The Problem with Social Facts

Both slavery and capitalism can be considered Social Facts in the history of the United States of America (especially during the colonial period) as these two practices were in the mind of the people of the time and were approved and consolidated by collective practice. In the case of slavery, the way in which white people from the Southern Colonies treated African people and the imposition of slavery itself springs from the perpetuation of manners and customs that were part of the collective. This is to say that people saw slavery as something that was part of culture and therefore did not have a critical stance towards it merely because it was what others were doing. The practice itself may have had its origin in the need that men had for other’s approval which in the end led them to self- approval. This goes hand in hand with Durkheim´s idea that social facts posses a compelling and coercive nature. You do it just because, because it is something that everybody does, as it can be taken from Twain’s text Corn-pone Opinions in which the author states that one supports a given custom as a way to fit in society.

Now, when Weber reviews Franklin’s capitalistic ethos, he makes a mistake when he asserts that Franklin has an interest in money merely because capitalists of the time amassed large amounts of money just for the sake of accumulating vast fortunes. In other words, he takes Franklin as a traditional capitalist only because most capitalists did not amass their fortunes for the improvement of society but for the improvement of their own treasury. He assumed that Franklin was another one in the lot and failed to understand his philosophy because he generalised it as part of the social conception of earning money for the sake of money. It seems, then, that Weber agrees to pigeonhole Franklin under the basis of Twain’s way of thinking, which does not have to be always univocal. 

Both slavery and capitalism in the colonial period can be recognised as social facts on the basis that they were validated by the social collective and spread through education. They became part of the world view of settlers. This also happens with the initial theocratic model of New England that was mentioned in class. The people had to be happy with the non-secular character of the social structure because, had they disagreed, they would have been in serious trouble and seen as outcasts just because they did not act according to social facts or, in other words, to what was suitable because it was publicly repeated by other members of society. In relation to Franklin, Weber judges him in the way he does because he assumes that Franklin’s work ethic is grounded on capitalism as a social fact. He bases his critique on the idea that Franklin is a capitalist because everyone is a capitalist whose main objective is no other that to become richer and richer and misses that Franklin’s concern with money aims at the development of the collective. 

To sum up, a social fact crystallises a way of thinking or behaving that, in time, becomes a stereotyped way of living. The problem with them is that they offer little room for individual initiative and critical thinking. You validate a custom merely because your neighbour is engaged to it and not because you have drawn the conclusion that it is really suitable for you. The worst part of it all is that when someone acts out of the coercive space of social facts (as Franklin did) one may be prejudiced enough to misunderstand his or her predicament because social facts create a uniform impression of our behaviour.