Do Sociologists Must Treat Social Facts as Things - Essay Example

 Critical Examination of Durkheim’s Argument That Sociologists Must Treat Social Facts as Things. Introduction In 1897, Durkheim’s Le Suicide put forth the sensational postulation that the act of suicide was preceded by, not individual or psychological causes, but factors present in the victims’ social settings. (Mukherjee R. Nath and Arunansu Ghoshal.1999. pp. 52-56). Sociologists till that time were dealing with sociology as the collective study of individual acts – as a sum total of what the individuals did. Durkheim’s argument that an act, like suicide, should be seen in the light of the social composition (e.g., due to a disorganized and disintegrated society - the modern materialistic society) rather than the individual’s psyche, seemed to be reversing the trend. What is even more amazing is the fact that Durkheim was able to prove, by analyzing the Government records, that the rate of suicide in a society was external of any individual cause (even though the act was performed by an individual himself), and closely correlated with the disorganized nature of that modern society. (Pickering W. S. F. and Geoffrey Walford, 2000). According to Durkheim, this rate of suicide, as opposed to the individual acts of suicides, was a social fact – a social fact that is external to any human beings’ consciousness, and that was easily measurable, and as such should be treated as a ‘thing’. How Relevant is the Argument that Social Facts Should be Treated as Things: A Critical Analysis In 1895, in his Les Regles de la Methode Sociologique, Durkheim had formulated the rules of sociological methods. (Abercrombie Nicholas, Stephan Hill and Bryan S. Turner, 2000. pg. 107). His endeavor in formulating the concepts of the sociological methods was to do away with all the subjective interpretation while dealing with social phenomenon, and to foster a strict adherence to the objective analysis as is required in scientific studies. Durkheims’s methodology included an important constituent in the form of what he called ‘social facts’. According to him, social phenomenon could not be reduced to individual states – biological or psychological – but depends on social factors. (Abercrombie Nicholas, Stephan Hill and Bryan S. Turner, 2000. pg. 322). Durkheim has put a well-laid out case for social facts to be treated as ‘things’ – by relating the same attributes to social facts as are assigned to ‘things’ – namely exteriority, and constraint. He observed that giving the attribute of a ‘thing’ to the social facts will ensure that an objective treatment is meted out to the social phenomenon. By analogy, as the thing exists outside of the person, so do these social facts exist outside of the individual consciousness – and hence their claim at being treated at par with ‘things’. A social fact is that social phenomenon that includes a phase of behavior (thinking, feeling, or acting), which can actively be observed and has a coercive or compelling nature. Hence, first aspect of a social fact is that it is not a purely a psychological attribute - though it is the individual who acts as the channel to perform the phenomenon, the phenomenon is not limited to that individual’s physical or psychological constraints, but exists external to him. (Sarah, A., Solovay and John H. Muller, 1983, pg. 142) The second delineating attribute for the social facts to be treated as things is the constraint that they exercise on the individual members of a society. Durkheim elaborated that as these phenomenon are external to the individual and represent an external reality for him to exist in – hence, all members have to conform to what this external reality demands of them. This external reality is residing in the society – and hence empowers the society to take action against any individual who does not conform. This is therefore how the social facts exert their coercive influence on the individuals. According to Andrew Roberts “A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations.” (Andrew Roberts, 1999). According to this definition, social facts are to be treated as those acts or phenomenon that do not originate in any one individual, but that are manifested by many individuals in a society. Not only this, but they exist in the collective consciousness of the society, and have a coercive power. For example, all individuals drink, eat, sleep and do a large variety of routine chores during their daily existence. Society has a set of rules and precedents for the regulation of even these aspects of a man’s life – but such phenomenon do not fall under social facts. On the other hand, if a person performs his duties as a husband to his wife, as a worker for his employer or as a citizen for his country, his actions are being performed according to the law and custom of the land, that he learned as a member of the society. Similarly, an individual follows a religion that existed even before he was born, and, again, that he acquired through his family and society. Other acts like the language that he speaks, the monetary system that he follows, the legalities that he undergoes in his professional life, all are based upon external manifestations. Even though it is the individual who is performing these tasks, there is an external code of conduct available outside his physical or psychological being. (Steven Lukes, 1982). The interpretation of social facts as things (that can be easily observed, and measured or analyzed objectively) is beneficial to the field of sociological analysis as a whole, and on a more micro level, for the sociologists too. This is because such a definition takes all those thoughts, ideas, and concepts that have an origin and basis solely in individual’s mind or consciousness, and which are difficult to gauge and interpret, out of the realm of sociology. The treatment of social facts as things adds a new dimension to the study of society, by creating a reality that is present outside of individuals, the source of which is the collective consciousness. Thus sociological phenomenon is not just a summation of individual, discreet acts but it’s something beyond and over and above what individuals are capable of doing. This objective reality is therefore easily observable and can be used to understanding the individual actions – instead of the other way round. Social facts, if treated as things, render a great milestone to the sociological thinking – and take the subject to the heights of being a science. (Steven Lukes, 1982) However, the doubt still looms large that the number of the phenomenon that can be used as social facts on their conforming to the ‘thing’ criteria is rather restrictive. Not only the philosophical and the psychological phenomenon are barred, but a whole gamut of other sociological phenomenon are threatened to be eliminated from the turf of sociology by the attributes of exteriority and constraint. (Mukherjee R. Nath and Arunansu Ghoshal.1999, pg. 44-45). A criticism of this externality of the social facts was brought to light by Trade (Sorokin P, 1928. pg. 65-67). Trade felt that the concept of exterior residence of the social fact meant bypassing the individual, and hence was an invalid concept. He argued that without an individual’s consciousness being involved and his psychology being invoked, social facts would cease to exist. If Trade had given a deeper thought to the matter, he would have realized that Durkheim never meant to overlook the individual’s presence. What he stated was that social facts do not originate as ideas in a single person’s psyche – nor they include the most mundane and private of his chores as a human being (like eating or bathing). Instead, social facts were those acts that were practiced by different individuals (eg. marriage, contract law, moral code), but their genesis lies in the domain of the society’s repertoire – and hence external to the person. Trade also put a basic criticism of the constraining nature of the social facts forward. According to him, if social facts are to be segregated on the basis of their coercive nature, then only such sociological phenomenon will fall under the realm of social facts that involved a compulsive relationship between the participants – eg. the relationship between the conqueror and the conquered, and the slave and the master. (Sorokin P. 1928, pg. 65-67). However, to interpret social facts as coercive in the extreme light of compulsion, is a fallacy. What Durkheim meant was the societies ability to define a moral, legal, and functional code of conduct. All the individuals largely accept this code of conduct, and are thus able to smoothen the functions of the society towards maintain harmony and conformity of the social group. The nature of the phenomenon need not be cruel as depicted by Trade, but general. An example would be, an individual does not steal – not because he fears the punishment alone, but because the society (in its capacity as branding him as a thief), has a restraining weapon in its hands. Hence the moral code of conduct, which falls under the definition of social fact, is useful and helps the smooth functioning of the society. Conclusion The criticism against using social facts as things that have an externality and constraining component, is largely based on shallow thought and misinterpretation. The social facts as envisaged by Durkheim, deserve to be treated as things - as such a treatment makes them amenable to better interpretation and analysis. By using the objective methods of studying the social facts (that are treated as things), the subject of sociology is able to attain an equivalent status and reputation as the other sciences. The acute emphasis in objective, and empirical research and presentation of the facts is made possible only by using the social facts as things – and practitioners of subjects like law, economics, anthropology and history, too are able to benefit by emulating Durkheim’s methods. (Bottomore T. B. 1971, pg. 22). It can be safely concluded that using social facts as things will add credibility to the sociological studies, while at the same time enriching the scope and applicability of it’s research-findings. References 1. Mukherjee R. Nath and Arunansu Ghoshal.1999.‘Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)’, Social Thought, pp. 52-56. Fourth Edition, Vivek Prakashan, New Delhi. 2. Pickering W. S. F. and Geoffrey Walford. 2000. Durkheim's Suicide, Routledge (UK). Extracts available online at http://books.google.co.in/books?ie=UTF-8&id=9KQO6dGY1cwC&dq=le+suicide&psp=wp. accessed on 14th March 2006 3. Abercrombie Nicholas, Stephan Hill and Bryan S. Turner. (2000). ‘Durkheim Emile’, The Penguin Dictionary Of Sociology, pg. 107 Fourth Edition, The Penguin Books India (P) Ltd, India. 4. Abercrombie Nicholas, Stephan Hill and Bryan S. Turner. (2000). ‘Social Fact’, The Penguin Dictionary Of Sociology, pg.322 Fourth Edition, The Penguin Books India (P) Ltd, India. 5. Sarah, A., Solovay and John H. Muller. (1983), The Rules of Sociological Method, (translation of Emile Durkheim’s Regles de la Methode Sociologique, 1895), pg. 142. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 6. Andrew Roberts, 1999. ‘EmilileDurkheim (1895)’ Rules of Sociological Method, pp.10. Extracts available at ‘Emile Durkheim’, A Middlesex University resource provided by Andrew Roberts, 1999.online at http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xdur.htm#Durkheim1895. accessed on 14th March 2006. 7. Steven Lukes, 1982. ‘What is a Social Fact?’ Emile Durkheim’s The Rules of the Sociological Method, pp. 50-59. Free Press, New York. Available online at http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Durkheim/SOCFACT.HTML. Accessed on 13th March 2006. 8. Mukherjee R. Nath and Arunansu Ghoshal.1999.‘Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)’, Social Thought, pp. 44-45. Fourth Edition, Vivek Prakashan, New Delhi. 9. Pitirim Sorokin,1928. Contemporary Sociological Theories, pg. 65-67. Harper & Brothers, New York. 10. T.B Bottomore, 1986. ‘The Study of Society’, Sociology, A Guide To Problems and Literature, pg. 22. Blackie & Son (India) Ltd, India Read More