Durkheim

Emile Durkheim lived during the rise of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution. These changes in his own society made him question the origin of state and the evolution of social complexity (Moore, 2000). To answer these questions, Durkheim believed that all societies should be studied through scientific research methodology, because Durkheim viewed sociology as the “science of societies” (p. 43). Through this method, Durkheim developed a variety of hypotheses about society and its evolution; there were two forms of social integration, mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity was a homogeneous society with individuals resembling each other in their positions in society and in their values and views, creating a conscience collective. In an organic solidarity society, each member of society is more of an individual, each playing a different role but ultimately under the control of a central “organ” (p. 47). Societies naturally transition from a mechanical solidarity society to an organic solidarity society, according to Durkheim, gradually losing the homogeneity, conscience collective,

Organic solidarity arose as a result of the industrial revolution when society became more multifaceted and new ways of working emerged. This saw a decline in the collective conscience regarding shared morals and beliefs as society began to progress and expand. The division of labour that arises as a result of organic solidarity is complex and varied, resulting in people becoming more individualistic and yet also interdependent. Society’s social bonds now centred around the fact that people were dependant on each other for the good and services required in their day-to-day lives. (McDonald, 2009)

2. Durkheim: What term does Durkheim associate with social solidarity? How do societies achieve it organically and mechanically? What did he think threatened social solidarity?

The societal structure embodies the collectivist principles set by the world council. Example is on (Rand 19) “We are one in all in one. There are no men but only the great WE, one, indivisible and

While Adam Smith and Karl Marx took on the definition of division of labor in terms of a more economical perspective, Emile Durkheim expresses his ideas of division of labor in terms of it on a more societal level. Similar to Smith’s perspective, Durkheim saw division of labor as being an evolution. He believed division of labor led to solidarity. He described there being two different types of solidarity, mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity, or solidarity by similarities, was the traditional model of societies that had a “collective (or common) consciousness” (Durkheim 1893). This meant the societies that shared the same

The division of labor, classified by industrialization, represents a rise in organic solidarity and a decline in mechanical solidarity. In a society where mechanical solidarity reigns supreme, people feel connected through what they have in common, such as similar work, educational and religious values, and lifestyles. Durkheim states this operates predominantly in traditional and small scale societies such as tribes. Societies of mechanical nature tend to be not very complex, with tasks themselves being general and simple. Social class is also easily distinguishable by mannerisms of eating and dressing such as when a tribal chief is better fed and better clothed than a

The overall argument that Durkheim is making in his book is that the division of labor is a moral good. In order for him to truly answer this would be to prove that the division of labor relates to something good. Durkheim believes that the society leads to the division of labor which will lead to solidarity. If solidarity is achieved then the division of labor is good. Solidarity is the normal state of society and is achieved when everyone works and gets along in unison. There are two types of solidarity, mechanical and organic. Although social solidarity can't be measured directly, according to Durkheim social solidarity can be measured by its different types of laws. Laws are the visible symbol of solidarity, they regulate relationships. Durkheim also saw laws as being an important component of the organism. He stated the laws symbolized the nervous system. The nervous system regulates all the different body functions and laws regulate all of society to ensure that everything works and performs properly.

Organic Solidarity/pg. 103: Durkheim’s term for the interdependence that results from the division of labor; as part of the same unit, we all depend on others to fulfill their jobs. Similar to role, organic solidarity is based around people doing certain things for the welfare of a city, town or in this case a slum. In organic solidarity, each person’s job benefits others. Without each other doing specific jobs, the slum would not be able to function, there would be needs that needed to be fulfilled and nobody to meet the requirements. If everyone had to do each and everything they needed with no option to trade others for things or a service, it would not be functional. Teachers at the schools are there to teach the kids, which allows parents to work and earn money to provide for their families, just as those parents then are able to buy food from merchants who sell the food so the parents don’t have to worry about traveling far just to find food. From low level jobs of the slums to the high level decision making jobs all are important in the running of the mega slum. Organic solidarity would not be possible if it were not for the division of labor in the slum, certain groups of people within the slum have certain jobs to do and by having this system all of the things that need to be done, get done and life can seem somewhat enjoyable considering the

The division of labour produces a moral effect that “create between two or more people a feeling of solidarity” (Marx, 1978, p. 46). There are two types of solidarity – mechanical solidarity, based on similarity and resemblances, and organic solidarity, based upon differences and how people are interdependent on each other. As the division of labour intensifies, people get drawn to each other based on their differences. Society changes from a simple society with repressive sanctions into a more complex society through the interdependence everyone has with each other, coupled with greater efficiency and higher moral standards. Furthermore, rules change from repressive sanctions to restitutive sanctions with a higher prevalence of cooperative law, creating a more organised and advanced society with social

This shows how the modern division of labour is advantageous in keeping contemporary societies together and how the division of labour is essential for maintaining organic solidarity. Differing from Marx’s view, Durkheim claimed the societies that dominated up to the seventieth and eighteenth centuries is incompatible with the diversity of today’s society (Giddens 1971).

In a society of mechanical solidarity, “the individual is not his own master; solidarity is” (McIntosh, Durkheim 193) and individuals discover lasting unities through the family and religion. They then establish repressive laws and institutions all around a standardized moral order held together by individual economic independence and the acceptance of other’s positive contributions to society. However, as the division of labor increases, workers dependent upon each other are produced due to a specialized system requiring the goods and services of other laborers. The collective efforts of the work force become blurred and abstract, forming an organic solidarity between them and a decline in Durkheim’s concept of the conscience collective. Interdependence becomes emphasized with the state having a larger role in organizing society and taking away solidarity of the family and religion. Durkheim prefers this form because “society becomes more capable of collective action at the same time that

Roles and institutions are similar to bodily organs, as they are dependent on one another (McDonell, 2012). He refers to two types of solidarity, mechanical and organic, where each produces different individuals in society (Shortell, n.d.). Mechanical solidarity is concerned with undifferentiated social structure with little division of labour. These societies were generally rural, religious, authoritarian and had constraints on social facts and little social mobility. Organic solidarity is modernised and is characterised by refined division of labour, increased urbanisation, low religiosity, high degree of individuality and increased social mobility. Societies exhibiting mechanical solidarity tend to be unified as they are all engaged in similar tasks and responsibilities. These societies are held together by the specialisation of people and their need for the services of many others. Thus, Durkheim concluded that social order and individual autonomy are compatible (Ritzer, 1996: 79-80). As modern societies differ from earlier ones, then solidarity changes as a society becomes more complex (Shortell, n.d.). This complexity arises other problems which Durkheim discussed in the trends of suicide and anomie.

However, in modern societies the division of labour is so different as the relationship between people is based on the functions they can perform for each other and how each individual is beneficial to the other. Therefore, in Durkheim’s view modern society is kept together by mutual dependence between everyone in society, he refers to this as organic solidarity (Ritzer, 2013). Furthermore, Durkheim also found that collective consciousness is also found in modern industrial societies even though as argued by Ritzer (2011), collective consciousness in a weaker form

Organic solidarity, on the other hand, is the type of solidarity linked to restitutive laws, which creates more specialized organs (p. 113). Unlike mechanical solidarity, which emphasizes on the collectiveness of society, the specialization of organs in organic solidarity seems to highlight more on the differences of individuals. Although this type of solidarity creates individualization, it is still based upon the interdependence of groups and individuals. As specialized as each individual or group’s function is, cooperation among them still exists as they need the other to live and grow. The function of each individual usually has relations to one another. This type of solidarity gives rise to the growth of

Sociologist Durkheim coined two terms mechanic society and organic society. Mechanical solidarity is the social integration of members of a society who have common values and beliefs. These common values and beliefs constitute a “collective conscience” that works internally in individual members to cause them to cooperate. Whereas Organic society has relatively greater division of labour, with individuals functioning much like the interdependent but differentiated organs of a living body. Society relies less on imposing uniform rules on everyone and more on regulating the relations between different groups and persons, often through the greater use of