Durkheims Concept of Social Facts and their Significance within his Work

by macca2007 (student)

Durkheim’s Concept of Social Facts and their Significance within his Work

The concept of social facts is fundamental not only to Durkheim’s work, but it plays an essential role in his entire approach to the study of society. Durkheim was the first scholar to lecture on the discipline of sociology; he aimed to establish the subject as having credibility similar to other sciences, such as biology and psychology. Durkheim asserted that the whole of sociology was based on the ‘objective reality of social facts’ (Durkheim, 1895 as quoted in Lukes, 1973 pp. 9) and that society should only be studied using scientific methodology (Lukes, 1973), something which is made possible through the use of such social facts (Durkheim, 1895, as cited in Lukes, 1973).
By illustrating Durkheim’s view of society we can more effectively demonstrate the value of social facts within his work. Durkheim asserted that society exists within itself; it is not merely a collection of individuals, as previous thinker Weber had implied. Durkheim stressed that society is’ more than the sum of its parts’ or ‘sui generis’, and that when individuals come together there becomes a ‘new form of existence’ – a social one (Durkheim, 1895, as cited in Lukes, 1973). Society is bounded by the unity of its members through social facts, suggesting that they are essential features from the outset.

Social facts are defined as values, cultural norms and social structures that exist externally from the individual; for example, religious beliefs and practices ‘exist prior to the individual, because they exist outside him’ (Lukes, 1973). Durkheim suggested that in order for social facts to be scientific they must follow two criteria; they must be external and constraining. As is already mentioned social facts are independent of the individual’s thoughts and exist regardless of the individual’s beliefs. Social facts are constraining in that they shape a person’s behaviour, whether they are aware of it or not (Hughes, Sharrock & Martin, 2010). Individuals are able to resist the coercive power of social facts but struggle to do so; for example, a person may not wish to speak the language spoken by the people around him; but his activities will be severely hindered if he chooses not to (Giddens, 1978). Furthermore, social facts can only be explained in terms of other social facts; it is this controlled, objective nature that Durkheim relies upon to support the study of sociology as a science, and therefore, his entire academic works.
Interestingly, although social facts are external, they are not physical. Social facts are facts of collective mental life; this is a form of collective representation of the social group also known as ‘collective consciousness’. This is particularly significant to Durkheim’s study Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Durkheim, 1912, as cited in Hughes et al, 2010), in which the tribes collectively worshipped Totems. Durkheim discovered that the Totems were physical representations of the social groups, the objects themselves were not particularly special but the animals that were depicted related to each tribe. They were worshipping the society itself; something more than just themselves. Durkheim explained the social fact of totemic religion in terms of the social fact of group unity, thus, demonstrating the impact social facts can have upon a society.
Durkheim’s ‘collective consciousness’ has been criticized by some of his peers who assert that he suggested a ‘group mind’, this has caused much debate about the supposed scientific nature of Durkheim’s studies. This demonstrates that if social facts are challenged then there are major implications for Durkheim’s work in general, implying that social facts are not only significant, but integral. However, others have claimed that a ‘group mind’ was not his intended meaning, and that scholars have merely misinterpreted his ideas (Sorel, 1895, as cited in Lukes, 1973). Anthony Giddens attempted to clarify Durkheim’s meaning; he proposed that social facts are external in that they have been passed down by other members of the community, and are then internalised through socialisation (Giddens, 1978).

Durkheim himself exemplified the nature of social facts, ‘When I fulfil my obligations as a brother, husband or citizen, when I execute my contracts, I perform duties which are defined externally to myself and my acts, in law and custom’ (Durkheim, 1895, as cited in Farganis, 2000 pp. 63). As is evident from both Durkheim’s definition and Giddens’ clarification, social facts are significant to Durkheim’s credibility as they support his view of society as a whole and its consider its affect upon members, these are features which dominates his work.

Now to consider the significance of social facts in terms ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Now to consider the significance of social facts in terms of a particular area of Durkheim’s work we will discuss the study of Suicide (1897). Social facts are particularly important in this case as Suicide was intended as a demonstration of Durkheim’s case about the reality of social facts and the necessity of using them in sociological explanation (Hughes et al, 2010). He chose suicide purposely as he saw it was the most personal act, however, as a sociologist, he wanted to destroy the common-sense view that it can only be understood in terms of other facts about those individuals (Hughes et al 2010). Durkheim believed that statistics should be used to observe the social concomitants of suicide, instead of trying to solve the insolvable problems of moral casuistry as earlier studies had attempted. Durkheim knew that suicide was not a purely personal phenomenon caused by the individual’s state of mind, he noted that suicides statistics were ‘almost invariable’ (Durkheim, 1897 as cited in Thompson, 1985) among societies and so there had to be collective tendency towards suicide. Durkheim suggested that the stability of suicide rates was caused by the ‘moral constitution of groups’ and that these rates reflected suicidogenic currents within groups. The ‘moral constitution of groups’, or the norms and boundaries, is shaped by the certain social facts that underpin social groups, and so these facts must be of significance to Durkheim’s studies.
In Suicide (1897), Durkheim used a comparable method in which he acquired statistical data on suicides and compared them with other social facts within a society. Durkheim’s unique multivariate analysis enabled him to compare a range of social facts that might contribute to suicide rates. He argued that instances of suicide should not be viewed as isolated, individual events that need to be examined separately, but that we should consider all suicides committed in a particular society during a specific time period as a whole (Durkheim, 1897 as cited in Thompson, 1985). Durkheim eliminated the possibility of a link between suicide rates and insanity using correlations; he found no significant relationship between the two, and in many cases found contradictory evidence. Durkheim found that some countries which had high insanity rates also had low suicide rates, and although Catholics had a less than average insanity rate their suicide rate was significantly lower, and he also noted that women greatly outnumber men in mental institutions and yet they only contribute to 20% of all suicides among the insane. After ruling this out, Durkheim concluded that suicide ‘must necessarily depend on social causes and be in itself a collective phenomenon’ (Durkheim, 1897 as cited in Thompson, 1985), demonstrating the particular importance of social facts within this study.
Durkheim then proceeded to discover the relationship between certain social facts and suicide rates among societies. He compared factors such as the dominating religion of a country and the marriage rates; he also considered social facts within sub-groups such as age and family size. Durkheim’s most notorious discover was that predominantly protestant countries had a consistently higher suicide rate than Catholic countries. By using his scientific method of social facts he was able to determine that the only major difference between the two religions was the protestant feature of ‘free enquiry’; Protestantism is based around individual worship and so less emphasis is placed on social integration. Only through the use of social facts was Durkheim able to establish this factor and so we can assume that social facts are essential within his work.

Durkheim then proceeded to discover the relationship between certain social facts and suicide rates among societies. He compared factors such as the dominating religion of a country and the marriage rates; he also considered social facts within sub-groups such as age and family size. Durkheim concluded that there are four types of society in which suicide can occur; fatalistic, anomic, egoistic and altruistic (Durkheim, 1897 as cited in Thompson, 1985). Fatalistic suicide, which occurs with too much regulation, was thought to be of little relevance to Durkheim’s study and so we will not consider it here. Anomic suicide occurs when there is not enough regulation of individuals; it is a state of anomie or social instability resulting from the breakdown of standards and values, for example, a time of economic recession. Egoistic suicide is when there is too little integration within society, there is not enough emphasis on individuals, for example, a single young male would be more likely to commit suicide than a married man with five children. Finally, altruistic suicide is when there is too much group integration or collective conscience, members may feel the need to take their own life for the betterment of the group, for example, members of the People’s Temple committed suicide for their community. It is important that these types of suicide have been outlined in order to understand the significance of social facts within this study. It would not be possible to assess the level of integration or regulation of the suicidée without social facts such as religion and marriage being present; it is precisely this comparative method that maintains the importance of Suicide within sociology today, demonstrating clearly that social facts are of great significance within Durkheim’s work.

On the contrary, although Durkheim criticised the use of suicide reports to infer causes, he did not question the validity of official statistics on suicide. Douglas (1966) argued that suicide statistics are socially constructs, negotiations formed by the coroner and the deceased families. Similarly, Atkinson, Kessel and Dalgaard (1974) asserted that coroners look for primary clues such as the presence of a suicide note, the mode of death, the location and if the individual has a family history of similar behaviours. Atkinson et al argued that no one can ever be sure whether a death really was attributed to suicide and so Durkheim’s work is flawed from the outset, as was mentioned earlier, when the social facts are challenged his entire theory is.

Steven Lukes (1973) also criticised the concept of social facts suggesting that Durkhiem’s definition becomes contradictory when used in Suicide (1897). Lukes argues that Durkheim presents social facts - in the case of anomie and egoism - as factors inducing men to break that rules of a society. However, social facts were intended to constrain and so his ideas become fundamentally flawed.

In conclusion, it cannot be doubted that social facts are the cornerstone with which Durkheim’s studies are built, they are basic factors present throughout his work including that on Suicide (1897) and the Elementary forms of Religious Life (1912). Although the validity of social facts can be questioned, they are apparent within societies and so must be taken into consideration. Durkheim’s work continues to influence sociology and was indeed innovative and cannot be taken for granted. It seems that the question concerning us here should be as to whether sociology can truly be studied using scientific method, a problem which could not be explored in this essay.

References
Atkinson, M. W., Kessel, N., & Dalgaard, J. B. (1974). The comparability of suicide rates.

The British Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 247-256.

Douglas, J. A. (1966). The sociological analysis of social meanings of suicide. European

Journal of Sociology, 7, 249-275

Durkheim, É. (1985). ‘Suicide: a study in sociology’ in K. Thompson Ed. Readings from

Émile Durkheim. London: Tavistock.
Farganis, J. (2000). Readings in social theory. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Giddens, A. (1978). Durkheim. Sussex: The Harvester Press Limited.
Hughes, J. A., Sharrock, W., & Martin, P.J. (2010). Understanding classical sociology.

London: Sage.

Lukes, S. (1973). Émile Durkheim: His life his work. London: The Penguin Press.