Emile Durkheim on the Move From Mechanic to Organic Solidarity - Essay Example

Module Emile Durkheim on the Move from Mechanic to Organic Solidarity INTRODUCTION Emile Durkheim was a renowned sociologist whowas born in France at the turn of the 20th century. He would study sociology in university and became a sociological theorist who, along with Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte concentrated on examining people’s social behaviors. Durkheim was greatly disappointed in the French syllabus because it did not include subjects regarding the significance of social studies. Durkheim functioned as a philosophy teacher prior to writing his 1879 dissertation on the Division of Labor in general society. Today, Emile Durkheim is perceived to be one of the most important founders of the discipline of sociology. In his organic solidarity theory, Durkheim stated that every individual had his or her definite societal function. Durkheim stated that the well-being of society was dependent as a whole on its different components all fulfilling their different roles. During the course of his lifetime, Durkheim pointed to the existence of different sociological theories. One of his theories addresses the significance of solidarity in a social situation. Solidarity portrays the significance of a citizen in matters regarding social relations. Different societies have different emphasis on solidarity. In more basic communities, solidarity tends to be based on principles of kinship. In more sophisticated societies, however, solidarity is reliant on assorted theories that stress on the significance of making regular contributions for the benefit of the larger society. Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity. In his book on the division of labor in society, Durkheim addresses the distinction between organic and mechanical solidarity. These two kinds of solidarity have very different foundations. According to Durkheim, the process of industrialization and subsequent modernization of nations can be credited to the change from mechanic solidarity to the organic version of solidarity (Thorlindsson and Bernburg 274). It is likely that the continued advancement of society will result in the continued change in the definition of solidarity. Advancement will also result in greater competition which will affect the common consciousness that determines the levels of solidarity in an organization. In his treatise, Durkheim mentions the existence of positive solidarity where people are directly connected to society by means of collective values and beliefs. In this type of solidarity, citizens in a society are virtually dependent on each other. This can only exist in situations in which there is strong homogeneity (Tsahuridu 169). According to Durkheim, there is a converse relationship between this kind of solidarity and a person’s individuality due to the fact that the stronger the solidarity between citizens, the weaker a person’s consciousness is likely to be because every fact becomes enclosed in the collective. This type of solidarity will champion the characteristic of ‘collectiveness’ instead of individuality. Durkheim used the example of North American Indian tribes to typify the kind of community that supported this type of solidarity. He further labeled this type of solidarity as being ‘mechanical’ due to the fact that collective consciousness overrides individual consciousness in it (Durkheim 84-85). In mechanical solidarity, it is the general society that functions as the proprietor of citizens lives, while the citizens themselves are basically objectified and function as robots. In the past, many citizens lived in communities such as those supported by North American Indian Tribes which encouraged mechanical solidarity (Gillespie 379). However, the industrial revolution in the 17 century ushered modernization which would result in the world in general witnessing more technological advancements as dependence on the community as a whole slowly gave way to increased independence. Organic solidarity, which is the other kind of solidarity, can only thrive in a society where people are encouraged to retain their distinct characteristics (Zhao and Liqun 1220). The coming of industrialization created a situation in which citizens were encouraged to specialize in special areas instead of knowing some amount of information about all processes that were important in the community. This kind of organic solidarity generates environments in which the concept of the division of labor flourishes (Maimon and Kuhn 927). This is characteristic of modern existence where citizens of different communities tend to specialize on just one function while depending on the different talents of other people to carry out different functions which are also necessary in the society. According to Durkheim, organic solidarity supports the development of the individuality of citizens in communities (Durkheim 85). Moreover, the presence of organic solidarity can also trigger the development of collective consciousness. Durkheim believed that mechanical and organic solidarity can both develop concurrently through the division of labor in societies. However, he stressed that social progress is not caused by the continual dissolution of societal functions as well as factors. According to Durkheim, the evolvement of society would only lead to more communities benefiting through the generation of feelings of unity (Durkheim 122). Similarities and Differences between Organic and Mechanical Solidarity. Durkheim emphasized that organic solidarity is based on the disparities between society’s members while mechanical solidarity benefits from the similarities of different citizens. Mechanical solidarity functions under the presumption that citizens in any society will behave in a similar manner. According to Durkheim, this results in members trying to preserve their collective consciousness in almost all circumstances (Durkheim 38-39). While his is usually a positive thing, it can also be used to advance negative activities within a community. Durkheim observed that this can support community members in developing identical principles, even if they are unconstructive. For instance, because all citizens have identical values, they can consider the deviation from long-held belief systems as being a serious crime (Durkheim 31). There are communities that have repressive rules to punish all such deviations (Durkheim 47). In contrast, organic solidarity is characterized by its active involvement with the function of the division of labor. Due to the influence of this kind of solidarity, the members of communities in this setting are more inclined to complement each other and advance together as a whole (Durkheim 85). This is more characteristic of modern society and not past civilizations. According to Durkheim, the rules that are created in societies that support organic solidarity tend to seek to reinstate the division of labor’s status-quo (Durkheim 68). Essentially, the responsibilities of different functions in such societies are left to elected bodies such as courts and law enforcement bodies (Durkheim 70). In most circumstances, laws that function in societies that support organic solidarity do not seek to address factors such as fostering common consciousness (Durkheim 71). DISCUSSION In addressing Durkheims views about differentiation and social solidarity, his argument about social solidarity and moral differences in relation to labor division in a society has to be addressed. Durkheim stated that mechanical solidarity was characterized by segmental factors which were limited to concepts such as morals and peoples beliefs (Fournier 41). These societies would then have moral gaps in between various segments. Durkheim emphasized that increased social relationships remained dependent on the generation of the division of labor. He also asserted that new social relations could be used to fill any additional gaps that came up. Moreover, the division of labor would then be reliant on the number of citizens who were ready to interact with each other (Fournier 39). On the other hand, when segments were created in societies that supported mechanical solidarity, they would be based on identical likenesses, and circumstances in which citizens had identical values, beliefs, and morals. Durkheim asserted that in any society, differentiation was likely to result in disorganized social order. According to Chaston, even though it is possible for modern societies to have organic solidarity and grow to be more individualistic, the internal ‘intra- social’ relations will eventually generate differentiation (Chaston 52). In such circumstances, the division of labor is likely to add to its community members’ functional dependence. Durkheim stressed that all human beings could basically be assumed to be socialized personalities who continued to acquire humanistic characteristics through society (Alexander and Smith 53). The factor that makes people human is their capacity to move and survive while engrossed in a social world. The society in the modern scene carries a lot of potential for realizing individualism with a definite level of social regulation. This diverges with the situation that existed in the past when societies were based on qualities that are typically supported by mechanical solidarity which require an increased level of regimentation. CONCLUSION According to Durkheim, any alterations in dynamic density form the principle mechanism for generating any adaptations to organic solidarity from mechanical solidarity. The long-term change from to organic solidarity from mechanical solidarity after the age of industrialization resulted in a decrease of power of society’s collective conscience in the function of connecting the members of any given collectivity. In addition, the adjustment from the use of repressive from the long-term use of restitutive law was indicative of the decline in the collective consciousness’s power. Works Cited Alexander, Jeffrey, and Phillip Smith. The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Chaston, Phillip. “Abandoned Communities: The Malignant Social Consequences of Modern Technology.” Journal of Evolution and Technology  15.1 (2006): 51-53 Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society Translated by George Simpson. NewYork: The Free Press, 1933. Fournier, Marcel. Emile Durkheim. Paris: Fayard, 2007. Gillespie, Alex. “Social representations, alternative representations and semantic barriers.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38.4 (2008): 376- 390. Maimon, David, and Danielle Kuhn. “Social Control and Youth Suicidality: Situating Durkheim’s Ideas in a Multilevel Framework.” ASR 73.6 (2009): 921-943. Thorlindsson, Thorolfur, and Jon Gunnar Bernburg. “Durkheim’s Theory of Social Order and Deviance: A Multi-level Test.” European Sociological Review 20.4 (2004): 271-85 Tsahuridu, Eva. “Anomie and ethics at work.” Journal of Business Ethics 69.2 (2006): 163-174 Zhao, Ruohui, and Liqun Cao. “Social Change and Anomie: A Cross-National Study.” Social Forces 88.3 (2010): 1209-1229. Read More