Émile Durkheim and Functionalism

As a functionalist, Émile Durkheim’s (1858–1917) perspective on society stressed the necessary

interconnectivity of all of its elements. To Durkheim, society was greater than the sum of its parts.
He asserted that individual behaviour was not the same as collective behaviour, and that studying
collective behaviour was quite different from studying an individual’s actions. Society acted as an
external restraint on individual behaviour. In his quest to understand what causes individuals to act in
similar and predictable ways, he wrote, “If I do not submit to the conventions of society, if in my
dress I do not conform to the customs observed in my country and in my class, the ridicule I provoke,
the social isolation in which I am kept, produce, although in an attenuated form, the same effects as
punishment” (Durkheim 1895). Durkheim called the communal beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a
society the collective conscience.

Durkheim also believed that social integration, or the strength of ties that people have to their social
groups, was a key factor in social life. Following the ideas of Comte and Spencer, Durkheim likened
society to that of a living organism, in which each organ plays a necessary role in keeping the being
alive. Even the socially deviant members of society are necessary, Durkheim argued, as punishments
for deviance affirm established cultural values and norms. That is, punishment of a crime reaffirms
our moral consciousness. “A crime is a crime because we condemn it,” Durkheim wrote in 1893.
“An act offends the common consciousness not because it is criminal, but it is criminal because it
offends that consciousness” (Durkheim 1893). Durkheim called these elements of society “social
facts.” By this, he meant that social forces were to be considered real and existed outside the
individual.

As an observer of his contemporary social world, particularly the fractious late 19th century history
of France, Durkheim was concerned with indications that modern society was in a process of social
disintegration. His primary concern was that the cultural glue that held society together was failing,
and that people were becoming more divided. In his book The Division of Labour in Society (1893),
Durkheim argued that as society grew more populated, more complex, and more difficult to regulate,
the underlying basis of solidarity or unity within the social order needed to evolve.

Preindustrial societies, Durkheim explained, were held together by mechanical solidarity, a type of
social order maintained through a minimal division of labour and a common collective
consciousness. Such societies permitted a low degree of individual autonomy. Essentially there was
no distinction between the individual conscience and the collective conscience. Societies with
mechanical solidarity act in a mechanical fashion; things are done mostly because they have always
been done that way. If anyone violated the collective conscience embodied in laws and taboos,
punishment was swift and retributive. This type of thinking was common in preindustrial societies
where strong bonds of kinship and a low division of labour created shared morals and values among
people, such as hunter-gatherer groups. When people tend to do the same type of work, Durkheim
argued, they tend to think and act alike.

In industrial societies, mechanical solidarity is replaced with organic solidarity, social order based
around an acceptance of economic and social differences. In capitalist societies, Durkheim wrote,
division of labour becomes so specialized that everyone is doing different things. Even though there
is an increased level of individual autonomy—unique “personalities” and individualism—society
coheres because everyone depends on everyone else. Instead of punishing members of a society for
failure to assimilate to common values, organic solidarity allows people with differing values to
1
coexist. Laws exist as formalized morals and are based on restitution rather than retribution or
revenge.

While the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is, in the long run, advantageous for a
society, Durkheim noted that it can be a time of chaos and “normlessness.” One of the outcomes of
the transition is social anomie. Anomie—literally, “without norms”—is a situation in which society
no longer has the support of a firm collective consciousness. There are no clear norms or values to
guide and regulate behaviour. Anomie was associated with the rise of industrial society, which
removed traditional modes of moral regulation; the rise of individualism, which removed limits on
what individuals could desire; and the rise of secularism, which removed ritual or symbolic foci.
During times of war or rapid economic development, the normative basis of society was also
challenged. People isolated in their specialized tasks tend to become alienated from one another and
from a sense of collective conscience. However, Durkheim felt that as societies reach an advanced
stage of organic solidarity, they avoid anomie by redeveloping a set of shared norms. According to
Durkheim, once a society achieves organic solidarity, it has finished its development.

Émile Durkheim and Functionalism

As a functionalist, Émile Durkheim’s (1858–1917) perspective on society stressed the necessary

interconnectivity of all of its elements. To Durkheim, society was greater than the sum of its parts. He
asserted that individual behavior was not the same as collective behavior and that studying collective
behavior was quite different from studying an individual’s actions. Durkheim called the communal
beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society the collective conscience. In his quest to understand what
causes individuals to act in similar and predictable ways, he wrote, “If I do not submit to the
conventions of society, if in my dress I do not conform to the customs observed in my country and in
my class, the ridicule I provoke, the social isolation in which I am kept, produce, although in an
attenuated form, the same effects as punishment” (Durkheim 1895). Durkheim also believed that social
integration, or the strength of ties that people have to their social groups, was a key factor in social
life.

Following the ideas of Comte and Spencer, Durkheim likened society to that of a living organism, in
which each organ plays a necessary role in keeping the being alive. Even the socially deviant members
of society are necessary, Durkheim argued, as punishments for deviance affirm established cultural
values and norms. That is, punishment of a crime reaffirms our moral consciousness. “A crime is a
crime because we condemn it,” Durkheim wrote in 1893. “An act offends the common consciousness
not because it is criminal, but it is criminal because it offends that consciousness” (Durkheim 1893).
Durkheim called these elements of society “social facts.” By this, he meant that social forces were to be
considered real and existed outside the individual.

As an observer of his social world, Durkheim was not entirely satisfied with the direction of society in
his day. His primary concern was that the cultural glue that held society together was failing, and
people were becoming more divided. In his book The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim
argued that as society grew more complex, social order made the transition from mechanical to
organic.

Preindustrial societies, Durkheim explained, were held together by mechanical solidarity, a type of
social order maintained by the collective consciousness of a culture. Societies with mechanical
solidarity act in a mechanical fashion; things are done mostly because they have always been done
that way. This type of thinking was common in preindustrial societies where strong bonds of kinship

2
and a low division of labor created shared morals and values among people, such as hunter-gatherer
groups. When people tend to do the same type of work, Durkheim argued, they tend to think and act
alike.

In industrial societies, mechanical solidarity is replaced with organic solidarity, which is social order
based around an acceptance of economic and social differences. In capitalist societies, Durkheim
wrote, division of labor becomes so specialized that everyone is doing different things. Instead of
punishing members of a society for failure to assimilate to common values, organic solidarity allows
people with differing values to coexist. Laws exist as formalized morals and are based on restitution
rather than revenge.

While the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity is, in the long run, advantageous for a society,
Durkheim noted that it can be a time of chaos and “normlessness.” One of the outcomes of the
transition is something he called social anomie. Anomie—literally, “without law”—is a situation in which
society no longer has the support of a firm collective consciousness. Collective norms are weakened.
People, while more interdependent to accomplish complex tasks, are also alienated from each other.
Anomie is experienced in times of social uncertainty, such as war or a great upturn or downturn in the
economy. As societies reach an advanced stage of organic solidarity, they avoid anomie by
redeveloping a set of shared norms. According to Durkheim, once a society achieves organic solidarity,
it has finished its development.

Retrieved from: https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter4-society-and-social-interaction/