Talk:Anomie

message: ::The contemporary English understanding of the word anomie differs from how the term was originally defined and used by Greeks, often becoming a synonym of the word Αναρχία (see Anarchy).
Which one is a synonym for anarchy, "the contemporary English understanding" or the original Greek use? Or both?  This should be clarified. Evan Donovan 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greeks never got confused about the two words because a rule was not the same as a law. Unfortunately, those who came later did not maintain a strict distinction, allowing a rule or principle to include "legally defined" and accepting that a "law" might only be informally enforced. The opening sentence is a reasonably acceptable modern definition. The second paragraph points to the etymology and correctly indicates that some non-Greek speakers have shaded the meanings of the two words (anomie and anarchy) together because of the modern connotational flexibility of the word "norm". I am not convinced there is a problem to be solved. David91 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm just dense (other people can jump in here) but as a non-Greek speaker, I'm still confused about the distinction between law and norm.  At least your clarification answers my question though - I would suggest recasting the sentence as "In modern English use, the term often becomes a synonym for anarchy." and then say something to the effect of "By contrast, the Greeks reserved the term law (arche) for norms that were formally enforced, whereas nomos refers to those which are enforced by social pressure alone." Evan Donovan 13:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would hope that no expert would ever use anomie as a synonym for "anarchy". They really are very different concepts. I think that the confusion arises from the explanation of anomie as normlessness because lay readers want to interpret that as a social situation where there are no rules. Neither Durkheim nor the later writers who use the concept of anomie would accept that interpretation. Actually, anomie can arise because of the strictures of the countervailing norms. I did not write the original but, to avoid confusion, I will rewrite it. David91 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification question about sentence in beginning

message: I may be splitting hairs, but to refer to the protagonist of The Stranger as suffering from anomie would be to miss the point of the novel. See what you think.
The protaganist is not the sufferer...It is a comment on the society and environment from which the protaganist withdraws.
Changed it and added the Dostoevsky and film refs, made separate section.  Is the current phrasing better?
Edonovan 03:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protagonist of [[The Stranger]]

message: This is not as clear as it could be:
:The word, spelled anomy or also anomie, has also been used to apply to societies or groups of people within a society, who suffer from chaos due to lack of commonly recognized explicit or implicit rules of good conduct, or worse, to the reign of rules promoting isolation or even predation rather than cooperation.
:Friedrich Hayek notably uses the word anomy with this meaning.
Which meaning is this - the latter meaning (rules promoting isolation) or the whole paragraph (i.e. a social disorder)?
Cheers, Singkong2005 09:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone clarify the point about Hayek, please? 

message: The current text reads:
:"Anomie, in contemporary English, means the absence of any kind of rule, law, principle or order."
However, dictionary.com does not report any meaning involving the "absence of any kind of rule, law, principle or order".
I will delete the text in question, unless verfiable sources are provided, or a request made for more time to locate verifiable sources is made within 48 hours.  --BostonMA 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected Original Research, "Anomie, in contemporary English means ..." 

message: This sentence: "The Greeks distinguished between nomos (νόμος, “law”), and arché (αρχή, “starting rule, axiom, principle”). " and the following passage make very little sense to me. Can anyone provide evidence that nomos and arché were systematically distinguished in the way suggested? for that matter, can anyone explain what distinction it is suggested that the Greeks made? I cannot understand what is being said about monarchy ("subject to nomos") as opposed to majority rule  ("an aspect of arche"). If "arche" means "rule", what does it mean for it to have "aspects"? Unless these claims can be sourced (or rather MADE CLEARLY, since how else can we know what claim we are trying to source?), the whole d--n thing should go.--Gheuf 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomie/Anarchy 

message: Anomie (Anomy) – From the Latin “a”-“nomos” (without norms) ; Lack of rules, structure and organization ; Not to be confused with anarchy (rules yes, rulers no) ; A condition whereby rules on how people ought to behave with each other break down, leaving people unsure what to expect from one another ; A state where norms (expectations of behaviors) are confused, unclear or not present ; A breakdown of social norms leading to deviance, dissatisfaction, conflict, crime and suicide ; Chaos due to lack of commonly recognized rules of conduct ; Chaos due to rules promoting isolation and predation rather than cooperation ; See Durkheim, Hayek.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.69.28 (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick summary of Wikipedia's anomie page 

message: Someone added a photo req; what sort of photo is desired for this article? Nave.notnilc (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem with the current image requested tag. I go through these image and diagram requests and I have to guess at what the person was thinking when filling the request. Can the current editors of this page clarify what is requested, or can we remove the image request tag? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 11:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo req? 

message: I believe the current Anomie article inaccurately portrays and obscures what Durkheim originally meant by the term "anomie" in 1893. Normlessness was one of the symptoms of anomie, as was norms that were too rigid. Yet this whole article seems to be about normlessness.
His original meaning suggested that anomie was a mismatch of labor "armies" to changing societal needs, because they were based on mechanical solidarity (sameness) and their inertia prevented maintenance of equilibrium between needs and fulfilment (regulation). In contrast the division of labor based on organic solidarity (complementary differences) was adaptive and self-regulating. It was the modern form of an evolved division of labor. 
But Durkheim observed that these two labor forms were incompatible. As one progressed, the other retrogressed.
Anomie was identified as the situation where mechanical solidarity (e.g. labor movements becoming obsolete as the result of automation, for example), tended to retard progress because of their inertia, and their insensitivity to changing needs. 
We have seen this collective form of "anomie" time and time again since Durkheim, and in the writings of H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, and George Orwell, not to mention the bureaucratic politics of the 20th century.
I have replaced much of the front part of this article. But I believe the back part also needs work, which I do not have time for. 
I would like to encourage others to assist in making the two parts consistent, or pruning the back part. 
--Cybernaut61 (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning to Durkheim's original definition of Anomie from The Division of Labor in Society 

message: The terms "anomie" and "maya" originated spontaneously from different cultures. However, the state of consciousness they ultimately refer to is debatably the same. Their commentaries on this state of consciousness, that is to say, on alienation, are quite different, stylistically and otherwise. However, they refer to the same thing. Furthermore, any debate concering the "objectivity" of such proposed analogues should be addressed by the simple reminder that most individuals respond to nihilism, anomie, and other similar psychological and/or philosophical states with silence and abdication. Something is better than nothing, especially in cases where that "something" admittedly refers to itself as "a mythology". But this last defense is somewhat superfluous. The proposed analogues between Western psychology and Eastern mythology are valid, and the suggestion of connection between the two is not unprecedented.
However, comparing Western psychology with Eastern mythologies on pages specifically referring to those mythologies might be considered offensive. For this reason, it seems that a "one way street" between psychology and Eastern mythology is ample.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Correlaries (a defense) 

message: The section titled 'Hindu mythology's "Maya" and analogues with "Anomie"' is not appropriate for this article. 'Anomie' is a sociological term that refers to a state arising from shifts in specific social conditions such as mode of solidarity and division of labor. It is not simply synonymous with 'alienation' or 'the illusion of duality', although it is arguably an example of one or both of these. An absence of anomie in a society (e.g., in a society with mechanistic solidarity and smoothly functioning norms and values that are unproblematically assimilated and followed by its members) does not necessarily entail an absence of Maya or of the illusion of duality. On the contrary, the absence of anomie in a society can be very much bound up with harmoniously functioning dualistic concepts shared by its members.  This section might be appropriately included in an article dealing with various religious perspectives on alienation, but it is not appropriate for an article on anomie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.108.91 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It seems inappropriate, confusing and possibly offensive to all parties to mix Hindu mythology and Anomie, a term that according to the article, didn't originate until the 19th century. It also seems likely to be WP:OR. This should remain as it is now. --FeralOink (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Section on Anomie and Maya 

message: I was brought to this article by a reference in Japanese occupation of Singapore, however in reading this I'm not sure that is accurate.  If it is, I think it should be included here as an example.
Kevink707 (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anomie in Singapore after end of WWII? 

message: I tried to remove anything that seemed like WP:OR, found references for each of the examples of anomie in literature, rephrased in my own words so that I could cut out some of the excessive quoting of sources in the article, and improved the references with valid ISBNs.
There still seems like a lot of redundant content throughout the article, but I don't want to cut and rephrase any more, not until someone who has some subject matter knowledge about anomie has time to look at this. I'm a statistician and auditor, not a psychologist/ historian. --FeralOink (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up in order to remove WP:OR etc. 

message: Isn't this just another term for "eccentric personality"? Kortoso (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eccentricity 

message: I removed the Waiting for Godot material in the "In literature, film and theatre" section.  It was uncited, and had been for a long time.  There was a citation given; however, this was a specific citation to a statement about the character Lucky, and that statement had previously been removed from this section, so the citation made no sense anymore.  I note that the citation given contains no use of the term "anomie". Doctormatt (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waiting for Godot 

message: AFAIK the term's main meaning in contemporary discourse centers around this quote:
Durkheim borrowed the word from French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau and used it in his influential book Suicide (1897), outlining the social (and not individual) causes of suicide, characterized by a rapid change of the standards or values of societies (often erroneously referred to as normlessness),[7] and an associated feeling of alienation and purposelessness. He believed that anomie is common when the surrounding society has undergone significant changes in its economic fortunes, whether for better or for worse and, more generally, when there is a significant discrepancy between the ideological theories and values commonly professed and what was actually achievable in everyday life. 
I.e. heart of the matter is not lack of moral guidance from society (there can be lots of guidance, it's just that people no longer care to obey it), or some specifics of industrial production as in History section (perhaps relevant Durkheim's time, but not generalizable to other situations with different social changes leading to anomie). The heart of the matter is if people are socially conditioned to desire some standard forms of self-actualization but find that doing so is hard or impossible in contemporary society (because society changed faster than accepted norms about what is proper self-actualization) then these people adopt the various attitudes like rejection of society's norms, purposelessness etc which Durkheim groups together as symptoms and/or consequences of anomie.
Also, I think that the discussion of anomie and anarchy ought to emphasize the personal rather than social meaning of anomie in its main meaning. Anarchy is the state of the overall society rather than of an individual, much like "low inflation" or "war". Meanwhile anomie can be the state of a single individual or a small group; although of course people actually start taking notice of it when it becomes a sufficiently widespread and affecting significant percentage of the population. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  first paragraph of "Social disorder" section is key; too much emphasis on non-essential stuff in first part of article 

message: The sentence: "For example, a monarch is a single ruler but he or she might still be subject to, and not exempt from, the prevailing laws, i.e. nomos. In the original city state democracy, the majority rule was an aspect of arché because it was a rule-based, customary system, which might or might not make laws, i.e. nomos." in the section Etymology of the article leaves out individuals which are not fitting in the gender binary. For more information read: Gender binary. 84.152.92.92 (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It also leaves out people with Down Syndrome and people born with 3 arms.2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Binary 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Libertarian black-clad-mad-bomberism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  czar 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Libertarian black-clad-mad-bomberism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]