Emile Durkheim Collective Consciousness Theory

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

For me, coming from a background in sociology, the concept of collective consciousness seems natural. If society is composed of various social institutions that were shaped, are shaped, and will be shaped by the peoples participating in them, it only makes sense that this idea of shared consciousness would explain the institutional formation of religion with its sacred rites, beliefs, and symbols. While I am not a fan of how he chose ‘Church’ as his specific word to define the social organization involved with religion, for its basis is rather ethnocentric, the definition he ascribes to the religious social body is appropriate. According to Durkheim, a ‘Church’ is “a society whose members are united because they imagine the sacred world and its relations with the profane world in the same way, and because they translate this common representation into identical practices” (41). Similarly, he later describes this ‘Church’ as “one single moral community” and that “it conveys the notion that religion must be an eminently collective thing” (44). Durkheim’s sole focus of his definition revolves around

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was a French sociologist who strongly influenced the discipline of sociology. It was apparent to Durkheim that since the French Revolution, the nation had been wracked by conflict and moral crisis (Stones, 2008). At the individual level, rising suicide rates reflected a growing sense of malaise. Durkheim’s goal was to develop a sociology that would help France overcome this continuing moral crisis. By tracing the influences on Durkheim to his predecessor August Comte and the German scholars of experimental psychology, it is possible to understand how Durkheim came to the conclusion that society is greater than the individual, and how his idea of a collective

Although Durkheim ideology was developed in the late 1800’s his explanation of collective consciousness and social facts relates to American society. As defined, collective consciousness is about people who share the same beliefs and values in a society. People are groomed at a young age to develop the same values and norms and then to pass the same belief system down to the next generation. To explain, in the United States, all citizens are striving to achieve the American Dream. In school, I and students across the country were taught to strive for a set of goals which include: to be a proud citizen, go to college, get a good job, get married have children, and a pet.

This is modeled by the fact that people being in groups, causes them to act and think differently than they would have if they had been alone. In her essay, Tavris uses many examples of this: In the case of Kitty Genovese or the late Rodney King who was beat to death by police officers. People have a tendency to act differently in groups, others suffer due to people not wanting to “rock the boat” or they do not want to “embarrass themselves or others if they are wrong” (19). Tavris offers a solution to the way people act in groups, “By understanding the impulse to diffuse responsibility, perhaps as individuals we will be more likely to act. By understanding the social pressures that reward group-think, loyalty and obedience, we can foster those that reward whistle blowing and moral courage. And, as a society, we can reinforce the belief that they also sing who stand and watch” (19). If civilization can solve the dilemma of people acting differently when they are in groups with others, the world could be a much improved place.

One of the ways an individual can understand cultural diversity is by creating a meaningful and genuine relationships with people who are from different cultures. Cultural diversity is an important phenomenal for teachers in training to become familiar with and I believe it is for this reason that the Education Department at Medgar Evers College has as one of its eight-unit standard Personal and Global Consciousness. The department under this standard expects teachers in training to examine, deconstruct, and reconstruct their own and others beliefs, values and perspective, to understand their own cultures, and to develop empathy and acceptance towards others culture. Teachers wishing to work in New York City

Collectivism is the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual (Merriam-Webster). Those who believe in collectivism think having society working towards the same goal or outcome is the most productive. Supporters of this theory feel it creates harmony and a sense of belonging (Andrews 1). Collective societies tend to be dependent on others in the group or institutions to meet their needs. Members of a collective society expect absolute loyalty to the group and have a “we” mentality (Andrews 1). As Ray Bradbury pointed out in Fahrenheit 451, when a collective society is present, “...they all say the same things and nobody says anything different from anyone else.” (31) The individual has no self-identity and is lost to the group. Although aspects of this argument are enticing, it ultimately fails to be a stronger argument because individual responsibility nor moral responsibility is present. There is no incentive for any individual to step up because everyone receives the same reward. Through collaboration and collective thoughts are great tools, we must remember that the original thought was generated by the individual and he or she should benefit from

“Treat social facts as things” is an expression that epitomises the works of Emile Durkheim. This essay focuses on four main sociological concepts proposed by the functionalist Emile Durkheim; the division of labour; mechanical and organic solidarity; anomie and suicide, and examines their relevance in contemporary society.

A society with an internal consensus of social norms and cultural values is essentially the BASIS of a social system. Contrarily, this system is labeled socially disorganized when there is a breakdown in social control or SOMETHING among its elements. The theory suggest the absence or reduction of cohesion and solidarity in a community, will result in a increase of crime rates and deviant behavior. To support these

Durkheim illustrates social solidarity as social unity and integration, that uses moral phenomenon to help understand the moral degrees in society. Durkheim suggest social solidarity works under two different types which are mechanical and organic solidarity. Durkheim defines mechanical solidarity as common value and beliefs that are shared within society, that creates unity and shared goals. Organic solidarity is the highest interaction between different groups, with diverse ideologies. Durkheim suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement use their social solidarity to achieve collective awareness of the unjust repressive laws that discriminate against African Americans within the judicial and prison system. Durkheim would suggest that the

Durkheim was one of the most influential sociologists in relation to the functionalist theories which stated society consisted of a structural consensus with a collective conscience of shared norms and values. He argued in order to establish the meaning of society one must understand the structures and social facts. He highlights changes in society from traditional societies which were linked with mechanical solidarity consisting of small scale ties with little division of labour. This in turn created a strong collective conscience of unity in comparison to modern society where differences amongst groups are promoted in turn weakening social solidarity. This is due to rapid changes within society in which Durkheim emphasises is due to a complex division of labour. Durkheim then argues that due to the combination of enlightenment notions and a capitalist society a collective conscience of individualism and greed is created. (Jones, Bradbury and Boutillier, 2011, pp.62-64)

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were full of evolving social and economic ideas. These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of ideas taken from the past revolutions. As the Industrial Revolution progressed through out the world, so did the gap between the class structures. The development of a capitalist society was a very favorable goal for the upper class. By using advanced methods of production introduced by the Industrial Revolution, they were able to earn a substantial surplus by ruling the middle class. Thus, maintaining their present class of life, while the middle class was exploited and degraded. At this time in history, social

Emile Durkheim was considered one of the greats of the sociology world. His use of scientific methodology to identify social factors which contributed to suicide has produced a foundational model for empirically based social research still relevant in sociology today. The purpose of this essay is to examine Durkheim’s study of the social causes of suicide, specifically how his theory of social integration and regulation contributed in interpreting these differences in suicide rates. This essay will argue that although heavily criticised Durkheim’s findings of the social factors which contributed to suicide are still relevant in Australia today more than a century later. In order to support this claim, firstly an overview of Durkheim’s social theory will be provided, specifically of his social causes of suicide. In addition it will then focus on how Durkheim interpreted these differences in suicide rates between various groups using his theory of social integration and discuss the two types of suicide Durkheim identified in this area. We will then discuss social regulation and its two forms of suicide. Criticism of his theory will then be discussed, before providing relevant statistics from Australia in regards to suicide rates of teen and indigenous communities and examine these figures to explain these variances in light of Durkheim’s social theory’s, to support the fact that Durkheim’s theory’s are still relevant in Australia today. Emile Durkheim was born in 1858 in a

There are many different perspectives on the growth of modernity. Society is constantly changing as more time passes by. People like Emile Durkheim and Max Weber both offer their own individual perspective on how the growth of modernity came about and how we have come to understand today’s society. In the 1890s period Emile Durkheim a sociologist, in France watched the transformation of society go from a ‘primitive’ stance into something more complex also known as ‘organic solidarity’. Max Weber a German sociologist on the other hand, his view was in regards to how the growth of government was a driving force in modernity to maintain order, organisation and administration of specialised functions. Both theses sociologists’ theories are

One of the facets of living within civilized society is that there are certain norms and social conventions that people must follow. Frequently, there is a large effort on the part of government, financial, and social institutions to keep people doing most of the same thing as others going to work, driving cars, buying homes, etc. Despite the fact that people engage in these efforts individually, the simple fact that they are all attempting to do the same thing, in much the same way, is indicative of the fact that they are engaged in collective behavior. THESIS: Those who are able to overcome collective behavior and allow for their individuality to determine their own outcomes exemplify the best of human nature.