Morality as a Key Concern for Durkheim and Its Feature - Essay Example

Durkheim on Morality Due: Introduction For ive topics such as morality, it is commonfor people to harbor strong and varied beliefs concerning what is wrong and right. Although the meaning of morals can vary from one individual to another or from one culture to another, many of them may be universal, since they result from basic human emotions. Moralizing may be thought as an intellectual exercise, but more often, it is regarded as an attempt of making sense of individual’s gut instinct. Among people who employ morality normatively describes morality as a code of conduct, which applies to all who may understand it and are used to govern their conduct through it. Majority of people who hold morality normatively hold that, under plausible and particular conditions, all rational individuals should endorse such a code. Moral theories vary in their accounts of crucial elements of rational individuals and in their provisions of the conditions under which all rational individuals endorses a code of conduct as a moral code (Baier, 2008, 234). Classical sociological theorists such as Karl Marx, Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Georg   Simmel, Max Weber, and Vilfredo Pareto came up with their own perspectives on sociology and morality. There works were very important and played a crucial function in the growth of sociology. Moreover, their ideas have continued to be relevant in sociology even in the present perspectives. This is because, many modern socialists read and refer to them. These theories have become classis since they harbor a broad range of applications and are concerned on the centrally significant social matters. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the revival of interests in morality and discuss how it would be beneficial by creatively engaging with the writings of Durkheim, and his social theory, homo duplex, social construction of moral orders and collective effervescence. After conducting an evaluation of this relatively ignored part of Durkheims work, which was developed fully in 1995, through his work “the elementary forms of religious life” , we also focus on Durkheims writings on scared moral orders. The author highlights some of Durkheim’s features which continue to provide a productive basis upon which to develop an in-depth sociological appreciation of morality. The conception of Durkheim in social facts, specifically differentiates sociology from psychology and philosophy. Social facts are considered as cultural norms, social structures as well as values that are coercive and external to individuals (Hayward, 1960, 56). Social facts are not attached to any specific individual. In addition, they are not reducible to individual consciousness. Therefore, social facts can be empirically studied. In accordance to Durkheim, there are two different types of social facts that are in existence: material and immaterial. However, his study was most focused on the latter, more especially morality, collective conscience, social currents and collective representation, and social currents (Durkheim, 1982, 52). Émile Durkheim Émile Durkheim1858-1917 was a French social psychologist, philosopher, and sociologist. Together with Max Weber, and Karl Marx, he is considered as the pioneer of modern sociology, and social science. Most of Durkheim’s work was concerned on how the societies could maintain their coherence and integrity in the modern perspectives, a time where people no longer regard religion or social ties highly as they used to be, and a period where social institutions are increasingly being established. Among Durkheim’s major works includes “The division of labor in society” published in (1893) “The Rules of Sociological Method” published two years later. He is also the one behind the first European department of sociology. He also came up with the journal of LAnnée Sociologique in 1898. His other work on the The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life which he published in 1912 was focused on the religion theory, providing a comparison of the cultural and social lives of modern and aboriginal societies (Calhoun, 2002, 107). Durkheim became very concerned on the concept of sociology as a legitimate science. He refined the concept of positivism as initially formulated by Comte Auguste, promoting what could be regarded as form of epistemological realism and the use of hypothetico-deductive model in social science (Durkheim, 1982, 56). For Durkheim, sociology was the science of institutions, if the term can be understood in its wider meaning as beliefs, and modes of behavior that is instituted by collectivity and its goal is to discover structural social facts. Durkheim is considered as one of the major proponents of structural functionalism, which is considered as a foundational perspective in both anthropology and sociology. In the view of Durkheim, social science is purely holistic. In other words, sociology should be focused on studying phenomena which is attributed to the society at large, instead of being limited to particular action of individuals. Until his demise in 1917, Durkheim was among the dominants of French intellectuals, publishing a number of works on various topics and lecturers such as morality, sociology of knowledge, religion, social stratification, education, law and deviance (Durkheim, 1982, 45). Durkheim’s social Theory In his social theory, Durkheim argues that social disorders that are caused by striking social changes could be decreased through social reform. According to his arguments, sociology was essentially the study of structures, which are coercive and external over an individual, examples include, shared moral beliefs or legal codes, which he referred as social facts (Douglas, 1973, 345). He made this point in Suicide for the significance of sociology by indicating that social facts may determine individual behavior. He articulates that societies that were held together by strongly held and collective morality which he referred as collective conscience. Owing to the complexity of the present societies, collective conscience had been weakened, resulting into differences in social pathologies. This point to the reason on why he later turned to religion in lesser societies to indicate the significance of collective consciousness (Simpson, 1993, 9). In the entire of his career, Durkheim was focused on three objectives. Establishing sociology as a new academic discipline, analyzing how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in the modern era, when subjects such as shared ethnic and religious background could no longer be assumed. In achieving this end, he wrote about the impact of religion, laws, education and similar forces that touched on social integration and society. Durkheim’s work was also concerned on practical implications of scientific knowledge. He went on to claim that if the society did not have the unity that is derived from the relationship between its parts, the unity which results from the harmonious articulation of its different functions will be not more than a pile of sand that the least jolt of the slightest puff will suffice to scatter (Allan, 2005, 105). Durkheims work centered around the study of social facts, a term he frequently employed in describing a phenomena that has existed both in and out of themselves may not be bound to individuals actions but they do have a coercive influence on them. The sociologist argued that social facts have an independent existence which is greater and more objective when compared to individual actions that constitute the society. He says that only such facts could explain the observed social phenomena. Being exterior to the individual person, social facts may therefore as well exercise social power on the different people who constitute the society. This is at other times observed not only in the case of official regulations and formal laws, but also in situations that imply the presence of informal rules such as family norms and religious rituals. In this respect, social facts are therefore, used in reference to a particular category of phenomena. A social fact is the way by which individuals act, whether fixed or not. It also has the capability of exercising on both the individual as well as external constraints (Poggi, 2000, 1). The determinants of the social facts must according to Durkheim sought among the antecedent of social facts and not really among the state of personal consciousness. Social facts are endowed with coercion power to the extent of controlling individual behaviors. Durkheim further observes that these phenomena cannot be reduced to psychological or biological grounds (Pope, and Danigelis, 1981, 513). These social facts may be either immaterial (including sentiments, meanings and so on) or materials (including physical objects). Immaterial elements cannot be touched or seen and as such, they may gain facticity or gain. Physical objects represent both immaterial and material social facts. For instance, a flag is considered as a physical social fact which in most cases harbors different immaterial social facts ( the meaning and significance of the flag) which is attached to it. However, many social facts have no material form. The most subjective or individualist phenomena such as freedom, love or suicide were considered by Durkheim as objective facts that were objective. Individuals that constitute the society do not cause suicide directly. This is because suicide as a social fact exists independently in the society (Reece and Warms, 2003, 77) In the division of labor in society, Durkheim tried to answer the question of what holds the society together. He postulates that human beings are intrinsically egoistic in nature. However, their collective consciousness in form of values, beliefs and norms form the moral basis of society, thus leading to social integration. Collective consciousness is of crucial significance to the society and without it’s requite function, the society may not be able to survive. Collective consciousness establishes the society and holds it together and through the interactions, individuals are able to produce their consciousness collectively. In addition, individuals also become aware on one another as social beings through their individual consciousness (Morrison, 2006, 152). He affirms that the totality of sentiments and beliefs that are popular among the average society members creates a determinate system with a life of its own, it can also be regarded as the common or collective consciousness (Allan; 2005, 108). Specifically, the emotional section of emotional consciousness overrides humans egoism. In essence, individuals are emotionally bound to culture. People act socially because they recognize that it is their responsibility to ac in a moral way. Socio interaction is the key to establishing a society. Durkheim believes that when individuals are in a group, they will act in a way that leads to the formation of the society (Allan, 2005, 109). Social pathologies and crime and Morality As a society, Durkheim observed that there were different potential pathologies that could lead to a breakdown of the society and social interactions. The most crucial among these are forced division of labor and anomie. The lesser significant ones included suicide and lack of coordination. By anomie, Durkheim means that excessive rise in population lessens the level of interaction between different groups, which subsequently leads to a breakdown in understanding values, norms and so on. On the other hand, forced division of labor refers to a situation whereby, those who hold power driven by their greed and desire for profit, resulting into individuals doing work, which they are not, supposed to do. Such people end up becoming unhappy and their yearning to change the system may end up in destabilizing the society (Hayward, 1960, 23). Durkheim believed that crime was bound up with the fundamental condition of all social life and it can be used as a social function. He went on to argue that the implication of crime is that does not only remain to essential changes but that in particular situations, it prepares these changes in direct way. By employing the case of Socrates he observed that Socrates crime which was the independence of his thought provided a service to both humanity and the country. According to him, Socrates crime served to prepare the new faith and morality which the society so needed. His crime was therefore essential as an overture to reforms. In this perspective, he viewed crime as something which was capable of releasing particular tensions and therefore has a purging or cleansing impact on society. He went on to postulate that authority which the moral conscience enjoys should not be excessive, otherwise the society members may fail to criticize it and therefore, becoming too easily congealed in immutable form. In order to progress, the personality of individuals must be effectively expressed including the criminal’s personality (Durkheim, 2007, 101). Durkhem expresses that penal regulations depicts the basic conditions of a collective life for all types of society. He noted that the it is the nature of crime interferes with those feelings which are found at any time of society. In “lesser” forms of society, especially those that are organized in simple means is almost exclusively repressive or penal. A penal law depicts the power of the resistance of collective sentiments in a given crime. Collective conscience refers to the sum of sentiments and beliefs that are commonly held by the average societal members which forms a determinate system with its own life. According to Durkheim, an act is declared as criminal when it affects the collective conscience (Durkheim, 2007, 115).. It is in essence it is the opposition and public opinion which determines what is constituting crime. An act could offend the common consciousness not because it is considered a crime but because it offends that consciousness. An act is regarded a crime because it is condemned by the society. All crimes are directly or indirectly derived from the collective conscience. The role of persons who are vested with power to govern is to ensure that they defend the common consciousness from its “opponents” and to uphold respect for collective practices. In lesser societies, or those societies with simple structures, this power is greatest where the seriousness of the committed crime is considered heavy. In this situation, the collective consciousness harbors the most power. Durkheim postulates that in since ancient times, people have been punished for the sake of punishment. However, as time went by, the role of punishment in the society has turned into instilling fear to would be or intending criminals. In other worlds, people are punished in order to make others with similar motives to fear in engaging in the vice. However, he observes that punishment has continued to remain an act of expiation (atonement) and vengeance. He explains that what the society avenges and what the criminal is expected to expiate is a violation of morality”. Punishment is a repression from an attack upon the society. He views punishment as a response to zealous feeling which graduates in intensity and which is exerted by the society through conciliation of an organized body over those of its members who happen to violate particular rules of conduct. Crime punishment is sustenance of common consciousness. Two forms of consciousness are extant within humans. One of them represents individual personalities while the other is a representation of collectivity. A force that is shocked by crime is the consequence of the most vital social similarities and its role is to maintain social cohesion that emanates from similarities. Punishment broadly demonstrates indicates that the collective sentiments are still unchanged (in spite of the deviant means) of the offender and therefore, the injury which the particular crime inflicts on society is made beneficial. The basic essence of punishment is to impact on honest individuals (Strenski, 1997, 2). Durkheim may stern modern day philosophers when he articulates that crime is normal and unavoidable. He goes a little further that crime is quite necessary in any normal society. In addition, crime may take unusual forms, for instance, when the rate of crime is unexpectedly high. It is utterly impossible for any normal society to be exempted from crime. Owing to the fact that people vary from their collective type, there are some differences, which are apt to the criminal. What however, confers a criminal character on divergences from the collective type is not really the intrinsic quality of a particular act, but by the definition which is given to them by the collective consciousness. Crime harbors an indirect utility. In order to experience transformation in morality and law, collective sentiments on the grounds of morality must be favorable to change and must harbor reasonable energy. All patterns are obstacles to new patterns, to the extent that the first pattern is considered inflexible. Moderate energy, which allows change, must also allow crime. A society that is devoid of crime experiences slow progression if any. In order for progress to be realized, originality of every individual in that particular society must be allowed to express itself (Douglas, 1973, 34). Crime has however, also a direct utility. Crime in particular cases prepares societal changes or progresses directly. A place where crime is extant, collective sentiments are adequately flexible in taking new forms. Further, crime is helpful in certain circumstances in determining the form they will take. For instance, Socrates’ freedom of thought was once regarded as a crime. However, his crime prepared a way for the new faith and morality which Athenians so yearned for. The traditions, which the Athenians had held, were no longer considered as being in harmony with the present life conditions. Hence, in contradiction to the present ideas, a criminal is not perceived as being a totally unsociable being. Rather, such an individual plays a significant role in social life (Durkheim, 2007, 101). Morality Durkheim defines morality as the way of living or moral rules that govern members of a society in maintaining the standards of decency. Morals are enforced vigorously and any transgression is punished accordingly. The punishment may be through either sanctions or collective disapproval where morals are considered laws by legal action (Marshall, 1998, 431). Durkheim continues to articulate that morality is a social phenomenon, which is relative to the structure and needs of specific societies. In addition, morality is open to systematic observation. Durkheim was more interested on explaining his perspective of morality owing to the controversy that was surrounding French secularization of public national schools. The necessity was to discover rational substitutes for religious notions that had for a long term served as the driver for the most basic moral ideas. He says that it is not enough to cut out; rather, we ought to replace it (Luke, 1973, 111). Durkheim identifies three elements in morality; first among these is the spirit of discipline, which identifies the imperative quality of moral regulations. The role of discipline is very important in building a character, and the general personality. The second factor of morality in Durkheim’s perspective is the “attachment of social groups”. This translates that acting morally is to act in the light of a collective interest (Luke 1973, 112). The third element is concerned on autonomy, which is related to the agent’s state of the mind. This also translates that the moral agent ought to understand the reasons behind his conduct in a complete and true manner. Stated differently, the third factor of morality is concerned on understanding morality itself. Durkheim viewed autonomy as the principal differentiating feature of secular morality. This factor alters the conception of rules which are the basis of moral discipline and alters the meaning of attachment to social groups ( Bellar, 1973, 12). Durkheim observes that in any particular society, there are specific group of phenomena which are differentiated from those that are studied by other natural sciences. When individuals fulfill their societal, family or national responsibilities, or the systems individuals use in expressing their thoughts, these types of thought s or conducts are not only derived from outside the individual, but they are also endowed with coercive power by virtue of which they impose themselves upon such an individual, outside of such an individual’s will. Of course, when an individual conforms and consents to them, the constraint is slightly felt (Pope, and Danigelis. 1981, 496). Moral Education and Social Reform Durkheim observes that education is related to morality, which is a social phenomenon which is relative to the structures and needs of specific societies and which is open to systematic observation. Additionally, educations are the means by which the society employs in recreating the conditions of its existence. Education constitutes of a systematic socialization of the young generation. In Durkheim’s perspective, it is possible to analytically differentiates between all those mental states which are private to the individual and a system of sentiments, ideas and practices which express among individuals, the groups in which they belong in. These include moral beliefs, religious beliefs and practices, occupational and national traditions and collective thought of people (Luke, 1973, 111). Durkheim held a belief that the source of morality is essentially the society. These according to him meant that the society could be reformed particularly through moral education. Morality according to Durkheim consists of three elements, attachment, discipline and autonomy. Attachment refers to an individual’s willingness in being committed to social groups while discipline constrains egoistic impulses. Autonomy on the other hand refers to personal responsibility. Education is useful to all members of the society particularly children with these three crucial moral instruments that are required for a proper functioning of the society. Grown people also require these tree moral instruments by joining occupational association. Durkheim views such associations as including members of specific occupations with disregard to class position and could offer a level of regulation and integration, elements which tend to be weakened by division of labor (McGraw-Hill, 2004,1). A new social order in the modern society was one of the most significant interests of Durkheim. He termed this new social order as organic solidarity. Since religious morality was gradually fading in the society, he gave suggestions that this should be replaced by rational or secular morality. According to him, replacing this moral system in the society was important in internalizing the new form of morality in the modern generation. The process of undertaking this is termed as education, and is necessary for remaining in all societies. Durkheim noted that the constituent of the moral system ought to be adjusted for each society (Thomson, 1982, 12). Conclusion The conception of Durkheim in social facts specifically differentiates sociology from psychology and philosophy. Social facts are considered as cultural norms and social structures. Cultural norms and values are coercive and external to individuals. Social facts are not attached to any specific individual. In addition, they are not reducible to individual consciousness. Therefore, social facts can be empirically studied in Durkheim’s perspective. In accordance to Durkheim, there are two different types of social facts: material and immaterial. However, his study was most focused on the latter, more especially morality, collective conscience, social currents, collective representation, and social currents. The source of morality in Durkheim’ view is essentially the society. This according to him meant that the society could be reformed particularly through moral education. Morality according to Durkheim consists of three elements, attachment, discipline and autonomy. Attachment refers to an individual’s willingness in being committed to social groups while discipline constrains egoistic impulses. Autonomy on the other hand, refers to personal responsibility. Education is useful to all members of the society particularly children with these three crucial moral instruments that are required for a proper functioning of the society. Grown or adult people also require these tree moral instruments by joining occupational related associations. Durkheim views such associations as including members of specific occupations with disregard to class position, and could offer a level of regulation and integration, elements which tend to be weakened by division of labor. In essence, Durkheim defines morality as the way of living or moral rules that govern members of a society in maintaining the standards of decency. Morals are enforced vigorously and any transgression is punished accordingly. The punishment may be either be through sanctions or collective disapproval where morals are considered laws by legal action. Durkheim postulates that morality is a social phenomena which is relative to the structure and needs of specific societies. In addition, morality is open to systematic observation. Durkheim was more interested on explaining his perspective of morality owing to the controversy that was surrounding French secularization of public national schools during his time. This necessity was to discover rational substitutes for religious notions that had for a long term served as the driver for the most basic moral ideas. Reference List Allan; K. D, 2005, ‘Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World’. Pine Forge Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-4129-0572-5. Baier, K, 2008, ‘The Moral Point of View’, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press Bellar, R 1973, ‘Emile Dhurkem on morality and society’, Chicago University Press. Calhoun, C 2002, ‘Classical sociological theory’. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-631-21348-2. Durkheim, E 2007, ‘Foundations of the Classic Sociological Theory’, Pine Forge Press. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-0-7619-2793-8. Durkheim, É . 1982, ‘The Rules of Sociological Method’ The Free Press, 1982, ISBN 978-0-02-907940-9, p.45. Douglas, J. D. 1973). ‘The Social Meanings of Suicide’. Princeton University Press ISBN 978-0-691-02812-5 Hayward, J.E.S 1960, ‘Solidarist Syndicalism: Durkheim and DuGuit", Sociological Review, Vol. 8 (1960) Luke, S1973, ‘Emile Dhurkein’, Penguine Books. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2004, ‘Chapter 3 Chapter Summary’, Available from http://highered.mcgraw- Marshall, G 1998, ‘Sociology’, Oxford University Press. Morrison, K 2006, ‘Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought’. SAGE, p. 151 Pope, W, and Danigelis, N 1981, ‘Sociologys One Law’ Social Forces 60:496-514. Poggi, G 2000, ‘Durkheim’, Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1. Reece J M and Warms, R. 2008, ‘Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia’, Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 77-88. Simpson, G , 1993, ‘Durkheim, Emile The Division of Labour in Society’ The Free Press, New York. Strenski, I. 1997. ‘Durkheim and the Jews of France’ Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Thomson, K , 1982, ‘Emile Dhurkem’, Ellis Hollywood limited. Read More