What was problematic with the shift to modernity? Durkheim argued that society had not reached organic solidarity and that society was in a transitional stage. The problem of this transitional stage was 'anomie'. Anomie is widespread because the development of organic solidarity lags behind the growth of the division of labour. Old forms of moral regulation have lost their authority, but new forms are not yet fully developed. Thus Durkheim believed that the specialised division of labour and the rapid expansion of industrial society contained threats to social solidarity. They tended to produce a situation of 'anomie', which, literally translated, means ‘normlessness’. Anomie means literally 'without norms' a condition of society or of personal relation to society, which there exists little consensus, a lack of certainty on goals, and a loss of effectiveness in the normative and moral framework, which regulates collective and individual life. Anomie is present when social controls are weak, when the moral obligations, which constrain individuals and regulate their behaviour, are not strong enough to function effectively. Durkheim saw a number of indications of anomie in late-nineteenth-century industrial society, in particular high rates of suicide, marital break-up and industrial conflict. Such behaviour indicates a breakdown of normative control.
The notion of anomie can be understood only against the background of the 'normal' or 'natural' conditions from which it is held to be a pathological deviation. A pathological deviation occurs if something doesn't fulfil a vital function, which is needed for society. In Durkheim's writings the concept of anomie appears prominently in the 'Division of Labour' and 'Suicide'. In the former, anomie emerges through society's transition from mechanical to organic solidarity. Normally increasing division of labour brings about social integration by organic solidarity, but where economic change is too fast for the growth of moral regulation to keep pace with increasing differentiation and specialisation then an abnormal or anomic pathological division of labour occurs.
But why is this pathological division of labour problematic for Durkheim? The view of human nature held by Durkheim stands in the tradition of Thomas Hobbes, namely that there is no 'natural' or in-built limit to the desires, ambitious or needs of individuals. Durkheim argues that people can be happy only when their wants are proportionate to their means. Left to themselves, human desires are boundless and this fact of human nature, together with necessarily limited resources, creates great unhappiness. As social restraints are weakened, humans no longer have limits upon their desires and aspirations. Whereas social order and morality previously limited their goals, the goals now become infinite in scope. As Durkheim warns “To pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness.” (Durkheim, 1970, pp.128)
Durkheim defined two different forms of anomie – acute and chronic. Chronic anomie is that which is produced by a gradual weakening of social control in contrast to acute anomy which is caused by sudden changes either in the situation of a given individual, e.g. divorce, or in social institutions, e.g. economic booms and busts.
The argument is thus further developed in his discussion of suicide where anomie is one of the four causes of suicide identified in Durkheim's classic study. Durkheim saw suicide as one of the most private acts an individual could perform, and were it therefore possible to explain that action in terms of society, his holistic approach to sociological analysis would stand. Unlike most others before him who believed that influences such as inherited mental disorder are of paramount importance in causing suicide, Durkheim chose to look instead at suicide purely as a social fact, rather that the act of an individual. Anomic suicide has to do with individuals who are unable to integrate into a social group, perhaps because there is a general breakdown in social norms and guidelines to behaviour. Anomic suicide occurs increasingly in organic societies, notably at times of economic depression or boom, when there is a lessening of economic (and possibly normative) regulation. The causal factor is identified therefore not as the material circumstances themselves, but due to the social instability they create, in the words of Durkheim “Every break in equilibrium ... gives boost to voluntary death.” (Durkheim, 1970, pp.271) In such periods, people are less closely locked into the order of society, so their basic desires may become limitless and confused. At this point, anomie becomes almost a psychological state of disorder and meaninglessness, rather than the structural characteristic of society and social order that Durkheim originally intended.
Durkheim believes that anomie is the main source of the malaise of modern society, because of the manner in which societies cope with this problem of unattainable goals is to restrict human desires and goals by imposing a framework of norms, which 'permits' only certain goals that have some chance of attainment. Durkheim himself described anomie as “an ‘evil’ that causes humans to suffer needlessly” (Cited in Mestrovic 1991, pp. 189)
However, in creating this 'uniquely sociological' form of analysis, Durkheim has been criticised by writers such as Lukes (1973), who believe that in examining suicide, it should be seen that there is an inter-linking relationship between societal and individual factors. Other writers suggest that Durkheim is also incorrect in his attempts to use information on groups of people to make assumptions about the rest of the society. Further, it has been argued that Durkheim failed to realise that anomie can itself be seen as a norm, rather than a state of ‘normlessness’. His model of norms was that of external and constraining rules curbing the individuals limitless desires. He did not picture these desires as themselves resulting from social or cultural influences, or envisage that there could be internally accepted norms, to which men willingly conform, with results that are socially anarchic and psychologically harmful.
Durkheim has been criticised more generally in that he seems to justify the status quo e.g. in the distinction between what is normal and pathological. But this distinction can often be used to legitimate what is the case. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear how his framework leads to the conclusions he infers. Many have argued that Durkheim is using his framework to justify his own political views.
As reformulated by Merton (1968), anomie becomes a concept used in the analysis of deviance. In his classic essay on 'Social Structure and Anomie' he stressed that in most Western societies (he particularly focused on American society), it is generally taken for granted that everyone must succeed in material wealth. Hard work and determination should be the means by which this success is achieved. However, some individuals do not have access to or opportunities for this progress and there is no consensus on the means by which this is obtained, and so there exists extreme pressure to succeed no matter what. The conflict between means and success leads to deviant behaviour and criminal activities and so these are seen as inherent in prosperity and happiness.
In other words anomie occurs as the disjunction of means and goals. The true conformist will be the person who has access to both the legitimate means and the proven goals. However, in a celebrated typology of modes of individual adaptations to anomie, Merton (1968) also discusses innovation (keeping goals, but rejecting legitimate means, as in theft): retreatism (rejecting or withdrawing from goals and means, as in drug use): ritualism (keeping to legitimate means becomes a goal in itself, as in the case of slavish bureaucrat): and finally, rebellion (rejecting both means and goals, and substituting new ones as in political radicalism).
So how could anomie be minimised? As I stated earliar “the manner in which societies cope with this problem of unattainable goals is to restrict human desires and goals by imposing a framework of norms, which 'permits' only certain goals that have some chance of attainment.” So the only way to minimise anomie is to make significant changes to these ‘goals’.
Merton (1968) concluded;
“ … it is plain that differential pressures for deviant behaviour will continue to be exerted upon certain groups and strata only as long as the structure of opportunity and the cultural goals remain substantially unchanged.” (Merton, 1968, pp.246)
So it is possible to assume that if significant changes are made to societies ‘goals’ then we should expect to see corresponding changes in the people which are most effected by these goals and the pressures that come with them.
In conclusion, the idea of 'anomie' is still very much relevant today and is especially evident in modern society, where we are further separated and divided by computer technology, the Internet, increasing bureaucracy, and specialisation in the workplace. Perhaps more than ever before, members of Western society are exposed to the risk of anomie. However, much of Durkheim's ideas of anomie have been criticised and even Merton's theory has been criticised for assuming too much conformity and consensus along with an overly integrated view of society, and an over socialised view of people.
Bibliography
Durkheim, E (1970) Suicide London: Routledge
Giddens, A (1978) Durkheim London: Fontana
Lukes, S (1973) Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work: A historical and critical study London: Allen Lane
Merton, R.K (1968) Social theory and Social Structure
New York : Free Press ; London : Collier-Macmillan
Mestrovic, S.G (1991) The Coming Fin De Siecle
London: Routledge
Morrison, K (1995) Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought London: Sage
Pope, W (1998) ‘Emile Durkheim’ in Stones, R (ed) Key Sociological Thinkers Hampshire: Macmillan Press
Putnam, R (1995) Bowling Alone: America’s declining social capital
Journal of Democracy; v.6, no.1, January 1995, pp 65-78
Reiner, R (1984) ‘Crime, law and deviance: the Durkheim legacy’, in Fenton, S (ed) Durkheim and modern sociology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press