Critical Analysis of Durkheims Structure-Functional Model of Society - Assignment Example

 Critical Analysis of Durkheim’s Structure-Functional Model of Society Impacts of Historical Context on Durkheim’s Theory In his personal life, Emile Durkheim can be sketched as a purely academic scholar with a well-established social status. Yet he was intimate with the social affairs, tumults and disorders that France was facing during the late 19th century. The men whom he mentioned in his theories and scholarly discourses were totally different from him in term of their social status. Yet Durkheim was aware of these people’s sociological imagination that tends to determine their course of actions and behaviors in the sociological context of the early 19th century France. Significantly Durkheim’s own sociological imagination from a vantage point that was much less affected by the experiences of the commoners of Durkheim’s society influenced his exploration into the society’s structure and his proposition of the Structural Functional theory. Therefore though he was a contemporary of Max Weber, his theories were vastly different from Weber and Marx’s conflict-based approach to the society. The 19th century France, when Durkheim was composing the theories of structural functionalism, was marked by the entry of capitalism in the middle of European Imperialism. Around this time, spiritual chaos, social disorders, identity crisis, decay of religious beliefs, the deterioration of the economic and political orders led Durkheim to believe that society is essentially the harmonious functioning of norms, customs and traditions. From Durkheim’s position, one had been able to view the society as a sum-total of individuals’ and communities’ behavioral entities. Indeed Durkheim does not clarify whether the social constituents i.e. norms, customs, etc are to be considered in term of a particular group or of a larger social context. A brief but clear picture of the socioeconomic and political context of France as well as Europe, in the period from 1880 to 1914, can be viewed in the following table: Context Features Economy Expansion of capitalism, Boom and bust cycle Social structure Class conflict, Labor division and unrest, Class conflict, Urbanization, fear of “masses” Politics Franco-Prussian War (1870), Symptom of French backwardness, Liberal left: critiques of conservatism Symptoms Decay of norms, morality, tradition, Conservative fear of “mass society”, socioeconomic and political disorder, Liberalism New forms of order in the society, domination of science and rationalism, Culture Culture of science, anomies in conservatism, intellectualism, better adaptation to modernity, Need for educational reform Sociological Implications Secularization and modernization, Sociology and the nation-state, science as salvation, legitimating the discipline (Source: “Durkheim’s Origins: Introduction”, p. 2) Tenets of Durkheim’s Structural Functionalism Durkheim’s model hypothesizes the unambiguous temperament of social facts, which cannot, specifically, be concentrated to psychological factors. Even though sociologists depend on the study of mind as a point of reference, the imperative for them is to explicate the social by the social. Durkheim’s structural functionalism appears to be a model that draws an analogy between a society and an organic system, made up of organs that continue to functions. For understanding the social facts, as Durkheim says, its causes and purposes must be traced first. The uniqueness of Durkheim’s meta-theory lies in the fact that his approach to the structure function model is two-fold. First, society is a systematic entity consisting of various subsystems that are engaged in fulfilling both the individual and social needs. Secondly, the social system can be explored in terms of superimposed stages that are determined by the relations and interactions between them. These interrelations between the society and its members essentially infer that the social subsystems are grown on the substrate of the social system, in other words, the material existence. In fact, society as a systematic “response to needs” puts “emphasis on looking for efficient or final causes and that analysis in terms of ‘stages’ seeks a causality that could be described as causality of expression” (Filoux, 1993, p.3). Drives of Modernization according to Durkheim For Durkheim, the main drive behind the process of modernization or the shift from the traditional society to modern one was the division of labor. The disintegration of the earlier Feudal society began with the rise of a new working class in the industrially developed context of Europe. The structural functional model focuses on the individuals as the social actors who are supposed to play the best part of the harmonious function of the social system and subsystems. Durkheim assumed that society can be defined as the mutual agreement of harmony and synchronization, because people in a society are morally and normatively bound with each other (Durkheim, 1893, p. 45). He considers social phenomena as functions of the society initiatives to adapt with the new social orders, as in this regard Prof. Timothy Shortell (2001) says that Durkheim “examines social phenomena with regard to their function in producing or facilitating social cohesion” (p.2). Durkheim primarily traces several causes -such as the decay of norms, shift in cultural identity, decay of religious belief, changes in the division of labor- that contribute to the modernization. For Durkheim, solidarity and harmony were “the normal condition of society, and even though he recognized the turmoil associated with industrialization, he considered conflict abnormal or pathological” (Shortell, 2001, p.2). Modernization-Induced Problems in Durkheim’s Society According to Durkheim, the changes in the division of labor were the basics for initiating the process of modernization. Indeed division of labor lies in the heart of a society’s structural harmonious functions. According to Durkheim, since one’s work tends to shape one identity and norms, he or she is supposed to follow. Necessarily one gender, race, religion, class identities are shaped by a group’s pattern of labor. Durkheim argued that since labor was not less fragmented, its members’ social identity was less infringed. Therefore, solidarity prevailed in those societies to a great extent. But being preceded by the Enlightenment and industrial Revolution, the pattern of labor was highly divided. Along the progress of industrialization innumerous groups of people emerged with special working skills, Filloux (1993) says, “Since modern society is based on growing industrialization and increasing division of labour, the result is a greater degree of differentiation in social roles, the specialization of social functions and, eventually, a risk that ‘social solidarity’ will disintegrate” (p.5). Obviously the emergence of groups with specialized skills in highly divided labor pattern in the production system grossly affected the existing social structure. Therefore the Feudal society began to disintegrate with the introduction of the heterogeneous mode of labor in the industrial society, because collective identity was being overpowered by the work-based individual identity of the working class people, as again Filloux (1993) says, “The increasing division of labor in modern society’s demands that more attention should be paid to the individual. This gives rise to ‘individualist’ ideologies which, in turn, result in the emergence of institutions to protect ‘human rights” (p. 4). Increasing Division of Labor and its Impacts on Collective Social Role Durkheim viewed the shift in the mode of labor as the change in the social structure as well as individual’s anomic state. He argued that the materialization of new collective labor-based identity have a tendency to be translated into new representative institution on the condition that these representative institutions must be relate to the social needs of the new class. Durkheim argued that since the process of modernization depends on the increasing industrialization and increasing fragmentation of the mode of labor in the production sector, the people’s social role that was homogeneous in early Feudal society began to disintegrate and therefore led to the disintegration of social solidarity (Durkheim, 1893, p. 47), as in this regard Filloux (1993) elaborates Durkheim’s hypothesis, “Since modern society is based on growing industrialization and increasing division of labour, the result is a greater degree of differentiation in social roles, the specialization of social functions and, eventually, a risk that ‘social solidarity’ will disintegrate” (p. 7). Anomic Impacts of the Division of Labor on the Society The changed social structure, the control of the society over the mass people, the change in the political sphere, etc were interrelated in the industrial context of the era. The growth of individualism provokes the mass people to be more aware of the effect of the country’s politics on their lives and to play their role at an increasing rate in the political sector (Durkheim, 1897, p.34). In response to the growth of individualism, the control of the society over the people began to decline, because the norms and regulations of the early structure of the society was less adaptable with the changed social role of the people. The most remarkable effect of modernization and the changes in social role can be viewed in people’s family norms and values as well as the decay in the religious faith. Whereas in the early Feudal society women’s role were marked by their work of maintaining their husband’s households and raising children, with the introduction of Industrialization women began to participate in the outdoor earning activities increasingly. Since the individuals were being prioritized in terms of their mode of labor, the people’s earlier morals, norms and values became weakened enough to let the existing social structure collapse (Durkheim, 1897, pp. 23-28). Durkheim marked these turmoil and chaos as the “chronic state” of the anomie. Elaborating the anomie of the industrialization of Durkheim’s era, Goldberg (2008) says, In “the sphere of trade and industry,” where anomie was “in a chronic state,” it was best understood as an abnormal form of the modern social division of labor... But anomie could also take an “acute” form; it appeared “in intermittent spurts” whenever society was “disturbed by some painful crisis or by . . . abrupt transitions” and thus rendered “momentarily incapable” of exercising moral regulation over its members. (p. 310) Durkheim’s Envisioned Solutions to the Problems Though Durkheim argued that the growing individualism and lack of norms, induced by the increasing division of labor, were the primary causes of the disorders of his society, he ultimately depends on a reformed and guided individualism as a solution to the problems of his society. For him, the growth of individualism is inevitable, as he explained, “we make our way, little by little, toward a state, nearly achieved as of now, where the members of a single social group will have nothing in common among themselves except their humanity, except the constitutive attributes of the human person (personne humaine) in general” (Durkheim, 1898, p. 49). Yet individualism is “the only system of beliefs which [could] ensure the moral unity of the country”, because it is “the glorification not of the self but of the individual in general,” (Durkheim, 1898/1973, p. 48–51). Durkheim argued that individualism provided the people with a moral ideal on which the people of a society could attach their sociological imagination and become united in a shared faith. Since the society began to grow on the increasing division of labor, the collective conscience of the people started to diminish. Solidarity based on an identity of common conscience is no longer possible. Thus labor-pattern-induced individualism contributed to social solidarity that was formed on interdependence of the minor classes. As the members of the society were no longer manufacturing all that they need, they were bound to interact with each other in a mode of humanity. Problems of Contemporary Society from Durkheim’s Perspectives Durkheim’s anomie can render a unique insight into the socioeconomic problems of the Modern societies. Especially the problems of terrorism and drug trafficking that the modern world is facing currently can be attributed to the effects of ongoing globalization. The dichotomous roles of the transnational borders of the countries are declining at an increasing rate. At the same time, socio-cultural and economic individualities of the nationality-based societies also have faced transitions due to the increasing mobility of goods, the frequent migration of people from one country to another, and the massive expansion of trade and commerce. Though Globalization has positive effects on the societies, its inevitable negative consequences can be viewed in the collapses of the established structures of the societies. Indeed the intermingling of people of different socioeconomic contexts has increased the competition in the labor market of a country. In addition to this competitiveness of the labor market in the developed countries, the amalgamation of cultures has also contributed to the decay of any individual culture. For example, legalization of gay marriage, racial segregation, and prostitution are some frequently discussed topics in the United States. In such globalization-backed turmoil and tumults in the society, the oncoming young generation tends to resort to the temporary reliefs of drugs and “mean street” violence and juvenile delinquencies. From a socio-criminologist perspective, it is both the direct and indirect consequence of the disordered social structure, of which a family is an indispensable and crucial role playing part (Doherty & Needle, 1991, p. 332). In modern urban society, family which holds the constructive values and morals is a declining institution with diminished influence on its members. But a psychological explanation is rather complementary to this socio-criminologist explanation of drug abuse (Weinberg, 1998, p. 258). Possible Solutions to the Problems according Durkheim’s Theory Though Marx’s class conflict theory can explain some of aspect of the racial segregation, and international terrorism, it cannot define the globalization-induced disorders and tumults in the societies because these tumults and disorders are more of the results of declining social values and norms than of the rise of new classes. Therefore Marx’s theory of class conflict as well as his discussion of alienation of classes appears to be inert to define these “mean street violence” and drug abuse, because Marx’s class theory is too particular to trace any class pattern among the drug abusers and juvenile delinquents. On the other hand, according to Durkheim, these backdrops of a developed society can be viewed as the aftermaths of the decay of the functional norms and values. Therefore, the possible solution of the problem of drug abuse and other crimes like juvenile delinquencies seems to lie in the restoration of the social values and norms in the same format or in different formats that can be adapted with the social needs of a group or communities in the greater structure of the society. References Doherty, J. W. and Needle, R. H. 1991. Psychological Adjustment and Substance Use Among Adolescents Before and After a Parental Divorce. Child Development, 62, pp. 328-337. Durkheim, E. (1898/1973). “Individualism and the Intellectuals,” In E. Durkheim, On Morality and Society, edited by R. N. Bellah. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Durkheim, E. ([1897] 1951). Suicide: A Study in Sociology, translated by J. A. Spaulding and G. Simpson, edited by G. Simpson. New York: Free Press. Durkheim, E. ([1893] 1984). The Division of Labor in Society, translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press. “Durkheim’s Origins: Introduction”, [online], 12 December, 2010. Available at Goldberg, C. A. (2008). “Introduction to Emile Durkheim’s Anti-Semitism and Social Crisis”, Sociological Theory, 26:4, pp. 299-323 Filloux, J. (1993). “Emile Durkheim”, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, vol. 23, no.1/2, 1993, p. 303–320. Shortell, T. (2001). “Durkheim's Theory of Social Class”, [online] accessed 12 December, 2010. < http://www.brooklynsoc.org/courses/43.1/durkheim.html > Weinberg, N. Z., Rahdert, E., Colliver, J. D. et al. 1998. Adolescent substance abuse: A review of the past 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 252-261. Read More