imascholar

⁃ He opposed socialism, he tried to conceive of a new type of human organization and community which he described as organic solidarity
⁃ He took many ideas from San Simone
⁃ Organic thinking, society sui genesis (reality in itself), social realism in opposition to social nominalism
⁃ Weber was nominalist, society consists of individuals and this idea is central to discussion of society
⁃ • When people form communities they become realities in themselves – soc realism
⁃ • Durkheim had evolutionist view (from mechanic to organic solidarity) and realist, he was positivist (study human beings as u would study physical phenomena), also a functionalist (from S-Simone, it means in any given society there are social structure/institutions that serve definite functions, which are always positive in traditional view)
⁃ • Tautological argument (circular) if structure exist it performs some kind of function otherwise it won’t exist
⁃ • Merton came up with notion of disfunction, some institutions need to be rid of
⁃ • Durkheim had a view that humans are instruments not authors of social systems, we r passive
⁃ • As opposed to George Herbert Mead, we are not only “me” as objects acted upon but also “I’s” we are creative
⁃ • Industry as a unifying force (S-Simone’s idea), prevent conflict, wars;
⁃ • Du gives a lot of expertise to social scientists who should ran a society, positivistic idea
⁃ • Integrative consequences of industrial division of labor
⁃ Problem of Order for Durkheim as it was for Hobbes
⁃ • S-simonians were v influential in france in promoting industrialization as building rail road systems
⁃ • They proposed hobbesian solution to the problem of order, scientists and industrialists should be the ruling elite in society – leviathan, supreme power for Hobbes
⁃ • Utilitarians opposed s-simonians, it began with Adam smith, David Ricardo, Stuart Mill classic economic English tradition
⁃ • Key ideas are: economic system as guided by invisible hand, gov’t shd’t interfere, laissa faire gov’t it will lead to greatest good for greatest number; property classes were only ones taxed so they preferred as little tax as possible, nobody taxed working class
⁃ • 1819, Swiss Economist Sismondi published a book criticizing utilitarians, he demonstrated that in times of eco crises h poor suffer most and its not the case that laissa fair policies lead to greatest good fr h greatest number
⁃ • there were always gov’t subsidies for projects (railroads) and utilitarian theory never worked
⁃ • Durkheim wasn’t satisfied with that too
⁃ • Utilitarians talked of contractual relations, that are always based on self-interest, it follows that contracts can only bind temporarily bcs if it stops to serve ur interest u will not renew the contract or try to get out of it
⁃ • Also if everyone pursues his own interest won’t it lead to the war of each ag all
⁃ • So interest can’t unite, its fickle
⁃ • Nor hobbesian nor utilitarian theory can solve problem of order
⁃ • They overlooked the non-contractual elements in any contract
⁃ • Contract is always made according to law and moral elements which are outside the contract, they impose concrete duties and obligations on the two parties
⁃ • Jaurez, famous socialist and also Durkheim’s students were almost all socialist
⁃ • So He had to deal with socialist arguments, he didn’t like socialist presuppositions such as necessity of class conflict, D tried to get around it
⁃ • Socialists proposed radical revolutionary changes, which D despised
⁃ • Socialists argued that ind division of labor is not a matter of regulation but a system of structural inequality based on classes with conflicting material interests so u need fundamental changes to deal with it
⁃ • D rejects all three schools d tries t offer his own alternative, a convincing rebuttle, a theory that mediates between Comte and Marx by relying on their common ancestor: S-Simone
⁃ • Dispersion or even conflict in complex division of labor between various occupations, lack of common interest between people, division labor will pull people apart
⁃ • “Division of labor in society” later thesis of Durkheim
⁃ • concept of mechanical solidarity, pre-industrial system in primitive village community or medieval feudal village, demographically small (300 ppl)
⁃ • they have common consciousness of kind “conscience collective” to illustrate it one must not say that action shocks the common conscience because its criminal but its criminal because it shocks the common conscience, deviant act its one that violates common fundamental principles of our community
⁃ • crime is a wound, to heal it ppl punish, retaliate the offender
⁃ • D, new industrial division of labor has positive, integrative consequences; objectively speaking division of labor unifies people because of objective interdependence, we need each other bcs of specialization, exchange of services and reciprocal obligations
⁃ • But he admits that newer higher form of solidarity is not emerging in reality, he said if the system was working normally it would have the above proposed positive consequences, its not happening bcs its afflicted with 2 pathological forms of division of labor
⁃ • First one is Anomic (greek nomos, rule law or norm, so a nomos = absence of that)
⁃ • Second is Forced division of labor
⁃ • at first there was absence of legal norms that could regulate labor management relations so to avoid anomie u need to introduce them
⁃ • p341-2, relation of order to justice, higher organic solidarity requires new rules and they have to be just, justice implies basic social equality
⁃ • p342-3-5, contracts need to be not only legal but just
⁃ • some contracts are made bwn unequals when some are compelled to enter into contracts, weber’s whip of hunger, voluntary contract when u have no choice, such a contract can’t be just, even if it is based on mutual consent, on p343 he says, “only when freely given, consent is just and is a binding force in contract”
⁃ • he talks about abolition of private inheritance (!!!)
⁃ • contract is just only if its not the means of exploiting one of the sides
⁃ • inequality at birth prevents just society, private inheritance is an obstacle
⁃ • he wants inheritance to pass onto to occupational guilds
⁃ • voluntary associations that would mediate bwn individual and the state, only if organized people can argue with the state
⁃ • problem is that some guilds can impose their will on the state (like Lawyer association or medical)
⁃ • p345, equity, D addresses cultural capital, man shouldn’t be better treated if he has more talent
⁃ Sociology of Deviant Behavior
⁃ • he tried to counter act Cesare Lambrosa’s theory of deviance as psychological/physiological traits
⁃ • D suggested that crime/deviance is a normal phenomena
⁃ • But u need to study biography of people who are sociopaths and psychopaths, they exist
⁃ • Suite crime
⁃ • P346, even in society of saints u will have deviant behavior
⁃ • Generally normal human beings engage in crime and there is no society without crime or deviance
⁃ • There is normal deviance and extraordinary deviance as Socrates
⁃ • P345, Normal is what is statistically prevalent, most widespread behavior
⁃ • Punishment as reaffirmation of societies values
⁃ Sociology of Religion
⁃ • “elementary forms of religious life” D’s book
⁃ • Australian aboriginals as most primitive
⁃ • What is religion, E.B. Tylor “religion as belief in spiritual being” D rejects it
⁃ • Buddhism has no such beliefs and all societies distinguish bwn sacred and profane
⁃ • Animism – Tylor, idea of soul originates in dreams and visions
⁃ • How did people become Sacred after death? Like in ancestor cult veneration
⁃ • Other school – naturism, they argued that divine/sacred idea emerged from awesome natural spectacle’s (volcano, hurricanes)
⁃ • Totemism most primitive elementary form of religion
⁃ • Totem is an emblematic symbolic representation of animal species or vegetable
⁃ • Aboriginal exogamous clan units each under an emblem
⁃ • Totem was perceived as a father often
⁃ • And its v Sacred
⁃ • Churinga – sacred instrument, bull roarer, only special people could touch it
⁃ • Even though females and children could not touch it but they could contact with a totemic animal, but not totemic emblem
⁃ • Its sacredness did not come from the animal, but it means that it represents something else – the divine, supra divine impersonal force “moira” fate
⁃ • Where does idea of divine comes from? It comes from society, divine is collective representations of social experience, society is powerful, it existed before and will exist after us
⁃ • Effervescent occasion – excitement feeling, sense of bliss