1 Kiki Sabater SOC 335 Exam 2: Durkheim Individualism In Society

French philosopher and sociologist Emile Durkheim, considered the father of sociology, known for his attempts to establish sociology as a discipline devotes a good deal of his writing and analysis of his concept of social facts with respect to how they shape the individual as well as how they influence the relationship between individualism and society. Durkheim sees the two as being directly related as the individual cannot exist in the civilized world without society as it determines the entirety of his behaviors and decisions. In understanding Durkheims view of individualism in society, one must look to his analysis of the relationships of the individual with society, the effects of the division of labor on individualism, the presence of egoist individualism, egoistic suicide, anomie, anomic suicide, his theory of the cult of the individual, its resulting organic solidarity and moral individualism, as well as that of the role of corporations in shaping the modern individual.

In attempting to discern the shaping nature of the relationship between the individual and society, Durkheim labels it as being unequal in that society, though initially created by the individual, serves to shapes the individual more than the individual shapes society. Society does this through by way of the presence of its social facts or culture (i.e. religious beliefs, codes of morality, legal constructs, etc.) in which the consciousness of the society is embedded. These social facts are a

2 product of the group and institution, rather than the individual, and are maintained through his concepts of externality, generality, and constraint as they relate to the idea of society being the more powerful player in the relationship.

Durkheim first suggests that society is able to exert and hold influence over the individual because of its external power, as society exists outside of the individual as a product of history and culture that continues to exist regardless of the individuals acknowledging it. This externality is reflected in the behavior of the individual as the way he comports himself, the he roles he fills, and his behavior are dictated by rules that he has not himself created, but have instead been thrust upon him. The individual continues to obey this externality of society, as he must use culture as a means of communication and a means through which to establish himself as an individual within society.

Society maintains these social facts additionally because of their generality, as they become collective phenomena (R: 6) that are socially mandated and subsequently accepted ways of conducting one's thoughts and behaviors. The concept of generality suggests that society is greater than and exists beyond the individual but controls him as the social facts of society are shared with the entirety of the group and are nearly unavoidable. In order to maintain group membership, the individual must ascribe to them, as they are fundamental to his survival in modern society; the individual cannot avoid the language, institutions, legal or moral codes of his society without ostracizing himself.

Society then maintains its control over the individual through the constraining nature of its social facts; they impose themselves upon the individual from moral, legal, and religious arenas, mostly through an omnipresent "moral authority". The power of this constraint, Durkheim suggests, comes from the idea that they have constraining power regardless of whether or not you buy into them. This is discovered by attempting to violate these rules as doing so demonstrates that the consequences of breaking them exist regardless in belief of their value, verity, or existence. The individual then internalizes these rules and comes to not only conform to them but serves to reinforce them himself.

Thus, Durkheim concludes that all attributes of the individual therefore come from social life; all individual consciousness is a direct manifestation of a greater social consciousness that is inescapable: the individual is entirely dependent upon society as it dictates the way the individual lives their life. Durkheim sees this relationship as causing conflict within the individual as his relationship with society is antagonistic as he grapples between his individual being and his social being. He terms this concept Homo Duplex in which he sees a duality of human nature that is conflicted by his loyalty to the personal and the impersonal.

As an individual and a member of society, the individual struggles between his private interests versus the moral rules, social ideals, and collectivity society has thrust upon him that he has internalized now as being a part of him. Similarly, he

4 grapples between his egoism and being other oriented where the battle is fought between his egoistic drives and the collective ideals and values in which he believes. This same battle is similarly fought between his physical self and spiritual self where conflict exists between his solely personal, "sensual" drives versus his social, moral, overarching goals as Durkheim sees society as being the religion to which all individuals belong.

Durkheim sees this struggle being reflective of the moral influence of society curbing the egoism of the individual allowing him to exercise morality and reason. Societal institutions (i.e. formal education) therefore serve the purpose of reinforcing social rules and facts in order to create a social being, rather than nourishing his individualism, as without society, the individual is worthless meaning that his existence is becomes meaningless. And while the individual can personalize the rules, practices, and facts of society, he cannot escape them, and remains a part of the collective group of the other individuals that make up society as society owns the individual and is superior to him.

Durkheim looks next to explore how the division of labor shapes individualism in modern society. He recognizes formeostly that the strength of a societys collective consciousness, equivalent to culture, is directly related to the strength of their shared values and beliefs. He compares the rigid, intense, and divine collective consciousness of pre-modern society characterized by its hard and fast rules with that of modern society, whose more general, flexible, and abstract

5 collective consciousness is shaped by the division of labor and the ideal of human dignity, which he calls the sanctity of the individual (R: 28). In modern society, individualism is not frowned upon or seen as a threat to its collective consciousness; rather, individualism becomes a unifying ideal towards which all members of society rally around. In modern society, Durkheim sees individuality is not

associated with estrangement from society. Instead, individuality and dependence upon others go hand in hand as the division of labor creates varied life circumstances and an economic basis for individuality that requires the individual to take others into consideration for supplying the means for his own livelihood, or the livelihood of society, without which he cannot exist.

Individualism strengthens society in this way, as specialization becomes the modern rule for society giving rise to what Durkheim calls organic solidarity in which increased individualism and interdependence are mutual and reciprocal. With this organic solidarity, individuals are connected by their differences and cohesion is encouraged through cooperation, restiutive law, and regulation. With this organic solidarity in an organized society, the division of labor also creates a cultural imperative and ideal by which all individuals live.

This moral individualism makes individuals work together for a common cause in a society where social differences ties individuals together in an interdependent manner through specialization of roles as the modern individual cannot be solely self sufficient; he must depend on other individuals to survive. This

6 kind of individualism is moral as it forces the individual to take others into account and move beyond his egoism for a more socially aware means of comportment towards a common goal of which he is a part. And while Durkheim hopes that ideally, in modern society, the division of labor creates a world in which individuals maintain a collective sense of being other-directed and feel bound to one another by common goals, he recognizes that the division of labor does not always create the organic solidarity it might due to the rapid speed with which modern society develops, creating some pathological hiccups along the way.

Durkheim, though a proponent of individualism in the sense that it will strengthen the bonds of society, is conversely opposed to egoistic individualism, or egoism, in which the individuals egoistic drives overcome his sense of others. He is critical of egoistic individualism in favor of a more social being, yet recognizes that the repression of the individual is the price we pay for civilized society. He sees this egoism as stemming from a lack of group attachment in which individuals are only loosely tied to groups, are not parts of social activities or feel ascribed to social ideals. The egoistic individual acts on personal drives at the expense of social goals, lacks rules of conduct, strong social ties, and when left to their own sole influence and devices, is met with depression, sadness, and empathy when they have no ideals or purposes greater than the their own. This egoism is the cause of egoistic suicide which Durkheim sees as being the key form of suicide in modern society where integration of the individual into the society is insufficient while individuation is excessive. The individual lacks the ties to others, to a sense of

7 greater purpose, or moral code and obligations that make him feel part of the society, leaving him feeling incredibly isolated and alone.

Egoism is paralleled by anomie, another plague of modern society in which regulation of the individuals aspirations, desires, and ambitions are lacking; there is no overarching force to moderate them. In a society where the individuals desires are unregulated and his ambitions are limitless, he is set up for disappointment when his dreams cannot be realized. Anomie can then cause anomic suicide as caused by this absence of a restrictive moral framework, settings the individual up for disappointment as his dreams, aspirations, and goals become too grand and inaccessible to be achievable. This, he feels, comes from the moral environment of modern society that limits the needs of the individual leaving him no option but to escape through taking his own life.

Durkheim identifies two distinctive kinds of anomie: economic which is either, repressive or progressive, and occurs in periods of intense economic change creating a rift between expectation and reality where old rules no longer apply but new ones are not yet present, and conjugal, where the destabilization of the power of the institution of marriage by divorce weakens the regulation of individual desire as there remains no spirit of discipline.

These types of anomie then set the stage for an economic anomic suicide that comes form an unexpected, dramatic shift in the economic environment of the world

8 of the individual, as well as a conjugal anomic suicide that is a result of the dissolution of marriage, most greatly for men as they become unable to function outside of the framework of their identity as a husband when their passions and desires become suddenly less suppressed and regulated by the confines of the institution of marriage. This dramatic shift in the potentiality to realize their

undiscovered passions and desires is overwhelming and sometimes too much to bear.

Next, Durkheim examines the idea that as we become more true individuals, we become more self sufficient as relating to the relationship between the individual and societys collective consciousness, which he calls the cult of the individual. This cult of the individual creates the moral individualism that in turn produces a sensitivity to other individuals and creates a shared respect for human dignity in which he is sacred. This new collective consciousness replaces the traditionalist religions of pre-modern and becomes a "religion of humanity" with a shared conception of moral beliefs, and values in which harm or injustice to the individual is "sacrilegious". This cult of the individual encourages a moral

individualism by acting as the antithesis of egoistic individualism, joining individuals in a common task, therefore assuring the moral unity of society.

This collective consciousness is kept intact with the use of moral education in societys educational institutions where individuals are trained to become social beings. These institutions reshape peoples ideas and beliefs to encourage human

9 justice and transform students into autonomous beings that are still very much connected to a greater sense of society and a moral, social purpose. These ideas are then enforced post-education through collective rituals in which public rites affirm a groups moral identity. Public gatherings are used to "breathe life into societies principles" while pressing individuals close to one another (R: 15). These rituals act as reminders to the individual of their group attachment and of being part of something greater than themselves. Ceremonies, celebrations, parades, all serve to solidify these moral ideals through ritualistic, traditionalistic, almost sacred shows of social existence in a society where individualism and intellectualism go hand in hand maintaining social solidarity and justice.

Durkheim sees corporatism as another binding force between the individual and society as they become intermediaries between the individual and the state, as they are able to facilitate two way communication needed for deliberation between the two parties. One can liken Durkheims use of the term corporations to that of occupational groups in which these public institutions balance the power of the states control of individualism while allowing the state to maintain their autonomous ruling power as they are separate yet still subject to the supervision of the state (R: 11). The use of corporate law therefore achieves social stability through managing and establishing harmony between individuals and institutions. For the individual, corporate organizations provide economic planning in tandem with moral framework to restrain exploitation and help foster a shared morality through moral regulation in the form of rules of conduct or codes of ethics.

10 This can be seen in organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) that gives appropriate guidelines for behavior of physicians while protecting their interests and rights from complete government control.

Durkheim favors corporate organizations as moralizing forces over other large social institutions such as religion, which he sees as being too archaic and rigid, the state, which is too distant from the individual, or the family which is no longer where the individual spends the majority of their time. Instead, he suggests corporate organizations are most effective as they are the successor of the family in that occupations are now where individuals spend the most of their time and is the institution with which the lives of individuals are most closely involved.

Durkheims view of individualism is revolutionary in that it favors individualism as force to strengthen society in contrast with pre-modern notions of individualism being a threat to the collective consciousness of society. Through the emergence of the division of labor, however, Durkheim realizes that the specialization, differentiation, and resulting individualism required to maintain a modern society are able to produce a more organic form of solidarity in which individuals are bound not by their similarities, but by their differences, and are united by the common belief in the sacred nature of humanity. He does not fear the moral individualism that is created by this mutual interdependence of individuals upon one another, yet warns against the perils of an egoistic individualism in which

11 the individual becomes isolated from society acting of his own accord with no greater purpose causing detriment not only to the social world in which he lives, but also potentially to himself as being an individual is meaningless, lest one can rely upon, depend upon, and is part of a larger group of individuals that we call society.