Essay, Research Paper: Sociology And The Holocauste

WHAT SHOULD SOCIOLOGY LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF FACISM AND THE HOLOCAUST?
Fascism, political ideas or systems based on the notion that some races are more superior than others are. Something that seems ridiculous in to enlightened modern day thinkers, which unfortunately makes it all the more difficult to try and understand for someone who has not experienced it. However by looking through history and taking into account some of the results of practised fascism, we can maybe begin to understand why so many people took up, and are still taking up fascism. Hopefully then we can understand exactly what we should learn from it, and possibly understand how we can prevent it appearing on the scale it did in the Second World War.
Firstly I will look at some of the effects of fascism, starting with one of the most devastating tragedies the world has witnessed, the holocaust. It is not known who first proposed the term holocaust, but we can draw assumptions as to why it was adopted. The Jewish community are likely to have adopted this name in order to distinguish it from what unfortunately, become the routine cases of war crimes and genocide. When we look at the figures of deaths in the holocaust, we do not even need to examine the way in which many of the victims died, to understand just how horrific the effects of fascism had been.
 Three and a half million men women and children died in concentration camps, after they had been worked half to death in the use of slave labour.
 Two million were killed by mobile extermination squads.
 Half a million died of hunger and disease throughout Eastern Europe, running from the fascists.
But what drove the German people to do such a brutal act? Could it just have been the influence Adolph Hitler, or are there other areas that can be explored. Looking at the historical aspects of the second world war, we can see why so many people may have been eager to turn to fascism, or indeed any form of leadership structure. But why racism? It is generally believed by sociologists that one cannot be a racist unless he is distinguishing between different biological traits between people, which somehow make one biological ‘race’ superior to another. And Hitler knew how bitter the Germans were about the loss of the First World War, so he needed a reason to give them as to why they lost. So he turned to racism and began distinguishing the Aryans from other races in Germany such as the Jews and homosexuals. By blaming the mixing of these inferior races into Aryan blood he gave the people a reason to believe they were better than someone else, and gave them a purpose, people to blame for Germanys devastated economy.
What exactly have these acts of fascism taught us? Have they shown us how easily a country with a population the size Germanys can turn into murderer racists and fascists if left in the correct conditions? It would certainly be incorrect to assume that this is not why the Germans embraced fascism, but are there any implications of other influences that may have caused these events. Socially, we can try to argue that even deprivation on the scale felt by the German people is not enough to force a society to become something they are not, unless really they already are. Throughout history there have been so many wars between different races. Although issues of religion are often the main driving forces between warring nations, if you listen to any insults that become circulated about the opposing side, it becomes apparent that they are nearly always racial. So is it possible that it is in fact natural for those of the same race to stand together, and want to be superior to other races? It is not a pleasant thought, but not one that can be ruled out. Especially if we consider many other natural instincts that a modern society manages to suppress without difficulty. Perhaps if we attempt to analyse human behaviour to a more individual level it will reveal more of what we are trying to understand.
Rational behavior, and reactive instinct, Webber believes can both be clarified with further studies in the social context. By ascertaining a clear comprehension of action-elements within their intended context by the actor, he believes these actions and subsequent meanings can be rationally evident.
Webber also points out that there are many meanings or ends that cannot be fully understood, even if we can grasp them intellectually. This is because everyone has there own sets of morals and values, thus making it difficult to put yourself in someone else’s place in order to understand them. Which amplifies the difficulty in trying to understand why someone would choose to follow fascism. Examples could be people motivated to take different courses of action due to different religious perspectives, or those changed to become more fanatical due to their individual experiences. Like the feelings being experienced by the German population in post war Germany.
“Collective actions-including economic actions-that are based on ideal and material considerations of status run counter to all collective actions that are based entirely on the cash-nexus.” (Bendix R, 1959)
In the above statement we can see how Bendix believed these social actions affected Webbers understanding of society.
Actions that we ourselves could find irrational when trying to understand another’s motives could also be associated with emotions. Love, hate, jealousy e.t.c, all effect many individuals in what may first appear similar, but are fundamentally different ways. So my statement earlier concerning why enlightened modern thinkers find it so shocking that the Germans could have acted in such a way, seems a little naïve.
To try and understand the deviance from what we might understand as a rational course of action. We could try to believe it is possible to look at the outcome from the first course of events then to look at it from the rational sense, and then go through it adding the possible irrational elements.
“That there is, however, a danger of rationalistic interpretations where they are out of place naturally cannot be denied. All experience unfortunately confirms the existence of this danger.” (Webber M, 1947)
So Webber believes that their is no real assertive “answer” for the actions, or meanings of such actions for any individual. Although he says it is entirely possible to be able to grasp these concepts intellectually, and even eventually to understand them. But the ultimate floor is not being able to put yourself imaginatively in someone else’s place because of our individuality. This gives us difficulty when trying to understand what motivates others to perform actions, which we would interpret as being an incorrect course of action.
So Webber’s interpretation of what would have caused the events of fascism may have been a lot more like the rational explanations we would associate with psychology.
If we ask ourselves what should learn, from fascism and the holocaust perhaps it would not be out of context to say that we can use the studies of these events o compare how sociologists look at human behaviour. It can both add support, and contradict what we have assumed about types human behaviour.
Bibliography
Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the holocaust. London, Polity with Blackwell.
Bendix, R. (1959) Max Webber An Intellectual portrait. University Paperback
Giddons, A. (1989) Sociology Polity Press, Cambridge.
Shaw, M. (1984) WAR, STATE, AND SOCIETY. The Macmillan Press LTD. London.
Webber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Simon and Schuster. Translation and recopyright in 1975 by Talcott Parsons.



Word Count: 1278