social facts and finding the normal
what’s a social fact?
- sociology needs a subject matter all its own
- something (behavior or thinking) external to the individual, that also compel and coerce,
and thus impose themselves upon social actors
- the proof: “it asserts itself as soon as I try to resist” (51)
- even if able to free oneself of the rules, it is never without a fight
- definition: “manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual , which are
invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him.
Consequently, since they consist of representations and actions, they cannot be
confused with organic phenomena, nor with psychical phenomena, which have no
existence save in and though the individual consciousness” (52)
- social facts can also include “social currents” – waves of feelings or sentiments (the
madness of the crowd…)
- this is obvious, b/c we can see it in the way we raise children… constraint is only relaxed
to the extent that action becomes habits and internalized
- individuals exist in a duality – we are simultaneously social and individual (i.e., the social
is not just something “out there” but also something “in here”
- we seek traces of “states of the collective mind”
- objection: phenomenon can only be collective is it is common to all members of society,
at the very least to a majority – okay, says D, but only because it is general b/c it is
collective, not the other way around. – seems to be pointing to some external force
pushing things that impose upon the individual
- sociology studies social facts
- one more definition: “a social fact is any way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of
exerting over the individual an external constraint – which is general over the whole of a
given society whilst having an existence of its own, independent of its individual
manifestations.” (59)
some concerns: basing everything in “objective” reality leaves openings, such as the importance
of intersubectivity and representations/meanings/appearances.
What different forms of constraint are there? Is constraint the only way of producing external
direction? What about pleasure or “the good”?
examples: rules, roles, institutions, norms, “social currents,” habits, practices, etc.
what’s normal?
- What to make of the biological framing of his ideas? Evolution?
- a social fact is normal “when it occurs in the average society of that species, considered
at the corresponding phase of its evolution.” This can be verified by “demonstrating that
the general character of the phenomenon is related to the general conditions of
collective life.” This is necessary “when the fact relates to a social species which has not
yet gone through its complete evolution”
- 3 rules (97)
o “social fact is normal for a given social type, viewed at a given phase of its
development, when it occurs in the average society of that species, considered at
the corresponding phase of its evolution”
“the results of the preceding methods can be verified by demonstrating that the
general character of the phenomenon is related to the general conditions of
collective life in the social type under consideration”
o “the verification is necessary when the fact related to a social species which has
not yet gone through its complete evolution.”
everyone thinks crime is pathological, but they are all wrong! How does D know?
o Crime is common to all societies – progress in no way is correlated with
elimination of crime (often the opposite)
o What is crime? “offends certain collective feelings especially strong and clear cut”
(99) (society as a “moral conscience” (100))
o Impossible to be crime free – even if all crimes were eliminated new ones would
sprout up. – even a “society of saints” will produce “criminals”
o We need violations of norms in order to reaffirm our commitment to them
o The “size” of the violation will be relative determined by the norms of the society
o Even in the most extreme forms of mechanical solidarity, individuality still exists
o Plus, the expression of individuality allows for evolution/change – crime is
necessary to push change – showing that there is a way “forward” or sometimes
making concrete what those ways could be… but “forward” is the direction…
o Criminal is not parasite, but rather a “normal” role in social life
Thus we should ask why we punish? Not for them, but for us…
What is the value of distinguishing normal from pathological?
o “we need only work steadily and persistently to maintain the normal state, to reestablish it if it is disturbed, and to rediscover the conditions of normality if they
happen to change.” (104)
o role of political actor is not to propel societies forward based on own vision, but
rather to act as a doctor…
What are the politics of this theory? D dismisses some of the more overt political actors
(e.g., Spencer, etc) in their reading of crime, preferring his more “objective” position. But
even here is a politics, right?
o
-
-
-
Hello, our names are___________________________________________________________
Just the (social) facts, ma’am
1) Durkheim defines social facts as “any way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting
over the individual an external constraint – which is general over the whole of a given society
whilst having an existence of its own, independent of its individual manifestations.” (59). Give 2
examples of something you consider a social fact. Justify your choices.
2) So much of this idea hinges on the idea of constraint. How does constraint work to produce
social facts? When are we most likely to notice forces of constraint? Are constraint and coercion
the only means to compel us to act “socially”?
Hello, our names are__________________________________________________________
Is what’s normal for the goose, pathological for the gander?
1) Durkheim is interested in what’s normal in social life (i.e., “it occurs in the average society of
that species, considered at the corresponding phase of its evolution.”(97)). He goes to great
lengths to show that crime, instead of being pathological, is in fact normal. Can you give another
example of something that seems pathological, but is, using Durkheim’s understanding, normal?
Explain.
2) What is normal? Is “normal” the same as “functional”? If crime is not pathological, what is?
[that is, is it possible to argue that anything that currently exists is therefore normal?] Give an
example and explain.
Hello, our names are___________________________________________________________
Is there a (sociological) doctor in the house?
1) Durkheim views the role of a sociologist as similar to that of a doctor “forestalling the
outbreak of sickness by maintaining good hygiene, or when it does break out, seeking to cure
it”. What would this mean in practice? That is, Dr. Durkheim promises an “objective” sociology,
but what politics are built into this model?
2) Durkheim relies strongly on the medical/biological model in laying out his ideas. Society is a
body. What might be possible implications for understanding the social? What advantages does
it offer? What disadvantages? What do you think he means by “evolution” when discussing
society?