Durkheim's Mechanical and Organic Solidarity

Émile Durkheim, known as one of the founding fathers of sociology, was instrumental in establishing sociology as an academic discipline distinct from psychology and philosophy. As the society in which he lived became increasingly modern, Durkheim devoted himself to two fundamental questions: the relationship between the individual and society, or more specifically, the nature of social bonds; and the moral health of society in general. In addressing these questions, he identified two different types of societies, mechanical and organic, and differentiated them in terms of their shared beliefs, governing laws, level of individualism, and social ills. Durkheim also attempted to show how seemingly individual acts—such as crime and suicide—are social in nature.

Keywords Collective Conscience; Division of Labor; Mechanical Solidarity; Occupational Groups; Organic Solidarity; Repressive Laws; Restitutive Laws; Social Facts

Sociological Theory > Durkheim's Mechanical & Organic Solidarity

Overview

When Émile Durkheim began his university teaching career in France in the mid-nineteenth century, sociology did not yet exist as a separate academic discipline. Known as one of its founding fathers, Durkheim spent much of his early career establishing sociology as a field of study that would offer a different perspective on society than that already offered by psychology and philosophy (Ritzer, 2008; McIntosh, 1997). First and foremost, Durkheim believed social life should be studied empirically—in much the same way one might study the natural sciences—by observing and measuring what he called social facts (Ritzer, 2008). Secondly, Durkheim believed society could be understood only by observing individuals in interaction with one another; "society," he wrote, "is not a mere sum of individuals" (as cited in Ritzer, 2008, p.78). Although Durkheim was met with opposition, particularly from psychologists and philosophers, he was successful in creating a "separate and identifiable niche" for sociology (Ritzer, 2008, p. 75).

In order to understand Durkheim's contribution to sociology, it is important to first understand the cultural and political landscape in which he lived and worked. His academic interests were largely informed by the changes he saw taking place around him. As McIntosh (1997) wrote, "It is now part of the familiar history of sociology to state that it 'came of age' during two great transformations: the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution" (p. 3). The French Revolution challenged traditional forms of authority, emphasizing instead the ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy. The individual, and his or her inherent rights, were at the forefront of revolutionaries' minds. At the same time, society was becoming increasingly industrialized. Workers were moving from farms to factories, becoming more specialized in their jobs and skills, thereby creating an economic and urban landscape never before seen.

The changes that accompanied the shift from a traditional society to a modern one became the central concern of sociologists, and for Durkheim as well. Specifically, Durkheim turned his attention to two fundamental questions: the relationship between the individual and society, and the moral health of society as a whole (Marske, 1987). Given the increasing division of labor and accompanying specialization, Durkheim wondered how society would continue to be "held together." Would individualism weaken or strengthen social bonds? Secondly, Durkheim was worried about how the shift from traditionalism to modernity would impact society's moral fabric. A colleague of Durkheim's wrote, "one will fail to understand his works if one does not take account of the fact that morality was their center and object" (cited in Ritzer, 2008, p. 78).

Mechanical & Organic Solidarity

Durkheim characterized societies according to the types of bonds that brought people together, and the ways in which individuals perceived themselves as part of a larger whole—in other words, according to the nature of its solidarity. According to Durkheim, there are just two fundamental types of solidarity:mechanical and organic. What differentiates one from the other, he argued, is the role of the individual in relation to the larger group, as well as the nature of a society's shared beliefs, or collective conscience. As societies became increasingly modern, they changed along both these dimensions.

The Collective Conscience

In traditional, primitive societies, families are largely self-sufficient. People grow their own food, make their own clothes, and raise and educate their own children. The bond among individuals is strengthened by their shared experience. In addition to their shared experience, however, people in primitive societies also have a common belief system. The collective conscience of primitive societies, Durkheim observed, is typically religious in nature, rigid, and pervasive (Ritzer, 2008). In primitive societies with mechanical solidarity, it is the strength of the collective conscience that provides the moral foundation for the community.

In modern, organic societies, the role of the individual begins to shift. As people move from the farm to the factory, their skills and jobs become more specialized. No longer self-sufficient, the modern family must depend on other people in the community for their survival: someone else to grow their food, make their clothes, and teach their children. The maxim in such societies, Durkheim wrote, is to "equip yourself to fulfill usefully a specific function" (as cited in McIntosh, 1997, p. 183). Importantly, Durkheim recognized that the division of labor that characterizes economic life also characterizes other facets of social life: politics, education, law, and even academics. Such societies are more complex than primitive societies, and as a result, the collective conscience diminishes. The belief system is shared by fewer people, becomes less religious in content, and is less rigidly imposed.

Division of Labor

According to Durkheim, the increasing division of labor in modern societies of his time fulfilled an important function. Communities were becoming more heavily populated, leading to increased competition for scarce resources and therefore a more intense struggle for survival (Ritzer, 2008). The division of labor allowed individuals to complement rather than conflict with one another. Specialization also led to increased efficiency and made resources more abundant. As Ritzer (2008) wrote, "In societies with organic solidarity, less competition and more differentiation allow people to cooperate more and to all be supported by the same resource base. Individuality, then, is not the opposite of close social bonds but a requirement for them" (p. 87).

By emphasizing the relationship between increasing specialization and interdependence, Durkheim was able to show how solidarity and individualism could go hand in hand. "The evolution from traditionalism to modernity, according to Durkheim, paradoxically expands the role of the state while simultaneously increasing the level of individualism in society" (Marske, 1987, p. 1). But Durkheim had another agenda—to prove that modernity does not necessitate, as many of his colleagues believed, moral decline. As Giddens (1971) wrote, "The main proposition developed in the Division of Labor is that modern complex society is not, in spite of the declining significance of traditional moral beliefs, inevitably tending toward [moral] disintegration" (Giddens, 1971, p. 72). If the collective conscience or moral fabric of society diminishes with increasing modernity, as Durkheim acknowledged it did, how could society maintain its moral health?

Durkheim acknowledged that along with modernity comes increasing complexity and diversity of thought. He argued, however, that the collective conscience survives with respect to one belief—the importance of the individual. Marske (1987) wrote, "The individual is eventually seen by Durkheim as the sole surviving form of mechanical solidarity in modern society. In advanced societies where organic solidarity predominates, the deepest most significant [shared] value…focuses on the rights and dignity of the individual" (p. 2). Durkheim even suggested that societies' shared belief in the dignity of the individual would become a secular religion, and replace more traditional religions like Christianity (Marske, 1987). Importantly, however, Durkheim's individual refers to humankind in the abstract, rather than a specific person per se, and moral individualism promotes respect for humanity, rather than self-interest or egoism.

Durkheim believed the shift from traditionalism to modernity was a natural progression that produced a "higher" type of social order, but he recognized that problems could arise during transition (Marske, 1987). In other words, he believed division of labor would produce stability and solidarity, but only under the right conditions. If the structure of a society changed too rapidly, Durkheim argued, the accompanying moral code might not have time to develop. Indeed, the changes he observed in his own time were seismic. Durkheim wrote, "Profound changes have been produced in the structure of our societies in a very short time…the morality [of traditional societies]…has regressed, but without another developing quickly enough to fill the ground that the first left vacant in our consciences" (as cited in Marske, 1987, p. 4). As a result, Durkheim characterized societies along a continuum, from the healthy to the pathological.

The Pathological Society

Durkheim was as interested in changing society as he was in studying it; he wanted to understand the root causes of pathology so that he could help cure what he viewed as a modern "crisis" (Marske, 1987). According to Durkheim, pathological societies are caused by three different forms of abnormal divisions of labor: anomic division, forced division, and poorly coordinated division (Ritzer, 2008). In anomic division of labor, societies are characterized by a lack of regulation, so that people no longer have "a clear concept of what is proper and acceptable" (Ritzer, 2008, p. 88). In fact, without sufficient external constraint, Durkheim believed humans would become slaves to their passions—the desire to always want more. "Consequently, Durkheim held the seemingly paradoxical view that the individual needs morality and external control in order to be free" (Ritzer, 2008, p.79). Anomic division of labor is also characterized by fragmentation and isolation, so that people often feel separate from the people who work and live around them.

Pathology could also result from a second abnormal division of labor that Durkheim referred to as forced division of labor. When the division of labor is forced, individuals are assigned jobs for which they might not be well-suited. Instead of assigning people to positions based on talent, qualifications, and interest, jobs are assigned using outdated norms and criteria— such as status, tradition, or power (Ritzer, 2008). Finally, when the division of labor is poorly coordinated, solidarity is compromised as well. Because individuals are dependent upon one another, each person must do his or her part efficiently, and not reproduce work being done by another individual.

Just as Durkheim believed social pathology results from abnormalities in economic structure, he believed the economic life of a society could present a solution as well. Concerned with the increasing isolation and fragmentation that accompanied the rapid shift toward modernity, Durkheim believed occupational groups might help fill the void. He saw a decline in the influence of religion, the government, and even geographical ties to one another (Marske, 1987) and a corresponding growth in the significance of economic life. But in his view, occupational groups would serve both economic and moral ends. As he envisioned them, occupational groups would "provide an intense, meaningful group life through recreational, educational, and mutual aid activities. Such a revival of associational life would help to curtail both bureaucratic centralization and egoistic individualism" (Marske, 1987, p. 9).

Further Insights

In the course of developing his theory of mechanical and organic solidarity, Durkheim addressed various aspects of social life. His discussions of crime and suicide, in particular, brought him a great deal of notoriety—not only because they further defined the two types of solidarity, but because they further differentiated sociology from psychology and philosophy. More specifically, Durkheim highlighted the ways in which both crime and suicide, seemingly individual acts, are also social in nature. He used empirical evidence to support his claims. Thus, his analyses of crime and suicide were critical in establishing sociology as a viable field.

On Crime

Durkheim argued that society should be studied by measuring and observing what he called social facts, or "the social structures and cultural norms and values that are external to, and coercive of, actors" (Ritzer, 2008 p. 75). Of the two broad types of social facts—material and nonmaterial—only the first kind could be directly observed. Nonmaterial facts, things like morality and collective conscience, were of great interest to Durkheim, but had to be inferred from changes in material facts. Thus, Durkheim studied the laws governing different types of society as a way to better understand the nature of their shared beliefs. McIntosh (1997) explains, "The form of punishment meted out to those who undertake a 'criminal' act is seen by Durkheim to be a visible indicator of the strength of the 'conscience collective'" (p.185).

Before discussing the different types of laws governing mechanical and organic solidarity, it is important to understand Durkheim's perspective on crime. Durkheim was the first to suggest that an act is criminal not because of some inherent characteristic of the act, but rather because of society's reaction to it. He wrote, "we must not say than an action shocks the conscience collective because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the conscience collective. We do not condemn it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we condemn it" (as cited in McIntosh, 1997, p. 186). Secondly, Durkheim argued that crime is normal, not pathological, and is a characteristic of all societies; crime serves a useful function in helping societies define their collective conscience (Ritzer, 2008).

How then do traditional and modern societies react to crime? What kinds of laws are in place to address violations of the collective conscience? According to Durkheim, societies held together by mechanical solidarity employ repressive laws. As Ritzer (2008) explains, "because people are very similar in this type of society, and because they tend to believe strongly in a common morality, any offense against their shared value system is likely to be a significance to most individuals" (p. 87). As a result, crimes are typically punished severely. On the other hand, because organic societies have a less unified belief system, "criminal acts" are typically viewed as offenses against particular people, rather than the community as a whole. Wrongdoers are asked to make amends with those they harmed; such laws are called restitutive, rather than repressive.

On Suicide

Durkheim's decision to study suicide was a strategic one. If he could prove that sociology has something to say about what people viewed as one of the most personal and private acts, sociology could more easily extend its reach into other subject matter as well (Ritzer, 2008). Whereas most people had studied suicide from the perspective of the individual—what was his or her motive? Personality? The antecedent events?—Durkheim wanted to study variations in suicide rates across countries and time. "If various societies were predisposed to different rates of suicide then this would seem to require not a psychological explanation but a sociological one" (McIntosh, 1997, p. 212).

Durkheim believed different suicide rates could be explained in relation to two underlying social facts: integration and regulation (Ritzer, 2008). Integration refers to the strength of attachment any one person feels toward his or her community or society, while regulation describes the degree of external constraint operating on individuals within society. Suicide rates increase, Durkheim hypothesized, when a society has either too much or too little of either dimension. Thus, he identified four different types of suicide:

• Egoistic (low integration);

• Altruistic (high integration);

• Fatalistic (high regulation); and

• Anomic (low regulation).

A brief description of each follows:

Egoistic suicide: Egoistic suicide occurs in societies in which the individual is not well integrated into the larger group. Lack of social integration, Durkheim argued, could lead to currents of depression and disillusionment (Ritzer, 2008) such that the futility and meaninglessness of life dominate politics, morality, and religion. Durkheim demonstrated that suicide rates go down during times of national crises, such as war, when levels of integration are high, whereas suicide rates are higher for those who are unmarried or less integrated with family.

Altruistic suicide: Altruistic suicide occurs in societies in which integration is too high. As Ritzer (2008) writes, "the individual is literally forced into committing suicide" (p. 92). Durkheim provides specific examples of societies that prescribe death for their members in specific circumstances—suicides of women upon the death of her husband, for example, or the suicide of servants upon the death of their chiefs. Durkheim wrote, "Now, when a person kills himself, in all these cases, it is not because he assumed the right to do so but, on the contrary, because it is his duty " (as cited in McIntosh, 1997, p. 222).

Fatalistic suicide: Fatalistic suicide occurs when a society is governed by excessive regulation. Durkheim devoted little attention to this particular type of suicide, but described the victim of fatalistic suicide as one who has been significantly oppressed (Ritzer, 2008). A prisoner, for example, may choose to end his life rather than continue to have his every movement regulated.

Anomic suicide: Anomic suicide occurs when societies have too little regulation. Durkheim suggested anomic suicide rates would increase with both positive and negative disruptions of regulation, that is, during times of economic boom and depression. In either case, such societies lack sufficient moral constraint, such that individuals are left to pursue their own desires and whims indefinitely. Durkheim wrote, "irrespective of any external regulatory force, our capacity for feeling is in itself an insatiable and bottomless abyss. Unlimited desires are insatiable by definition and insatiability is rightly considered a sign of morbidity" (as cited in McIntosh, 1997, p. 224).

Durkheim concluded that suicide, like crime, is a normal part of social life. He believed, however, that egoistic and anomic suicide rates had reached pathological levels in modern society. Society needed, he argued, higher levels of integration and regulation.

Viewpoints

Although Durkheim is considered a founding father of sociology, and his contribution to the field widely recognized, his work has not escaped criticism. Modern-day sociologists acknowledge the flawed and unfinished nature of some of his work as readily as they acknowledge his genius. As Pope and Johnson (1983) state, "The Division of Labor has long occasioned puzzlement and ambivalence among sociologists" (p. 690). Marske (1987) adds that coming to a clear understanding of Durkheim's use of individualism is a formidable task, because he was often "general, theoretical, and at times vague" (p. 13). In other words, although Durkheim preached empiricism, he often fell short in his own work.

Some of the confusion surrounding Durkheim's work stems from the fact that his ideas evolved over time. As Pope and Johnson (1983) note, after the publication of The Division of Labor, Durkheim never again returned to the distinction between organic and mechanical solidarity. As Parsons (1949) states, "it was in the conception of the conscience collective that the germ of most of his later theoretical development lay" and that "gradually the conscience collective came more and more to overshadow the conception of organic solidarity" (as cited in Pope & Johnson, 1983, p. 690). Indeed, Pope and Johnson (1983) argue that Durkheim had no other course than to abandon organic solidarity, due to logical inconsistencies and ambiguities. Nevertheless, The Division of Labor and its theory of mechanical and organic solidarity served an important function—that of securing a foothold for both Durkheim and sociology in the humanities.

Terms & Concepts

Collective Conscience: Collective conscience refers to the belief system of a Society—the shared understandings, norms, and values. According to Durkheim, traditional primitive societies have a strong collective conscience, often religious in content. In modern societies, however, which are characterized by diversity and plurality of thought, the conscience weakens. The one way in which the conscience survives, he argued, is with respect to the individual. Modern societies' belief in the worth of the individual becomes a new kind of secular religion.

Division of Labor: The division of labor refers to the specialization and differentiation of jobs and skills in modern societies. According to Durkheim, the division of labor performed an important function. As cities became more populous, and resources more scarce, the division of labor allowed people to complement, rather than conflict, with one another. In this way, modern society fostered individualism, but strengthened social bonds as well.

Mechanical Solidarity: Durkheim described the type of social bond found in primitive, traditional societies as a form of mechanical solidarity. In primitive, agrarian communities, people perform the same functions (e.g., they all grow their own food) and families are self-sufficient. In addition to their shared experience, such communities also have a strong, uniform belief system, or collective conscience. The shared experiences and belief create a sense of solidarity.

Occupational Groups: Durkheim believed he was witnessing a modern crisis, in which society was characterized by too little integration and too little regulation. Because he felt religion and politics were losing their ability to bring people together, Durkheim proposed occupational groups as a solution to social ills. Such groups would serve economic, social, and moral functions.

Organic Solidarity: Durkheim described the type of social bond found in urban, industrial societies as a form of organic solidarity. In modern societies, the individual's jobs and skills become more specialized. No longer self-sufficient, the family unit must depend on other people in the community for their survival. Durkheim argued that such societies are held together by their interdependency, and by their shared belief in the dignity and worth of the individual as well. This shared belief forms the core of the collective conscience in organic societies.

Repressive Laws: According to Durkheim, primitive societies characterized by mechanical solidarity are governed by repressive laws. People in such societies have a strong, uniform belief system such that violations of the collective conscience are viewed as violations against the community as a whole. Wrongdoers are typically punished severely.

Restitutive Laws: According to Durkheim, modern societies characterized by organic solidarity are governed by restitutive laws. Such societies have a less uniform collective conscience, thus violations of shared values and norms are typically viewed as violations against specific individuals and not the society as a whole. Wrongdoers make amends, or restitution, by paying back the people they harmed.

Social Facts: Durkheim argued that society should be studied empirically, in much the same way as the natural sciences, by measuring and observing what he called social facts. Defined as "social structures and cultural norms and values that are external to, and coercive of, actors" Durkheim categorized social facts into two broad groups, material and nonmaterial (Ritzer, 2008, p. 75). The division of labor is an example of a material social fact, while the collective conscience of a society is nonmaterial.

Bibliography

Durkheim, D.E. (1933). The division of labor in Society. (F.Simpson, Trans.).New York: The MacMillan Company. (Original work published 1893).

Gangas, S. (2011). Values, knowledge, and solidarity: Neglected convergences between Émile Durkheim and Max Scheler. Human Studies, 34, 353–371. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70128889&site=ehost-live

Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and modern social theory: An analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Marske, C.E. (1987). Durkheim's 'Cult of the Individual' and the moral reconstitution of society. Sociological Theory, 5 , 1–14. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15174263&site=ehost-live

McIntosh, I.(Ed.).(1997). Classical sociological Theory. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press.

Pope, W., & Johnson, B. (1983). Inside organic solidarity. American Sociological Review, 48, 681–691. Retrieved April 26, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14846969&site=ehost-live

Ritzer, G. (2008). Sociological theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Publishers.

Sammut, G. (2011). Civic solidarity: The negotiation of identity in modern societies. Papers on Social Representations, 20,4.1–4.24. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77367522&site=ehost-live

Veitch, K. (2011). Social solidarity and the power of contract. Journal of Law & Society, 38 , 189–214. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60314175&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Beirne, P., & Messerschmidt, J. (2011). Criminology: A sociological approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kivisto, P. (2011). Social theory: Roots and branches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Merton, R.K.(1994). Durkheim's Division of Labor in Society. Sociological Forum, 9, 17–25. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10808010&site=ehost-live

Muller, H.P. (1994). Social differentiation and organic solidarity: The Division of Labor revisited. Sociological Forum, 9 , 73–86. Retrieved April 20, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=10808022&site=ehost-live

Thompson, K. (2002). Émile Durkheim (Rev.ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.