Emile Durkheim 

Methedology  → in His Rules of Sociological Methods 

● Individual & Society 

○ Individual →  
■ Cannot exist without Society 
○ Society →
■  Society has its own independent existance apart from individuals  + 
■ Sets rules which are to be followed by individual →  Act as regulator / controller
on individual's desires   
■ Society is made by association of individuals thus to understand society,  scien-
tific study of collective characteristics of society is needed   
● Social Facts 
○ External to individual yet control / regulate  individual's choices 
● His Functional Analysis of Society 
○ his concept → Every social fact has a key function / role in maintaining social order 

SOCIAL FACTS 

What 

● Durkheim developed social facts as subject matter of sociology  

● Social fact is consist of a way of manners, acting, feeling and thinking  external to the
individual yet have a coercive power which exercise control over his or her actions.
● it has sui generis reality 

Characteristics of Social Facts 

● Externality 
○ Social fact is external to individual  e.g → language function independently , pres-
ence of religion is external to individual   
● Constraining 
 ○ social fact exercise coercive power on individual action. Individual as a member of
a group behave according to norms laid down by group. e.g institution of law, edu-
cation, kinship  laid down some norm  and obligatory on everyone  
● Generality 
○ Social facts are commonly shared by most of members of society 
○ They represent generally accepted social pattern of way of thinking, feeling and
acting & exclude individual interpretation / individual facts 
○ E.g → commom religious belief, moral codes e.g  smilng when we meet other peer
member  
● Independence
○ Social fact is Sui-generis,  independent of individual + he cannot change it  

Types of social facts 

● Material Social facts  → directly observable, external, corecive in nature e.g  Law 
● Non-material social facts → not directly observable e.g Morals, Culture, norms, values 

Why to study non-material social facts 

● To understand Nonmaterial facts → study materials facts necessary to understand non-

material facts 
● Durkheims work is depend on his understanding of non material social facts 

Types of non-material social facts 

● Morality 
○ ED viewed → Morality is social fact + Society have morality 
○ Society's needs morality to have restriction on self interest of individual 
● Collective conscience  
○ What 
■ It is belief, norms, sentiments shared among avg of memeber of a society. 
■ It is independent & external of individual, shared among majority of society +
Regulate behavior of individual 
■ e.g crimal activity is immoral & punishable → shared among majority of member
of society 
■ It is needed to bound society + stable social life 
■ It narrowed self interest 
 ■ ED says → where self interest is ruling force then everyone would be in war
with every other 
● Collective representation
○ It is representation or condition of collective conscience + different from individual
conscience
○ Beliefs, norms values shared by collective conscience & not by individual → concept
emerged because ED focus on origin of social solidarity 
○ e.g H2O represent water, college teams represented by different colour like wise
state of collective conscience of any society  representated by its collective repre-
sentation
○ It is though or concept accepted by avg of member of society 

Do Social Facts Exist?

● Durkheims study of sucide explains presence of social fact ( external , independent to

individual + have corcive power over him ) 

Significance 

● By studing social facts → we will understand its causes + its functions to the society  
● According to Durkheim , society exists at a level above the individual and shaped indi-
vidual's personality, Absence of society and thus socialization of individual → behave like
animals
● Understand, how these social forces drive social change, and descover the laws which
govern human interaction and doing this requires us to study social facts at the level of
society

Criticism 

● Heidleman → durkheim is more concerned with creating a society rather describing

methedology for it 
● Stephen Lukes → he neglected individual emotions or individual motives  
● Peter berger → he neglected individual human behaviour & objecitivy not possible in so-
cial science 
● he failed to explain ehy same social facts influences different individual differently 
● Max weber → social facts not present independent of individual & they donot influence
his action rather individual's interpretation of social fact influences his actions  
Relevance 

● theory used to understand current social problems like farm distress, suicide among stu-
dents & farmers And thus solutions on problems can be provided 

DIVISION OF LABOUR 

Background 

Social condition during ED's era 

● French revolution of 1789 → widespread social disorder + encourage to individual rights,

attacks on traditional authority → ED wanted to bring back social order 
● Industrial revolution → end of feudal society, emergence of cities + Crime, poverty, other
social problems → disorder 

View on relation b/w  Individual & society 

● Auguste comte
○ Society's integration / solidarity  → social & moral consensus  
○ high DOL → loss of collective conscience in society → loss of shared beliefs in soci-
ety  → social disorder 

● Herbert Spencer →  selfish interest of individual binds individuals in society → social in-
tegration 
● ED 
○ On comte's argument → Modern society is hetrogeous, complex, favors individual-
ism then why it is not disintegrating ? 
○ On Spencer → if selfish interest is foundation then → intense competition & hate to
each other in society → how this will cause social  integration ? 
○ His Answer =  increase in DOL is not cause of social disorder / loss of morality but
old social morality is replaced by new kind of social morality → social integration   

What 

●  ED, in his division of labour in society, argued it is  process which separates / divides 
workers into specialized activities  →  society integrated  
 ● ED argued it is social fact & not caused by economic decision 
○ Early explaination → DOL → increases productivity → profit 
○ ED → DOL even present in house e.g →  father earn, mother do domestic work = it
is social phenomena 

How ED explain DOL as a social fact 

● he explain with evolutionary perspective 

● Primitive society →
○ Majority individual involved in similar activities e.g farming  →  collective conscience
is high → individual actions determined by society's norms & beliefs → this state is
called Mechanical solidarity    
● Modern society  →
○ different people involved in different taks ( heterogeneous activities )  →  collective
conscience is low → Weak control on individual  but  social interdependence on one
another → this state is called organic solidarity 
● This showns DOL was present in Primitive + modern = it is social fact 

Causes of DOL 

● DOL emerged because transition of primitive mechanical solidarity based society to 
Modern Organic solidarity based society
● With increase in population + interaction among members of society → more competi-
tion & intense struggle for survival for limited available resources 

ED main argument on DOL / Contribution of ED's Division of labor to society  

● this problem solved by  DOL ( different people will do different jobs )  → this allows peo-
ple to cooperate, work together rather conflict + more peaceful competition → increase
efficiency   
● e.g → Tshirt manufacturing process if divided among 5 people based ontheir experties →
more production, resource optimal utilization + cooperation 
● Impact of this → 
○ Individual autonomy → Individual are free to innovate + choose specialization of
jobs  
 ○ Social integration →  To satisfy needs everyone would be depend on others' ser-
vices → cooperation 

Abnormal Forms of Division Of Labor 

If DOL → strong solidarity  then why socil problems was present at that time ? 

ED's argumet → because of presence of abnormal form of DOL 

● Anomie 
○ means normlessness , individual dont follow norms attached to their activity 
○ Rapid industrial growth + fast rise in DOL  → Moral , ethical regulation unable to
keep pace with it = normlessness situation 
○ e.g Rapid Industry + DOL  → worker just supervising fuel in machine → alienation
with work → normlessness  
○ more specialization of jobs → promotes self interests → threat to society e.g → in
medical dianostic center,  convince for unnessesary check-up can be seen 
● Inequality of DOL 
○ Allocating different work not based on talent or will → inequal distribution of work
→ conflict 
○ Thus DOl → must be based on talent + will of individual 
● Inadequate organization / poor coordinated DOL 
○ Absence of proper division of labor in organization → duplication of work & conflicts
→ weak solidarity 

Solution on Abnormal DOL by ED 

● emphasis on code of ethics in society 

● occupational association act as regulator on individual 

Criticism

● This undermines individuals choice in selecting occupation  ( ED says →  DOL as social

fact )

Relevance of DOL 
 ● Study by Elton Mayo in american industrail plant on relation b/w industry & productivity
reveals → individual gives more importance to participation in informal social association
than pursuing his own self intesert i.e he gives more importance to social solidarity than
his self interest which proves ED's claim of DOL  
● Study by Harold Wiliensky on relationship b/w DOL & social integration = stable labor
market ( normal DOL ) → social integration he gave  e.g → individual with stable occupa-
tion → more in contact with friends & neighbours  

Conclusion 

SUCIDE 

What 

● Study by ED ' le Suicide', 1897 

● He defines suicide as → case of death, caused by direct or indirect, positive or negative
action of victim himself which he knows such action would produce this results
○ Indirect action  →  individual has no intention of dying but know he may die e.g mili-
tary personal 
○ Positive  → individual taken action to end his life e.g drinking poison 
○ Negative → inaction of oneself causes death → starvation 

● ED concluded → Suicide is social fact & not individual phenomena + he rejected early
explaination of suicide as personal phenomena caused by factors like stress, tempera-
ture, insanity, modernity 
○ Factors like climate, geography, race, hereditary cannot explain suicide. e.g → sui-
cide rate must be different in cold & warm countries if climate is responsible factor 

ED gives sociological factors like marriage, religion, age, level of development  causes Suicide
based on emperical evidences. His conclusion =  

● Sucide rate = Male > female 

 ● Suicide rate = Protestant > Catholic ( protestant allows individual to interprete religion &
free to inquire religion → less integration of those with church ( social integration) ) 
● Suicide rate = Bachelors > marriage couples  ( marriage people are more socially inte-
grated ) 
● Suicide rate = developed countries  >  Underdeveloped   

General argument → Sucide rate is high = those who less integrated with society 
Although ED accepted psychlogical aspect in suicide but suicide causes because of com-
bined effect of  all other  factors 

ED proposed 2 types of bonds that integrate individual into society 

● Forces of integration → over-integration & low integration → responsible for 2 types of

suicides 

○ Altruistic suicide  →
■ result from overintegration of individual into society 
■  observed in mechanic solidarity society where customs, norms highly govern
individual 
■ e.g Sati practice in India, Medical professionals working in infected patients e.g
Nurse Lini who died in treating NIV infected patients in keral, 2018    
■ Here individual try to uncover himself in order to submerged into somthing
which he considers true  

○ Egoistic suicide  →
■ result from low integration of individual into his society 
■ Individual feels alienated from society because of over emphasis on individual-
ism in modern society 
■ e.g →  individual spending weekends in office rather than with friends → weak
social integration → more suicide rates  

● Forces of regulation → Over regulation & under regulation → refer to society's control
over individual 
 ○ Anomic sucide 
■  result from under regulation in society → normlessness 
■ Every social disturbance → either sudden prosperity or sudden misfortune →
normlessness → increase suicide rate 
■ e.g economic boom or bust → individual desires → limitless or confused →
anomic sucides 
■ Era of social turmoil or war →  normlessness  → arose patriotic feelings → so-
cial integration → low suicide rates

○ Fatalistic sucide 
■ result from over control of society on individual
■ ED says → individual with future blocked, passion chocked by oppressive power
→ more sucide rate 
■ e.g → ancient society → slaves 

Conclusion → his conclusion on his suicide study →  

● Some suicides are good to society

○ e.g anomic suicide by economic boom, 
○ War → arose  solidarity in society ( during franco prussian war urban sucides de-
creased in france  ) 
○ 26/11 caused anomie → resulted in collective gatherings across the India  → im-
proved solidarity
○ altruistic suicide by self sacrifice for progress / help  community.
● Abnormal suicides in modern societies is problem  → 
○ egostic suicides → due to exessive individualism
○ anomic in modern society  → due to anomie in DOL → isolation rather than interde-
pendence     
○ All → threaten social cohesion 
● Anoime → that improves social cohesion 
○ durkheim argues societal crises can have a socially unifying effect too
● What is needed to improve this 
○ His suggession 
 ■ promote morality in society 
■ emphasis on code of ethics in society 
■ occupational association act as regulator on individual 

Contribution of Suicide theory to sociology 

● Way to examine individual phenomena from sociological perspective

● Positivist method in social investigation
● Showed → law governing society can be discovered 
● Govt stats as data source 

Criticism 

● A T Atkinson → questioned quality of data used by ED e.g → Sucide rates → developed

> underdeveloped - this might be result of different methods used by different countries 
● Reliability of data of ED is doubtful → taken from govt sources → not include unreported
suicides + failed attempts of suicides → thus conclusion is not reliable 
● David Freedman  → General law of suicide cannot be determine  as it is personal phe-
nomena 

RELIGION & SOCIETY 

ED view on religion  → his work Elementary form of Religious life 

● Religion → social fact 

● Defination = A religion is this unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred
things that that unite its followers  in a single moral community
● His defination of religion is broad, sacred things includes religious + non religious things 
● example →  cricket in India, collective respect  that community have toward cricket → 
sacred thing  
His view on religion 

● Religion is not worship of spirit / forces of nature but it is worship of collective socially
determined objects, given spiritual appearance by society itself    

on Sacred thing 

● all things, have special symbolic significance +  whose devaluing is prohibited in a given
community
● Society requires  individuals to have a certain respectful attitude toward them if anyone
refuse to do so →  society detached individual from the community
● isolate and protect sacred things from being violated or contaminated by  profane  (
things in which  society didnt invested symbolic significance.) 
● ED → every religion have sacred things which it considered holy  → it is not historically
predetermined insted  collective feeling of community makes it holy 
● example, In India, national flag → sacred,  Indians collectively represent national identity,
patriotism through it 
● Holy water og Ganga considered as sacred in hindu community despite of its polluted
water 

ED on Sacred beliefs & rituals 

● religion consist of religious beliefs & rituals ( rites ) 

○ Beliefs → set of ideas which explians sacred 
○ Rituals → fixed modes of actions [specific practices]
● he says → beliefs & rites are shared by members of entire community + unite it → solidi-
fies the group 

ED on religion and Science 

● he recognised → modern society → DOL + scientific advancement → decrease in soli-

darity 
● he pointed, science cannot replace religion ( sacred things) as science gives knowledge
but sacred things guides our actions  which ensures solidarity → science cannot replace
/ disappear  sacred things but it will transform it 
● e.g → dispite of technological advancement USA is one of the most religious country 
● Cricket as sacred thing →  increases social cohesion and solidarity

Totem 
 ● he explain origin of religion from concept of Totemism among austrailian tribe 
● Ordinary objects → recieved totem → transfigured into sacred thing → starting of religon
→ thus its source is society itself  
● Conclusion → In reality individual worship a sacred thing which is determined by society
itself → thus religion means  indirect worship of society 
● Function of religion → social solidarity    
● Disappearance of tradtional religion cannot be equal to disintegration of that society
e.g → Iran as a society is still functioning despite of  Islamic invasion → disappearance
of zoronestrain religion  

Criticism On ED's View on religion 

● He failed to explain cause of solidarity in multicultural polytheistic society like India 

● Focused only on religion as tool to social cohesion but ignored conflic because of reli-
gion 
● Some criticised, Modern societies bounded by secularism & not by religion 
● simple Generalization of religion theory to modern society consist of many community
having different sacred things.