Organic solidarity by emile durkheim biography
That is, since social solidarity is a concept that it not easily observable or measurable, Durkheim attempts to use systems of law as an index of forms and changes in socialsolidarity. However, Durkheim was critical of these attempts at sociology and felt that neither had sufficiently divorced their analyses from metaphysical assumptions. Made up of rules which are practiced by all indistinctly, it receives fromthis universal, uniform practice an authority which bestows something superhuman upon it, and which puts it beyond the pale of discussion.
Nevertheless, Durkheim maintained that sociology and philosophy are in many ways complementary, going so far as to say that sociology has an advantage over philosophy, since his sociological method provides the means to study philosophical questions empirically, rather than metaphysically or theoretically.
As a result, Durkheim often used sociology to approach topics that have traditionally been reserved for philosophical investigation. These fall largely in the realms of the philosophy of religion, social theory, hermeneutics, the philosophy of language, morality, meta-ethics, and epistemology.
His family was devoutly Jewish, and his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all rabbis. He graduated in and began teaching the subject in France. In he was appointed to teach Social Sciences and Pedagogy at the University of Bordeaux, allowing him to teach the first ever official sociology courses in France. Also inDurkheim married Louise Dreyfus, with whom he would eventually have two children.
A Study in SociologySuicide.
InDurkheim was finally given a promotion in the form of the chair of the Science of Education at the Sorbonne. In he became a full professor and inhis position was changed to formally include sociology. Henceforth he was chair of the Science of Education and Sociology.
Here he gave lectures on a number of subjects and published a number of important essays as well as his final, and most important, major work The Elementary Forms of Religious LifeForms. The outbreak of World War I would prove to have disastrous consequences for Durkheim. From this Durkheim would never recover and in November he died of a stroke, leaving his last great work, La Morale Moralitywith only a preliminary introduction.
During his lifetime, Durkheim was politically engaged, yet kept these engagements rather discrete. Nevertheless, he supported a number of socialist reforms, and had a number of important socialist friends, but never committed himself to the party and did not make political issues a primary concern.
Despite his muted political engagement, Durkheim was an ardent patriot of France. He hoped to use his sociology as a way to help a French society suffering under the strains of modernity, and during World War I he took up a position writing anti-German propaganda pamphlets, which in part use his sociological theories to help explain the fervent nationalism found in Germany.
Durkheim was not the first thinker to attempt to make sociology a science. Auguste Comte, who wished to extend the scientific method to the social sciences, and Herbert Spencer, who developed an evolutionary utilitarian approach that he applied to different areas in the social sciences, made notable attempts and their work had a formative influence on Durkheim. However, Durkheim was critical of these attempts at sociology and felt that neither had sufficiently divorced their analyses from metaphysical assumptions. While Durkheim incorporated elements of evolutionary theory into his own, he did so in a critical way, and was not interested in developing a grand theory of society as much as developing a perspective and a method that could be applied in diverse ways.
With Emile Boutroux, Durkheim read Comte and got the idea that sociology could have its own unique subject matter that was not reducible to any other field of study. Gabriel Monod and Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, both historians, introduced Durkheim to systematic empirical and comparative methods that could be applied to history and the social sciences.
Charles Renouvier, a neo-Kantian philosopher, also had a large impact on Durkheim. Between andDurkheim spent an academic year visiting universities in Germany. What Durkheim found there impressed him deeply. Importantly these scholars were relating morality to other social institutions such as economics or the law, and in the process were emphasizing the social nature of morality. Arguably the most important of these thinkers for Durkheim was Wundt, who rejected methodological individualism and argued that morality was a sui generis social phenomenon that could not be reduced to individuals acting in isolation.
Early in his career Durkheim wrote dissertations about Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Montesquieu, both of whom he cited as precursors to sociology. Before this time, as in DivisionDurkheim focused on how the material and morphological elements of a society affected it. The most important of these, arguably, is Kant, whose moral and epistemological theories were of great influence.
Durkheim remains a fundamental and prominent figure for sociology and social theory in general. This can be partly explained by the fact that the Durkheimian school of thought was greatly reduced when many of his most promising students were killed in WWI, that Durkheim went to such great lengths to divorce sociology from philosophy, or by the fact that his thought has been, and continues to be, simplified and misunderstood.
Nevertheless, his ideas had, and continue to have, a strong impact in the social sciences, especially in sociology and anthropology.
However, these thinkers never discuss Durkheim at length, or acknowledge any intellectual debt to to him. According to Durkheim, all elements of society, including morality and religion, are products of history. As they do not have a transcendent origin and are part of the natural world, they can be studied scientifically.
In particular, Durkheim viewed his sociology as the science of the genesis and functioning of institutions, with institutions being all of the beliefs and modes of conduct instituted by the collectivity. A fundamental element of this science is the sociological method, which Durkheim created specifically for this purpose. An important corollary to the above definition is that social facts are also internal to individuals, and it is only through individuals that social facts are able to exist.
In this sense, externality means interior to individuals other than the individual subject. In order to fully grasp how social facts are created and operate, it must be understood that for Durkheim, a society is not merely a group of individuals living in one particular geographical location. Rather, society is an ensemble of ideas, beliefs, and sentiments of all sorts that are realized through individuals; it indicates a reality that is produced when individuals interact with one another, resulting in the fusion of individual consciences.
It is a sui generis reality, meaning that it is irreducible to its composing parts and unable to be explained by any means other than those proper to it. In other words, society is greater than the sum of its parts; it supercedes in complexity, depth, and richness, the existence of any one particular individual and is wholly new and different from the parts that make it up. This psychic reality is sometimes although especially in Division referred to by Durkheim with the term conscience collectivewhich can alternately be translated into English as collective conscience or collective consciousness.
What is more, society and social phenomena can only be explained in sociological terms, as the fusion of individual consciences that, once created, follows its own laws. It cannot be explained, for example, in biological or psychological terms, or be reduced to the material forms of a society and its immediate vital necessities, as is the case in historical materialism.
Social facts are key, since they are what constitute and express the psychic reality that is society. Through them individuals acquire particular traits, such as a language, a monetary system, values, religious beliefs, tendencies for suicide, or technologies, that they would never have had living in total isolation.
In RulesDurkheim delineates two different classes of social facts. The first class concerns social facts of a physiological, or operative, order. In these cases it is easy to see how society imposes itself onto the individual from the outside. The first class of social facts also contains currents of opinion, or social phenomena that express themselves through individual cases.
Examples include rates of marriage, birth, suicide or migration patterns. In these cases, the operation of society on the individual is not so obvious.Durkheim's Mechanical and Organic Solidarity: what holds society together?
Nevertheless, these phenomena can be studied with the use of statistics, which accumulate individual cases into an aggregate and express a certain state of the collective mind. The second class of social facts is of a morphological, or structural, order. It is often concerned with the demographic and material conditions of life and includes the number, nature, and relation of the composing parts of a society, their geographical distribution, the extent and nature of their channels of communication, the shape and style of their buildings, and so forth.
While at first glance it might not be evident how the second class of social facts is influenced by collective ways of thinking, acting, or feeling, they indeed have the same characteristics and the same elements of externality and constraint as the first class.
Durkheim then provides a set of rules for studying social facts. The first and most important rule is to treat social facts as things.
What Durkheim means by this is that social facts have an existence independent of the knowing subject and that they impose themselves on the observer. Social facts can be recognized by the sign that they resist the action of individual will upon them; as products of the collectivity, changing social facts require laborious effort. The next rule for studying social facts is that the sociologist must clearly delimit and define the group of phenomena being researched.
This structures the research and provides the object of study a condition of verifiability. The sociologist must also strive to be as objective towards the facts they are working on as possible and remove any subjective bias or attachment to what they are investigating.
Finally, the sociologist must systematically discard any and all preconceptions and closely examine the facts before saying anything about them. Durkheim applied these rules to empirical evidence he drew primarily from statistics, ethnography, and history. Durkheim treated this data in a rational way, which is to say that he applied the law of causality to it. At this, Durkheim introduced an important rationalist component to his sociological method, namely the idea that by using his rules, which work to eliminate subjective bias, human behavior can be explained through observable cause and effect relationships.
Accordingly, he often used a comparative-historical approach, which he saw as the core of the sociological method, to eliminate extraneous causes and find commonalities between different societies and their social facts.
In so doing, he strove to find general laws that were universally applicable. Durkheim also argued that contemporary social facts could only be understood in relation to the social facts preceding and causing them.
Accordingly, Durkheim followed the historical development of political, educational, religious, economic, and moral institutions, particularly those of Western society, and explicitly made a strict difference between historical analysis and sociology: In other words, sociology searches for the causes and functions of social facts as they change over time.
In the early part of his career, Durkheim focused on the second class of social facts, or the structural organization of society. Later, social facts of the first class, such as suicide rates, religion, morality, or language became his primary topics of interest. In his later works, Durkheim focused more on questions of a normative nature, or how individuals come to think and act in similar ways, and less on actual physical or legal constraints. Here society still imposes itself onto the individual, but social facts are seen in a more positive light, as the enablers of human activity or as sources of strength for the individual.
As time wore on Durkheim eventually ceased using the word constraint altogether. Within this realist position there are two important claims.
First, Durkheim makes an ontological claim concerning the sui generis reality of social facts. Hence, Durkheim is arguing that social facts have particular properties of being and that they can be discovered and analyzed when the sociologist treats them in the proper, scientific way. Durkheim strongly refuted such accusations. In response to the first critique, it must be remembered that social facts are both exterior and interior to individuals, with externality in this case meaning interior to individuals other than the individual subject. To say that social facts exist independent of all individuals is an absurd position that Durkheim does not advocate.
Only on a methodological level, in order to study social facts from the outside as they present themselves to individuals, does the sociologist abstract social facts from the individual consciences in which they are present. In response to the second critique, Durkheim maintains that social facts, as manifestations of a psychic, or ideational, reality, do not have a material substratum. They can only be observed through the more or less systematized phenomenal reality to be analyzed as empirical data that expresses them. His most definitive statement on the subject can be found in Formsa book dedicated not only to studying religion, but also to understanding how logical thought arises out of society.
Other works, such as Pragmatism and Sociologya posthumous lecture series given late in his life, elaborate his views. Not only are our common beliefs, ideas, and language determined by our social milieu, but even the concepts and categories necessary for logical thought, such as time, space, causality, and number, have their source in society with the latter claim Durkheim challenges the entire philosophical tradition going back to Aristotle.
This logical structure helps to order and interpret the world, ensuring that individuals have a more or less homogenous understanding of the world and how it operates, without which human society would not be possible. And since every society has had some form of logical system to guide its understanding of things, it follows that there has never been a society that is pre-logical or one that has lived in disorder or chaos.
According to Durkheim, no knowledge of the world is possible without humanity in some way representing it. Furthermore, Durkheim rejects the idea of the Ding an sichor the transcendent thing in itself.
This means that the world exists only as far as it is represented, and that all knowledge of the world necessarily refers back to how it is represented. As Durkheim explains, words, or concepts, are unlike individual sensory representations, which are in a perpetual flux and unable to provide a stable and consistent form to thought. Concepts are impersonal, stand outside of time and becoming le devenirand the thought they engender is fixed and resists change.
Consequently, language is also the realm through which the idea of truth is able to come into being, since through language individuals are able to conceive of a world of stable ideas that are common to different intelligences. Thus, language conforms to the two criteria for truth that Durkheim lays out, impersonality and stability. These two criteria are also precisely what allow for inter-subjective communication. Language is, therefore, obviously a sui generis product of social interaction; its necessity only becomes apparent when there are two or more individuals and language can only come into being through the fusion of individual consciences, with the result being completely new and different from and irreducible to the parts that make it up.
As such, the concept is common to all, and is the work of the community. Language does not bear the imprint of any mind in particular, and is instead developed by society, that unique intelligence where all of the others come to meet and interact, contributing their ideas and sentiments to the social nexus. This is a claim of great hermeneutical intrigue, since the signification of any word is to be traced back to this potentially endless well of collective experience.
Words are merely the way in which society, in its totality, represents to itself objects of experience. As such, language is also infused with the authority of society.
Émile Durkheim (1858—1917)
With this, Durkheim makes a reference to Plato, saying that when confronted with this system of notions, the individual mind is in the same situation as the nous of Plato before the world of ideas.
He is widely regarded as the founder of the French school of sociology. It is most often applied to systems of mass production and is one of the basic organizing principles of the assembly line. Breaking down work into simple repetitive tasks The promise may be to do something or to refrain from doing something. The making of a contract requires the mutual assent of two or more persons, one of them ordinarily making an offer and another accepting. If one of the parties fails to Help us improve this article!
Contact our editors with your feedback. Keep Exploring Britannica slavery. Based on resemblances predominant in less advanced societies Segmental type first clan-based, later territorial Little interdependence social bonds relatively weak Relatively low volume of population Relatively low material and moral density. Based on division of labor predominately in more advanced societies Organized type fusion of markets and growth of cities Much interdependency social bonds relatively strong Relatively high volume of population Relatively high material and moral density.
Rules with restitutive sanctions Prevalence of cooperative law civil, commercial, procedural, administrative and constitutional law. Low volume Low intensity Low determinateness More room for individual initiative and reflection. Highly religious Transcendental superior to human interests and beyond discussion Attaching supreme value to society and interests of society as a whole Concrete and specific. We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permitbut that they necessitate a greater division of labor.
It is not an instrument by which the latter is realized; it is its determining cause. If needs are the same, then there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can be pursued, then there may be room for all. Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from attaining theirs. The closer functions come to one another, however, the more points of contact they have; the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. The judge never is in competition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-grower As for those who have exactly the same function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others.
In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution, each segment has its own organs, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions separating the different segments.
Mechanical and organic solidarity
But, no matter how this substitution is made, it cannot fail to produce advances in the course of specialization. Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises establish equilibrium by sharing their common task. Instead of one being subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties appear.
For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no need to compete in the sense of struggling just to survive.
Rather, the division of labour may signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society, and this division allows a certain form of co-operation. Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged to fight to a finish, but can exist one beside the other. Also, in proportion to its development, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greater number of individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be condemned to extinction. The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its development.
It is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived plan. It must come to pass in a pre-existing society Appendix quote 9. Work is not divided among independent and already differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bring together their different aptitudes.
For it would be a miracle if differences thus born through chance circumstance could unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far from preceding collective life, they derive from it.
They can be produced only in the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments and social needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious. Civilization is itself the necessary consequence of the changes which are produced in the volume and in the density of societies.
If science, art, and economic activity develop, it is in accordance with a necessity which is imposed upon men. It is because there is, for them, no other way of living in the new conditions in which they have been placed. From the time that the number of individuals among whom social relations are established begins to increase, they can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, harder work, and intensification of their faculties.
From this general stimulation, there inevitably results a much higher degree of culture. Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of the division of labour which emphasizes the special functions of each of type of occupation and endeavour. Unlike some of the structural functionalists, Durkheim's method distinguishes the cause of the function from the actual function filled.
That is, Durkheim observes the function that the occupation fills in society, but attempts to investigate the development of the cause in an historical manner, examining how this function emerged. Durkheim is also providing a criticism of the economic models which argue that people with different specialties come together to trade the products of their specialties.
For Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but are developed. Similarly, the division of labour is not natural either, but develops in different forms in different societies. While there may be a great similarity among these perhaps like Weber's rationalitynational differences emerge. In that sense, Durkheim has an historical model, fairly solidly grounded on the material realities.
His notion of solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to the conventional sociological model of these, and may be considered to be widely accepted by all. The question is how these emerge, and whose interests they serve. Here the conflict approach differs dramatically from Durkheim. Finally, Durkheim's analysis can be considered to be evolutionary and fairly optimistic. For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in the division of labour as signalling higher stages of civilization. He does not consider there to be any grand plan to this, and no single factor which guides it.
Rather, there is competition, which results in the development of the division of labour, and the outcome of this process cannot be predicted. However, the result is generally positive, because people need each other, and this produces an organic solidarity in society. Abnormal forms of the division of labour. At the end of The Division of Labor in Societyhowever, Durkheim does note that there can be problems in society. There are two abnormal forms of the division of labour, and the division of labour itself does not always function as well as it could in modern society.
Anomic division of labor. When there are industrial and commercial crises, there may be a partial break in organic solidarity. Also, where there is conflict between capital and labour, this may be an unusual situation.
Part of this is caused by the increased separation of employee and employer under capitalism Divisionp. This anomie is a sense of confusion and rootlessness, or lack of social regulation because of disruptions or rapid change in the division of labour. Examples are the Great Depression of the s and the rapid expansion of the s. In the latter, some sectors of business and business executives were insufficiently regulated by society, and seem to have viewed themselves above such regulation. The corporate excesses and crimes that resulted are an example of anomie. Irregular forms such as crime are not treated as part of the breakdown, rather these are treated by Durkheim as differentiation Divisionp.
Durkheim compares these with cancer, rather than with normal organs. The real problem is a lack of regulation or a weakened common morality that can occur in modern society.
For example, in the economic sphere, there are no rules which fix the number of economic enterprises Divisionp. This might be an overall form of irrationality, in Weber's sense. There can be ruptures in equilibrium, capital labour relations may become indeterminate. In the scientific field there may be greater separation of different sciences. If the division of labour does not produce solidarity in all these cases, it is because the relations of the organs are not regulated, because they are in a state of anomy.
For the individual this means there are not sufficient moral constraints and individuals do not have a clear concept of what is proper and acceptable. See Appendix quote Relations, being rare, are not repeated enough to be determined He discusses the degrading nature of the division of labour on the worker, the possibility of monotonous routine, and the machine like actions of the worker.
However, Durkheim does not consider these to be the normal form, but one which results when the worker does not have a sufficient vision of the whole process of production. The division of labour presumes that the worker, far from being hemmed in by his task, does not lose sight of his collaborators, that he acts upon them, and reacts to them.
He is, then, not a machine who repeats his movements without knowing their meaning, but he knows that they tend, in some way, towards an end that he conceives more or less distinctly.