662). In other words, individuals coalesce around environments repetitively to form the collective. The collective structure stays even when the individual is alone. This is close to the collective representations of Durkheim, but it is based on innate or genetic structures that connect during the repetition of social encounters (which in Allport are not religious). The social bonding function is similar: "The collective-structure event-format (so called 'reality of the group') is thus preserved, though the particular contacts of individuals may vary in space, time, and number" (Allport, 1955, p. 662).
This interweaving with the collective has lasting effects on the individual structure. He says, "It is also worth noting that the collective structure itself is often represented, usually in a schematic or abridged format, in the meaning-cycles of the individuals involved, on the basis of their contacts with other individuals in the regular and repetitive course of the structure's operation" (p. 662). Here we see Allport's analogous notion of the interiorization of norms and socialization. The individual is included in social tangents beyond his individual structures (she may belong to indefinite number of collectives). The behavior of the individual within the collective structure has both inside and outside aspects (social). The individual is in the collective, while the collective is represented in meaning-cycles within the individual....
All of this forms the basis of Allport's dynamic-structural theory of perceptual-social frames of reference, and connects with his explanation of the interstructured meanings of social norms, customs, collective attitudes, and conformities. While the effect is similar to Durkheim, the argument is quite different. In fact, in Allport there are no bodies, individuals, groups, or things -- just abstract kinematic concepts. At the end of the day, material itself vanishes!
Conclusion
This essay has briefly engaged the theories of Durkheim and Allport. Both men made wide-ranging contributions to the field of social psychology. In attempting to compare these theoretical ideas, it has tried to clarify some similarities and differences in their approaches.
Bibliography
Allport, F.H. (1955). Theories of perception and the concept of structure: a review and critical analysis with an introduction to a dynamic-structural theory of behavior. New York: John Wiley.
Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of labor in society W.D. Halls, Trans. New York: Free Press.
____. (1915). The Elementary forms of religious life J.W. Swain, Trans. New York: Free Press.
____. (1938). The Rules of sociological method S.A. Solovay & J.H Mueller, Trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giddens, a. (1978). Emile Durkheim. New York: Penguin.
Thompson, K.…
