Durkheim

= = Book/Class Notes The Organismic Analogy is a method through which society is viewed rather literally as an organism. In all of its formative structures and elements, Durkheim sees society as being a whole organism. (74,75) The more complex the organism of society is, the further its advancement. (75,76) Durkheim finds that this complexity is achieved through structural differentiation and specialization. Structural differentiation is the process through which a larger society is sectioned of into smaller networks or, organs. A smaller network will then grow to be specialized as it increases in its self-sufficiency. (75) Through structural differentiation, the larger organism of society is broken up into smaller self-sufficient social structures.
 * Organismic Analogy and its Relation to Social Structures: **

Durkheim sees society as existing empirically and being of a factual existence. With this Durkheim finds that society as a whole envelopes a structure that controls the individual. A structure is conceived to be outside of the individual existence. An example here would be the social norms that shape our daily lives; they exist as small institutions that, to a degree, order the process of our social life. With this notion, society can be seen as a network of these social facts that exist outside of the individual. It is at this point where a connection is made. The meaning of the term Sui Generis is “of its own kind” or “of its own nature”. Durkheim used this term to explain how society really does exist of its own kind. Society, being ordered by the factual existence of social norms, needs no individual to exist and therefore exists sui generis. Durkheim sees the concept of religion as being the most important social institution. He feels strongly that all of what we hold to be social finds its origin in religion. To clarify, he does not state that all social elements posses religious content. What he alludes to is that through religion we gain a sense of community or as stated earlier, a sense of the societal organism. From religion society learned its first understandings of categorization. The concept of structural differentiation and specialization originated from the early religious categorization of understanding that religions provided. An example of this categorization, (which Durkheim did not give any weight to) is the categorization and perception of fashion. He found that fashion seemed only affective at making distinctions between the poor the wealthy. Durkheim found strong interest in the categorization of different methods of understanding. These methods were those of a more scientific origin. Durkheim found this level of understanding to be objective and empirical. Through social morphology these empirical categories bring us to a set and formative social structure and therefore bring us to societies existence Sui Generis. Therefore, through the concept of society existing sui generis, religion then becomes the basis of our entire social organism. The collective consciousness is the totality of ideas, representations, beliefs, and feelings that are common to the average members in society. This collection that makes up the whole, allows for an overall sharing of knowledge, and in turn contributes to the development of specialization. It is really through the collective consciousness that the organism of society becomes aware of itself and furthermore how individuals find themselves inside of the organism. Durkheim sees it as having //two main parts, the cognitive and the emotional//. The cognitive being the things that order our daily mental framework. (Time, space, etc...) The emotional is far more important though. Durkheim sees the social as being the social super force that motivates us and binds us together. //Social Solidarity// looks at the strength of a social unit based upon how integrated it is. Durkheim highlighted three main hinge points to solidarity: the individuals’ presence in the whole, the restrictions of a given individuals personal desires for the sake of the collective, and the equilibrium between the two. //Mechanical Solidarity// occurs in society when similarity is present in a society and individuals are mechanically and automatically bound to each other. The change comes when difference becomes more dominant and similarity becomes channeled, or commanded. o Individuals are directly related to the collective consciousness o Common beliefs and sentiments o Collective stronger than the individual o Bond to family and tradition o Ritual upholding as values viewed as moral through a system of law //Organic Solidarity// is part of those social units held together by mutual need and abstract sentiments. o Individuals related to the collective whole through intermediaries o Joined by utilitarian relationships o Individual is the focus and each in the unit has power to act o Unlimited social horizon o Weak attachment to family and tradition o Upholding of the moral is restorative and done for maintenance of the status quo. One of Durkheim’s biggest concerns if changes to modernity occur to quickly there would be an imbalance in pathologies. Through the divisions of labor the collective conscious is threatened and therefore society could very well fall apart. Essentially there is a way in which modernity can function along with social integration. So when one looks at the elements of organic solidarity and how its main focus is the uniting of the individual through intermediaries. It is easier to see how organic solidarity can aid the correction of the divisions caused by the rushed change of modernity. The main point is that organic solidarity works towards the better whole of the collective consciousness; the collective in the sense of the full unity of the individual to the social unit. As modernity makes its advancements, organic solidarity acts as the counter weight allowing for a sort of equilibrium. The cult of the individual puts a strong emphasis on the idea that those historically distanced from society are a means of justice. The individual involvement in aiding the distant from the collective allows, in itself, for a sense of culture. Through culture, which bonds people, the cult of the individual can become a means for organic solidarity.
 * Social Facts and Societies Existence Sui Generis **
 * Societies Basis in Religion**
 * Collective Consciousness and Social, Mechanical, and Organic Solidarities**
 * The Problem of Modernity and How Organic Solidarity Leads to Social Solidarity**
 * The Cult of the Individual and its Ability to Help Organic Solidarity:**

Durkheim thought that for a society to survive, it needs to be complex. The more a society evolves, the more it becomes structurally differentiated and specialized. Structural differentiation is defined as a theoretical concept from functionalism that captures the process through which the behaviors associated with social networks of roles, norms, and status positions are acted out in different places and different times. In societies with high levels of structural differentiation, the requisite functions are carried out in distinct and separate institutions; Specialization is defined as having structures in society that become more and more advanced. This higher level of complexity that societies are performing with is increasing their chances of survival. For Durkheim the reason we are socially integrated is because of the things we do, and what we know. The problem with this specialization is keeping people integrated when they are so specialized from each other as well as Durkheim’s view that people are intrinsically selfish and self motivating. Durkheim and Religion Durkheim sees religion as fundamental to society and knowledge, and see's religion as the most fundamental social institution. Durkheim argues that religion is the source of everything social, and that social bonds were first created through religion. When talking about religion, Durkheim makes no mention of God because for him God and society is the same thing. They are the same for him as they are both socially constructed. There are three types of religion according to Durkheim: The Sacred, Beliefs and Practices, and Community of People. Durkheim describes sacred things as forming bonds between people that are not related by blood, and acts as an emblem to represent the religion. He describes practices and beliefs as something that once you experience it you want to ritualize it so you can do it again and again, and in becoming ritualized a community forms around you creating community and moral bonds, this is the community of people. Durkheim makes the point that sacredness is not a function of the object, but that it is rather something that is placed upon the object. Durkheim finds that religion was not something given to us from a divine creator, but rather something that was and is socially constructed. Mechanical Solidarity is the thinking of society as a machine with moving and related parts that work together, are similar, physical, and relatively simple. Individuals are directly related to the collective consciousness. They are joined by common beliefs and sentiments; their collective ideas and behavioral tendencies are stronger than individual. They have a limited social horizon, because they have strong attachments to family and tradition. Also they use repressive law which states that crime and deviance disturbs moral sentiments; punishment meted out by group; purpose is to ritually uphold moral values through righteous indignation. In Organic Solidarity the parts are usually different from one another, fulfill different distinctions, and are related through a variety of diverse sub systems. As this process happens we become socially distinct from one another, a process known as Social Differentiation.
 * Durkheim’s Perspective on the reality of our Society and Collective Consciousness:**
 * Social Diversity and Morality:**

The two main issues for the individual in modern society is: the levels of group attachment and behavioral regulations. To explain this Durkheim uses the example of suicide. With Egotistic suicide Durkheim argues that a low group attachment leads to extreme individualism and the loss of a sense of reality and purpose which results in suicide. However, a extremely high group attachment leads to a complete fusion with the group and loss of any individual identity. In anomic suicide, in which rapid population growth and diversity have occurred, anomie may result if the culture is unable to keep pace with the social changes. The final type of suicide is fatalistic suicide, which stems from the overregulation of behaviors. This leads to the loss of individual effectiveness. Both egoistic and anomic suicide can be seen as a function of high levels of individualism.
 * Individualism in Modern Society:**

= Essay Review: =

The Division of Labor in Society

In the division of labor in society Durkheim discusses several things he goes over the problem within the divisions of labor, the function of the division of labor, mechanical solidarity or solidarity by similarities, solidarity arising from the division of labor or organic solidarity, the causes of the division of labor, and the anomic division of labour.

In the first section Durkheim talks about the division of labor, how it has always been around and how nowadays it has become so widespread that it is noticed by everyone. He discusses how this division of labour is not distinct to economic life, but can also be viewed in other sections of society.

In the second section discussing the function of the division of labor, Durkheim talks about how we must determine the extent to which this solidarity has contributed to the integration of society, however this is difficult since it is not something that can be measured. He suggests that the symbol fore discovering it is in the law, and that it does not remain in a state of purely potential, but makes frequent contact with other things.He also states that this is something that cannot be determined by law but can merely be regulated through customs, but this only occurs in exceptional circumstances. We can go further though and assert that social solidarity does not exist just in its visible forms but that it exists beyond law and customs. Whatever imparts to its specific charecteristics is the nature of the group whose conjuncture it ensures, this is the reason for variance according to the different types of society. The end of solidarity lies within sociology, because it is a social fact that can only be known through its social repercutions. Even with this said solidarity is something to indefinite to be easily comprehended, and remains very elusive to observe. Therefore since laws produce the main forms of social solidarity we only need to identify its different types in order to investigate it and discover its type. In the third section Durkheim discusses mechanical solidarity. He states that The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average members of society can be termed in the collective or common conscious, while this conscious does not consist of a single organ. These proposition taken literally are scarcely taken disputed, and is taken as if it expressed not the essential characteristics of a crime but more of its consequences. And in looking at solidarity through these ideas we can see the penal law symbols, and we can know that a social cohesion exists whose causse can be traced to a certain conformity of each individual consciousness. This solidarity that is expressed by reppressive law, which goes along with mechanical solidarity, and these acts which is forbiden and stigmatised is cut into two kinds: either they manifest directly to a violent dissimilarity, or they offend the organ of the common consciousness. Although punishment for crimes proceeds from a mechanical reaction it continues to play a useful role.

In the fourth section Durkheim discusses Solidarity Arising from the division of Labour, or Organic Solidarity. He states that the very nature of restitution is sufficient to show that the social solidarity to whoch the law corresponds is completely different. However a failure to observe certain rules is never permitted by any form of punishment. If the plaintiff loses his case he is not disgraced and neither is his honor.The characteristics of this form of restitutive law are evident in the way it functions, whereas reppressive laws tend to stay diffused throughout society. However it has maintained that the role of restitutive law is in no way a social one, but comes down to private interests. Social action is a necessary part of this interaction, it helps lay the foundation for it and helps to regulate the legal relationships. Since the rules in this relationship were restutitory it did not involve the common consciousness and they determine which relationship affect people discriminatory.

In the Next section Durkheim discusses the causes for the division of labor in society. He first discusses the variations of the social environment that we we must discover the cause that explains the progress of the divisions of labour. He discusses the organized structure and how it develops regularly as the segmentary structure vanishes. He discusses how the dissapearance of this can only bring about the division of labor because there occurs a drawing together of individuals who were seperated from one another and they are able to become closer than they had been. However he claims that this act bringing together of people morally cannot only work if the physical distance between people is also diminished. He states that there are three ways for a progressive increase in density of societies: 1. Whilst lower societies spread themselves over areas that are relatively vast in comparison with the number of individuals that constitute them, amongst more advanced people the population is continually becoming more concentrated. 2. The formation and development of towns are a further symptom, even more characteristic, of the same phenomenom. The increase in average density can be due solely to the ohysical increase in the birth rate and can consequently be reconciled with a very weak concentration of people, and the very marked maintenance of the segmentary type of society. 3. There is the number and speed of the means of communication and transmission. By abolishing or lessening the vacuums seperating social segments, these means increase the density of society. Moreover there is no need to demonstrate that they are the more numerous and perfect the higher type of society.

In the last section Durkheim discusses the Anomic division of labour. He states that although Comte recognised the division of labout as a source of solidarity, he did not appear to have percieved this solidarity is gadually substituted for other social similarities. Normally the rules for the division of labour emerge automatically. However in all cases this regulatory process either does not exist or is related to the degree of development of the division of labour. He says that methodologically rules are to science as rules of law and morality are to conduct, and they direct the thinking of the scientist just as the latter governs the actions of men. He says that since a body of rules is the definite form taken over time by relationships established spontaneously, we may sa that a state of anomie is impossible whenever organs solidly linked to one another are in sufficient contact. He thinks that very often the condition of contiguity is realised by the nature of things, and a function cannot distribute itself between two or more parts of an organism. Lastly he states that as the marker become more extensive, the effect of its transform the relationship between employers and workers. Eventually machine work replaces that of man, and this will allow the worker to spend his entire day woith his family, he will become even more distant from his employer and these new conditions will require a new kind of organization for the worker.

By Joe Briggs = Émile Durkheim__ =

Jack White
Durkheim was a structural functionalist, focusing on society as a whole body interrelated and working together. Understanding Durkheim's view is founded on the basic components of cultural integration and social solidarity. Combining these two aspects, Durkheim questions how modern societies are formed and how norms are a product of the collective whole. At the foundation of his view, Durkheim sees humanity as intrinsically selfish. With this individualistic approach, it is key to question how societies were built. Durkheim's answer to that question presents the core principle of his sociological theory, which is the idea of a collective consciousness.

By comparing society to the common theory of evolution, Durkheim begins with describing society as an interrelated organism that has specialized and differentiated parts that all works together in one system. Modern societies encounter the struggle of development and therefore become more complex through specialization, leading to structural differentiation, which causes the potential problem of social integration. With such an array of connections, how can any society truly be working together and be united in any way? With these distinct "parts" of society, there is a natural social diversity in which only integration can be the key to a society's success.

Durkheim saw humans as innately self-centered. According to him, the most rational thing for humanity to do is reap as many benefits as possible from a society while avoiding contributing. It is important to understand that Durkheim states individuals as self-serving, but he emphasizes that the individual has a tie to their culture in which humanity has to, "...have an emotional sense of something greater...We act socially because it is moral to do so..." (Allan, 77). Durkheim also introduces "fashionable," an idea that the changing culture creates fads in which the upper class distinguishes itself from the lower class, a non-objective portion of society. This leads into Durkheim's basic principle that society depends on a collective effervescence to build objectivity, which leads to a collective consciousness.

The collective effervescence is most importantly based on an emotional sentiment that builds social facts and a social reality. This is the emphasis that the idea is greater than the individual, which causes an objective influence in which idea becomes fact. Social facts act as the foundation to describing cultural norms and values. With the idea of social facts, Durkheim then goes on to empirically describe religion as the source of all knowledge because it is the source of social interaction. God is then equated to society in the sense that religion is created by the people within a society. Religion acts as the first step to bringing together a group of individuals under a united system in which there is something bigger than oneself. This begins the collective effervescence by focusing many individuals towards a common ground, initiating an elevated emotional energy. Therefore, society/community generates religion through ritualizing the emotional energy in which things become symbolic and moral bonds are created. Sacred objects are defined and moral obligations are laid out through religion, which generates a common focus and lays down a framework for norms. Through the emotional energy of collective effervescence a socially-based religion is created, causing a collective consciousness which fosters social integration and unity.

The division of labor is presented through increased population, then interaction and communication/transportation, which leads to competition through supply and demand, ultimately creating an even more complex society in status and interaction. Social solidarity is then born through the integration of a diverse society. Durkheim addresses the degree and condition in which solidarity occurs. He divides solidarity into two groups in which individuals relate themselves to the whole. "Mechanical Solidarity" is based on the idea that that individuals are parts of a machine and although the degree of solidarity is extremely high (strong attachment to family/tradition), actions are based on the whole of the machine (society), causing a moral-based system with repressive law based on punishment. Organic Solidarity" suggests an even more complex system in which there are subsystem intermediaries promoting the collective consciousness and a low degree of solidarity (weak attachment to family/tradition) and actions are through mutual need responding to change, which is a utilitarian-based moral system with restitutive laws involving restorative actions, causing organic solidarity to be more problematic. Mechanical solidarity gives a limited social horizon while organic has an unlimited social horizon. (Allan, 86-88).

According to Durkheim, modernity in general is the cause of social differentiation causing less participation in the collective consciousness. The less integrated a society is through particularized cultures (sub-cultures), the more problematic it becomes in coordination. Such problems present social pathology in organic solidarity. With an unlimited social horizon and such a diverse society, a lack of unity within the culture can cause two pathologies. One is anomie, "...social instability and personal unrest resulting from insufficient normative regulation of individual activities" (Allan, 94). The other pathology is the forced division of labor from elite status individuals taking advantage of others. Durkheim suggests that the best solution to these social problems of inequality is "justice" in the sense of getting rid of ascription (status at birth) and inheritance.

Finally, Durkheim recognizing the powerful force of the individual. Ideal individualism focused on freedom of choice, expression, and freedom from the overall group. Especially in organic solidarity societies, this caused the problem of a lack of identity. Then again there are extreme societies that have too much group attachment. In each of these cases, suicide is addressed as an insight to the culture's behaviors. Altruistic suicide is due to high attachment to the group (loss of individual identity promoting death for the whole), while egoistic suicide is due to low attachment to the group in which the individual loses one self and lacks any hope or purpose. Behavior regulation also causes a major affect on suicide. High regulation leads to fatalistic suicide in which there is too much regulation and the individual feels hopeless and then there is anomic suicide which happens due to a lack of regulation and therefore a sense of meaninglessness. A new idea of individualism called the "cult of the individual" reinstates a moral idea within the idea of individuality. Overall, Durkheim acknowledged that with the increase of modern societies, many problems arise that challenge the underlying foundation of a collective consciousness.

.