Durkhemian Rhapsody

In Rules of the Sociological Method, Durkheim argues “(a) that there is a genuine distinction of field or plane between the natural and the social sciences, and (b) that the methods of science applicable in the field of the natural sciences are, nevertheless, valid within the social field.” I feel this is an important part of his argument because in a post enlightenment world, the natural sciences were the key focus of understanding and producing knowledge. After he argues that these sociological facts can come to be known, he then goes onto address what these “facts” are. He comes to determine that these facts are produced by the conscience collective; which is to refer to the shared beliefs, and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society (Wikipedia.com). He urges that these are bound and created by the society as a whole, rather than a single group, or sets of subgroups within the society.

The division of labor argues that within a manufacturing society, there will be a dominant capitalist, who employs workers to make and assemble things. These workers are given simple, repetitive tasks, and the function of these men resembles that of a part of a machine. With this repetition, and basically lack of thinking produces an ideal worker that no longer questions his role as important, and rather accepts his part of a larger whole. The article even goes as far as to say that some would rather employ idiots, who follow work orders blindly, rather than the man who seeks for understanding, who may disrupt the production as a whole with his questions. The argument concludes that in a manufacturing society, it is necessary for this worker class to fall, and become part of a larger mechanism, which in a sense sub-humanizes these workers.

In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life Durkheim looks to examine the simple religions in the past. Since they are the most simple, he argues, they will be the easiest ones to make connections between since the ones of our age have become so increasingly complicated. Through these connections he hopes to make, he will be able to uncover the truth about religions, and the sociological impact that these connections would make in the world.

I liked Durkheim’s view of the conscience collective, and thought that it was very interesting. I think it is very accurate in the sense that the ideals of a society extend beyond any one certain group, and are rather created by everyone in the society. I just thought of the example of a gang. And while they may together hold the same beliefs, surely other, and hopefully most, members of the society would look at their group as deviated from what is expected, because this is what the collective conscience has produced within that society.

A question I had was with regard to the division of labor. I could not help but think of our country’s economy shifting from a manufacturing nation to a post-manufacturing nation. My first reaction was the thought that many people are unemployed, and the economy is hurting. So while we are moving away from this division of labor (which in theory is good) we are still seeing an increasing number of problems. I myself however think it is a matter of time until jobs are created for these people. Hopefully these jobs will not think of these workers as just another de-humanizing part of a machine, but will take into account their TRUE human potential. I feel that as these jobs are created, it is our job as sociologist to make sure that these inequalities are not created with these jobs.