Both Tonnies and Durkheim show how social integration has changed as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Tonnies’ Gemeinschaft theory suggests that in pre-industrial society, societies were characterised by a strong sense of community and social order. People were generally ascribed to their roles; and as a result of immobility due to lack of transport, intimate and enduring relationships were developed over time. According to Tonnies, such societies tended to be characterised by traditional norms and values, often enforced by institutions such as the church or the family. In comparison, Durkheim talks of ‘Mechanical Solidarity’ prior to the Industrial Revolution. This is a similar concept, also suggesting that in pre-industrial societies a much larger emphasis was placed on the ‘community’ and social solidarity. Within such societies there was a “common type”. The sharing of common beliefs, values and lifestyles created almost a ‘collective consciousness’, independent of individuals. Strongly contrasting Margaret Thatcher's famous claim, “There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their families”, this description of pre-industrial society places much more emphasis on community and collectivism, as opposed to the individual.
In this sense, it could be argued that social integration has weakened over time and as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Society has expanded and diversified. As a result of new technology and increasing awareness of other cultures and lifestyles, people are daring to break away from traditional roles and traditional norms and values. However, although Tonnies may feel that levels of social integration have declined as a result, Durkheim may argue that they have just shifted and adapted with the times, and social integration and behaviour has not weakened, but just changed in accordance with modern society.
Durkheim uses his theory of ‘Organic Solidarity’ to describe characteristics of contemporary industrialised society. Durkheim claims that similar to the way in which every organ in the body performs a different function, every group within society also performs a different function; and although every ‘function’ is different, every organ/group is dependent on another to ensure survival. Therefore, society is a system of different ‘organs’, each of which has a different role but each of which is dependent on another ‘organ’ to ensure that society functions. Durkheim talks of ‘division of labour’ within society, where by society is divided in to separate groups each of which perform a separate task. However, Durkheim does not just describe division of labour in the work place, for example on a factory floor, but this theory can be applied to many situations. For example in a University it may be argued that there is a ‘division of labour’ intellectually between pupils and staff. Both perform a different function; however, the pupil depends on the teacher in order to learn, and the teacher depends on the pupil in order to have a job in the first place. Therefore both parties are dependent on each other.
As I mentioned previously, Durkheim recognises that we live in a society based increasingly on difference and individualism, but believes that as a result of division of labour, people are interdependent on one another, and therefore social integration is reinforced. Different ‘organs’, or groups within society rely heavily on each other in order for society to function. Therefore it could be argued that “social relations consequently become more numerous, since they extend, on all sides, beyond their original limits”. (A. Giddens, Emile Durkheim: selected writings, ch 6). This is suggesting that the division of labour is strengthening social relations, making people rely on others. Durkheim is suggesting that interdependence in division of labour is proof that individualism and solidarism are compatible. Unlike his description of pre-industrial society, here, people are individual and highly differentiated. Therefore there may not be such a strong sense of “common culture”, but society is still extremely cohesive because interdependence between groups ensures this.
However, Tonnies may disagree with this view. His theory of Gesellschaft describes social integration in an industrialised society, and Tonnies claims that the rise of modern urban living has resulted in a decline of community and loss of solidarity. Tonnies claims that society is now based upon impersonal relationships with others, revolving around economic production and ‘Barter and Exchange’. According to Tonnies, calculative, economic contracts dominate social interaction and integration, and there is no longer a solidaristic community within society. Tonnies claims that we now live in ‘heterogeneity' (as opposed to a ‘homogenous’ society), with great diversity and complexity. People do not follow tradition so heavily, they have the ability to travel and move from place to place, and multiculturalism has become prominent. Similarly the main social institutions which impacted pre-industrial society, for example the church or the family, are also adapting, as we live in an increasingly secular society and the ‘cereal packet’ family no longer dominates.
Therefore typical norms, values and beliefs may vary from person to person, and people are less likely to make decisions based on religion or tradition, but more likely to base decisions on individual, rational thought, or ‘rational will’. As a result of this, Tonnies argues that social integration and solidarism has deteriorated. Tonnies may argue that this complex diversity and individualism may result in alienation, if people cannot relate to others around them; or result in an increase in crime, as people are less influenced by social pressure and their ‘community’ to adhere to common social rules.
Durkheim and Tonnies both present different opinions about social integration in modern societies, and although Durkheim’s position is much more positive and accepting, it does recognise the problems that can occour socially as a result of this way of life. Durkheim considers the fact that if social norms and values, and the ‘collective consciousness’ outside of individuals becomes too weak, society may fragment and anomie may occour. This is the state of ‘normlessness’, and may occour if people feel alienated and relations between social groups become too intermittent. In order for interdependence between groups to function, they must be in close contact, however if groups begin to disperse or become out of balance, social cohesion may collapse. Therefore, social integration within society will also weaken.
Durkheim also suggests that suicide is a direct result of insufficient solidarism. He believes that “suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social group of which the individual forms a part” (A2 Sociology, Steve Chapman, pg143). Therefore individual actions are heavily influenced by society, and levels of social integration play a very important role in ensuring personal happiness and social cohesion. This is highlighted in Durkheim’s classification of ‘egoistic suicide’, which takes place as a result of excessive individualism, where the ties binding an individual to a social group are so weak, they have no integration with social life. Here, Durkheim is displaying quite a similar view to Tonnies, showing how modern society can produce impersonal relationships, and result in a decline of social integration.
In conclusion, both Tonnies and Durkheim present views on social integration within modern society, and they have both shown how social integration has adapted over time. Society has become increasingly diverse, and although this may mean that communities may have suffered as a result, and social integration may have weakened in some respects, it has also given rise to great freedom of expression and freedom of choice. Durkheim has displayed how individualism and solidarism are compatible and can both live along side each other, however he has also shown possible problems that may occour from this social situation. In a large city it would be impossible to say hello to every body as you walked down the street, and although Tonnies may argue that this reflects a decline in social integration, Durkheim may argue that this reflects an interdependent functioning society.
Bibliography
Steve Chapman, Essential Word dictionary
F. Tonnies, Community and Association (Themes and Perspectives in Sociology study Pack)
A. Giddens, Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings (Themes and Perspectives Study Pack)
