Why did Durkheim think the transition to modern society caused social problems, and what were the solutions?

From the readings of Durkheim, it could be suggested that he recognised social and moral problems with the transitions in society towards modernity. Durkheim was concerned that modern societies would be unstable and disorderly. He recognised the “division of labour in society” as a contributing force in holding the modern society together. However Durkheim noted problems with the complex division of labour found in “organic solidarity” and wanted his sociology to form a securer foundation on which social order in a society with “organic solidarity” could be recognized.

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) recognised that societies may vary in their complexity and cultural variety, but also noted that evolutionary change from one form of social cohesion to another was occurring. Furthermore, he acknowledged the apparent collapse of traditional communities, and growth of individualism. Durkheim recognised that the transition to modern society would cause social problems but he did not concede that this modern society would fall apart. “The Division of labour in society” (1893/1984) is what Durkheim suggests holds modern society together. In modern society the division of labour is complex. Durkheim argues that instead of people’s shared beliefs fusing society together, as is the case in traditional societies, he sees that it is our economic dependence on each other that influences and establishes a social solidarity.

Jorgensen, (1997) states that Durkheim was concerned about how orderly modern societies were. In particular, he was concerned that the individualism of the modern world would make social order more difficult to maintain and that the solutions to this problem suggested by socialism would not work. Durkheim argued that a scientific study of society included the idea that people do not choose what they do. Instead, Durkheim refers to “social facts” e.g. the family; social class and religion, constraining what we do and existing even if people do not recognise their existence.

Durkheim’s sociology emphasises “social structure” and “function”. In “the division of labour” (1893/1947) Durkheim identified two types of social structure; “mechanical solidarity” found in pre-modern societies and “organic solidarity” found in modern societies.

Craib, (1997) focuses on Durkheim’s suggestion that those who generally accept one set of beliefs are held together by “mechanical solidarity”. In this society there is very little division of labour. Within “mechanical solidarity” there is the small form of specialisation in the jobs that people do, society is kept together through a combination of repressive laws, simple religious beliefs and powerful community rituals. The social structure is what makes people follow the rules and the importance of religion and the law is what maintains what Durkheim recognises as social solidarity.

With “organic solidarity”, Durkheim recognises distinct problems ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

With “organic solidarity”, Durkheim recognises distinct problems with it’s complex division of labour and people being specialised. In the modern world people are likely to be “anomic”, lacking in social or moral standards because there are no clear guidelines for what they should do. Therefore, Durkheim saw the modern world as a place unstable and disorderly and wanted his sociology to form a securer basis on which social order in a society with organic solidarity could be established

Kumar, K. (1995) suggests there is a sharp divide between the pre-modern and modern societies. Modernity is distinguished on economic, political, social and cultural grounds. Modern societies typically have industrial, capitalist economies and a social structure founded on a division into social classes.

Morrison, K, (1995) suggests that the “division of labour” was Durkheim’s first major theoretical work. Durkheim was interested in the nature of the links connecting the individual to society and the social bonds that connect individuals to each other. Durkheim wanted to examine the specific nature of these social bonds and see in what way they were related to the overall function of social cohesion in society. He also questioned if the system of social links would change, as society becomes more advanced and subject to changes in the division of labour. The progression from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, in which the division of labour is the primary character, alters the nature of the social links because individuals are no longer tied directly to society.

Societies with organic solidarity have a larger population spread over a broader geographic area. The division of labour, as mentioned earlier, is complex and specialised and individuals are linked to each other by contract rather than by obligation, unlike the state owning all means of production in mechanical solidarity.

According to Watts Miller (1996) Durkheim switched his concern from evolution to modernity. Durkheim’s main thesis states that the modern world “promises both increasing individual freedom and increasing social cohesion owing to the division of labour”. Durkheim recognised that the division of labour in a modern society would only produce solidarity if it were spontaneous. Durkheim’s idea was that in this society everyone could develop and flourish as a person. This would mean the absence of “everything that can shackle, even indirectly, the free unfolding of the social power that each carries within him”

Watts Miller notes that Durkheim refers to morality driven by sentiment rather than just by reason and that there cannot be a change towards more general “humanitarian ways of feeling” without a change towards more general “abstract ways of thinking”. Durkheim feels this cannot happen by itself and depends on all the social processes “diminishing the force of tradition”.

According to Hughes, J. A. et al, (1995), Durkheim was not just interested in promoting a scientific sociology, he also perceived its practical necessity. The development of a scientific understanding would give us the capacity for greater self-conscious control of our circumstances. A scientific understanding of the nature of society would, in the same way, enable us to have similarly self-conscious control of our social lives. Hughes, (1995) suggests that Durkheim was convinced there were matters deeply wrong with the organisation of his society. He recognised the possible threat that people may lack an adequate understanding of their relationship to society in the modern world.

In Durkheim’s various studies, he analysed, according to Hughes, the “interrelationship between the different institutions of society" and their relationship to the socially shared values and systems of belief. He looked at the way in which these both required and created, or failed to do so, a degree of loyalty to the society. Durkheim sought to “determine the optimal level of integration amongst these elements” for the well being of the society and for its individual members. Durkheim was convinced that appropriate levels of social solidarity were necessary for individuals to flourish, enabling them both to play a constructive part in the life of the society and to develop their own personal capacities to the full.

Jorgensen, N. (1997) suggests that most of Durkheim’s writings were about issues of social structure and problems of modernity. In “Suicide”, (Durkheim 1897/1952), Durkheim indicates that it is the social structure and the particular problems in modern societies that lead individuals to acts of suicide.

“Suicide” (1897/1952) for Watts Miller (1996) is not about suicide but about the “exploration of the pathologies (science of diseases) of the modern world” and furthermore the “pathological forms of the individualism and individuality” that Durkheim sees as such central, constitutive features of our society. Durkheim offers a “sociology of risk”, including the risks to us as individuals of being swept away to our deaths or affected in other ways by real, powerful yet often obscure social forces that we hardly understand. Problems occur, according to Watts Miller, when Durkheim draws on the distinction developed in “The Rules” to ask if the existing patterns of suicide are normal and contained, or abnormal and symptomatic of some worrying uneasiness. He concludes that the rate is abnormally high, “a pathological phenomenon that is all the time becoming more menacing” (1897). Watts Miller questions if Durkheim is offering a clear account, focusing on the end result of the change that comes with modernity, “a menace built into the structure of modernity itself?”

Atkinson, (1978), notes that a major sociological tradition derives from Durkheim’s theory that suicide rates and different types of social context are related. In particular that suicide is related to the level of “social solidarity” so that the increased weakening of solidarity leads to increased numbers of suicide. Modern theories usually assume that rapid changes of “socio-economic status” are the cause of suicide. However unlike Durkheim, these theories include various psychological factors to explain why only certain individuals commit suicide in these circumstances.

Jorgensen et al, (1997) notes that in “The Elementary forms of religious life”, (Durkheim 1912/1961) Durkheim identifies the basic functions of religion, linking people together in the community and analyses what happens to religion in modern societies, recognising its decline.

Reading Morrison, (1995), Religion, according to Durkheim, serves the function of social integration by linking individuals to persons and things outside themselves. Durkheim defined religion by stating that it “is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things”, which binds people together into social groups. With organic solidarity, social bonds between individuals are enforced by contracts rather than by the force of religious beliefs. Individualism is at its highest point of development, and the individual has greater autonomy. As the division of labour advances, it narrows what individuals do in society down to tasks and roles determined by training and occupational interests. Beliefs and values become confined to occupational roles, reducing the individuals grasp of society. Under these circumstances, individuals begin to pick and choose only those values, beliefs and social attachments relative to their occupational experiences and this reduces their direct link to society.

In “Education and sociology”, (Durkheim 1903/1956), Durkheim describes how education is central in maintaining social rules and getting people to accept those rules.

Durkheim holds the view that the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity would increase the autonomy of the individual.

Durkheim understood that societies vary in their complexity and that with modernity you would see the collapse of traditional communities. However, he also recognized that there would be a growth in individualism, which would prove beneficial for the individual, but gave rise to concern about how social order would be maintained. Referring back to Watts Miller, (1996) Durkheim recognised that the division of labour in a modern society would only produce solidarity if it were spontaneous, resulting in a society where the individual is independent and free.