Social Thinkers Chapter takeaways ~ * Understand the varioy, theoretical pers, in Sociology and know. | about their propounde, * Explain differences between Functionalis, and Conflict perspective * Understand the concep: like Historical Material 1 Ideal Type, Social Acti Pattern Variables, amor others Hail the Revolution!!! Understand limitations of various theoretical Perspectives in Sociolon| discipline has evolved as a matu re discipline,Social Thinkers © 73 We have discussed in the earlier chapters that thd@BelallFeality OFilif@)is complex and at the same time, has some nuanced patterns init. Thes mpl and pternsare viewed differently By different) (Goeialresearetiets. some have tried to view social reality from the lenses of theoretical frameworks, while the others have contended themselves with mere observation of social phenomena, We start this chapter by analyzing the earliest of such endeavors which is covered under the broad heading of what is known as Functionalism, 4.1 Functionalism Functionalism as a perspective evolved with the beginning of Sociology as a discipline an ut forth ideas whick formed its basis) Its basic premise is that society works as a system of interconnected parts and each part exists because it has to perform certain functional prerequisites for the whole system i.e., for society. This view is primarily shaped by the beliefs of functionalists that society behaves like an organism with various parts and each part is studied in the light of the function it performs for the organism as a whole. The functionalists concern themselves with one fundamental question viz Often the terms Positivism and Functionalism are used in conjunction, but the two are not one and the same. Positivism is that strand of Sociology which puts scientific study at the heart of the discipline. It aims to make the discipline scientific and Positivists tend to make predictions by doling out theories in a similar fashion to natural sciences Gomte Was the first Ue Positivish. Both the functionalist and conflict theorists like Durkheim and Marx fall under this classification as they offered theories which were predictive in nature. Thus, functionalism is like a subset of Positivism in this sense (but not exactly) and Durkheim was the frst true functionalist. Functionalist approach begins with an observation thatlBehavioh OFiRh@ Society 1S/StPUELUFEB. In this approach of studying society, Social relationships are, therefore, These relationships are guided / According to the functionalists, thi provides for integration in the society. The functionalist perspective was applied in different contexts by different thinkers MaliRNOWSKiUsed it to study/Féligiony MUFdOER used it to evaluat used it to study y, Herbert J (GHBused it to analyze functions of poverty an sed it to stud) and so on. After its initial popularity during the early years of the discipline, functionalism became a dominant perspective in Sociology once again during the 1940s and 50s when a variant of functionalism cal Sfueital Fnelionalm, led b/PSISOn|and|MErtON) emerged, But after the 1950s, popuaity of functionalism declined during the upheavals of 1960s and 70s, when conflict perspective (along with other perspectives) again emerged as viable alternatives. The fact that functionalists only look at the beneficial aspects of social relations, led to thei Functionalists are also accused of off they confuse cause with effect ina circular fashion. For example, Davis and Moore's theory of stratification outlines the positive functions Of stratification and then they use these effects to explain the origin of stratification. Cities IIKBJAIVIA) (]Baldnerpointed out that while stressing on values in society, functionalists fail to see whose values are these,r 7 autologies and Teleologies Th nol imiing aspect of foretiono lt ati hy rere oe ite | je are the two fundamental ig Ae four desis tutooa ore occse ene era functionalist claim that religion exists becouse it performs the ha fettologeel expenations Fr rn we oak wet they men BY reuaion IY define I O8 thot coteayy af Sar cae cy conan gee gaa and social cohesion, issimpy te elaboration ofthe definiion-TORG TE TT hi it intentions or Functionalists’ explanations are accused of suffering from illegitim« ical Rees Wi mple, a fPuretiny explanation of social stratification is teleological n the sense that it serve SUTING thot th op people get the most important jobs. The problem with this is that Functionalist theories ae also prone to(@eologicalifallaci@s) i.e, they assume that inference gp, individuals can be made out ofthe aggregate data. For example, aggregate Gross Domestic Product gy, growth data in case of the world, say in the year 2022, may be positive, but it doesn’t mean that even, is becoming better-off,Functionalists make similar mistakes when they consider the larger functional of institutions, but ignore the impact of those institutions on the individuals. Functional theorists si, cenario and remain narrow in their approach. We shall now dsc the contribution of various pioneering social thinkers. 4.2 Functionalism of Emile Durkheim Emile Durkheim was one of the pioneers of the discipline of Sociology and was also the founder scholar of functionalist tradition in Sociology, along with Spencer and Comte. Before him, other scholars lik of the discipline (PBRBISRIEAIERPIaMatIONS in the field of functional analysis, for the first time. He was also the one who is credited to liberate the budding discipline from the mysterious methods and terminology of theology and philosophy. He took a nd according to him, individuals are subordinate to society and are also governed by it, According to him above the individuals who comprise it”, Figure 4.1: For his pioneering work” | 4 distinctive sociological explanations, Dut. His contribution to the formative discipline was ‘5 ightly called as the ‘father of So immense and he is often called as the ‘father of Soci i ints ciology’ for vari Si discussed paragraph. First of all, he made a ae aes nd ater to develop a true science of society in the form of Sociolo ae x gy. He defined the subject matter as ((@ffsoelal feetS and suggested scientific methods for its study. For the first time, he gave aii sociological explanations in his causal-functional theori inp fn theo Gates religion, he gov exlarations which were dstntely ocologen, in his theory of suicide 2"@ - nd also demonstrated its use in its theories. For his theo ty | \eory of suicide, he used ™* |Social Thinkers © 75 multivariate analysis. He also established the fitleVEEREBaHIMEAE SF SOEIDIOBVIIn Europe and was the first professor of Sociology. His pioneering and distinct methodology remains the same across all his works, where, at the outset, he provides a fiting irrefutable definition of the phenomenon, Subsequently, he refutes existing explanations and finally, he gives a distinctively sociological explanation of the given social phenomenon. We will further discuss his approach to the discipline through various concepts and ideas that he put forward for the development of the nascent discipline which are discussed in the upcoming sub-sections. 4.2.1 Social Facts Durkheim was highly influenced by the approach of natural scientists and inspired by that, he tried to understand society in terms of some universal laws, He saw the discovery of universal social laws as a solution to the problems of society. He doled out the concept of ‘social facts’ to lay a scientific foundation for the new discipline. Social facts were visualized as akin to natural facts. His theory of social facts is significant because, according to Susan Jones in her What Does Durkheim Mean by ‘Thing’? 1996, - “It was crucial in separating the new discipline from philosophical discourse” According to him, just as behavior of matter in nature can be regarded as a reaction to natural stimuli, behavior of man can also be seen as a response to the external constraints of such social facts. In his first major work titled Montesquieu and Rousseau, 1892, he laid down the general conditions for the establishment of a science of society. According to him, a social science should — Deal with specific subject matter and not total knowledge that is around and should aim at identifying the ‘general types’ rather than describing individual types. According to him, social science should have a definite and observable field to explore and it should study objective reality, Social science should yield general principles or laws by using methods similar to natural science. Durkheim further clarified the S€6pe afd MIethOdOIORY)of Sociology in his book THe) RUIESTOP According to him, the task of a sociologist is to study social facts as ‘things’ as. we study things in a natural world. He defined social facts as ~ ¢Seelallfacts|are ways of acting) thinking which are external to the individual and are endowed with the power of coercion by reason of which they control of him’. (Helconsiders social facts as those phenomenal Which exist outside the he task of | According to Durkheim, social facts can be understood by their four characteristics - |. Externality - Social facts exist outside the individual and must be seen apart from the individual. These are(@uiligenerisl.e., they come into existence on their own as a part of autonomous development of society. ll. Constraining - The social facts exercise constraining influence over the individual action. The constraint is in the nature of coercion. The existence of constraints makes social facts as real as the constraint is visible in terms of its consequences.76 © Essential Sociology t be confused with the individuay II. Generality ~ Social facts are general in nature and must no! individual facts. These are in the form 0 interpretations or in une of general types. For example, he s studied religion as a genera) and focused upon identifica type and didn’t not study any particular religion. fe IV. Independence ~ Social facts ar change the social facts, but rather, the opposite is true ssa ots Thus, Durkheim kept social facts above individuals. scoring O la Cet he abstract phenomena and they can be visualized as objective reality”. Qurkhe! con are difficult to study as they seem intangible and hence, cannot be observe ological Method, 1895, Durkheim differentiated betwee! s— material aie Although he dealt with both in the course of his work, his main focus was ‘on ‘nonmaterial social facts’, for example, culture, social institutions, morality, collective conscience and socio-currents, rather than on material social facts. He concluded that earlier societies were held together primarily by nonmaterial social facts, specifically, a strongly held common morality, or what he called a strong collective conscience. He saw social facts along a continuum of materiality. The sociologist usually begins a study by focusing on material social facts, which are empirically accessible, in order to understand nonmaterial social facts, which are abstract in nature and hence, difficult to grasp and can be studied only indirectly with the help of material social facts. To make the study of social facts easier, Durkheim suggested that social facts should be studied in terms of their effects or consequences in society. While doing so, a scientific approach should be adopted and the researcher should be objective in his or her approach, without any bias or ideology. According to him, there arélfWOlWaySIWhICH Ean EXpISIN BOLI Fact First, b (GBGANFEEE) according to him, the cause of social fact lies in another social fact. For example, cause of suicide does not lie in individual's will, but should be explored through various other social facts like ~ Population, integration and socal order. Second, byiderermining fUREWOAS BEBBEIISEL According to bim, social facts perform certain functional prerequisites of society. Most important of which is maintenance of social order. According to him, collective conscience is that social fact that maintainé social order, It has a constraining effect on indivi cl a qT manifests iduals and it affects the ee 'eir actions. Thus, society manif Which were explained in his The Rules of Socio of studying the social facts logical Meth establish a distinct methodology in Sociology. The rules pein ee @ Conela Uae |. Rules of Observation - Social factsSocial Thinkers © 77 "I. Rules of Classification — Durkheim says that every social fact is not unique, but is part of a broad classification. Different social facts can be broadly classified as — a ‘acts — These are the social facts which give a particular Society its appearance. b. jocial Facts — These are the social facts which are institutionalized and accepted by the people. These include religion, division of labor, rate of suicide, etc. Social Facts - These are the facts which are still not accepted by the People, but have a potential of exerting constraints on individuals. They rise spontaneously ai nd May or may not sustain. For example, mob behavior and crowd behavior. They aria medals Rules of Distinction — While studying social facts (@stnetion ilst}ba ide BEBWEER "AGES! Social facts remain, in general, in normal state, but sometimes in Certain situations, they display pathological characteristics. Social facts are considered normal when they are present in their general form and fulfil some functions for society. But social facts don’t remain like that always and they may also become dysfunctional in their - what Durkheim termed as ~ pathological state. For example, a certain rate of crime is considered normal, when it increases beyond a certain level, it morphs into a pathological state and proves dysfunctional for the society. © Rules of Explanation — In order to explain social facts, Durkheim prescribed certain rules, like — a, The investigator should observe complete objectivity and personal preoccupations and biases should be kept aside while studying the social facts. b, Methods used by natural sciences should be used to study social facts. He himself demonstrated the use of methods lik in his various explanations. Hi Similarly, indirect experimentation was used in his theory of religion. ¢. Explanation of social facts must yield general theories. Durkheim proposed formulation of causal-functional theory, emphasizing on separation of cause and function in order to prevent illegitimate teleologies. The conceptualization of social reality in the form of various social facts was a concrete and definite approach to codify the science of society, but this approach had many loopholes which were highlighted by many contemporary and later sociologists. (H@idléman) said that Durkheim was more ‘oncerned about making society, rather than describing a methodology for it. His emphasis on (GRAF) According t \ols for the study of society/Stephen Lukes, in i y, 1974 contended that Durkheim glorified empiricism and moralism and hence, neglected emotions and individual subjectivity (Pater BergePaccuses him of doing injustice to the discipline by ignoring individual human behavior, in his obsession to objectivity. Further, objectivity is not possible in social observation. Durkheim couldn’t explain why the same social facts influence diferent individuals differently. According tWeber =*Soeial facts don’t exist things 00>7 © Essential Sociology Social facts lie inside an j \n of the social fact, Ndividua pret 7 their influence is a result of the individual's own interpr 4.2.2. Division of Labor i fhe French Revolution, Durkhei Inthe background of the upheaval in SIS a oie ence himsett = 3 cera By eae of itn his Division of Labor in Society, 1893, e a part of his Aoctora the which, according to Tiryakian, is now regarded as the first classic of Sociology. It was Written at ting when there was a widespread feeling of moral crisis in France and Durkheim wanted to finda soluten, it in the form of bringing the social order back in shape. While Marx was Pessimistic about the division of labor, Durkheim was cautiously optimistic. Through this work, he rejected the view of Comte that hi division of labor is the cause of disorder in French society. He also rejected the view of earlier economy and philosophers, especially of Hedonists and Utilitarianists and argued that division of labor isnotbae upon an individual's interest, pleasure or utility. In the wake of the social upheaval in French society, te explained that morality in society has not come down, but it has been replaced by a new morality, According to Durkheim, since division of labor is a social Phenomenon, its causes must also be social. Division of labor in definitional terms can be defined as ~ splitting of activities in a number of parts or smaller processes, undertaken by different persons or groups. It implies specialization within particular activities or occupations. Occupational differentiation is symbolic of division of labor. Durkheim considered division Of labor as a social phenomenon and rejected all classical and neo-classical nee Gouna cane economic explanations of division of ‘onal termsard labor. Earlier explanations understood f/9ure 4.2: Durkheim viewed division of labor in ed to von it in terms of increasing productivity according to him various degrees ae Se and hence, profit. Durkheim argued Wel ier A Tat that division of labor exists not only in econor home, there is a domestic division of labor, Degree of Division of Labour m ; le mic activities, but in all spheres of life. For ‘example Therefore, itis a social phenomenon. os ; ston” dvision of labor is a social fact and is a product of 24a Generis. He developed causal-functional explanations of S™S" yan Social fact. To explain the cause of division of labor, he ema served that in primitive societies, division of labor was Ve"Y According to him, in primitive societies, the actions of indi According to Durkheim, development of society and is sui- in order to prove that it was a evolutionary perspective. He ob: Is modern societies it is very high, “we aSocial Thinkers © 79 controlled by the norms and values of society or the collective conscience of society. But in modern society, the control of norms and values has weakened and the strength of collective conscience is weak. According to Durkheim, primitive society was ‘segmentary’ in nature, where people used to live in independent segments. Life was simple and all the individuals performed similar activities. Collective conscience was very strong in such a society, Durkheim called this state Mechanical Solidarity, i.e., lidarity due to likeness or sameness. Such societies were very religious with very few specializations and people lived together. Laws in such societies were repressive and conformity to the social norms was a must and there was minimum deviation. Population was also very low, i.e., material density was low. Further, interaction between segments of population was also low, i.e., moral density was also low. Durkheim believed that the cause of the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity was the dynamic density which refers to the combination of the number of people in a society or material density and the amount of interaction that occurs among them, i.e., moral density. With time, population increased, resulting in an increase in the material density. This led to increased chances of interaction. Durkheim termed it as an increase in moral density. A situation comes when there is a high degree of interaction between different segments. In this situation, people from different segments now have access to activities prevailing in other segments. It results in a competition or a struggle for the existing occupations and the fittest survives in an existing occupation while the unfit creates new occupations and specializations. Thus, the problems associated with dynamic density are resolved through differentiation. It initiates a never-ending process of division of labor and emergence of an organic solidarity-based society. Neen aw society based on mechanical solidarity, very low and is primarily based on age Ina areas In a society based on organic solidarity, there is a complex differentiation, Division of functions is simple. Division of functions is complex and there is a great degree of interdependence, All members are alike and have great collective conscience. Members become differentiated and interdependent. thas repressive laws to ensure conformity to the will of the community. Laws are reformative in a society based on organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity is prevalent in the entire society. Organic solidarity is there among particular groups which are interdependent. Durkheim envisaged division of labor as functional and enumerated its various functions. First of all, the increased division of labor provides for greater efficiency, with the result that available resources for society increase, making the competition over them more peaceful. Society is now based upon heterogeneity of relationships. In modern societies, collective conscience is weak and hence, the binding force is also weak. Supreme value is attached to the individual. Durkheim calls such a society as being based upon organic solidarity, ie., solidarity based on differences and dependency, With the increase of the volume of population, material and moral density also increases. Division of labor is a peaceful solution to the needs created by the increase of population — in size and density. In the absence of strong collective conscience, division of labor integrates modern societies.iety for fe i (80 © Essential SociolORY nctional for modern society for following Teaso fur . to Durkheim, division of labor I ‘Accor s of the organic character of the so, ion of Society ~ Division 1. Integration of he basi 7 ie of labor is t ional inter- in live together because of functi we dependence y hich people are different, but st lex and existence of an individual is not po, whict wi " Although at conscious level ‘ible come highly ¢ nia ch other. Social life has | tion with the others. Althoug! it consci an individ ji ociat jthout an indirect ass indent upon many people, Ibconscious level, he or she is depet Pa : feel independent, at sul ding to Durkheim, modern society is based upon mass production = Accor rime ro Indi eprsleal eae are diversified and lead to further specialization, Individual goods and services. Ne¢ are now relatively free and hence, have better freedom to innovate as a result of a greater, Tumbe, of options at hand. Thus, division of labor grants wutonomy to individuals. Durkheim thus states that, while an individual, while — enn ch Aepeng more heavily on society. Division of labor fulfils dual needs of both ~ indivi 7 ju my jan nteaaten of society. As discussed earlier, social facts can have abnormal or pathological forms also, Division of aby also has certain abnormal forms as it is also a social fact. Study of abnormal states is necessary to gta better understanding of the normal state also. According to Durkheim, there are primarily three abnoma| forms of division of labor - |. Anomic Division of Labor ~ Anomie is a state of normlessness, in which, people in a situation dont follow norms attached to their activities in that particular situation, Unchecked division of labor and rapid expansion of industrial activity leads to anomie as social controls are weak during such Phases of social upheaval. In such a situation, division of labor generates unhealthy competition i transition phases, for example, from shift as Durkheim noted one such transition towards the Century. Durkheim noted that — and becomes dysfunctional. t generally happens during of mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, end of the 19% business and commer ree, Inadequate Organizatio Properly, Sted Division of Labor — if work is not oxi 5 Conflicts. in this abnormal form, the very PUSocial Thinkers © 81 of division of labor is destroyed, Work is not well organized and coordinated, Workers are often engaged in doing meaningless tasks, There is n results in a disorder. mM. solidarity. Such an abnormal form results in in their society. Thus, tensions, ___ Division of Labor Orient 1 | ESE eel Functional Forced Division of Labor ~ For division of labor to generate solidarity, each individual has a specialized task, but itis also necessary that thi or her. Forced division of labor is a result of those structural condition: of tasks is not in correspondence with the distribution of talent and based on inequality of opportunity and, according to Durkheim, '0 unity of action. Thus, solidarity breaks down and itis not only sufficient that task is appropriate for him s, in which, the distribution will. Such division of labor is fails to produce long-lasting \dividuals becoming frustrated and unhappy with rivalries and antagonism are the results, Contlict. Both Durkheim and Marx made a very clear societies and complex industrial societies and Causes of A distinction between division of labor in simple acknowledged that division of labor is inevitable. Durkheim explained division of labor in industrial societies as a consequence of increased material and moral density. Specialization makes it possible for harmonious coexistence. Dae ira Marx did not see division of labor as a means of cooperation and coexistence. He viewed a5 a process forced upon workers in order to let the capitalist extract profit Rect Da eas Durkheim considered division of labor as functional and leading to cooperation, Marx sees division of labor as a form of Unequal relationship which legitimizes the relationship between the haves and the have nots. Ciera Dietary ea It leads to integration in society It leads to dehumanization of workers and alienation in industrial society. Ramen Problems ‘Anomic division of labor is an abnormal form and according to Durkheim, can be handled by making workers conscious of their role in society. By making them feel organically linked and involved with the life of society. COCR} Dead read According to Marx, capitalism itself is the problem. Problems of alienation can be ended through revolution, ‘Abnormal division of labor also explains why there was a situation of chaos in Europe at that time, despite his claim that division of labor brings integrity in society. According to Durkheim, division of labor ‘must be kept in a normal state and there must be some mechanism to take care of abnormal forms. Durkheim gives a conception of a socialist state, in which division of labor will be kept in a normal state by a large number of occupational associations, which will implement the ethical code corresponding to their own occupation. This will also help in organizing the wor rk properly. But, unlike Marx who suggested 2 radical solution in the form of change of mode of production through revolution to overcome alienation, Durkheim believed that solution can be provided within the existing framework of society. Self-interest which dominates business and commerce should be replaced by a code of ethics which emphasizes the Needs of society as a whole,1 kssenti Socolony , 2 neoryot Durkheim explains socialintegration 2s Well as Upheayay The division of labor theor , fown theory which puts interests of individuals secondary t but is a i ee nan choice over the type of occupation they want tg society, Individuals al im /. for. i to i te ic factors which have assumed great importance in today's globalized wor, fe underplayed economic factor mics, and nat the integrative need of society, plays a larg, liberals would even argue that economics, ; deciding the patterns of division of labor in society. bes the wit y 4.2.3. Suicide _ Toillustrate the working of social facts, Durkheim took a variety of on es Work on suc was the fits serious effort to establish empiricism in Sociology. In his theory of suicide, Duiigy attempted to examine a seemingly personal phenomenon in a sociological way. For the fist tie, le exhibited the use of scientific methodology in Sociology and showed that real laws are discoveratlen Sociology as well, His study of suicide is often taken as a starting point of research methodology in Sociology, as it was based on data and statistics which could be directly observed and measured. Thy theory is well known for the pragmatic approach of Durkheim in understanding social problems, Durkheim in his Le Suicide, 1897 defined suicide as ~ “Suicide is an} directly or indirectly, positive or negative action of the victim himself, result”. Positive actions are those actions taken by the individual to end Poison. Negative actions are in the form of inaction which causes di remaining inside a burning house. Indirect causes are those when a though he knows that he or she may die, as in case emergency situations, etc. As a Sociologist, Durkheim w. case of any individual committing suicide, inste: rates among different groups. Wy case of death, caused by which he knows will produce ts one's life, for example, consuming leath, for example, starvation and Person has no intention of ding Of army persons fighting a war, fire fighters in /as not concerned with studying why any specie ad, he was interested in explaining differences in suide literature on suicide and rejected th |. Firstly, insanity, race and alcohy He explained sociological causes of UI He proved with the help of statis Suicide by corre} i jal facto" ating suicide rates with various social 4 ical data that cert 2In rate of suicide is normal in societY:Social Thinkers © 83 illness incidences, but such causal relation could not be established and the rate of suicide was found fairly consistent in different countries over a period of time. He, therefore, explored causes of suicide in other social causes by using statistical techniques and found concomitant relation between suicide rate and different social variables related to the people who committed suicide. Different social variables that were taken by Durkheim were - marital status, locality, ie, rural or urban, developed or under-developed, religious orientation i.e., Protestant or Catholic, Jews or Christians and sex, i.e., male or female. He undertook the multivariate analysis to establish the relationship between rates of suicides and social factors. After detailed research, he concluded that - males have greater suicidal tendencies as compared to females. Rate of suicide is found more among the bachelors as marriage protects individuals against suicide by integrating individuals into stable social relations. Underdeveloped countries have less rate of suicide than in case of developed countries. On the basis of religion, ‘Multivariate Analysis Protestants have higher suicide rates {tis an important contribution of Durkheim to research methods than Catholics. Durkheim reasoned that in Sociology. Durkheim wanted to overcome the problem of since Protestant religion gives its _$PUrious correlations in sociological research. In this approach, members more freedom —of_- Durkheim analyzed the impact of multiple independent variables (like gender, age and religions) on a dependent variable (like suicide). With this approach, he was able to show effect of @ articular independent variable on suicide. With this approach, he was able to empirically demonstrate correlations as indicators of of people who were men, Christians and true causations, unmarried, committed more suicide than women, Jews and married group. interpretation of religion and free inquiry, they are less integrated into the Church than Catholics. Some categories Durkheim offered explanations for groups where suicide rates are higher. He contended that those who have a higher tendency of committing suicide are less integrated to society in one way or the other, On the basis of above causal relationship between social variables and suicide rate, Durkheim concluded that suicide is a social phenomenon. According to him, though individual may have some Psychological pre-disposition, but it is the impact of suicidogenic impulses which lead to actual suicide. On the basis of his analysis, he identified two types of bonds that integrate individuals with society. |. Forces of Integration ~ Various degrees of these forces are associated with two types of suicide. ‘Asa result of over-integration and low integration, two types of suicides may happen in society — a. Altruistic Suicide ~ It results from over-integration of an individual with society. It is a characteristic of traditional societies with a high degree of mechanical solidarity. Durkheim quoted various examples to illustrate this type of suicide. Deaths caused by Sati in India, death of soldiers in war and death of Japanese kamikaze pilots can be taken as acts of altruistic suicide according to Durkheimian framework. The terrorist attack of 9/11 also qualifies in this category as the terrorists deliberately rammed the airplanes into the Twin Trade Towers in New York in 2001. b. Egoistic Suicide — In this case, suicide is the result of low integration of individuals with society. In this state, social bonds are feeble and individuals feel alienated and they feel184 © Essential Sociology ll, Forces of Regulation ~ suicides caused by regulatio a that they are not a part of society, and this also means that — is “ " Part of the individual as well. Examples of egotstc suicide are suicide resulting from failure, success and depression, Societies which have such values that bind individuals strongly have fewer incidences of egoistic suicides. According to Durkheim, Protestant Christians have higher rates of egoistic suicides than Catholics as Protestantism gives more freedom to individuals. Low rates of egoistic suicides during the time of war reflect that individuals are more integrated with society in the wake of external threat, According to Durkheim, higher rates of egoistic suicide stem from incurable weariness and sad depression. On the other hand, the increased likelihood of altruistic suicide springs from hope, for it depends con the belief in beautiful perspectives beyond this life, it implies control of individuals by the society. There can be two types of n— due to over-regulation and under-regulation. ‘Anomic Suicide - When FATAUSTIC social regulation (High Regulation) disappears, people fail to b t follow the norms and ; values. Anomie is the i TRADITIONAL result of sudden changes SOCIETIES leading to the situations of ° desperation or dejection and as a result, social regulation over individuals MODERN disappears. Such loose or SOCIETIES 7 no regulations generally occur in situations of . economic boom or bust ANOMIC and as a result, individual's (Low Regulation) desires either become Figure 4.3: Durkheim's conceptualization of suicide was driven by external forces and he saw it as a result of abnormal integration or abnormal regulation of an individual by societal forces EGorstic (Low integration) (uonesdaqu ya) ausinuny limitless or confused, leading to state of anomie and anomie suicides. Periods of disruption unleash currents of anomie like moods of rootlessness and normlessness and these currents lead to an increase in rates of anomic suicide. Anomic suicide is further classified as ~ ‘acute anomic’, when there is sporadic decrease in ability of traditional institutions to regulate and fulfil social needs and second is ‘chronic ‘anomic’, when there is an abolition of social regulation, but failure to replace them with new ones; acute domestic and chronic domestic are some other subtypes. This conceptualization of suicidal behavior of individuals is challenged by various social thinkers. For example, Merton argues that anomic conditions are not the result of external events alone, they rather occur when there is a disjunction between structu’@! goals and the means that are available to achieve those goals,Social Thinkers @ 85, b._Fatalistic Suicide ~ Such suicides are the results of excessive control of society over an individual. Oppression of individuals leads to suffocation and powerlessness, According to Durkheim ~ “Persons with futures pitilessly blocked and passions violently choked by oppressive discipline are more likely to commit such suicides”. The classic example is a slave who takes his own life because of the hopelessness associated with the oppressive regulation of his every action. Such suicides are rare in modern societies, Thus, according to Durkheim, a particular case of suicide can be a case of either problem of integration oF regulation. According to Durkheim, suicide isa result of suicidogenic forces, comprising of varying state of integration and regulation in society. These forces are conceptualized in the form of socio- currents in society. If an individual comes under the influence of these currents, he or she has a tendency to commit suicide. In traditional societies, altruistic and fate individuals were over-regulated and over-integrated. ic suicides were! more prevalent as While Durkheim gave primacy to external factors, but at the same time, he acknowledged that there may be a secondary role of psychological factors too, but the real cause of suicide is social. He concluded that rates of suicide are fairly consistent in different societies, making ita social phenomenon, linked with the nature of a particular society. A particular rate is normal in society as it highlights the problem of integration and regulation. Once suicide is committed, the whole society works to reinforce appropriate levels of integration and regulation. If suicide rate increases beyond a certain limit, it becomes pathological or abnormal. Durkheim used data and statistical tools to demonstrate that his theory of suicide was an empirical one. But despite the claim of empiricism, his theory of suicide is criticized on various grounds. J M Atkinson in his Discovering Suicide, 1978 contended that quality of statistics used by Durkheim is Questionable. For example, there is evidence to suggest that religious censure of suicide is more in Catholics than among Protestants. As a result, Catholics may go to a great length in disguising suicides. Similarly, higher rates of suicide in some countries may be due to different methods of investigations and reporting. His data has poor reliability as it was taken from police stations which did not include Unreported suicides. He also didn’t include attempted suicides. David Freedman, in his The Ecological Fallacy, 2002 accused him of committing ecological fallacy as he tried to generalize an apparent personal phenomenon. 4.24 Religion and Society Like his other theoretical propositions, Durkheim’s theory of religion was also a result of his concerns for Social order and integration in society. He came up with a functional explanation for the existence of religion in the world and observed its existence as a social fact and not as a supernatural phenomenon. Unlike his theory of suicide which was an empirical venture in sociological research, his theory of religion was more of an academic pursuit. This theory was partly in reaction to the existing explanations of religion, which Durkheim deemed as non-sociological explanations, especially that of Tylor’s animistic theory based on supernatural and of Max Muller's theory based on nature-myth. Durkheim dwelled upon idea of religion in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1912, and he defined religion as ~ “A unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things, that is to say =86 © Essential Socioton unite them into a single moral community | 1 beliefs and practices, which gle ert een tea His psi of religion Is essentially functionalist in approach a tay about a function ~ i.e, of uniting the society. Further, his definition doesn't talk about faith or Gogg, supernatural and instead talks about beliefs, practices and sacred elements. According to Ourkhei, beliefs are a system of ideas which explain the sacred, they constitute myths, spiritual ideas, ethical cage etc. Practices are rites or rituals explaining an individual's behavior towards the sacred. There are tyq types of such rites ~ positive and negative. Positive rites bring individuals and the sacred together and ae easier to perform, for example, worship. Negative rites help in maintaining the distance between the tug and keep them separated, for example, fasting and sacrifice, Negative rites are difficult to perform, Durkheim's concept of religion is based on his systematic view of society. According to hin, society consists of two parts ~ the sacred and the profane. According to him, this process of dividing the world into the sacred and the profane started with the totems. The sacred are the things which are set apart and are forbidden, Sacred refers to all the things which are connected to the supernatural or the divine. A relationship of distance and fear is maintained with respect to these things. Profane are the things apart from the sacred. It includes all the day-to-day things which people use in their lives. Sacred and profane are two worlds apart and both are mutually exclusive. Durkheim gave a causal explanation of religion by using the method of indirect experimentation. According to him, modern religion is complex and full of variations, so establishing a causal linkage is difficult. But at the same time, the simple forms of religion also exist and if the cause of such simpler forms is established, the same will apply to the modern religions also. With this premise, Durkheim conducted an indirect experiment on one of the simplest forms of religion, i.e., totemism, in which totems are worshipped. Durkheim argued that a totem is nothing but the representation of the clan itself. He drew this analysis from the study of religious practices among Arunta, the Australian aboriginals. According to Durkheim, if the cause of the totem is established, the same will be the cause of modern religion. In his indirect study of Arunta aboriginals, he concluded that primitive men were wanderers and they kept on moving from one place to another. Occasionally, when they came together for some purpose (for clan festivals, etc.) and interacted on such occasions, they felt different. This feeling disappeared, ‘once they separated. Individuals, who experienced the heightened energy in a gathering of the caf sought some explanation for this state. According to primitive logic, they explained this feeling in terms of the presence of some supernatural force. But, according to Durkheim, the gathering itself was the re Cause and it was a showcase of social forces. Durkheim called this feeling as the state of exultation of collective effervescence, i.e., the heightened feeling of energy generated in collective gatherings. This feeling takes individuals away from the concerns of profane social life to an elevated sphe™® in which they feel as if they are in contact with higher forces, These higher forces are deemed as divine” Supernatural and are attributed to certain totems by the primitive tribes around which they had gathe Once they break the gathering and are separated, they feel lonely and sad. When they feel the nee8 re-experience that feeling, primitive people create a totem to represent and regain that feelin People assemble near the totem, they relive that feeling again, They fail to ates this phenomenon by their primitive logic, they give it a sacred status. The clan member mistakenly attributes the enerBY or she feels to the symbols ofthe clan ie., to totems. The totems are, thus, the material representato™‘Social Thinkers © 87 of the non-material force that is at their base, and that non-material force is none other than the society itself. This feeling, which was due to the feeling of being together, was interpreted as sacred by the primitive people, but actually it was a manifestation of society itself, According to Durkheim, there is nothing particular about totems which make them sacred and totems or sacred things must represent something, Totem is a symbol of collectivity or the symbol of society itself as it represents those social forces which are felt by individuals at the social gatherings. As society evolves, religion also evolves. Durkheim states that ~“/fit is at once a symbol of God and society, is it not because God and society are one and same?" According to Durkheim, in the form of religion, actually worship society and religion is an example of self-creation and autonomous development of society. Religious experiences are real experiences of social forces, forces that unite us. Social obligations are represented in sacred terms and hence, transformed into religious duties. For example, marriage becomes a sacrament, work becomes a symbol of pleasing gods, and death in a battle becomes a gateway to heaven, One may ask, why does man worship totems or sacred things and why not the society itself? According to Durkheim, it is easier for man to vi ialize and direct his feelings of awe towards a symbol like totem and idol rather than towards a complex metaphysical thing like a society. This Durkheimian logic also explains idol worship in many religions like Hinduism Religion EYTcoeia) EENEaaertm) Weber focused on meanings that individuals | Durkheim stresses the exteriority of social generate _ a facts, which he regards as things ESTICORSENN Individuals are actors in society. Society is sui-generis Say) Weber studied the major features of the | Durkheim studied religion in its most great religions of the world elementary form. He generalized the conclusions for modern religions. Durkheim emphasized the role of religion as a collective phenomenon which serves to strengthen social bonds Uae He saw religion as a force behind new ways GORA EL ica} of thinking ~ Protestant ethics led to the rise of capitalism, Buddhism in India opposed caste system, and soon. EZ i Weber did not hesitate to use the idea of | Durkheim denied that religion is concerned EYSNGEIMICIN| gods and spirits. Weber, unlike Durkheim, | with the mysterious gods and spirits. He called attached great importance to prophets in | religion as society itself propagating religious beliefs. Weber's comparative studies showed how | Durkheim viewed both religion and science as religions across the world advocate values | providing society with its collective that differ and are sometimes in opposition | representations. So, he didn't see any conflict to rationality. Science, on the other hand, is | between the two. empirical. So, he sees an opposition between the two. | Sen) Religion Like his other functional theories, he sees religion in functional terms as well. He sees religion also 8a social fact. He rejected the earlier philosophical and psychological explanations and averred that it is 2 product of self-creation and autonomous development of society like other social facts. All the people following a particular religion follow specific beliefs and practices, These are also in the nature of moral88 » Essential Sociolony ; fi . and inte his pinds them into asigle community *Brates them her. He further exP larity and thus, religion Tans the functions of religion through hc cag brings people together. In modern se, performs the function of bringing pes l codes, which each member follows." and they feel comfortable living toget! rity. Religion becomes the basis which are highly individualized and for simil differentiated, together. . icant because it demonstrates that any subject can be approac, ef fied the subject of religion and encouraged its empiri of thinking, his theory of religion is criticized for big 5 he didn't visit the Arunta tribe even once. So, the empiicy | Edward Stanner, the dichotomy of profane and aces is not absolute and there can be mundane things also. Durkheim did not explain why a particular totemi, chosen. A tribe may have more than one totem as highlighted by Radcliffe Brown, in his study of New South Wales, where he discovered that there can be multiple totems within a tribe based on individual, etc, Generalization of a primitive religion to modern sophisticated religions is a bit fa. alll social actions fallin is theory of religion is sig from a sociological perspective. He demystit rational study. But despite its pioneering lin arm-chair theory by the likes of Malinowski a base of his theory was very narrow. As per William gender, clan, fetched. According to Edmund Leach, profanity and sacred are two extremes, between. Scholars argue that itis not religion, but secularism which is binding the societies togetherin | modern industrialized societies and his ideas are applicable only to simple societies. His theory fais to explain the cause of solidarity in multicultural polytheistic societies like India. Durkheim is also accused of ignoring the conflict caused by religion and focused only on its functional aspects. 4.2.5 Durkheim - An Evaluation Contribution of Durkheim in the establishment of Sociology as a formal discipline was a landmark one. He gave the much-needed subject matter to the nascent discipline of Sociology. He defined its scope #4 study of social facts. His theories and vocabulary are still indisputably termed as being distinctive sociological. His concepts of religion, suicide and anomie are used in inter-disciplinary studies even tod#y His contribution to perspectives in Sociology is also immense as he was one of the early founders structural functionalist perspective. Uniqueness of his approach lies in his belief towards establishing social order in society: HS concepts like division of labor ae used in understanding even the global division of labor. His 26 understanding of crime and suicide has helped social thinkers to understand them in a broader 02 context, rather than just in terms of individual behavior and psyehol val depectton it has helped i" understanding the social dimension of an individual's problem, i Woh sides af vion of eo | anomie, we also got insights on how individuals, Tcueh his idea of avison © det" society. His over-emphasis on the functional cha, criticism and alternative perspectives. We will next section. while becoming freer, are becoming more depende acter of social institutions and phenomena also attract Study one such dominant alternative perspectiv@ 4.3 Conflict Perspective Like functionalists, conflict theorists also stress on their approach. They too suggest a grand framew, emphasizing on ‘consensus’ they focus on the ‘div venist structure and, hence, are predominantly Posts i to explain the working of society, but instea Sfons or conflict’ in society. They seek to exP!="”