SC3101: Social Thought and Social Theory



Abnormal division of labour: typology.
Relationship between „Individual‟ and
„Society.‟
Suicide: A Study in Sociology.
◦ Defining suicide: Suicide rates
◦ Explaining suicide
◦ Typology of suicide

Module Review.
◦ Themes and problemtics
◦ Exam details

Division of labour:
◦ Renders the necessary specialization in social
domains.
◦ Is not morally neutral (it has a moral effect).
◦ Its true function is to create a feeling of solidarity
based on difference and interdependence.
◦ It is a feature of modernity and is normal although it
produces individualism.
Thus organic solidarity and DOL are normal and occur
spontaneously and have an integrating effect on
individuals. However, under certain conditions, DOL
does not produce these positive effects and this is
when DOL becomes abnormal and pathological.
*Durkheim deals with this subject in the last
section of his book. This is where he addresses
the capitalist, industrial society of his time and
its contradictions and limitations.
*Questions: Under what conditions does DOL
become pathological? Why does Durkheim talk
about „abnormal‟ division of labour?
*According to Durkheim, when DOL does not
create solidarity but leads to crisis and disorder,
it becomes abnormal.
* The dichotomy of „normal‟ and „abnormal‟ is
important for Durkheim. He calls for addressing
the abnormal in order to fix the problem.
Durkheim identifies 3 types of abnormal division of
labour but discusses them through examples not
definitions:
1) Anomic DOL
*due to anomie; there is limited contact and
communication between parts of a social system;
absence of consensually agreed upon limiting
norms, thus insufficient regulation of the system;
rules are inconsistent and not clearly specified –
leads to fragmentation of the system.
*Here D comes closest to talking about exploitation
and contradiction in capitalism – examples include
conflict between labour and capital, industrial and
commercial crisis.
2)
Forced DOL
*due to over-regulation of production as well as of
social relations; D notes the presence of
„illegitimate constraints‟ which he agrees are
problematic and must to removed.
*when one is forced or compelled to work under
the threat of fear of violence – no solidarity follows
but conflict, disorder and disintegration result.
*Under normal conditions, work performed
matched with natural abilities we have – no
complaint and no injustice or inequality.
* Under forced DOL, work is allocated on some
other criteria which are unjust and undemocratic
(power differences, access to resources) – divisions
and exploitation; examples include slave societies
and colonial societies.
3) „Alienated‟ DOL
*left unnamed by Durkheim; scholars have labeled
it „alienated DOL‟ because the idea of alienation
expresses this form well
*alienated DOL occurs when work does not allow
individuals to develop sufficiently, there was not
enough for people to do and what they do is not
meaningful;
*In normal DOL, work becomes a „permanent
occupation‟ and a „need‟ but in alienated DOL,
work is meaningless and does not offer any
gratification.
* Examples include, work under capitalist societies,
performing dull, repetitive and fragmented tasks.
The pathological manifestations of DOL for D were
„exceptional,‟ „irregular‟ and „ a deviation from the
norm‟ – they are atypical and temporary – D is
optimistic that the transitional moment will pass.
In his discussion of transitional society, D is
interesting because he allows for a number of
sociological possibilities; route to a modern, stable
society is marked by conflict, chaos, anomie,
egoism and a moral crisis; in the space between
„modern‟ and „traditional‟ society – deviance is
possible – where individual can escape society –
individual expression and freedom – but beyond a
point these are problematic.


A) „Egoism‟ vs „Moral Individualism
Moral Individualism
-an alternative to „egoism‟; not utilitarian self-interest; by
this D means a socially responsible individualism and
prioritizes rights of the person.
- a belief in the sanctity of that which is common to all
individuals, to their humanity, to human nature to mankind in
general.
-it is the glorification not of the self but of the individual in
general; collective belief in the dignity and worth of individual
differences.
-here the individual stands neither outside nor against
society; if outside – un-socialized individual, if against – antisocial individual; both are undesirable for D.
B) Is Durkheim anti-individual?
Stereotypical view that D is against individualism,
but we have seen that he is against egoism and
wants moral individualism;
Individual:
-has unrestrained passions and needs to be
restrained through appropriate social and moral
codes.
Social:
-not an „evil‟ or oppressive force but provides
necessary and appropriate limiting and regulating
norms and values and thus good for the individual


C) Unresolved tension in Durkheim
*tension between the need for the social and his
admiration for moral individualism; he believes in
the primacy of the social, which is always prior to
the individual but he is critical of egoistic, antisocial individuals.
*D attempts to resolve this tension through the
concept of the „cult of the individual‟ – able to
speak of the CC and individualism in the same
breath – they are not necessarily incompatible or
mutually exclusive. He calls this the new
collectivizing religion of modern society.



Why read Suicide?
2 important reasons:
◦ Methodological
D is trying to show that it is possible to practice
sociology as he has defined it. Possible to study social
facts according to the methods of science.
◦ Theoretical
D asks what suicide tells us about the nature of
transitional society, i.e., industrial society? What place
does it occupy?
For D, suicide was an index, sign, symptom of
widespread state of pathology and abnormality in
society, although he says that some degree of voluntary
death is „normal‟ in all societies.

Durkheim‟s definition of suicide:
„the term suicide is applied to all cases of death
resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or
negative act of the victim himself, which he knows
will produce the result‟ (Suicide, p 44).
*No mention of intentionality here but individual
consciousness is preserved. Individual is aware of
what he is doing.
*Durkheim distinguishes between „individual
instances of suicide‟ versus „social suicide rates” (in
groups, communities and countries).
* D is not interested in explaining individuals acts
but in approaching suicide as a social fact.
For
D, SR is a social fact and offers statistical,
numerical data; rate – makes an abstract
phenomenon concrete and reflects suicidal
tendency within a society.
Each society predisposed to a definitive quota of
voluntary deaths; This predisposition is the
concern of the sociologist; When SR exceeds a
given limit, it becomes abnormal and pathological.
SR- D‟s object of investigation, analysis and
explanation. SR – social fact and is to be explained
by other social facts.
 D‟s Aim : To explain varying suicide rates.
Three parts to his method:
1)Identifies and dismisses extra-social factors (race,
heredity, cosmic factors, organic psychic dispositions,
climate etc) as having an influence on SR.
2) Identifies and considers social causes (social
environment – religion, family, political society,
occupational groups etc) – and says that these social
facts can explain SR.
3) Links suicide rates with other social facts in order to
state „precisely what the social element of suicide
consists of.‟
Suicide law:
“Suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration
of the social groups with which the individual forms a
part.” (p 209)
D Identifies integrative force and regulative
force as 2 contributing factors:
1) Integrative force= degree of collective
force in society
and ability to hold
individuals under its control.
2) Regulative force = presence of appropriate
limits and
constraints that can moderate
individual behaviour;
provides order,
direction and meaning for
individuals; without sufficient regulation
– individuals lean towards „self –
destruction.‟






1) Egoistic Suicide
2) Altruistic Suicide
a) Conceptually polar
opposites.
b) Integrative force is a
factor.
In traditional society:
◦ Strong Collective Conscience and high social integration thus low suicide rates.
In transitional, industrial society
◦ Weak Collective Conscience and low social integration, and thus high suicide rates.
3) Anomic Suicide
4) Fatalistic Suicide
a) Conceptually polar
opposites.
b) Regulative force is a
factor.
1) Egoistic Suicide
-due to excessive individualism and lack of integrative
force; individual recognizes no other rules of conduct
other than those rooted in self-interests; Individual is
inclined towards self-destruction. D argues that
„collective life is an obstacle calculated to restrain
suicide.‟
2) Altruistic Suicide
-when there is insufficient individuation and when
social integration is too strong; individual takes
his/her life because feels duty-bound; according to D,
this is found primarily in traditional archaic societies,
e.g sati; what about contemporary examples – suicide
bombers, martyrs, cults and mass suicides etc.
3)Anomic Suicide
-due to anomie, in transitional society and due to lack
of regulative force; consequence of anomie – unsettling
displacement, uprooting and disorientation; industrial
society unable to provide moral and economic
regulation of individual passions and desires – feelings
of anxiety, frustration fail to inhibit suicidal tendencies.
4)Fatalistic Suicide
-due to excessively authoritarian, oppressive, repressive
limits on behaviour, due to too much regulation; future
looks bleak, passions choked by oppressive discipline.
D cites examples like slaves, prisoners of war etc; Is it
only of historical interest? Does it happen in the
contemporary world?
Durkheim‟s conclusion:
„Suicide‟ as a social fact is causally linked to other
social facts such as „integrative force‟ and
„regulative force.‟ Demonstrates the lessons he has
outlined in The Rules.
Did D think that everything social is good for the
individual? Altruistic suicide – too much of the
social bad for the individual.
Suicide as endemic to transitional society. But
could society be cured of this? D‟s response is in
the positive. To build an appropriate moral and
social code and enhance a sense of solidarity and
community.



1) Defining Sociology – methodological
contributions; What constitutes the „social‟?
2) D‟s confrontation with the problems of
modernity – In DOL and Suicide;
3) Theoretical contributions:
◦ a) Concept of anomie – pathology of modernity.
◦ b) Achievement of social order – why does not society fall
apart?

4) Analysis of industrial society
◦ concept of transitional society - thought-provoking; limited
theorizing of state, capitalism, bureaucracy, economic and
power relations. Eurocentrism?
1) Theorizing the „great transformation‟/ emergence
of modernity.
◦ Conceptual contributions?
◦ Crisis of modernity?
◦ Promise of modernity?
2) Context of Theorising: Time, location, perspective:
who are the theorists? Why is this important, if at
all?
3) Production of the classical sociological theory
canon: biases and limitations?
◦ Eurocentrism
◦ Androcentrism
4) Question of contemporary relevance? Are these
19th century writings still meaningful? If so why?
1) Attention to the emergence of industrial, capitalist
society: factors and conditions that brought it
into existence? Idealism vs materialism?
2) What are the emerging problems of modernity and
does it hold any promise? What is the fate of the
individual in such a society?
3) Reading the 4 thinkers for overlaps and
divergences:
-substantively
-methodologically
-conceptually