1

JURISPRUDENCE PROJECT

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW, MOHALI

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of a BA LLB degree

PUNJABI UNIVERSITY
PATIALA, PUNJAB
Submission year - 2023

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

Dr. Vibhuti Jaswal Rakshak Tyagi
Assistant professor 2152
Jurisprudence

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am overwhelmed in all humbleness and gratefulness to acknowledge my depth to all those who
have helped me to put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something
concrete.

First and foremost, I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our principal Ms.
Tejinder Kaur who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic
‘Social Solidarity’.

I would like to thank our Jurisprudence Teacher Dr. Vibhuti Jaswal who guided me in doing this
project. She provided us with invaluable advice and helped us in difficult periods. Her
motivation and help contributed tremendously to the successful completion of the project.

I would like to mention the support system and consideration of my parents and my friends who
have always been there by my side.

Without them, I could never have completed this task.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 3

S.no. Contents Page No.

1 Introduction 4
2 Emile Durkheim 4

3 Leon Duguit 6

4 Importance of Duguit’s 7
theory

5 Criticism 8

6 Motives of Solidarity 9

7 The Indian Perspective 10

8 Conclusion 12

SOCIAL SOLIDARITY

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 4

INTRODUCTION
Social Solidarity is the feeling of oneness. The term ‘Social Solidarity represents the strength,
cohesiveness, collective consciousness and viability of the society.’ The concept of social
solidarity was developed by August Comte who considered the problem of social unity within
the framework of social statics. This concept was further dealt by Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer
and F. Tönnies. The greatest contribution in the development of this concept is credited to Emile
Durkheim and later to Leon Duguit who was deeply influenced by the former.

EMILE DURKHEIM
David Émile Durkheim was born in April 1858 in Épinal, located in the Lorraine region of
France. The work called “The Division of Labour in Society” by E. Durkheim in the year 1893
encapsulates his theory. He aims to prove that the division of social labor that represents the
“redistribution of the functions that used to be common earlier” ensures social solidarity, i.e. it
performs some certain moral function.
To Durkheim, social solidarity was the essential property of all societies. It was the bond that
united individuals. Those societies that were governed by a collective consciousness were called
mechanical; while those characterized by specialization, division of labor, and interdependence
were called organic. The basic problem for Durkheim was how the transformation of social
solidarity occurs and (more importantly for our concern) how one is to determine its state and
degree.

According to Durkheim, social solidarity should be treated as any moral phenomenon, i.e., not
directly measurable. In order to get a grasp on social solidarity, it was necessary to substitute the
internal fact for an external index which symbolizes it. Durkheim chose to use legal codes as
indicators of social solidarity. When society becomes more complex and solidarity rests on
differentiation of people, a new motive enters the law. The law becomes restitutive. Now the
concern rests with the restoration of the social system to a workable state and the repair of any
damage done.
Durkheim has pointed out 2 types of solidarity- Mechanical and Organic. In archaic
(“segmentary”) societies, which are homogeneous and undifferentiated, there exists

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 5

“mechanical” solidarity, or solidarity “by similarities.”. In “organized” societies solidarity is

based on the autonomy of individuals, division of functions, functional interdependence, and
mutual exchange. This is “organic” solidarity, or solidarity “by differences.”

Mechanical Solidarity?
In Durkheim’s theory, mechanical solidarity is the unification of a society of individuals sharing
principles and ethics. The word “mechanical” does not imply in this context that solidarity is
produced artificially. The given designation is used “by analogy with the cohesion that links
together the elements of raw materials, in contrast to that which encompasses the unity of living
organisms”. Mechanical solidarity is commonly seen in societies with fewer individuals and a
high dedication to religion. Additionally, individuals frequently have the same or similar types of
labor and analogous life situations. There is an overall simpler division in a society with
mechanical solidarity. In this type of solidarity (and at the same time, type of society), individual
consciousnesses are dissolved in the “collective,” or “common” consciousness, meaning “the
totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society”. Collective
consciousness motivates individuals to work together to make society operate. Because there is
not a lot of variety in people’s roles, values, and beliefs, societies with mechanical solidarity are
less complex than other societies.

Organic Solidarity?
Societies that display organic solidarity have a greater division of labor. This type of society can
arise when a greater number of people live in a defined area, increasing the population density.
When density rises, competition for labor roles also goes up, and some people are motivated to
specialize in their work. As a result, the number of different roles and responsibilities amongst
the population increases. In societies where this type of solidarity prevails, the collective
consciousness (and mechanical solidarity together with it) does not disappear, although it
undergoes some changes: it becomes more general, more uncertain, and thus operates in a more
limited, though highly important sphere, actually central to society.
Organic solidarity is commonly seen in modern societies, where individuals have different jobs,
cultures, traditions, and beliefs, amongst other differences.

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 6

The Individuals that make up society are different from one another and may have different
worldviews, lifestyles, and sets of principles. Organic solidarity is associated with increased
complexity. Durkheim explained that as societies show more organic solidarity and become more
complex, there will become a greater interdependence of people on one another. Individuals rely
on others to complete their specific tasks and jobs. Accordingly, as people think more
individualistically, the collective conscience wanes.

LEON DUGUIT
Leon Duguit was a French Jurist and leading scholar of Droit Public (Public Law). He was
greatly influenced by the Auguste Comte and Durkheim. He gave the theory of Social
Solidarity which explains the social cooperation between individuals for their need and
existence.
Duguit’s theory was based upon Auguste Comte’s statement that “the only
right which man can possess is the right towards his duty.” Leon Duguit’s Social Solidarity
explain the interdependence of men on his other fellow men. No one can survive without
depending on other men. Duguit says ‘Law is a rule which men possess not by virtue of any
higher principle whatever (good, interest or happiness) but by virtue and perforce of facts,
because they live in society and can live in society’. Hence the social interdependence and
cooperation are very important for human existence.
The objective of the law is to promote Social solidarity between individuals. And Leon
Duguit considered that law as bad law which does not promote social solidarity. Further,
he also said that every man had the right and duty to promote social solidarity. For
Example, in India, the codified laws are followed by everyone. Hence, it promotes Social
Solidarity.
Social Solidarity is the feeling of unity. The term ‘Social Solidarity’ represents the strength,
cohesiveness, collective consciousness, and viability of the society. Solidarity is nothing more or
less than the fact or interdependence uniting the members of human society, and particularly the
members of a social group by reason of the community of needs and the division of labour. Law
is an instrument of social solidarity and cohesion. Because man cannot live apart from society, as
a social animal. Law is not a body of rights. The only real right of man in society is to do his

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 7

duty. All human being’s activities, and organizations should be directed to the end of ensuring the
smoother and fuller working of men with men. This Duguit calls the principle of social solidarity.

Aware of the growing complexity of modern social life, Duguit attacks individualism as reflected
in the conception of inalienable individual rights. He also rejects the alternative of strengthening
the central power of the state. Instead, he advocates decentralized group government and the link
between the different groups is to be an objective rule of law, the principle of social solidarity.
This savours of natural law although Duguit emphatically rejects any such metaphysical
conception as incompatible with scientific positivism, yet his ideal of social solidarity is as
strong a natural law ideal as any ever conceived.

Duguit's Belief

 There are two kinds of needs men in society: -

i. common needs of individuals which are satisfied by mutual assistance.
ii. diverse needs of individuals which are satisfied by the exchange of services.

 Therefore, realization of social fact of inter-dependence of individuals could replace

ideological quarrels between individuals.
 This led to the concept of 'social solidarity

IMPORTANCE OF DUGUIT’S THEORY:

1. Over emphasis was given on duties rather than rights.
2. The direction towards mutual cooperation among individuals in society.
3. Law as an instrument of social solidarity to promote justice.

CRITICISM:
1. 'Social Solidarity' a Natural Principle – The first weakness of the theory is that though
Duguit is a positivist and excludes all metaphysical considerations from law, his principle
of ‘social solidarity’ itself is a natural law ideal. His special emphasis is on the valuation

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 8

of law on a social Plan. The facts of social life to which he confines his study, in practice,
tend to become a theory of ‘justice’. He wants to establish an absolute and uncontestable
rule of law. Like ‘natural law’ theories, he establishes a standard (‘social solidarity’) to
which all ‘positive law’ must conform. It is nothing but natural law in a different form.
Therefore, it has been Rightly observed that Duguit “pushed natural law out through the
door and let it come by Window.”

2. Social Solidarity to be Decided by Judges - A question may arise as to who is to decide

whether a particular act or rule is furthering the ‘social solidarity’ or not. Naturally, the
judiciary will have the power to decide it. In this way ‘Social Solidarity’ would become a
question of personal evaluation. The prospect of handing over the whole matter to the
judges may prove dangerous. The judges too have their weakness and limitation, and this
process may lead to judicial despotism. The idea of ‘social solidarity’ is very vague and
an analysis would reveal that it is not free from metaphysical notion which Duguit
rejected so strongly. ‘Social solidarity’ may be subjected to different interpretations which
may be pushed to serve divergent purposes and actually they have been so used.

3. He Confuses 'is' with 'Ought' - While defining law, Duguit confused it with what the law
ought to be. According to his view, if law does not further the ‘social solidarity’ it is no
law at all. He laid down certain fundamentals to which the law must conform. His
definition of law instead of giving a clear-cut picture of law confuses it as was done by
natural law theories.

4. He Overlooked the Growing State Activity - Duguit advocated for the minimization of
state intervention at a time when state was growing all important. Though he propounded
his main thesis from the observable facts of social life, i.e., growing complexity and
interdependence in society, he overlooked the fact that the social problems of modern
community can be solved better by state activity. In modern times, with the development
of society, the sphere of state activity has much more widened and the state has grown
very strong.

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 9

5. Inconsistencies in the Theory: Another weakness of Duguit's theory is its inconsistency at

several places. On the one hand, he expresses faith in the biological evolution of society,
and on the other hand, he vigorously attacks the idea of collective personality. He denied
any personality to state or group distinct from the individuals who constitute it.

MOTIVES FOR SOLIDARITY

Leon Duguit pointed out certain motives or reasons of solidarity in the society, presence of which
reinforced the belief of people in solidarity. These are-

1. Altruism- Altruism refers to behavior that reflects an unselfish desire to live for others.
Émile Durkheim argued that altruism and shared values should lie at the base of social
solidarity to avoid selfish behavior; he argued that individuals should consider not only
their own interests but also their duties to the community.
2. Reciprocity - Reciprocity is assistance to an individual or a group provided by another
individual or group under the assumption that the favor may be returned in the future.
3. Trust- Trust is a relational concept that can be instituted between two individuals or
between an individual and an organization. A common understanding of trust is
“voluntary action based on expectations of how others will behave in the future in
relation to yourself.” This concept has been widely recognized as enhancing cooperation
between individuals and groups and ensuring that economies and nations thrive.

THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Our Indian Constitution embodies humanitarian principles within every provision. The rule of
law, democracy, respect for all individuals, corrective and distributive justice, the standard of
living for laborers, free and fair elections, and judicial review are all excellent tools for ensuring

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 10

and promoting the concept of social solidarity in society. Internationally, conventions have
emphasized the importance of social solidarity on a global scale, recognizing it as a fundamental
aspect of peace and security that fosters self-determination and resilience among both states and
individuals. Additionally, principles of socialism and secularism within our Constitution
incorporate the notion of social solidarity through respect for all religions in the country. This
principle of social solidarity is integral to the Indian legal system, reflecting the ethos of
"Vasuddhav Kutumbkam," which espouses the idea of the world as one family.

The rule of law stands at the forefront of the Indian Constitution, representing a dynamic
principle embodied in the right to equality. In the case of Re: Arundhati Roy (2002), Justice R
Sethi elaborated on a significant aspect of the rule of law, emphasizing its role as a foundational
element of governance in a civilized democratic country. Central to the rule of law is the pursuit
of social justice, a goal that relies on principles of social solidarity and mutual relationships
among humankind. Government policies, such as the Social Security Code of 2019, the
Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative, and various other schemes like Jandhan Yojana and Beti Padho
Beti Bacho, embody humanitarian principles aimed at promoting social justice and solidarity.

The protection of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is a primary objective of government
policies, with Article 17 declaring untouchability a crime against humanity and social justice.
Initiatives such as the Garib Kalyan Yojana, aimed at assisting groups affected by the COVID-19
pandemic, and the Svamitva Scheme, facilitating property surveys in rural areas, demonstrate the
government's commitment to promoting social solidarity and equality. During the pandemic, the
government has implemented grassroots schemes for the development and assistance of
vulnerable sections, such as the National Backward Classes Finance and Development
Corporation's provision of healthcare services through mobile vans in regions like Mewat,
Haryana.

The Indian Ministry has been instrumental in protecting the rights of weaker sections and
fostering social solidarity through initiatives like the Swachhta Udyami Yojana, which provides
financial assistance to Scheduled Castes engaged in sanitation activities. The promotion of

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 11

humanity through advocacy, policy, and decision-making is crucial, particularly in addressing

human rights violations and advocating for vulnerable populations. Government schemes play a
vital role in enhancing the social, economic, and ethical capabilities of individuals, contributing
to the overall social security of the populace. Projects like the Covid-19 Emergency Ration
Relief to the Poor demonstrate the government's commitment to addressing humanitarian needs
during crises, ensuring the well-being of marginalized communities. The current pandemic
underscores the importance of collaboration between individuals, communities, and the
government in promoting social solidarity and addressing humanitarian challenges. As
circumstances evolve, government policies must adapt to safeguard humanity and foster social
solidarity within society.

CONCLUSION:

Social solidarity, as a concept in jurisprudence, holds immense significance in fostering cohesion

and stability within society. Rooted in the idea of collective responsibility and mutual support,

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

 12

social solidarity forms the foundation of a just and equitable legal system. Through the
recognition and promotion of shared values, interests, and responsibilities, social solidarity
ensures that individuals coexist harmoniously and contribute towards the common good.

In jurisprudence, social solidarity serves as a guiding principle for the formulation and
interpretation of laws that seek to promote social cohesion, fairness, and inclusivity. It
underscores the importance of laws that address systemic inequalities, protect vulnerable groups,
and uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals within society.

Furthermore, social solidarity encourages the development of mechanisms for dispute resolution
and conflict resolution that prioritize reconciliation and restoration of social bonds over punitive
measures. By fostering empathy, understanding, and cooperation among members of society,
social solidarity contributes to the creation of a more just and compassionate legal order.

However, the realization of social solidarity faces various challenges, including systemic
injustices, disparities in access to justice, and social divisions based on factors such as class, race,
gender, and ethnicity. Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts from legal
institutions, policymakers, civil society organizations, and individuals to dismantle barriers to
solidarity and promote a culture of inclusivity and cooperation.

In conclusion, social solidarity is not merely a theoretical concept but a fundamental principle
that shapes the functioning of legal systems and the realization of justice in society. By
upholding the values of solidarity, equity, and compassion, jurisprudence can contribute to the
creation of a more cohesive, resilient, and just society for all.

ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW