moral guidance required could only be provided by men who came from a solid scientific
background,
What he considered imperative was to construct a scientific sociological system, not as an end in itself, but as a means for the moral direction of society
(Coser, 1977:145-148, quoted in Bolender, 1998-2000).
This whole sphere of the moral direction of society played an important role in Durkheim’s approach to the creation of his theories governing society. It may be claimed that his initial Jewish faith, followed by a fleeting brush with Catholicism provided him with his vocation; that of helping his fellow man understand how society shaped their very existence. Or, perhaps, his religious involvement provided him with more questions than he could answer. Whatever his reasons for choosing to study society, Durkheim certainly had a strong enough belief to follow his inner vocation which aimed to guide society out of its embryonic form and into the light of a new age. At this point, we should understand that the collective, nineteenth century, society was undergoing immense change. The internal affairs of France, his homeland and England, where the Industrial Revolution was beginning to take hold, highlighted an urgent need for radical changes in society.
As we have already stated, Emile Durkheim was at heart, a scientist. He believed that society its actions and interactions could be measured in exactly the same way and with the same logic as any other science of the time. Here it is probably worth recognising that science, at the time, was considered to be the study of observable phenomenon detailing comparison and examination. Durkheim believed that if society were observed for a long enough period, then, as with mathematics or physics for example, natural laws would be created. In other words he thought that if A were to happen, then so surely B must follow. This A plus B equals C set of logic was one of Durkheim's most persistent sociological ideas and one which he referred to as a social fact, thereby showing fellow academics that society could be studied side-by-side with any other science. He believed that
. . . social reality, the reality of society and social organisation, whether mechanical in simple societies, or organic in complex societies, is made up of and can be studied by use and recognition of these social facts
(Coser, 1977:129-132 quoted in Bolender, 1998-2000).
Durkheim's dedication to the cause of establishing sociology as a science led him to undertake the establishment of The Rules of Sociological Method, 1895. In this work, he devotes a large amount of time explaining the use of facts in science and how facts of a social nature are of integral importance to the sociologist in explaining how they influence individuals and societies. In The Rules, Durkheim makes important distinctions between the facts, as such, and social facts. He says:
“Every individual drinks, sleeps, eats or employs his reason, and society has
every interest in seeing that these functions are regularly exercised. If therefore these facts were social ones, sociology would possess no subject matter of its own, and its domain would be confused with that of biology and psychology"
(Durkheim, 1895 quoted in Bolender, 1998-2000).
And so, as Durkheim presented his theory that a social fact is an objective phenomenon that
exists beyond the individual,
“The first and fundamental rule [of sociology] is to consider social facts as things...a social fact is every way of acting which is capable of exercising an external constraint upon the individual"
(Durkheim, [The Rules of Sociological Method 1895] quoted in Bancroft and Rogers, 1998).
he went on to provide academia with examples of how these social facts could be studied in wider society thereby proving, at least to himself, that sociology was a science worthy of inclusion in the university curriculum. One particularly relevant example of a social fact available and accessible for study, as far as Durkheim was concerned, was that of religion as a social fact; an expression of social reality because:
"…the believer has discovered from birth, ready fashioned, the beliefs and practices of his religious life; if they existed before he did, it follows that they exist outside him"
(Durkheim, 1895 quoted in Bolender, 1998-2000).
Regarding religion, it is important to understand the strength of socialisation in forcing people to conform,
Social facts are methods of acting, thinking and feeling external to the person which also have coercive properties by which they control the individual. Durkheim asserts that a social fact cannot exist outside a well-defined social organisation, but if a fact does occur outside crystallised forms and at the same time expresses the same sort of coercion and objectivity to the individual, it is a
social current, an importantly distinct phenomena
(Durkheim, Bolender, 1998-2000).
Durkheim ends the chapter in The Rules… explaining social facts by presenting two concise definitions of them: They are:
[They are] "A way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting over the individual an external constraint"
[Or they are]
"…general over the whole of a given society whilst having an existence of its own, independent of its individual manifestations"
(Durkheim, quoted in Bolender, 1998-2000).
Another well-documented contribution, which highlights Durkheim’s scientific research methodology, may be seen through his study of suicide (Suicide: A Study in Sociology, 1897).
Here, he searched for verifiable relationships between a person’s connection with others within
their society and their exposure to the probability of suicide. The research of Durkheim
however, whilst not denying that particular circumstances could lead to a person taking their own life, did attempt to prove that personal reasons could not account for the suicide rate. As a starting point, Durkheim attempted to prove that there was no relationship between the incidences of insanity and the rate of suicides, a relationship which psychologists of the day more usually did associate with suicide. Once again, and to counter the psychologists’ argument of there was a relationship between insanity and suicide, religion and religious social interaction played a key role in the development of Durkheim’s rationale. He found that people of the Jewish religion had higher rates of insanity but lower rates of suicide than individuals from other religious groups. Utilising his scientific method of research, Durkheim proceeded to rely on statistics, death certificates and such like and established causal relationships between suicide and certain sets of social fact. He found that suicide rates were higher within the following groups:
- Predominantly Protestant countries, as opposed to Roman Catholic countries.
- Married people, as opposed to single people, were more prone to suicide.
- Married women who remained childless after a number of years ended up with high suicide rates.
(Haralambos and Holborn, 1995 Pg. 818)
In consideration of a) above, we could argue that, Durkheim neglected to acknowledge that Roman Catholics deem suicide to be an ‘act against God’ which, may account for the general low suicide rate within this sector. Durkheim’s analysis of the relationship between suicide and a range of social factors enabled him to distinguish four types of suicide:
Egoistic Suicide – insufficient integration of the individual into the society or social group. This, he maintained, accounted for the discrepancy between Protestant and Roman Catholic suicide rates as Catholics are more integrated through their traditions.
Anomic Suicide – insufficient regulation of the individual by society, whereby ‘… both
booms and slumps brought the uncertainty of anomie and so more
suicides’.
Altruistic Suicide – excessive integration of individual into the society or social group, such as instances of suicide through a sense of duty to others.
(Haralambos & Holborn, 1995 pg. 819).
His fourth type of suicide, Fatalistic Suicide, defined as,
excessive regulation of the individual by society – it was the suicide ‘of persons with futures pitilessly blocked and passions violently choked by oppressive discipline’
(Haralambos & Holborn, 1995 pg. 820).
was regarded by Durkheim to be of little importance. One could further argue however that
fatalistic suicide offers a causal relationship for the high suicide rate among slaves.
As seen through Durkheim’s study, his social fact theory relies on quantitative, statistical, data,
which must be objective and reliable. Considering this point, one element that Durkheim failed to verify was the specific reliability of the data regarding the ‘definition’ of suicide. At the time of his report, each coroner had an individual perception as to what was or was not death by suicide. In addition, suicide was unlawful in Britain in 1897, therefore an argument may be tabled that many people would rather have a death recorded as accidental; by whatever means necessary, therefore the reliability of the data used may be called into question. In simple terms, for Durkheim’s scientific, social fact, approach to work, the collection of data needs to be systematic and standardised thereby ensuring a certain level of fixed, constant findings no matter who collects it. Data collection should also be replicable so that other researchers may follow the methods used. Finally, the collection of data needs to remain under the control of the researcher. To ensure regularity and conformity to Durkheim’s quantitative data interpretation, primary data would be gathered through the introduction of standardised questionnaires or interviews. When employing Durkheim’s methodology, the researcher should possess enough social facts to enable generalisations to be made concerning the initial findings and laws or partial laws can then be established.
An example of how Durkheim’s social fact theory may be applied to a relatively recent phenomenon could be centred on a question; “Identify the factors, which contribute to the rise in one-parent families in twentieth century Britain.” The positivist (Durkheim) sociologist would gather statistical information concerning Marriage – Divorce – Adult Death – Births and Government Research Statistics covering the same or similar subject matter. This data would then be cross-referenced to produce a type of audit trail and would then be evaluated against comparable research. With hindsight, as previously highlighted through Durkheim’s problem of classifying suicide, care of reference to the term ‘one parent’ would also be taken when setting the criteria for this source. Some parents for example, may never have been married, or the child may be in a household other than the genetic parents, these categories will therefore not appear in the data and variant control must be made for this.
We have seen that Durkheim was a visionary, a man of great intellect, stamina and courage in the face of adversity; remember he was one of the forefathers in the field of sociology and his peers did not readily accept his theories of society being made up of social fact. One particular point which we could make concerning Durkheim is that his somewhat ‘tunnel vision’ his particular mindset, his complete belief and wish,
‘to demonstrate that sociology was as rigorous a science as the natural sciences
(Haralambos & Holborn, 1995)
may have introduced his own particular level of prejudice into his work. Perhaps, whilst Durkheim was attempting to have sociology recognised as a science, and therefore accepted into the university educational system, he was trying too hard to prove a more personal point. Maybe Durkheim did not realise it at the time, but his ongoing argument with his colleagues,
psychologists’ in particular, may imply a certain level of bias from the outset of his causal relationship study. He did however ensure that rules were laid down governing the study of sociology and these rules, like the rules of the other sciences, can be administered and laid down; for if A happens, then so surely B and C must follow.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bancroft, A. and Rogers, S. (1998) Social Theory On-Line * Introduction to Sociology * Emile Durkheim Accessed 16 December 2001
Bolender, R.K. (1998-2000) Emile Durkheim, 1858-1917
Accessed 18 December 2001.
Haralambos & Holborn (1995) Sociology Themes and Perspectives Fourth Edition London: Collins Educational.
Jones, R.A. (Updated August 3, 2000) The Durkheim Pages *The Rules of Sociological Method [Excerpt from Robert Alun Jones. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 60-81.] Accessed 16 December 2001.
