Emile Durkhiem
...Many people consider me the most influential man in the evolution of sociology. I began exploring the inner workings of society and explained phenomenon’s that had gone unexplained for so many years. I showed that all aspects of society work together much like the parts of a machine work together. This concept is now known as functionalism, and is a main idea of much sociological theory today. I have contributed so much to the social sciences it would be impossible to discuss them all in such a short time. Instead I will look at a few of what I consider to be my greatest achievements. I wrote my first major work The Division of Labor in Society in 1893. This book dealt with many revolutionary ideas, one of which was the two types of solidarity: mechanical and organic. I was fascinated with the shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. I define mechanical solidarity as “social cohesion based upon the likeness and similarities among individuals in a society, and largely dependent on common rituals and routines. Common among prehistoric and pre-agricultural societies, and lessens in predominance as modernity increases.” I define organic solidarity as “social cohesion based upon the dependence individuals in more advanced society have on each other. Common among industrial societies as the division of labor increases. Though individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interests, the order and very survival of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specific task.” In my book I discuss social solidarity and the bond between all individuals within a society. I first describe the social cohesion found in pre-industrial societies. I call this mechanical solidarity. And it occurs when all members of a society perform similar tasks as everyone else in the society. If one person died and were not replaced it would have little or no effect on the rest of the society. The collective conscience of a mechanical society is the same among all the members. Collective conscience of course is the idea shared by members of a group, tribe, or society. The bond between the members is not derived from dependence on individuals, rather from the dependence on the total social system. “In societies where this type of solidarity [mechanical] is highly developed, the individual is not his own master...Solidarity is, literally something which the society possesses." I became very interested in studying what happens when a society begins to modernize. What happens when they begin to industrialize and labor becomes increasingly specialized? I call this organic solidarity. In modern, industrial societies, labor is divided among the people. Individuals no longer perform the same tasks nor have the same interests. This can lead to people having very different views of life. However, I am not saying that this will cause a society to fail or fall apart. Organic solidarity works like an organism with all individuals performing certain specific functions. The success of the whole depends on successful performance of all other individuals. If one individual fails, the rest of them fail as well. A society cannot function at all if one part fails. This reliance upon each other for social and physical survival is the source of organic solidarity. Many people wonder “what causes this change from mechanic to organic solidarity?” My response is “dynamic density.” In layman’s terms it is the number of people and the frequency of interaction. As dynamic density increases a shift occurs from mechanical to organic solidarity. It was also in The Division of Labor in Society that I coined the term “anomie.” I define anomie as “a condition where social and/or moral norms are confused, unclear, or simply not present.” I believe that the lack of norms or pre-accepted limits on behavior in a society leads to deviant behavior. To put it simply, anomie is the lack of regulations and the breakdown of norms which in return causes one to not know what they are expected to do. I believe industrialization is partly to blame for this breakdown. Traditional societies successfully taught people to control their desires and goals. Modern industrial societies separate people and weaken social bonds through increasing complexity and division of labor. This is especially evident in today’s computerized society. Modern day technology increases division by the increasing importance of computers, internet, and technology. I believe now more than ever people of Western society are at risk to experience feelings of anomie. I also studied the effect anomie has on the goals of individuals and their happiness. I found that as social restraints are weakened, people no longer have limits upon their desires and aspirations. It used to be that goals were limited by social order, but now with no social restraints there are no limits. The idea of having goals is one that I encourage, however the goal must be attainable. Think of a first grade class. It is not unusual for a teacher to ask the students what they want to be when they grow up. Surely one if not more students say they want to be President of the United States. The teacher encourages all the students that they can do/be whatever they want. In reality not everyone can be what they want to be. Unrealistic goals make for unobtainable dreams. "One does not advance when one proceeds toward no goal, or which is the same thing when the goal is infinity. To pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness" (Suicide). Having an unobtainable goal is as much a form of anomie as having no goals at all. Some of my most famous work was on suicide. I studied suicide because I look at suicide rates as an indicator of disorganization of society. My study on suicide was of great importance because I tried to provide a sociological explanation to a phenomenon that had traditionally been considered psychological and individualistic. I defined suicide as "the term applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result" (Suicide). I used this definition to separate true suicides from accidental deaths. I then collected data from a number of European countries on their suicide rates. I found the rates to be relatively constant among the countries as well as among smaller demographics within the countries. This showed there was a collective tendency towards suicide. Equally as important was what I concluded from this data. I drew four theoretical conclusions on the social causes of suicide. I based the suicide on the imbalance of two social forces: social integration and moral regulation. Egoistic suicide resulted from too little social integration. Individuals in this group are not bound to social groups and therefore aren’t bound to values, traditions, norms, or goals. They are left with little social support or guidance and tend to commit suicide on an increased basis. I use unmarried men as an example. Men with little or nothing to bind them to stable social norms and goals commit suicide at higher rates than married people. Altruistic suicide is a result of too much integration. It is the opposite of egoistic suicide. Self sacrifice is the defining trait, where individuals are so integrated into social groups that they lose sight of their individuality and became willing to sacrifice themselves for the group's interests. I think the most common type of altruistic suicide occurs among members of the military. A modern day example would be suicide bombers for the Taliban. They are so highly integrated to their cause that they are willing to fly a plane into a building and blow themselves up if they believe it will help their group. They are not interested as themselves as an individual rather they seem themselves as a small part of a larger whole. Anomic suicide is of great interest to me. I divided it into four categories: acute and chronic economic anomie, and acute and chronic domestic anomie. Each involved an imbalance of means and needs, where means were unable to fulfill needs. Each category of anomic suicide is described below: - Acute economic anomie: random decreases in the ability of traditional institutions (such as religion) to regulate and fulfill social needs. - Chronic economic anomie: long term decrease of social regulation. For example the ongoing industrial revolution, Industrial goals of wealth and property were insufficient in providing happiness. - Acute domestic anomie: sudden changes on the micro level results in an inability to adapt. An example of this would be the sudden change a widow experiences. - Chronic domestic anomie: refers to the way marriage as an institution regulates the sexual and behavioral means-needs balance among men and women. Marriage provided different regulations for each, however. Fatalistic suicide is a rare phenomenon in the world so I only discuss it briefly. Examples include people with overregulated, unrewarding lives such as slaves, childless married women, and young husbands. I included this type of suicide into my study but never mention why I consider it to be rather unimportant. I believe my study on suicide is so important because it has discovered the cause of anomie and egoism. These forces were natural results of the decline of mechanical solidarity and the rise of organic solidarity due to the division of labor and industrialism. This is important and re...