Then, based on the initial summaries, overt and covert themes were extracted and finally, in the form of comparative comparison, they were rewritten and formulated in a structured way.  

As a result of answering these questions, it became clear that Durkheim believes that social realities are objective phenomena that are not dependent on human life and are independent of human will. Accordingly, the social issue, like other social realities, is an objective and independent matter whose change does not depend on human free will. In his view, the social problem has a characteristic: lack of generality, lack of function and going beyond the natural limits. According to these characteristics, which are identified according to the type and period of evolution of society, social issues are identified. In contrast, Baudrillard believes that the social world and social issues are mental constructs that have nothing to do with reality, because they do not believe in social reality and deny the existence of independent social phenomena. In his view, social issues are defined based on the language system of each social group and according to gender, religious, national, racial, class differences. In the meantime, the media creates hyper-real through the decoupage industry and mass production of global information. A world that refers to signs that are not real through simulation. The interests of the centers of power are important links in the interests of which the media creates the social world and introduces its disturbing phenomena as a social problem. In this situation, social issues are created without relying on reality in the interests of the centers of power and through the media.

The reason for the difference between the two views is the wide-ranging changes at the global level. After the occurrence of various political, religious, scientific and industrial revolutions, modern society experienced social turmoil and the restoration of collective order was a desirable goal for all thinkers of that era. Accordingly, modern thinkers such as Durkheim sought to restore social order by believing in the capabilities of science. Whereas in the postmodern era, with the outbreak of world and regional wars, political expansionism and inhumane economic violence, and the conquest of the media by the centers of power, the ideals of the modern world and the ability of science to shape human order were seriously questioned.  Thus Baudrillard sought a theoretical explanation of how the social world was constructed and created.

The aim of this paper is to explain the main criticisms of the main propositions in the book “The Rules of the Methodology of Sociology” by Emile Durkheim. The content of this famous book, one of the basic books in sociology, suggests that Durkheim has attempted to introduce sociology as a science with a subject and method independent of other sciences, and to show that this Science is an experimental science. He described his views on this topic in six chapters in this book. Some of the contents of this book are in different chapters, although it is for the purpose of proving what was said, it also contains the material that can be considered as a confession of Durkheim’s confession against his perception that is referred to in this article. And, in some cases Durkheim has used words which could disclose others' perceptions of his point of view. In some cases, Durkheim has fallen victim to misleading concepts that do not criticize his ideas, and in some cases the concepts and meanings are not clear.