EXAM need within 24 hours

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1EMILE DURKHEIM 1858-1917

(David Emile Durkheim)

Born in Lorraine in France, near German border

$ mother was merchant’s daughter, father a rabbi, grandfather and great grandfather also rabbis so he appeared destined to be a rabbi.

$ He went to rabbinical school but never finished. But stayed in Jewish community. Experienced anti-Semitism

$ Argued that hostility of Christians toward Jews created an unusual sense of solidarity among Jews (more later)

$ Went to school wanting to become a teacher. Studied Philosophy. Began teaching philosophy at a college in Paris in 1882 but emphasized science.

$ In 1887 taught a course on Sociology in Bordeaux. In 1898 founded first social science Journal in France. Back in Paris in 1902 at the Sorbonne (U of Paris).

$ Great fame as a teacher

$ Active in academic circles. Very serious person.

$ 1887 married Louise Dreyfus; a daughter Marie and a son Andre. Louise devoted to him and acted as secretary

$ When World War I began in 1914 he wrote patriotic pamphlets. Very loyal to France

$ His son Andre died on battlefield in 1916; he was devastated

$ In 1917 a stroke, recovered but died at 59

$ Buried in Paris.

Durkheim’s major concern throughout his career: social solidarity – the cohesion of social groups – why do social groups, societies remain together – how can we explain the social order?

He wrote many books, but we will discuss Four:

THE DIVISION OF LABOR IN SOCIETY, 1893

(actually his doctoral dissertation)

Division of Labor means that work is separated into a number of different tasks, each task performed by a separate person.

For example, here at Lehman lots of things must be done (the labor). People perform many different tasks (labor is divided up): security, bursar, dean, department chairs, students, registrar, financial aid, human resources, information technology, faculty, mail, cleaning, secretaries, and so on and on. People tend to specialize and do only one task. There’s a very complex Division of Labor.

In the old days, when most people were farmers, there was not much Division of Labor because most people performed the same task: they were farmers. But that’s changing.

In Durkheim’s the division of labor was becoming more and more complex (people pursuing many different activities: business, industry, science, law, etc., many different persons doing many different things). Would society fall apart as a result?

To answer the question is why he wrote the book.

One type of unity he called:

MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

$ Simple Division of Labor, people did very similar tasks

$ Strong Collective Consciousness (by Collective Consciousness he means “the beliefs and customs common to people in a society”)

$ People have similar beliefs

$ Repressive Law (laws are designed to punish those who break them), act of vengeance

$ Definition of Crime: Behavior is a crime because it shocks the collective consciousness, not it shocks the Collective Conscience because it is a crime (see below)

$ There will always be crime because even in a society of saints, something would shock them

$ Less freedom to act

$ Unity of Similarity, Society stays together because they are similar to each other

ORGANIC SOLIDARITY

$ Complex Division of Labor

$ Weak Collective Consciousness, people have many different beliefs and customs

$ Restitutive Law (laws regulate property, contracts)

$ More freedom to act

$ Unity of Interdependence

$ People remain together because they need each other

$ For example, at Lehman all those people need to work so that the College will function

Durkheim concluded ORGANIC SOLIDARITY was the stronger form, we stay together because we need each other. Therefore more complex Division of Labor would strengthen society; society will not fall apart.

RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD 1895

Why written?

1. To divorce soc from philosophy

2. To establish soc as independent field of study

3. Study social life objectively; different from other sciences but can use the same method; science is a method, not a body of knowledge

4. Break away from ‘common sense’ notions of social life

SOCIAL FACTS:

Things only sociology will study

A Social Fact has two criteria:

1. External to the individual - we didn’t create them

2. Endowed with coercive power – we have to go along – Chief proof try to resist and see what happens

For example, currency. Go to a store in the Bronx and try to buy something with Eurodollars or Japanese Yen. Most likely you can’t buy it because you must use USA dollars.

We didn’t create the money system, but we have to use it. It’s a Social Fact.

Also examples of Social Facts: language, laws, how we dress, morality, values, norms, roles, financial system, religion, etc.

Social Facts are things, have existence separate from people;

Society exists prior to individuals and shapes individual action

HOW TO EXPLAIN SOCIAL FACTS: not by race, imitation (when he discusses this who is he criticizing?), instinct, human will, or psychology.

We can explain social facts only by other social facts

In explaining Social Facts must seek cause that produces them and functions they fulfill

So, then

$ Sociology is the science that studies

$ The cause and function of

$ Social Facts

$ How do we study social facts?

$ STATISTICS, especially correlation

Today we follow Durkheim. We use statistics. Our methodology today is from Durkheim. And we study social facts.

Quote from Durkheim’s Rules:

“But, it will be said that, since the only elements making up society are individuals, the first origins of sociological phenomena cannot but be psychological.” He disagrees. “A whole is not identical with the sum of its parts. It is something different....The group thinks, feels, and acts quite differently from the way in which its members would were they isolated. If, then, we begin with the individual, we shall be able to understand nothing of what takes place in the group. ...Consequently, every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is false.”

EXAMPLE TO ILLUSTRATE POINT: Have you ever taken a class that you thought was dull, boring? If so, does that mean you are a dull, boring person? Of course not. To understand what a class is like, you must start with the class, NOT with the students in it.

WHAT IS A CRIME?

Durkheim’s famous definition. Why is something defined as a crime? We are shocked. We are upset. That what makes anything a crime. Whatever shocks us is a crime. Not the other way around. A crime happens, then we are shocked and upset.

By his definition, anything could be a crime. And every society will have crimes because something is going to shock and upset people. It may not be robbery or murder, but something will. And crime, because it shocks us also unites us. We are united in our belief that the crime was wrong. Therefore, crime strengthens society.

SUICIDE 1897

Why written? To make case for sociology. Study behavior which we always explain psychologically and, instead, explain it sociologically. Suicide good case. We always explain it by psychological factors (depression, personal tragedy, etc.) If can successfully explain something as personal and intimate as suicide sociologically, then we can explain anything else sociologically.

FIRST PIECE OF GENUINE SOCIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INFORMED BY THEORY, not just a collection of facts

Please remember that Durkheim is NOT trying to explain why a person commits suicide. He is trying to explain why rates of suicide in different social groups change.

$ Define: “the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting...from...an act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result.”

$ In other words, a person does something deliberately to himself to produce his own death

$ we are not including attempted suicides

$ he begins by insisting we can’t explain suicide by race, heredity, cosmic factors, mental illness, imitation (again, when he discusses ‘imitation’ who is he attacking?)

$ How do we study suicide?

$ Uses government and medical statistics on numbers of suicides

$ look for patterns that emerge in all these statistics

$ there are four types of suicide

First Type: His statistics showed that:

$ men commit suicide more than women

$ people with no religious beliefs commit suicide more than highly religious people

$ Protestants commit suicide more than Catholics or Jews

$ single people commit suicide more than married people

$ people with more education commit suicide more than those with less education

$ wealthy people commit suicide more than the poor

$ city people commit suicide more than rural folks

$ suicide rates decline in times of war

$ suicide rates increase in times of great economic prosperity and economic depression

Why?

Group integration. The more people are integrated into society, the lower the suicide rate. People in each of the groups listed above with lower suicide rates belong to a more highly integrated group with definite standards and rules to follow. As Durkheim writes, as social groups become more integrated and cohesive, the lower the suicide rate.

He called this first type EGOISTIC SUICIDE

Second Type is ALTRUISTIC SUICIDE

This is the opposite of Egoistic Suicide. In egoistic suicide bonds are weak. In Altruistic suicide people are so integrated into a group, bonds are so strong, they commit suicide. It is their duty. Examples: suicide pilots during WW II who flew planes into ships, sinking the ship but dying in the process; followers of Jim Jones in Guyana, suicide so relatives collect insurance money, etc.

3. ANOMIC SUICIDE, from anomie. Anomie (means normlessness, or without rules) occurs when society changes rapidly so people don’t know what’s expected from them. Or people in a new situation in life and now they don’t know how they supposed to behave. For example, one has much money but loses it. Person knew how to behave when rich, but not when poor. Or it could be gaining wealth suddenly. It’s not getting or losing money, it’s the rapid change. Divorce, retirement, any dramatic change could result in anomie, and suicide.

4. FATALISTIC SUICIDE In his book, Durkheim devotes whole chapters to each of these three types of suicide. The fourth type only gets a footnote at the end of the chapter on Anomic Suicide.

Here’s what he says: “The above considerations show that there is a type of suicide the opposite of anomic suicide, just as egoistic and altruistic suicide are opposites. It is the suicide deriving from excessive regulation, that of persons with futures pitilessly blocked...by excessive regulation.... So for completeness’ sake, we should set up a fourth suicidal type....To bring out the...inflexible nature of a rule against which there is no appeal, and in contrast with the expression “anomy”...we might call it fatalistic suicide.” (Italics Durkheim‘s) Most agree Durkheim should have discussed this type in detail. He gives examples of suicides of slaves or people living under dictators even in their own families. Or someone with a fatal, incurable disease, or life in prison.

So Durkheim does explain suicide sociologically. Although Durkheim didn’t suggest doing this, we can, today, use Durkheim to explain why a person might commit suicide. They fall into one of the four categories.

We might also update Durkheim in another way. Did you know that the suicide rate of African Americans in the USA today is very low. It is number 9 of causes of death for whites, but it’s 16 for African Americans. Why? Egoistic Suicide. African Americans are victims of prejudice and discrimination. This unites this group, together and reduces rates of suicide.

ELEMENTARY FORMS OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE 1912

CAUSE AND FUNCTION OF SOCIAL FACTS,

Religion is a Social Fact.

CAUSES AND FUNCTION OF RELIGION

To understand the cause of religion, study origin of religion – where did it begin?

How did people arrive at a concept of God or the divine, something possessing extra powers upon which we are dependent and must obey?

Durkheim considers what do all religions have in common?

$ it is not belief in a god

$ not idea of supernatural

$ it is the idea of ‘sacred’

$ a ‘sacred’ object is an item that has a special meaning above and beyond its ordinary meaning

$ it is set apart treated with awe and respect

$ SACRED, set apart from everyday world, extraordinary

$ PROFANE realm of everyday world, mundane, routine

$ for example to Christians the cross is not just two pieces of wood, it has a special significance, it is not ordinary

$ the rosary to Roman Catholics

$ churches, mosques, synagogues are not ordinary buildings

$ Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha are not ordinary people

$ Every religion, Durkheim found, has sacred objects and people

Therefore, what is religion? “Religion is a system of beliefs and practices, relative to sacred things,... beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”

(Note to students: Follow this very carefully)

Durkheim wants to study origin of religion. To do that, he wants to find

$ the most primitive and simple religion which it is possible to find

$ where the people are very homogeneous

$ and have a rudimentary culture, the house and even the hut are unknown

$ and much information exists about these people

$ who meets these factors?

$ the Arunta of Australia

$ in the Arunta of Australia, each person is in a clan

$ a clan is a unified group based on kinship

$ every clan has some thing which is its symbol

$ it is called its totem

$ the totem on the clan is the totem of everyone in the clan

$ the totem could be anything: clouds, rain, hail, frost, the moon, sun, any season, certain stars, thunder, fire, water, the sea, a rock, etc.

$ the totem is the symbol of the clan, its flag

$ it is the sign by which each clan distinguishes itself from the others

$ it is also the symbol of the clan’s religious beliefs, its god

$ if the clan symbolizes two things, the clan (the society) and its god

$ is that because the god and the society are one – the same

$ do you understand what this means?

$ society itself leads people to create the idea of a god

$ like a god society has authority over us

$ we today know we are influenced, acted upon, things out there effect us; we need an explanation

$ therefore we have created god

$ but really is society that is effecting us, not any god

Is this clear?

Of course, religion’s FUNCTION: Unites together, remember his definition of religion