For Emile Durkheim, the Sacred and the Profane in the general sense, is simply the differentiation from the rare and the common place. At first glance, I may be able to see the reference in example, like the every day to day job is profane while the vacation is sacred. With little thought a problem can be noticed, is it to say that because one's own children are in the household by definition are not something to be considered sacred? So if according to Durkheim should children not be cherished?
However those definitions might be validated if applied to those in power. What I mean by that statement is the tendencies shown by those who become rich, famous, and well respected by the masses. It seems that for the initial period of time when someone is thrust into the spotlight, they display a large amount of self control, intelligence, and benevolence. At some time after unfortunately, there seems to be a common occurrence of those of such elevation to begin showing frequent failings and instances of corruption. It seems it is because they no longer find the attention they receive as sacred, and become complacent in their lives, and take the fame they have for granted.
It is not apparent for those who are famous, to have displayed any real admiration for the activities of the less famous as sacred, due to their likely lack of participation. It there for appears to me that in extreme generalized application of Durkheim's proposals, that as an individual's fame and prestige increase they loose aspects of what the hold to be sacred,without gaining much to replace what is lost. This when applied to the ever controversial realm of politics, could be in part an explanation for the frequent issues in the Government of the united States, which can be observed today.
No comments:
Post a Comment