Thinking Sociologically about the Boston Tragedy
Since the bombing at the Boston Marathon on April 15, the nation has been trying to figure out how and why someone would do something so horrific. The bombers’ methods and motives are the domain of law enforcement, trying to figure out first who did it, how, and why.
Sociology can be useful to help us to develop hypotheses about why events take place, particularly those events involving large group. Explaining why any particular individual behaves the way they do is harder to understand, and as I write investigators are working diligently to learn more about the suspects to figure out why they would build bombs and hurt innocent people. So it is too soon to specifically use sociological concepts to understand the suspects.
But we can think sociologically about the public’s reaction to the violence.
Almost immediately there were reports
of marathoners running to give blood after crossing the finish line.
Normally bitter sports rivals with the Boston Red Sox, the next day the New York Yankees included a tribute to the people of Boston.
Fans entering Yankee Stadium that day saw a banner featuring both teams’ logos
and the words “United We Stand.”
These touching stories of people coming together reflect an increase in social cohesion, when people feel a strong sense of connection to the broader society. United in sadness, anger, and disbelief, tragedies can make other divisions less important, at least temporarily. Sociologist Emile Durkheim discussed this quite a bit in his work, noting that social cohesion is extremely important for the smooth functioning of society. If we feel a connection to the larger group, we are less likely to transgress against it and more likely to be productive contributors, according to Durkheim. By contrast, feeling outside of social bonds can produce what he called anomie, or “normlessness.” Investigators are considering whether the bombing suspects felt like outsiders in the U.S., and whether this played a role in the attack.
It’s hard to imagine why anyone would think that inflicting violence against civilians would accomplish anything. Because these acts of terror often help create a greater sense of cohesion, with people coming together more than they normally would, the society as a whole may not be permanently damaged. Certainly the lives of individuals who are killed and injured, as well as their families and friends, will never be the same. But the society itself can actually become stronger from an event like this.
The tragedy also highlights social fissures as well. Concerns about immigration have resurfaced because the suspects were foreign born, just as Congress was in the process of debating immigration reform. The suspects’ religious affiliation and questions about whether they held extremist views continue to be the focus of investigation and public debate. Both immigration and religion have been central issues of debate in U.S. politics, and this event heightens attention to them.
While a tragedy can help unite people, it can also further the sense of “us” and “them” between groups. Part of the unity comes from the reaffirmation of shared values, a reaffirmation that casts the “out group” as holding different values and thus undesirable. Sometimes out of fear and anger, the out group becomes defined more broadly than just those that would support an act of violence like this to include an entire ethnic group or religious denomination. Laws might be passed to restrict people who are feared to be part of the enemy group (such as internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II).
Just as Peter Kaufman recently blogged, the tragedy in Boston leaves us with more questions than answers. Unfortunately, some of these questions might never be answered. But sociology can help us make sense of parts of this event. What other sociological concepts can help us understand violence and its aftermath?
Comments