durkheim x34 copy
Post on 14-Apr-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 1/34
1
Durkheim’s Origins:
IntroductionJewish origins; school success
Franco-Prussian War (1870-1) as
traumatic event
Son killed in WWI
Outsider as critical perspective
• Training in philosophy, drifted into sociology
– Studied in Germany
– Initial appointment in education in Bordeaux – Moved to Paris as creator of a new, scientific
sociology
– Enabling effects – new insights into society as a system
(differentiation)
– centrality of culture and religion for understandingsocial order
– Constraining effects – tendency toward scientism
– reification of “society” and identification with socialorder
(1858-1917)
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 2/34
Comparative Issues: Introduction
•
Contrast with Marx and Weber• Different historical contexts: mid vs. late 19th c.
• Metatheory
• Marx: early vs late (historicism vs. positivism)
• Weber: anti-positivist structuralist historicism
• Durkheim: sophisticated positivism
• Empirical Theory: Model of society
• Marx: conflict model based on a theory of commodification and contradiction
• Weber: conflict model based commodification andrationalization, with on multiple conflicts and
unpredictable outcomes• Durkheim: organic model based on a process of
differentiation as progress
• Normative theory: Different conceptions of the tasksof “scientific knowledge”
• Marx: unity of theory and practice oriented towardworking class revolution
• Weber: sociology distinct from politics,ambiguous relation to reform
• Durkheim: unity of theory and applicationoriented toward social reform
2
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 3/34
3
The Historical Context: France, Europe
1880s-1914
• Economy
– Expansion of capitalism – Boom and bust cycle
• Social structure
– Class conflict, labour unrest
– Urbanization, fear of “masses”
• Politics
– Franco-Prussian War (1870): Symptom of French backwardness
– Liberal left: critiques of conservatism
• Conservative fear of “mass society”,disorder
• Liberalism: a new form of order, regulatedby state and sciences
– World War I: 1914-1918
• Culture
– The Dreyfus affair: new concept of
“intellectuals” as critics – Need for educational reform, better adaptationto modernity
• Sociological Implications
– Secularization and modernization: science assalvation
– Sociology and the nation-state: legitimating thediscipline
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 4/34
4
Origins of Durkheim’s Theory
• French tradition: Selectively drew upon
Montesquieu, Rousseau, Saint-Simon andComte
• Vehemently rejected British utilitarianism
(individual-first theories of Smith,
Bentham, Spencer)
– Social prior to the individual
– Norms based of action, not rational calculation
• The German Connection:
• Influenced by Kant’s epistemology
• Against Marx
• Rejects economic reductionism
• Crisis can be resolved without revolution
– Rethinking Ferdinand Toennies
• Gemeinschaft as oppressive: mechanical
solidarity
• Gesellschaft as liberating: organic
solidarity
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 5/34
5
• The (early) Anglo-American Reception:
1920s-60s
– Became foundation of anthropological and
sociological functionalism (Parsons):
structures explained in term of “needs of
society” (organic analogy) – Viewed as a “conservative” defender of
social order, though oriented toward a
“liberal” model of modernization and
progress
• The French Durkheim:
– Durkheim the structuralist (i.e. a
metatheory based on linguistic analogy;
example semiotics or the “science of
signs”) – The radical Durkheim as democratic
socialist
– Aspects critically appropriated by French
structuralism (e.g. semiotics) and
poststructuralism
Reading Durkheim: Two Receptions
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 6/34
6
Durkheim’s Basic Concepts: A Preview
• Metatheory: “Social facts” as focus of
analysis; sophisticated variant of positivism
• Empirical Theory:
• Key facts: “collective consciousness”
– Closer to “conscience” in referring to beliefs
(norms)
– Collective because shared as unconscious“consensus”
– Expressed in “collective representations” (symbols,
language, classification systems”
• Social order (solidarity, integration)
– Normal condition of society – Sustained by form of integration (mechanical vs.
organic)
• Institutions: fulfill “functional” needs of social
order
• Normal vs. pathological facts
• Norms: regulate social action
• Normative theory: medical analogy of social
pathology
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 7/34
7
Metatheory: Sociology as a Research
Program
• Positivist metatheory
– Ontology:
• Realism: “social fact as things” as “object” of inquiry
• The subjective is only real as objective norms aspart of collective consciousness, hence an(epiphenomenal) effect of structures
– Epistemology:• A multidimensional positivism: treat “social facts”
as “things”
• Adapt multiple methods to peculiarities of socialfacts
– Action:
• Subject constrained by norms: soft determinism
• Action more voluntary in “modern” societies
– Explanation: a multidimensional positivism
• Historical methods:e.g., education
• Causal methods: e.g., suicide
• Functional methods: e.g., division of labour,explain the persistence, though not origins of institutions
• Structuralist methods: e.g. symbolic forms of religion
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 8/34
8
Metatheory: “The Rules of Sociological
Method”
• Social facts: “… there is in every society a certaingroup of phenomena which may be differentiatedfrom those studied by the other natural sciences…When I fulfill my obligations as brother, husband orcitizen.. The system of signs I use to express mythought, the system of currency… These types of
conduct or thought are not only external to theindividual but are, moreover, endowed withcoercive power, by virtue of which they imposethemselves upon him, independent of his individualwill. Of course, when I fully consent and conformto them, this constraint is felt only slightly, if at
all…” (McIntosh, 207-8)• Explanation: “Sociology does not need to choose
between the great hypotheses which dividemetaphysicians. It needs to embrace free will nomore than determinism. All that it asks is that theprinciple of causality be applied to social
phenomena” (McIntosh, 209).• Anti-psychologism: the “social” as a reality sui
generis: “Sociology is, then, not an auxiliary of anyother science, it is itself a distinct and autonomousscience…” (McIntosh, 211)
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 9/34
9
Contested Metatheoretical Issues:
• Ontology: excessive structuralism realism;
no theory of the subject (as in early Marx
and Weber)
• Epistemology: Positivism does not
adequately account for subjectivity and
meaning• Theory of action:
– No strategy for analyzing micro-interactions,
i.e. how norms negotiated (as in symbolic
interactionism)
– Duality of individual and society:
oversimplifies subject formation and the self
• Explanation: Functionalism: organic
analogy and the “needs of
society” (functional prerequisites)
– How does “society” do this?
– Fallacy of” misplaced concreteness”: society
treated as an agent with intentions, needs
– More valid for analysis of complex
organizations whose needs and purposes
determined by management
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 10/34
10
Problems in Durkheim’s Methodology
• No strategy for analyzing micro-
interactions, i.e. how norms negotiated (asin symbolic interactionism)
• Duality of individual and society
oversimplifies subject formation and the
self • Notion of “needs of society” (functional
prerequisites)
– How does “society” do this?
– Fallacy of” misplaced concreteness”: society
treated as an agent with intentions, needs – More valid for analysis of complex
organizations whose needs and purposes
determined by management
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 11/34
11
*Digression on the Logic of Inquiry:
Systems Theory (optional)
• Organic analogy elaborated as general systems
theory (1930s-40s)
– Assumptions of unified science
– Basis: structure, function, evolution in the
inorganic, organic and cultural worlds
– Functional analysis as the methodology of
systems theory
– Examples of self-regulating (purposive)systems
• Cybernetic systems (e.g. thermostat,radar)
• Homeostatic systems (e.g. bodytemperature)
– Systems theory still influential in
organizational theory and business
• Logic of functional analysis: teleological model
of causality
– Assumption: integrated system (whole +
parts) that is self-regulating (dynamicequilibrium)
– Manifest functions
– Latent functions
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 12/34
12
Durkheim’s Empirical Theory of
Society: The General Model of Order
and Differentiation
• Problematics Underlying Durkheim’s
Empirical Sociology: A Critique of both
conservatism and Marxism
– A theory of social order
• Response to conservative fear of
individualism (mass society = atomization)
• Proposes concept of “organic solidarity” as
new principle of order
• Individualism limited by spaces in the
division of labour: inter-dependance
creates stable order
– A theory of moral authority
• A response to conservative fear of decline
of religion
• A rejection of utilitarian concept of the
rational individual
• Alternative: recognition of non-rational
foundations of social order (i.e., pre-
contractual aspects of contract = norms)
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 13/34
13
The Division of Labour in Society (1893): A
Defense of Modernity
• Society as a Moral Reality
– The social as a reality sui generis
• Against biological and psychological
reductionism
• Social reveals emergent properties (not D’s term)
• Durkheims critics charge the result a new
form of sociological reductionism:
sociologism
• The Differentiation Model of Change:Origins of the Evolution of the Division of
Labour
– Increased population density:
differentiation and specialization
– Urbanization: proximity
– Expansion of communication and
transportation: moral density
– Evolution = movement from low to high
differentiation
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 14/34
14
Evolution as Differentiation: The
Transition from Mechanical to Organic
Solidarit
• Origins of terms: reversal of Toennies in terms
of model of social integration (or solidarity,
order)
– Mechanical solidarity = Gemeinschaft
– Organic solidarity = Gesellschaft
– Reversal of evaluations:
• Mechanical: oppressive, simple
• Organic: opens up individualism,
enhances productivity
• Key: new principle of order based on
interdependence and difference, not
identity and sameness
• Differentiation as Progress: An EvolutionaryTheory of Change
– change determined by needs of system
– assumes that differentiation automatically
leads to progress
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 15/34
15
Chart: Two Forms of Social Integration
Function Reproduce
order
Order +
expanded
power
Structure Low divisionof labour
High divisionof labour
Norms Repressive
sanctions +
Penal law
Restitutive
sanctions +
cooperative
law
Form of
conscience
collective
Intensive
belief,
unifying
consensus,
homogeneity
Plural
consensus,
individualism
Content of
conscience
collective
Purely
religious,
unquestioned;
concrete and
specific
Increasingly
secular;
abstract and
general
Mechanical Organic
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 16/34
16
Contested Issues About Differentiation
I: Individualism and S ecialization
• “But does not the division of labor by makingeach of us an incomplete being bring on a
diminution of individual personality?…Wetake off from the principle that man ought to
realize his nature as man…as Aristotle said.
But this nature does not remain constantthroughout history; it is modified with
societies.. Far from being trammeled by theprogress of specialization, individual
personality develops with the division of
labor…To be a person is to be an autonomoussource of action. Man acquires this quality
only in so far as there is something in him
which is his alone and which individualizes
him, as he is something more than a simple
incarnation of the generic type… we have
shown…how activity becomes richer and
more intense as it becomes more
specialized” (Div. Of Labor, 402-4)
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 17/34
17
• Questions: Are There Limits toSpecialization and Differentiation?
– Implications for evolutionary model:will limitations produce “pathologies”?
– Overspecialization: lack of adaptabilityto change
– Is the formation of the individuallimited to work?
• Contrast with: – Marx’s analysis of alienation and
commodification
– Weber’s analysis of instrumentalrationalization
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 18/34
18
Contested Issues II: Differentiation and
Gender• “It is certain at the same time that sexual labor
is more and more divided…Long ago womenretired from warfare and public affairs, and
consecrated her entire life to her family. Since
then, her role has become even more
specialized. Today, among cultivated people,
the woman leads a completely differentexistence from that of the man. One might say
that the two great functions of the psychic life
are thus dissociated, that one of the sexes takes
care of the affective functions and the other of
intellectual functions. In view of the fact that incertain classes women participate in artistic and
literary life just as men, we might be led to
believe, to be sure, that the occupations of the
two sexes re becoming homogeneous. But, even
in this sphere of action, woman carried out herown nature, and her role is very specialized… if
art and letter begin to become feminine tasks,
the other sex seems to permit it in order to give
itself more specially to the pursuit of science...
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 19/34
19
• … the functional differences are rendered
materially visible…Not only are the height,
weight, and general form very dissimilar inmen and women, but Dr. Lebon has shown…
that with the progress of civilization the brain
of the two sexes differentiates itself more and
more. According to this observer, this
progressive chart would be due both to theconsiderable development of the masculine
crania and to a stationary or even regressive
state of female crania…”though the average
cranium of Parisian men ranks among the
greatest known crania, the average of Parisianwomen ranks among the smallest observed,
even below the crania of the Chinese, and
hardly above those of the women of New
Caledonia” (Div. Of Labor, 60).
• Questions: – Issue of changing biological knowledge
– Dilemma of using biology to justify what
of “natural” (danger of gender
essentialism
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 20/34
20
Themes of Durkheim’s Empirical
Sociology
• Macrosociology: Division of Labour
– Focus on specialization, not hierarchy asinequality
– Analysis of principles of integration
– Focus on “abnormal” functioning
• Deviance/Abnormality: Crime, Law andSuicide
– Normal relative: defined in opposition to abnormal
– Deviance functionally necessary for society
• Sociology of Education – Strategic institution in modernity
– Replaces church as primary sources of socialization
• Occupational Groups – Workers need organizations for normative regulation
– Basis of social identity
• Sociology of Religion and Knowledge
– Religion as primary source of social solidarity
– Changed function in modern societies
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 21/34
21
A Diagnosis of Modern Society:
Abnormalities
• Abnormal division of labour: ThreeForms
– Anomic: meaninglessness
– Forced: lack of spontaneity, no free choice
– Lack of coordination: poor organization• Durkheim’s Strategy of Reform
– Anomic: new norms cultivate by
occupational associations and education
– Forced: need for greater equality of
opportunity
– Lack of coordination: organizational
analysis
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 22/34
22
Crime and Law
• Repressive vs restitutive justice(McIntosh, 185-193)
– Mechanical solidarity
• repressive law
• Penal law (negative)
– Organic solidarity• Resistitutive law (shaming, reintegration)
• Coordinating law (constructive, e.g.business law)
• Normal vs. abnormal
– Normal not inherent in nature of act – Defined in relation to deviance
• Social functions of deviance – Reinforces sense of solidarity (11 September
and American patriotism)
– Deviance necessary for society
• Focus of criminology influenced byDurkheim
– Community shaming
– Re-socialization
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 23/34
23
A Theory of Suicide
• Psychology vs. sociology (McIntosh,212-231)
– Suicide appears to be a personal choice
– But rates of suicide vary by social groups (Catholicsvs Protestants vs Jews)
– The hypothesis: correlation of social integration and
suicide• The methodology: causal(variable)
analysis
– Independent variable: degree of social integration
– Dependent variable: rate of suicide
• Types of suicide: too much vs. two littleindividualism
– The integrative axis: egoism and altruism
– The regulative axis: anomie and fatalism
• Methodological implications:
– Illustration of variable analysis – Problem of official statistics
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 24/34
24
Sociology of Education I: HistoricalContext
• Historically, education controlled by
church – Functional necessity of a new type of education
to meet needs of organic solidarity
– Normative (policy) implications : seculareducation needs to replace religious
• Late 19th century French education – Public control still disputed; religious
influences dominant
– Strict discipline and use of corporal punishment
• Authority necessary to deal with “homo
duplex” – Humans divided: body vs soul, egoism vs.
community, sensual vs sacred
– Agreed with conservatives the constraintnecessary
– Rejected Rousseau’s reliance on the “natural”and “spontaneity”
– But “content” of constraint should not bereligious and traditional, but secular andfunctional
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 25/34
25
Sociology of Education II: MoralAuthority
• The duality of moral authority: basis of
“discipline”
– Enforced by negative sanctions
– Complemented positively by sense of duty
based cultivation of a sense of the “good”
• Education should be public, secular anduniversal
– Should overcome “unjust inequality” through
equality of opportunity
– Core learning for citizenship, as member of
society
– Specialized learning to fit into needs of the
occupational structure
• Authority cannot be based on mere
punishment – Deterrence (negative sanctions” does not
produce commitment
– “One of the chief aims of moral education is to
inspire I the child a feeling for the dignity of
man. Corporal punishment is a continualoffense to this sentiment” (G, 76).
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 26/34
26
Occupational Groups: Professional
Ethics and Civic Morals
• Occupational Groups: Professional Ethicsand Civic Morals
– Self-regulation based on group norms to avert
anomie
– Functional norms for the workplace:
professional ethics
– Citizenship: civic morals
• Contested Issues
– The medical analogy: assumes “social
technology” possible – Value as function of social “needs”: how to
determine?
– Education: who should determine curriculum?
– What form of individualism?
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 27/34
27
Religion I: Elementary Forms of Religious Life
(1912) • Defining Religion
– Traditional definitions: focus on content (e.g.,
supreme being) – A functional definition: the” sacred”and the
“profane”: example of totemism
– “Thus we arrive at the following definition: Areligion is a unified system of beliefs and
practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things
set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practiceswhich unite into one single moral communitycalled a Church, all those who adhere tothem” (McIntosh, p. 236)
• Magic vs. religion
– Primacy of ritual in religion: based on“collective effervescence”
– “There is no Church of magic”(McIntosh, 236):no durable relation between magician and client
– Magic as proto-science
• Civil religion: The Secular as Sacred – Nationalism: American patriotism; State
ideology: Soviet Communism
– “What essential difference is there between anassembly of Christians… or of Jews… or areunion of citizens commemorating… some
great event in the national life” (McIntnosh,247).
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 28/34
28
Religion II: Universal Functions
• Focus on “elementary form” of religion
– Prefigures all religious phenomena
– Relied on ethnographic reports on Australiantribes
• Universal functions of religion: fulfill needs of society
– “In reality, then, there are no religions whichare false. All are true in their own fashion; allanswer, though in different ways, to the givenconditions of human existence” (McIntosh,233)
– Can be hierarchically ranked in terms of
complexity of ideas and concepts; does notaffect asic function
• Collective representations re-enacted in ritual =projection of society:
– “Religious representations are collectiverepresentations which express collective
realities; the rites are a manner of acting whichtake rise in the midst of the assembled groupsand which are detined to excie, maintain orrecreate certain mental states in thesegroups” (McIntosh, 234)
– Example: structure of cosmos represents
circular organization of tribal camp
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 29/34
29
Religion III: Ritual and Religious
Practice
• Totemism in tribal culture”: basis of deep
symbolic structure – plant, animal or object that symbolizes tribe or
clan
– “it is the outward and visible form of…thetotemic principle or god”
– “But it is also the symbol of the determinedsociety called the clan” (McIntosh, 239)
• Forms of ritual
– Negative: interdictions, taboos regarding thesacred
– Positive: initiation rites; sacrifices
• Religion not completely illusory
– It is a creation of human mind; but serves socialfunctions
– “it is necessary to avoid seeing in this theory of religion a simple restatement of historical
materialism..It is true that we take it as evidentthat socia life depends upon its materialfoundation…but collective consciousness issomething more than a mere epiphenomenon of its morphological basis, just as individualconsciousness is something more than a simple
efflorescence of the nervous system” (EF, 471)
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 30/34
30
*Religion IV: Basis of a Sociology of
Knowledge (optional)
• All knowledge originates in religion
– Later differentiation of more specialized forms:science
– Modernity: religion demoted to status of fulfillingpersonal needs
• Durkheim’s structuralism
– Kant: human categories: ideas as innate, a priori
– Empiricists: categories as built up fromexperience
– Durkheim: categories and classificationsoriginate in society
• Influenced foundation of French structuralist
anthropology: Claude Lévi-Strauss who addedlinguistic analogy to the study of myths
• Contemporary poststructuralist theory: areaction against the determinism of structuralism
• Society as a reality sui generis: a systemof logical classifications (EF, 28-9)
– Science as accumulation in space and time of human knowledge: “impersonal reason is onlyanother name given to collective thought” (EF,494)
– “Thus sociology appears destined to open a newway to the science of man” (EF, 495)
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 31/34
31
Normative Theory I
• Science as key to progress
– Enlightenment assumption = “modernist
metanarrative”
– Mission of science to provide guidance for humanity
• The interdependence between facts and values
– Hume and Weber:logical disjunction between factsand values
– Durkheim: The necessary subordination of values tosocial needs (functions)
• The “normal” and the abnormal (or“pathological”): the medical analogy
– Sociologist diagnoses society: social pathologies
– Prescribes “cure”: restoration of “normality”
• Between liberalism and socialism – State as regulator
• Involves indicative planning: provides rules notcommands
• Anticipates the welfare state: sociology guidessolution of social problems, provides safety nets
– Largely private economy; rejection of socializationof the means of production
– Not a “conservative” in the classical sense
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 32/34
32
Normative Theory II: A “Non-
Ideological” Perspective?
• “Sociology thus understood will be neitherindividualistic, communistic, nor socialistic in thesense commonly given these words. On principle, itwill ignore these theories, in which it could notrecognize any scientific value, since they tend not
to describe or interpret, but to reform, socialorganization… We do not mean, however, that itought to take no interest in practical questions…they are derive from facts and not from emotions…they must be formulated for the sociologist in quiteother terms than for the masses, and that the
tentative solutions… could not coincide with any of those which now satisfy various interest groups.But the role of sociology from this point of viewmust properly consist in emancipating us form allparties, not to the extent of negating all doctrine,but by persuading us to assume toward thesequestions a special attitude that science alone cangive us in its direct contact with things… Sciencealone can teach us to treat historic institutions…with respect but without mystic awe, by making usappreciate both their permanent and their ephemeralaspects, their stability and their infinitevariability” (McIntosh, 210).
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 33/34
33
Sociology and Social Policy: Moral
Education
• Durkheim’s “socialism”: the state as
regulator
– Varieties of “socialism”
• Command economy: socialization of production
• Regulation: setting rules, creatingconsensus
• Prophet of the welfare state?: socialdemocracy
• Normative foundations – Based on medical analogy
– Normality as social health
– Individualism as a modern possibility
• A religion of the individual
• Limited by societal imperatives
• Goal of reform
– Intervention to create a new moral authority
– Focus on strategic institutions
• Abnormal division of labour (already discussed)
• Education
• Occupational associations
7/29/2019 Durkheim x34 Copy
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/durkheim-x34-copy 34/34
Criticism of Durkheim
• Metatheory
• Epistemology: positivist realism• Multiple methods, but no analysis of
subjectivity
• Radical structuralism does not account
for agency - sociological reductionism
• Ontology: inadequate theory of the subject
• Empirical Theory: Theory of Society
– Theory of organic solidarity: Functional
integration does not adequately account forconflict and change
– Differentiation as evolution mechanistic
and contributes to problematic arguments
about history as well as gender
• Normative Theory – Medical analogy faulty: distinction between
normal and abnormal problematic
– Value assumptions cannot be derived from“needs” of society
top related