Durkheim states in "The Rules of Sociological Method" that the word social does little justice for the science of social studies. He goes on to say that every society is marked by different phenomena that "can be differentiated from those studied in the other natural sciences". He says that we all have roles to play in our societies that are externally given to each individual through a process of education, financial exchanges, laws, religion, professions, etc. We do not come to our values and moral content internally but rather through a social exchange of ideas we adopt from the greater society around us. He says that when a person acts in congruently to his societies expected roles or it's collective conscience, "appropriate penalties" are handed out. If a person is deviant from his societies excepted norms and practices with exceptional behavior that i considered unacceptable, that a person may be ridiculed or face reprisal so that most citizens will adopt or internalize the greater values of the society over time.
I enjoyed the part where he mentioned how you don't have to speak the language of your country, but how could you not? In this case the rules are not even implied, but anyone of common sense would choose to participate in the language of commerce or be left in poverty. I also enjoyed his theory of social currents that come from without and give us our inner sense of wrong, right, and even happiness. We may be free to do what we want in many aspects, but through coercion, are we really free at all.
He also argued that some say education brings about freedom, but he sees education as also binding us to societies values and thus controls our decision making and emotions. People transfer social order and values in social transactions.
"The Division of Labor in Society" is much more confusing to me since the writing is circular and hard to unpack. I assume this would be considered academic writing, but I found it to be wordy and almost written babble. I understood his idea of specialization and that man has become more and more specialized. That is not far from Marx's thought. I also understood his understanding of scientific specialization and how the older scientists wore many hats compared to those of today. Today's scientists and students specialize in particular fields of study in only part of one particular larger field. He even mentions that specialization has been going on throughout history. He says that we no longer work for ourselves or approval but for the society around us. He states how a workman only makes a part of a finished product and is thus a part himself. But that is where I lose his train of thought. He goes into people being attracted to like people and different people. What is he saying? Somehow this ends in his solidarity of people through the division of labor? What is the crime stuff all about? Is he trying to show people as coerced beings of an external force. I do understand how he believes the collective conscience of a society rules the individual.
In conclusion, I guess I found Durkheim to be both enlightened by his insight into societies and individual values and external influences and how they can be mapped scientifically. I'm not sure I understand his focal points at time in "The Division of Labor" and I don't see how a society could exist without common values and external reinforcement. I still see human beings as free to act and decide but in order to survive, education, religion, and social function must pass common values amongst a society in order to survive. Again, I see many of his points, but I'm not sure if I understand what his view on this topic is. Is he a proponent of the existing system or is he against it? Or is he merely just defining its make-up.
Bruce B
I think of Durkheim as defining the make-up of society. Unlike Marx he doesn't have a particular political agenda or proposal that he's making, in my view. I found social solidarity to be something to the effect that individuals from the same society recognize their mutual background, their similar values and investment in their similar system of beliefs. They would have gained these from their secondary socialization in their respective society -- and as Durkheim says, this allows individuals to maintain a broad range of contacts with different people. The similar social background makes it possible or easier to relate to others. That's my take on his writings at least.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the modern society could not exist without the those values. Durkheim notes that a simpler society is more robust, but it is, of course, simpler (smaller). Once you cross a certain threshold, you need many more things to bind it together.
ReplyDeleteOverall, Durkheim, like most sociologist, should be trying to just define and explain things, rather than advocate for or against. Of course, this is not always the case (and then Marx was very much into criticism...).