Durkheim, Miscellaneous, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous

Durkheim

Durkheim Emile Durkheim established the logic of the functional approach to the study of social phenomena and ‘social facts’. The principle conceptualization, on which most of Durkheim’ s work is founded, rests in the analogy of society acting much like the human organism. In that, it is a system or whole composed of interrelated parts, which are all necessary and work interdependently for an optimal functioning. Consequently, he was interested in the effects of the historical development of the division of labour on societies. In both chapters offered for analysis, Durkheim focuses on the issues of social solidarity and differentiation in society. Essentially, he centers his discussion on the ties that bind a society together in larger social networks as well as the mechanisms on which social solidarity is created. In the following paper, a discussion will be generated concerning two selected passages from Anothony Giddens book, titled Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings. The two passages will be discussed in context to Durkheim’s overall theory. As previously highlighted, Durkheim concerned himself with explaining the cog in the mechanism responsible for creating and perpetuating social solidarity in increasingly divergent societies. In order to cultivate greater understanding of the machination of social solidarity in society, Durkheim proposed that essentially society was founded within ‘two forms of consciousness’- mechanical and organic solidarity: “There are in each of us, as we have said, two forms of consciousness: one which is common to our group as a whole, which consequently, is not ourself, but society living and acting within us; the other, on the other hand, represents that in us which is personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual. Solidarity which comes from resemblance is at its maximum when the conscience collective completely envelops our whole consciousness and coincides in all points with it,… It is quite different with the solidarity that the division of labor produces. Whereas the previous type implies that individuals resemble each other, this latter presumes that they differ” (Giddens, p.139). Durkheim suggests that in less complex societies the links between people take the form of mechanical solidarity. In other words, society is tied together with a strong system of common beliefs and simplistic version of a division of labour. Labour, such as gathering or hunting is performed by everyone inorder to survive. Societies founded on mechanical solidarity are self- sufficient, members rarely if ever, look outside their social bonds. Whereas, the division of labour discovered within society’s founded on organic solidarity, is contingent on an interdependency of its members. Herein, Durkheim’s principle conceptualization resurfaces- although complex division of labour increases specialization of the individual occupation it is the interdependence of these specialised labourers that make a society functional. As a society becomes more industrialized, there is a greater specialization in work and therefore, a more complex division of labour. Division of labour becomes the key element that enforces the need for organization in societies as well as social solidarity. Furthermore, he argued that a shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity in society would accompany an increasingly complex division of labour. In discussing Durkheim’ s overall functional theory concerning social solidarity and differentiation, it is essential to highlight his argument pertaining to moral differences and social solidarity in relation to the division of labour. Durkheim argued that in segmental societies of mechanical solidarity, people’ s beliefs and morals were limited by their segments. Therefore, ‘moral gaps’ existing between segments were underpinning social disorganization within society. Essentially, Durkheim argued that increased social relations or relationships vested within the development of the division of labour would instate organic solidarity in society. He argued that the gaps would be filled due to new social relations: “Social life, instead of being concentrated in a large number of separate, small centers, each of which resembles the other, is generalized. Social relations- or more correctly, intra- social relations- consequently become more numerous, since they extend, on all sides, beyond their original limits. The division of labour develops, therefore, as there are more individuals sufficiently in contact to be able to act and react upon one- another” (Giddens, p. 151) Segments formed within societies of mechanical solidarity were formed on the basis of some likeness, and therefore beliefs, values and morals laden in one segment did not necessarily parallel other segments. According to Durkheim, this non- uniformity or differentiation was a large contributing factor to the disorganised social order. Durkheim argued that although societies would become organic in solidarity and inherently, more individualistic in their nature, it was the “intra- social relations’ intrinsic in this system that would eventually meld the differentiation in society. Furthermore, he argued that division of labour would increase the functional dependence of societal members. Durkheim argued that human beings were essentially socialized personalities and that the human species obtains its humanistic qualities in and through society. Virtually, what makes us human is our ability to move and groove, and above all survive in a social world. Modern day society seems to present the potential for individualism within a certain degree of social regulation. In contrast to earlier forms of social organization based on a mechanical solidarity of which demanded a high degree of regimentation, in modern organic societies, social solidarity is dependent upon, rather than repressive of individualistic behaviour. It seems that on a daily basis we ‘act and react ‘ according to the social world around us. Giddens, Anthony,ed. (1972). Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings,Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 123- 154 Bibliography:

Word Count: 912