Notesmilenge.files.wordpress.com



EMILE DURKHEIM

THE MAN: Durkheim was the most prominent and eminent sociologist of France in 19th century. He considered Auguste Comte as his master and adopted Comtean positivism and further developed this idea in establishing sociology as an empirical discipline. He held that sociology should also follow the scientific methods to be considered as a science.

He was born in a Jewish family in eastern French province of Lorraine on 15th April, 1858. He studied Hebrew language and Old Testament during childhood yet he remained an agnostic throughout his life. He was a bright student but was not happy with the conventional subjects taught at school and college levels. However, he graduated from famous Ecole Normale in Paris. Later between 1882 to 1887 he taught Philosophy in Paris. Later he went to Germany where he was introduced to scientific Psychology. Later Durkheim returned to the department of Philosophy at University of Bordeaux in 1887 and published a series of articles on the learning experiences of Germany. He earned a prominent place in the department. Later he was made Head of a newly created department of Social Sciences.

In later years Durkheim had a series of personal successes. In 1893 he published he doctoral thesis “The Division of Labour in Society”. Later he published “The Rules of Sociological Methods” in 1885, “Suicide” in 1897, “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” in 1912. In 1902 he was invited to the famous French university the Sorbonne. In 1906 he was made professor of the Science of Education and later his title was changed to professor of the Science of Education and Sociology.

Durkheim was revered as liberal political thinker as well and he worked in the area of moral education and worked in the areas of discovering those moral principles which would guide French education. He was influenced by Saint Simon, Auguste Compte etc. and their collectivist ideas and therefore he reacted sharply against the individualistic ideas of Herbert Spencer and English Utilitarians.

He was rather unhappy during his last years. The moral degeneration of French society disappointed him greatly. At last he died in the year 1917. He greatly influenced sociology. He started a journal named “Anne Sociologique” in 1896 which still continues and is one of the best journal of sociology.

Durkhiem contributed in the areas of Sociology Education, Sociology of Law, Sociology of Religion, Functionalism etc.

DURKHEIMIAN THEORY OF SOCIAL FACTS

Introduction: Emile Durkheim is the first French Academic sociologist. His conception of sociology is based on a theory of social fact. He held that there is a science called sociology which is an objective science like other sciences and whose subject matter is social fact.

In his theory the ultimate reality is the group and not the individual. Social phenomena are social fact. He defined social fact as “every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on individual an external constraint”. Because these facts are external to the individual, they outlive individuals and endure overtime. They include such things as customs, law and accepted modes of general behavior. He further says that individuals are more a product of society than a creator of it. Moreover, individuals can come to know and be a part of society, society is itself external to the individual. For this reason Durkheim concentrated on examining the characteristics of groups and structures rather than individual traits or attributes.

For example, instead of looking at the personal traits of religious believers, he focused on the cohesion or lack of cohesion of specific religious groups. He was not concerned with the religious experiences of individuals but with the communal activity and communal bonds that develop from religious participation. Such communal interaction gives rise to what he calls “collective conscience”.

In this way social facts consists of ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to the individual and endowed with a power of coercion by means of which they control him, i.e. individual. Social facts have two distinctive characteristics noted as under:

1. Social facts must be regarded as “things”: According to Durkheim, social facts must be treated as “things” and must be seen as “empirical facts” and we must discover them as we discover physical facts. It is because we have the illusion that we know social realities, it is imperative to realize that they are not immediately know to us. It is in this sense Durkheim holds that social fact must be regarded as things because things are all that is given for our observation. However, he warns that we must give away our preconceptions and prejudices which make us incapable when we try to know social facts scientifically.

Further Durkheim says that social facts are not to be reduced to individual facts. Durkheim says that social facts are inexplicable in terms of and irreducible to either psychological or physiological analysis. While distinguishing between psychological and social facts, Durkheim says that the former are elaborated in the individual consciousness and then tend to externalize themselves, the latter are in the beginning external to the individual, whom they tend to fashion in their image from without.

2. Social facts are external to the individual and exercise constraints on individual: Durkheim stated that society is a reality “sui generis” above and apart from the individual. Social facts have a constraining effect on individuals and they so condition human beings that social fact makes them behave in a particular manner. Durkheim says that social facts include such things as moral laws, legal rules, penal system and crowd behavior etc. In a crowd situation individual feels constrained to behave in a particular manner. Similarly fashion is social in nature as generally people drap themselves as per current fashion statement at a given point of time because in general people do so. Its not an individual who causes fashion but the society as a whole expresses through such statements. The institution of education, law, beliefs also have the feature of being given to all from outside and must for all.

CRITICISM:

1. L.A. Coser held that Durkheimian theory of social facts completely ignores the importance of individuals and places too much premium on the society.

2. H.E. Barns criticizes the Durkheimian statement‘social facts as things’ saying that Durkheim has nowhere made it clear what he meant by the term ‘things’ in the context of social facts. It may mean differently to different persons.

3. Durkheim recommended comparative methods as the only appropriate method suitable to study social phenomena. Rather made the entire discipline of sociology comparative.

4. It is difficult to conceive Durkheimian analysis of society without individual.

THEORY OF DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY

Introduction: The Theory of Division of Labour refers to the relationship between individual and society. It’s a classic study of social solidarity. Durkheim maintained that the modern Industrial society is not simply based on agreement between individuals guided by self-interests and without any prior consensus. However, Durkheim held that the kind of consensus found in modern society was different from that in simpler society. He said that both of these are two types of solidarity.

This theory studies social consequences of division of labour in modern societies. He emphasized the importance of shared social norms and values in maintaining social cohesion and solidarity. He held that nature of social solidarity depends on extent of division of labour.

The concept of division of labour has been used in three different ways noted as under

a) Technical Division of Labour refers to production process.

b) Sexual Division of Labour refers to division of labour between males and females.

c) Social Division of Labour refers to differentiation in society and Durkheim used the concept in this sense.

In general the division of labour refers to assignment to each individual of the society a specific share of a common task.

TYPES OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY

Durkheim’s “Division of Labour in Society” refers to the relationship between the individual and society nature of which is studied as under:

a) How can a large number of individuals make up a society?

b) How can these individuals achieve ‘consensus’ which is basic condition of social existence?

In order to get answers of these questions Durkheim distinguished between two types of solidarity, namely, mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity found in traditional tribal societies and modern urban industrial societies respectively.

How Division of Labour and Solidarity related?

Solidarity refers to social cohesion or social integration manifest by a society or group. It is a condition within a group or society referring to cooperation and collective action towards achievement of group goals. However Durkheim maintains that bases of solidarity are different in simple and complex societies. He compared primitive and civilized societies in terms of solidarity and accordingly primitive society is based on mechanical solidarity based on collective consciousness and the advanced industrial society is based on organic solidarity based on division of labour.

MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

Mechanical solidarity refers to social solidarity based upon homogeneity of values and behavior, strong social constraints and loyalty to tradition and kinship. It applies to small, non-literate societies characterized by simple division of labor, very little specialization of functions, only a few social roles and a very small little tolerance of individuality. According to Durkheim mechanical solidarity is based on resemblance and similarity of individuals prevails in the society wherein individuals don’t differ much from one another. They belong to the same collectivity and resemble one another as they feel the same emotions, cherish the same values and hold the same things sacred. The society is coherent because the individuals are not yet differentiated and here we find strong “collective conscience”. Collective conscience refers to sum total of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of the society. This prevails mostly in primitive societies. The collective conscience totally overshadow individual mentality and morality and in such societies social constraint are expressed most decisively in repressive, severe criminal law which serves to maintain mechanical solidarity.

ORGANIC SOLIDARITY

According to Durkheim organic solidarity refers to “a type of solidarity typical of modern urban, industrial society, in which unit is based on the inter-dependence of a very large number of highly specialized roles in a system involving a complex division of labour that requires the cooperation of almost all the groups and individuals of the society. This type of solidarity is called organic solidarity because it is similar to the unit of a biological organism in which highly specialized parts of group must work in coordination if the organism is to survive”.

Organic solidarity is almost opposite of mechanical solidarity. He held that rising density of population leads to development of division of labour which gives birth to organic solidarity. Division of labour and resultant non-similarity among men create inter-dependence in society. Inter-dependence is reflected in individual mentality and morality. In organic solidarity consensus emerges from differentiation itself. Individuals are no longer similar but different and it is precisely individuals are different that consensus is achieved. With growing division of labour collective conscience loosens. Thus criminal law tends to be replaced by civil and administrative law and the importance is placed on restitution of rights rather than on punishment.

Increasing organic solidarity represents moral progress stressing on higher values of equality, fraternity, liberty and justice. Even social constraints are found in the forms of contracts based on mutual understanding of the parties involved in such contracts.

Division of Labour is not Disintegration

Durkheim distinguishes between division of labour and disintegration. Disintegration is illustrated by industrial failures, crises, conflicts and crimes. All these are pathological in nature and under such circumstances division of labour does not bring about solidarity and hence represens an “anomic division of labour”. As against his previous views that societies with organic solidarity needs fewer common beliefs to keep their member tied up, he changed his views and stressed that even in societies characterized by highest level of organic solidarity needed a common faith or “a common conscience collective” which would help the men to remain united and not to disintegrate into groups of mutually antagonistic and self-seeking individuals.

Division of Labour and Anomie

Durkheim held that extreme level of division of labour can do great harm to the society. He warned against the adverse consequences of unregulated division of labour. Anomie is such a consequence and Durkheim used this term “anomie” for the first time. The Greek term “anomie” literally means normlessness. Anomie results from clash in one’s own values and those of the society and one is not clear what to do, what is right and what is wrong and how to come upto the expectation of the society. Anomie is strictly the opposite to the social solidarity. Solidarity refers to collective ideological integration whereas anomie refers to confusion, insecurity and normelessness.

DURKHEIM AND THEORY OF SUICIDE

Introduction: Durkheim’s theory of suicide is a landmark study in which conceptual theory and empirical research are brought together. Suicide is a pathological phenomenon suggesting a state of anomie in the modern industrial society.

Durkheim defined suicide as “every case of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative death performed by the victim himself and which strives to produce this result”. Hence suicide is a conscious act and person committing suicide is fully aware of its consequences. For illustration, a person who consumes poison, or one who hangs himself or one shoots himself to death is fully aware of its consequences.

Durkheim used statistical data to establish his idea that suicide is a social fact and social circumstances cause suicide. He believed that suicide is not an individual act or a private and personal action. It is caused by factors beyond the control of the individual. It is not a personal situation but a manifestation of a social condition. Durkheim wanted to know why people commit suicide and rejected psychological explanations as inadequate. Experiment on suicide was simply out of question. Case studies do not provide reliable generalizations about all suicides. Survey method was totally inappropriate as dead people cannot be surveyed. But statistics on suicide were readily available and he decided to analyze them.

Durkheim rejected previously held theories of suicide such as heredity, climatic and geographical factors, waves of imitation and psychological factors as cause of suicide. Rather Durkheim held that social factors are the real causes of suicide. Suicide is a highly individual act yet the motives behind suicide lie in the social context in which it occurs. He found that the incidents of suicide varied from one social group to another or one social setting to another in some consistent manner over the years. For illustrations, Protestants, people living in larger cities, people living alone were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics, people living in smaller communities and people living in families respectively. Durkheim pointed out that behind all these instances of suicide an independent variable: the extent to which the individual was integrated into a social bonding with others. People with fragile ties with their community are more likely to commit suicide than people with stronger ties with their communities.

After rejecting extra-social factors as causes of suicide Durkheim proceeded to analyze the types of suicide and found three variants of it listed as under:

1. Egoistic Suicide: It results from the lack of the integration of the individual into his social group.

2. Altruistic Suicide: It results from the over-integration of the individual into his social group.

3. Anomic Suicide: It results from the state of normlessness or degeneration found in society.

While analyzing the types of suicide Durkheim concluded that suicide is an individual phenomenon whose causes are fundamentally social. He opined that incidence of suicide is found in every society and hence it is normal phenomenon. However, a sudden increase in suicide rates may be seen as a result of disintegrating forces at work in the social structure. He concluded that different types of suicide are results of differences in degree and types of social solidarity and accordingly suicide is an index to decay in social solidarity.

Criticism:

1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide and therefore he has neglected the role of other factors especially psychological ones. Hence its one sided view.

2. This theory is based on small sample.

3. Criminologists have pointed out economic, psychological and even religious factors leading to suicide which were totally overlooked by Durkheim.

THREE TYPES OF SUICIDES

Durkheim analyzed the data he gathered from different societies and cultures and identified three types of suicide. These types reveal different types of relationship between the individual and the society. These types are as under:

1. Egoistic Suicide: It reflects weak group integration. It is caused by extreme loneliness and excess individualism. Individuals detached from society and when social bonding loosens- they are more prone to commit egoistic suicide. According to Durkhiem egoistic suicides are committed by those individuals confine themselves within themselves. Such individuals feel hurt and ignored and they become introvert. Egoistic persons are aloof and cut off from the mainstream of society and don’t take interest in social matters and hence get alienated and find it difficult to cope with social alienation and feel compelled to commit suicide. Durkheim believed that lack of integration of individual into the social group is the main cause of egoistic suicide. He studied differing degrees of integration of individual into their religion, family, political and national communities and found that Catholics were less prone to commit suicide than Protestants because Catholicism is able to integrate its members more fully into its fold as compared to Protestantism favours spirits of free inquiry, permits greater individual freedom, lacks hierarchical organization and with fewer common beliefs and practices. Catholic church is more powerfully integrated than Protestant church. Its due to this reason Protestants are more prone to commit suicide than Catholics. Hence, Durkheim generalized that lack of integration is th main cause of egoistic suicide.

2. Altruitic Suicide: It takes place when an individual ends his life heroically to promote a cause or ideal which is very dear to him. It results from over-integration of the individual into his group. To put simply altruistic suicide is taking off one’s life for the sake of a cause. It means even a high level of solidarity results in suicide. It is illustrated by in some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes place. Japanese sometime illustrate this type of suicide and they call it “Harakiri”. In this practice some Japanese take off their lives for the sake of larger social unity and believe that self-destruction would prevent the breakdown of social unity. The practice of ‘sati’ is another example of this kind. Self-immolation by Buddhist monks and self-destruction in ‘Nirvana’ by ancient Indian sages are other illustrations of altruistic suicide. In all such illustrations altruistic suicide is caused by men sacrificing their lives for a great cause, principle, ideal or value.

3. Anomic Suicide: This type of suicide occurs due to breakdown of social norms and sudden social changes characteristics of modern urban industrial societies. When collective conscience weakens, men fall victim of anomic suicide. Catastrophic social changes results into anomic suicide. At times when social relations get disturbed, both personal and social ethics are eroded. Values of life come down and outlook gets radically changed overnight. Dangerous developments take place in society. The change is sudden and adjustments become difficult and those who don’t get adjusted to sudden changes commit suicide. This social disruption results into suicide. Durkheim says that not only sudden economic disaster and industrial crises but also sudden economic prosperity can also cause disruption and deregulation and finally result into suicide.

_____________________

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download