3.3 Theoretical Framework
3.3.3 Durkheim’s Theory of Meaning-Making
The third theory that underpins this study is Durkheim’s (1933) Theory of Meaning-making.
Durkheim is regarded as one of the founding thinkers in sociology with his theories on the norms, values, and structures of society (Cole, 2018). His dissertation entitled The Division of Labour in Society (1933) as well as books on sociological method (1966) and suicide (1966) focused on the structure of society. He was mostly interested in the shared experiences, perspectives, values, beliefs and behaviours among a group of people and what brings them together and creates a sense of belonging and working together towards a common interest (Cole, 2018). For example, Durkheim focused on a micro theory of behaviour which is more collective in nature and more focused on meaning-making (Luke 1985; Swedberg, 2003). For him, the basic categories of meaning, time and space are produced collectively and the drive to make meaning becomes fundamental.
Durkheim’s work was advanced by constructionists, symbolic interactionists and psychologists. For example, the social constructivist ideas explain learning, teaching and researching in terms of how, through dialogue and interaction and informed by their socio-cultural context, people analyse and interpret a situation to develop a shared understanding (Dewey 1934, 1963; Bruner 1996; Eisner 1998). Erving Goffman (1974) drew on Durkheim’s notion of how meaning is created in social groups. Beyond Goffman’s ideas, others in sociology have built on Durkheim’s ideas about the connection between social structure and psyche and on the creation of the psyche. For example, Ann Swidler (1986) argues that people use the shared cultural elements to interpret the world and act upon
76
it. Marx and Weber (1978) share the same sentiment with Durkheim that human psyche is shaped quite fundamentally by social institutions. However, the process of collective meaning making was more fundamental to Durkheim than it was to either Marx or Weber. While Durkheim’s theory of meaning-making (1933) posits that the process of collective meaning-making fundamentally shapes the human psyche (Nisbett et al, 2001), Weber (1978) observed that meaning varies from society to society and that in order to understand social action one must understand its meaning to the actor.
Cultural psychologists such as Schein (1996) and Pedersen and Dobbin (2006) in the cross-national studies of human psyche have suggested that people in different cultural contexts tend to describe the same picture in different ways. For example, Americans may focus on the subject while the Japanese may focus on the context.
Several empirical studies have used Durkheim’s theory of meaning-making as a theoretical framework. For example, Park, Folkman & Bostrom’s (2001) study focused on HIV negative gay men who were caregivers. These scholars wanted to understand participants’ changing appraised meaning of their situation and how it is consistent with a person’s beliefs and goals. The study found that HIV negative gay men who were care givers had a common understanding of their work, based on their beliefs, goals and behaviours which allowed them to feel that they were part of a group working together to maintain common interest. Similarly, Nolen-Hoeksema (1997) used the theory of meaning-making to explain the bereavement of 30 partners of men who had died of AIDS, in particular, how they understood their loss and responded it. The study found that participants who had lost their partners as a result of AIDS recognized their situation (their loss) and reacted to it based on their own background, personal, cultural, and historical experiences. Thus, they created the meaning of their situation based on how the society viewed and behaved towards them, a situation which contributed to increasing their depression and reducing their morale. Further, Baumgartner &
77
Niemi (2013) used Durkheim’s theory of meaning-making in their study on the ‘Perceived Effect of HIV and AIDS on Other Identities’. The study found that identities were shaped by individuals and by society and that identity could be defined in numerous ways by different people. These scholars concluded that an identity could better be defined by committed individuals and in collaboration with the society. Thus, for them, it is not personality, past events, trait or quality that is central but what actors are doing in their situations. Thus, to understand human beings, there is a need to understand their actions, the causes of their actions, the consequences of their actions, the perception of own action, and perception of other people’s actions. From this perspective, the human is seen as an actor rather than a passive person, a thinking actor rather than a responder, a decision-making actor rather than a formed organism.
Informed by the perspective advanced by Baumgartner & Niemi (2013) in particular, in the present study the theory of Meaning-making is used to explore secondary school learners’ experiences of HIV and AIDS education in the classroom. Learners were asked to reflect on the Life Skills Education and on the messages that they were exposed to during HIV and AIDS special days held in the school.
I wanted to understand how learners experience the epidemic itself, and how they respond to the HIV and AIDS education programmes that they receive in (and around) the school. This was premised on the notion that a person is socialised into a larger community through collective meaning-making and that humans behave according to the meaning that things and events have for them. The meaning that individuals attach to phenomena and events further stems from their interactions with others. In addition, I held the notion that the learners are active knowers in their own lives and that they are capable of understanding their own actions, the consequences of their actions, as well as other people’s actions in the context of the HIV and AIDS epidemic.
78