THE RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS

RULES FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN

NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS

Submitted to:
Dr. Kiran

Submitted by:
Amanpreet ( Ph.D )
1645205
Rabnoor Johar (M .Phil)

1645102
Emile Durkheim
 Emile Durkheim
Emile Durkheim was born on April 15, 1858 in Epinal,
a small town in rural France.
Emile Durkheim was a FrenchSociologist, Social
Psychologist and Philosopher. He is recognised as
one of the important French social thinkers, who ranks
only next to Auguste Comte.
He grew up in a traditional Jewish family. Durkheims
love for education took him to Germany where he was
exposed to the scientific psychology, economics and
cultural anthropology.
After his return from Germany, he went on publishing
several articles based on his experiences there.
Thereafter Durkheim and his writing became famous.
These publications earned him a prominent place in the
department of Philosophy at University of Bordeaux in
 cont
He was later asked to head the newly created department
of Social Sciences. Emile Durkheim is considered as
founding father of sociology because of his efforts to
establish sociology as discipline distinct from
philosophy and psychology.
In 1893,he published his French doctoral thesis, The
Division of Labour in society.
In 1895, he publishedThe Rules of Sociological
Method,amanifestostating what sociology is and how it
ought to be done, and founded the first European
department of sociology at TheUniversity of
Bordeaux. He was the first professor of sociology.
In first world war, he lost many of his friends and
students which adversely affected him mentally and
physically. But after the death of his son he could not bear
the loss and after two years of his sons death, at the
age of 59, Durkheim died on November 15,1917.
 MAIN WORKS:
1. The division of labour in society- 1893
2. The rules of sociological method- 1895
3. Suicide-1897
4. Collective and individual representations- 1899
5. Judgments of reality and judgments of value- 1911
6. The elementary forms of religious life- 1912.

.MAIN THEORIES:
1. Theory of social facts
2. Theory of social solidarity
3. Theory of division of labour
4. Theory of suicide.
 WHAT IS SOCIAL FACT ?
According to Durkheim, A social fact is a phase of
behaviour (thinking, feeling or acting) which can be
observed objectively and has a coercive compelling
power. Social facts constitute social institutions and
are the main subject matter of sociology.
Social facts are things which can be observed
objectively.
Social facts are different from individual facts.
Social facts are the product of collective
consciousness.
Social facts are external, having constraining power
and are treated as things.
 TYPES OF SOCIAL FACTS
NORMAL SOCIAL FACT
Facts which occur in day to day life.
They help to keep the society integrated.
They are the main controlling agencies which are operational in
almost all the aspects of social life.

PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS

Facts which work in abnormal social conditions and act as the main
disintegrating forces.

According to Durkheim, social facts are relative in nature which

means they vary from society to society. Normal social facts at
one place may be regarded as pathological at another. For
instance, to kiss a woman is a normal social fact in America but
in India, it is regarded as a pathological social fact.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORMAL
AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS
PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL
NORMAL SOCIAL FACTS FACTS

The facts which have some

Facts which are regarded as average in a abnormalities are regarded as
society may be termed as Normal social facts.
Pathological social facts.
Normal social facts are the true
representatives of the social collectivity. For Divorce is regarded as Pathological
instance : Marriage is regarded as a Normal social fact.
social fact
RULES FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL
FACTS
As indicated in book three of the division of
labour however, Durkheim felt that social facts
exhibits both normal and pathological
forms; and he now added that it was an
important part of sociological method to provide
rules for distinguishing between them.
It is important to determine whether the social
fact in question is normal or not.
The criteria suggested by Durkheim for
distinguishing normal from pathological social
facts are statistical and structural, not moral.
 RULE 1:
RULES
A social fact is normal in relation to a given
social type, viewed at a given phase of its development,
when it is present in the average society of that species,
considered at the corresponding phase of its evolution.
This means that normal social fact shall be functional in the
society in which it exists.
It is also statistically normal and does not have any harmful
consequences for the society.
Durkheims criterion was discovered in the ordinary distinction
between that which is general and which is exceptional. Social
facts which are normal, by this criterion would simply be those
found in most, if not all, individuals, with narrow limits of
variations.
Social facts which are pathological, by contrast, would be those
encountered only in a minority of cases, and only for brief
periods in the lifetime of the individual even where they occur.
Thus, pathological social fact shall have harmful consequence for
society and it affects the solidarity among the individuals and
also affects the social phenomena of the society. What is
 cont
RULE 2: One can verify the results of the preceding method by
showing that the generality of the phenomenon is bound up with the
general conditions of collective life of the social type considered.
Durkheim gives the example of crime. He says that crime is normal because
there is no society that is not confronted with the problem of crime.
He says that crime is inevitable i.e. it is an integral part of all societies.
Though he says that abnormally high rate of crime is a pathological fact but
crime is present in all forms of societies.
But for Durkheim to describe crime as normal did not mean resignation to a
necessary evil; on the contrary, it meant that crime was useful, a factor in
public health, an integrative element in any healthy society.
In book one of The division of labour, Durkheim had shown that crime
consists of an action which offends strong, well defined collective feelings. For
such actions to cease therefore, those feelings would have to be reinforced in
each and every individual to the degree of strength required to counteract
the opposite feelings. Durkheims more scandalous argument, however, was
that crime is also useful, in both a direct and an indirect sense.
For instance: Delhi Rape Case was a very heinous crime against a single girl
and was directly related to her but it indirectly influenced the whole nation to
raise a voice against it. Thus in this way it shows the characteristic of
collective conscience.
 cont
RULE 3: This verification is necessary when the fact in
question occurs in a social species which has not yet
reached the full course of its evolution.
Aside from indirect utility, it happens that crime itself plays a useful
role in this evolution.
Crime implies not only that the way remains open to necessary
changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these
changes.
Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to
take a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the form
they will take.
So many times, indeed, it is only an anticipation of future morality.
For instance: According to Athenian law, Socrates was a criminal,
however, his crime, namely, the independence of thought, rendered
a service not only to humanity but to his country.
It served to prepare a new morality and faith which the Athenians
needed.
It would never have been possible to establish the freedom of
thought we now enjoy if the regulations prohibiting had not been
violated.
 CRITIQUE OF
NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL
FACTS
The example chosen to illustrate the criteria of "the normality of
crime" reflects the same conservative preconception. Even if
the argument is accepted that the punishment elicited by the
crime reaffirms that the solidarity based on shared beliefs and
sentiments then also the question still arises;
1. which beliefs and sentiments?
2. shared by whom?
3. what degree of punishment ?
4. which criminal offence and committed by whom ?

For example - Sati Pratha was considered normal at one point of

time but if we talk about it today it is pathological . Earlier it
was diffused in almost whole of the Indian society but now it is
not. Therefore it becomes difficult to categorize it either under
Normal or Pathological.
 cont
The degree of punishment is not same for all. The
crime committed by political leaders and the same
by a common civilian might be the same like that of
murder but the punishment given to both will have
huge difference . why so?
In the case of divorce it is both normal and
pathological at the same given time but in different
societies. In Punjabi society it is PATHOLOGICAL and
in Western societies it is NORMAL.
So a normal fact in one society may become
pathological in other society. Thus normality is
defined by generality but since societies are different
it would be impossible to recognize generality in any
abstract or universal manner.
 SOME OTHER CRITIQUES
He particularly opposed to the humanist doctrine
which taught that human nature had a specific and
circumscribed character which was expressed in
institutions. ( Kenneth Thompson)
Durkheim used the term constraint in a very vague
sense ; is the constraint the essence of social
phenomena or it is just an external characteristics
which help us to recognize it?( Raymond Aron)
According to H.E Barnes, Durkheim has not made
it clear anywhere as to what he means by the term
'things' in the context of social facts. the term may
end up by different meanings to the people.
 REFERENCES
Durkheim, E. The Rules of Sociological
method; The Free Press of New York
Ritzer, G. Sociological theory; The press of
university Maryland
Thank
You!!!