After reading Durkheim's theory on the division of labor, I come away a little confused with more questions than answers.
The Problem
On the surface it appears that the division of labor is killing off the agricultural societies, in favor of those which are coming together or condensing. This division isn't unique to the workplace, Durkheim goes on to mention that it can be commonly experienced in the rest of society. Each division brings about a new and greater degree of specialization, which is continuous.
The Function of the Division of Labour
"The more closely knit the members of a society, the more they maintain various relationships either with one another or with the group collectively."
Basically, lol I hope, the more people interact with one another the greater the benefit will be to society and themselves. As long as the relationship does not involve crimes or the such which would hurt the collective consciousness.
I also got the persistent notion that in order for the collective consciousness to expand and prosper, laws which were used back when mechanical solidarity worked must be changed/revamped to keep up with the ever changing social solidarity.
The next part dealing with customs vs laws kind of through me for a loop, so my interpretation on the subject matter may be a little/a lot off. It would seem as though customs are used to tie up the loose ends which laws may leave negated. In any case, they are used mostly as a supplement to the existing law and more often than not, take a backseat to them.
Durkheim then discusses the different forms of solidarity and how the only way to ever knowing why they exist must be found through science, ex: sociology. He argues that full interpretation of the matter at hand cannot be found using psychology, for it is only good at leaving out the details and skimming the surface.
He believed each legal rule depended on the circumstance and degree of the crime. In essence, one being the punishment for the crime and the other being the one who says what part of the collective consciousness the said crime is disrupting, also known as the penal code.
Mechanical Solidarity
In a nutshell, society creates a common consciousness to which all the individuals in it are suppose to adhere to. It allows for generations to be linked together because of the way it is set up. While most lie within this common grouping, there are others, such as the govt. whose job it is to stay outside the box and monitor its happenings.
In regards to this collective consciousness, two points seemed abundantly clear. One, no matter what the crime, the fact that it is considered a crime by the group is what makes it a bad thing. The second point goes back to the old saying that just because we like something does not mean it is good. In other words, if the collective consciousness takes up a habit, there's always the chance it might hurt the cause. So does this mean the individual must rearrange their likes and dislikes to go along with the collective consciousness in order for the whole to progress to its fullest?
If we did not have/share these similar attitudes (to some extent) as the rest of the collective consciousness, then society would end up failing or at the very least suffer significant hardships.
Organic Solidarity/Closing statements
I found this part of the text particularly interesting and was eager to hear others viewpoints/interpretations.
"If we have a strong inclination to think and act for ourselves we cannot be strongly inclined to think and act like other people. If the ideal is to create for ourselves a special, personal image, this cannot mean to be like everyone else."
So the only way to be ourselves is to go against the common collective?
"Moreover, at the very moment when this solidarity exerts its effect, our personality, it may be said by definition, disappears, for we are no longer ourselves, but a collective being."
In giving up ourselves in the name of society we in turn also give up our individual consciousness. After reading this I immediately thought back to the Nazi and how so many of them were dependent to the collective.
The rest of the reading seemed to emphasize the relationship between the division of labor and the advancement of society. From what I gathered, the greater the division the greater the progress of the collective. He made sure to mention that a country which has many people and lots of divisions doesn't always mean advancement. He noted that the industrialized nations were the ones who did away with agriculture based societies the quickest. It would seem the countries which jumped on the collective bandwagon first are also the ones running things today. However, this won't always hold true. As society changes so does the collective for they are one in the same.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
After reading this chapter, I too felt a little confused by some of Durkheim’s concepts. I feel that the blog does a good job of breaking down Durkheim’s ideas. For the first part of the reading, I felt like Durkheim was going back and forth with the question of which comes first, social solidarity or the strength of individuals that causes social solidarity? Evidently enough, these two actually go hand-in-hand.
The quote that was pulled out of the reading explains this more clearly. "The more closely knit the members of a society, the more they maintain various relationships either with one another or with the group collectively." The way this quote was explained reminds me of college. Think about the first day of a new semester. You are going to classes full of your peer, yet you don’t know anyone. As time goes by, you develop a relationship with the people that have routinely sat beside you. Becoming closely knit with at least one individual in class is beneficial to you, as long as no established “laws” are being broken. As for these laws, I do agree that they may take precedence over customs. In some instances though, laws may be made to fit the customs. The consequences for these laws vary, and are often though determined by the type of crime and the circumstances.
As for mechanical solidarity, I think it has to be give and take. We are all linked generation by generation, but think of how many changes are made between the generations. People should not have to change all of their likes and dislikes just to fit the collective consciousness, but there is some conformity that needs to take place. I don’t believe that society would end up failing is people do not share most of the same ideas. Think of issues that are currently brought to our attention. People have a wide variety of views, yet somehow we make it work. Mainly it seems we make it work because we establish these differences by creating laws. Our proposals on the ballots try to establish the consensus on issues. I think people can, or even do go against the common collect. People are free to express their views. For the most part, there are many that are dependent on society, but there are always others that find a way to be themselves.
Post a Comment