The Development of Durkheim's Social Realism - Assignment Example

Emile Durkheim - The Rules of the Sociological Method and Suicide 1. Reading: Passages from Durkheim's, The Rules of the Sociological Method QUESTIONS: 1. What did Durkheim mean when he argued that we must 'treat social facts as 'things'? 2. What are the characteristics of 'Social Facts'? What examples does Durkheim provide? 3. How do they differ from other kinds of facts (eg. biological or psychological)? 4. Can we study the facts of the Social World 'scientifically'? How do we do this? ANSWERS: 1. What did Durkheim mean when he argued that we must 'treat social facts as 'things'? In order to understand the statement of Durkheim that we have to ‘treat social facts as things’ (Durkheim, 1895) we should primarily refer to the main characteristics of social facts as presented by Durkheim; in other words we should refer to the definition of social facts and then proceed to the evaluation of the above statement of Durkheim trying to identify also the potential role of the environment (social and political) of that specific era in the development of the above assumption. The definition of social facts is included in the first Chapter of Durkheim’s work ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’ (1895). In accordance with the specific definition ‘a social fact is anyway of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting over the individual an external constraint; or which is general over the whole of a given society, whilst having an existence of its own independent of its individual manifestations’ (Durkheim, 1895, p.59 in Gilbert, 1989, p.244-245). Through an additional explanation of social facts – including in the above work of Durkheim – it is made clear that ‘here, then, is a category of facts which present very special characteristics: they consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him’ (Durkheim, 1895, Ch. 1 in Lukes, 1982, p. 51). In accordance with the above, social facts can influence all aspects of the behaviour of individuals as parts of the society; for this reason, social facts are closely related with the social ethics held within a specific region at a particular period of time. Because of the above issues, theorists that are asked to interpret the behaviour of individuals towards specific social or political events should start by identifying the social ethics of the society involved; at a next level, any reflection of the individuals to their social and political environment could be considered as a justifiable initiative. In accordance with Morrison (1990) ‘Durkheim, working from a Comtean tradition, essentially sought to bring sociological subject matter within the confines of a positivist methodology; accordingly, most of the programmatic statements Durkheim made about sociological subject matter tended to equate sociological events with external regularity and this may explain Durkheim's use of the claim "consider social facts as things"’ (Morrison, 1990, 93). In other words, the use of term ‘things’ by Durkheim when having to refer to social facts can be explained by Durkheim’s overall methodology of explaining the role of sociology within the society. After studying the work of Durkheim on social facts, Gilbert (1989) noticed that ‘to see something as an instance of a given concept is to see it as a member of a certain class of things or situations’ (Gilbert, 1989, 69). Through a similar point of view, it is noticed by Gafijczuk (2005, 17) that ‘the social, the way Durkheim formulates it, is an abstract sign for reality, a metaphor, which operates on the level of language’. Under the above terms, it could be stated that social facts are not abstract ideas they are rather concepts with significant influence on all aspects of human activity having the power of ‘real, concrete things’ as Durkheim claims. 2. What are the characteristics of 'Social Facts'? What examples does Durkheim provide? The characteristics of social facts are given by Durkheim using a series of examples. In this context, it is made clear that ‘if I attempt to violate the rules of law they react against me so as to forestall my action, if there is still time; alternatively, they annul it or make my action conform to the norm; or they cause me to pay the penalty for it if it is irreparable; if I do not conform to ordinary conventions, if in my mode of dress I pay no heed to what is customary in my country and in my social class, the social distance at which I am kept, produce, the same results as any real penalty’ (Durkheim, 1895, Ch. 1 in Lukes, 1982, p. 52). In other words, social facts are those events that can lead an individual to follow a specific behaviour under the threat of the reaction of the society – through the social isolation of the individual that will not take into account the orders included in the social facts – or the law – the reaction of the law can be the punishment of the individual for not having respected the rules of social facts. Under these terms, social facts could be characterized as ethical orders that can lead to the punishment of their violators either by the society or the law. 3. How do they differ from other kinds of facts (eg. biological or psychological)? It is already explained that social facts can influence the behaviour of individuals having a power of – even indirect – enforcement of their rules. However, there are also other facts that do not belong in the above category – social facts; these facts can also influence the behaviour of individuals. In this context, it is mentioned by Durkheim that ‘there are other facts which do not present themselves in this already crystallized form but which also possess the same objectivity and ascendancy over the individual; these are what are called social 'currents'; thus in a public gathering the great waves of enthusiasm, indignation and pity that are produced have their seat in no one individual consciousness’ (Durkheim, 1895, Ch. 1 in Lukes, 1982, p. 53). The social currents as described above can also affect the behaviour of individuals; however it is necessary that a gathering has been taken place in order for such facts to develop their strength over the individual. In other words, there are certain emotions that cannot be developed when a person is by his own; it is necessary that he is part of a crowd. Only in these conditions these facts could influence the behaviour of individual and at that point they are differentiated from the social facts which are pre-defined as both their content and their power of enforcement. As for other types of facts, like biological or psychological, they could be evaluated – as of their influence on the behaviour of individual – using similar approaches. They have a specific power of influence over the behaviour of individual but they require the existence of specific circumstances - individual can show different psychological reactions to same events under different social conditions; biological facts follow a specific order, they are not interpreted using the views of the majority of people within a specific society, they cannot be changed under the influence of the public view. 4. Can we study the facts of the Social World 'scientifically'? How do we do this? As noticed above social facts are developed under the influence of the public view on specific social/ political events or on personal activities. In this context, it is made clear by Durkheim that ‘what constitutes social facts are the beliefs, tendencies and practices of the group taken collectively’ (Durkheim, 1895, Ch. 1 in Lukes, 1982, p. 55). Regarding the relationship between social facts and science, it is clearly made clear by Durkheim that social facts cannot exist - and being interpreted - without using a series of scientific concepts. More specifically, it is noticed that ‘collective custom does not exist only in a state of immanence in the successive actions which it determines, but, expresses itself once and for all in a formula repeated by word of mouth, transmitted by education and even enshrined in the written word; such are the origins and nature of legal and moral rules, aphorisms and popular sayings and standards of taste drawn up by literary schools, etc.’ (Durkheim, 1895, Ch. 1 in Lukes, 1982, p. 55). In accordance with the above, social facts cannot be developed or interpreted without using appropriate scientific methods/ concepts. Social facts are indispensable parts of the society which in its turn cannot be exist independently from science which offers the necessary framework for the development of all aspects of human life. 2. Reading: Passages from Durkheim's Suicide QUESTIONS: 1. How does Durkheim define suicide and how does his definition differ from common sense? 2. Why did Durkheim consider suicide a suitable subject for sociological analysis? 3. What, for Durkheim are the four types of Suicide? 4. How does Durkheim link the types of suicide with their causes. Give an example of two types of suicide, and their causes. ANSWERS: 1. How does Durkheim define suicide and how does his definition differ from common sense? The description of suicide by Durkheim has been extremely important for sociologists around the world being one of the most significant efforts to develop a framework that could explain the specific social phenomenon. However, the specific theory has also been proved to be ineffective under specific social conditions – being different in many of its parts from the common sense. The specific assumption is proved by the fact that when a relevant test – across 47 nations - was made by Lester (1989) regarding the effectiveness of the concept of suicide developed by Durkheim it was revealed that ‘the suicide rates of the nations participated were not in accord with Durkheim's theory’ (Lester, 1989, 235). Durkheim’s theory on suicide is based on the following concept: ‘the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result’ (Durkheim, 1897, Suicide, in Thompson, 1982, p. 110). In the above definition, it is clear that Durkheim considers the motive - the willingness of a person to die – to be the most important criterion to characterize an action as a ‘suicide’. However, the following cases are also possible to exist: a) a person harm himself gradually - without having the willingness to die – through an activity that can normally lead to death – drinking or smoking, b) a person proceed to an action that can cause death but he changes his mind – however, he doesn’t manage to survive. In the above two examples, there is not a willingness of the person involved to die – at least at the moment that this outcome occurs. It is clear that the definition of suicide given by Durkheim has weaknesses that need to be addressed appropriately in order for this definition to represent current social aspects and trends on suicide. 2. Why did Durkheim consider suicide a suitable subject for sociological analysis? Suicide is part of the social life; it is a phenomenon often developed around the world under the influence of different political/ social or financial conditions. In this context, it is noticed by Durkheim that different causes of suicide could be developed internationally in accordance with the local ethics and culture but also the existing political and legal framework. Towards this direction, it is mentioned by Durkheim that ‘economic anomy is not the only anomy which may give rise to suicide; domestic anomy can also cause suicide; in countries where divorce is prohibited, wives are more likely to commit suicide than husbands; on the contrary, in countries where divorce is allowed, the husband is more likely to commit suicide’ (Durkheim, 1897, The Suicide, p. 266, extract retrieved through sociosite). Under the above terms, it is clear that suicide is a social phenomenon the characteristics/ causes of which can be differentiated around the world in accordance with the social and cultural ethics of each particular country. 3. What, for Durkheim are the four types of Suicide? In accordance with Durkheim there are the following four types of suicide: a) anomic, b) egoistic, c) fatalistic and altruistic. Each of these types is explained by Durkheim using the social principles and trends of his era. In this context, it is made clear that ‘egoistic suicide springs from excessive individualism, wherein the individual ego asserts itself to excess in the face of the social ego (p.214); in altruistic suicide, society binds the individual too tightly’ (217)’ (Durkheim, 1897, The Suicide, p. 214, 217, extracts retrieved through sociosite). At a first level, it is noticed by Durkheim that ‘some forms of suicide, such as fatalistic and altruistic society are the products of too much regulation and social integration’ (Durkheim et al., translated by Brookfield, 1991, p. xx). On the other hand, egoistic and anomic suicide is likely to be influenced by the personal perceptions of individuals on specific social events. The above four types of suicide reflect Durkheim’s aspects on the particular social phenomenon; however, their characteristics could be differentiated today under the influence of different social and political structures – also of conditions of living - worldwide. 4. How does Durkheim link the types of suicide with their causes? Give an example of two types of suicide, and their causes. Durkheim justifies his views on suicide giving specific examples like in the case of altruistic suicide where it is mentioned by Durkheim that ‘the most common type of altruistic suicide is death in war (217)’ (Durkheim, 1897, The Suicide, p. 217, extracts retrieved through sociosite). The above example is given in order to explain the role of individual personality on the development of such a behaviour that can lead to the suicide. A similar approach is followed in the case of egoistic suicide. In this case it is mentioned by Durkheim that an individual can decide to commit suicide because of egoism - a decision that could be explained using the following thinking: ‘the bond attaching man to life relaxes because the one attaching him to society is weak; the individual yields to the slightest shock of circumstance because the state of society has made him a ready prey to suicide’ (Durkheim, 1897, The Suicide, p. 216, extracts retrieved through sociosite). Regarding the influence of specific events (causes) on the types of suicide, it is mentioned by Durkheim that ‘every sort of suicide is merely the 'exaggerated of deflected form of a virtue'’ Durkheim, 1897, The Suicide, p. 218, extracts retrieved through sociosite). Suicide is closely depended on the events/ feelings that are characterized as its causes; the categorization of suicide in types is a normal consequence of the fact that not all events or personal perceptions can be described using the same concepts. References Gilbert, M. (1989) On Social Facts. Routledge Jones, R. (2005) The Development of Durkheim's Social Realism. Cambridge Emile Durkheim, The Rules of the Sociological Method, (Ed. by Steven Lukes; trans. byW.D. Halls). New York: Free Press, 1982, pp. 50-59. Emile Durkheim (1897) Suicide see also, http://www.sociosite.org/ Morrison, K. (1990) Social Life and External Regularity: A Comparative Analysis of the Investigative Methods of Durkheim and Weber. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 31(1-2): 93-103 Gafijczuk, D. (2005) The way of the social: from Durkheim’s society to a postmodern sociality. History of the Human Sciences, 18(3): 17-33 Lester, D. (1989) A Test of Durkheim's Theory of Suicide using Data from Modern Nations. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 30(3-4): 235-238 Thompson, Kenneth. 1982. Emile Durkheim. London: Tavistock Publications Durkheim, E., Brookfield, C., Turner, B. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals. Routledge [Translated by Brookfield, C.], published in 1991 Read More