SOCI 100 Study Guide - Final Guide: Physiognomy, Sui Generis, Mechanical And Organic Solidarity
(1) Society is a reality sui generis. It cannot be reduced to the
characteristics of the individuals who constitute it.
(2) Every society is a moral society. Durkheim does not mean that
every society is good. He means that every society requires “moral”
bonds to hold it together. We need to figure out what exactly a “moral”
bond is.
(3) Human beings are inherently social creatures, who in various
ways need social bonds, yet there is still an antagonism between
society and the individual (or so Durkheim says at some points). As a
later sociologist put it, human beings are social creatures but never
wholly socialized ones.
(4) Modern western societies suffer from a distinct kind of moral
crisis in which old forms of the social bond (or of social solidarity) have
eroded but new ones have yet to take shape.
(5) Durkheim saw himself as a kind of priest or prophet whose
responsibility was to sketch out the new kinds of shared beliefs capable
of holding a complex society together. Durkheim was eager to be the
kind of intellectual against whom Weber warned us.
Durkheim’s+argument+is+that+there+are+two+types+of+social+solidarity+–how+society+
holds+together+and+what+ties+the+individual+to+the+society. These+two+forms+
mechanical+solidarity,+which+characterizes+earlier+or+traditional+societies,+where+the+
division+of+labour+is+relatively+limited. The+form+of+social+solidarity+in+modern+
societies,+with+a+highly+developed+division+of+labour,+is+called+organic+
solidarity. Durkheim+argues+that+the+division+of+labour+itself+which+creates+organic+
solidarity,+because+of+mutual+needs+of+individuals+in+modern+society. In+both+types+of+
societies,+individuals+for+the+most+part+“interact+in+accordance+with+their+obligations+
to+others+and+to+society+as+a+whole. In+doing+so,+each+person+also+receives+some+
recognition+of+his+or+her+own+rights+and+contributions+within+the+collectivity. Social+
morality+in+this+sense+is+‘strictly+necessary’+for+solidarity+between+people+to+occur;+
without+morality,+“societies+cannot+exist.’”
Durkheim regards the examination of systems of law as an important means of
understanding morality. He regards “systems of law” as the “externalization of the
inner core of social reality (solidarity), it is predicted that as the inner core undergoes
qualitative changes from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity, there should be manifest
shift in the ratio of types of legal systems ... as a proportion of the total legal corpus.”
(Tiryakian in Bottomore and Nisbet, p. 214)
Since law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we have only to
classify the different types of law to find therefrom the different types of social
solidarity which correspond to it. (Division, p. 68).
That is, since social solidarity is a concept that it not easily observable or measurable,
Durkheim attempts to use systems of law as an index of forms and changes in
socialsolidarity. In the above quote, Durkheim states that law constitutes such an index
since it “reproduces the principal forms of solidarity.” Since systems of law can be
studied historically and in contemporary societies, Durkheim felt that by tracing the
development of different systems of law he could study the forms of social
solidarity. From this, Durkheim begins to build a proof of the division of labour as the
basis for the different forms of solidarity. He then attempts to show the nature of
society, how it changes over time, and how this results in the shift from mechanical
solidarity to organic solidarity.
1. Mechanical solidarity
Early societies tended to be small scale, localized in villages or rural areas, with a
limited division of labour or only a simple division of labour by age and sex. In this
type of society, people are very similar to each other, and Durkheim titles this
chapter “Mechanical solidarity through likeness.” In this type of society, each person
carries out essentially similar types of tasks, so that people share the type of work they
carry out. These societies are characterized by likeness, in which the members of the
society share the same values, based on common tasks and common life situations and
experiences.
In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law tends to
be repressive law or penal law. If there is a crime in this society, then this crime stands
as an offense to all, because it is an offense to the common morality, the shared system
of values that exists. Most people feel the offense, and regardless of how serious it is,
severe punishment is likely to be meted out for it. Zeitlin notes (p. 264):
Anything that offends the common conscience threatens the solidarity –the very
existence of society. An offense left unpunished weakens to that degree the
social unity. Punishment therefore serves the important function of restoring and
reconstituting social unity.
Penal law is concerned with sanctions only, and there is no mention of
obligations. Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment. Moral obligation
and duty is not stated in the punishment, because this is generally understood. Rather
the punishment is given, and that is the completion of the penalty.
Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society show the nature of
Durkheim's argument: In the quotes, note that the act is criminal because the act
offends the collective conscience. For Durkheim, the collective consciousness reaches
all parts of society, has a distinct reality and is independent of individual conditions,
and is passed on from one generation to the next. In this, it differs from particular or
individual consciences. (Division, pp. 79-80).
Quote 5. Collective Consciousness. the only common characteristic of all
crimes is that they consist ... in acts universally disapproved of by members of
each society. (Division,p. 73).
The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same
society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it
the collective or common conscience. (Division,p. 79)
an act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective
conscience. (Division,p. 80)
we must not say that an action shocks the common conscience because it is
criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience.
We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it.
(Division,p. 81).
the innocent, his wife, his children, his neighbours, etc. This is because the
passion which is the soul of punishment ceases only when exhausted. If,
therefore, after it has destroyed the one who has immediately called it forth, there
still remains force within it, it expands in quite mechanical fashion. (Division,p.
86).
Referring to repressive or penal forms of punishment in early society, Durkheim notes
that it may extend to:
In contrast, modern legal codes are quite different, with punishment being less
important. Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the original situation, rather
than exacting revenge on the offender. “But today, it is said, punishment has changed
it character; it is no longer to avenge itself that society punishes, it is to defend itself.”
(Division,p. 86).
Quote 6. Mechanical Solidarity. They must re-enforce themselves by mutual
assurances that they are always agreed. The only means for this is action in
common. In short, since it is the common conscience which is attacked, it must
be that which resists, and accordingly the resistance must be collective.
(Division,p. 103).
(Thus, the analysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime. We began
by establishing inductively that crime consisted essentially in an act contrary to
strong and defined states of the common conscience. We have just seen that all
the qualities of punishment ultimately derive from this nature of crime. That is
because the rules that it sanctions express the most essential social likeness.)
Thus we see what type of solidarity penal law symbolizes. ... not only are all the
members of the group individually attracted to one another because they
resemble one another, but also because they are joined to what is the condition of
existence of this collective type. ... They will as they will themselves, hold to it
durably and for prosperity, because, without it, a great part of their psychic lives
would function poorly. (Division,p. 105).
This distinction between different types of legal codes and punishment may provide a
means of noting what mechanical solidarity means.
These quotes show how the collective consciousness works in societies without a
highly developed division of labour. The primary function of punishment, therefore, is
to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question its
sanctity. In order to carry this out, such societies develop forms of repressive or penal
law.
While the common values in these societies can change over time, this process of
change is generally quite slow, so that these values are generally appropriate for the
historical period in question. At other times, the laws may be inappropriate, and might
be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim generally considers this to be
an exceptional circumstance, and one that is overcome.
2. Organic solidarity
With the development of the division of labour, the collective consciousness begins to
decline. Each individual begins to have a separate set of tasks which he or she is
engaged in. These different situations lead to quite a different set of experiences for
each individual. This set of experiences tends to lead toward “a ‘personal
consciousness,’ with an emphasis on individual distinctiveness.” (Grabb, p.81). The
common situation which created the common collective consciousness is disturbed, and
individuals no longer have common experiences, but have a great variety of different
settings, each leading towards its own consciousness.
As the developmen of the division of labour erodes the collective consciousness, it also
creates a new form of solidarity. This new form is organic solidarity, and is
characterized by dependence of individuals on each other within the division of labour,
and by a certain form of cooperation. There is a
functional interdependence in the division of labour. ... Organic solidarity ...
presupposes not identity but difference between individuals in their beliefs and
actions. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of the division of
labour are hence associated with increasing individualism. (Giddens, p. 77).
Cuff et al. (p.31) note that this means that “differences are expected and indeed become
expected. ... Thus the nature of the moral consensus changes. Commonly shared
values still persist because without them there would be no society, but they become
generalized, as they are not rooted in the totality of commonly shared daily
experiences. Instead of specifying the details of an action, common values tend to be a
more general underpinning for social practices. It is in this sense that the division of
labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon.”
Thus Durkheim argues that there are individual, and probably group, differences, at the
same time as there is a new form of social solidarity.
Quote 7. Organic Solidarity. There are in each of us, ... two consciences: one
which is common to our group in its entirety, which, consequently, is not ourself,
but society living and acting within us; the other, on the contrary, represents that
in us which is personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual. Solidarity
which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience
completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides in all points with it.
Individuality is something which the society possesses. Thus, .. personal rights
are not yet distinguished from real rights. (Division,129-30).
It is quite otherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour
produces. Whereas the previous type implies that individuals resemble each
other, this type presumes their difference. The first is possible only in so far as
the individual personality is absorbed into the collective personality; the second
is possible only if each one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him; that
is, a personality. ... In effect, on the one hand, each one depends as much more
strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the other, the activity of each
is as much more personal as it is more specialized. ... Society becomes more
capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of its elements has
more freedom of movement. The solidarity resembles that which we observe
among the higher animals. Each organ, in effect, has its special physiognomy, it
autonomy. And moreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the
individuation of the parts is more marked. Because of this analogy, we propose
to call the solidarity which is due to the division of labour, organic.
(Division,131).
Durkheim speaks of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and draws an organic
analogy:
In the structure of societies with organic solidarity (quote 8):
Quote 8. Social Structure. They are constituted, not by a repetition of similar,
homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a
special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts. Not only
are social elements not of the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same
manner. They are not juxtaposed linearly ... but entwined one with another, but
co-ordinated and subordinated one to another around the same central organ
which exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism.
(Division,p.181).
b. Restitutive or restorative law. Modern systems of law tend to be restitutive or
restorative, according to Durkheim. While there are elements of penal or repressive
law, such as the death penalty for murder, that continue to exist in modern societies,
modern systems of law are primarily characterized by judgments that require the
offending party to restore the situation to the original state –eg. paying restitution for
theft or to victims. Modern business and contract law governs the conditions of
contracts but says little or nothing about what type of contract parties can enter into.
“The progressive displacement of repressive by restitutive law is an historical trend
which is correlated with the degree of development of a society: the higher the level of
social development, the greater the relative proportion of restitutive law within the
judicial structure.” (Giddens, p. 76). For Durkheim, this form of law is concerned with
“a simple return in state. Sufferance proportionate to the misdeed is not inflicted on
the one who has violated the law or who disregards it; he is simply sentenced to
comply with it.” The judge “speaks of law; he says nothing of punishment.” (Division,
p 111).
As the division of labour develops, people do not have the same consciousness, so that
the form of law must change. “The very existence of restitutive law, in fact,
presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, since it covers the
rights of individuals either over private property, or over other individuals who are in a
different social position from themselves.” (Giddens, p. 76) Along with this could
come Weber’s rational law, perhaps much the same as Durkheim's restitutive
law. Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts are necessary, but these are
the result of the general acceptance of individual rights within the system of a division
of labour.
c. Cause of organic solidarity. Durkheim is critical of the economists who regard the
development of the division of labour as a result of the coming together of people with
different abilities and specialties. While Durkheim did not make reference to Adam
Smith, he also may have had in mind Smith’s view that people have a natural
propensity to truck, barter and trade. Finally, he was critical of the economists' point of
view that merely examined the technical conditions for the division of labour, and the
increased efficiency associated with it, without consideration of the broader societal
conditions necessary to maintain it. Thus Durkheim did not consider the division of
labour as a natural condition.
Durkheim considers the development of the division of labour to be associated with the
increasing contact among people. There is a greater density of contact, so that people
are led to specialize. The division of labour emerges in different ways in different
societies, leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity. However, it is these
developments which create the division of labour and “Civilization develops because it
cannot fail to develop.” (Division, p. 337).
Adams and Sydie (p. 94) state that Durkheim regarded this as an increase in moral or
dynamic density. This moral relationship can only produce its effect if the real distance
between individuals has itself diminished in some way. Durkheim refers to this an
increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the
same time. The two are inseparable though. Three ways in which this happens are:
i. Concentration of people.People begin to concentrate together. Agriculture may
begin this, and it continues with the growth of cities as well.
ii. Cities. Formation of cities and their development. “Cities always result from the
need of individuals to put themselves in very intimate contact with others. They are so
many points where the social mass is contracted more strongly than elsewhere. They
can multiply and extend only if the moral density is raised.” (Division,p. 258).
iii. Transportation and Communication. Increased number and rapidity of means of
transportation and communication. This results in “suppressing or diminishing the
gaps separating social segments, they increase the density of society.” (Division,pp.
259-260).
The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of
societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social
development, it is because societies become regularly denser and generally more
voluminous. (Division,262).
We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permit, but that
they necessitate a greater division of labor. It is not an instrument by which the
latter is realized; it is its determining cause. (Division, p. 262).
As a result of this greater contact, the “struggle for existence becomes more acute” and
this results in the development of the division of labour. If needs are the same, then
there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can be pursued,
then there may be room for all. Quote 8:
Social Structure (2nd part) In the same city, different occupations can co-exist
without being obliged mutually to destroy one another, for they pursue different
objects. ... Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from
attaining theirs.
The closer functions come to one another, however, the more points of contact
they have; the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. ... The judge
never is in competition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-
grower ... often try to supplant each other. As for those who have exactly the
same function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others. (Division,p.
267).
In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution, each segment
has its own organs, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions
separating the different segments. ... But, no matter how this substitution is made,
it cannot fail to produce advances in the course of specialization. (Division,269).
Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises
establish equilibrium by sharing their common task. Instead of one being
subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties
appear. (Division,270).
Division of Labour. The division of labour is, then, a result of the struggle for
existence, but is a mellowed dénouement. Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged
to fight to a finish, but can exist one beside the other. Also, in proportion to its
development, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greater
number of individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be
condemned to extinction. (Division,p. 271).
For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no need to
compete in the sense of struggling just to survive. Rather, the division of labour may
signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society, and this division
allows a certain form of co-operation. Quote 9:
Division of Labour. Work is not divided among independent and already
differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bring together their
different aptitudes. For it would be a miracle if differences thus born through
chance circumstance could unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far
from preceding collective life, they derive from it. They can be produced only in
the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments and social
needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious. ... there are societies
whose cohesion is essentially due to a community of beliefs and sentiments, and
it is from these societies that those whose unity is assured by the division of
labour have emerged. (Division,p. 277).
Civilization is itself the necessary consequence of the changes which are
produced in the volume and in the density of societies. If science, art, and
economic activity develop, it is in accordance with a necessity which is imposed
upon men. It is because there is, for them, no other way of living in the new
conditions in which they have been placed. From the time that the number of
individuals among whom social relations are established begins to increase, they
can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, harder work, and
intensification of their faculties. From this general stimulation, there inevitably
results a much higher degree of culture. (Division,pp. 336-337).
The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its development. It
is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived plan. “The division of
labour, then, must come about of itself and progressively.” (Division,p. 276). It must
come to pass in a pre-existing society (Appendix quote 9).
Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of the division of labour which emphasizes the
special functions of each of type of occupation and endeavor. The biological model,
with a well functioning body, where each organ properly serves it function seems to be
uppermost in Durkheim's mind. Unlike some of the structural functionalists,
Durkheim's method distinguishes the cause of the function from the actual function
filled. That is, Durkheim observes the function that the occupation fills in society, but
attempts to investigate the development of the cause in an historical manner, examining
how this function emerged. In this, one can consider there to be a certain “conflict as a
mechanism, within a quasi-Darwinian framework, which accelerates the progression of
the division of labour.” (Giddens, p. 79).
Durkheim is also providing a criticism of the economic models which argue that people
with different specialties come together to trade the products of their specialties. For
Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but are developed. Similarly, the
division of labour is not natural either, but develops in different forms in different
societies. While there may be a great similarity among these (perhaps like Weber's
rationality), national differences emerge. In that sense, Durkheim has an historical
model, fairly solidly grounded on the material realities.
On the other hand, Durkheim’s analysis may be considered to be mainly descriptive,
proposing some fairly straightforward observations concerning culture. His notion of
solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to the conventional sociological
model of these, and may be considered to be widely accepted by all. The question is
how these emerge, and whose interests they serve. Here the conflict approach differs
dramatically from Durkheim.
Finally, Durkheim's analysis can be considered to be evolutionary and fairly
optimistic. For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in the division of
labour as signaling higher stages of civilization. He does not consider there to be any
grand plan to this, and no single factor which guides it. Rather, there is competition,
which results in the development of the division of labour, and the outcome of this
process cannot be predicted. However, the result is generally positive, because people
need each other, and this produces an organic solidarity in society.
Durkheim+viewed+this+"law"+of+the+division+of+labor+as+applying+not+only+to+human+
societies,+but+to+biological+organisms+generally.\
In+this+text,+he+explains+that+the+phenomenon+is+"the+totality+of+beliefs+and+sentiments+
common+to+the+average+members+of+a+society."+Durkheim+observed+that+in+traditional+
or+primitive+societies, religious+symbols, discourse,+beliefs,+and+rituals+fostered+the+
collective+ consciousness.+In+such+cases,+where+social+groups+were+quite+homogenous+
(not+distinct+by+race+or+class,+for+example),+the+collective+consciousness+resulted+in+
what+Durkheim+termed+a+"mechanical+solidarity"—in+effect+an+automatic+binding+
together+of+people+into+a+collective+through+their+shared+values,+beliefs,+and+practices.
Durkheim+
2017年12月9日 星期六
下午3:21
(1) Society is a reality sui generis. It cannot be reduced to the
characteristics of the individuals who constitute it.
(2) Every society is a moral society. Durkheim does not mean that
every society is good. He means that every society requires “moral”
bonds to hold it together. We need to figure out what exactly a “moral”
bond is.
(3) Human beings are inherently social creatures, who in various
ways need social bonds, yet there is still an antagonism between
society and the individual (or so Durkheim says at some points). As a
later sociologist put it, human beings are social creatures but never
wholly socialized ones.
(4) Modern western societies suffer from a distinct kind of moral
crisis in which old forms of the social bond (or of social solidarity) have
eroded but new ones have yet to take shape.
(5) Durkheim saw himself as a kind of priest or prophet whose
responsibility was to sketch out the new kinds of shared beliefs capable
of holding a complex society together. Durkheim was eager to be the
kind of intellectual against whom Weber warned us.
Durkheim’s+argument+is+that+there+are+two+types+of+social+solidarity+–how+society+
holds+together+and+what+ties+the+individual+to+the+society. These+two+forms+
mechanical+solidarity,+which+characterizes+earlier+or+traditional+societies,+where+the+
division+of+labour+is+relatively+limited. The+form+of+social+solidarity+in+modern+
societies,+with+a+highly+developed+division+of+labour,+is+called+organic+
solidarity. Durkheim+argues+that+the+division+of+labour+itself+which+creates+organic+
solidarity,+because+of+mutual+needs+of+individuals+in+modern+society. In+both+types+of+
societies,+individuals+for+the+most+part+“interact+in+accordance+with+their+obligations+
to+others+and+to+society+as+a+whole. In+doing+so,+each+person+also+receives+some+
recognition+of+his+or+her+own+rights+and+contributions+within+the+collectivity. Social+
morality+in+this+sense+is+‘strictly+necessary’+for+solidarity+between+people+to+occur;+
without+morality,+“societies+cannot+exist.’”
Durkheim regards the examination of systems of law as an important means of
understanding morality. He regards “systems of law” as the “externalization of the
inner core of social reality (solidarity), it is predicted that as the inner core undergoes
qualitative changes from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity, there should be manifest
shift in the ratio of types of legal systems ... as a proportion of the total legal corpus.”
(Tiryakian in Bottomore and Nisbet, p. 214)
Since law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we have only to
classify the different types of law to find therefrom the different types of social
solidarity which correspond to it. (Division, p. 68).
That is, since social solidarity is a concept that it not easily observable or measurable,
Durkheim attempts to use systems of law as an index of forms and changes in
socialsolidarity. In the above quote, Durkheim states that law constitutes such an index
since it “reproduces the principal forms of solidarity.” Since systems of law can be
studied historically and in contemporary societies, Durkheim felt that by tracing the
development of different systems of law he could study the forms of social
solidarity. From this, Durkheim begins to build a proof of the division of labour as the
basis for the different forms of solidarity. He then attempts to show the nature of
society, how it changes over time, and how this results in the shift from mechanical
solidarity to organic solidarity.
1. Mechanical solidarity
Early societies tended to be small scale, localized in villages or rural areas, with a
limited division of labour or only a simple division of labour by age and sex. In this
type of society, people are very similar to each other, and Durkheim titles this
chapter “Mechanical solidarity through likeness.” In this type of society, each person
carries out essentially similar types of tasks, so that people share the type of work they
carry out. These societies are characterized by likeness, in which the members of the
society share the same values, based on common tasks and common life situations and
experiences.
In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law tends to
be repressive law or penal law. If there is a crime in this society, then this crime stands
as an offense to all, because it is an offense to the common morality, the shared system
of values that exists. Most people feel the offense, and regardless of how serious it is,
severe punishment is likely to be meted out for it. Zeitlin notes (p. 264):
Anything that offends the common conscience threatens the solidarity –the very
existence of society. An offense left unpunished weakens to that degree the
social unity. Punishment therefore serves the important function of restoring and
reconstituting social unity.
Penal law is concerned with sanctions only, and there is no mention of
obligations. Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment. Moral obligation
and duty is not stated in the punishment, because this is generally understood. Rather
the punishment is given, and that is the completion of the penalty.
Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society show the nature of
Durkheim's argument: In the quotes, note that the act is criminal because the act
offends the collective conscience. For Durkheim, the collective consciousness reaches
all parts of society, has a distinct reality and is independent of individual conditions,
and is passed on from one generation to the next. In this, it differs from particular or
individual consciences. (Division, pp. 79-80).
Quote 5. Collective Consciousness. the only common characteristic of all
crimes is that they consist ... in acts universally disapproved of by members of
each society. (Division,p. 73).
The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same
society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it
the collective or common conscience. (Division,p. 79)
an act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective
conscience. (Division,p. 80)
we must not say that an action shocks the common conscience because it is
criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience.
We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it.
(Division,p. 81).
the innocent, his wife, his children, his neighbours, etc. This is because the
passion which is the soul of punishment ceases only when exhausted. If,
therefore, after it has destroyed the one who has immediately called it forth, there
still remains force within it, it expands in quite mechanical fashion. (Division,p.
86).
Referring to repressive or penal forms of punishment in early society, Durkheim notes
that it may extend to:
In contrast, modern legal codes are quite different, with punishment being less
important. Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the original situation, rather
than exacting revenge on the offender. “But today, it is said, punishment has changed
it character; it is no longer to avenge itself that society punishes, it is to defend itself.”
(Division,p. 86).
Quote 6. Mechanical Solidarity. They must re-enforce themselves by mutual
assurances that they are always agreed. The only means for this is action in
common. In short, since it is the common conscience which is attacked, it must
be that which resists, and accordingly the resistance must be collective.
(Division,p. 103).
(Thus, the analysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime. We began
by establishing inductively that crime consisted essentially in an act contrary to
strong and defined states of the common conscience. We have just seen that all
the qualities of punishment ultimately derive from this nature of crime. That is
because the rules that it sanctions express the most essential social likeness.)
Thus we see what type of solidarity penal law symbolizes. ... not only are all the
members of the group individually attracted to one another because they
resemble one another, but also because they are joined to what is the condition of
existence of this collective type. ... They will as they will themselves, hold to it
durably and for prosperity, because, without it, a great part of their psychic lives
would function poorly. (Division,p. 105).
This distinction between different types of legal codes and punishment may provide a
means of noting what mechanical solidarity means.
These quotes show how the collective consciousness works in societies without a
highly developed division of labour. The primary function of punishment, therefore, is
to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question its
sanctity. In order to carry this out, such societies develop forms of repressive or penal
law.
While the common values in these societies can change over time, this process of
change is generally quite slow, so that these values are generally appropriate for the
historical period in question. At other times, the laws may be inappropriate, and might
be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim generally considers this to be
an exceptional circumstance, and one that is overcome.
2. Organic solidarity
With the development of the division of labour, the collective consciousness begins to
decline. Each individual begins to have a separate set of tasks which he or she is
engaged in. These different situations lead to quite a different set of experiences for
each individual. This set of experiences tends to lead toward “a ‘personal
consciousness,’ with an emphasis on individual distinctiveness.” (Grabb, p.81). The
common situation which created the common collective consciousness is disturbed, and
individuals no longer have common experiences, but have a great variety of different
settings, each leading towards its own consciousness.
As the developmen of the division of labour erodes the collective consciousness, it also
creates a new form of solidarity. This new form is organic solidarity, and is
characterized by dependence of individuals on each other within the division of labour,
and by a certain form of cooperation. There is a
functional interdependence in the division of labour. ... Organic solidarity ...
presupposes not identity but difference between individuals in their beliefs and
actions. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of the division of
labour are hence associated with increasing individualism. (Giddens, p. 77).
Cuff et al. (p.31) note that this means that “differences are expected and indeed become
expected. ... Thus the nature of the moral consensus changes. Commonly shared
values still persist because without them there would be no society, but they become
generalized, as they are not rooted in the totality of commonly shared daily
experiences. Instead of specifying the details of an action, common values tend to be a
more general underpinning for social practices. It is in this sense that the division of
labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon.”
Thus Durkheim argues that there are individual, and probably group, differences, at the
same time as there is a new form of social solidarity.
Quote 7. Organic Solidarity. There are in each of us, ... two consciences: one
which is common to our group in its entirety, which, consequently, is not ourself,
but society living and acting within us; the other, on the contrary, represents that
in us which is personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual. Solidarity
which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience
completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides in all points with it.
Individuality is something which the society possesses. Thus, .. personal rights
are not yet distinguished from real rights. (Division,129-30).
It is quite otherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour
produces. Whereas the previous type implies that individuals resemble each
other, this type presumes their difference. The first is possible only in so far as
the individual personality is absorbed into the collective personality; the second
is possible only if each one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him; that
is, a personality. ... In effect, on the one hand, each one depends as much more
strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the other, the activity of each
is as much more personal as it is more specialized. ... Society becomes more
capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of its elements has
more freedom of movement. The solidarity resembles that which we observe
among the higher animals. Each organ, in effect, has its special physiognomy, it
autonomy. And moreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the
individuation of the parts is more marked. Because of this analogy, we propose
to call the solidarity which is due to the division of labour, organic.
(Division,131).
Durkheim speaks of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and draws an organic
analogy:
In the structure of societies with organic solidarity (quote 8):
Quote 8. Social Structure. They are constituted, not by a repetition of similar,
homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a
special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts. Not only
are social elements not of the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same
manner. They are not juxtaposed linearly ... but entwined one with another, but
co-ordinated and subordinated one to another around the same central organ
which exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism.
(Division,p.181).
b. Restitutive or restorative law. Modern systems of law tend to be restitutive or
restorative, according to Durkheim. While there are elements of penal or repressive
law, such as the death penalty for murder, that continue to exist in modern societies,
modern systems of law are primarily characterized by judgments that require the
offending party to restore the situation to the original state –eg. paying restitution for
theft or to victims. Modern business and contract law governs the conditions of
contracts but says little or nothing about what type of contract parties can enter into.
“The progressive displacement of repressive by restitutive law is an historical trend
which is correlated with the degree of development of a society: the higher the level of
social development, the greater the relative proportion of restitutive law within the
judicial structure.” (Giddens, p. 76). For Durkheim, this form of law is concerned with
“a simple return in state. Sufferance proportionate to the misdeed is not inflicted on
the one who has violated the law or who disregards it; he is simply sentenced to
comply with it.” The judge “speaks of law; he says nothing of punishment.” (Division,
p 111).
As the division of labour develops, people do not have the same consciousness, so that
the form of law must change. “The very existence of restitutive law, in fact,
presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, since it covers the
rights of individuals either over private property, or over other individuals who are in a
different social position from themselves.” (Giddens, p. 76) Along with this could
come Weber’s rational law, perhaps much the same as Durkheim's restitutive
law. Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts are necessary, but these are
the result of the general acceptance of individual rights within the system of a division
of labour.
c. Cause of organic solidarity. Durkheim is critical of the economists who regard the
development of the division of labour as a result of the coming together of people with
different abilities and specialties. While Durkheim did not make reference to Adam
Smith, he also may have had in mind Smith’s view that people have a natural
propensity to truck, barter and trade. Finally, he was critical of the economists' point of
view that merely examined the technical conditions for the division of labour, and the
increased efficiency associated with it, without consideration of the broader societal
conditions necessary to maintain it. Thus Durkheim did not consider the division of
labour as a natural condition.
Durkheim considers the development of the division of labour to be associated with the
increasing contact among people. There is a greater density of contact, so that people
are led to specialize. The division of labour emerges in different ways in different
societies, leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity. However, it is these
developments which create the division of labour and “Civilization develops because it
cannot fail to develop.” (Division, p. 337).
Adams and Sydie (p. 94) state that Durkheim regarded this as an increase in moral or
dynamic density. This moral relationship can only produce its effect if the real distance
between individuals has itself diminished in some way. Durkheim refers to this an
increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the
same time. The two are inseparable though. Three ways in which this happens are:
i. Concentration of people.People begin to concentrate together. Agriculture may
begin this, and it continues with the growth of cities as well.
ii. Cities. Formation of cities and their development. “Cities always result from the
need of individuals to put themselves in very intimate contact with others. They are so
many points where the social mass is contracted more strongly than elsewhere. They
can multiply and extend only if the moral density is raised.” (Division,p. 258).
iii. Transportation and Communication. Increased number and rapidity of means of
transportation and communication. This results in “suppressing or diminishing the
gaps separating social segments, they increase the density of society.” (Division,pp.
259-260).
The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of
societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social
development, it is because societies become regularly denser and generally more
voluminous. (Division,262).
We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permit, but that
they necessitate a greater division of labor. It is not an instrument by which the
latter is realized; it is its determining cause. (Division, p. 262).
As a result of this greater contact, the “struggle for existence becomes more acute” and
this results in the development of the division of labour. If needs are the same, then
there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can be pursued,
then there may be room for all. Quote 8:
Social Structure (2nd part) In the same city, different occupations can co-exist
without being obliged mutually to destroy one another, for they pursue different
objects. ... Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from
attaining theirs.
The closer functions come to one another, however, the more points of contact
they have; the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. ... The judge
never is in competition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-
grower ... often try to supplant each other. As for those who have exactly the
same function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others. (Division,p.
267).
In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution, each segment
has its own organs, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions
separating the different segments. ... But, no matter how this substitution is made,
it cannot fail to produce advances in the course of specialization. (Division,269).
Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises
establish equilibrium by sharing their common task. Instead of one being
subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties
appear. (Division,270).
Division of Labour. The division of labour is, then, a result of the struggle for
existence, but is a mellowed dénouement. Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged
to fight to a finish, but can exist one beside the other. Also, in proportion to its
development, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greater
number of individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be
condemned to extinction. (Division,p. 271).
For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no need to
compete in the sense of struggling just to survive. Rather, the division of labour may
signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society, and this division
allows a certain form of co-operation. Quote 9:
Division of Labour. Work is not divided among independent and already
differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bring together their
different aptitudes. For it would be a miracle if differences thus born through
chance circumstance could unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far
from preceding collective life, they derive from it. They can be produced only in
the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments and social
needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious. ... there are societies
whose cohesion is essentially due to a community of beliefs and sentiments, and
it is from these societies that those whose unity is assured by the division of
labour have emerged. (Division,p. 277).
Civilization is itself the necessary consequence of the changes which are
produced in the volume and in the density of societies. If science, art, and
economic activity develop, it is in accordance with a necessity which is imposed
upon men. It is because there is, for them, no other way of living in the new
conditions in which they have been placed. From the time that the number of
individuals among whom social relations are established begins to increase, they
can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, harder work, and
intensification of their faculties. From this general stimulation, there inevitably
results a much higher degree of culture. (Division,pp. 336-337).
The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its development. It
is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived plan. “The division of
labour, then, must come about of itself and progressively.” (Division,p. 276). It must
come to pass in a pre-existing society (Appendix quote 9).
Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of the division of labour which emphasizes the
special functions of each of type of occupation and endeavor. The biological model,
with a well functioning body, where each organ properly serves it function seems to be
uppermost in Durkheim's mind. Unlike some of the structural functionalists,
Durkheim's method distinguishes the cause of the function from the actual function
filled. That is, Durkheim observes the function that the occupation fills in society, but
attempts to investigate the development of the cause in an historical manner, examining
how this function emerged. In this, one can consider there to be a certain “conflict as a
mechanism, within a quasi-Darwinian framework, which accelerates the progression of
the division of labour.” (Giddens, p. 79).
Durkheim is also providing a criticism of the economic models which argue that people
with different specialties come together to trade the products of their specialties. For
Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but are developed. Similarly, the
division of labour is not natural either, but develops in different forms in different
societies. While there may be a great similarity among these (perhaps like Weber's
rationality), national differences emerge. In that sense, Durkheim has an historical
model, fairly solidly grounded on the material realities.
On the other hand, Durkheim’s analysis may be considered to be mainly descriptive,
proposing some fairly straightforward observations concerning culture. His notion of
solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to the conventional sociological
model of these, and may be considered to be widely accepted by all. The question is
how these emerge, and whose interests they serve. Here the conflict approach differs
dramatically from Durkheim.
Finally, Durkheim's analysis can be considered to be evolutionary and fairly
optimistic. For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in the division of
labour as signaling higher stages of civilization. He does not consider there to be any
grand plan to this, and no single factor which guides it. Rather, there is competition,
which results in the development of the division of labour, and the outcome of this
process cannot be predicted. However, the result is generally positive, because people
need each other, and this produces an organic solidarity in society.
Durkheim+viewed+this+"law"+of+the+division+of+labor+as+applying+not+only+to+human+
societies,+but+to+biological+organisms+generally.\
In+this+text,+he+explains+that+the+phenomenon+is+"the+totality+of+beliefs+and+sentiments+
common+to+the+average+members+of+a+society."+Durkheim+observed+that+in+traditional+
or+primitive+societies, religious+symbols, discourse,+beliefs,+and+rituals+fostered+the+
collective+ consciousness.+In+such+cases,+where+social+groups+were+quite+homogenous+
(not+distinct+by+race+or+class,+for+example),+the+collective+consciousness+resulted+in+
what+Durkheim+termed+a+"mechanical+solidarity"—in+effect+an+automatic+binding+
together+of+people+into+a+collective+through+their+shared+values,+beliefs,+and+practices.
Durkheim+
2017年12月9日 星期六 下午3:21
(1) Society is a reality sui generis. It cannot be reduced to the
characteristics of the individuals who constitute it.
(2) Every society is a moral society. Durkheim does not mean that
every society is good. He means that every society requires “moral”
bonds to hold it together. We need to figure out what exactly a “moral”
bond is.
(3) Human beings are inherently social creatures, who in various
ways need social bonds, yet there is still an antagonism between
society and the individual (or so Durkheim says at some points). As a
later sociologist put it, human beings are social creatures but never
wholly socialized ones.
(4) Modern western societies suffer from a distinct kind of moral
crisis in which old forms of the social bond (or of social solidarity) have
eroded but new ones have yet to take shape.
(5) Durkheim saw himself as a kind of priest or prophet whose
responsibility was to sketch out the new kinds of shared beliefs capable
of holding a complex society together. Durkheim was eager to be the
kind of intellectual against whom Weber warned us.
Durkheim’s+argument+is+that+there+are+two+types+of+social+solidarity+–how+society+
holds+together+and+what+ties+the+individual+to+the+society. These+two+forms+
mechanical+solidarity,+which+characterizes+earlier+or+traditional+societies,+where+the+
division+of+labour+is+relatively+limited. The+form+of+social+solidarity+in+modern+
societies,+with+a+highly+developed+division+of+labour,+is+called+organic+
solidarity. Durkheim+argues+that+the+division+of+labour+itself+which+creates+organic+
solidarity,+because+of+mutual+needs+of+individuals+in+modern+society. In+both+types+of+
societies,+individuals+for+the+most+part+“interact+in+accordance+with+their+obligations+
to+others+and+to+society+as+a+whole. In+doing+so,+each+person+also+receives+some+
recognition+of+his+or+her+own+rights+and+contributions+within+the+collectivity. Social+
morality+in+this+sense+is+‘strictly+necessary’+for+solidarity+between+people+to+occur;+
without+morality,+“societies+cannot+exist.’”
Durkheim regards the examination of systems of law as an important means of
understanding morality. He regards “systems of law” as the “externalization of the
inner core of social reality (solidarity), it is predicted that as the inner core undergoes
qualitative changes from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity, there should be manifest
shift in the ratio of types of legal systems ... as a proportion of the total legal corpus.”
(Tiryakian in Bottomore and Nisbet, p. 214)
Since law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we have only to
classify the different types of law to find therefrom the different types of social
solidarity which correspond to it. (Division, p. 68).
That is, since social solidarity is a concept that it not easily observable or measurable,
Durkheim attempts to use systems of law as an index of forms and changes in
socialsolidarity. In the above quote, Durkheim states that law constitutes such an index
since it “reproduces the principal forms of solidarity.” Since systems of law can be
studied historically and in contemporary societies, Durkheim felt that by tracing the
development of different systems of law he could study the forms of social
solidarity. From this, Durkheim begins to build a proof of the division of labour as the
basis for the different forms of solidarity. He then attempts to show the nature of
society, how it changes over time, and how this results in the shift from mechanical
solidarity to organic solidarity.
1. Mechanical solidarity
Early societies tended to be small scale, localized in villages or rural areas, with a
limited division of labour or only a simple division of labour by age and sex. In this
type of society, people are very similar to each other, and Durkheim titles this
chapter “Mechanical solidarity through likeness.” In this type of society, each person
carries out essentially similar types of tasks, so that people share the type of work they
carry out. These societies are characterized by likeness, in which the members of the
society share the same values, based on common tasks and common life situations and
experiences.
In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law tends to
be repressive law or penal law. If there is a crime in this society, then this crime stands
as an offense to all, because it is an offense to the common morality, the shared system
of values that exists. Most people feel the offense, and regardless of how serious it is,
severe punishment is likely to be meted out for it. Zeitlin notes (p. 264):
Anything that offends the common conscience threatens the solidarity –the very
existence of society. An offense left unpunished weakens to that degree the
social unity. Punishment therefore serves the important function of restoring and
reconstituting social unity.
Penal law is concerned with sanctions only, and there is no mention of
obligations. Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment. Moral obligation
and duty is not stated in the punishment, because this is generally understood. Rather
the punishment is given, and that is the completion of the penalty.
Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society show the nature of
Durkheim's argument: In the quotes, note that the act is criminal because the act
offends the collective conscience. For Durkheim, the collective consciousness reaches
all parts of society, has a distinct reality and is independent of individual conditions,
and is passed on from one generation to the next. In this, it differs from particular or
individual consciences. (Division, pp. 79-80).
Quote 5. Collective Consciousness. the only common characteristic of all
crimes is that they consist ... in acts universally disapproved of by members of
each society. (Division,p. 73).
The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same
society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it
the collective or common conscience. (Division,p. 79)
an act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective
conscience. (Division,p. 80)
we must not say that an action shocks the common conscience because it is
criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience.
We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it.
(Division,p. 81).
the innocent, his wife, his children, his neighbours, etc. This is because the
passion which is the soul of punishment ceases only when exhausted. If,
therefore, after it has destroyed the one who has immediately called it forth, there
still remains force within it, it expands in quite mechanical fashion. (Division,p.
86).
Referring to repressive or penal forms of punishment in early society, Durkheim notes
that it may extend to:
In contrast, modern legal codes are quite different, with punishment being less
important. Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the original situation, rather
than exacting revenge on the offender. “But today, it is said, punishment has changed
it character; it is no longer to avenge itself that society punishes, it is to defend itself.”
(Division,p. 86).
Quote 6. Mechanical Solidarity. They must re-enforce themselves by mutual
assurances that they are always agreed. The only means for this is action in
common. In short, since it is the common conscience which is attacked, it must
be that which resists, and accordingly the resistance must be collective.
(Division,p. 103).
(Thus, the analysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime. We began
by establishing inductively that crime consisted essentially in an act contrary to
strong and defined states of the common conscience. We have just seen that all
the qualities of punishment ultimately derive from this nature of crime. That is
because the rules that it sanctions express the most essential social likeness.)
Thus we see what type of solidarity penal law symbolizes. ... not only are all the
members of the group individually attracted to one another because they
resemble one another, but also because they are joined to what is the condition of
existence of this collective type. ... They will as they will themselves, hold to it
durably and for prosperity, because, without it, a great part of their psychic lives
would function poorly. (Division,p. 105).
This distinction between different types of legal codes and punishment may provide a
means of noting what mechanical solidarity means.
These quotes show how the collective consciousness works in societies without a
highly developed division of labour. The primary function of punishment, therefore, is
to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question its
sanctity. In order to carry this out, such societies develop forms of repressive or penal
law.
While the common values in these societies can change over time, this process of
change is generally quite slow, so that these values are generally appropriate for the
historical period in question. At other times, the laws may be inappropriate, and might
be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim generally considers this to be
an exceptional circumstance, and one that is overcome.
2. Organic solidarity
With the development of the division of labour, the collective consciousness begins to
decline. Each individual begins to have a separate set of tasks which he or she is
engaged in. These different situations lead to quite a different set of experiences for
each individual. This set of experiences tends to lead toward “a ‘personal
consciousness,’ with an emphasis on individual distinctiveness.” (Grabb, p.81). The
common situation which created the common collective consciousness is disturbed, and
individuals no longer have common experiences, but have a great variety of different
settings, each leading towards its own consciousness.
As the developmen of the division of labour erodes the collective consciousness, it also
creates a new form of solidarity. This new form is organic solidarity, and is
characterized by dependence of individuals on each other within the division of labour,
and by a certain form of cooperation. There is a
functional interdependence in the division of labour. ... Organic solidarity ...
presupposes not identity but difference between individuals in their beliefs and
actions. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of the division of
labour are hence associated with increasing individualism. (Giddens, p. 77).
Cuff et al. (p.31) note that this means that “differences are expected and indeed become
expected. ... Thus the nature of the moral consensus changes. Commonly shared
values still persist because without them there would be no society, but they become
generalized, as they are not rooted in the totality of commonly shared daily
experiences. Instead of specifying the details of an action, common values tend to be a
more general underpinning for social practices. It is in this sense that the division of
labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon.”
Thus Durkheim argues that there are individual, and probably group, differences, at the
same time as there is a new form of social solidarity.
Quote 7. Organic Solidarity. There are in each of us, ... two consciences: one
which is common to our group in its entirety, which, consequently, is not ourself,
but society living and acting within us; the other, on the contrary, represents that
in us which is personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual. Solidarity
which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience
completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides in all points with it.
Individuality is something which the society possesses. Thus, .. personal rights
are not yet distinguished from real rights. (Division,129-30).
It is quite otherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour
produces. Whereas the previous type implies that individuals resemble each
other, this type presumes their difference. The first is possible only in so far as
the individual personality is absorbed into the collective personality; the second
is possible only if each one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him; that
is, a personality. ... In effect, on the one hand, each one depends as much more
strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the other, the activity of each
is as much more personal as it is more specialized. ... Society becomes more
capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of its elements has
more freedom of movement. The solidarity resembles that which we observe
among the higher animals. Each organ, in effect, has its special physiognomy, it
autonomy. And moreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the
individuation of the parts is more marked. Because of this analogy, we propose
to call the solidarity which is due to the division of labour, organic.
(Division,131).
Durkheim speaks of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and draws an organic
analogy:
In the structure of societies with organic solidarity (quote 8):
Quote 8. Social Structure. They are constituted, not by a repetition of similar,
homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a
special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts. Not only
are social elements not of the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same
manner. They are not juxtaposed linearly ... but entwined one with another, but
co-ordinated and subordinated one to another around the same central organ
which exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism.
(Division,p.181).
b. Restitutive or restorative law. Modern systems of law tend to be restitutive or
restorative, according to Durkheim. While there are elements of penal or repressive
law, such as the death penalty for murder, that continue to exist in modern societies,
modern systems of law are primarily characterized by judgments that require the
offending party to restore the situation to the original state –eg. paying restitution for
theft or to victims. Modern business and contract law governs the conditions of
contracts but says little or nothing about what type of contract parties can enter into.
“The progressive displacement of repressive by restitutive law is an historical trend
which is correlated with the degree of development of a society: the higher the level of
social development, the greater the relative proportion of restitutive law within the
judicial structure.” (Giddens, p. 76). For Durkheim, this form of law is concerned with
“a simple return in state. Sufferance proportionate to the misdeed is not inflicted on
the one who has violated the law or who disregards it; he is simply sentenced to
comply with it.” The judge “speaks of law; he says nothing of punishment.” (Division,
p 111).
As the division of labour develops, people do not have the same consciousness, so that
the form of law must change. “The very existence of restitutive law, in fact,
presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, since it covers the
rights of individuals either over private property, or over other individuals who are in a
different social position from themselves.” (Giddens, p. 76) Along with this could
come Weber’s rational law, perhaps much the same as Durkheim's restitutive
law. Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts are necessary, but these are
the result of the general acceptance of individual rights within the system of a division
of labour.
c. Cause of organic solidarity. Durkheim is critical of the economists who regard the
development of the division of labour as a result of the coming together of people with
different abilities and specialties. While Durkheim did not make reference to Adam
Smith, he also may have had in mind Smith’s view that people have a natural
propensity to truck, barter and trade. Finally, he was critical of the economists' point of
view that merely examined the technical conditions for the division of labour, and the
increased efficiency associated with it, without consideration of the broader societal
conditions necessary to maintain it. Thus Durkheim did not consider the division of
labour as a natural condition.
Durkheim considers the development of the division of labour to be associated with the
increasing contact among people. There is a greater density of contact, so that people
are led to specialize. The division of labour emerges in different ways in different
societies, leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity. However, it is these
developments which create the division of labour and “Civilization develops because it
cannot fail to develop.” (Division, p. 337).
Adams and Sydie (p. 94) state that Durkheim regarded this as an increase in moral or
dynamic density. This moral relationship can only produce its effect if the real distance
between individuals has itself diminished in some way. Durkheim refers to this an
increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the
same time. The two are inseparable though. Three ways in which this happens are:
i. Concentration of people.People begin to concentrate together. Agriculture may
begin this, and it continues with the growth of cities as well.
ii. Cities. Formation of cities and their development. “Cities always result from the
need of individuals to put themselves in very intimate contact with others. They are so
many points where the social mass is contracted more strongly than elsewhere. They
can multiply and extend only if the moral density is raised.” (Division,p. 258).
iii. Transportation and Communication. Increased number and rapidity of means of
transportation and communication. This results in “suppressing or diminishing the
gaps separating social segments, they increase the density of society.” (Division,pp.
259-260).
The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of
societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social
development, it is because societies become regularly denser and generally more
voluminous. (Division,262).
We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permit, but that
they necessitate a greater division of labor. It is not an instrument by which the
latter is realized; it is its determining cause. (Division, p. 262).
As a result of this greater contact, the “struggle for existence becomes more acute” and
this results in the development of the division of labour. If needs are the same, then
there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can be pursued,
then there may be room for all. Quote 8:
Social Structure (2nd part) In the same city, different occupations can co-exist
without being obliged mutually to destroy one another, for they pursue different
objects. ... Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from
attaining theirs.
The closer functions come to one another, however, the more points of contact
they have; the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. ... The judge
never is in competition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-
grower ... often try to supplant each other. As for those who have exactly the
same function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others. (Division,p.
267).
In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution, each segment
has its own organs, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions
separating the different segments. ... But, no matter how this substitution is made,
it cannot fail to produce advances in the course of specialization. (Division,269).
Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises
establish equilibrium by sharing their common task. Instead of one being
subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties
appear. (Division,270).
Division of Labour. The division of labour is, then, a result of the struggle for
existence, but is a mellowed dénouement. Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged
to fight to a finish, but can exist one beside the other. Also, in proportion to its
development, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greater
number of individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be
condemned to extinction. (Division,p. 271).
For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no need to
compete in the sense of struggling just to survive. Rather, the division of labour may
signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society, and this division
allows a certain form of co-operation. Quote 9:
Division of Labour. Work is not divided among independent and already
differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bring together their
different aptitudes. For it would be a miracle if differences thus born through
chance circumstance could unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far
from preceding collective life, they derive from it. They can be produced only in
the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments and social
needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious. ... there are societies
whose cohesion is essentially due to a community of beliefs and sentiments, and
it is from these societies that those whose unity is assured by the division of
labour have emerged. (Division,p. 277).
Civilization is itself the necessary consequence of the changes which are
produced in the volume and in the density of societies. If science, art, and
economic activity develop, it is in accordance with a necessity which is imposed
upon men. It is because there is, for them, no other way of living in the new
conditions in which they have been placed. From the time that the number of
individuals among whom social relations are established begins to increase, they
can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, harder work, and
intensification of their faculties. From this general stimulation, there inevitably
results a much higher degree of culture. (Division,pp. 336-337).
The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its development. It
is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived plan. “The division of
labour, then, must come about of itself and progressively.” (Division,p. 276). It must
come to pass in a pre-existing society (Appendix quote 9).
Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of the division of labour which emphasizes the
special functions of each of type of occupation and endeavor. The biological model,
with a well functioning body, where each organ properly serves it function seems to be
uppermost in Durkheim's mind. Unlike some of the structural functionalists,
Durkheim's method distinguishes the cause of the function from the actual function
filled. That is, Durkheim observes the function that the occupation fills in society, but
attempts to investigate the development of the cause in an historical manner, examining
how this function emerged. In this, one can consider there to be a certain “conflict as a
mechanism, within a quasi-Darwinian framework, which accelerates the progression of
the division of labour.” (Giddens, p. 79).
Durkheim is also providing a criticism of the economic models which argue that people
with different specialties come together to trade the products of their specialties. For
Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but are developed. Similarly, the
division of labour is not natural either, but develops in different forms in different
societies. While there may be a great similarity among these (perhaps like Weber's
rationality), national differences emerge. In that sense, Durkheim has an historical
model, fairly solidly grounded on the material realities.
On the other hand, Durkheim’s analysis may be considered to be mainly descriptive,
proposing some fairly straightforward observations concerning culture. His notion of
solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to the conventional sociological
model of these, and may be considered to be widely accepted by all. The question is
how these emerge, and whose interests they serve. Here the conflict approach differs
dramatically from Durkheim.
Finally, Durkheim's analysis can be considered to be evolutionary and fairly
optimistic. For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in the division of
labour as signaling higher stages of civilization. He does not consider there to be any
grand plan to this, and no single factor which guides it. Rather, there is competition,
which results in the development of the division of labour, and the outcome of this
process cannot be predicted. However, the result is generally positive, because people
need each other, and this produces an organic solidarity in society.
Durkheim+viewed+this+"law"+of+the+division+of+labor+as+applying+not+only+to+human+
societies,+but+to+biological+organisms+generally.\
In+this+text,+he+explains+that+the+phenomenon+is+"the+totality+of+beliefs+and+sentiments+
common+to+the+average+members+of+a+society."+Durkheim+observed+that+in+traditional+
or+primitive+societies, religious+symbols, discourse,+beliefs,+and+rituals+fostered+the+
collective+ consciousness.+In+such+cases,+where+social+groups+were+quite+homogenous+
(not+distinct+by+race+or+class,+for+example),+the+collective+consciousness+resulted+in+
what+Durkheim+termed+a+"mechanical+solidarity"—in+effect+an+automatic+binding+
together+of+people+into+a+collective+through+their+shared+values,+beliefs,+and+practices.
Durkheim+
2017年12月9日 星期六 下午3:21
Document Summary
3:21 (1) society is a reality sui generis. It cannot be reduced to the characteristics of the individuals who constitute it. (2) every society is a moral society. Durkheim does not mean that every society is good. He means that every society requires moral bonds to hold it together. Durkheim was eager to be the kind of intellectual against whom weber warned us. Durkheim"s argument is that there are two types of social solidarity how society holds together and what ties the individual to the society. These two forms mechanical solidarity, which characterizes earlier or traditional societies, where the division of labour is relatively limited. The form of social solidarity in modern societies, with a highly developed division of labour, is called organic solidarity. Durkheim argues that the division of labour itself which creates organic solidarity, because of mutual needs of individuals in modern society.
