Durkheim's Theory of Social Order - Report Example

Durkheim’sTheory  Durkheim (1893/1964) described the stages of development through the idea of the mechanical and organic solidarities. ‘Organic solidarity’ is a term that describes the division of labor accompanying social development. It is rooted in differences rather than similarities. For Durkheim, social change is represented by transformations in the social morphology or in the structure of social relations that links individuals into a coherent entity, i.e. the society. For him, social change is the change of the moral structure, or the body of laws, norms, and sanctions, that regulate social life (Ritzer, 2010). Durkheims scheme of social change involves a contrast between a simple division of labor and corresponding mechanic solidarity, on one hand, and a complex division of labor accompanied by organic solidarity, on the other hand. For Durkheim, social change was the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity, which was the result of the division of labor, which was the consequence of the increasing number and density in the world’ population. As organic solidarity is derived from the division of labor accompanying social development, for Durkheim it is rooted in differences rather than similarities. Durkheim argued that the division of labor varies directly with volume and density of the population of the societies. The volume and density of population causes the division of labor, and social development shows the increasing dominance of organic solidarity over mechanical solidarity. Hence, social change is driven by ‘dynamic density’, i.e. an increase in population and its interaction. He agreed that the causes of social change are prevailingly internal, necessary, and uniform in nature. Social change can, therefore, be said to take place when the roles change, rather than when individuals change. According to Durkheim’s theory, as the roles change, the individuals change accordingly. For example, he noted that “to explain a social fact it is not enough to show the cause on which it depends; we must also, at least in most cases, show its function in the establishment of social order” (Durkheim, 1972, p. 88). In other words, Durkheim believed in the existence of a sense of social order that exists above and beyond the ability of the individual to affect social change as a result of specific personal beliefs or desires. His view was that social disorders were not a necessary part of the modern world and could be reduced by social reforms. Spencer’s Theory One of the influential theorists in social change is Herbert Spencer. Spencer’s theory was formed on the understanding of society as an organism. His view was constructed on the foundation of analogy between a society and biology. For Spencer (1967), organism and society are controlled by the same rule that influences the nature to transform from indefinite to definite form. The other principle of change is from incoherent homogeneity to coherent heterogeneity. For Spencer, the driving machine of social change is the struggle for existence between the different societies. The compounding and re-compounding are the most important concepts for Spencer. The clash between tribes and nations has become the cause of, or a factor for, development of compounding and re-compounding in the higher level of the process and of transformation from homogeneity to heterogeneity. Change, in accordance with universal laws, includes the processes of integration and differentiation. Integrative changes in the social organism were clearly and abundantly exemplified by Spencer. Spencers evolutionary synthesis explains the change from a homogenous social structure to a heterogeneous social structure. “The change from the homogenous to the heterogeneous is displayed in the progress of civilization as a whole, as well as in the progress of every nation; and it is still going on with increasing rapidity” (1890, pp. 342-343). Furthermore, Spencer applied the universal law of change to society. As regards human progress, Spencer (1862) stated that “the progress from rude to small and simple tools to perfect, complex and large machines in a progress in integration” (1862, p.324). In contemporary apparatus, a number of smaller uncomplicated machines are united. ‘Evolution then, under its primary aspect, is a change from a less coherent form to a more coherent form’ (1862, p. 327). It specifies a universal process. Spencer obtained his examples from all fields of scientific knowledge. As change takes place in plants and animals, in the same way it also takes place in society. According to Spencer (1862), social change from homogeneity to heterogeneity was illustrated in the advancement of civilization through every tribe and nation. Society, in its initial and lowest form, was homogeneous, combined of individuals. In this system, for example, chieftainship was the first sign of a differentiation of function in society. Authority then became heritable and religion co-existed with government. In its highest advanced form, society is characterized by laws, manners and formal procedures. In this stage, specialization of labor occurred and transport systems stimulated the development of districts with their own occupational characteristics. Society eventually became differentiated into classes. Spencer (1862) concluded that “Comparing the …” (p. 395). Furthermore, these forms of differentiation went together with differentiation in language, painting, sculpture, dancing and poetry. Spencer stated that “from the remotest past which Science can fathom, up to the novelties of yesterday, an essential trait of Evolution has been the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous” (1962, p. 359). Along with change from homogeneity to heterogeneity, Spencer also recognized the shifts from the indefinite to the definite, from simplicity to complexity, and from confusion to order. Parsons’ Theory In general, as functionalist theory emphasizes the interdependence of social structure, the central concepts of his theory are those of differentiation and integration. According to this theory, differentiation occurs as society becomes more complex. Like Spencer, Parsons, who is one of the prominent leaders of this school, viewed society as comprising of interdependent elements which work collectively to sustain the stability of the ‘whole,’ like the human body with its interdependent organs. As the functionalist, Parsons (1961) considered a number of factors that can be accounted for structural change in a particular society. He explained the internal and external causes of change. For Parsons, any number of causes can account for structural change in a specific society. Language and institutionalization are the essential dynamics in the wide-ranging span of societal evolution. In maintaining the equilibrium within a given social system, Parsons made a distinction between internal and external variables. He elaborated external variables that could produce a change to the system itself. He stated that “the concept of …” (1961, p. 37). It is an important statement for Parsons in several respects. He distinguished between short-term or equilibrating change, on the one hand, and structural change of the society, on the other hand. It indicated the collapse of systems as a real possibility resulting from structural change. Furthermore, it makes clear that structural changes are the result of external factors. Parsons described structural change as the change of the core values of the system as a whole. To examine the development of society, Parsons developed a paradigm of evolutionary change. In general, his social change orientation was shaped by biology, which led to the thinking that every society is compiled of a series of subsystems. These subsystems are different in their structure and their functional importance for the larger society. When the society develops, the generated subsystems are differentiated. This notion describes the fundamental viewpoint of Parsons’ evolutionary paradigm of adaptive advancement. Parsons (1966) described this process in the following words: “If differentiation is yield a balanced, more evolved system, each newly differentiated substructure… must have increased adaptive capacity for performing its primary function, as capered to the performance of that function in the previous, more diffuse structure… We may call this process as the adaptive upgrading aspect of the evolutionary change cycle” (p. 22). This explanation illustrates Parson’s model of social change. It indicates that as society develops, it generally becomes more capable of coping with the structural change problems. As a conservative social thinker, he was inclined to focus on the affirmative features of social alteration in the humankind and avoided focusing on its negative side. In general, the theory of functionalism is focused on population growth and technological improvement as the factors for social change. The population growth encourages the technical advancement, and this progress increases awareness and understanding of the surrounding environment. Thus, functionalists see progress in population growth and technological advancement as gradual occurrences. Read More