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.”
Other cities, like Chicago also expressed unity with the people of Boston. Pictured below, the people of
Boston celebrate as news spread of a suspect in custody. The One Fund Boston, set up to provide
relief for victims, reflects this sense of unity.
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?