‘Social harmony comes essentially from the division of labour. It is characterized by a cooperation which is automatically produced through the pursuit by each individual of his own interests. It suffices that each individual consecrate himself to a special
function in order, by the force of events, to make himself solidary with others. ’ (Durkheim, 1933)
Durkheim was interested in the transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity which he thought was the result of modernisation and industrialisation. Durkhiem believed the transition would to some degree increase the relationship in which things depend on one another for survival and integration in the society and strengthen social solidarity. He also believed that this transition would not cause a society to fall apart because an organic solidarity is like the organs inside an animal. Each organ executes its precise function and if one is to fail then the animal shall not survive as the rest of the organs rely on each other to function correctly.
‘In one case as in the other, the structure derives from the division of labour and its solidarity. Each part of the animal, having become an organ, has its proper sphere of action where it moves independently without imposing itself upon others. But, from another point of view, they depend more upon one another than in a colony, since they cannot separate without perishing.’ (Durkheim, 1933)
‘The order and very survival of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specific task.’ (Durkheim, 1933)
One of the many examples I’ve become aware of is, water firm companies, who give you an idea about the interdependence they have on society, for example if they cease to provide clean water, people would start to die of thirst and possibly may die of some terminal diseases, or the gas and electric firms who provide us the energy to perform all kinds of tasks, or even more intriguing, farmers who decide to cease growing crops which would leave people to starve. With regards to Durkheim on this
matter, he point outs that the foundation of the organic solidarity is based upon the dependence the individuals have upon one another and is the only way it can work. However as I understand, this form of solidarity does come with problems, and I believe laws need to be put in place to keep things in order.
‘Even where society relies most completely upon the division of labour, it does not become a jumble of juxtaposed atoms, between which it can establish only external, transient contacts. Rather the members are united by ties which extend deeper and far beyond the short moments during which the exchange is made. Each of the functions
that they exercise is, in a fixed way, dependent upon others, and with them forms a solidary system.’ (Durkheim, 1933)
Durkhiem viewed deviancy as important to the well-being of society as he believed that crime in reality produced social solidarity, rather than weaken it.
‘Crime brings together honest men and concentrates them’ (Giddens, 1972)
Durkheim considered crime and deviance would bring people together in a society, as when laws would be broken in small communities, meetings would be held to talk about it. Articles would too be produced for local news publications to spread the word and make everyone aware about the incident that may have occurred. As with any community violation provokes the non-violators to stick together in conflict to the violation.
We have only to notice what happens, particularly in a small town, when some moral scandal has just occurred. Men stop each other on the street, they visit each other, they seek to come together to talk of the event and to wax indignant in common. From all the similar impressions which are exchanged, and the anger that is expressed, there emerges a unique emotion, more or less determinate according to the circumstances, which emanates from no specific person, but from everyone. This is the public wrath. (Durkheim, 1972)
Another idea Durkheim assumed was that deviancy and crime would help to encourage social change faster. Despite the fact that most violation of rules and regulations of norms are acknowledged with confrontation from lots of people, there are some that do not, and those violations that achieve this support are often re-observed again by society. Durkheim also mentions that sometimes what society may
consider deviant may well be reconsidered and become part of the norms. This is because they got a lot of support by a large part of the society. So to summarise deviancy can certainly help society to think again about the restrictions it opposes, and help it to progress towards a better social change, to become a stronger social solidarity.
Because they are found in the consciousness of every individual, the infraction which has been committed arouses the same indignation in those who witness it or who learn of its existence. Everybody is attacked; consequently, everybody opposes the attack. Not only is the reaction general, but it is collective, which is not the same thing. It is not produced in an isolated manner in each individual, but it is total, unified response, even if it varies according to the case.’ (Durkheim, 1972)
Durkheim also assessed the grasp of the legal system between mechanical and solidarity societies. He finds that in the mechanical solidarity societies the law is oppressive, for example the delinquent would endure a sentence that in fact would compensate for collective conscience ignored by the offence, which therefore acts merely to maintain the unity of consciences as everyone behaves in the same way. Whereas societies in the organic solidarity the law is more liberalised and therefore it aims to bring back the normal activities to an interdependence society. As understood, the mechanical solidarity is based on similarities where everyone shares and behaves in the same moral order. Durkheim argues that whilst the transition occurs to organic solidarity the moral intensity lessens.
In short, since the division of labour becomes the chief source of social solidarity, it becomes, at the same time, the foundation of the moral order.’ (Durkheim, 1933)
The division of labour results in a state of uncertainty in terms of morality and a loss of individuality in society and Durkheim refers to this as an ‘anomie’ which he believes is the root cause of all the deviant activities especially suicide. The analysis of suicide will present the best clarification of unnecessary lack of moral order and
individualism in the modern industrialised society. To analyse the suicide rates Durkheim looked at two religions, the Protestants and the Roman Catholics. He claimed that a religion with strong social control, which meant those who shared religious beliefs and practiced together, would gain to have a stronger conscience and have good manners because of the integration with one another which would mean lower suicide rates. The Catholics fell into this category as they had high levels of association with their social group. Whereas the Protestants, Durkheim states one of the many reason for higher suicide rates amongst them was not many Protestants practiced their religious beliefs together due to having low levels of social integration amongst each other. Durkheim also mentioned that unmarried people mainly males had higher suicide rates due to not having any commitments, lack of regulations and having no established goals to reach in live.
Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectively, that is to say, the more he lives as an egoist. (Durkheim, 1972)
On the whole, Durkheim mentioned four types of suicide, anomic, egoistic, altruistic and fatalistic suicide. In anomic and egoistic suicides he discovered many people committing suicide as they were unable to adapt to new changes and not being able to mix in with other people. People in the traditional mechanical society were well taught to have power over their needs and goals, but in an organic society which was a more modern society, people’s needs and goals became slowly unlimited, hence these types of suicides were mainly to be found in industrialised society. Below is an example of an anomie.
‘Durkheim warns that one does not advance when one proceeds toward no goal, or which is the same thing when the goal is infinity. To pursue a goal, which is by
definition unattainable, is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness.’ (Dunman, 1998).
In the contemporary society today some people are pretty well off than others but it doesn’t still stop them from wanting more than they can have.
One of the most important causes for anomie to result in industrial society is the specialised division of labour, which is looked at as the threat over specialisation. People are secluded in extremely specialised responsibilities and as this encourages individualism, it stands to show that there is a problem with inequality.
Durkheim suggested various ways out of this problem of anomie which was generally related to the occupational association.
‘Involved in a common organization, people would recognize their common interests as well as their common need for an integrative moral system. That moral system would serve to counteract the tendency toward atomization in modern society as well as help stop the decline in significance of collective morality.’(Durkheim, 1933)
Durkhiem assumed that there was no conflict of interest among employees or employers such as owners, managers and workers but believed that the conflict of interest only took place for the reason that there was a lack of common morality between people and that was noticeable due to the lack of integrative structure.
Whereas the other two forms of suicides would be found in a more primitive society for example the altruistic suicide was a result of too much social integration. This would take place at the other end of the integration scale as an egoistic suicide. Self sacrifice was the significant feature where people were so mixed into their social groups that they lost view of their individuality and would be willing to give up themselves for the group's welfare, even if that sacrifice was their own life.
As for conclusion, from what I have understood Durkhiem has helped to make a better understanding of how to maintain and function in a balanced society in traditional and modern ways. I see that in the modern society the collective conscience has become less imperative in comparison to the traditional society as well as people becoming more self centred. In addition I have analysed and understood the changeover from a traditional society to a contemporary society which is also linked to the increase in suicide rates which is due to the lack of moral order as stated by
Durkheim. It can be said that Durkheim was thinking way ahead of his time as what he based his study on was nearly a three quarters of a century ago, which still is being applied and understood in today’s contemporary society, such as the diverse forms of solidarity i.e. dividing society into social groups.
Although Durkhiem highlights the different things that bring society together at the same time there is a possibility that it also might set them apart in other words industrialisation surely brings us numerous benefits such as the highly developed technology, people having a reasonably better live. Whilst at the same time it can also create threats to social solidarity i.e. lack of social integration and excessive individualism. This brings me to the conclusion that in today’s contemporary society the major threat to an organic solidarity would be anomie. This would be due to the lack of moral regulation in society, people having unlimited ambitions which they would not be able to achieve, and not having anything to bind them to in life. This causes high rates of suicide, marriage break ups and industrial conflict as it is happening in today’s contemporary world and in order to stop such threats from occurring, as proposed by Durkheim it would be ideal to create new moral order which would be based upon reciprocated social interdependence. This would also need to be done for markets and working surroundings so that equal opportunities are given to keep the society balanced and moral order as the collective conciseness for an organic solidarity may well cause disorder and insecurity among other members of society especially when economic changes are so fast that individuals find themselves not being capable to keep up. It therefore results individuals to commit immoral behaviour including suicide as they may well feel insecure and confused. This has
shown to be proved when the coal industry had shut down, many people found that they were left alone and didn’t see a way of pulling through, as they only had skills to work in the coal industry. Looking over the modern day, over the last few year’s farmers found themselves secluded when the foot and mouth crises broke out and statistics confirm that the farming occupations had the third greatest rate of suicide.
Durkhiem may have been one of the great sociologists of his time, but like any other sociologist not all his theories were completely right, for example with reference to
suicide, his theories may to some extent sound quite rational, but he claimed that no matter which part of the world you were from, all the suicides were committed for the same reason and many sociologist criticised this. I also believe that this would be impossible to prove as the person who is trying to commit suicide if is successful, you will not be able to find out the true reason why suicide was committed, there could be literally thousands of reasons why someone may decide to end their life.
Also delinquent behaviour in some societies and culture’s is becoming acceptable and consequently is on the increase. With reference to recent events, over the last couple of years, such as the war on terror, you could ask yourself a question whether there is need in the contemporary world to actually rethink issues for the need of stronger social solidarity. For example can the reaction of the war in Afghanistan or Iraq be classed as an example of mechanical solidarity or the reactions of September 11th or July 7th?
To summarise Durkheim I believe he is one of the most productive sociologists in history. Durkheim has time after time proven that his theoretical concepts, including social solidarity are still somewhat relevant to the contemporary society.
Word Count – 3043
Bibliography
Emile Durkheim (1933) The Division of Labor in Society - Translated by George Simpson. The Free Press, New York
Anthony Giddens (1972) Emile Durkheim - Selected Writings Cambridge University Press, London
Joe Dunman (1998) The Emile Durkheim Archive http://durkheim.itgo.com