Draft:Background and Criticism of Durkheim's concepts of Organic and Mechanical Solidarity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Comment: Many of these citations don't make any sense - what's going on here? asilvering (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Emile Durkheim's concept of Mechanical and organic solidarity has gone through numerous criticisms and have an in depth theoretical background

Theoretical Background[edit]

Emile Durkheim first described the social cohesion particular to pre-industrial societies. This mechanical solidarity as he called it, the idea that primitive society, pre-modernity, is held together by the fact there is little division of labor, occurred when all members of a society performed the same or nearly the same tasks as all others in a society. If one person were to die and not be replaced, the society would not change, because all other members did exactly the same thing as the member that died. The collective conscience of a mechanical society is identical among all members, and the bond derives not from dependence on other individuals, but from the dependence on the total social system.[1]

Durkheim's primary interest was what happened as societies begin to modernize, when they begin to industrialize and labor becomes increasingly specialized. Durkheim dealt with changes in the material world in the way in which we divide up and do our work. Durkheim calls the new form of solidarity resulting from modernization, organic solidarity. In modern, industrial societies, labor is tremendously divided. Individuals no longer perform the same tasks, have the same interests, nor necessarily share the same perspectives on life. But Durkheim quickly points out that this does not cause a society to fail or disintegrate. Organic solidarity is formed. Like the organs within an animal, individuals perform certain specific functions, but rely on the well-being and successful performance of other individuals. If one organ fails, the rest of them fail as well. A body--or in this case a society--cannot function at all if one part crumbles. This reliance upon each other for social (and even physical) survival is the source of organic solidarity, according to Durkheim.[2]

Organic Solidarity and Collective Conscience[edit]

An important aspect of Durkheim's argument about the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is that it is accompanied by a dramatic change in what he called the collective conscience(the ideas shared by members of a collectivity such as a group, a tribe, or a society). In organic solidarity and the large, differentiated societies linked with it, fewer people are affected by the collective conscience. The collective conscience is not as important and most people don't seem to care about it so deeply. It is far weaker and does not exercise nearly as much control over people. The collective conscience is far more flexible and adaptable and less associated with anything we think of as religion.[3]

Criticisms[edit]

Some Sociologists say that Durkheim cannot prove this thesis. Emile Durkheim suggests that the bond of solidarity has changed during the course of social evolution, and he seeks to identify the causes and consequences of this change. He poses his problem as the resolution of a paradox: Any increase in individuality would seem to entail a decline in solidarity. But over the course of social evolution individuality and solidarity have simultaneously grown stronger.[1] Durkheim postulates a complex set of relations between the individual and society. The two are mutually dependent and reinforce each other. Without the cooperation and participation of individuals society and languishes and dies; society revitalizes individuals and gives them the strength to persevere in the face of issues of every day of life. The perspectives which places this inverse relationship between individuality and solidarity at the core of Durkheim's theory produce intractable theoretical difficulties when Durkheim argues that solidarity and individuality are proportionately related.[1]: 129-131 Solidarity is a social factor; individuality referring specifically to what distinguishes one from another, is an individual factor. Hence, Durkheim's argument that individuality and solidarity grow proportionately directly contradicts his basic premise that the individual and social factors vary inversely.[4]

Durkheim's formulation is unsatisfactory on empirical grounds. The beliefs which define and integrate a given group may be bring it into conflict with other groups and alienate from society as a whole. "We take part in several groups and in us is several collective consciences.[5]

See Also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Durkheim, Émile (1964). The division of labor in society. New York ; London: Free Press, Collier Macmillan.
  2. ^ Durkheim, Emile (June 1972). Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-09712-3.
  3. ^ Barnes, J. A.1966 "Durkheim's 'Division of Labor in Society'" Man 1: 158-175.
  4. ^ Pope, Whitney; Johnson, Barclay D. (1983). "Inside Organic Solidarity". American Sociological Review. 48 (5): 681–692. doi:10.2307/2094927. ISSN 0003-1224. JSTOR 2094927.
  5. ^ "Exchange and Power in Social Life. By Peter M. Blau. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964. 352 pp. $7.75". academic.oup.com. Retrieved 2023-07-15.

External Links[edit]

This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.
Categories:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Background_and_Criticism_of_Durkheim%27s_concepts_of_Organic_and_Mechanical_Solidarity&oldid=1188788673"