CHAPTER 5

The Problem With

Diversity:
Émile Durkheim
(1885–1917)

Theorist’s Digest
Concepts and Theory: The Reality of Society
Social Facts
Collective Consciousness
Concepts and Theory: Religious Roots of Society
Religion and Science
Defining Religion
Creating the Sacred
Concepts and Theory: Social Diversity and Morality
Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
The Division of Labor
The Problem of Modernity
Organic Solidarity and Social Pathologies
Concepts and Theory: Individualism in Modern Society
Suicide
The Cult of the Individual
Summary
Taking the Perspective—Functionalism and Sociology of Culture
Building Your Theory Toolbox

107
108 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

C ultural diversity is a byword in modern society. It generally refers to racial

or ethnic diversity. However, if we think about cultural diversity theoreti-
cally, the phrase “racial or ethnic diversity” begs the question: How is it
that racial or ethnic groups come to have different cultures? Most people simply
assume that different races and ethnic groups have diverse cultures. Yet there is no
necessary relationship between what we think of as race and cultural diversity. In
fact, race itself is a cultural designation. For example, did you know that at one time
in the United States, “Irish” was considered a “black” racial group? They were
referred to derogatorily as the “black Irish.”
Theoretically and sociologically, then, it is much better to ask how cultural
diversity is created rather than simply assuming it exists. Besides, cultural diver-
sity is much broader than merely race and ethnicity. For example, it is quite
possible that the cultural differences between the elite and the poor are greater
than the differences between racial groups within the same society. So, how is
cultural diversity created? More specifically, what are the general processes
through which cultural differences are created, whether among racial, ethnic,
class, or gender groups? Émile Durkheim provides us with answers to these
kinds of questions.
Yet Durkheim is actually concerned with a more important issue, one that few
people think about when considering cultural diversity. His concern is based on
the insight that every society needs a certain level of cultural integration and
social solidarity to exist and function. Durkheim’s main concern is this: How
much cultural diversity can a society have and still function? Think about an
extreme situation as an example: Picture two people who speak totally different
languages. How easy would it be for them to carry on a conversation? If it was
necessary, they undoubtedly could find a way, but what they could talk about
would be limited and it would take a great deal of time to have even the simplest
of conversations.
The same is true with cultural diversity. Cultural diversity includes language, but
it also encompasses nonverbal cues, dialects, values, normative behaviors, beliefs
and assumptions about the world, and so on. The more different people are from
one another, the more difficult it will be for them to work together and communi-
cate, which is the basis of any society. Durkheim, then, specifically asks, how can a
diverse society create social solidarity and function?
One of the reasons that Durkheim is concerned with cultural diversity and
moral integration is due to his assumptions about human nature. Where Marx
assumes that humans are social and naturally altruistic, Durkheim assumes that
people apart from society are self-centered and driven by insatiable desires. While
Durkheim gives us an answer to the question of integration in the face of cultural
diversity, he also addresses the deeper problem of human egoism. If we assume, as
Durkheim does, that individuals tend to go off each in his or her own direction,
then how can this thing called society work? Durkheim came up with an ingenious
answer: the collective consciousness. Today, sociologists usually talk about norms,
values, and beliefs, but in back of those terms lies Durkheim’s idea of the collective
consciousness.
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 109

THEORIST’S DIGEST
Brief Biography
David Émile Durkheim was born in Epinal, France, on April 15, 1858. His mother, Melanie, was
a merchant’s daughter, and his father, Moïse, was a rabbi, descended from generations of
rabbis. Durkheim did well in high school and attended the prestigious École Normale
Supérieure in Paris, the training ground for the new French intellectual elite.
The first years (1882–1887) after finishing school, Durkheim taught philosophy in Paris,
but felt philosophy was a poor approach to solving the social ills he was surrounded by. In
1887, Durkheim was appointed as Chargé d’un Cours de Science Sociale et de Pédagogie at
the University of Bordeaux. Durkheim thus became the first teacher of sociology in the French
system. Durkheim and his desire for a science of morality proved to be a thorn in the side of
the predominantly humanist faculty. During this year, Durkheim also married Louise Dreyfus;
they later had two children, Marie and André.
In 1902, Durkheim took a post at the Sorbonne and by 1906 was appointed Professor of
the Science of Education, a title later changed to Professor of Science of Education and
Sociology. In this position, Durkheim was responsible for training the future teachers of France
and served as chief advisor to the Ministry of Education.
In December 1915, Durkheim received word that his son, André, had been declared missing
in action (World War I). André had followed in his father’s footsteps to École Normale and was
seen as an exceptionally promising social linguist. Durkheim had hoped his son would
complete the research he had begun in linguistic classifications. The following April, Durkheim
received official notification that his son was dead. Durkheim withdrew into a “ferocious
silence.” After only a few months following his son’s death, Durkheim suffered a stroke; he died
at the age of 59 on November 15, 1917.

Central Sociological Questions

Durkheim is intensely concerned with understanding how social solidarity and integration
could be preserved in modernity. He recognizes that society is built on a foundation of shared
values and morals. Yet he also realizes that there are structural forces at work in modernity that
relentlessly produce cultural diversity, something that could tear away this foundation of social
solidarity. His project, then, is to discover and implement the necessary social processes that
could create a new kind of unity in society, one that would allow the dynamics of modernity
to function within a context of social integration.

Simply Stated
Durkheim sees individuals apart from society as concerned only with their own desires that,
because of human nature, are insatiable. Thus, the one thing society needs above all else is a
common, moral culture—a set of ideas, values, beliefs, norms, and practices that guide us to
act collectively rather than individually. Given that moral culture is the basis of society,
Durkheim argues that society first began in religion. Modernity, however, creates a problem
(Continued)
110 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

(Continued)
that threatens to tear apart society’s moral basis: social diversity created through structural
differentiation and the division of labor. The main solution to this problem is that moral
culture must evolve and become more general—able to embrace greater levels of social
diversity—through the formation of intermediary groups, restitutive law, the centralization and
rationalization of law, and social and structural interdependency.

Key Ideas
social facts, society sui generis, collective conscious, religion, sacred and profane, ritual,
effervescence, social solidarity (mechanical and organic), punitive and restitutive law, the
division of labor, social differentiation, cultural generalization, intermediary groups, social
pathologies, anomie, suicide (altruistic, fatalistic, egoistic, and anomic), the cult of the
individual

Concepts and Theory: The Reality of Society

As we saw in Spencer, the idea of society changed with the beginning of modernity.
For the first time something collective, something grander than simple association,
was seen to exist. People began to wonder about and try to understand this new
entity modernity had brought into existence. Most of the speculations of the time
were formed in philosophical terms and began with certain assumptions about the
natural state of human beings apart from society. Thomas Hobbes, for example,
argued that human nature is basically warlike; on the other hand, John Locke
believed that humans are naturally peaceful.
In contrast to philosophical beginnings, Charles Montesquieu argued that the
study of society should begin empirically: with what we see, not with what we think.
In some ways, Montesquieu’s book The Spirit of Laws may be considered the first
empirical work of sociology. In it, Montesquieu argues that society must be viewed
as an empirical object. As an independent object, its properties and processes could
be discovered through observation. Interestingly enough, Montesquieu also argues
that the human being is really the product of society, not the other way around. It
follows, then, that any attempt to understand society that begins with human nature
would have to be false, since human nature is itself a creation of society.

Social Facts
Durkheim draws from Montesquieu in his thinking about society. He argues
that society exists as an empirical object, almost like a physical object in the envi-
ronment. Durkheim uses the concept social fact to argue for the objectivity of
society and scientific sociology. According to Durkheim, social facts gain their
facticity because they are external to and coercive of the individual. We can’t
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 111

smell, see, taste, or touch them, but we can feel their objective influence.
Durkheim distinguishes between material and nonmaterial elements in social
facts. Material elements are like cultural artifacts: They are what would survive if
the present society no longer existed. For example, a wheelbarrow is a material
social fact. Nonmaterial elements consist of symbolic meanings and collective
sentiments. Often such features are attached to material objects, like the mean-
ings behind statues and flags, but many times our most important meanings and
feelings have a more abstract existence, like love and freedom.
In addition, society exists as a social fact because it exists sui generis—a Latin
term meaning “of its own kind.” Durkheim uses the term to say that society exists
in and of itself, not as a “mere epiphenomenon of its morphological base.” Society
is more to Durkheim than simply the sum of all the individuals within it. Society
exists as its own kind of entity, obeying its own rules and creating its own effects:
“The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts pre-
ceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness” (Durkheim,
1895/1938, p. 110, emphasis original).
Let me give you an example of what Durkheim means when he says that the
cause of social facts is other social facts. One of Durkheim’s most famous studies is
Suicide. In it, he studied suicide rates, not individual suicides. The suicide rate (“the
proportion between the total number of voluntary deaths and the population of
every age and sex”) is a social fact. The suicide rate measures a collective’s “definite
aptitude for suicide” at any given historical moment and “is itself a new fact sui
generis, with its own unity, individuality and consequently its own nature”
(Durkheim, 1897/1951, p. 46). The suicide rate of any given society can be under-
stood through social types—egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic suicides—
and each of these types is caused by its relationship to two other social facts: group
attachment and behavior regulation. In other words, the suicide rate (a social fact)
is caused by other social facts (group attachment and behavior regulation).

Collective Consciousness
But society does more than exist outside of us; and it does more than simply
coerce us to perform actions we don’t want to. In fact, society forms our basic
awareness of the world around us through the collective consciousness. For
Durkheim, the collective consciousness is the totality of ideas, representations,
beliefs, and feelings that are common to the average members of society. There does
exist, of course, the individual consciousness. However, whatever unique ideas, feel-
ings, beliefs, impressions, and so forth that an individual might have are by defini-
tion idiosyncratic. In other words, “Individual consciousnesses are actually closed
to one another” (Durkheim, 1995/1912, p. 231). The collective consciousness, on
the other hand, does allow us a basis for sharing our awareness of the world. Yet the
function of this body of culture is not simply to express our inner states to one
another; the collective consciousness contributes to the making of our individual
subjective states. It is through the collective consciousness that society becomes
aware of itself and we become aware of ourselves as social beings.
112 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Durkheim divides the collective consciousness into two basic features: cognitive
and emotional. Durkheim argues that the collective consciousness contains
primary symbolic categories (time, space, number, cause, substance, and personal-
ity). These categories are primary because we can’t think without using them. They
form our basic cognitions or consciousness of the world around us. These cate-
gories are, of course, of social origin for Durkheim, originating with the physical
features of society. (The way the population is dispersed in space, for example,
influences the way we conceive of space.) Durkheim did some work (Primitive
Classification) in this area of cognitive categories, especially with his pupil and
nephew Marcel Mauss. His work in this area also influenced Ferdinand De
Saussure, the founder of French Structuralism (which led to poststructuralism and
influenced postmodernism). However, I think for Durkheim the more important
aspect of the collective consciousness is emotional. Social emotions or sentiments
“dominate us, they possess, so to speak, something superhuman about them. At the
same time they bind us to objects that lie outside our existence in time” (Durkheim,
1893/1984, p. 56).
If, as Durkheim supposes, humans are naturally self-serving, then why will self-
centered human beings act collectively and selflessly? Durkheim argues that ratio-
nal exchange principles are not enough. Because our entire being is involved in
action, we need to be emotionally bound to our culture. We have to have an emo-
tional sense of something greater than ourselves. This feeling of something greater
is what underlies morality. We act socially because it is moral to do so. While we can
always give reasons for our actions, many of our actions—especially social
actions—generally come about because of feelings of responsibility: “Whence, then,
the feeling of obligation? It is because in fact we are not purely rational beings; we
are also emotional creatures” (Durkheim, 1903/1961, p. 112). So to think like
Durkheim is to always be concerned with the emotional foundations of social life.

Concepts and Theory: Religious Roots of Society

Durkheim had two major purposes in writing The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life, his thesis on religion. Durkheim’s primary aim was to understand the empiri-
cal elements present in all religions. He wanted to go behind the symbolic and spir-
itual to grasp what he calls “the real.” Durkheim intentionally puts aside the issue
of God and spirituality. He argues that no matter what religion is involved, whether
Christianity or Islam, and no matter what god is proclaimed, there are certain social
elements that are common to all religions. To put this issue another way, anytime a
god does anything here on earth, there appear to be certain social elements always
present. Durkheim is interested in discovering those empirical, social elements.

Religion and Science

Durkheim’s second reason for writing his book is a bit trickier to understand.
For Durkheim, religion is the most fundamental social institution. He argues that
religion is the source of everything social. That’s not to say that everything social is
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 113

religious, especially today. But Durkheim is convinced that social bonds were first
created through religion. We’ll see that in ancient clan societies, the symbol that
bound the group together and created a sense of kinship (family) was principally a
religious one.
Further, Durkheim argues that our basic categories of understanding are of reli-
gious origin. Humans divide the world up using categories. We understand things
in terms of animal, mineral, vegetable, edible, inedible, private property, public
property, male, female, and on and on. Durkheim says that many of the categories
we use are of what one might call “fashionable” origin, that is, culture that is subject
to change. Durkheim argues that fashion is a recent phenomenon and that its basic
social function is to distinguish the upper classes from the lower. There is a ten-
dency for fashion to circulate. The lower classes want to be like the upper classes
and thus want to use their symbols (we want to drive their cars, wear the same kinds
of clothes they do, and so on). This implies, in the end, that fashionable culture is
rather meaningless: “Once a fashion has been adopted by everyone, it loses all its
value; it is thus doomed by its own nature to renew itself endlessly” (Durkheim,
1887/1993, p. 87).
Durkheim has little if any concern for such culture (though quite a bit of con-
temporary cultural theory and analysis is taken up with it). He is interested in
primary “categories of understanding.” He argues that these categories—time,
space, number, cause, substance, and personality—are of social origin, but not the
same kind of social origin that fashion has. Fashion comes about as different
groups demarcate themselves through decoration, and in that sense it isn’t tied to
anything real. It is purely the work of imagination. The primary categories of
understanding, on the other hand, are tied to objective reality. Durkheim argues
that the primary categories originate empirically and objectively in society, in what
he calls social morphology.
Merriam-Webster (2002) defines morphology as “a branch of biology that deals
with the form and structure of animals and plants.” So, when Durkheim talks about
social morphology, he is using the organismic analogy to refer to the form and struc-
ture of society, in particular the way in which populations are distributed in time
and space. Let’s take time, for example. In order to conceive of time, we must first
conceive of differentiation. Time, apart from humans, appears like a cyclical stream.
There is daytime and nighttime and seasons that endlessly repeat themselves. Yet
that isn’t how we experience time. For us, time is chopped up. Today, for example,
the day I’m writing these words, is March 31, 2010. However, that date and the divi-
sions underlying it are not a function of the way time appears naturally. So, from
where do the divisions come? “The division into days, weeks, months, years, etc.,
corresponds to the recurrence of rites, festivals, and public ceremonies at regular
intervals. A calendar expresses the rhythm of collective activity while ensuring that
regularity” (Durkheim, 1912/1995, p. 10). The same is true with space. There is no
up, down, right, left, and so on apart from the orientation of human beings that is
itself social.
The important thing to see here is that Durkheim makes the claim that the way
in which we divide up time and space, and the way we conceive of causation and
number, is not a function of the things themselves, nor is it a function of mental
114 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

divisions. Rather, the way we conceive of these primary categories is a function of

the objective form of society—the ways in which we distribute and organize popu-
lations and social structures. Our primary categories of understanding come into
existence through the way we distribute ourselves in time and space; they reflect our
gatherings and rituals. Thus, all of our thinking is founded upon social facts, and
these social facts, according to Durkheim, originated in religion.
Durkheim wants to make a point beyond social epistemology. He argues that if
our basic categories of understanding have their roots in religion, then all systems
of thought, such as science and philosophy, have their basis in religion. Durkheim
(1912/1995) extends this theme, stating that “there is no religion that is not both a
cosmology and a speculation about the divine” (p. 8). Notice that there are two
functions of religion in this quote. One has to do with speculations about the
divine—in other words, religion provides faith and ideas about God. Also notice
the other function: to provide a cosmology. A cosmology is a systematic under-
standing of the origin, structure, and space–time relationships of the universe.
Durkheim is right: Every religion tells us what the universe is about—how it was
created, how it works, what its purpose is, and so on. But so does science, and that’s
Durkheim’s point. Speculations about the universe began in religion; ideas about
causation began in religion. Therefore, the social world, even in its most logical of
pursuits, was set in motion by religion.

Defining Religion
But how did religion begin? Here we turn back again to Durkheim’s principal
purpose: to explain the origins of religion. In order to get at his argument, we will
consider the data Durkheim uses, his definition of religion, and, most importantly,
how the sacred is produced. The data that Durkheim employs are important
because of his argument and intent. He wants to get at the most general social fea-
tures underlying all religions—in other words, apart from doctrine, he wants to dis-
cern what is common to all religions. To discover those commonalities, Durkheim
contends that one has to look at the most primitive forms of religion.
Using contemporary religion to understand the basic forms of religion has some
problems, most notably the natural effects of history and storytelling. You’ve prob-
ably either played or heard of the game “telephone,” where people sit in a circle and
take turns whispering a story to one another. What happens, as you know, is that
the story changes in the telling. The same is true with religion, at least in terms of
its origins. Basically what Durkheim is saying is that the further we get away from
the origins of religion, the greater will be the confusion around why and how reli-
gion began in the first place. Also, because ancient religion was simpler, using the
historical approach allows us to break the social phenomenon down into its con-
stituent parts and identify the circumstances under which it was born. For
Durkheim, the most ancient form of religion is totemism. He uses data on totemic
religions from Australian Aborigines and Native American tribes for his research.
Conceptually, prior to deciding what data to use, Durkheim had to create a def-
inition of religion. In any research, it is always of utmost importance to clearly
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 115

delineate what will count and what will not count as your subject. For example, if
you were going to study the institution of education, one of the things you would
have to contend with is whether home schooling or Internet courses would count,
or do only accredited teachers in state-supported organizations constitute the insti-
tution of education? The same kinds of issues exist with religion. Durkheim had to
decide on his definition of religion before choosing his data sources—he had to
know ahead of time what counts as religion and what doesn’t, especially since he
wanted to look at its most primitive form:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things,

that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite
into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.
(Durkheim, 1912/1995, p. 44, emphasis original)

Note carefully what is missing from Durkheim’s definition: There is no mention

of the supernatural or God. Durkheim argues that before humans could think
about the supernatural, they first had to have a clear idea about what was natural.
The term supernatural assumes the division of the universe into two categories:
things that can be rationally explained and those that can’t. Now, think about this—
when was it that people began to think that things could be rationally explained? It
took quite of bit of human history for us to stop believing that there are spirits in
back of everything. We had gods of thunder, forests, harvest, water, fire, fertility, and
so on. Early humans saw spiritual forces behind almost everything, which means
that the idea of nature didn’t occur until much later in our history. The concept of
nature—those elements of life that occur apart from spiritual influence—didn’t
truly begin until the advent of science. So, the idea of supernatural is a recent inven-
tion of humanity and therefore can’t be included in a definition of religion, since
there has never been society without religion—early societies would have had reli-
gion but no concept of supernatural.
Durkheim also argues that we cannot include the notion of God in the defini-
tion of religion. His logic here concerns the fact that there are many belief systems
that are generally considered religion that do not require a god. Though he includes
other religions such as Jainism, his principal example is Buddhism. The focus of
Buddhist faith is the Four Noble Truths, and “salvation” occurs apart from any
divine intervention. There are deities acknowledged by Buddhism, such as Indra,
Agni, and Varuna, but the entire Buddhist faith can be practiced apart from them.
The practicing Buddhist needs no god to thank or worship, yet we would be hard
pressed to not call Buddhism a religion.
Thus, three things constitute religion in its most basic form: the sacred, beliefs
and practices, and a moral community. The important thing to notice about
Durkheim’s definition is the centrality of the notion of the sacred. Every element of
the definition revolves around it. The beliefs and practices are relative to sacred
things and the moral community exists because of the beliefs and practices, which
of course brings us back to sacred things. So at the heart of religion is this idea of
the sacred.
116 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Creating the Sacred

But what are sacred things? By that I mean, what makes something sacred? For
most of us in the United States, we think of the cross or the Bible as sacred objects.
It’s easy for us to think they are sacred because of some intrinsic quality they pos-
sess. The cross is sacred because Jesus died on it. However, the idea of the intrinsic
worth of the object falls apart when we consider all that humanity has thought of
as sacred. Humans have used crosses, stones, kangaroos, snakes, birds, water,
swastikas, flags, and yellow ribbons—almost anything—to represent the sacred.
Durkheim’s point is that sacredness is not a function of the object; sacredness is
something that is placed upon the object:

Since, in themselves, neither man nor nature is inherently sacred, both

acquire sacredness elsewhere. Beyond the human individual and the nat-
ural world, then, there must be some other reality. (Durkheim, 1912/1995,
pp. 84–85)

We could argue that sacredness comes through association; that’s true at least in
part. We think the cross is sacred because of its association with Jesus. But what
makes the image of an owl sacred? It can’t just be its association with the owl, so
there must be something else in back of it. What, then, can make both the owl and
the cross of Jesus sacred? (Remember, with a positivist like Durkheim, we are look-
ing for general explanations, ones that will fit all instances.) Durkheim wouldn’t
accept the answer that there is some general spiritual entity in back of all sacred
things. To begin with, the sacred things and their beliefs are too varied. But more
importantly, Durkheim is interested in the objective reality behind religion. So, how
can we explain the power of the sacred using objective, general terms? Durkheim
begins with his consideration of totemic religion.
Totems had some interesting functions. For instance, they created a bond of kin-
ship among people unrelated by blood. Each clan was composed of various hunt-
ing and gathering groups. These groups lived most of their lives separately, but they
periodically came together for celebrations. The groups weren’t related by blood,
nor were they connected geographically. What held them together was that all the
members of the clan carried the same name—the name of their totem—and the
members of these groups acted toward one another as if they were family. They had
obligations to help each other, to seek vengeance on behalf of each other, to not
marry one another, and so forth based on family relations.
In addition to creating a kinship name for the clans, the totem acted as an emblem
that represented the clan. It acted as a symbol both to those within the clan and those
outside it. The symbol was inscribed on banners and tents and was tattooed on bod-
ies. When the clan eventually settled in one place, the symbol was carved into doors
and walls. The totem thus formed bonds, and it represented the clan.
In addition, the totem was used during religious ceremonies. In fact, Durkheim
(1912/1995) tells us, “Things are classified as sacred and profane by reference to the
totem. It is the very archetype of sacred things” (p. 118). Different items became
sacred because of the presence of the totem. For example, the clans both in daily
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 117

and sacred life would use various musical instruments; the only difference between
the sacred and the mundane instruments was the presence of the totemic symbol.
The totem imparted the quality of being sacred to the object.
This is an immensely important point for Durkheim: The totem represents the
clan and it creates bonds of kinship. It also represents and imparts the quality of
being sacred. Durkheim then used a bit of algebraic logic: If A = B and B = C, then
A and C are equal. So, “if the totem is the symbol of both the god and the society,
is this not because the god and the society are the same?” (Durkheim, 1912/1995,
p. 208). Here Durkheim begins to discover the reality behind the sacred and thus
religion. The empirical reality behind the sacred has something to do with society,
but what exactly?
One of the primary features of the sacred is that it stands diametrically opposed
to the profane. In fact, one cannot exist in the presence of the other. Remember the
story of Moses and the burning bush? Moses had to take off his shoes because he
was standing on sacred ground. These kinds of stories are repeated over and over
again in every religion. The sacred either destroys the profane or the sacred
becomes contaminated by the presence of the profane. So, one of Durkheim’s ques-
tions is, how did humans come to conceptualize these two distinct realms? The
answer to this will help us discover the reality behind sacredness.
Durkheim found that the aborigines had two cycles to their lives, one in which
they carried on their daily life in small groups and the other in which they gathered
in large collectives. In the small groups, they would take care of daily needs through
hunting and gathering. This was the place of home and hearth. Yet each of these
small groups saw themselves as part of a larger group: the clan. Periodically, the
small groups would gather together for large collective celebrations.
During these celebrations, the clan members were caught up in collective
effervescence, or high levels of emotional energy. They found that their behav-
iors changed; they felt “possessed by a moral force greater than” the indivi-
dual. “The effervescence often becomes so intense that it leads to outlandish
behavior. . . . [Behaviors] in normal times judged loathsome and harshly con-
demned, are contracted in the open and with impunity” (Durkheim, 1912/1995,
p. 218). These clan members began to conceive of two worlds: the mundane
world of daily existence where they were in control, and the world of the clan
where they were controlled by an external force greater than themselves. “The
first is the profane world and the second, the world of sacred things. It is in
these effervescent social milieux, and indeed from the very effervescence, that
the religious idea seems to have been born” (Durkheim, 1912/1995, p. 220).
In some important ways, Durkheim is describing the genesis of society. Let’s
assume, as Durkheim and many others do, that human beings are by nature self-
serving and individualistic. How, then, is society possible? One answer is found
here: In Durkheimian thought, humans are linked emotionally. Undoubtedly these
emotions, once established, mediate human connections unconsciously. That is,
once humans are connected emotionally, it isn’t necessary for them to rationally see
or understand the connections, though we will always come up with legitimations.
This emotional soup that Durkheim is describing is the stuff out of which human
society is built. Initially, emotions run wild and so do behaviors in these kinds of
118 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

primitive societies. But with repeated interactions, the emotions become focused
and specified behaviors, symbols, and morals emerge.
In general, Durkheim is arguing that human beings are able to create high
levels of emotional energy whenever they gather together. We’ve all felt something
like what Durkheim is talking about at concerts or political rallies or sporting
events. We get swept up in the excitement. At those times, we feel “the thrill of vic-
tory and the agony of defeat” more poignantly than at others. It is always more
fun to watch a game with other people such as at a stadium. Part of the reason is
the increase in emotional energy. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum
of the parts, and something emerges that is felt outside the individual. This
dynamic is what is in back of mob behavior and what we call “emergent norms.”
People get caught up in the overwhelming emotion of the moment and do things
they normally wouldn’t do.
Randall Collins (1988), a contemporary theorist, has captured Durkheim’s
theory in abstract terms. Generally speaking, there are three principal elements to
the kind of interactions that Durkheim is describing: co-presence, which describes
the degree of physical closeness in space (we can be closer or further away from one
another); common emotional mood, the degree to which we share the same feeling
about the event; and common focus of attention, the degree to which participants are
attending to the same object, symbol, or idea at the same time (a difficult task to
achieve, as any teacher knows).
When humans gather together in intense interactions—with high levels of co-
presence, common emotional mood, and common focus of attention—they pro-
duce high levels of emotional energy. People then have a tendency to symbolize
the emotional energy, which produces a sacred symbol, and to create rituals (pat-
terned behaviors designed to replicate the three interaction elements). The sym-
bols not only allow people to focus their attention and recall the emotion, they
also give the collective emotion stability. These kinds of rituals and sacred sym-
bols lead a group to become morally bounded; that is, many of the behaviors,
speech patterns, styles of dress, and so on associated with the group become
issues of right and wrong.
Groups with high moral boundaries are difficult to get in and out of. Street
gangs and the Nazis are good examples of groups with high moral boundaries. One
of the first things to notice about our examples is the use of the word moral. Most
of us probably don’t agree with the ethics of street gangs. In fact, we probably think
their ethics are morally wrong and reprehensible. But when sociologists use the
term moral, we are not referring to something that we think of as being good. A
group is moral if its behaviors, beliefs, feelings, speech, styles, and so forth are con-
trolled by strong group norms and are viewed in terms of right and wrong. In fact,
both the Nazis and street gangs are probably more moral, in that sense, than you
are, unless you are a member of a radical fringe group.
This theory of Durkheim’s is extremely important. First of all, it gives us an
empirical, sociological explanation for religion and sacredness. One of the prob-
lems that we are confronted with when we look across the face of humanity is the
diversity of belief systems. How can people believe in diverse realities? The Azande
of Africa seek spiritual guidance by giving a chicken a magic potion brewed from
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 119

tree bark and seeing if the chicken lives or dies. Christians drink wine and eat bread
believing they are drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ. How can we
begin to explain how people come to see such diverse things as real? Durkheim
gives us a part of the puzzle.
The issues of reality and sacredness and morality aren’t necessarily based on
ultimate truth for humans. Our experience of reality, sacredness, and morality is
based on Durkheimian rituals and collective emotion (see Allan, 1998). Let me put
this another way. Let’s say that the Christians are right and the Azande are wrong.
How is it, then, that both the Christians and the Azande can have the same expe-
rience of faith and reality? Part of the reason is that human beings create sacred-
ness in the same way, regardless of the correctness of any ultimate truth. One of
the common basic elements of all religions, particularly during their formative
times, is the performance of Durkheimian rituals. These kinds of rituals create
high levels of emotional energy that come to be invested in symbols; such symbols
are then seen as sacred, regardless of the meaning or truth-value of the beliefs
associated with the symbol.
Another reason that this theory is so important is that it provides us with a
sociological explanation for the experience that people have of transcendence—
something outside of and greater than themselves. All of us have had these kinds of
experiences, some more than others. Some have experienced it at a Grateful Dead
concert, others at the Million Man March, others watching a parade, and still others
as we conform to the expectations of society. We feel these expectations not as a
cognitive dialogue, but as something that impresses itself upon us physically and
emotionally. Sometimes we may even cognitively disagree, but the pressure is there
nonetheless.

Concepts and Theory: Social Diversity and Morality

One of the big questions that drove Durkheim is, what holds modern industrial
societies together? Up until modern times, societies stayed together because most
of the people in the society believed the same, acted the same, felt the same, and saw
the world in the same way. However, in modern societies people are different from
each other and they are becoming more so. What makes people different? How can
all these different people come together and form a single society? In order to begin
to answer these questions, Durkheim created a typology of societies.
A theoretical typology is a scheme that classifies a phenomenon into different
categories. We aren’t able to explain things directly by using a typology, but it does
make things more apparent and more easily explained. Herbert Spencer—the one
to whom Durkheim compares his own theory throughout The Division of Labor in
Society—categorized societies as either industrial or militaristic. In order to con-
struct his typology, he focused on the state. So, for example, when a society is in a
militaristic phase, the state is geared toward defense and war and social control is
centralized: Information, behavior, and production are tightly controlled by gov-
ernment. But when the same society is in an industrial phase, the state is less cen-
tralized and the social structures are oriented toward economic productivity:
120 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Freedom in information exchange, behaviors, and entrepreneurship is encouraged.

But Durkheim focuses on something different. His typology reflects his primary
theoretical concern: social solidarity.

Mechanical and Organic Solidarity

Social solidarity can be defined as the degree to which social units are inte-
grated. According to Durkheim, the question of solidarity turns on three issues: the
subjective sense of individuals that they are part of the whole, the actual constraint
of individual desires for the good of the collective, and the coordination of indi-
viduals and social units. It is important for us to notice that Durkheim acknowl-
edges three different levels of analysis here: psychological, behavioral, and
structural. Each of these issues becomes itself a question for empirical analysis:
How much do individuals feel part of the collective? To what degree are individual
desires constrained? And, how are activities coordinated and adjusted to one
another? As each of these vary, a society will experience varying levels of social
solidarity.
Durkheim is not only interested in the degree of social solidarity, he is also inter-
ested in the way social solidarity comes about. He uses two analogies to talk about
these issues. The first is a mechanistic analogy. Think about machines or motors.
How are the different parts related to each other? The relationship is purely physi-
cal and involuntary. Machines are thus relatively simple. Most of the parts are very
similar and are related to or communicate with each other mechanistically. If we
think about the degree of solidarity in such a unit, it is extremely high. The sense of
an absolute relationship to the whole is unquestionably there, as every piece is con-
nected to every other piece. Each individual unit’s actions is absolutely constrained
by and coordinated with the whole.
The other analogy is the organismic one. Higher organisms are quite complex
systems, when compared to machines. The parts are usually different from one
another, fulfill distinct functions, and are related through a variety of diverse sub-
systems. Organismic structures provide information to one another using assorted
nutrients, chemicals, electrical impulses, and so on. These structures make adjust-
ments because of the information that is received. In addition, most organisms are
open systems in that they respond to information from the environment (most
machines are closed systems). The solidarity of an organism when compared to a
machine is a bit more imprecise and problematic.
By their very nature, analogies can be pushed too far, so we need to be careful.
Nonetheless, we get a clear picture of what Durkheim is talking about. Durkheim
says that there are two “great currents” in society: similarity and difference. Society
begins with the first being dominant. In these societies, which Durkheim terms seg-
mented, there are very few personal differences, little competition, and high egali-
tarianism. These societies experience mechanical solidarity. Individuals are
mechanically and automatically bound together. Gradually, the other current, dif-
ference, becomes stronger and similarity “becomes channeled and becomes less
apparent.” These social units are held together through mutual need and abstract
ideas and sentiments. Durkheim refers to this as organic solidarity. While organic
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 121

solidarity and difference tend to dominate modern society, similarity and mechan-
ical solidarity never completely disappear.
In Table 5.1, I’ve listed several distinctions between mechanical and organic sol-
idarity. In the first row, the principal defining feature is listed. In mechanical soli-
darity, individuals are directly related to a group and its collective consciousness. If
the individual is related to more than one group, there are very few and the groups
tend to overlap with one another: “Thus it is entirely mechanical causes which
ensure that the individual personality is absorbed in the collective personality”
(Durkheim, 1893/1984, p. 242). Remember all that we have talked about concern-
ing culture and morality (Durkheim’s Law and ritual performance). People are
immediately related to the collective consciousness by being part of the group that
creates the culture in highly ritualistic settings. In these groups, the members expe-
rience the collective self as immediately present. They feel its presence push against
any individual thoughts or feelings. They are caught up in the collective efferves-
cence and experience it as ultimately real. The clans that Durkheim studies in The
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life are a good illustration.
When an individual is mechanically related to the collective, all the rest of the
characteristics we see under mechanical solidarity fall into place. In Table 5.1, the
common beliefs and sentiments and the collective ideas and behavioral tendencies
represent the collective consciousness. The collective consciousness varies by at
least four features: the degree to which culture is shared—how many people in the
group hold the same values, believe the same things, feel the same way about things,
behave the same, and see the world in the same way; the amount of power the cul-
ture has to guide an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and actions—a culture can be

Table 5.1 Mechanical and Organic Solidarity

Mechanical Solidarity Organic Solidarity

Individuals directly related to collective Individuals related to collective

consciousness with no intermediary consciousness through intermediaries

Joined by common beliefs and Joined by relationships among special

sentiments (moralistic) and different functions (utilitarian)

Collective ideas and behavioral Individual ideas and tendencies are

tendencies are stronger than strong and each individual has own
individual sphere of action

Social horizon limited Social horizon unlimited

Strong attachment to family and tradition Weak attachment to family and tradition

Repressive law: crime and deviance Restitutive law: crime and deviance
disturb moral sentiments; punishment disturb social order; rehabilitative,
meted out by group; purpose is to restorative action by officials; purpose
ritually uphold moral values through is to restore status quo
righteous indignation
122 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

shared but not very powerful (A group where the members feel they have options
doesn’t have a very powerful culture.); the degree of clarity—how clear the prescrip-
tions and prohibitions are in the culture (For example, when a man and a woman
approach a door at the same time, is it clear what behavior is expected?); and the
collective consciousness varies by its content. Durkheim is referring here to the ratio
of religious to secular and individualistic symbolism. Religiously inspired culture
tends to increase the power and clarity of the collective consciousness.
As we see from Table 5.1, in mechanical solidarity, the social horizon of individuals
tends to be limited. Durkheim is referring to the level of possibilities an individual has
in terms of social worlds and relationships. The close relationship the individual has to
the collective consciousness in mechanical solidarity limits the number of possible
worlds or realities the individual may consider. In modern societies, under organic sol-
idarity, we have almost limitless possibilities from which to choose. Media and travel
expose us to uncountable religions and their permutations. Today you can be a
Buddhist, Baptist, or Bahai, and you can choose any of the varied universes they pre-
sent. This proliferation of possibilities, including social relationships, is severely lim-
ited under mechanical solidarity. One of the results of this limiting is that tradition
appears concrete and definite. People in segmented societies don’t doubt their knowl-
edge or reality. They hold strongly to the traditions of their ancestors. And, at the same
time, people express their social relationships using family or territorial terms.
But even under mechanical solidarity, not everyone conforms. Durkheim
acknowledges this and tells us that there are different kinds of laws for the different
types of solidarity. The function of these laws is different as well, corresponding to
the type of solidarity that is being created. Under mechanical solidarity, punitive
law is more important. The function of punitive law is not to correct, as we usually
think of law today; rather, the purpose is expiation (making atonement).
Satisfaction must be given to a higher power, in this case the collective conscious-
ness. Punitive law is exercised when the act “offends the strong, well-defined states
of the collective consciousness” (Durkheim, 1893/1984, p. 39). Because this is
linked to morality, the punishment given is generally greater than the danger rep-
resented to society, such as cutting off an individual’s hand for an act of thievery.
Punitive law satisfies moral outrage and clarifies moral boundaries. When we
respond to deviance with some form of “righteous indignation,” and we punish
the offender, we are experiencing and creating our group moral boundaries. In
punishing offenses, we are drawing a clear line that demarks those who are in the
group and those who are outside. Punitive law also provides an opportunity for
ritual performance. A good example of this principle is the past practice of public
executions. Watching an execution of a murderer or traitor was a public ritual that
allowed the participants to focus their attention on a single group moral norm and
to feel the same emotion about the offense. In other words, they were able to per-
form a Durkheimian ritual that re-created their sacred boundaries. As a result, the
group was able to feel their moral boundaries and experience a profound sense of
“we-ness,” which increases mechanical solidarity.
Organic solidarity, on the other hand, has a greater proportion of restitutive
law, which is designed to restore the offender and broken social relations. Because
organic social solidarity is based on something other than strong morality, the
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 123

function of law is different. Here there is no sense of moral outrage and no felt
need to ritualize the sacred boundaries. Organic solidarity occurs under condi-
tions of complex social structures and relations. Modern societies are defined by
high structural differentiation, with large numbers of diverse structures necessi-
tating complex interconnections of communication, movement, and obligations.
Because of the diversity of these interconnections, they tend to be more rational
than moral or familial—which is why we tend to speak of “paying one’s debt to
society.” The idea of “debt” comes from rationalized accounting practices; there is
no emotional component, as there would be with moral or family connections.
And the interests guarded by the laws tend to be more specialized, such as corpo-
rate or inheritance laws, rather than generally held to by all, such as “thou shalt not
kill.” As an important side note, we can see that restitutive and punitive laws are
material social facts that help us see the nonmaterial organic and mechanical sol-
idarity within a society.
Organic solidarity thus tends to be characterized by weak collective conscious-
ness: fewer beliefs and sentiments, and ideas and behavioral expectations tend to be
shared. There is greater individuality and people and other social units (like orga-
nizations) are connected to the whole through utilitarian necessity. In other words,
we need each other to survive, just like in an organism (my heart would die with-
out its connection to my lungs and the rest of my biological system).

The Division of Labor

Earlier I mentioned that Durkheim says that similarity and mechanical solidarity
gradually become channeled and less apparent. That statement gives the impression
that the change from mechanical to organic solidarity occurred without any provoca-
tion, and that’s not the case. The movement from mechanical to organic solidarity,
from similarity to difference, from traditional to modern was principally due to
increases in the division of labor. The concept of the division of labor refers to a stable
organization of tasks and roles that coordinate the behavior of individuals or groups
that carry out different but related tasks. Obviously, the division of labor may vary
along a continuum from simple to complex. We can build a car in our garage all by
ourselves from the ground up (as the first automobiles were built), or we can farm out
different manufacturing and assembly tasks to hundreds of subcontractors worldwide
and simply complete the construction in our plant (as it is done today). Our illustra-
tion illustrates the poles of the continuum, but there are multiple steps in between.
What kinds of processes tend to increase the division of labor in a society? Bear
with me for a moment; I’m going to put together a string of rather dry-sounding con-
cepts and relationships. The answer to what increases the overall division of labor is
competition. Durkheim sees competition not as the result of individual desires
(remember they are curtailed in mechanical solidarity) or free markets, but rather as
the result of what Durkheim variously calls dynamic, moral, or physical density. These
terms capture the number and intensity of interactions in a collective taken as a whole.
The level of dynamic density is a result of increasing population density, which is a
function of population growth (birth rate and migration) and ecological barriers
(physical restraints on the ability of a population to spread out geographically).
124 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Durkheim’s theory is based on an ecological, evolutionary kind of perspective.

The environment changes and thus the organism must change in order to survive.
In this case, the environment is social interaction. The environment changes due to
identifiable pressures: population growth and density. As populations concentrate,
people tend to interact more frequently and with greater intensity. The rate of inter-
action is also affected by increases in communication and transportation technolo-
gies. As the level of interaction increases, so does the level of competition. More
people require more goods and services, and dense populations can create surplus
workers in any given job category. The most fit survive in their present occupation
and assume a higher status; the less fit create new specialties and job categories, thus
creating a higher degree of division of labor.

The Problem of Modernity

Now, let me ask you a question. What kind of problem do you think that increas-
ing the division of labor might cause for the collective consciousness? The answer to
this question is Durkheim’s problem of modernity. If people are interacting in differ-
ent situations, with different people, to achieve different goals (as would be the case
with higher levels of the division of labor), then they will produce more particular-
ized than collective cultures. Therefore, because they contain different ideas and sen-
timents, the presence of particularized cultures threatens the power of the collective
consciousness.
There’s an old saying, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Well, Durkheim is
telling us just the opposite: “Birds become of a feather because they flock together.”
In other words, the most prominent characteristics of people come about because
of the groups they interact with. As we internalize the culture of our groups, we
learn how to think and feel and behave, and we become socially distinct from one
another. We call this process social differentiation. As people become socially dif-
ferentiated, they, by definition, share fewer and fewer elements of the collective con-
sciousness. This process brings with it the problem of integration. It’s a problem
that we here in the United States are very familiar with: How can we combine
diverse populations into a whole nation with a single identity? But there’s more to
this problem of modernity: As the division of labor increases, so does the level of
structural differentiation—the process through which the needs of society are met
through increasingly different sets of status positions, roles, and norms. Spencer
made this the central issue for his social theorizing. Here we see the same concern.
Durkheim argues much like Spencer—structural interdependency creates pressures
for integration—but he adds a cultural component: value generalization.
Thus, we are confronted with the problem of modernity. Because groups are more
closely gathered together, the division of labor has increased. In response to popula-
tion pressures and the division of labor, social structures have differentiated to better
meet societal needs. As structures differentiate, they are confronted with the problem
of integration. In addition, as the division of labor increases, people tend to socially
differentiate according to distinct cultures. As people create particularized cultures
around their jobs, they are less in tune with the collective consciousness and face the
problem of social integration. I’ve illustrated these relationships in Figure 5.1.
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 125

Figure 5.1 The Division of Labor and Problems of Integration

Level of Level of
Population Social
Size Diversity
+ +
+ Level of Level of Level of
Rate of Level of
Population + + + Division of Problems of
Interaction Competition
+ Concentration Labor + Integration
+
Level of Level of
Ecological Structural
+ Diversity
Barriers

Level of
Communication
and
Transportation
Technologies

Organic Solidarity and Social Pathologies

As social and structural differentiation create problems of integration, they
simultaneously produce social factors that counterbalance these problems: inter-
mediary group formation, culture generalization, restitutive law and centraliza-
tion of power, and structural interdependency. Together, these factors form organic
solidarity. First, structures become more dependent upon one another as they dif-
ferentiate (structural interdependency). For example, your heart can’t digest food, so
it needs the stomach to survive. It is the same for society as it differentiates. The dif-
ferent structures become dependent upon one another for survival. Further, in
order to provide for the needs of other structures, they must be able to interact with
one another. Thus, structural and social differentiation also create pressures for a
more generalized culture and value system. Let’s think about this in terms of com-
munication among computers. I have a PC and my friend Jamie has an Apple. Each
has a completely different platform and operating system. Yet almost every day, my
computer communicates with his. How can it do this? The two different systems
can communicate with one another because there is a more general system that
contains values broad enough to encompass both computers (i.e., the Internet).
Societies thus produce more general culture and values in response to the need
for different subsystems and groups to communicate. In contemporary structural
analysis, this is an extremely important issue. Talcott Parsons termed this focus the
“generalized media of exchange”—symbolic goods that are used to facilitate inter-
actions across institutional domains. So, for example, the institutional structure of
family values love, acceptance, encouragement, fidelity, and so on. The economic
structure, on the other hand, values profit, greed, one-upmanship, and the like.
How do these two institutions communicate? What do they exchange? How do they
cooperate in order to fulfill the needs of society? These kinds of questions, and their
answers, are what make for structural analysis and the most sociological of all
research. They are the empirical side of Durkheim’s theoretical concern.
126 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

Of course, in the United States we have successively created more generalized

cultures and values. The idea of citizen, for example, has grown from white-male-
Protestant-property-owner to include people of color and women. Yet generalizing
culture is a continuing issue. The more diverse our society becomes, the more gen-
eralized the culture must become, according to Durkheim. For example, while we
in the United States may say “In God we trust,” it is now a valid question to ask
“which god?” We have numerous gods and goddesses that are worshiped and
respected in our society. To maintain this diversity, Durkheim would argue there
has to be in the culture a concept general enough to embrace them all. According
to Durkheim, if the culture doesn’t generalize, we run the risk of disintegration.
The fact is that generalized culture is often too broad to invest much moral emo-
tion, so more and more of our relations, both structural and personal, are mitigated
I-thou diminish by law. This law has to be rational and focused on relationships, not morals. For
example, I don’t know my neighbors. The reasons for this have a lot to do with what
Durkheim is talking about: increases in transportation technologies, increasing divi-
sions of labor, and so on. But if I don’t know my neighbors, how can our relation-
ship be managed? Obviously, if I have a problem with their dog barking or their tree
easier to
limb falling on my house, there are laws and legal proceedings that manage the rela-
practice tionship. Increases in social and structural diversity thus create higher levels of resti-
morality as a
tutive law (in comparison to restrictive/moral law) and more centralized
means
government to administer law and relations. Of course, one of the things we come
to value is this kind of law and we come to believe in the right of a centralized gov-
ernment to enforce the law.
Both social and structural diversity also push for the formation of intermediary
groups. Remember, Durkheim always comes back to real groups in real interaction:
Culture can have independent effects but it requires interaction to be produced. Thus,
the problem becomes, how do individual occupational groups create a more general
value system if they don’t interact with one another? Durkheim theorizes that
societies will create intermediary groups—groups between the individual occupa-
tional groups and the collective consciousness. These groups are able to simultane-
ously carry the concerns of the smaller groups as well as the collective consciousness.
For example, I’m a sociology faculty member at the University of North
Carolina. Because of the demands of work, I rarely interact with faculty from other
disciplines (like psychology), and I only interact with medical doctors as a patient.
Yet I am a member of the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the ASA
interacts with the American Psychological Association and the American Medical
Association, as well as many, many others. And all of them interact with the U.S.
government as well as other institutional concerns. This kind of interaction
amongst intermediary groups creates a higher level of value generalization, which,
in turn, is passed down to the individual members. As Durkheim (1893/1984) says,

A nation cannot be maintained unless, between the state and individuals, a

whole range of secondary groups are interposed. These must be close enough
to the individual to attract him strongly to their activities and, in so doing, to
absorb him into the mainstream of social life. (p. liv)
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 127

As we’ve seen, structural interdependency, culture generalization, intermedi-

ary group formation, and restitutive law and centralization of power together
create organic solidarity (see Figure 5.2). Increasing division of labor systemi-
cally pushes for these changes: “Indeed, when its functions are sufficiently
linked together they tend of their own accord to achieve an equilibrium,
becoming self-regulatory” (Durkheim, 1893/1984, p. xxxiv). As a side note, part
of what we mean by functional analysis is this notion of system pressures cre-
ating equilibrium. Notice the dynamic mechanism: It is the system’s need that
brings about the change. It’s kind of like pulling your car into the gas station
because it needs gas. Society is a smart system, regulating its own requirements
and bringing about changes to keep itself in equilibrium. However, if popula-
tions grow and/or become differentiated too quickly, the system can’t keep up
and these functions won’t be “sufficiently linked together.” Society can then
become pathological or sick.
Durkheim elaborates two possible pathologies. (Actually, Durkheim men-
tions three—anomie, forced division of labor, and “lack of coordination”—but
he clearly elaborates only the first two.) The first is anomie—social instability
and personal unrest resulting from insufficient normative regulation of indi-
vidual activities. Durkheim argues that social life is impossible apart from nor-
mative regulation. People are naturally driven by individual appetites, and
without norms to regulate interactions, cooperation is impossible. If it were
necessary to

grope de novo for an appropriate response to every stimulus from the envi-
roning situation, threats to its integrity from many sources would promptly
effect its disorganization . . . to this end, it is altogether necessary that the
person be free from an incessant search for appropriate conduct.” (Durkheim,
1903/1961, p. 37)

Figure 5.2 Organic Solidarity

Structural
Interdependency

Culture
Generalization
Structural
Organic
and Social Push for Intermediary Creates
Solidarity
Diversity Group Formation

Restitutive Law
and
Centralization of
Power
128 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

The production of norms requires interaction. However, overly rapid population

growth with excessive division of labor and social diversity hinders groups from
interacting. Links among and between the groups cannot be formed when growth
and differentiation happen too quickly. The result is anomie.
The other pathology that Durkheim considers at some length involves class
inequality and the forced division of labor. Durkheim argues that the division of
labor must occur “spontaneously,” that is, apart from external constraint. Labor
should divide because of organic reasons: population growth and density. The divi-
sion of labor should not occur due to a powerful elite driven by profit motivations.
According to Durkheim, it is dysfunctional to force people to work in jobs for
which they are ill-suited:

We are certainly not predestined from birth to any particular form of

employment, but we nevertheless possess tastes and aptitudes that limit our
choice. If no account is taken of them, if they are constantly frustrated in our
daily occupation, we suffer, and seek the means of bringing that suffering to
an end. (Durkheim, 1893/1984, pp. 310–311)

This, of course, would represent a threat to social solidarity.

This condition is similar to what Marx talks about, but it is different as well. For
Marx, alienation is a state of existence that may or may not be subjectively experi-
enced by the individual. Alienation for Marx is defined by separation from species-
being, and we only become aware of it through critical and/or class consciousness.
Durkheim, on the other hand, assumes that humans are egotistical actors without
an essentially good nature from which to be alienated. Durkheim’s alienation comes
about only as a result of a pathological form of the division of labor—forced by
capitalist greed rather than organic evolution. It exists as a subjective state—we are
always aware of alienation when it occurs.
Durkheim’s solution for this pathological state is “justice” enforced by the state,
specifically, price controls by useful labor (equal pay for equal work) and elimina-
tion of inheritance. Two of the most powerful tools in producing a structure of
inequality are ascription and inheritance. Ascription assigns different status posi-
tions to us at birth, such as gender and race, and apart from legislation guarantee-
ing equal pay for equal work, they strongly influence inequality. For example,
studies done in the United States consistently show that women earn about 70% of
what a man makes for the same job with the same qualifications. Inheritance is an
obvious way to maintain structural inequality; estimates are that by 2055, at least
$41 trillion will be inherited in the United States (Havens & Schervish, 2003). Both
ascription and inheritance make the perpetuation of class differences appear nat-
ural: Our position is ascribed to us, and we are wealthy or poor by birth. America
may be the land of opportunity, but it is not the land of equal opportunity: It
matters if you are male or female, black or white, or go to school in Harlem or
Hollywood. On the other hand, if inheritance is done away with and laws are imple-
mented that bring equal pay for equal work, structured inequality would have a dif-
ficult time surviving.
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 129

Concepts and Theory: Individualism in Modern Society

In early societies, the human self was an utterly social self. People were caught
up in and saw themselves only in terms of the group. The self was an extension
of the group just as certainly as your arm is an extension of your body. Yet as
societies differentiated both structurally and socially, the self became more and
more isolated and took on the characteristics of an individual. Thus in mod-
ern societies, the individual takes on increasing importance. We can think of
many benefits from this shift. We have increased freedom of choice and indi-
vidual expression under conditions of organic solidarity. Yet there are some
dysfunctional consequences as well. Though Durkheim didn’t phrase it in this
way, in addition to the two pathologies of modern society listed above, we can
include suicide.

Suicide
There are two critical issues for the individual in modern society: the levels of
group attachment and behavioral regulation. People need a certain level of group
attachment. We are social creatures and much of our sense of meaning, reality, and
purpose comes from having interpersonal ties (both in terms of number and den-
sity) and a sense of “we-ness” or collective identity. To illustrate, imagine having
something be meaningful to you apart from language and feeling—what Durkheim
would call collective representations and sentiments. You might object and say,
“My feelings are my own.” That’s true, but what do you feel? Do you feel “anger”?
Do you feel “love”? Or, do you simply, purely feel? We rarely, if ever, simply and
purely feel. What are we doing when we say we feel anger? We are labeling certain
physiological responses and giving them meaning. The label is linguistic and the
meaning is social.
It should be clear by now that it is extremely difficult for us to untangle personal
meanings and realities from social ones. Certainly, because we are human, we can
create utterly individualistic realities and meanings, although we usually see those
realities and those people as either strange or crazy. Most of us are aware, and even
unconsciously convinced, that our meanings and realities have to be linked in some
way to the social group around us—which is why, when group attachment is too
low, Durkheim argues that egoistic suicide is likely: Low group attachment leads to
extreme individualism and the loss of a sense of reality and purpose.
However, extremely high group attachment isn’t a good thing for the individual
either. High attachment leads to complete fusion with the group and loss of indi-
vidual identity, which can be a problem in modernity. Under conditions of high
group attachment, people are more likely to commit altruistic suicide. The
Kamikaze pilots during World War II are a good example. Some contemporary
examples include religious cults, such as The People’s Temple and Heaven’s Gate,
and the group solidarity the U.S. government fosters in military boot camps. Under
conditions of high group attachment, individual life becomes meaningless and the
group is the only reality.
130 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

It’s important to note here that modern societies are characterized by the pres-
ence of both mechanical and organic solidarity. It is certainly true that in general
the society is held together by organic means—general values, restitutive law, and
dependent opposites—yet it is also true that pockets of very intense, particularized
culture and mechanical solidarity exist as well. These kinds of group interactions
may in fact be necessary for us. This need may explain such intense interaction
groups as dedicated fans of rock music or organized sports. Both of these groups
engage in the kind of periodic ritual gatherings that Durkheim explains in The
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. During these gatherings (shows or events),
rock and sports fans experience high levels of emotional energy and create clear
group symbols. Yet extremes of either organic or mechanical solidarity can be dan-
gerous, as Durkheim notes.
The other critical issue for individuals in modern society is the regulation of
their behaviors. Because in the advanced, industrialized nations we believe in indi-
vidualism, the idea of someone or something regulating our behavior may be
objectionable. But keep in mind Durkheim’s view of human nature. Apart from
regulation, our appetites would be boundless and ultimately meaningless. The indi-
vidual by himself or herself “suffers from the everlasting wranglings and endless
friction that occur when relations between an individual and his fellows are not
subject to any regulative influence” (Durkheim, 1887/1993, p. 24). Further, our
behaviors must have meaning for us with regard to time. Time, as we think of it, is
a function of symbols (the past and future only exist symbolically), and, of course,
symbols are a function of group membership.
Thus, there are a variety of reasons why the regulation of behaviors is necessary.
Behaviors need to be organized according to the needs and goals of the collective,
but the degree of regulation is important. Under conditions of rapid population
growth and diversity, anomie may result if the culture is unable to keep pace with
the social changes. Under these conditions, it is likely there will be an increase in
the level of anomic suicide. The lack of regulation of behaviors leads to a complete
lack of regulation of the individual’s desires and thus an increase in feelings of
meaninglessness. On the other hand, overregulation of behaviors leads to the loss
of individual effectiveness (and thus increases hopelessness), resulting in more
fatalistic suicide.
I’ve listed the suicide types in Table 5.2. It’s important to keep in mind that the
motivation for suicide is different in each case, corresponding to group attachment
and behavior regulation. Also note that the kinds of social pathologies we are talking
about here are different from the ones in the previous section. Here we are seeing how

Table 5.2 Suicide Types

Group Attachment Behavior Regulation

High Altruistic Suicide Fatalistic Suicide

Low Egoistic Suicide Anomic Suicide

 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 131

modernity can be pathological for the individual, in the extremes of attachment and
regulation. In the previous section, we looked at how modernity can be pathological
for society as a whole and its solidarity.

The Cult of the Individual

Both egoistic and anomic suicide can be seen as a function of high levels of indi-
viduality, but individuality itself is not the problem. Individualism is in fact neces-
sary in modernity. Before we go on, I need to make a distinction between this idea
of individuality and what might be called egoistic hedonism or materialism (what
most of us think of when we hear the term individualism: “I gotta be me.”). From
a Durkheimian view, individuals who are purely and exclusively out to fulfill their
own desires can never form the basis of a group. Group life demands that there be
some shared link that motivates people to work for the collective rather than indi-
vidual welfare. As we’ve seen in our discussion of Durkheim, this kind of group life
and awareness is dependent upon a certain degree of collective consciousness. The
idea of the individual that we have in mind here is therefore not pure ego. Rather,
what is at stake might better be understood as the idea of “individual rights” and
how it has progressed historically.
To do the concept justice, we should really go back to early Greek and then
Roman times. But in actuality, we need only go back to the founding of the United
States. What does the following sentence mean? “We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.” The history of the United States is the tale of working out the meaning
of that line. Obviously, the central struggle concerns the term “all men.” Initially, “all
men” referred only to white, property-owning, heterosexual, Protestant males.
Somewhere along the line, the U.S. government decided (often in response to fierce
civil struggle, such as the fight for women’s rights) that you didn’t have to own
property, and that you didn’t have to be male, or white, or Protestant, though you
still have to be heterosexual to have full access to civil rights. The reason there has
been struggle over this sentence is the basis that is given for these rights. According
to the quoted line, the basis for civil rights is simply being human. These rights can’t
be earned nor can they be taken away. They are yours not because of anything
you’ve done or because of any group membership, but simply because of your birth
into the human race. Thus, what matters isn’t what group you belong to; it’s you, as
an individual human being. It is this moral idea of individualism that Durkheim
has in mind and that has the potential for creating social solidarity.
Durkheim calls this new moral basis for society the “cult of the individual.” The
individual, as he or she is historically separated from the group, becomes the locus
of social concern and solidarity. The individual becomes the recipient of social
rights and responsibilities, rather than castes or lineages. Today we see the individ-
ual as perhaps the single most important social actor. Even our legal system here in
the United States is occupied with preserving the civil rights of the perpetrator of a
crime because it is the individual that is valued. The individual becomes the focus
132 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

of our idea of “justice,” which Durkheim sees as the “medicine” for some of the
problems that come with pathological forms of the division of labor. For example,
in a society such as the United States, the problems associated with labor issues,
poverty, deviance, and depression (all of which can be linked to Durkheim’s
pathologies) are generally handled individually through the court system or coun-
seling. Remember that Durkheim sees culture as the unifying force of society, so the
importance of these kinds of cases for Durkheimian sociology has more to do with
the culture that the practices create and reproduce than the actual legal or psycholog-
ical effects. In this way, the individual becomes a ritual focus of attention, the sym-
bol around which people can seek a kind of redress for the forced division of labor,
inequality, and anomie that we noted above. Today the individual has taken on a
moral life. But it is not the particular person per se, with all of his or her idiosyn-
crasies, that has value. Rather, it is the ethical and sacred idea of the individual that
is important. As Durkheim (1957) says,

This cult, moreover, has all that is required to take the place of the religious
cultures of former times. It serves as well as they to bring about the commu-
nion of minds and wills which is a first condition of any social life. (p. 69)

Summary
• Durkheim is extremely interested in what holds society together in modern
times. In order to understand this problem, he constructs a perspective that focuses
on three issues: social facts, collective consciousness, and the production of culture
in interaction. Durkheim argues that society is a social fact, an entity that exists in
and of itself, which can have independent effects. The facticity of society is
produced through the collective consciousness, which contains collective ideas and
sentiments. The collective consciousness is seen as the moral basis of society.
Though it may have independent effects, the collective consciousness is produced
through social interaction.
• Durkheim argues that the basis of society and the collective consciousness is
religion. Religion first emerged in society as small bands of hunter–gatherer groups
assembled periodically. During these gatherings, high levels of emotional energy
were created through intense interactions. This emotional energy, or effervescence,
acted as a contagion and influenced the participants to behave in ways they
normally wouldn’t. So strong was the effervescent effect that participants felt as if
they were in the presence of something larger than themselves as individuals, and
the collective consciousness was born. The emotional energy was symbolized and
the interactions ritualized so that the experience could be duplicated. The symbols
and behaviors became sacred to the group and provided strong moral boundaries
and group identity.
• Because of high levels of division of labor, modern society tends to work
against the effects of the collective consciousness. People in work-related groups
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 133

and differentiated structures create particularized cultures. As a result, society has

to find a different kind of solidarity than one based on religious or traditional
collective consciousness. Organic solidarity integrates a structurally and socially
diverse society through interdependency, generalized ideas and sentiments,
restitutive law and centralized power, and through intermediary groups. These
factors take time to develop, and if a society tries to move too quickly from
mechanical to organic solidarity, it will be subject to pathological states, such as
anomie and the forced division of labor.
• At the center of modern society is the cult of the individual. The ideal of
individuality, not the idiosyncrasies of individual people, becomes one of the most
generalized values a society can have. However, the individual can also be subject to
pathological states, depending on the person’s level of group attachment and
behavioral regulation. If a society produces the extremes of either of these, then the
suicide rate will tend to go up. Suicide due to extremes in group attachment is
characterized as either egoistic or altruistic. Suicide due to extremes in behavioral
regulation is characterized as either anomic or fatalistic.

TAKING THE PERSPECTIVE—FUNCTIONALISM

AND SOCIOLOGY OF CULTURE

In some ways, Durkheim has informed sociological theory in more profound yet diffuse ways
than anyone in this book. The most obvious at the moment is that he adds to the functionalist
perspective that we reviewed in Chapter 2. Durkheim specifically adds culture/collective
consciousness to Spencer’s three requisite functions. These four functions are brought together
in Talcott Parsons’ theory, which we’ll look at in Chapter 8. More generally Durkheim’s idea of
social facts has become part of our cultural capital as sociologists. As you know, sociology is
fundamentally based on the idea that there are social factors that influence human life. In that
these factors are perceived as institutions or structures, chances are good that the idea comes
from Durkheim’s idea of the social fact. We’ve also seen how his study of suicide informs the
kind of methodology practiced in sociology. In fact, Durkheim’s concern with social order and
integration is one of the primary questions in sociology today.
A more specific influence Durkheim’s had is on culture: “The compelling case can be made that,
more than any other classical figure, it is to Durkheim that the contemporary cultural revival
. . . is most deeply in debt” (Alexander, 1988, p. 4). What Durkheim did specifically was to give
culture an independent place in sociological theorizing. One of the concepts that the idea of
social science is based upon is the notion of independent effects. In other words, if society can
be studied scientifically, then it must contain some form of its own laws of action apart from
the people who make it up and it must be able to independently act upon people. Durkheim
poses this kind of question about culture and argues that culture exists independently and
operates autonomously. Another way to put this is to say that culture is structured—signs,
(Continued)
134 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

(Continued)
symbols, and categories are related to one another in a way that influences how people think,
feel, and act. Durkheim was really one of the first to consider such a thing, but this idea came
to form an entire school of research called linguistic structuralism, which later influenced
semiotics and poststructuralism (two influential contemporary schools of cultural analysis). We
will consider poststructuralism in Chapter 17.

BUILDING YOUR THEORY TOOLBOX

Learning More—Primary and Secondary Sources

• Primary sources: Almost every book of Durkheim’s is worth reading. The following are
indispensable:
 Durkheim, É. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method (S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller,
Trans.; G. E. G. Catlin, Ed.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work published 1895)
 Durkheim, É. (1951). Suicide: A Study in Sociology (J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson,
Trans.). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (Original work published 1897)
 Durkheim, É. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York:
The Free Press. (Original work published 1893)
 Durkheim, É. (1995). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (K. E. Fields, Trans.).
New York: The Free Press. (Original work published 1912)
• Durkheim secondary sources:
 Alexander, J. C. (Ed.). (1988). Durkheimian Sociology: Cultural Studies. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. (Excellent collection of contemporary readings
concerning Durkheim’s contribution to cultural sociology)
 Giddens, A. (1978). Émile Durkheim. New York: Viking Press. (Brief introduction to
Durkheim’s work by one of contemporary sociology’s leading theorists)
 Jones, R. A. (1986). Émile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage. (Part of the Masters of Social Theory series; short, book-length
introduction to Durkheim’s life and work)
 Lukes, S. (1972). Émile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study.
New York: Harper & Row. (The definitive book on Durkheim’s life and work)
 Meštrovic, S. G. (1988). Émile Durkheim and the Reformation of Sociology.
Totawa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. (Unique treatment of Durkheim’s work;
emphasizes Durkheim’s vision of sociology as a science of morality that could
replace religious morals)
 Chapter 5 • The Problem With Diversity: Émile Durkheim 135

Seeing the Social World (knowing the theory)

• Add Durkheim’s contribution to functionalist analysis that you wrote for Chapter 2.
• Compare and contrast Durkheim’s approach to culture and the cultural sociology we
talked about in Chapter 4.
• After reading and understanding this chapter, you should be able to define the following
terms theoretically and explain their theoretical importance to Durkheim’s theory: social facts,
society sui generis, collective conscious, religion, sacred and profane, ritual, effervescence, social
solidarity (mechanical and organic), punitive and restitutive law, the division of labor, social
differentiation, cultural generalization, intermediary groups, social pathologies, anomie, suicide
(altruistic, fatalistic, egoistic, and anomic), the cult of the individual
• After reading and understanding this chapter, you should be able to answer the
following questions (remember to answer them theoretically):
 Explain the organismic analogy and use it to analyze the relations among and
between social structures.
 Define social facts and explain how society exists sui generis.
 Explain how society is based on religion.
 Discuss how Durkheimian rituals create sacred symbols and group moral boundaries.
 Define collective consciousness, social solidarity, and mechanical and organic solidarity.
 Explain the problem of modernity and describe how organic solidarity creates
social solidarity in modernity.
 Describe how organic solidarity can produce certain social pathologies.
 Define the cult of the individual and explain its place in producing organic solidarity.

Engaging the Social World (using the theory)

• I’d like for you to go to a sporting event—football, basketball, or hockey would be best.
Analyze that experience using Durkheim’s theory of rituals. What kind of symbols did you
notice? What kinds of rituals? Did the rituals work as Durkheim said they would? What
do you think this says about religious rituals in contemporary society? Can you think of
other events that have the same characteristics?
• There are a lot of differences between gangs and medical doctors. But there might also
be some similarities. Using Durkheim’s theory and perspective, how are gangs and
medical doctors alike?
• Explain this event and the reactions from a Durkheimian perspective: On September 11,
2001, hijacked jetliners hit the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon outside
Washington, D.C. News headlines around the world proclaimed “America Attacked” and
people in places such as San Diego, CA; Detroit, MI; and Cornville, AZ, wept openly.
What Durkheimian processes must have been in place for such an event to happen? And,
(Continued)
136 MODERNITY AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSE

(Continued)

how would Durkheim explain the fact that Americans had such a strong emotional
reaction to the loss of people unknown to them? Also, explain the subsequent use of
flags and slogans, and the “war on terrorism,” using Durkheim’s theory.
• Often in theory class, I will take the students on a walk. We walk through campus,
through a retail business section, past a church, and through a residential area. Either
think about such a walk or go on an actual walk yourself. Based on Durkheim’s
perspective (not necessarily his theory), what would he see? How would it be different
from what Marx would see?

Weaving the Threads (building theory)

• Compare and contrast Spencer, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim on the central features of
modernity. What do they say makes a society modern? What problems do they see
associated with modern society and modern lives?
• Compare and contrast Spencer’s and Durkheim’s theories of social change and the
problems of integration. How can they be integrated?
• How does Weber expand Spencer’s theory on the evolution of religion? Compare and
contrast Spencer, Durkheim, and Weber on the origins and functions of religion.
• Analyze Marx’s position on religion using Durkheim’s theory. I don’t want you to argue
for or against Marx; I want you to understand Marx’s position using Durkheim.