Durkheim and social order-9 PDF

Preview

Summary

Durkheim and social order...

Description



  

 Durkheim and social order: Durkheim and disorder o Context: industrial society; revolutions o Major social flux ‘Moral order’ o Obligation and the individual Society (paradoxically) offers shelter from dangers “The individual submits to society and this submission is for the condition of his liberation. For man [sic] freedom consists in the deliverance from blind, unthinking physical forces; this he achieves by opposing against them the great and intelligent force which is society, under whose protection he shelters”



(Durkheim, [1893] 1974: 72)



A pre-requisite for social integration o Shared norms and values 

Gives individuals a sense of belonging



Gives society continuity

o A key notion for sociology and criminology 

A social fact o Learned, taken on and reproduced by members



Doesn’t exist independent of individuals’ minds – Durkheim called that ‘absurd’ o The interrelations between individual and collective o Reflection on these bonds

 

Durkheim’s work addresses the “moral consequences of the specialization of activities and functions which industrialism brings about” (Lee and Newby, 1985: 215) Beyond economy; every aspect of society



Contemporary context?



o Medicine? o Education? o Shops? 

Two different forms of solidarity o Mechanical o Organic



Dependent on: o Likemindedness o A shared division of labour



Segmented societies – not very interconnected/interdependent



Repressive Law as a visible representation of mechanical solidarity o Punishment and revenge of society against the individual o Religion is key (see Elementary Forms of Religious Life)



Emerges/develops



Typical of modern industrial society o Difference is a virtue



A complex “division of labour” o We are all dependent on one another (even if we lose sight of that) o Many different values is not a problem



Restitutive Law o Contracts that maintain the status quo o Organic solidarity ‘makes’ conformists (cf. functionalist criminological tradition: Merton; Hirschi)



Arguably a less complex theory of change than other ‘classical’ sociologists o Marx: historical materialism o Weber: ideas



Change driven by population growth



Conflict due to abnormal division of labour o Class conflict: incomplete development of ‘organic institutions’; growth outstrips integrative capacity o Forced DoL: external inequalities (heredity, etc) prevent a level playing field vital for organic solidarity (a socialism?) o Managerial deficiency: not time for a high enough degree of interdependence between specialisms to occur; complexity and complication!...