The Move from Mechanical to Organic Solidarity - Essay Example

? Explain what Emile Durkheim meant by the move from mechanic to organic solidarity Introduction The structure of societies worldwide is differentiated through the decades under the influence of the local social ethics and rules. Many sociologists have tried to identify the social, economic and political events that affect the form of social life around the world. Durkheim has reviewed all potential forms of social life emphasizing on its relationship with community. After examining the various aspects of social life, Durkheim came to the conclusion that the form of social life is not standardized. Rather, it is likely to be continuously transformed, being aligned with the political and economic conditions of each era. The claim of Durkheim that social life has moved from mechanic to organic solidarity is examined in this paper. It is revealed that indeed, such transition, from mechanic to organic solidarity, has occurred. However, the transition has been gradual, preventing major oppositions to the specific trend. 2. Durkheim and social life – how social life has moved from mechanic to organic solidarity According to Durkheim, the move from mechanic to organic solidarity has been related to the industrialization of the society. More specifically, before the appearance of industrialization, social life had a particular form: ‘small groups of persons were organized together, sharing common beliefs’ (Groenman 1992, p.274). These groups have been characterized as communities organized on specific values, accepted by all the members of the community (Groenman 1992, p.274). After the appearance of industrialization, social life has started to be transformed. Community life has been weakened, while individualism has been increased. The various aspects of personal life, ‘family, work, friends’ (Groenman 1992, p.274), exist independently. In the context of organic solidarity emphasis is given ‘on independence and on division of social functions’ (Groenman 1992, p.274). In general, organic solidarity is based on the view that ‘social functions can exist independently, much likely as the organs of a living organization’ (Groenman 1992, p.274). An indicative example of the move from mechanic to organic solidarity is labour, which has been divided, so that different social and economic needs are served (Groenman 1992, p.274). According to the above, the move from mechanic to organic solidarity has been inevitable, following the industrialization of societies. The move from mechanic to organic solidarity, as described above, had a series of implications for social life around the world. Of particular importance has been the fact that this move has not been always gradual; in certain cases, the changes on social life have been quite rapid, a fact that has led to the increase of anomie (Neapolitan 1997, p.68). As the gaps in social life are covered, i.e. as the transition from mechanic to organic society is completed, anomie has been reduced; Durkheim noted that the above fact indicates that ‘the full transition from mechanic to organic solidarity would result to the elimination of anomie’ (Neapolitan 1997, p.68). However, this transition has been not completed, a fact that has allowed the increase of anomie worldwide. The claim of Durkheim that solidarity in society has become organic, while in the past it was mechanic, has been developed gradually, under the influence of specific thoughts and findings. Initially, Durkheim has tried to understand the relationship between the life of individuals and the society; at the next level, he focused on the relationship between the personal life and solidarity, as developed in the context of the society. Durkheim understood that instead of being related only to social life, ‘solidarity could also related to the personal life’ (Brummer and Sarot 1996, p.102). At this point, Durkheim had to examine how the life of individuals could be possibly related to solidarity (Brummer and Sarot 1996, p.102). When examining the above issue, Durkheim came to the conclusion that the forms of society are not standardized. In fact, two key forms of society seem to exist: ‘the pre-industrial society and the industrial society’ (Brummer and Sarot 1996, p.102). Personal life proved to be more related to the organic solidarity, which allowed independency in all social functions, in the context described above. Through the issues discussed above it seems that the move from mechanic solidarity to organic solidarity has not been unexpected. In fact, as Durkheim noted, this move should be characterized as a normal consequence of the weakening of the bonds of mechanic society and the need to acquire independence, which is necessary for the development of organic society, which is an industrialized society, as already explained. Indeed, Durkheim claimed that mechanic societies, which are characterized also as ‘archaic societies’ (Elkana 2002, p.60) had to be developed in order to respond to the demands of industrialization, which set the basis for the establishment of modern life, in its current form (Elkana 2002, p.60). In other words, mechanic solidarity would not be able to survive within a totally new social environment, as resulted from the industrialization of societies internationally. It had to be transformed to organic solidarity, which can respond more effectively to the demands of industrialization, in terms of social functions. From this point of view also, mechanic solidarity is not necessarily opposed to organic solidarity, at least not fully. It can be rather characterized as the initial form of organic solidarity, which has appeared for covering specific social needs. Another view of Durkheim on solidarity, as transformed from mechanic to organic, is presented in the study of Abbinnett (1998). According to the above researcher, Durkheim emphasized on solidarity as a phenomenon, which is not common in all societies (Abbinnett 1998). It is explained that Durkheim noted that the transformation of solidarity from mechanic to organic is more likely to appear in ‘highly segmented societies’ (Abbinnett 1998, p.51). According to Durkheim large social institutions, which support the division of labour, can lead to the segmentation of societies (Abbinnett 1998, p.51). In such societies, the move from mechanic to organic solidarity can be rapid. At this point, reference should be made to the fact that the transformation of solidarity from mechanic to organic has not been, still, completed, a fact that is reflected to the development of crime which is favoured by social gaps, as analyzed above. The claim of Durkheim that solidarity has moved from mechanic to organic can be also made clear through the following approach: in the context ‘of social holism, society is the highest level of organization’ (Udehn 2001, p.39). The social holism supports the idea that individual is above the society, in terms of social hierarchy (Udehn 2001, p.39). Under these terms, the actions of individual are normally expected to influence society; since the need for the increase of individual’s independence made emergent, the society had to be transformed. The move of solidarity, as an aspect of social life, from mechanic to organic reflects the dependency of society on individuals, as described above. At the same time, Durkheim supported the view that the move from mechanic to organic solidarity has been related to the differentiation of social functions, as a result of the development of society, from classical to modern (Andersen and Kaspersen 2000, p.102). In other words, the move from mechanic to organic solidarity has been unavoidable; even if the increase of independence of individual was not necessary, still solidarity would be transformed to organic, as the society would become modern. From a similar point of view, the changes on various social functions, such as the communication or labour, would also result to the move of solidarity from mechanic to organic (Hardt 2004). Vlassopoulos (2007) note that the changes in regard to the needs of individuals as members of a particular society can result to the transformation of social frameworks and concepts, a view, which is in accordance with the claim of Durkheim that social life is related to personal life, as this claim was analyzed above. At this point, the following issue should be made clear: the terms under which social changes occur are not standardized. For this reason, any transformation in social functions, as this transformation can affect social life, have to be carefully treated, having the power to cause long-term social turbulences. The move of solidarity from mechanic to organic is related to such transformation. However, it has not been carefully treated, a fact that has led to the development of long-term social problems, such as crime, in the context described earlier. 3. Conclusion Durkheim has tried to explore the terms under which social life can be transformed. His view that social functions can result to important social changes, such as the move of solidarity from mechanic to organic has been fully verified, meaning that this move has been, indeed, in progress for many decades. However, Durkheim has failed in presenting the terms under which this move would be effectively completed. Instead, he has just described the characteristics and the trends of this trend. On the other hand, his view in regard to this transition can be characterized as valuable for the following reason: it verifies that social life is related to personal life, meaning that the choices of individuals can affect societies, a fact that should be taken into consideration by legislators and policy makers worldwide when handling critical social issues. References Abbinnett, R. (1998) Truth and social science: from Hegel to deconstruction. London: SAGE. Andersen, H., Kaspersen, L. (2000) Classical and modern social theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Brummer, V., Sarot, M. (1996) Happiness, well-being and the meaning of life: a dialogue of social science and religion. Kampen: Peeters Publishers. Elkana, Y. (2002) Unraveling ties: from social cohesion to new practices of connectedness. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Groenman, N. (1992) Social and behavioural sciences for nurses: psychology, sociology, and communication for Project 2000. Leiden: Nelson Thornes. Hamilton, P. (1990) Emile Durkheim, critical assessments. London: Routledge. Hardt, H. (2004) Myths for the masses: an essay on mass communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Neapolitan, J. (1997) Cross-national crime: a research review and sourcebook. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Udehn, L. (2001) Methodological individualism: background, history and meaning. London: Routledge. Vlassopoulos, K. (2007) Unthinking the Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History Beyond Eurocentrism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More