Freedom and Democracy: The Sociology of the Sociology and the Political Science of the Political Science

Freedom and Democracy: The Sociology of the Sociology and the Political Science of the Political Science

escrito por Dini Harmita 

 

Abstract

 

This paper is aimed at summarising freedom and democracy through inequalities both sociologically and institutionally. Sociology tends to study something micro and meso like changes and political sciences tend to learn something as macro as systems. Nonetheless, since both are social sciences there are nexus and nodes that become niches for us to reflect on. Through the summary it’s concluded that inequality can be a perfect reason for entities to gain freedom in democracy. 

 

Key words: Freedom, Democracy, Sociology, Political Science, Inequalities 

 

 

Taking Off 

 

This paper is written as part of the series of revisiting the author’s bachelor thesis on social capital of Sundanese women in poverty. The author used several theories and cases including from Sociology and Political Science points of views. To understand the social capital comprehensively she learned other capitals from many theories and practices. Taking off from Bourdieu’s theory she stumbled upon how macro his semi-Marxism theory is. Thus she used several other theories to also comparatively understand the interactions between the capitals. Sociologically the thesis used classifications as crystal clear as rules, norms, association, and organisations. When she comprehended Bourdieu’s she then found that the nuance he brought into the macro part is rather in relation to power and politics. Thus not rarely we found many political science terms including institutions and institutionalisations in the texts. The bachelor thesis itself was called a doctoral thesis at least by one of the examiners yet the author herself only realised recently the reasons. One of the concepts discussed in the thesis is inequalities with freedom as one of the keys. This paper is aimed at seeing both sociologically and institutionally the probability of reducing inequalities that lead to freedom as part of democracy indicators. 

 

According to Harker, Mahar, and Wilkes (1990), Bourdieu analysed inequalities with social classes. Ritzer and Goodman (2005) mentioned that for Bourdieu Sociology should be reflective thus he tends to also analyse the relationships between concepts including capitals, not merely seeing only deep into one capital. Given the research subject at that time was females, to understand the inequalities in micro and meso levels the author thus used Amartya Sen’s theory on gender inequalities. 

 

Before flying to Sen’s theories, the author would like to revisit other theories she used for explaining poverty from inequality points of view. Based upon research variables in survey data from several countries in Europe from Sweden to Romania, Uphoff (2003) mentioned that the inequalities tend to be grounded by different things. People tend to be poor even in Europe for different reasons. His research indicated that education plays an important role in trust. Education is the form of cultural capital based on Bourdieu (1986) and trust is part of social capital according to Putnam (1993). He mentioned that within 1960-1990 there was a significant change between inequalities and trusts. The changes in inequalities tend to have a weak positive relationship while the changes in trust tend to have a negative relationship. The education development itself tends to emerge and is associated with low inequalities such as in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan. Nevertheless, it tends to be associated with relatively higher inequalities in Chile, Brazil, Italy, and Colombia. In this context the education brings not only group trust but also self-trust. 

 

In social capital itself what is important for Bourdieu (1986) is the exchanges of knowledge and acquisition process. Weberian would call it networks. Such a process is also acquired during education as cultural capital institutionalisation.

 

Landing on Sen’s Theory on Inequalities 

 

Leaping to Marxism root before revisiting Sen’s, long before Proudhon (1809 - 1865) in Lenin (1905) failed to understand that one of essential ways to alleviate poverty, inequalities, and other forms of capitalism is by erasing the relationship itself. Nonetheless no one seems capable enough to do so therefore scholars wisely defined the inequalities based on contexts. One of the most comprehensive classifications on gender inequalities was presented by Sen (2001) as many faces of gender inequalities. The inequality types comprises mortality, natality, basic facility, special chances, profession, owning, and household inequalities. 

 

Bourdieu (1986) explained economic capital is institutionalised in the forms of owning properties. In Asian contexts, the economic capital inequality is represented by land owning. Thus it’s not rarely becoming a source of disputes. Even China’s model where lands for businesses are rented by governments couldn’t escape such related conflicts. Beside neoliberalism, capitalism, and westernisation we could also analyse it with dependency theories where people’s minds are shaped by the concepts of owning properties as part of their well-being. Little we know about systems that teach us to be as modest as possible. 

 

Land owning and use in Asia including Indonesia tend to be dominated by gigantic funds of plantations and minings. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss it without the involvement of courses and discourses related to oligarchs. The oligarchs tend to approach the authorities in ways that they can get whatever they want thus even civil servants including the leaders themselves often are trapped by corruption, collusion, and nepotism. As organisations, associations, and or institutions, the political parties tend to be dragged by cartelisation. 

 

Freedom

 

What kind of freedom are we talking about in this context? Borrowing Sen’s classification, it should be obvious that what he imposed is freedom at every type of inequalities. According to Sen (2001), every one of us should have freedom in terms of mortality, natality, basic facilities, special chances, profession, owning, and household inequalities. That freedom constitutes how we cope with the gaps. 

 

Bourdieu’s forms of capital are represented in Sen’s inequality classifications. Since each of us has masculinity and femininity, Sen’s classifications become comprehensive and applicable for many varied cases and contexts because of such detailed divisions. The inequalities can be caused by the lack of the capitals and so do the solutions. 

 

Nonetheless, if we have money does it mean we always have time to watch a concert with someone we love for example? The answer is no and that can be explained by the special chance inequality by Sen’s. Nevertheless, does it make us poor? Certainly not according to most theories including Bourdieu’s but perhaps indeed based on other poverty or inequality dimensions. 

 

Would we call it democracy when we have freedom to solve certain inequalities?

 

Democracy

 

To answer the previous question we need help from other poverty classifications called absolute and relative poverty. Psychologically we can also use Maslow’s basic need theory though it’s not necessarily always hierarchical. Some people get income from self-actualisation thus it’s important to respect different perspectives especially definitions. 

 

Absolute poverty is something else because we know when people are definitely poor, for example when they sleep in the bathroom or ATM room. With any kind of inequality classification and development theories they’re subject to be helped and empowered. 

 

Social sciences are so rich that they provide such interactions between the sciences. Not to mention, we could also reflect on Sociology through the Political Science points of view and vice versa. No one could understand this better than scientists. To reflect with natural sciences is also essential because we are not the only fishes in the sea. 

 

Conclusion

 

Rodríguez Teruel and Casal Bértoa (2023) mentioned polarisation as one of determinants in the quality of democracy. When writing the bachelor thesis the author didn’t acknowledge how deep the relationship between Sociology and Political Science is. Revisiting it has made me realise that one of the gaps lies in our classification about the theories and sciences itself. I wrote the thesis in 2005 and there were already so many giants to quote and cite yet it still feels like a taboo to combine both Sociology and Political Science in 2024. I think it would be more lovely to comprehensively and comparatively study both freedom and democracy like when I studied the social capital of Sundanese women in poverty back then; in a light of for example it would be easier and more fun to explain party system institutionalisation with behavioural routinisation. With such efforts, changing societies will be less difficult and enacting rule of laws will be easier. It equals and is counted as less inequalities and polarised.