Durkheim vs. Marx (again)

For Marx, the main problem is inequalities of
power and privilege.



Which tend to cumulate over time
And set limit on the adaptability of any mode of
production.
For Durkheim, the French Revolution was
progressive,


But the main progressive movement was gradual,
as a result of differentiation and moral development.
Both Marx and Durkheim were
reacting to Herbert Spencer





From about 1840 to about 1930, Spencer was
“Mr. Sociology.”
Social Darwinism was the dominant strand of
social theory, through the early 20th c.
It argued that competition, laissez faire and the
survival of the fittest was the basis of social
progress.
For Marx, that led not to progress but to class
oppression.
For Durkheim that led not to progress but to a
dog-eat-dog world of anomie.
Durkheim’s theory of social
change: structural differentiation




Like Spencer, Durkheim argued that this was
the main process of social development.
Over the course of time, homogeneous
communities and organizations are replaced
by heterogeneous, specialized organizations
of specialists in different jobs.
Activities such as economic production,
health care, or education, that used to be
performed by kinship structures, come to be
carried out by specialized organizations.
The change is analogous to the difference
between a jellyfish and a vertebrate.
Organic solidarity



Durkheim argued that this requires a shift in the
basic normative principles of society:
from mechanical solidarity – the bond created
by similar, shared culture – found in an Amish
community or tribe
To organic solidarity – the bond created by
complementary differences and division of labor.
The moral content of the division
of labor




Against Spencer, Durkheim argued that the
moral system of modern society could not be
based on “survival of the fittest,”
but it could not be based on convention, shared
custom and tradition, either.
Organic solidarity requires that different groups
be united by overarching principles such as
human rights, human dignity, equal moral
concern, democracy, equality before the law,
inclusive citizenship, equal opportunity, etc.
Durkheim, correctly, viewed that position as
similar to Kantian universalism.
A “science of morals”




Durkheim formulated his main project as the
creation of a science of morals.
His aim was not to construct a philosophical or
moral argument that tells people what they
should believe,
but to analyze what kinds of moral structures
and changes can and do work in modern
society.
He argued that only such principles as
democracy, equality before the law, inclusive
citizenship, equal opportunity can hold together
a heterogeneous and complex society.
Implications for race, ethic or
gender relations, education etc.



Many of these tendencies appear powerful and
inexorable.
But the argument that a “modern”
moral/normative/legal system requires equal
treatment has considerable and contentious
implications.
Is there some line of development of morals that
can be proven to be necessary to the integration
of modern society?
Forced Division of Labor



Durkheim did not believe that organic solidarity
requires equality, but he did believe that it
requires that any inequalities be functional,
based on motivation, ability and contribution
rather than inherited privilege and position.
He referred to inherited privilege as a “forced
division of labor.”
He argued that inherited wealth always leads to
inherited social position and therefore
inheritance must gradually disappear, as
inconsistent with modern values.
The three Durkheims



1.
2.
3.
One World quotes almost all Durkheim wrote on
forced division of labor,
Which carefully avoided taking positions on
many of the issues dividing the 20th (and 21st) c.
However his position could be developed as:
Conservative: we have equal treatment.
Liberal: we need modest reforms to get it.
Radical (Marxist): to get equality before the law,
equal opportunity etc. we would need to abolish
inheritance of property.
Example # 1: modern racism and
the paradox of race relations:




There has been a steady decline in race
prejudice in the United States over the last two
generations
But there was an increase at other times such
as the end of the 19th c.
And there has been a decline, rather than
increase, in support for many policies aimed to
create equality of opportunity. [See data.]
The 3 Durkheims can be used to defend three
very different positions on race.
Three positions on race and
ethnic relations
1.
2.
3.
The conservative Durkheim (e.g Thernstroms’
America in Black and White) says that there
used to be racism, but there isn’t any more.
(Except for affirmative action; which they say is
racist because it takes account of race.)
The liberal Durkheim (e.g.Patterson’s Ordeal
of Integration) says that racist inequalities
have been reduced, and with some
extensions, can be eliminated.
The radical Durkheim (e.g. Feagin’s Racist
America) says that racist inequalities are still
essentially rooted in the structure of wealth
Empirical pursuit of these issues




Works such as Krysan’s “Prejudice, Politics and
Public Opinion” view the contradictory
movements of policy attitudes and prejudice.
The thesis of the “new racism” is that today,
opposition to leveling the playing field is based
on different, subtler forms of racism.
The association between different kinds of policy
commitment and different forms of prejudice can
be examined in the GSS
And the movement of such attitudes can be
examined in trends.
Example # 2: Gender relations




There has been a steady growth of support for
many policies aimed at equality of gender
relations and legal blindness to sexual
orientation.
For example, the number of states outlawing
marital rape have increased.
See data on support for civil liberties for
homosexuals.
But the three Durkheims can be used to defend
three very different positions on gender.
Gender relations cont.
1.
2.
3.
Gender conservatives (such as Talcott
Parsons) argued that family values are being
eroded and anomie created by tolerance and
liberalism with regard to women’s roles and/or
sex and/or sexual orientation.
Gender liberals (such as Seideman) argued
that equal treatment and equal citizenship will
be achieved by continuing present reforms.
Gender radicals argue that essential
inequalities are deeply rooted in the
inequalities and privileges of property and
family.