Division of Labor and Racial Violence - Essay Example

David Greenburg of Division of Labor & Racial Violence in America & South Africa This paper examines the concepts and ideas put forward by Durkheim in relation to the concept of Division of Labor in Society. It relates Durkheim's concepts with the concept of lynching and racial violence in America in the late 1800s as narrated in the case study. Contemporary Thought in Durkheim's Era & Division of Labor Durkheim begins his critique by justifying the concept of division of labor. This was a concept that had gained dominance and importance in his era. There were numerous concepts that had developed in relation to the renaissance and enlightenment in Europe that had affected dominant thinking during the industrial revolution. Division of labor, according to Durkheim was justified by the separation of religion from philosophy and the justification of situations by science and empirical facts. Lynching and the use of force against Black people in America and South Africa in this era was mainly based on the concept of racial superiority and the inferiority of Black people. This conception was of course not supported by scientific proof except for a few concepts and ideas that were supported by emotions and sentiments. There was absolutely no scientific basis. On this grounds, the concept of division of science and empirical facts was a justified method of analyzing situations like the status of Black people and the formulation of relevant laws to protect them under the laws. Social Division in America Durkheim moves the concept of the division of labor further by stating that people were individualistic in nature and also acted collectively as a whole. This means that although people are unique in their actions and behavior there were some collective tendencies that put people into social groupings. Based on this conception, it can be noted that individuals were organized into group. He justifies this by stating that every organism in nature functioned on some form of division of labor. He relates it to the society by stating that there are various units in society that make up the entire nation. Also, each group had a different conception of life and they had different perceptions about other people and how they should be treated by different groups in the country. In the case at hand, it was realized that there lynching and mob attack was structured on the basis of social classifications rather than individual action. The decision to recognize the voting rights of Black Africans by the ruling elite of America in the 1890s had implications for various social groups in the country. There were implications for small farmers and farm laborers when the Black people were allowed to plant for White plantation owners as sharecroppers. This was quite hard to take and the organization of riots and mob actions was a way of venting out on different groups that were seen to be against a particular group. However, Durkheim argues that there is the need for morality to persist and also, every group in American society has a separate role to play in national development. This is true because all the groups of migrants who had lived in America had lost their legitimacy and rights in their former nations. This therefore meant that they all had the entitlement to earn some kind of livelihood even if they were denied a share of the 'American Dream'. It therefore implies that each group, no matter how degraded they might be in the eyes of other groups, had to be given the necessary liberties to set up occupations and earn a living through their trade. Social groups, have always existed and they will continue to exist. Human beings are different from each other by race, culture, economic status and a myriad other social categorizations. This therefore means that the argument of Durkheim is very much valid and can be upheld with the most empirical evidence before, during and after his era. Durkheim goes on to argue that the division of institutions in government means that there should be some kind of guarantee by the state to ensure that every social group had the right to earn some livelihood without being bothered by other members of the society. This therefore calls for some kind of just laws that will ensure that each group of individuals had their rights enshrined and protected. Solidarity & Social Cohesion Durkheim goes on to argue that solidarity and social cohesion is important for different social groups. He states that people get stronger when they are brought together. This is an innate feeling that has survived for generation. It is true that people are drawn to other people that are the same as them and I have had personal experiences where I have been drawn socially to people of my racial, ancestral and social groupings on numerous occasions. I tend to agree with him. However, I do not agree with the idea that people of certain social groups are destined to be confined to defined economic, social and geographical locations as the mobs that lynched people in the late 1800s thought. They believed that Black people were destined to be confined to the class of slaves and thus any provocation led to the lynching of Black people, some of whom might have been innocent. I think it is based on this that Durkheim proposes that once people in a given social group are to co-exist, there is the need for some morals and the regulation of the lifestyle of these individuals and groups. This implies that law and social rules are indispensable in a setting whereby people of different backgrounds and origins exist. He also states that there should be legal precepts that will identify rules of social behavior to which sanctions apply. This is very true since people will not be committed to live by moral codes and regulatory systems if there are no sanctions. He also states that sanctions should vary according to the degree of seriousness attached to the precepts. This is very true because when unruly behavior is to bear sanctions, the sanctions should be in proportion to the seriousness of the breach. Additionally, he states that sanctions should be based on the place the breach at hand occupies in public consciousness. In the case at hand, there are a number of issues in relation to this situation. First of all, the lynching of Black people could be justified by this concept because the masses of poor White people thought it was in line with they being 'insulted' by the new arrangements. This is because White people were the dominant public before Black people were granted rights and citizenship which sought to change the look of things in America. Durkheim goes on to state that “...an act is criminal when it offends the strong, well-defined states of the collective consciousness” (39). This becomes a premise for the lynching of Black people because the new arrangements made by the people in authority was offensive to the vast majority of White people who saw it to be illegitimate and against their persons individually and collectively. On the other hand though, this position taken by the poor White people by lynching Black people could be seen as illegal because the rights of Black people had just been upgraded and they were considered citizens. However, it appears that the recognition of rights is more on a collective level rather than an individual level. Solidarity & Repressive Laws In a further analysis of the situation, Durkheim argues that solidarity is increased when repressive laws are made. It can therefore be justified that the lower-class Whites felt threatened and insulted by the new laws made by the politicians at the top. This therefore means that they acted out to show their disregard and disdain for the new laws and this was demonstrated by the killing of Black people in mob actions. He also identifies that when collective action is undertaken, the penal code is weakened and those who took part in it cannot be sanctioned. This implies that the lynching was one which the criminal justice system could do very little about. Thus people who were involved in the lynching were generally allowed to go free with no sanctions at all. The lynching of Blacks in America and the violent beating of household workers and resistant persons in Apartheid South Africa can be seen as an effort to seek the restoration of the status quo ante. This is because the White people in America and South Africa believed that the Blacks had no rights to be treated equally and this was an insult to them. They therefore believed that the use of violence in a collective fashion would succeed in getting the Blacks to submit to the dominant view that they had. Durkheim's argument that when a law upsets a particular group of people, they take collective social action to modify the legal relationship that exists between the two groups at hand. This therefore seem to give further explanation of the reason why the White people used violence against Blacks in America and in South Africa. Law & Social Cohesion Durkheim states that there are two kinds of rights that accrue to an individual. He states that there are 'real' rights which include rights to property and control of some tangible assets. He also states that there are personal rights, which are more similar to birth rights. This conception is similar to John Locke's idea that people are born with natural rights. Locke's argument is based on the fact that natural rights are inalienable rights which must always be honored whether a person is rich or poor. In this case, natural rights are rights draw parallels with the personal rights. In applying the concepts of natural rights and real rights, it can be seen that the White people in America and South Africa believed that the Black person had limited natural rights. They saw Black people to be inferior and thus could always take their lives when the need arose. This situation meant that whenever they got angry, they chose to vent out by dealing fatally with them. On the contrary, White people hardly got that critical with their own. Although the case at hand shows that there was lynching of Whites prior to the granting of rights to Black people in the late 1800s, the restriction of the lynching to Black people suggested that the choice to recognize the rights of Black people sparked up the whole idea of the mob lynching activities. Also, it can be seen that the granting of real rights to Black people or the right to ownership of property and even to hold public office was one that was taken with so much anger in the White communities. This therefore shows that the new law was one that was taken with a sense of hatred and absolute disrespect amongst the White communities. The introduction of the concept of negative solidarity by Durkheim describes this concept very well. Negative solidarity is where a group of people forbids the granting of personal rights and real rights to people they consider inferior. This was exactly the case in South Africa and in America in the late 1800s. The idea of lynching targeting Black people shows that the White people in America were not ready to recognize the natural rights of Black people as human beings. They believed they could take Black life as and when the need arose. Also, the granting of the right to own property and public office was seen as an insult collectively by White people. This therefore led to the massive disobedience of these laws and the anger was deflected in the form of lynches and violence against Black people. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be seen that the concept of lynching Blacks in America and violence against Black in South Africa was based on a collective disregard for personal rights for Black people and antagonism of the fact that Black people were given equal status in property rights. The anger collective reasoning of the White people made it difficult for the law to intervene. Works Cited Durkheim Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. 1893. Print. Read More