Emile Durkheim

"To love society is to love something beyond us and something in

ourselves." Emile Durkheim
.

What did Durkheim see as key differences between traditional and

modern societies? (Read Only)
In preindustrial societies, Durkheim explained, tradition operates as the social cement that
binds people together. In fact, what he termed the collective conscience is so strong that
the community moves quickly to punish anyone who dares to challenge conventional ways
of life. Durkheim used the term mechanical solidarity to refer to social bonds, based on
common sentiments and shared moral values, that are strong among members of
preindustrial societies. In practice, mechanical solidarity is based on similarity. Durkheim
called these bonds "mechanical" because people are linked together in lockstep, with a more
or less automatic sense of belonging together and acting alike.
With industrialization, Durkheim continued, mechanical solidarity becomes weaker and
weaker, and people are much less bound by tradition. But this does not mean that society
dissolves. Modem life creates a new type of solidarity. Durkheim called this new social
integration organic solidarity, defined as social bonds, based on specialization and
interdependence, that are strong among members of industrial societies. The solidarity that
was once rooted in likeness is now based on differences among people who find that their
specialized work-as plumbers, college students, midwives, or sociology instructors-makes
them rely on other people for most of their daily needs.
For Durkheim, then, the key to change in a society is an expanding division of Labour, or
specialized economic activity, Weber said that modern societies specialize in order to
become more efficient, and Durkheim filled out the picture by showing that members of
modern societies count on tens of thousands of others-most of them strangers for the goods
and services needed every day. As members of modern societies, we depend more and
more on people we trust less and less. Why do we look to people we hardly know and
whose beliefs may well differ from our own? Durkheim's answer was "because we can't live
without them,".
So, modern society rests far less on moral consensus and far more on functional
interdependence. Herein lies what we might call "Durkheim's dilemma": The technological
power and greater personal freedom of modern society come at the cost of declining
morality and the rising risk of anomie.
Like Marx and Weber, Durkheim worried about the direction society was taking. But of the
three, Durkheim was the most optimistic. He saw that large, anonymous societies gave
people more freedom and privacy than small towns. Anomie remains a danger, but
Durkheim hoped we would be able to create laws and other norms to regulate our behaviour.

END
Critical Review: Four Visions of Society (Read Only)
What Holds Societies Together?
How is something as complex as society possible? Lenski claims that members of a society
are united by a shared culture, although cultural patterns become more diverse as a society
gains more complex technology. He also points out that as technology becomes more
complex, inequality divides a society more and more, although industrialization reduces
inequality somewhat. Marx saw in society not unity but social division based on class
Position. From his point of view, elites may force an uneasy peace, but true social unity can
occur only if production becomes a cooperative process, To Weber, the members of a
society share a worldview. Just as tradition joined people together in the past, so modern
societies have created rational, largescale organizations that connect people's lives. Finally,
Durkheim made solidarity the focus of his work. He contrasted the mechanical solidarity of
preindustrial societies, which is based on shared morality, with modern society's organic
solidarity, which is based on specialization.

How Have Societies Changed?

According to Lenski's model of sociocultural evolution, societies differ mostly in terms of
changing technology. Modern society stands out from past societies in terms of its enormous
productive power. Marx, too, noted historical differences in productivity yet pointed to
continuing social conflict (except perhaps among simple hunters and gatherers). For Marx,
modern society is distinctive mostly because it brings that conflict out into the open, Weber
considered the question of change from the perspective of how people look at the world,
Members of preindustrial societies have a traditional outlook; modern people take a rational
worldview. Finally, for Durkheim, traditional societies are characterized by mechanical
solidarity based on moral likeness. In industrial societies, mechanical solidarity gives way to
organic solidarity based on productive specialization.

Why Do Societies Change?

As Lenski sees it, social change comes about through technological innovation that over
time transforms an entire society. Marx's materialist approach highlights the struggle
between classes as the engine of change, pushing societies toward revolution. Weber, by
contrast, pointed out that ideas contribute to social change. He demonstrated how a
particular worldviews-Calvinism-set in motion the Industrial Revolution, which ended up
reshaping all of society. Finally, Durkheim pointed to an expanding division of labour as the
key dimension of social change. The fact that these four approaches are so different does
not mean that anyone of them is right or wrong in an absolute sense. Society is exceedingly
complex, and our understanding of society benefits from applying all four visions.

END

Theory of Suicide: (Important) (Memorize)

According to Durkheim, “the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting
directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he
knows will produce this result.”
Overview of Durkheim's Text:
The text of ‘Le Suicide’ offered an examination of how suicide rates at the time differed
across religions. Specifically, Durkheim analyzed differences between Protestants and
Catholics. He found a lower rate of suicide among Catholics and theorized that this was due
to stronger forms of social control and cohesion among them than among Protestants.

Demographics of Suicide: Study Findings

Additionally, Durkheim found that suicide was less common among women than men, more
common among single people than among those who are romantically partnered, and less
common among those who have children.

Further, he found that soldiers commit suicide more often than civilians and that curiously,
rates of suicide are higher during peacetime than they are during wars.

Correlation Vs. Causation: Suicide's Driving Forces

Based on his findings from the data, Durkheim argued that suicide can be a result not only of
psychological or emotional factors but of social factors as well. Durkheim reasoned that
social integration, in particular, is a factor.

The more socially integrated a person is—that is, the more he or she is connected to society,
possessing a feeling of general belonging and a sense that life makes sense within the
social context—the less likely he or she is to commit suicide. As social integration
decreases, people are more likely to commit suicide.

Picture on Register too

Durkheim's Typology of Suicide:
Durkheim developed a theoretical typology of suicide to explain the differing effects of social
factors and how they might lead to suicide:

Anomic suicide:
Anomic suicide is an extreme response by a person who experiences anomie, a sense of
disconnection from society and a feeling of not belonging resulting from weakened social
cohesion. Anomie occurs during periods of serious social, economic, or political upheaval,
which result in quick and extreme changes to society and everyday life. In such
circumstances, a person might feel so confused and disconnected that they choose to
commit suicide.
For example, the change in the economy in Greece has affected the once low suicide rate.

Altruistic suicide: 
Altruistic suicide is often a result of excessive regulation of individuals by social forces such
that a person may be moved to kill themselves for the benefit of a cause or for society at
large. An example is someone who commits suicide for the sake of a religious or political
cause, such as the infamous Japanese Kamikaze pilots of World War II, or the hijackers that
crashed the airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in
Pennsylvania in 2001. In such social circumstances, people are so strongly integrated into
social expectations and society itself that they will kill themselves in an effort to achieve
collective goals.

Egoistic Suicide:
Egoistic suicide is a profound response executed by people who feel totally detached from
society. Ordinarily, people are integrated into society by work roles, ties to family and
community, and other social bonds. When these bonds are weakened through retirement or
loss of family and friends, the likelihood of egoistic suicide increases. Elderly people, who
suffer these losses most profoundly, are highly susceptible to egoistic suicide.
According to Durkheim egoistic suicide was the higher among adults who were unmarried
compared with married people of the same age. Also, the larger the family, the lower was
the chance of suicide occurring. Finally, egoistic suicide varied inversely with the degree of
political integration, the rate fell in wars and political crises.

Fatalistic Suicide:
Fatalistic suicide occurs under conditions of extreme social regulation resulting in oppressive
conditions and a denial of the self and of agency. In such a situation, a person may elect to
die rather than continue enduring the oppressive conditions, such as the case of suicide
among prisoners.
Examples were the situation of childless married women (presumably where divorce was
difficult), young husbands, and slaves.
Prevention of Suicides:
To sum up, Durkheim concluded that suicide is often seen as an individual problem;
therefore, attempts to prevent suicides have failed. Durkheim believed that the measures
that are undertaken to prevent suicide by directly convincing individuals to not commit
suicides seem futile because the real causes are in the society not in individual.

As a matter of fact, in order to prevent suicides, we will have to balance the underlying social
forces and social facts i.e. integration and regulation which are found in society not in
individuals.

Critical evaluation of Durkheim’s theory:

Although Durkheim’s theory of suicide has contributed much about the understanding of the
phenomenon because of his stress on social rather than on biological or personal factors,
the main drawback of the theory is that he has laid too much stress only on one factor,
namely social factor and has forgotten or undermined other factors, thereby making his
theory defective and only one sided.

END

Anomie: (Memorize)
Anomie is a social condition in which there is a disintegration or disappearance of
the norms and values that were previously common to the society.

Anomic suicide:
Anomic suicide is an extreme response by a person who experiences anomie, a sense of
disconnection from society and a feeling of not belonging resulting from weakened social
cohesion. Anomie occurs during periods of serious social, economic, or political upheaval,
which result in quick and extreme changes to society and everyday life. In such
circumstances, a person might feel so confused and disconnected that they choose to
commit suicide.
For example, the change in the economy in Greece has affected the once low suicide rate.

A Feeling of Disconnection:
People who lived during periods of anomie typically feel disconnected from their society
because they no longer see the norms and values that they hold dear reflected in society
itself. This leads to the feeling that one does not belong and is not meaningfully connected to
others. For some, this may mean that the role they play (or played) and their identity is no
longer valued by society. Because of this, anomie can foster the feeling that one lacks
purpose, engender hopelessness, and encourage deviance and crime.
Anomie According to Émile Durkheim:
Though the concept of anomie is most closely associated with Durkheim's study of suicide,
in fact, he first wrote about it in his 1893 book The Division of Labor in Society. In this
book, Durkheim wrote about an anomic division of labor, a phrase he used to describe a
disordered division of labor in which some groups no longer fit in, though they did in the
past. Durkheim saw that this occurred as European societies industrialized and the nature of
work changed along with the development of a more complex division of labor.
Anomic Suicide:
A few years later, Durkheim further elaborated his concept of anomie in his 1897
book, Suicide: A Study in Sociology. He identified anomic suicide as a form of taking
one's life that is motivated by the experience of anomie. Durkheim found, through a study of
suicide rates of Protestants and Catholics in nineteenth-century Europe, that the suicide rate
was higher among Protestants. Understanding the different values of the two forms of
Christianity, Durkheim theorized that this occurred because Protestant culture placed a
higher value on individualism. This made Protestants less likely to develop close communal
ties that might sustain them during times of emotional distress, which in turn made them
more susceptible to suicide. Conversely, he reasoned that belonging to the Catholic faith
provided greater social control and cohesion to a community, which would decrease the risk
of anomie and anomic suicide. The sociological implication is that strong social ties help
people and groups survive periods of change and tumult in society.
Breakdown of Ties That Bind People Together:
Considering the whole of Durkheim's writing on anomie, one can see that he saw it as a
breakdown of the ties that bind people together to make a functional society, a state of social
derangement. Periods of anomie are unstable, chaotic, and often rife with conflict because
the social force of the norms and values that otherwise provide stability is weakened or
missing.

END

Emile Durkheim: The rise of suicide rates in Pakistani society:

(Memorize if you get time)
Given the detailed discussion of Emile Durkheim suicide theory and types, we can easily
recognize all the four different types of suicide in Pakistani Society. If we analyze the data
from various sources such as available police reports and research studies, in the urban
centers as well as rural areas of Pakistan we can easily decipher that egoistic suicides have
occurred in Pakistan.

The growing fanaticism and terrorism in Pakistan as well as the strong moral and familial
integrated systems and bindings have resulted in altruistic suicides. Pakistani society and
culture have also witnessed social and cultural interventions and disruptions with the rise of
industrialization, urbanization, materialism, technology and modernization which have
resulted in higher rates of anomic suicides.

Finally, the idea of the strong excessive regulations and strict disciplines had led many
students across the country to commit fatalistic suicides. There are other social,
psychological, gender and cultural, economic and political factors which come into play while
pushing the individuals into committing suicides.
 END

Division of labour: (Memorize)

French philosopher Emile Durkheim's book The Division of Labor in Society debuted in
1893. It was his first major published work and the one in which he introduced the concept of
anomie. Anomie is a social condition in which there is a disintegration or disappearance of
the norms and values that were previously common to the society. 

How the Division of Labor Benefits Society:

Durkheim discusses how the division of labor—the establishment of specified jobs for certain
people—benefits society because it increases the reproductive capacity of a process and the
skill set of the workers.

It also creates a feeling of solidarity among people who share those jobs. But, Durkheim
says, the division of labor goes beyond economic interests: In the process, it also
establishes social and moral order within a society.

To Durkheim, the division of labor is in direct proportion with the dynamic or moral density of
a society. This is defined as a combination of the concentration of people and the amount of
socialization of a group or society.

Dynamic Density:
Density can occur in three ways:

 through an increase in the spatial concentration of people

 through the growth of towns
 through an increase in the number and efficacy of the means of communication

When one or more of these things happen, says Durkheim, labor begins to become divided
and jobs become more specialized. At the same time, because tasks grow more complex,
the struggle for meaningful existence becomes more difficult. Durkheim also stressed on
social solidarity.

Social Solidarity:
Durkheim referred to how we bind together around a shared culture as "solidarity." Social
solidarity is closely related to social cohesion and is the idea of a well-integrated
functioning society where all members have been socialised into its shared norms and
values.

Social Solidarity:
Durkheim argues that two kinds of social solidarity exist: mechanical solidarity and organic
solidarity.

Mechanical Solidarity:
Mechanical solidarity connects the individual to society without any intermediary. That is,
society is organized collectively and all members of the group share the same set of tasks
and core beliefs. What binds the individual to society is what Durkheim calls the "collective
consciousness," sometimes translated as "conscience collective," meaning a shared belief
system.
Organic Solidarity:
With regard to organic solidarity, on the other hand, society is more complex—a system of
different functions united by definite relationships. Each individual must have a distinct job or
task and a personality that is their own. 

Durkheim argued that individuality grows as parts of society grow more complex. Thus,
society becomes more efficient at moving in sync, yet at the same time, each of its parts has
more movements that are distinctly individual.

According to Durkheim, the more primitive a society is, the more it is characterized by
mechanical solidarity and sameness. The members of an agrarian society, for example, are
more likely to resemble each other and share the same beliefs and morals than the
members of a highly sophisticated technology- and information-driven society.

As societies become more advanced and civilized, the individual members of those societies
become more distinguishable from one another. People are managers or laborers,
philosophers or farmers. Solidarity becomes more organic as societies develop their
divisions of labor.

The Role of Law in Preserving Social Solidarity:

For Durkheim, the laws of a society are the most visible symbol of social solidarity. Law
plays a part in a society that is analogous to the nervous system in organisms. The nervous
system regulates various bodily functions so they work together in harmony. Likewise, the
legal system regulates all parts of society so that they work together effectively.

Two types of law are present in human societies and each corresponds with a type of social
solidarity: repressive law (moral) and restitutive law (organic).

Repressive Law:
Repressive law is related to the center of common consciousness" and everyone
participates in judging and punishing the perpetrator. The severity of a crime is not
measured necessarily by the damage incurred to an individual victim, but rather gauged as
the damage caused to the society or social order as a whole. Punishments for crimes
against the collective are typically harsh. Repressive law, says Durkheim, is practiced in
mechanical forms of society.

Restitutive Law:
The second type of law is restitutive law, which does focus on the victim when there is a
crime since there are no commonly shared beliefs about what damages society. Restitutive
law corresponds to the organic state of society and is made possible by more specialized
bodies of society such as courts and lawyers.
Law and Societal Development:
Repressive law and restitutory law are directly correlated with the degree of a society’s
development. Durkheim believed that repressive law is common in primitive or mechanical
societies where sanctions for crimes are typically made and agreed upon by the whole
community. In these "lower" societies, crimes against the individual do occur, but in terms of
seriousness, those are placed on the lower end of the penal ladder.

Crimes against the community take priority in mechanical societies, according to Durkheim,
because the evolution of the collective consciousness is widespread and strong while the
division of labor has not yet happened. When division of labor is present and collective
consciousness is all but absent, the opposite is true. The more a society becomes civilized
and the division of labor is introduced, the more restitutory law takes place.

END

Functionalism: (Memorize) (Details in Gender Studies in topic “V

Continue”)
Functionalism posits that society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each aspect of it
works for the stability of the whole. Durkheim envisioned society as an organism since each
component plays a necessary role but can't function alone. When one part experiences a
crisis, others must adapt to fill the void in some way.

In functionalist theory, the different parts of society are primarily composed of social
institutions, each designed to fill different needs. Family, government, economy, media,
education, and religion are important to understanding this theory and the core institutions
that define sociology. According to functionalism, an institution only exists because it serves
a vital role in the functioning of society. If it no longer serves a role, an institution will die
away. When new needs evolve or emerge, new institutions will be created to meet them.

In many societies, the government provides education for the children of the family, which in
turn pays taxes the state depends on to keep running. The family relies on the school to help
children grow up to have good jobs so they can raise and support their own families. In the
process, the children become law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who support the state. From
the functionalist perspective, if all goes well, the parts of society produce order, stability, and
productivity. If all does not go well, the parts of society must adapt to produce new forms of
order, stability, and productivity.

Functionalism emphasizes the consensus and order that exist in society. From this
perspective, disorganization in the system, such as deviant behavior, leads to change
because societal components must adjust to achieve stability. When one part of the system
is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, prompting social
change.
Critiques of the Theory:
Many sociologists have critiqued functionalism because of its neglect of the often-negative
implications of social order. Some critics, like Italian theorist Antonio Gramsci, claim that the
perspective justifies the status quo and the process of cultural hegemony that maintains it.
Functionalism does not encourage people to take an active role in changing their social
environment, even when doing so may benefit them. Instead, functionalism sees agitating for
social change as undesirable because the various parts of society will compensate in a
seemingly organic way for any problems that may arise.

END

Functionalist Views on the Role of Religion: (Memorize)

Functionalists argue that religion is a conservative force and that this is a positive function
for society and for individuals. Religion helps to create social order and maintains the value
consensus.

Religion:
According to Durkheim’s last major book “The elementary forms of Religious life” (1912)
“A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say,
things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single community
called a Church, all those who adhere to them."
According to Durkheim, religion is the product of human activity, not divine intervention. He
thus treats religion as a social fact and analyzes it sociologically.

Collective Effervescence:
According to Durkheim, a religion comes into being and is legitimated through moments of
what he calls “collective effervescence.” Collective effervescence refers to moments in
societal life when the group of individuals that makes up a society comes together in order to
perform a religious ritual.

Durkheim and the study of the Arunta:

Durkheim conducted a study of the Arunta, an Australian aboriginal tribe’s religious beliefs in
order to establish the function of the beliefs and ceremonies and what it really signified.

Durkheim deliberately chose what he considered to be a very primitive religion in order to

focus on the essential elements of belief and its functions. He argued that society divided
objects and activities into the sacred and the profane. The profane were everyday
experiences with a clear function, while the sacred had a greater, collective significance. In
the religion Durkheim studied, various “totems” were considered sacred.

From his detailed study of “primitive religion” he identified four key functions of religion in
society:

Discipline:
Religious rituals impose self-discipline, which encourages individuals to behave sociably and
not simply pursue their own selfish course of action, which would be anti-social and
destabilizing.

Cohesion:
The key function is social cohesion: worship brought the community together. Through
worship people reaffirm and reinforce the bonds that keep them together.

Vitalising:
Durkheim also argued that religious belief maintained traditions, ensuring that the values that
are passed down from generation to generation are kept vital and at the heart of the society.

Euphoric:
Finally, if members of society were ever to become frustrated or lose their faith, the religion
serves to remind them of their place in something much bigger. Again, it prevents individuals
from becoming anti-social.

Durkheim concluded that when a society came together to worship collectively, what they
were really worshipping was society itself. Durkheim recognised that society was becoming
less religious and more secular, but he argued that there was still this secular function for
religious belief. This was developed in the 1960s by Bellah with his work on Civil Religion.

Also, Durkheim predicted that religion's influence would decrease as society modernizes. He
believed that scientific thinking would likely replace religious thinking, with people giving only
minimal attention to rituals and ceremonies. He also considered the concept of “God” to be
on the verge of extinction. Instead, he envisioned society as promoting civil religion, in
which, for example, civic celebrations, parades, and patriotism take the place of church
services.  If traditional religion were to continue, however, he believed it would do so only as
a means to preserve social cohesion and order.

Critical Analysis:
The primary criticism of the structural-functional approach to religion is that it overlooks
religion’s dysfunctions. For instance, religion can be used to justify terrorism and violence.
Religion has often been the justification of, and motivation for, war. In one sense, this still fits
the structural-functional approach as it provides social cohesion among the members of one
party in a conflict. For instance, the social cohesion among the members of a terrorist group
is high, but in a broader sense, religion is obviously resulting in conflict without questioning
its actions against other members of society.

Durkheim predicted that the religion will slowly dilute itself. (Robert Bellah's Civil Religion)
and newer ethos will come into picture. He failed to predict- "religious revivalism".
Durkheim claimed that his theory applied to religion in general, yet he based his conclusions
on a limited set of examples.

END
Understanding the psycho-social causes of extremism: (Read Only)
Extremism perpetrated and justified on ideological and religious basis has been a key
issue of contemporary societies and states. In recent decades, Pakistanis have also been
the victim of extremism particularly justified in the name of religion.
In Pakistan, the foremost social-psychological reason for extremism is the extensive
social instability due to conflict over norms and values.
Due to exposition of Pakistani society to varieties of dogmas and social contact with many
exotic people the one-time stable structure has become extremely unstable.  In particular,
Pakistani society has had extensive contact with Arab societies particularly the radical
Arab (not Islamic) dogmas since the 1970s through hundreds of thousands of Pakistani
workers, who have been going to Arab and Gulf countries for employment. This social
contact was reinforced by thousands of Arabs who came to Pakistan during the Soviet-
Afghan war and of whom many stayed back. Pakistani society has also had large-scale
social contact with Arab-Gulf countries and their radical religious dogmas through media,
internet and literature. 
Generally, in Pakistan the social-psychological reason for extremism is a state of
normlessness technically called ‘anomie’ by sociologist Emile Durkheim. This is the
condition when there is large-scale conflict over norms and values and no value-system
or normative framework is so compelling to organise the social behaviour of majority of
people. Large-scale conflict, frustration and thus extremism are outcomes of this
situation. 
The underlying reason for extremist aggression is natural response to frustration. 
One reason people join or participate at any level in extremist groups is to obtain ‘solidarity’.
Solidarity is typically acquired through group-directed activity, especially in gangs, cults,
unions, political parties or movements, and religious sects.
First, these groups are characterized by a high level of social cohesion or solidarity. Second,
members of such groups usually hold, in common, a set of extreme beliefs. Islam as used by
Al Qaeda is not a purely religious doctrine but one that has been intensely distorted to
serve the ends of the group.

END

How Emile Durkheim Made His Mark on Sociology: (Important)

(Read Only) (As already done in previous topics)

On Functionalism, Solidarity, Collective Conscience, and Anomie:

Émile Durkheim was one of the founding thinkers of sociology. His body of work as a
researcher and theorist focused on how it is that a society can form and function, which is
another way of saying, how it can maintain order and stability. For this reason, he is
considered the creator of the functionalist perspective within sociology. 
On Solidarity and the Collective Conscience: (Read Only)
Durkheim referred to how we bind together around a shared culture as "solidarity." Through
his research, he found that this was achieved through a combination of rules, norms, and
roles; the existence of a "collective conscience," which refers to how we think in common
given our shared culture; and through the collective engagement in rituals that remind us of
the values we share in common, of our group affiliation, and our shared interests.

Society Structure & Social Facts: (Read Only)

Emile Durkheim was a well-known sociologist famous for his views on the structure of
society. His work focused on how traditional and modern societies evolved and function.
Durkheim's theories were founded on the concept of social facts, defined as the norms,
values, and structures of society.
This perspective of society differed from other sociologists of his era as Durkheim's theories
were founded on things external in nature, as opposed to those internal in nature, such as
the motivations and desires of individuals. According to Durkheim, collective consciousness,
values, and rules are critical to a functional society. In this lesson, we will focus on
Durkheim's theories of functionalism, anomie, and division of labor.

Functionalism: (Read Only)

Functionalism emphasizes a societal equilibrium. If something happens to disrupt the order
and the flow of the system, society must adjust to achieve a stable state. According to
Durkheim, society should be analyzed and described in terms of functions. Society is a
system of interrelated parts where no one part can function without the other. These parts
make up the whole of society. If one part changes, it has an impact on society as a whole.
For example, the state provides public education for children. The family of the children pays
taxes, which the state uses for public education. The children who learn from public
education go on to become law-abiding and working citizens, who pay taxes to support the
state.
Let's look at this example again. The state provides public education for children. But a
disruption or disequilibrium in the system occurs - perhaps the education is subpar, and the
children drop out and become criminals. The system adjusts to improve the education and
attempts to rehabilitate (through jail or other means) the criminals for them to become law-
abiding and taxpaying citizens.
Durkheim actually viewed crime as a normal behaviour and necessary occurrence in the
social system. He proposed that crime led to reactions from society about the crime. These
shared reactions were used to create common consensuses of what individuals felt were
moral and ethical norms by which to abide. These commonly held norms and values led to
boundaries and rules for the society.

Division of Labor: (Read Only)

Durkheim's concept of the division of labor focused on the shift in societies from a simple
society to one that is more complex. He argued that traditional societies were made up of
homogenous people that were more or less the same in terms of values, religious beliefs,
and backgrounds. Modern societies, in contrast, are made up of a complex division of labor,
beliefs, and backgrounds.
In traditional societies, the collective consciousness ruled, social norms were strong, and
social behavior was well regulated. In modern societies, common consciousness was less
obvious, and the regulation of social behavior was less punitive and more restitutive, aiming
to restore normal activity to society.
There are more ways that Durkheim's body of work remains important, relevant, and useful
to sociologists today.

END

Durkheim’s relevance in Modern World: (Read Only)

Durkheim who introduced the idea that society is composed not simply of a collection of
individuals, but also social and cultural structures that impose themselves upon, and even
shape, individual action and thought. In his book The Rules of the Sociological Method he
called these “social facts.”
A famous example of a social fact is found in Durkheim’s study, Suicide. In this book,
Durkheim argues that the suicide rate of a country is not random, but rather reflects the
degree of social cohesion within that society. He famously compares the suicide rate in
Protestant and Catholic countries, concluding that the suicide rate in Protestant countries is
higher because Protestantism encourages rugged individualism, while Catholicism fosters a
form of collectivism.
Adapting this theory to the contemporary era, we can say, according to Durkheim, the rate
of suicide or mental illness in modern societies cannot be explained by merely appealing to
individual psychology, but must also take into account macro conditions such as a society’s
culture and institutions.
In other words, if more and more people feel disconnected and alienated from each other,
this reveals something crucial about the nature of society.

Liberation of Individuals:
An heir of the Enlightenment, Durkheim championed the liberation of individuals from
religious dogmas, but he also feared that with their release from tradition individuals would
fall into a state of anomie — a condition that is best thought of as “normlessness” — which
he believed to be a core pathology of modern life.

For this reason, he spent his entire career trying to identify the bases of social solidarity in
modernity; he was obsessed with reconciling the need for individual freedom and the need
for community in liberal democracies.

In his mature years, Durkheim found what he believed to be a solution to this intractable
problem: religion. But not “religion” as understood in the conventional sense. True to his
sociological convictions, Durkheim came to understand religion as another social fact, that
is, as a byproduct of social life. In his classic The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, he
defined “religion” in the following way:
“A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say,
things set apart and forbidden — beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral
community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”

The sacred and the quest for solidarity:

For Durkheim, religion is endemic to social life, because it is a necessary feature of all moral
communities. The key term here is sacred. By sacred Durkheim meant something like,
unquestionable, taken-for-granted, and binding, or emitting a special aura. Wherever you
find the sacred, thought Durkheim, there you have religion.

There is a sense in which this way of thinking has become entirely commonplace. When
people describe, say, European soccer fans as religious in their devotion to their home team,
they are drawing on a Durkheimian conception of religion. They are signaling the fact that
fans of this nature are intensely devoted to their teams — so devoted, we might say, that the
team itself, along with its associated symbols, are considered sacred.

We can think of plenty of other contemporary examples: one’s relationship with one’s child or
life partner may be sacred, some artists view art itself — or at least the creation of it — as
sacred. The sacred is a necessary feature of social life because it is what enables
individuals to bond with one another. Through devotion to a particular sacred form, we
become tied to one another in a deep and meaningful way.

This is not to say that the sacred is always a good thing. We find the sacred among hate
groups, terrorist factions and revanchist political movements. Nationalism in its many guises
always entails a particular conception of the sacred, be it ethnic or civic.

But, at the same time, the sacred lies at the heart of all progressive movements. Just think of
the civil rights, feminist and gay liberation movements, all of which scalarized the liberal
ideals of human rights and moral equality. Social progress is impossible without a shared
conception of the sacred.

Durkheim’s profound insight was that despite the negative risks associated with the sacred,
humans cannot live without it. He asserted that a lack of social solidarity within society would
not only lead individuals to experience anomie and alienation, but might also encourage
them to engage in extremist politics. Why? Because extremist politics would satiate their
desperate desire to belong

END