EMILE DURKHEIM

Show all

EMILE DURKHEIM

EMILE DURKHEIM
Introduction
Emile Durkheim was a French Sociologist who is usually considered as the father of the present day social science and sociology. The works of Emile Durkheim laid much emphasis on the various ways that the modern societies can use to uphold moral integrity and coherence, during a time whereby ethnic orientations and share religion are not of ultimate significance. In the works of Emile Durkheim, he does not focus on the factors that help in the motivation of individual actions, a concept that is closely related to methodological individualism; he criticizes this approach by focusing on social facts, which comprises of the cultural values, norms and social structures that have the capability of exerting outside pressure on the individual to determine his actions (Durkheim, 1897). According to Durkheim, social facts are considered as things, and this forms the premise of his works. In the Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim defines a social fact as manner of acting that can influence a person externally, which is not subjective of its individual manifestations. It can be argued that Durkheim made significant contributions towards sociology through his works. Basing on the works of Emile Durkheim, the main aim of this paper is to establish the connection between Durkheim’s perspective on morals and his critique of methodological individualism. The paper also discusses the major forms of social solidarity and how moral life varies with this solidarity in reference to The Division of Labour.
Connection between Durkheim’s perspective on morals and his critique of methodological individualism
In Social Facts, Emile Durkheim offers a comprehensive overview of what he perceives to the exact characteristics of social facts. Durkheim viewed societies as instances of social order. In the light of this, the focus of contributions to sociology laid more emphasis on the underlying sources of social integration and cohesion and the elements that serve to bind people into societies that are functional (Durkheim, 1912). Durkheim used moral order as playing an integral role in the fostering social order, which mainly comprises of a diverse set of rules that helps in the regulation of social interaction among the individuals in a given society. This are viewed as having a higher level of legitimacy in such a manner that a person can have control over them. In this context, moral order plays an integral role in shaping the collective knowledge of an individual and the corresponding actions that the persons engage in. The basic inference that Durkheim makes from this observation is that in societies that are deemed healthy, every person is bound uniformly into a community that shares similar moral values, and this in turn plays a vital role in limiting the actions and expectations of an individual. Durkheim further asserts that apart from imposing restrictions on the individual, such limitation is significantly required for individual well-being and developed in accordance to the nature of the person. Durkheim states happiness and existence of human beings is only possible if the needs of a person are allocated adequately depending on the means of that person (Durkheim, 1895). This plays an integral role in influencing social order and disorder, both at the individual and societal level. The absence of these limits on individual needs that are not entirely physical renders the needs to be infinite and functionally limitless; creating a condition whereby the needs cannot be satisfied. In relation to this, an individual that engages in constant pursue of goals that cannot be either achieved or impractical results to a state of perpetual unhappiness. Durkheim uses suicide as evidence to this claim, whereby lack of restraining factors is likely to result to pathological effects, which he argued that the individual has no capacity of restraining himself. In order to have an understanding of the point of connection between Durkheim criticism on methodological individualism and his perspectives on morals, it is necessary to have an insight on the possibility of individual self-regulation and the fact that the individual cannot serves as restraint on himself. Durkheim argues that individual desires and interests can only be controlled by forces that are external to the person, which is characterized by collective conscience and institutionalized social norms (Durkheim, 1897). Durkheim is concludes that external restraints does not imply that self-regulation is impractical. As a matter of fact, societies have a tendency of growing more complex and that specific contexts characterized by shared morals can help in covering diminishes; as such, there is an increase in the significance of the rational individual element meaning that modern virtue is perceived as conscious and active recognition of communal morality. Self-mastery is viewed as the initial condition of all kinds of true power and individual liberty (Durkheim, 1897). Durkheim therefore argues that self-regulation cannot be derived from the self and individual nature; rather it is also influenced by an external source that the individual perceives as large compared to the self and having power over the individual. These are what Durkheim refers to as social facts, which are defined as the values and social structures that serve to impose a constraint on the self, and Durkheim considers the social facts are things. Therefore, in viewpoint of Durkheim, it can be argued that social facts play an integral role in shaping the self through imposing restraints on individual, which in turn has control over self-regulation. There are also social facts that impose restraints on the on the entire society within the various spheres including religion, politics, economics, culture and legal factors. Total social facts play an integral in shaping the collective morality, which in turn influences individual morality (Durkheim, 1895).
In criticizing the concept of methodological individualism, Durkheim bases his view on structural functionalism. Functionalism theory is one of socio-structural theories that views society from a systematic approach, that is, studies the inter-related components of a society as a whole. Functionalism main idea is to relate the working of a society as one whole being that depend on several other organs and sub-organs for a complete compatibility and functioning of a single large system. In this regard, the system is the society while the sub-systems may range from family set-ups, education systems, economic and political settings, cultural and religious beliefs etc. functionalism assumes that each sub-system naturally has its roles or functions that contribute to a better society (Durkheim, 1912). Although the theory of functionalism has been transferred and applied in other ideas, the theory remains one of the best theories that insightfully recognizes the organization and structure of an ideal society. In the view of structural functionalism, it Durkheim claims that collective moral authority plays an integral role in influencing individual morality, this can happen either directly and from the influence of the entire society, or through the influence of the elements that make up the society. The society in itself is perceived as an agent for moderating morality. It is for this reason that Durkheim claims that the collective moral power supersedes the self, and that the individual is submissive towards the collective morality values. Collective moral authority is mediated to the individual via various complex representations that offers somewhat concrete referents of collectivity. For instance, in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim argues that religion is a perfect example that serves to symbolically represent the entire society; this is because religion offers an incarnation of the society’s external social facts and the moral authority in comparison with the individual. In such a set up, the supremacy of collectivity is evident, which is mainly determined by the existing historical form of social solidarity and the extent to which religion responds to the transformations in the social structures and social practices of the particular community. In this regard, religion can be argued to be an example of an external source of constraint on the individual that are likely to influence the behavior patterns of the individual while at the same time imposing some coercive power on the internal self. Therefore, religion can be viewed to be an example of external guides and serves to control conduct through the use of group norms, folkways and customs. Social integration and education of the religious values helps in the internalization of these values into the self conscious of the person, which in turn become moral obligations and social constraints that individuals have to comply with. Using structural functionalism as a critique of methodological individualism, Durkheim is adamant that identifying the underlying functions of social institutions and their historical origins plays an important role in determining the patterns of social facts and ultimately individual and societal behavior (Durkheim, 1895). With regard to this assertion, Durkheim claimed that crime is an example of normal occurrence in any given social system and is perceived as serving some positive aspects of the entire society. Crime and the corresponding reactions to crime offer the society with a point of normative agreement. Crime also functions to draw the limits of the human behavior. The definition of the boundaries of human behavior and administering punishments for violations of the norms helps in strengthening collective sense of right and wrong. Crime also serves to offer a particular amount of flexibility in the society, in situations where criminal activity is rampant, collective responses are adequate to determine the form of reaction to crime that the society will adopt. Durkheim views this trend as a pertinent determinant towards morality, which also helps in establishing the connection between morality and this critique on methodological individualism.
The concept of social structure can also be used to establish the connection between Durkheim critique on methodological individualism and his perspectives on morality. He notes that history has constantly revealed that the morality of individuals is directly influenced by the social structure of individuals practicing morality. The connection can be perceived to be intimate due to the general nature of morality and pathological contexts that can result to conclusions regarding the nature of the particular society, core elements of its social structure and the societal organization. Social structure defines the nature of the everyday lives, which in turn influences individual morality. An inference that can be derived from this observation is that social structure helps in the establishment of social facts, which in turn determine the collective conscience that shape individual morality (Durkheim, 1895).
Another way to establish the connection between Durkheim critique on methodological individualism and his viewpoints on morality is to assess the relationship that exists between the society, collective conscience and the larger societal culture. When criticizing methodological individualism, Durkheim states that thoughts that are due to individual consciousness cannot be considered as social facts. Durkheim emphasizes on the feasibility of social facts compared to individual consciousness that are views as almost impractical. In any case, individual consciousness is regulated by external coercion and that methodological individualism serves to isolate the individual from the larger society. External coercion can take various forms to regulate the self and moral values of an individual. From this viewpoint, the larger society has greater influence compared to the individual, which is a form of organicism. Methodological individualists do not agree with this view that external coercion and public morality is not somewhat connected to the intrinsic psychology of people. Durkheim criticism of methodological individualism by arguing that social currents have the capacity of establishing the various psychological states of people in a given group, something that can result to the failure of recognizing one’s identity as his own. Basing on this approach, it is arguably evident that Durkheim has clearly argued that everything exists in social realm and is not determined by the internal psychological states and that the social realm supersedes the internal psychological states. Durkheim uses education and social institutionalization of things to widen his criticism on methodological individualism on account that the constraints imposed by the social facts can no longer be felt due to the fact it plays a significant role in the internalization of the patterns of behavior imposed by the constraints, which over time makes the external constraint unnecessary. The inference that can be derived from this viewpoint is that social facts help in shaping individual psychological states, something which the methodological individualists do not agree with. This totalitarian approach perceives the society as comprising of a set of facts, which influence the creation and the establishment of the larger society. Durkheim was of the opinion that the human nature is egoistic and that collective consciousness helps in establishing the moral foundation of the society and the individual through social integration (Durkheim, 1893). Durkheim notes the significance of collective conscience in the society asserts that it is required for the survival of the society. The basic argument is the collective consciousness helps in the production of the society and that it is manifested in individual interactions and actions. With reference to this, the emotional element of collective conscience supersedes individual egoism; this is due to the fact that we are bound emotionally to culture and that individual act socially due to the fact that people perceive this as the moral way of individual behavior. Social interaction plays a major role in the formation of the society. Basing on this viewpoint, individuals in a group are bound to act in a way that results to the formation of the society. Such a viewpoint acknowledges the significance of culture as a major social fact. Individuals in a group can interact to establish their own culture after which they are likely to attach emotions to the developed culture. In fact, Durkheim was among the initial scholars to view culture comprehensively, especially the concept of cultural diversity and how its existence cannot destroy an already established society. Durkheim was of the opinion that cultural diversity is superseded by a larger cultural system and the law. The point of focus on this approach is that external constraints play an integral role in shaping the individual and communal morality. The views on religion as outlined in The Elementary Forms of Religion serve to denote the supremacy of social facts over intrinsic psychological states, he notes that religion is a collective social institution that denotes the power of the community in influencing communal and individual morality. Religion played a significant role in influencing collective conscience, which in turn influences the individual to act in a manner that is considered socially good. Durkheim notes that traditional religion is being weakened by the onset of division of labor due to the evolution from the mechanical to organic solidarity, which is serving as a replacement for collective conscience. Simpler societies are characterized by intense connection because of personal ties and customs; this is not the case for modern societies whereby connection between individuals in a society is solely due to reliance on others to perform specialized tasks that are required for their survival. In the context of mechanical solidarity, individuals in a society are self-sufficient and that there is little integration (Durkheim, 1912). This poses the need to make use of force and repression for keeping the larger society together. In the case of organic solidarity, individuals in a society are more integrated and mutually dependent. The transformation from the mechanical to organic solidarity is mainly influenced by moral density, specialization and increasing population growth and density. These play an integral role in shaping collective conscience. Basing on this viewpoint, the following section discusses the major forms of social solidarity and how moral life varies with solidarity in reference to The Division of Labour.

Major forms of social solidarity and how moral life “varies with this solidarity”
Durkheim identifies two main types of social solidarity that are solely influenced by the different sources. In The Division of Labour, Durkheim is of the opinion that the different types of social solidarity draw a parallel relationship with the kinds of society. They include mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. In the case of mechanical solidarity, which is derived from likeness and it is at its optimum when in a situation whereby collective conscience entirely takes over the whole conscience and agrees with the all the points associated with it. This usually takes place in a society that has no division of labor and characterized by homogeneity, whereby both men and women are constantly involved in performing the same tasks (Durkheim, 1895). In a social system that has mechanical solidarity, there are a small number of divergent institutions that are expressing same values and norms that serve to strengthen each other. This implies that cohesion and social integration in mechanical solidarity is derived from the homogeneity of the members of the society in the sense that people usually feel connected on the grounds that they are performing the same work; receive same education and religious training and the fact that they are living the same lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity functions in small and traditional societies. For instance, in simpler societies, solidarity is reinforced via kinship and family networks (Durkheim, 1893). This is mainly due to the fact that traditional societies were characterized by high degrees of social and moral integration and that individualization was to a lesser extent. Most of the moral behaviors were based on social norms that have been established by religions. This makes people in a traditional society operating on mechanical solidarity shared universal moral values, which are referred to as moral conscience. Mechanical solidarity results to the perception that individual are belonging to a group and individual awareness is influenced by communal conscience resulting to less sense of individual options.
The structural basis of mechanical solidarity is influenced by resemblance, which is a characteristic of the less advanced societies. The structure of mechanical solidarity is characterized by minimal interdependence implying that social bonds are considerably weak; relatively low population and low material and moral density. Another notable structural characteristic of mechanical solidarity is that it is segmental type, implying that such societies put more emphasis on clan relations and lesser emphasis on territorial relationships.
With regard to the type of norms, societies under mechanical solidarity are characterized by laws that focus more on repressive sanctions. This is due to the fact that individuals are self-sufficient posing the need to make use of force to ensure that there is social cohesion and integration. Another characteristic of the laws used in societies under mechanical solidarity is the increasing prevalence of penal law; this is mainly due to the fact mechanical solidarity focus on the administration of punishment for the violation of the social norms and values (Durkheim, 1893).
Some of the formal attributes if collective conscience in mechanical solidarity is that it has extreme levels of volume, intensity and determinates of collective conscience. This is because moral conscience forms the foundation of such societies because collective conscience is awarded supremacy. The content attributes of mechanical solidarity is characterized by high emphasis on religion and transcendental, implying that collective conscience supersedes the human interests and desires and cannot be subjected to discussion by the people. Collective conscience in mechanical solidarity is also characterized by being specific and concrete and that it attaches supreme value towards the interests of the entire society.
Durkheim identifies the other form of social solidarity as organic solidarity, which is established because of the concept of division of labor. The increase in complexity of a society results to individuals undertaking more specialized roles, which are entirely dissimilar basing on individual social experiences and diversity in material interests, social values and beliefs. This implies that people in such a social cultural set up have less common characteristics. However, there is no self-sufficiency because individuals have to depend on one another to ensure their survival. Individualism is a common characteristic of organic solidarity mainly because of division of labor. In addition, organic solidarity can impose a situation whereby the individualism supersedes the common values and the norms of the society, which that the sentiments that are observed by all members of the society. Loosening of the social values implies that organic solidarity results to a loss of the sense of the community or group identity. The outcome of this is that it results to the weakening of the social bonds resulting to a situation whereby collective conscience does not serve as a guide for individual morality and action. Despite the fact that diversity of the social norms and values increases the possibility of liberating the individual from the traditional customs and family hierarchies, religious institutions and the community also imposes significant problems regarding to the functioning of the entire society (Durkheim, 1893). Durkheim argues that if a person does not have any source of social constraints, such a person is likely to attain individual satisfaction with a thought on the potential impacts of one’s actions on other individuals. People under organic solidarity are more individual-centered. For instance, before embarking on an act, a person is more likely to consider whether the act satisfies his individual needs instead of evaluating the morality of their actions. In such a situation, there are diverse individual options, and the society is characterized by an emphasis on personal options for human behavior, which in turn results to inconsistency and weakening of the social norms.
The transition from mechanical solidarity towards organic solidarity is mainly facilitated an increase in population growth and density, increase in morality density because of the social interactions and integrations that are more complex and an increase in specialization due to the division of labor within the workplace. A notable characteristic of societies under organic solidarity is the significance of the concept of the individual, which supersedes collective. The individual is given a focus in terms of rights and responsibilities and the rituals that attempt to integrate the society, which was one of the prime functions of religion in the traditional societies under mechanical solidarity. Durkheim defines the focus of the self as the “cult of the individual”. Population density and growth are some of the significant factors that resulted to the development of the modern organic societies. An increase in the population results to an increase in the number of social interactions, which makes significant contributions towards increasing the complexity of the society. High levels of competition between individuals also accelerate division of labour. Organic solidarity results to an increase in the significance of the state, the law and the individual, while at the same time reducing the significance of religion and collective morality.
The morphological basis of organic solidarity is characterized by division of labor, which more prevalent in societies that are advance. The structure of organic societies is usually the organized type, which is notable by the union of markets and increasing urbanization due to growth of cities. Another structural attribute of organic societies is there are considerably high population, high material and moral density due to complex social interactions and integration.
With regard to the type and functions of laws in organic society, they are typically characterized by restitution and a dominance of cooperative law which is evident by examples of civil, constitutional and administrative law. There is low volume, intensity and determinates of formal attributes of collective conscience. This offers more opportunities for personal actions and individual reflections. The content of collective conscience is characterized by less religion and more secular lifestyle; human-oriented, implying that it lays emphasis on human interests and that they are open to discussion; and focuses on social justice. Other notable attributes include the generality and abstractness of the content relating to collective conscience.
In the Division of Labor, Durkheim infers a conclusion that an increase in specialization and division of labor imposes two significant impacts in the sense that it alters the nature of the social bonds that bring the society together and that it fosters individual while disregard the sense of collective to a somewhat dangerous extent. This is what differentiates traditional societies that function on mechanical solidarity, and modern and industrial societies that function on organic solidarity.
Conclusion
The paper has discussed the connection between Durkheim’s perspective on morality and his critique of methodological individualism. In addition, the paper has also discussed the major forms of social solidarity and how moral life varies with this solidarity. It has been established that the connection between Durkheim’s view on morality and his critique on methodological individualism bases on social structure, the concept of self-regulation, collective conscience and the relationship that exists between the society, collective conscience and the larger societal culture. The fundamental inference that can be derived from all the points of connection is that the collective supersedes the individual. . The basic argument is the collective consciousness helps in the production of the society and that it is manifested in individual interactions and actions. With reference to this, the emotional element of collective conscience supersedes individual egoism; this is due to the fact that we are bound emotionally to culture and that individual act socially due to the fact that people perceive this as the moral way of individual behavior. The paper also identified two major forms of social solidarity including mechanical and organic solidarity.

References
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1912). The Elementary forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Forensic odontology
August 5, 2017
Effective Budgeting Research Paper
August 5, 2017