Emile Durkheim:On Social Evolution
By Frank W. Elwell, Rogers State University
Durkheim, like the other sociologists we will
be studying in this course, is a materialist
whose prime causal factors are population
pressures and the division of labor.
The fact that Durkheim roots his analysis
in material conditions is often overlooked.
While his theories are often focused on the
influence of social structure on behavior
and ideas, he roots changes in that structure
on material foundations.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Emile Durkheim had a conception of human nature
that I believe has much merit. He considered
humans to be "homo duplex," that is, of
two minds.
The first, which he called "will," was
the id-like nature that each individual is
born with. Centered on bodily needs and drives,
it pushes the individual to act in ways to
satisfy their needs, wants, and desires without
consideration of the needs and desires of
others.
The unchecked will can be seen in the infant,
who wants what she wants, centered on her
bodily needs and desires.
Left unchecked (or weakly checked) through
a lifetime, the will leads to individuals
using one another in their quest to satisfy
the self; their desires are unlimited, and
the constant seeking to slake these desires
leads to unhappiness and despair.
The other part of human nature is social in
origin which Durkheim calls the "collective
conscience." This collective conscience serves as a check on the will, a moral system
made up of ethical codes, values, ideologies,
and ideas.
The collective conscience is formed through
the socialization process by which the individual
internalizes the codes, norms, and ethical
values of the society. It is the collective
conscience that disciplines the individual
will, limits the potentially unlimited desires
and drives of the individual.
However, according to Durkheim, the collective
conscience cannot be instilled in the individual
through rational means. True internalization
of moral restraint can only be instilled through
ties of love and affection to the group, that
is, through social bonds. Without these close
primary-group bonds the individual fails to
fully internalize the moral codes of the society
and the will is left unchecked.
Lacking full integration into the norms and
values of the group, the individual will is
left free to engage in exploitive behavior
to satisfy its desires at the expense of others.
There is always a tension between our human
appetites and our socially instilled moral
life. In societies in which the collective
conscience is weak"that is in which there
is a failure to fully integrate many individuals" exploitive
behavior becomes more common. In societies
where integration is exceedingly strong, our
human senses and desires are constantly being
denied.
Durkheim posited an evolutionary view of human societies. He believed that simpler
societies based on kinship and community ties
and a basic division of labor based on age
and sex were strongly integrated, thus the
collective conscience was an unquestioned
and overwhelming part of individual consciousness.
You will recall that Mechanical solidarity
is "solidarity that comes from likeness,"
Durkheim (1893/1997) says, and "is at
its maximum when the collective conscience
completely envelops our whole conscience and
coincides in all points with it."
Such societies are relatively homogenous,
men and women engage in similar tasks, rituals,
and daily activities, all have similar experiences
and thus attitudes and beliefs. The few distinct
institutions in such societies embody the
same norms and values and tend to reinforce
one another. Rules and norms are universal,
beyond the pale of discussion or question,
and are followed absolutely. The collective
conscience is so overpowering that there is
little opportunity or will for individuality
or deviance (228-229).
Durkheim believed that the increasing division
of labor served to weaken the collective conscience.
Specifically, the division of labor weakens
those traditional institutions such as church,
family, and community that serve to integrate
the individual into the broader values of
the group.
An increasing division of labor weakens the
social bond of the wider community and thus
the integration of the individual into the
moral universe of the society needed for truly
social behavior. This leads to high rates
of deviance, exploitation, and social disintegration.
But the internalized beliefs and values of
the society, "the collective conscience," restrains
the will. As a society becomes more complex,
individuals play more specialized roles and
become ever more dissimilar in their social
experiences, material interests, their values and
beliefs.
"Anomie" is the term coined by Durkheim
to characterize a social structure that only
weakly binds and individual into the social
whole. Highly anomic societies are characterized
by weak primary group ties--family, church,
community, and other such groups play a much smaller role  in social life in such societies
Durkheim is not a straight-line evolutionary
theorist, however. He believed that the weakening
of primary groups was of such harm to the
individual and to the social order that it
would necessitate the emergence of new primary
groups that would serve to bind the individual
to the social whole.
Another possibility, seemingly unconsidered
by Durkheim, is that the processes undermining
the collective conscience would continue unchecked.
Stjepan Mestrovic (1988/1993) who has studied
Durkheim extensively believes that the moral
system of the West is rapidly eroding due
to the growth of governments, corporations,
and other bureaucratic organizations along
with the weakening of many traditional primary
groups based on kinship and community.
For individuals to internalize the moral code
of a group there must be an emotional bond
between them. The creation of rational institutions
simply cannot be effective in instilling this
needed morality (47). Without a comprehensive
system of morality individuals are left without
internal restraint on the will, leaving only
external constraints to limit egoistic, self-aggrandizing
individual behavior.
"The rule is never to cooperate, but rather
to follow one's own interest as far as possible," Wendell Berry says,
"Checks and balances are all applied externally,
by opposition, never by self-restraint. Labor,
management, the military, the government,
etc., never forbear until their excesses arouse
enough opposition to force them to do so.
The good of the whole of Creation, the world
and all its creatures together, is never a
consideration because it is never thought
of; our culture now simply lacks the means
for thinking of it" (Berry 1977, 22). Because
by definition they lack any sense of mutuality
or wholeness, our specializations subsist
on conflict with one another.
Many assert that it is the expansion of capital
and/or the state that has caused this decline
in the functional importance of primary groups.
It is probable that this weakening of internal
constraint is yet another causal factor in
the rise of bureaucracy with its constant
rule making and monitoring of performance.
Without effective internal controls man must
increasingly be limited by external forces,
controls which are both expensive in terms
of time and money and relatively ineffective.
This ineffectiveness has resulted in such
phenomena as rising rates of crime and deviance,
economic exploitation, and the unfettered
use of government to further the interests
of the wealthy at the expense of the nation-state
as a whole.
Robert Nisbet (1953/1990) maintains
that it is the expansion of the state that
has weakened primary groups, although he occasionally
admits that the expansion of capital and technology
has a role (43-44).
Others claim that these bureaucratic organizations
have only expanded to fill the vacuum left
by a decline in primary groups initially caused
by the division of labor. As a systems theorist,
I believe the evidence is strong that both
factors have been at work. As a result, the
functional importance of primary groups is
weakening in modern life while private and
public bureaucracies become ever more pervasive
and powerful, and this affects the character
of the men and women who inhabit these societies.
For a more extensive discussion of Durkheim�s
theories refer to Macro Social Theory, available
through Amazon.com at a reasonable price.
Also see Sociocultural Systems: Principles
of Structure and Change to learn how his insights
contribute to a fuller understanding of modern
societies. This book can be purchased at most
online bookstores or at Athabasca University
Press. If you are short of funds Athabasca
also offers a free pdf version of the work.
A significant portion of the royalties I receive
for these books go to the Rogers State University
Foundation in support of students in the Liberal
Arts. I thank you for your support and interest.
