Society in the Individual: An Analysis
of Durkheim’s Theories
Ali Turro
Industrialization, while most often regarded in
economic terms, transformed social interaction. Traditional
society afforded little individuality to its members, but as Emile
Durkheim suggested, the evolution of modern society brought with it new
implications for social relationships and individual thought. In
examining Durkheim’s theories regarding mechanical and organic
societies and the role that the individual plays in both, we see the
parallel developments that occur within individuals and the societies
in which they live.
The Individual
According to Durkheim, the individual is a
dichotomous being that is made of a body and soul. Individuals in
all societies experience the dual nature of their existence, and it is
the conflict between the two parts that guide their lives and
behavior. On one hand, there is the body, and, as Durkheim wrote,
“The body is an integral part of the material universe, since we come
to know it through sensory experience” (Durkheim, 1972: 267). The
body represents that which is personal to the individual; it symbolizes
the “profane,” the everyday and ordinary elements of our lives.
It is through our bodies and senses that we experience the physical
world around us. Our bodies allows us to see others, to recognize
physical differences. We feel and experience society through our
bodies.
In comparison, the soul represents the
“sacred.” Durkheim wrote, “The soul is invested with a dignity
that has always been denied to the body…The soul inspires those
feelings that are everywhere reserved for that which is divine”
(Durkheim, 1972: 267). The soul differentiates humans from other
animals. An individual’s faith in his/her soul provides assurance
for life after death. The concept of the soul rests in the belief
of God, which is why, as Durkheim wrote, “we accord a higher respect to
reason and moral activity” (Durkheim, 1972: 268). Morality, as we
will see later on in the discussion, often determines the type of role
that the individual plays in society, and it originates in the soul.
Mechanical Society and Solidarity
During the time in which Durkheim wrote Division of
Labor, the roles of both the individual and society were in the process
of changing and evolving. Modern society emerged traditional
society, and with its latest developments came new roles for the
individual. Before analyzing the causes and necessities for the
transition, it is important to understand mechanical society, the
foundation upon which modern society was based and the reasons for its
inevitable transformation.
Traditional society, according to Durkheim, created
a mechanical type of solidarity among its individuals. People
were bound together by a collective consciousness which, at that time,
rested in religious values. Individual thought was the collective
thought of the group. Durkheim linked mechanical solidarity to a
segmentary type of society when he wrote, “Structure enables society to
hold the individual more tightly in its grip, making him more strongly
attached to his domestic environment, and consequently to tradition”
(Durkheim, 1984: 242). In mechanical societies, individuals
carried out their day-to-day tasks with the community in mind;
collective morality told them that it was their responsibility to
perform such tasks so as to ensure the survival of the group.
The individual’s role in mechanical society was set
at birth when he/she automatically became part of the collective,
starting with the family and then extending to the larger
community. Durkheim wrote that the authority that guided
individuals’ actions was, “Wholly a manifestation of the common
consciousness, an authority that is vast, because the common
consciousness itself is highly developed” (Durkheim, 1984: 131).
The state, as we know it today, did not exist. People did not
work because a higher authority figure told them to do so; they did not
sign contracts with bosses. Instead, individuals did what was
necessary to ensure the survival of the group as a whole. Their
solidarity rested in the religious morality of the conscious collective.
Transitional Factors That Led to New
Developments
While mechanical society provided the means
for individuals survive collectively among others, new factors led to
the evolution and development of society, which inevitably changed the
role of the individual. As populations grew, their densities
increased in a variety of ways. Durkheim believed that the
increase of birth rates led to the expansion of boundaries. The
push outward led to an increase of new towns and cities because, as he
wrote, “Towns always result from the need that drives individuals to
keep constantly in the closest possible contact with one another”
(Durkheim, 1984: 202). Individuals, when given the choice to move
away, had the desire to move with others. They did not want to
remain self-sufficient and merely create new communities that were
based on one collective consciousness. No longer bound together
by religious faith or duties, individuals sought the company of others
for economic inter-dependence and new responsibilities.
The physical density that resulted from the growth
of towns and cities also led to an increase in moral density.
Whereas the moral density in mechanical society rested in the
overarching religious beliefs, the moral density in organic society was
less affected by religion and more greatly influenced by the emergence
of the individual and his/her interactions with others (Durkheim,
1984). In the introduction to Selected Writings, Anthony Giddens
makes reference to Durkheim’s processes of individuation and
individualization. Gidden’s wrote, “Individuals are able to
develop their own particular propensities and inclinations to the
degree to which these are freed from the control of the moral
homogeneity of the community” (Giddens, 1984: 6). As populations
grew, it became more difficult for one collective consciousness to
apply to all individuals. The result of such processes led to the
development of progressive society, and ultimately, the development of
the individual.
Organic Society, the Division of
Labor, and Their Implications for the Individual
The development of organic society led to the
division of labor. As people moved into cities and towns, it
became more difficult to perform all of the tasks needed to be
self-sufficient. Factories took the place of farms, and labor
became divided. Instead of performing multiple tasks, individuals
carried out only the specialized duties for which they were
responsible. The division of labor within groups, both in and
outside of the economic setting, led to the weakening of the collective
conscious that had once been so crucial to the workings of
society. Furthermore, with the division came a greater sense of
solidarity among individuals because their roles intertwined, and they
depended on the completion of one another’s tasks for survival.
Durkheim believed that organic societies provided opportunities for
those individuals who could not survive in mechanical society, and
wrote,
Among many lower peoples, any
ill-formed organism was fatally doomed to perish, for it was not usable
for any function at all…Things are completely different in more
advanced societies. A puny individual can find within the complex
cadres of our social organisation a niche in which he can render a
service. (Durkheim, 1984: 213)
As Durkheim suggested, organic societies offer individuals greater
freedoms. People are not all bound to the same tasks, for the
division of labor ensures the completion of such tasks through a more
specialized process. Individuals rely on the division of skills
to function successfully as a whole.
Individuals are not only given more choices to act,
but they are also given greater freedoms in their thoughts and
beliefs. Durkheim believed that mechanical societies suppressed
people’s rights to develop their own ideas. He wrote, “The
similarity of consciousnesses gives rise to legal rules which, under
the threat of repressive measures, impose upon everybody uniform
beliefs and practices” (Durkheim, 1984: 172). At birth,
individuals were taught that what was good for the collective group,
was good for him/her; therefore, individuals gave little thought as to
what they could accomplish as different and unique beings.
However, organic society afforded more freedom to individual, and it
resulted from the division of labor.
Society in the Individual
As the transition from mechanical to organic society
suggests, individuals are influenced by the society in which they
live. While society cannot exist without the individuals that
compose it, it represents a much greater force than merely the
summation of all its parts. Durkheim believed that out of all
possible environments that could affect the individual, the social
environment was the strongest. He wrote,
Man depends upon only three kinds of
environment: the organism, the external world and society. If we
set aside chance variations due to the combinations of heredity—and
their role in human progress is certainly not very considerable—the
organism is not modified spontaneously; it must be constrained to do so
by some external cause. As for the physical world, from the very
dawn of history this has remained appreciably unchanged, if at least we
take no account of innovations of a social origin. Consequently
there is only society that has changed enough to be able to explain the
parallel changes in the nature of the individual. (Durkheim, 1984: 286)
Durkheim alluded to the debate of nature versus nurture.
Heredity, he believed, did not play an important role in the evolution
of the individual. Society, however, greatly affects individuals,
and Durkheim rationalized his belief by emphasizing their parallel
developments. Just as mechanical solidarity depended on the
collective consciousness, so too did the individual in that
society. Similarly, as society became divided through the
division of labor, the individual underwent changes as well, becoming
specialized in certain tasks, taking on various roles, and forming
numerous relationships with others.
Durkheim pointed to social facts to further
illustrate the relationship between the individual and society.
In describing the nature of social institutions and their origins, he
wrote,
These are things
which exist in their own right. The individual finds them already
formed, and he cannot act as if they did not exist or were different
from how they are…Of course, the individual plays a role in their
genesis. (Durkheim, 1972: 71)
The synergy between individuals and the societies in which they live is
crucial to Durkheim’s theories. Social facts such as economy,
education, and religion have no material substance, and although
individuals are at the core of their creation, they cannot support such
institutions. Social facts help define individuals; they provide
a sense of belonging within the larger whole of society.
Just as Durkheim divided individuals into two parts,
the body and the soul, we can analyze his notion of society in a
similar manner. Individuals constitute the body of society, that
which is personal and profane. The soul of society can be
described through its social facts and institutions, its components
that are not materially based, but that extend their power over the
whole. In this respect, social facts are sacred and impersonal
because they are distant from the individual, yet they still influence
our everyday lives. Furthermore, while individuals depend on the
coexistence of the body and soul, society does so in the same
manner. Individuals comprise society’s existence, yet its soul,
the social facts and institutions, govern the ways that its individuals
carry out their lives, just as the individual’s soul governs his/her
morality.
Both the individual and society are complex concepts
that Durkheim addresses in his works. Society is the soul that
runs through the veins of its individuals. They are not always
aware of its existence, yet it governs their everyday thoughts and
experience. His notion of the society within the individual falls
short only with his admission that individuals must precede the birth
of society in order to create it. Nonetheless, Durkheim provided
the discourse of sociology with theories that explored society and the
individuals through which it is represented.
References
Durkheim, Emile. 1972. Selected
Writings. Giddens, Anthony, ed. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division
of Labor in Society. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1972. “Introduction.” Pages 1-50 in Anthony Giddens,
editor, Selected Writings.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Return to the Exemplary Theory
Papers page.