Durkheim was concerned with the evolution of the society, in terms of its propensity towards an individualism which was nothing more than egoism. A retrieval of the potential within his legacy as Graham Crow notes is a core theme. Emile Durkheim defined Mechanical Solidarity is the social integration of members of a society who tend to have common values and beliefs. However, these values and beliefs, constitute of a collective conscience which works internally inside an individual member to cause them to cooperate, in Durkheim’s view the forces causing members of society to cooperate very much were like internal energies which caused the molecules to cohere in a solid which he drew up upon the terminology of physical science in coining the term mechanical solidarity. However, in contrast to mechanical solidarity, the organic solidarity is the social integration which comes from the need of the individual for one another’s services. Meaning in a society characterised by organic solidarity there is a relatively great division of labour, with the individuals functioning much like the interdependent but differentiated organs of the body.
Therefore, society relies less on imposing uniform rules on every individual and more on regulating the relations between the different groups and persons through the greater use of contracts of laws. Mechanical solidarity makes individuals think and act alike. Durkheim also argues that crime plays a very important part in building mechanical solidarity. This is all because in responding to crime society reinforces moral boundaries. Another mechanical solidarity is religion, the operation of religion in maintaining the collectives beliefs of a society was analysed by Durkheim in the Elementary forms of religious life in 1912. Meanwhile, organic solidarity is derived from the division of labour in the society, simply because it requires people to think and act differently in a way that binds them to together more. In other words society tends to create the individual.
According to Durkheim solidarity changes since as, he adopts an evolutionary perspective of development. Durkheim agrees with Hebert Spencer that as societies evolve they grow more and more complex. In comparison to Durkheim, Hebert Spencer defines society as an entity because despite the fact that is formed of discrete units, certain concreteness in the aggregate of them is implied by the general persistence of the arrangements among individuals throughout the area they occupy. Therefore these are the traits that make up our society. Hebert goes on to mention that society is an organism and one of them is growth which is common to social aggregates and also the organic aggregates. Another aspect is differentiation in structure which is a character of social bodies as of living bodies which while they increase in size and also increase in structure. Another aspect is differentiation of function. This is a progressive differentiation of structures is accompanied by progressive differentiation of functions. The divisions which develop in animals do not assume their unlikeness to no purpose, along with diversities. Stanislav Andreski another social scientist stated that “Spencer’s key concept was evolution, by which he meant that the process in increasing differentiation (that is to say specialisation of functions) and integration.
Furthermore, Durkheim tend to agree with most theorists of his time, that family based societies are a type of society which precedes societies in which the functions of the family and state are separated. For instance, in Europe societies with states regulate their political affairs and territories. Families which were separated from politics and internal and external trade were developed before the Ancient Greeks came into existence. Therefore, Durkheim called such societies as organised. This is simply because there is something natural about the family as the basis of society whereas societies which are held together politically are more of products of an organisation. Durkheim goes on to mention that organised societies are still of mechanical solidarity but still strongly enforced by organic solidarity. Durkheim derives this great development of organic solidarity from the Division of labour.
Adam smith applied the term division of labour to the specialised tasks and occupations found in the industry of commerce back in 1776. Whilst Durkheim widened the definition of the term social division of labour in which all manner of activities become specialised. Emile Durkheim identified a conflict in modern society. Durkheim goes on to argue that solidarity in two interrelated forms which are mechanical and organic is the basis of the human society we live in. This doesn’t mean that deviance and competition are simply unnatural in the society. Durkheim also goes on to argue that “is neither necessary nor even possible for social life to be without conflicts. The role of solidarity is not to suppress competition but simply to moderate it”.
According to Durkheim, there are abnormal forms of the division of labour. These are the form which interferes with society’s healthy ways of resolving problems. Emile Durkheim goes on and speaks of these abnormalities where the division of labour doesn’t produce solidarity. For instance, abnormal cases in economic life, industrial crisis more frequent as labour is much divided, antagonism of labour and capital. The theory which make this effects natural in the division of labour. If in the cases functions do not concur then it’s simply because their relations are not regulated, division of labour is anomic. Therefore anomy develops from solidarity organs simply not being in sufficient contact or sufficiently prolonged. This contact is the normal state. It doesn’t confine the individual in a task without giving them a glimpse of anything outside it when the division of labour is normal.
In some cases, organic solidarity isn’t what it should be, this is not because mechanical solidarity has lost ground or nothing like that it’s simply because all the conditions for the existence of organic solidarity haven’t been recognised. For organic solidarity to exist isn’t enough that there is a system of organs necessary to one another.
CONCLUSION
If division of labour doesn’t produce solidarity in these cases its only because the relations of the organs are not regulated just because they are in a state of anomy. If there is one rule of conduct which is indisputable it’s that which orders us to realise in ourselves the important traits of the collective type. Amongst the proletariat, this reaches its greatest obstinacy.
REFERENCES
Durkheim, E (1951) Suicide: a study in Sociology, Routledge
Hadden, R (1997
Giddens, A (1978) Durkheim, Fontana
http://www.emile-durkheim.com
by
vogue23 (student)
