Theory of Emile Durkheim

RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,

PUNJAB, PATIALA

Emile Durkhiem :

A Critical Appraisal

B.A.(Hons.) LL.B. 2nd Semester

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Jasleen Kewlani Group no.

5

Ankita Mittal, 427

Debarati Dey, 429

Prakhar Deep, 437

Anshul Gupta, 439

CERTIFICATE

This project is purely based on the bonafide research work carried out under the

guidance and supervision of Ms. Jasleen Kewlani and the same has not been submitted

anywhere for any purposes whatsoever.

Ankita Mittal

Debarati Dey

Prakhar Deep

Anshul Gupta

Group V Page 2

Theory of Emile Durkheim: A Critical Appraisal

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We take this opportunity to express our humble gratitude and personal regards to

Dr. Jasleen Kewlani for inspiring us and guiding us during the course of this project work.

We also extend our sincere thanks to our parents and friends for the inspiration and

guidance given to us from time to time during the progress of this project work. And we

also want to extend our regards to the library staff of our university as without their help

this project was not possible.

Ankita Mittal

Debarati Dey

Prakhar Deep

Anshul Gupta

Group V Page 3

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 1................................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2.................................................................................................................................. 7

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY............................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3.................................................................................................................................. 8

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 4.................................................................................................................................. 9

PROBLEMS FACED..................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 5................................................................................................................................ 10

THEORIES.................................................................................................................................. 10THEORY OF SOCIAL FACTS............................................................................................................. 10THEORY OF DIVISION OF LABOUR.............................................................................................. 13THEORY AND TYPOLOGY OF SUICIDE........................................................................................17THE ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE.......................................................................23

CHAPTER 6................................................................................................................................ 25

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................ 25

Group V Page 4


CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Emile Durkheim is considered by many to be the father of sociology. He is

credited with making sociology a science, and having made it part of the French academic

curriculum as "Science Sociale". During his lifetime, Emile Durkheim gave many lectures,

and published an impressive number of sociological studies on subjects such as religion,

suicide, and all aspects of society.1

(The Division of Labor in Society), in its original French language form, in which

he introduced the concept of "anomie". The Division of Labor in Society is one of the four

most important of Durkheim's works which also include, "Les Règles de la méthode

sociologique" (The Rules of Sociological Method), Le Suicide: étude de sociologie"

(Suicide: A Study in Sociology), and "Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse" (The

Elementary Forms of the Religious Life).2

Durkheim was a tireless worker- a ‘workaholic’ before the term was invented. In

the course of his career he thought a variety of courses, founded a research institute,

founded and edited what probably was the first journal of sociology, trained a generation

of graduate students, and produced a large body of literature. In his fifty-nine years,

Durkheim did more than anyone else to institutionalize sociology. In pursuing his larger

goal of reforming modern society along lines that be thought were both morally

progressive and necessary, he had no success. Many of the social problems and conditions

that he viewed as “pathological” are still with us today; the solution of “corporatism” he

offered to them seems at best quaint and has no adherents.

1 www.emile-durkheim.com/

2 id

Group V Page 5

Durkheim was actively concerned with French politics throughout his life. He was

respected as a political liberalist. The most prominent area of his interest was moral

education. He was particularly concerned to discover values and moral principles that

would guide French education. Durkheim had evinced interest in socialism. His

conception of socialism was markedly different from that of Marxian socialism. Durkheim

labeled Marxism as a set of “disputable and out-of-date hypotheses.”3 He did not see the

proletariat as the salvation of society, and he was greatly opposed to agitation or violence.

Though Durkheim is no more, functionalism, sociology of education, sociology of

law, sociology of religion etc. started by him, are still alive.

3 Lukes as quoted by George Ritzer in “Contemporary Sociological Theory” 2nd Edition. Page 81.

Group V Page 6


CHAPTER 2

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Group V Page 7

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research Methodology applied is EXPLANATORY and ANALYTICAL. Emile

Durkheim has given major contribution in the Sociology. In our project we have tried our

level best to showcase all aspects of Emile Durkheim. Every aspect is explained in precise

manner. We have critically analyzed all the theories given by Emile Durkheim, its

positive, negative aspects as well as significance. The chapter plan is systematic and to the

point.

Group V Page 8


CHAPTER 4

PROBLEMS FACED

We did not face too much problem while preparing this project. Though at some point of time there were some problems in context to coordination of group mates. A major problem which we faced in our project is limitations of our research. Since our college is not subscribed to crucial journal database such as JSTOR and SSRN, our research was only confined to books available in our university. If we had access to these databases we would have easily researched through latest papers about theories of Emile Durkheim.

Group V Page 9

Group V Page 10


CHAPTER 5

THEORIES

THEORY OF SOCIAL FACTS

While Durkheim’s writings touch on issues of political organization and morality,

the fundamental concept diffused throughout his writings reflects a desire to provide a

theoretical framework for describing and understanding the social construction of societal

life. The overall agenda for Durkheim is to explain the process by which individuals

socially integrate into society, as well as to provide a model for understanding the

relationship between people and their respective societies. Most basically, Durkheim

develops a framework for analyzing the construction and constitution of social life.

The concept of “social facts” assumes importance in Durkheimian sociology. In fact,

Durkheim has even defined sociology as a science of social facts4. Social facts and events

constitute the fundamental bases of his sociology thought. He tried to analyse and explain

social phenomenon and social life by making use of this concept as his basic concept.

Durkheim’s views about social facts are extensively dealt with in his second major treatise

namely, “The Rules of Sociological Method”.

Main Intentions of the “Theory of Social Facts”: Durkheim was in part a positivist and

a believer in applying the methods of physical sciences to the study of social facts.

Durkheim conception of sociology is based on a theory of social fact. Durkheim’s aim is

to demonstrate that there is a science called “sociology” which is an objective science

conforming to the model of the other sciences and whose subject is the social fact.

Meaning of the concept of “Social Fact”:

1. “A Social fact is a phase of behaviour which is subjective to the observer and

which has a coercive nature”

2. “A category of facts consisting of ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to

the individual and endowed with a power of coercion by means of which they

4 durkheim.itgo.com/main.html

Group V Page 11

control him.”5

Two Main Characteristics of Social Facts:

Durkheim has emphatically stated that social facts must consist of the following two

characteristics.

1. Social facts must be regarded as “things”, and

2. Social facts are “external” and “exercise constraint” on individuals.6

1. Social facts must be regarded as “things” : According, to Durkheim, social facts

must be treated as “things”, as empirical facts from the outside, we must discover

them as we discover them as we discover physical facts. “Precisely because we

have the illusion of knowing social realities, it is important that we realize that they

are not immediately known to us. It is in this sense that Durkheim maintains that

we must regard social facts as thing because things, he says, are all that is given,

all that is offered to – or rather forced upon- our observation.”

a. Social facts are not reducible to individual facts: Durkheim, thus writes: “Social

facts are inexplicable in terms of and irreducible to either psychological or

physiological analysis.” Distinguishing between psychological and social facts

Durkheim says: “The former are elaborated in the individual consciousness and

then tend to externalize themselves; the latter are at first external to the

individual, whom they tend to fashion in their image from without”.7 Thus,

Durkheim’s orientation towards the study of society requires that economic and

psychological reductionism be eschewed in the light of the “sui generis” quality

of social facts.

2. Social Facts are External to the Individuals and Exercise a Constraint on them

This characteristics feature involve two elements:

a. Social facts are external to the individuals

Durkheim has emphatically stated that society is a reality “sui generis” above

and apart from the individuals. He provides four evidences in defence of this assertion.

5 principles of sociology with an introduction to social thought, c.n. Shankar Rao, S.Chand & Company Ltd., 6th edition, 2007, page 698

6 id

7 Durkheim in his “Rules of Sociological Method” page- 102.

Group V Page 12


I. Heterogeneity of individual and collective states of mind: Durkheim says that

there is a difference in the states of mind of an individual and a group. Ex. In

times of national danger the intensity of the collective feeling of patriotism is

much greater than that of any individual feeling. Further, society’s willingness to

sacrifice individuals is much greater than the willingness of individuals to

sacrifice themselves. 8

II. Difference in individual attitudes and behaviour which results from the group

situation: Individual, for example thinks, feels, and acts in a different fashion

when in a crowd. This means that a new reality is created by the association of

individuals and this reality reacts upon the sentiments and behaviour of the

individual. It can even change them.9

III. Uniformities of Social Statistics: Many types of social facts like crimes,

marriages, suicides, etc., show a surprising degree of numerical consistency from

year to year. This consistency cannot be explained from personal motives.

According to Durkheim, this could be explained only in terms of “certain real

social currents which form a part of the individual’s environment”.10

IV. The fourth evidence is based on analogy and on philosophical theory of

emergence: Just as a phenomenon of life cannot be explained by physio-chemical

properties of the molecules which forms a cell, but by a particular association of

molecules, so also we must assume that society is not reducible to the properties

of individual minds. On the contrary, society constitutes reality “sui generis”

which emerges out of the interaction of individual minds.11

b. Social Facts Exercise Constraints on the Individuals

According to Durkheim, social facts have constraining effect on individual.

Social facts so condition human beings that it makes them behave in a particular

manner. Durkheim uses series of examples such as, moral laws, legal rules, panel

system and the crowd behaviour in support of this view. Examples:

8 principles of sociology with an introduction to social thought, c.n. Shankar Rao, S.Chand & Company Ltd., 6th edition, 2007, page 699

9 id

10 id

11 id

Group V Page 13

I. In a crowd situation an individual feels constrained to behave in a particular

manner. Laughter, for example, is communicated to all. Such a phenomenon is

a social because, its basis, its subject is the group as a whole and not the

society.

II. Social facts are belief systems, customs and institutions e.g. education. They

are chosen by individuals and cannot be changed at will. A social fact

continues to exist because it is useful to society.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL

1. According to L.A. Coser, Durkheim’ Theory of Social Facts completely ignores

the importance of the individual and places too much premium on society.

2. Durkheim’s attempts to analyse and study “Social facts as things” is criticized by

H.E.Barnes. He says that Durkheim has not made it clear anywhere as to what he

means by the term “things” in the context of social facts. The term has a vague

connotation. It could mean a lot many other things to other people, doubting the

validity of the theory.

3. Durkheim recommended indirect experiment that is, the comparative method as

the only appropriate method suited to study social-phenomenon. He made

comparative sociology not a branch of sociology but sociology.

4. Gabriel Tarde criticizes that it is difficult to imagine and apprciate Durkheimian

analysis of society bereft of individuals.

THEORY OF DIVISION OF LABOUR

Durkheim’s “Theory of Division of Labour” is often regarded as his major

contribution to the field of sociological thought. Durkheim’s doctoral thesis, “Division of

Labour in Society” is his first major book. In this, the influence of August Comte is clearly

evident. The theme of this book is the relationship between individuals and society or the

collectivity. It is indeed a classic study of social solidarity. In his book he reacted against

the view that modern industrial society could be based simply upon agreement between

individuals motivated by self- interest and without any prior consensus. He agreed that any

kind of consensus in modern society was different from that in simpler social systems. But

Group V Page 14


he saw both the different types of social solidarity.

Meaning of Division of Labour:

A social division of labour, it refers to differentiation in society as a whole.12 In a

general sense, term division of labour involves the assignment to each unit or groups a

specific share of a common task. As used by the early classical economists such as Adam

Smith, the term describes a specialization in workshops and the factory system, and

explains the advantage accruing in terms of the increased efficiency and productivity from

these new arrangements.13

While Marx was pessimistic about the division of labour in society, Durkheim was

cautiously optimistic. Marx saw the specialized division of labour trapping the worker in

his occupational role and dividing society into antagonist social classes. Durkheim saw a

number of problems arising from specialization in industrial society but believed that the

promise of the division of labour outweighed the problems.14

Two Main Types of Social Solidarity:

As it is made clear that the main theme of the book “Division of Labour and

Society” by Durkheim, is the relationship between individual and society. The nature of

this relationship could be stated in form two questions:

1. How can a large number of individuals make up a society?

2. How can these individuals achieve ‘consensus’, which is the basic condition of

social existence?

In his attempt to answer these vital questions Durkheim drew up a distinction

between two forms of solidarity namely,

1. Mechanical Solidarity

2. Organic Solidarity

These two types of solidarity were found in the traditional tribal society and in the modern

complex urban societies.

The Link Between Division of Labour and Social Solidarity:

12 “The Penguin Dictionary” by Abercombie and others, page 74

13 Collins Dictionary of Sociology, page 172

14 M. Haralambos in “Sociology – Themes and Perspectives”. Page 237.

Group V Page 15

Meaning of the Concept of Solidarity:

1. Social Solidarity is synonymous with social cohesion and social integration.

2. It refers to “the integration and degree or type of integration, manifest by a

society or group.”15

3. Social solidarity refers to “the condition within a group in which there is social

cohesion plus co-operative, collective action directed towards the achievement

of group goals.”16

Division of Labour is different from Disintegration: Durkheim

Durkheim distinguishes between division of labour and disintegration.

Disintegration is illustrated by industrial failures, crises, conflicts and crimes. All these are

pathological in nature. In these forms of division of labour ceases to bring forth solidarity

hence represents an “anomic division of labour” so to say. Division of labour in society is

actually different from occupational division of labour in the factory as pointed out by

Marx.

In this earlier work Durkheim stated that a society with organic solidarity needed

fewer common beliefs to bind members to the society. But later he changed his view and

stressed that even the societies in which organic solidarity has reached its peak, needed a

common faith, a “common conscience collective.” This would help the men to remain

united and not to “disintegrate into a heap of mutually antagonistic and self-seeking

individuals.”

Division of Labor and Anomie

Division of labor, though an essential element of society can do great harm to the

society if carried to the extreme. Durkheim was quite aware of this and hence had

cautioned against the adverse consequences of unregulated division of labor. “Anomie” is

one such adverse consequence. In fact, Durkheim was the first to use this concept.

The Greek term “Anomie” literally means “without norms” or “normlessness.”

”Anomie” is the outcome of clash in one’s own values and those of the society and one is

15 Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Page 621

16 Dictionary of Sociology, W.P. Scott, page 406.

Group V Page 16


not clear in what way to go, how to behave and how to come upto the exceptions of the

society and also how to mould the environment to suit his expectations.

“Anomie is the strict counterpart of the idea of social solidarity. Just as solidarity is

a state of collective ideological integration, anomie is a state of confusion, insecurity,

normlessness. The collective representations are in a state of decay.”

State of Anomie Leading to Personal and Social Disorganization

The essential problem of modern society, Durkheim argued, is that the division of

labor leads inevitably to feelings of individualism, which can be achieved only at the cost

of shared sentiments or beliefs. The result of anomie is- a state of normlessness in both the

society and the individual. Social norms become confused or break down, and people feel

detached from their fellow beings. Having little commitment to shared norms, people lack

social guidelines for personal conduct and are inclined to pursue their private interest

without regard for the interests of society as a whole. Social control of individual behavior

becomes ineffective, and as a result the society is threatened with disorganization or even

disintegration.

Durkheim was probably correct in his view that the division of labor and the resulting

growth of individualism would break down shared commitment to social norms, and it

seems plausible that there is widespread anomie in modern societies. Yet these societies

do retain some broad consensus on norms and values, as we can readily see when we

compare one society with another, say, the United Sates with China. Although this

consensus seems much weaker than that in preindustrial societies, it is probably still strong

enough to guide most individual behavior and to avert the social breakdown that

Durkheim feared. Durkheim’s analysis remains valuable, however, for his acute insights

into the far-ranging effects that the division of labor has on social and personal life.

Concluding Remarks

Durkheim’s views regarding division labor could be summed up in the words of

Raymond Aron in the following way:

Group V Page 17

According to Raymond Aron, the philosophical idea which underlies the theory of

“division of labor” could be summed up like this: “the individual is the expression of the

collectivity itself.. It is the structure of the collectivity that imposes on each man his

peculiar responsibility.” Even in the society which authorizes each man to be himself and

know himself, there is more collective consciousness present in the individual

consciousness than we imagine.” Collective imperatives and prohibitions, collective

values and things held sacred are needed to bind individuals to the social entity. Hence

Durkheim felt that only if all members of a society were tied to a common set of symbolic

representations or to common set of beliefs about the world around them, the moral unity

of the society would be safe. “Without them, Durkheim argued, any society, whether

primitive or modern, was bound to degenerate and decay.”

THEORY AND TYPOLOGY OF SUICIDE

Durkheim’s third famous book “Suicide” published in 1897 is in various respects

related to his study of division of labor. “Suicide” the act of taking one’s own life, figures

prominently in the historical development of sociology because it was the subject of the

first sociological data to test a theory. Durkheim’s theory of suicide is cited as “a

monumental landmark in which conceptual theory and empirical research are brought

together.”

Durkheim’s book “suicide” is an analysis of a phenomenon regarded as

pathological, intended to throw light on the evil which threatens modern industrial

societies, that is, “anomie.” Suicide is an indication of disorganization of both individual

and society. Increasing number of suicide clearly indicates something wrong somewhere

in the social system of the concerned society. Durkheim has studies his problem at some

length.

Durkheim’s study of suicide begins with a definition of the phenomenon. He then

proceeds to refute the earlier interpretations of suicide. Finally, he develops a general

theory of the phenomenon.

Definition of Suicide

According to Durkheim, suicide refers to “every case of death resulting directly or

indirectly from a positive or negative death performed by the victim himself and which

strives to produce this result.”

Group V Page 18


It is clear from the definition of Durkheim that suicide is a conscious act and the

person concerned is fully aware of its consequences. The person who shoots himself to

death, or drinks severe poison, or jumps down from the 10 th storey of a building, for

example, is fully aware of the consequences of such an act.

Two main purposes behind this study

Durkheim used a number of statically records to establish his fundamental idea that

suicide is also a social fact and order and disorder are at the very root of suicide. As

Abraham and Morgan [page-114] have pointed out, Durkheim made use of statistical

analysis for two primary reasons. They are stated below:

(a) To refute theories of suicide based on psychology, biology, genetics, climate, and

geographic factors.

(b) To support with empirical evidence his own sociological explanation of suicide.

Durkheim displays an extreme form of Sociological Realism

Durkheim is of the firm belief that suicide is not an individual act or a private and

personal action. It is caused by some power which is over and above the individual or

“super-individual.” It is not a personal situation but a manifestation of a social condition.

He speaks of suicidal currents as collective tendencies that dominate some vulnerable

persons. The act of suicide is nothing but the manifestation of these currents. Durkheim

has selected the instance or event of suicide to demonstrate the function of sociological

theory.

Durkheim chooses Statistical Method to know the causes of suicide

Durkheim wanted to know why people commit suicide, and he chooses to think

that explanations focusing on the psychology of the individual were inadequate.

Experiments on suicide obviously out of question. Case studies of the past suicides would

be of little use, because they do not provide reliable generalizations, about all suicides.

Survey methods were hardly appropriate, because one cannot survey dead people. But

statics on suicide readily available and Durkheim chose to analyze them.

Durkheim Rejects Extra-social factors as the Causes of suicide

Group V Page 19

Durkheim repudiated most of the accepted theories of suicide. (1) His

monographic study demonstrated that heredity, for example, is not sufficient explanation

of suicide. (2) Climatic and geographic factors are equally insufficient as explanatory

factors. (3) Likewise, waves of imitation are inadequate explanations. (4) He also

established the fact that suicide is not necessarily caused by psychological factors.

Social Forces are the Real Causes of Suicide: Durkheim

Suicide is a highly individual act, yet the motives for a suicide can be fully

understood only by reference to the social context in which it occurs. In his attempts to

substantiate this fact he came to know that the incidence of suicide varied from one

special group or set up to another and did so in a consistent manner over the years.

Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics; people in large cities were

more likely to commit suicide than people in small communities; people living alone were

more likely to commit suicide than people living in families. Durkheim isolated one

independent variable that lay behind these differences: the extent to which the individual

was integrated into a social bond with others. People with fragile or weaker ties to their

community are more likely to take their own lives than people who have stronger ties.

Durkheim’s Threefold Classification of Suicide

Having dismissed explanations of extra-social factors, Durkheim proceeds to analyze the

types of suicide. He takes into account three types of suicide:

(1) Egoistic suicide- which results from the lack of the integration of the individual into

his social group.

(2) Altruistic suicide- is a kind of suicide which results from the over-integration of the

individual into his social group.

(3) Anomic suicide- results from the state of normlessness or degeneration found in

society.

Having analyzed the above mentioned three types of suicide, Durkheim concludes that

“suicide is an individual phenomenon whose causes are essentially social.”

Suicide- an index to Decay in Social Solidarity

Group V Page 20


Durkheim has established the view that there are no societies in which suicide does

not occur. It means suicide may be considering as a “normal”, that is, a regular occurrence.

However, sudden increase in suicide rates may be witnessed. This, he said, could be taken

as “an index of disintegrating forces at work in a social structure.” He also came to the

conclusion that different rates of suicide are the consequences of differences in degree and

type of social solidarity. Suicide is a kind of index to decay in social solidarity.

Brief Evaluation of Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide

Comments in Appreciation of the Theory

1. As L.A.Coser stated, Durkheim’s study of “suicide” could be cited as a

monumental land work study in which conceptual theory and empirical research

are brought together in an imposing manner.

2. As Abraham and Morgan have said “the larger significance of suicide lies in its

demonstration of the function of sociological theory in empirical science” [page-

114].

3. A successful attempt is made in this theory to establish logically the link between

social solidarity, social control and suicide.

4. Durkheim has thrown light on the various faces of suicide. He is, indeed, the first

person in this regard.

Critical Comments

1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide. In doing so, he

has neglected the role of other factors, especially the psychological. Hence this is a

one-sided view.

2. The theory is based upon a very small sample of data concerning suicide.

3. A criminologist have pointed out, economic, psychological and even religious

factors may lead to suicide. But Durkheim did not give any importance to these

factors.

Three Types of Suicide

On the basis of the analysis of a mass of data gathered by him on many societies and

cultures, Durkheim identified three basic types of suicides. They are followed:

Group V Page 21

(1) Egoistic suicide

(2) Altruistic suicide

(3) Anomic suicide

According to Durkheim, all these occur as an expression of group breakdown of

some kind or the other. These three types of relation between the actor and his

society.

1. Egoistic Suicide

Egoistic Suicide is a product of relatively weak integration. It takes place as a

result of extreme loneliness and also out of excess individualism. When men become

“detached from society” and when the bonds that previously had tied them to their fellow

beings become loose- they are more prone to egoistic.

According to Durkheim, egoistic suicides are committed by those individuals who

have the tendency to shut themselves up within themselves. Such individuals feel

affronted, hurt and ignored. Introversive traits gain upper hand in them. Egoistic persons

are aloof and cut off from the mainstream of society and do not take full interest in social

matters. Such persons get alienated and find it difficult to cope with social alienation and

feel impelled to commit suicide.

Durkheim’s belief is that lack of integration of the individuals into the social group

is the main cause for egoistic suicide. Durkheim studied varying degrees of integration of

individuals into their religion, family, political and national communities. He found that

among the Catholicism is able to integrate its members more fully into its fold. On the

other hand, Protestantism fosters spirit of free inquiry, permits great individual freedom,

lacks hierarchic organizations and has fewer common beliefs and practices. It is known

that the Catholic Church is more powerfully integrated than the Protestant church. It is in

this way the Protestants are more prone to commit suicide than the Catholics. Hence,

Durkheim generalized that the lack of integration is the main cause of egoistic suicide.

2. Altruistic Suicide

This kind of suicide takes place in the form of a sacrifice in which an individual ends

his life by heroic means so as to promote a cause or an ideal which is very dear to him. It

results from the over integration of the individual into his group. In simple words,

Group V Page 22


altruistic suicide is taking off one’s own life for the sake of a cause. It means that even

high level of social solidarity includes suicide. Examples:

(1) In some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes place.

(2) Japanese sometimes illustrate this type of suicide. They call it “Harakiri.” In this

practice of Harakiri, some Japanese go to the extent taking off their lives for the

sake of the larger social unity. They consider the self-destruction would prevent

the breakdown of social unity.

(3) The practice of “Sati” which was once in practice in North India is another

example of this kind.

(4) The self-immolation by Buddhist monks, self-destruction in Nirvana under the

Brahmanical influence as found in the case of ancient Hindu sages represent other

Variants of altruistic suicide.

Wherever altruistic suicide is prevalent, man is always ready to sacrifice his life for a

great cause, principle, ideal or value.

2. Anomic Suicide

The breakdown of social norms and sudden social changes that are characteristic of

modern times, encourage anomic suicide. When the collective conscience weakens, men

fall victim to anomic suicide. “Without the social backing to which one is accustomed, life

is judged to be not worth continuing.”

Anomic suicide is the type that follows catastrophic social changes. Social life all

around seems to go to pieces. According to Durkheim, at times when social relations get

disturbed both personal and social ethics become causalities. Values of life come down

and outlook of some persons changes radically. There are certain dangerous developments

in the society. A sudden change has its vibrations both in social life and social

relationship, when paves way for suicide. If the change is sudden, adjustment becomes

difficult and those who do not get adjusted to changes commit suicide. It is this social

disruption which leads to suicide. According to Durkheim, not only economic disaster and

industrial crisis but even sudden economic prosperity can cause disruption and

deregulation and finally suicide.

Group V Page 23

Concluding Remarks

These three kinds of suicide understood as social types also correspond

approximately to psychological types. “Egoistic suicide tends to be characterized by a

kind apathy, an absence of attachment to life; Altruistic suicide by a state of energy and

passion; Anomic suicide is characterized by a state of irritation or disgust”- Raymond

Aron

Raymond Aron pointed out that Durkheim in his study of “suicide” has been successful

in establishing a social fact that there is “specific social phenomena which govern

individual phenomena. The most impressive, most eloquent example is that of the social

forces which drive individuals to their deaths, each believing that he is obeying only

himself.”

THE ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE The book “The Elementary Forms of Religious life-1912” seems to be the last of

Durkheim’s major works. In this book he brings his analysis of collective of group forces

to the study of religion. It could be very well identified that Durkheim concern about

religion lay in the fact that it was one of the main agencies of solidarity and morality in

society.

Durkheim one of the earliest functionalist theorists, was the first sociologist to

apply the functional approach to religion in a systematic way. His theory of religion got its

proper form in his famous book “The Elementary Forms of Religious life-1912.” It is

indeed, his significant contribution to the field of “Sociology of Religion.”

Durkheim in his study stressed the social role or functions of the simplest form of

religion called totemism of Australian Aborigines. The totem, denotes a common object

such as an animal, or a plant, and a symbol representing that it is sacred. Each tribal clan is

organized around totem. The totem, then, is sacred but it is also the symbol of society

itself. From this fact Durkheim concluded that when people worship religion, they are

really worshipping nothing more than their own society: “divinity is merely society

transformed and symbolically conceived.”

Group V Page 24


When happens, Durkheim argued, is that members of the clan gather periodically.

They participate in some group functions with emotional excitement and feel great ecstasy

and elation of a kind which they would never feel alone. Now, the “Man know well that

they are acted upon, but they do not know by whom.” They pick on some nearby item

such s a plant or animal, and make this the symbol of both their clan gathering (or subject)

and their experience of favor and ecstasy (or religion). Their shared religious belief arises

from the society and, in turn, it helps to hold the society together”- Robertson

The unity and solidarity of the community is further increased by the rituals that

are enacted on religious occasions. These rituals also have the capacity of bringing people

together and reaffirming the values and beliefs of the group. They also help to transmit the

cultural heritage from one generation to the next. The rituals maintain taboos and

prohibitions and those who violate them are punished. The disobedient or violators o

norms may even be required to undergo ritual punishment or purification. The rituals have

another function also. In times of individual distress or group crisis the rituals provide help

and comfort. “The social function of shared religious beliefs and the rituals that go with

them is so important. Durkheim argued, that every society needs a religion or at least some

belief system that serves the same function” –Ian Robertson

Durkheim rejected theories of ‘Animism’ and ‘Totemism’ for he regarded them

top be inadequate to explain the main distinction between the sacred and profane.

According to him, the group life is the generating force or source or cause of religion. The

religious ideas and practices always symbolize the social group. The distinction which

Durkheim has made between the sacred and profane has important implications for social

life as a whole. According to him, the min function of religion is “the creation,

reinforcement, and maintenance of social solidarity. So long as society persists so will

religion.”

According to Durkheim, much of the social disorder in modern times is due to the

fact that people no longer believe deeply in religion and that they have found no satisfying

substitute for that. Lacking commitment to shared belief system, people tend to pursue

their private interests without regard to their follows.

Group V Page 25

In this book on religion, Durkheim tried to provide an explanation of the basic

forms of classification and the fundamental categories of thought itself. In this speculative

exploration Durkheim laid the foundation of another specialized field of sociology called

“sociology of knowledge.”

Concluding remarks

It is true that much of Durkheim’s work on religion was purely speculative. His account of

the origins of religion could not be accepted by most of the modern sociologists.

Goldenweiser, for example, criticized Durkheim’s theory as one-sided and

psychologically untenable. He argued that a “society possessing the religious sentiment is

capable of accomplishing unusual things, but it can hardly produce that sentiment out of

itself.” Some others have stated that “by making the social mind, or collective

representations the sole source of religion, Durkheim resorted to something quite

mysterious in it and, hence failed to give a satisfactory explanation.” But the real merit of

his analysis is his recognition of the vital social functions that religion plays in society.

Group V Page 26


CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

1. Contribution to Sociological Theory: Durkheim never wrote any specific treatise

on sociology as such. But his writings on various sociological topics provide

relatively convincing answers to many problems in sociological theory.

2. Stressed the Inseparable Relationship Between Society and Individual:

Durkheim’s cussions on “collective conscience” throw light on the relationship

between the individual and the society. They also “call attention to the ways in

which social interaction and relationships significantly influence individual

attitudes, ideas, and sentiments.” For Durkheim, the reality of society preceded the

individual life.

3. Emphasized the Application of Scientific Methods in the Study of Social facts:

Durkheim, in away was a positivist and strongly recommended the application of

the methods of physical science to the study of the social facts. As a believer in

scientific method he sought to ideal chiefly with empirical data and to avoid value-

judgments. Like Spencer and Karl Marx he did not subscribe to an individualistic

theory of society as such.

4. Stressed the Importance of Morals, Values and social Integration in Social

Life: Durkheim was, however, able to prove convincingly that social facts are facts

“sui generis.” His explanations regarding the social and cultural importance of the

division of labor and his analysis of the consequences of social solidarity are quite

impressive. He indicated the role of social pressure in areas of human activity,

which was not stressed upon by others till then. He has sufficiently emphasized the

significance of values and ideals in social life. He also demonstrated the need for

empirical research for the science of society.

5. Durkheim a Great Moralist: Durkheim was a man of character. Throughout his

life he was passionately engaged in the moral issues of his time. He probably

considered it to be his life tasks to contribute to the moral regeneration of his

French society. He made number of proposals for the improvement of the moral

Group V Page 27

climate of his society. Durkheim’s deep concern for order and unity in the body

social has often made his critics brand him as a thinker with conservative bias

opposed to the creative functions of conflict. He, of course, found it impossible,

even in theory, to escape “the limits of the contemporary social life.”

6. Durkheim Gave Priority only to the Society and Not to the individual: he has

made “social facts” central in his methods. A social factor is a phase of behavior-

thinking, feeling or acting- which has a coercive nature. Social facts involve rules

and regulations, systems of procedure, and sets of customary beliefs. They have

super-individual value. It appears that in his treatment of social facts and collective

conscience. Durkheim almost completely neglected the social importance of

individual decision. “Society is real, to be sure, but so is the individual and the

two, it should be remembered, are always in interaction. Giving priority to one or

the other, is misleading in the long” –L.A.Cosser.

Group V Page 28


BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Abharam, Francis, Sociological thought from comptemrory time, Macmillian,

Delhi 2005.

2. Anand, Navneet and Akhtar, Shamim Sociology Spectrum Books, New Delhi,

2007.

3. Ashley, David and Orestein, David Michael Sociological theory : classical

statements, Pearson Education , New Delhi 2007

4. Collins, Randall. Four Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1994.

5. Coser, Lewis and Rosenberg, Bernard Sociological Theory, Book of Readings,

Macmillian , New York 1982.

6. Giddens, Anthony, ed. Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press, 1998.

7. Tyagi, Darshna, Sociocultural Anthropology, Anmol Publications, New Delhi,

2006

Group V Page 29

Date post:	27-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	prakhar-deep
View:	7,237 times
Download:	7 times

Theory of Emile Durkheim

Documents