How successful was Durkheim in establishing the objective reality of social facts?
How successful was Durkheim in establishing the objective reality of social facts?
"When I fulfill my obligations as brother, husband, or citizen, when I execute my contracts, I perform duties which are defined, externally to myself and my acts, in law and in custom. Even if they conform to my own sentiments and I feel their reality subjectively, such reality is still objective, for I did not create them; I merely inherited them through my education...These types of conduct or thought are not only external to the individual but are, moreover, endowed with coercive power, by virtue of which they impose themselves upon him, independent of his individual will."1
Giddens describes social facts as an aspect of social life that determines the human's action, thought as well as felling. They have an "objective" reality, as they are external to a single person.2 Society and its rules, mores and norms are shaping the individual's life. Society has been established before the individual was born and will remain after he is gone. This explains Durkheim's theory of objective reality. Social facts have a reality beyond private lives.3
Further, social facts are of coercive nature. The individual does not experience their coercive power as such. Even if one believes to be acting out of free will, it is the constraining influence of these facts that are imposing themselves upon the individual. Law and custom decide what is an appropriate way of behaving in a society. Durkheim explains that his facts exist sui generis. By that he means that they have an entity on their own, which is invisible to humans.4 Constraint may take various forms such as religious, political or familial. Ray points out that if members of a society intend to function well in a group, they are forced to abide by rules, laws or customs.5 Fulcher and Scott simplify the nature of social facts and describe them as what later sociologists would call a role. Everyone has a certain role, some are mothers, some fathers, others daughters or sons, doctors and so on. Those who occupy such positions are expected and forced to behave according to set norms. Even when people think they are acting, thinking or feeling out of free will, they follow a pattern that has been acquired through socialization.6 Social facts may be coercive in different ways. They may be expressed in punishment, misunderstanding or even social rejection, if the individual decides to refuses to accept certain general patterns of the big group.7 Thus, coercion is hardly felt, if at all.
When Macionis speaks of "seeing the strange in the familiar", he is talking about social facts. He rejects the familiar idea that behavior is an individual matter; instead he stresses, "society has a hand in shaping people's lives".8 There is a simple every-day example to illustrate Durkheim's thought: When young people were asked why they decided to go to college or university, their answer was simple: "My friends are going to attend this university, so I joint them", "It was the only college that would accept me", "The likelihood of getting a highly paid job is higher". Those ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
When Macionis speaks of "seeing the strange in the familiar", he is talking about social facts. He rejects the familiar idea that behavior is an individual matter; instead he stresses, "society has a hand in shaping people's lives".8 There is a simple every-day example to illustrate Durkheim's thought: When young people were asked why they decided to go to college or university, their answer was simple: "My friends are going to attend this university, so I joint them", "It was the only college that would accept me", "The likelihood of getting a highly paid job is higher". Those teenagers were only seeing the manifest social facts, as Macionis calls them. There are latent ones as well, however: College is a so-called marriage "broker". There are a lot of people who cannot afford going to college, so their decision of attending university also depends on the wealth of the family. There are many more reasons that will not be discussed any further. However, this should provide an example to explain the fact that people actually believe to act out of choice, although there a lot more components shaping the individual's decision.9
Moreover, Durkheim sees an emergent nature in social facts and therefore believes in the concept of reification, meaning that social facts have an existence on their own.10 The interaction of two phenomena causes a new phenomenon, which has other features than those out of which it has appeared. Hughes explains that two gases like hydrogen and oxygen mixed together generate water, which is liquid. The same, Durkheim agues, happens on a social level. He implies that the phenomena arising from interactions between individuals need explanation on their own and therefore have an objective reality.11
He distinguishes between two types of social facts, namely material and non-material facts. Material ones are institutions and social structures. These may be religious, political, educational, judicial or economic. Non-material social facts consist of norms, values or morality.12 These are also termed collective representations, as Durkheim called them later on.13
By collective representations, Durkheim means ideas, beliefs and values that have been established by collectivity and are not reducible to the individual. He argues that an assembly, for instance, of a strong nature may generate collective representations.14 However, he emphasizes that there are, indeed, individual thoughts as well as actions that are repeated by all individuals but they are not social facts for this reason. It is beliefs, tendencies and practices of a group taken collectively that characterizes a social fact.15
Religions, in Durkheim's view, shape very much they way people think or behave, especially in small and traditional cultures, and therefore foster collective representations. He argues that morning is only a duty imposed by the group, not a form of expressing individual feelings. In modern cultures, of course, the influence of religion has diminished. He believes, though, that sense of religion is likely to be continued. As Durkheim does not indicate how, Giddens believes that Durkheim was talking about political and humanist ideals such as free will, equal opportunity and social co-operation.16
In his study on suicide, Durkheim views even a personal act such as self-destruction as a social fact that could only be explained by other social facts. He firmly believed that in spite of everything a personal matter like suicide was influenced by social factors. He associated his theory with the notion of social solidarity, social integration and social regulation. Durkheim was of the opinion that people with strong social bonds were less prone of committing suicide. He identified four types of motive for suicide.17
First, egoistic suicide, Durkheim says, is connected with low integration. Catholics, for instance, are less likely to kill themselves, as they show a high degree of social integration, whereas Protestants are freer and have a less strong community and therefore are more prone to commit suicide.18 Secondly, he defines anomic suicide. He says that individuals who live in an environment of rapid change and therefore lack in social regulation, may be victims of self-destruction. Altruistic suicides occur in traditional and backward societies caused by over-integration.19 An example would be the Taliban who recently attacked the World Trade Center. Lastly, he terms suicides connected to over-regulation fatalistic suicides. This kind of taking his life may happen when individuals are oppressed. These would be slaves for instance.20
According to a Thorlindsson and Bjarnson study on suicide, Durkheim's analysis still holds true. It proves that whatever race, men were more likely to commit suicide than women. This can be explained by the fact that the world is male-dominated. Although this means more freedom, this advantage generates a form of isolation, which leads to higher suicide rates. The statistics also shows that whites are more prone of violently ending their lives than Afro-Americans. The cause for this lies in the fact that Afro-Americans are a minority in the USA and therefore try to keep their traditional bonds, whereas white people enjoy more independence and freedom, which explains that they are more likely to commit suicide.21
In conclusion, it has to be said that Durkheim was, indeed, successful in establishing the objective reality of social facts. Many examples show that there are certain factors that dictate the individual's way of acting, feeling and thinking. If one looks at Durkheim's study of suicide, it has been proven that he was right. Even if one considers his own experience, he will realize and finally recognize that most of the actions he performs are expected and therefore determined by society; no matter which role he occupies. Social facts are a fact themselves establishing a reality of their own and consequently shaping the individuals' lives.
http://www.uregina.ca/ginrich/o26f99.html
2 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp.699, 9
3 Macionis. Sociology. Prentice Hall, 2001; pp. 106-7
4 Waters. Modern Sociological Theory. Sage, 2000; pp. 134
5 Ray. Theorizing Classical Sociology. Open University Press, 1999; pp. 93
6 Fulcher & Scott. Sociology. Oxford University Press, 1999; pp. 35
7 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp. 9
8 Macionis. Sociology. Prentice Hall, 2001; pp. 2
9 Macionis. Sociology. Prentice Hall, 2001; pp. 3, 5, 15
0 Lawson & Garrod. The Complete A-Z Sociology Handbook. Green gate, 2000; pp. 237
1 Hughes et al. Understanding Classical Sociology -Marx, Weber, Durkheim. Sage Publications, 1997; pp. 164
2 http://www.uregina.ca/ginrich/o26f99.html
3 Fulcher & Scott. Sociology. Oxford University Press, 1999; pp. 36
4 Marshall. Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press, 1998; pp. 90
5 http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/frameworks/socfact.html
6 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp. 537-8
7 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp. 10
8 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp. 10
9 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp. 11
20 Giddens. Sociology. Polity Press, 2000; pp. 11
21 Macionis. Sociology. Prentice Hall, 2001; pp. 5
