Durkheim Relationship between Law, Social Solidarity and Morality - Essay Example

Durkheim's relationship between law, social solidarity and morality This paper encompasses a discussion of Durkheim's account of the relationship between law, social solidarity and morality. This can be seen through Durkheim; s ideas and tenets about justice. Durkheim defined justice as "his quest for establishing a "science of moral facts." Durkheim (198 A discussion of justice fits into the theme of the papers discussion because of Durkheim definition of justice. Our concern is how law, morality and social solidarity have a relationship to Durkheim's accounts of these. Durkheim's accounts relate to the modern societies. As Lukes pointed out about Durkheim's approach, "Durkheim's criticisms of charity as the basis of social solidarity are explored. His Jewish background is related to his emphasis on justice as well as his scorn for charity as the basis for social solidarity. Implications for social theory are discussed briefly. "(Lukes 1989) Durkheim' s conception of justice has been neglected relative to other aspects of his thought, as is true for Durkheim' s political thought in general ( Lukes 1989). To be sure, Durkheim's concern with justice has been addressed, but usually in a narrow context. For example, Sirianni (1984) addresses it only within the confines of Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society ([1893] 1933). Similarly, Lacroix (1981) concludes that there exists a hiatus between Durkheim's political sociology and sociology of religion. A similar hiatus seems to exist regarding the sociologists who have pursued Durkheim's political thought and those who have addressed Durkheim's personal as well as professional interest in religion, such as Bellah (1973), Filloux (1977), and Pickering (1984). In particular, Durkheim's conception of justice has not been analyzed in the context of his Judaic heritage." (Cotterrell 1997) the objective of this paper is to examine Durkheim's accounts of the above discussed issues and to examine his perspectives As well the importance of his accounts and tenets will be examined during the discussion. Durkheim's sociology will be presented and reviewed. Durkheim was especially concerned with establishing a "science of moral facts" (see also Hall, 1987). "This was a concern shared by many of his contemporaries, but what set Durkheim apart was that he rejected the possibility of establishing morality upon charity, even Christian charity, and opted instead for justice." (Lukes 1989) Durkheim also held a concept about his definition of justice and its close connection to the idea of contract. It is important to keep in mind that eventually, he apprehended the contract as being binding upon the individual and society after taking his account of justice and law into consideration it can be seen that Durkheim and the concept he accounts for is remarkably similar to Jewish conceptions of covenant and justice" as (Hunt 1978) pointed out. The correlation between Durkheim's view of justice and the la may be due to his personal accounts as a Jew. when considering the accounts and concepts of Durkheim it Is important to keep in mind that he "represents a break from the earlier generation of nineteenth-century social evolutionary thinkers." (Roach 2003) Although Durkheim was never officially trained in sociology, he has many accounts that are relevant to the study and tenets too the discipline. Durkheim said "social life comes from a double source, the likeness of consciences and the division of social labor." (Durkheim, 1933, p.226) Social cohesion based upon the likeness and similarities among individuals in a society, and largely dependent on common rituals and routines. Common among prehistoric and pre-agricultural societies, and lessens in predominance as modernity increases. (Durkheim p 76) He also said that "Social cohesion based upon the dependence individuals in more advanced society have on each other. Common among industrial societies as the division of labor increases. Though individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interests, the order and very survival of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specific task." (Cotterrell 1991) Durkheim argued that social solidarity was the bond between all individuals within a society--in considerable depth, especially in his first major work, (Durkheim) The Division of Labor in Society, first published in 1893. He first described the social cohesion particular to pre-industrial societies. This mechanical solidarity occurred when all members of a society performed the same or nearly the same tasks as all others in a society (Cotterrell 1991). If one person were to die and not be replaced, the society would not change, because all other members did exactly the same thing as the member that died. The collective conscience of a mechanical society is identical among all members, and the bond derives not from dependence on other individuals, but from the dependence on the total social system. (Roach) Durkheim's main concern was what happened as societies begin to modernize, (Roach) when they begin to industrialize and labor becomes increasingly specialized. Durkheim calls the new form of solidarity resulting from modernization organic solidarity. In modern, industrial societies, labor is tremendously divided. Individuals no longer perform the same tasks, have the same interests, nor necessarily share the same perspectives on life. Nevertheless, Durkheim quickly points out that this does not cause a society to fail or disintegrate. (Durkheim p 50)Organic solidarity is formed. Like the organs within an animal, individuals perform certain specific functions, but rely on the well-being and successful performance of other individuals. If one organ fails, the rest of them fail as well. A body--or in this case a society--cannot function at all if one part crumbles. This reliance upon each other for social (and even physical) survival is the source of organic solidarity, according to Durkheim. (Lukes) here are accounts of Durkheim attempting to establish journals in order to teach his concepts and tenets sometimes known as Durkheim thought. He did this by producing major methodological accounts of the discipline, and resist what were seen to be the inflated claims for social science made by earlier practitioners, not least Comte, Spencer and Marx. (Roach 2003) The writings of Durkheim were focused on his discussions and accounts of law, morality and social solidarity. The major portion of Durkheim's work was based on concepts and accounts of the social explanation of law and legal change; t his characterizations of the distinctive feature of the modern west; in addition, accounts of the social foundations of the modern legal world. (Lukes 1998) When considering Durkheim it is important to consider his general sociology of law and his more particular (and more celebrated) sociology of penal law and punishment. Durkheim also has an account of the social of modern contractual relations, which was discussed earlier in the paper. Essentially it can be said that Durkheim's earlier concern with social regulation was in the main focused on the more external forces of control, more particularly legal regulations that can be studied, so he argued, in the law books and without regard to individuals. (Hunt 1998) Later on Durkheim was led to take into account forces of control that were internalized in individual consciousness. (Hunt 1998) Durkheim firmly believed that "society has to be present within the individual,"(Durkheim) " Durkheim, following the logic of his own theory, was led to the study of religion, one of the forces that created within individuals a sense of moral obligation to adhere to society's demands." Hunt 1998) Durkheim had yet another motive for studying the functions of religion--namely, concern with mechanisms that might serve to shore up a threatened social order. In this respect he was in quest of what would today be described as functional equivalents for religion in a fundamentally a-religious age. (Cotterrell 2003) Durkheim is not the only thinker to have taken the loss of faith into consideration. As Hunt states "from the days when the Jacobins had destroyed Catholicism in France and then attempted to fill the ensuing moral void by inventing a synthetic Religion of Reason, to Saint-Simon's New Christianity and Comte's Religion of Humanity, French secular thinkers had grappled with the modern problem of how public and private morality could be maintained without religious sanctions. They had asked, just like Ivan Karamasov: "Once God is dead, does not everything become permissible" (Hunt 1998) Durkheim would not have phrased the question in such language, but he was troubled with a parallel problem. In the past, he argued," religion had been the cement of society--the means by which men had been led to turn from the everyday concerns in which they were variously enmeshed to a common devotion to sacred things." (Durkheim 1984) Therefore pulling men from the utilitarian concerns of daily life, religion had been the anti-individualistic for par excellence, inspiring communal devotion to ethical ends that transcended individual purposes. (Roach 2003) However if the reign of traditional religious orientations had now ended, what would take their place Would the end of traditional religion be a prelude to the dissolution of all moral community into a state of universal breakdown and anomie It was questions like these that made Durkheim's concerns stronger. He struggled with questions about the sociology of religion, adding to the inherent interest he had in terms of the internal logic of his system. "Basic to his theory is the stress on religious phenomena as communal rather than individual." A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." In contrast to William James, for example, Durkheim was not concerned with the variety of religious experience of individuals but rather with the communal activity and the communal bonds to which participation in religious activities gives rise." (Hunt 1998) At this time Durkheim disputed that religious experiences and happenings come out in any society when a separation is made between the sphere of the profane-"the realm of everyday utilitarian activities--and the sphere of the sacred-"(Durkheim 1984) the area that pertains to the numerous, the transcendental, the extraordinary. Durkheim said "an object is intrinsically neither sacred nor profane. It becomes the one or the other depending on whether men choose to consider the utilitarian value of the object or certain intrinsic attributes that have nothing to do with its instrumental value. "Durkheim 1984) The wine at mass has sacred ritual significance to the extent that it is considered by the believer to symbolize the blood of Christ; in this context it is plainly not a beverage. Sacred activities are valued by the community of believers not as means to ends, but because the religious community has bestowed their meaning on them as part of its worship. Distinctions between the spheres of the sacred and the profane are always made by groups who band together in a cult and who are united by their common symbols and objects of worship. Religion is "an eminently collective thing." It binds men together, as the etymology of the word religion testifies. (Hunt 1998) When considering that aspect it is important to consider that however religion, the great binding force, is on its deathbed, how then can the malady of modern society, its tendency to disintegrate, be upheld Here Durkheim accomplished one of his most daring analytical leaps. Durkheim argued that "religion is not only a social creation, but it is in fact society divinized." (Durkheim 1984) In addition, Durkheim stated that the" deities which men worship together are only projections of the power of society." (Durkheim 1984) Religion is exceedingly social: it takes place in a social context, and, even more significantly, when men celebrate sacred things, they unwittingly celebrate the power of their society. This power so transcends their own existence that they have to give it sacred significance in order to visualize it. (Roach 2003) Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical In conclusion it can be said that Durkheim's accounts of the relationship between law, morality and social solidarity were important. The tenets of Durkheim are highly regarded and well deliberated to this day. If religion in its essence is a transcendental representation of the powers of society, then, Durkheim argued, the disappearance of traditional religion need not herald the dissolution of society. "Durkheim 1984) It is through the writings and accounts like this about religion, morality and the law that established the foundation for the thoughts so esteemed by Durkheim. As Cotterrell pointed out so clearly "Durkheim's sociology of religion and morality is not limited to these general considerations, which, in fact, are contained in only a few pages of his monumental work on The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. The bulk of the book is devoted to a close and careful analysis of primitive religion, more particularly of the data on primitive Australian forms of cults and beliefs. Here, as elsewhere, Durkheim is concerned with elucidating the particular functions of religion rather than with simply describing variant forms. In a well-known critique, the Durkheim scholar Harry Alpert conveniently classified Durkheim's four major functions of religion as disciplinary, cohesive, vitalizing, and euphoric social forces. Religious rituals prepare men for social life by imposing self-discipline and a certain measure of asceticism. Religious ceremonies bring people together and thus serve to reaffirm their common bonds and to reinforce social solidarity. Religious observance maintains and revitalizes the social heritage of the group and helps transmit its enduring values to future generations. Finally, religion has a euphoric function in that it serves to counteract feelings of frustration and loss of faith and certitude by reestablishing the believers' sense of well-being, their sense of the essential rightness of the moral world of which they are a part. By countering the sense of loss, which, as in the case of death, may be experienced on both the individual and the collective level, religion helps to reestablish the balance of private and public confidence. On the most general plane, religion as a social institution serves to give meaning to man's existential predicaments by tying the individual to that supra-individual sphere of transcendent values which is ultimately rooted in his society. (Cotterrell 2003) References Cotterrell, R. (1977) 'Durkheim on Legal Development and Social Solidarity' British Journal of Law and Society, 4: 41. Cotterrell, R. (1991) 'The Durkheim Tradition in the Sociology of Law' Law and Society Review, 25: 923 Cotterrell, R. (2003) The Sociology of Law, chapter 3 Durkheim, E. (1973) 'Two Laws of Penal Evolution', Economy and Society, 2: 285 Durkheim, E. (1984) The Division of Labour in Society (Free Press) Hunt, A. (1998) The Sociological Movement in Law, chapter 4. Lukes, S. and Scull, A. (1983) Durkheim and the Law (Blackwell) Pearce, F. (1989) The Radical Durkheim (Routledge) Roach Anleu, S. (2003) Law and Social Change, chapter 2 Read More