The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions by Emile Durkheim - Essay Example

The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) As one ical era representatives in sociology, Emile Durkheim devoted his scientific career to finding out whether modern society is operating according to basic needs of a man. In this context, as the creator of sociology as a science, Durkheim paid his significant attention to social processes and social order. In particular, his researches were based on investigating different manifestations of personal behavior in current social life. And so, prevalence of negative aspects in data set incited him to create the theory of human nature with possible examples of its functioning in different social conditions. In addition, he was induced to create ideal types of social environment which are based on deep connection within community and facilitating person’s adaptation in society. Accordingly, Durkheim created concepts of “mechanical solidarity” and “organic solidarity”. Besides, he offered moral order as a possible solution of current distinction between personality and its social transformation. So, peculiarities of Durkheim’s theory concerning human nature and one’s behavior in the society are defined in this paper. Moreover, by comparing his ideas to other findings in classical sociological thought Durkheim’s place in contemporary sociology is determined in current analysis. To start with, as one of discoveries left after Emile Durkheim’s life the idea of social facts is maintained in modern sociology. Here, the society is seen as supraindividual force that operates free of individual’s will (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 97). And so, it is important to state that role of society is predominant in contrast to the role of personality. That is the reason why sociology as a science should concentrate on observation and analysis of visible evidences that are called social facts. As Durkheim (1893) explained his idea, “Of course, it is a self-evident truth that there is nothing in social life which is not in individual consciences. Everything that is found in the latter, however, comes from society. The major part of our states of conscience would not have been produced among isolated beings and would have been produced quite otherwise among beings grouped in some other manner. They come, then, not from the psychological nature of man in general, but from the manner in which men once associated mutually affect one another, according as they are more or less numerous, more or less close.” (p. 287). And so, social reality is independent from human nature, even though society consists of individuals. Actually, this idea is referring to the concept of social contract created by his compatriot Jan Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). In the opinion of Durkheim’s precursor, background of contemporary societies was formed by general will of independent people who established future set of the rules that operate in their community (Rousseau, 1913). On the contrary, Emile Durkheim did not pay that much attention to this former correlation between personality and totality. His scientific interests were concentrated on measuring how contemporary social slices (such as religion or division of labor) correspond with moral order as a basic principle of prosperous society (Corning, 1982, p. 377). And so, he appears to be the first to provide systematical collection of data that discover one’s social behavior; therefore, Durkheim found the way to separate sociology as a different science from philosophy (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 97). Moreover, in his researches he supplemented above-mentioned method of social statistics by case-oriented historical inquiry (Emirbayer, 1996, p. 264). In this context, he continued the line of “social physics” created by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) that appears as combination of social statics (order) and dynamics (processes) (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 98). Hence, his writings created sociology as a scientific discipline which is based on researching social facts by using statistics and historical perspective to each social phenomenon. Concerning personal transformation caused by social pressure, Durkheim pointed out the ambiguous feeling experienced by each member of modern societies. In his opinion, man is surrounded by two types of forces: centripetal and centrifugal (Durkheim, 1893, p. 130). In particular, this means that one’s manner of thinking includes both individual (sensitivity) and universal (reason) dimensions (Durkheim, 1914, p. 4). For instance, each man someday faces the choice whether to listen to his heart or to his mind while making a decision. Moreover, Durkheim was confident that such an experience is painful for human nature. As he stated in his writing “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” (1915), “There is no doubt that if societies were only natural and spontaneous development of the individual, these two parts of ourselves would harmonize… Therefore, society cannot be formed or maintained without our being required to make perpetual and costly sacrifices… Therefore, since the role of the social being in our single selves will grow even more important as history moves ahead, it is wholly improbably that there will ever be an era in which man is required to resist himself to a lesser degree, an era in which he can live a life that is easier and less full of tension” (p. 163). And so, the role of society turns out to be prevailing upon human nature nowadays as it drives people to take actions which are opposite to what they naturally want to do. In this context, the modern view towards totality is in agreement with such an idea. In particular, role of contemporary popular culture is seen as transforming people’s natural needs by pressing on them by advertising and marketing tools. And so, cultural industry appears as social totality nowadays (Bolaños, 2007, p. 28). Therefore, Durkheim while recognizing social prevalence upon human nature seems to be oracular for his time, as in 21st century this hegemony has already become an obvious thing for everyone. In this context, Durkheim broached a subject of common identity. In particular, he thought that society can penetrate individuals by determining their resemblance to others (Durkheim, 1914, p. 1). Moreover, he stated that “this perpetual division against ourselves…produces both our grandeur and our misery: our misery because we are thus condemned to live in suffering, and our grandeur because it is this division that distinguishes us from all other beings” (Durkheim, 1914, p. 3). In fact, this idea corresponds with findings on identity made by constructivist thinkers. For instance, Benedict Andersen created his theory of national identity that was based on investigating the impact of social institutions. Actually, he defined literature, media, history, census and maps as instruments of creating nations. That kind of felling that these tools provide on person’s consciousness let one feel either similarity to or difference from the others (Andersen, 1982). Here, the idea corresponds with Durkheim’s vision towards collective consciousness as “the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness” (Durkheim, 1915, p. 444). And so, the idea of built upon the society constructions proposed by Emile Durkheim is vital in modern science in the same manner as the concept of social facts. Actually, Durkheim was not about to choose only one option between society and personality as an ideal one. In fact, he developed his theory of mechanical and organic solidarity based on the type of community where connection between social members exists. On the one hand, mechanic solidarity is created when “collective conscience completely envelops our total consciousness, coincluding with it at every point” (Durkheim, 1893, p. 84). In other words, this type of social connection is possible when everyone is preoccupied with the same task and is brought up in the same circumstances. And so, mechanic solidarity is typical for primordial societies where no division of labor is observed (Durkheim, 1893, p. 84). On another hand, the separate feature of organic solidarity is based on that “…while having a physiognomy and a personal activity which distinguishes him from others, he depends upon them in the same measure that he is distinguished from them, and consequently upon the society which results from their union” (Durkheim, 1893, p. 226). Hence, organic solidarity refers to more developed societies where people have different work but have an opportunity to be involved into the overall activity of their community. In his opinion, in modern large societies solidarity could be provided as “complex web of cooperative associations” (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 105). And so, Durkheim provided a hypothesis that social solidarity was possible to be created even in current conditions of division of labor (Denham, 2004, p. 7). As a result, he put mechanical and organic solidarities in evolutional sequence and believed that personality was not suppressed by totality in any of them. In this context, Durkheim (1893) stated that, “Thus is a law of history that mechanical solidarity, which at first is isolated, or more so, should progressively lose ground, and organic solidarity gradually become preponderant. But when the way in which men are solidly linked to one another is modified, it is inevitable that the structure of society should change. The shape of a body needs be transformed, when the molecular affinities within are no longer the same.” (p. 126). However, his critics noticed in such an evolutionary transition “illegitimate shifting back and forth … between empirical generalization and a normative standard of critique for modern societies” (Emirbayer, 1996, p. 278). In other words, mechanical and organic solidarities seem nowadays to be too theoretical to be real. And so, these concepts should be taken solely as ideals that modern societies need to archive. Actually, in defense of his concepts Durkheim stressed on that in conditions of solidarity the prevalence of internal over external inequality is visible (Kerbo, 2006, p. 229). And so, his main concern was directed towards the ability of member of the society to reveal himself. However, this does not mean that he was a protagonist of liberal views. In his opinion, social factors are as important as gravity, because they invisibly manage to keep ones existence safe and predictable (Corning, 1982, p. 371). In fact, Durkheim saw groups as moral authorities for their members (Durkheim, 1893, p. 26). And so, to some extent Durkheim appealed to grassroots social groups as the smallest formations that keep people together but let them develop their individuality. This idea of such a “counter-balance to the growing power of the state” corresponds with political findings of Montesquieu and Tocqueville (Palumbo & Scott, 2003, p. 368). Therefore, he developed his concepts of mechanical and organic solidarities as ideal types of social ties that assist the society in setting praiseworthy conditions of life for its members without any political interference. In this context, moral order is the key value for Durkheim as it gives society the appropriate set of criteria (Corning, 1982, p. 376) that does not bring anyones personality down. And so, his holistic view was based on discovering social processes and structures that are working for the common weal (Kerbo, 2006, p. 229). In this context, the significant role was given by him to education which glorified humanistic ideals as the ground for ‘polite society’ (Emirbayer, 1996, p. 273). Here, Durkheim’s idea of education seems to be overmuch tutorial; and so, it can be easily transformed into a totalitarian vision while implemented. However, he created his texts in order to overcome pressures in his epoch. Concerning political regime, he obtained a “middle-position between Spencer (who denied any organic relationship between the polity and the society) and both Hobbes and Rousseau (who, in different ways, set the political order above, or over the social organism" (Corning, 1982, p. 377). Nevertheless, Durkheim himself rejected any political commitment and stated that education for sociologist is more important than political activism (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 96). As for his time, Durkheim was observing seizure of power, anti-Semitism, and increasing number of divorces and suicides; and all this together made him preoccupied with social ties in the society where disorder is currently prevailing (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 95). And so, he was seeking for an appropriate background that can neglect all the negative disclosures in his community. Therefore, even though in the society directed by moral order inequality is inevitable, when it is based on merit it turns into meritocracy as equality of chances (Kerbo, 2006, p. 229). In the context of his time, the ability to choose was an opportunity to make social relations fair. Besides, even now an equality declared by contemporary democracies means among all the equality of opportunities (concerning education, judgments and so on), even though it is not based on the unitary morality as Durkheim wanted. In particular, thinker tended to investigate certain parts of social reality in order to understand the nature of society itself. In this context, the above-mentioned statistical method was widely used in his writings. In his opinion, “…history has irrefutably demonstrated…that the morality of each people is directly related to the social structure of the people practicing it. The connection is so intimate that, given the general character of the morality observed in a given society and barring abnormal and pathological cases, one can infer the nature of that society, the elements of its structure and the way it is organized. Tell me the marriage patterns, the morals dominating family life, and I will tell you the principal characteristics of its organization” (Durkheim, 1925, p. 87). Therefore, suicide is presented in Durkheim’s works as one of the brightest examples of totality’s destroying effect. Here, he investigated it as an interaction between individuality as complex of biological and psychological features (personal or contextual like job tension, family troubles and others) and external pressure of social expectations and structures (Corning, 1982, p. 375). Moreover, Durkheim believed that the average number of suicides is in linear correlation with social immorality (Durkheim, 1925, p. 50). In terms of social responsibility for crime he pointed out the following: “An act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective consciousness. In other words, we must not say that an action shocks the common consciousness because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common consciousness. We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it” (Durkheim, 1893, p.80-81). And so, in this passage the link between social totality and personal behavior is clearly visible. In fact, human nature is transformed by social consciousness, and this process is impossible to be changed by separate individuals. However, such personal tragedies as suicides can serve as the indicators of society’s improper functioning. That is the reason why sociologist should concentrate on researching causes, extent, and effects of these issues. In this case, putting moral order in the center of social ties is the only way seen by Durkheim that can save his community from numerous suicides. In order to define Durkheims place in sociological thought, it is reasonable to start with Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). In fact, his influence on Durkheim emerged due to the fact that he was his teacher to a certain extent. Actually, both of them were in favor of functionalist analysis and positioned social evolution in terms of structural differentiation (Corning, 1982, p. 376). On functionalism, Durkheim was sure that in order to explain a social fact it is necessary to define a function which, in its turn, establishes social order (Durkheim, 1895, p. 97). Moreover, he took “function” and “purpose” as synonyms in his writings (Durkheim, 1895, p. 95). Concerning social evolution, Durkheim was sure that the evolution from mechanical to organic solidarity was stipulated by a “constantly decreasing number of beliefs and collective sentiments that are both sufficiently collective and strong enough to assume a religious character” (Durkheim, 1893, p. 120). And so, change in division of labor and people’s worldview is the driving force of transition from mechanical to organic solidarity. Nevertheless, in the majority of spheres Durkheims opinion differs from Spencers one. For instance, he does not connect biological features with social roles like Spencer and other nineteenth century philosophers do. Hence, he noticed that differentiation of labor was solely grounded on economic background which had nothing with egoistic cooperation defined by Spencer (the idea of personal needs and desires that determine working process) (Corning, 1982, p. 360). And so, Durkheim managed to create moral approach in functionalist analysis after Spencer’s biological functionalism. Another important comparison should be set between Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx (1818-1883), and Max Weber (1864-1920). In general, the ground of modern societies is seen differently by them. Unlike Marx and Weber, Durkheim saw economy as just one of numerous social slices he was investigating in his researches. In particular, concerning division of labor Durkheim and Marx had different opinions, even though both of them were concerned about current economic situation. As for Marx, he saw in capitalistic struggle the cause of social conflict. On the contrary, Durkheim supposed that division of labor not always leads to the lack of morality in society or shortage of chances for individuals (Edles & Appelrouth, 2010, p. 103). In fact, he insisted on spontaneous division of labor as an opportunity to overcome ambiguity in natural and social inequalities (Denham, 2004, p. 10). In this context, his approach is closer to Weber’s one, as they share a common account against both conservatives and revolutionary socialists; moreover, they opposed both naturalism of classical political economy and historical materialism created by Marx (Palumbo & Scott, 2003, p. 369). However, Durkheim managed to see even in socialism some valuable moral aspects (Palumbo & Scott, 2003, p. 372). In contrast, Weber found modern capitalism and market orientation as the best choices for modern societies (Denham, 2005, p. 7). And so, Durkheim’s theory appears to be more general and vague in comparison to concrete and rational approaches of his colleagues. In fact, Karl Marx and Max Weber had much greater influence on the political science and political sociology (Palumbo & Scott, 2003, p. 383) as they offered theories that inspired people for action to change their societies. However, Emile Durkheim’s writings are presented today as classical texts in contemporary sociology. In order to sum up, Emile Durkheim’s attitude towards human nature in the society is focused on measuring opportunities of personality to express oneself in the community. In particular, researcher concentrated on investigating social facts that appear in social life in order to discover existing social order. And so, his writings on division of labor, suicide, and education are examples of sociological analysis based on determination of social facts with further processing of statistical data and examination within historical dynamics. Actually, this approach separated sociology from all the other sciences. Moreover, it helped to distinguish the role of individuality in the society. In particular, Durkheim believed that current circumstances in modern societies are painful for human nature as they force them to behave differently. That is the reason why he produced two types of solidarity that solve the problem of harmonization between personality and totality. On the one hand, mechanical solidarity is working for small primitive groups by keeping people in common conditions. On another hand, organic solidarity as the type of social connection guarantees an equality of chances in current condition of labor diversification and industrial development. In fact, such a unity is impossible to be archived without moral order as the basis of the society. In this context, he created completely different approach comparing to other great thinkers of his rational time. Nevertheless, his findings on human nature and its social conditions are less practical than his progress in designing sociology as a scientific field. References: Andersen, B., 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised ed. London & NY: Verso. Bolaños, P.A., 2007. The Critical Role of Art: Adorno between Utopia and Dystopia. Kritike, 1 (1), pp.25-31. Corning, P.A., 1982. Durkheim and Spencer. The British Journal of Sociology, 33 (3), pp.359-382. Denham, D., 2004. Marx, Durkheim and Weber on Market Theory [pdf]. In: Frontiers of Sociology, The 37th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-9 July 2005. Available at: [Accessed 5 August 2014]. Durkheim, E., 1925. Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Application of the Sociology of Education. Translated by E.K. Wilson and H. Schnurer, 1961. New York: The Free Press. Durkheim, E., 1893. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by G. Simpson, 1933. Glencoe: The Free Press of Glencoe. Durkheim, E., 1914. The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions [pdf]. Available at: [Accessed 3 August 2014]. Durkheim, E., 1915. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by J. Swain, 1954. New York: The Free Press. Durkheim, E., 1895. The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by S.A. Solovay & Mueller, J., 1964. New York: The Free Press Edles, L.D. and Appelrouth, S., 2010. Sociological Theory in the Classical Era: Text and Readings. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Emirbayer, M., 1996. Durkheim’s Contribution to the Sociological Analysis of History. Sociological Forum, 11 (2), pp.263-284. Kerbo, H.R., 2006. Social Stratification. In: Bryant C.D. and Peck, D.L., ed. 2006. 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. pp. 228-236. Palumbo, A. and Scott. A., 2003. Weber, Durkheim and the Sociology of the Modern State. In: Ball, T. and Bellamy R., eds., 2003. The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Cambridge: CUP, pp.368-391. Rousseau, J.J., 1913. The Social Contract and Discourses. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd. Read More