Durkheims Approach to Sociological Analysis

Durkheims Approach to sociological AnalysisOutline the main features of Durkheims approach to sociological analysis, and discuss how this whitethorn be used to understand felo-de-se rate.Durkheim was a French positivist, with an emphasis on functionalism, which revolves around a biological standardisedity where in nightspot, is seen as an organic whole with each comp int working(a) to maintain the others, similar to the human body. Its main enkindle is seeing how these separate create a stable whole.One of the main aras of Durkheims approach is the revolve virtually on affable occurrences, these argon social phenomena and ways of thinking and behaving that agree individuals in some manner or other and can implicate institutions much(prenominal) as the take and education. They appear from collectively formed rules and practices, be they apparitional or secular and ar beyond our tell as individuals. Because of these social facts individuals read littler or no contro l all over their own actions, rather than constructing their own world they are directed by the system as community needs certain social behaviours and phenomena to survive. These social facts are passed on from generation to generation and shared among the individuals. From this perspective it is not individual go away that drives behaviours but rather the usual norms and determine of guild that shape ones consciousness. Not only are these types of behaviour and thinking immaterial to the individual, but they are en delinquentd with a compelling and coercive power by virtue of which, whether he wishes it or not, they impose themselves upon him (Durkheim, 1895 pp50). These social facts form the soil of a collective consciousness, which Durkheim sees as the body of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society (Durkheim, 1893). This collective consciousness promotes solidarity, forging a common marry between individuals in a society, creating a form of o rder and stability. Without a form of moral consensus there would be conflict and disorder From where interest is the only ruling for each individual finds him egotism in a state of was with every other (Durkheim, 1973, p89) Since the collective consciousness is a social fact it too constrains individuals to act in terms of the great acceptable and for the good of the society and is deeply imprinted on the individual as without it there would be no society as we know it. These social facts can call for problems if they regulate too ofttimes or not enough, without enough control the individual would give in to their own wants and desires, with too such(prenominal) they would live repressed, inevitably both will lead to deviance, that organism going against the norms and determine of society.From a collective consciousness come two forms of solidarity, organic and mechanical. fundamental solidarity is establish upon a dependence that individuals in an advanced society shoppin g centre on each other. It is common among societies where the division of labor is high. Though individuals coiffure different tasks and often become different values and interests, the order and extract of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specific tasks. Mechanical solidarity on the other hand is based upon the similarities among individuals in a society, within it people feel connected through similar work, education and religious practices. It primarily exists in societies that possess a subaltern division of labour where this is little interdependence between individuals and where there is a basic or lack of organisation and compared to societies with organic solidarity there is to a greater extent value placed on religion, society and its interests and there is a greater collective consciousness and less emphasise placed on individualism, that macrocosm where you count yourself as an individual rather than part of a group, pose yourself f irst etc (Haralambos 2004 pp). From organic solidarity and individualism can come anomie, this is a ace of normlessness, where norms themselves are unclear, broken down or unregulated If the rules of the conjugal faith lose their authority, and the mutual obligations of husband and wife become less respected, the emotions and appetites rule by this sector of morality will become unrestricted and uncontained, and accentuated by this very release powerless to fulfil themselves because they have been freed from all limitations, these emotions will produce a disillusionment which manifests itself visibly(Durkheim, 1972, p. 173) He noted that it was common in societies that possessed a less defined collective consciousness and a higher fare of individualismThe state of anomie is impossible whenever interdependent organs are sufficiently in contact and sufficiently extensive. If they are remnant to each other, they are readily aware, in every situation, of the need which they have of one-another, and consequently they have an active and permanent feeling of mutual dependence.(Durkheim, 1895, p184)Imbalances in the measurement of regulation caused by social facts and the amount of desegregation from solidarity are one of the main factors within self-destruction, less advanced societies having too much integration and regulation and industrial societies have too littler of either. Durkheim say that suicide was a social act, not entirely an individual one revolving around the relationships between the individual and society. He found that there was a correlation between the suicide rate and various social facts. For voice he found that suicide rates were higher in Protestant countries than catholic ones, he too found that there was a suffering rate during times of social and political upheaval due to the amount of solidarity that such events creates (Durkheim in Marsh, pp66-69). He laid out four types of suicide, depending on the degree that individuals wer e involved in society and on the degree that their behaviour was regulated. The four types being egoistic, anomic, altruistic and fatalistic. Egoistic suicide is common in industrial societies with high amounts of division of labour and comes from a high amount of individualism, which stems from a low amount of integration due to a untoughened collective consciousness from the social groups from which they originally belonged in effect society allows the individual to escape it In this case the bond attaching man to biography relaxes because that attaching himself to society is itself slack (Durkheim in Marsh pp67). This sort of suicide Durkheim verbalise accounted for the differences of suicide rates between Protestants and Catholics, with Catholicisms demanding a higher amount of conformity, in comparison to the Protestant church that encouraged the individual to interpret the religious texts in their own way without stigma. Another type of suicide common in industrial societie s is anomic which results from a low amount of regulation. It occurs when norms and values are disrupted by social change, procuring feelings of uncertainty within the individual. Whenever sobering read entirelyments take place in the social order, whether or not due to a sudden growth or to an unexpected catastrophe, men are more inclined to self destruction (Durkheim in K. Thompson, 1971, pp109) Durkheim found that suicide rates rose during positive as well as prohibit directions of social change. He noted that there was a rise aft(prenominal) the crash of the Paris stock exchange in 1882 and the conquest of capital of Italy in 1870 by Victor-Emmanuel which resulted in rising salaries and living standards but also a rise in the suicide rate.On the opposite emplacement of the spectrum is altruistic suicide that comes from a high amount of integration and weapons-grade feeling of society and solid collective consciousness. This form of suicide is broadly speaking present in pr e-industrial societies who possess mechanical solidarity. This was seen as a self sacrifice for the good of the group This sacrifice then is imposed by society for social ends (Durkheim in Marsh, pp68). It is not done because it seen as the vanquish option but more out of a sense of responsibility to said group. For someone to do such an act out of trade then they must have little self worth, the individual being fully submerged into a group and feeling like just a part of a greater thing, thus highly integrated. For society to be able to compel some of its members to kill themselves, the individual character can have little value. For as soon as the last mentioned begins to form, the right to existence is the first conceded (Ibid, pp68) Various types of this can be seen throughout muniment, Vikings considers it dishonourable to die of old age or sickness and so ended their own lives to avoid social disgrace. Durkheim placed no immensity on fatalistic suicide, saying that it had more place in history than in modern societies. It occurred when society restricted an individual so much that they were repressed, feeling that they had no futures or dreams.One of the major criticisms of Durkheims analysis is his concepts of integration and regulation. Durkheim gives no hint as to how one would measure integration or regulation for example he simply asks us to assume that such underlying concepts are significant in relation to the explanation of suicide. He assumes that suicidal behavior results from a deviation from normal levels of integration and regulation. We are given no idea what exactly is a normal level, so we cannot say what amount of regulation and integration is normal or subnormal (Web ref 1). However with some work, it could be possible to come up with various test relating to theses concepts, so that we could measure them among different groups in society. A second criticism is that his work on suicide is based upon formalised statistics from the 19th century He gives us little idea about the reliability of the source of the statistics and the methods used in recording them could not be up to scratch, some could be wrong, since they were hand written things could be read and so on. Another factor is that the determination of suicide involves is process of version by numerous people such as policemen, doctors, coroners etc (Ibid). In this respect, we have no real way of determining either the reliability or validity of suicide statistics. The coroner is the one who decides whether death was due to suicide or not and various factors can sway his judgment towards it not being so. The individuals verdict depends on their outlook on their work and on their outlook on suicide. Some would be thorough in the investigating whilst others would be concerned about not intruding upon the rights and feelings of the surviving relatives. For example if the victim was Catholic, since traditionally the Catholic Church view suicide as a sin, the coroner may well make his decision based on the effect that the stigma that a suicide verdict carries may have on the relatives. It is known that coroners in Catholic countries such as Italy and Mexico are more-reluctant to straighten out a suspicious death as suicide than coroners in non-Catholic countries. Another fact is that some countries suicide is classified as a crime, in such countries, coroners tend to be more-reluctant to classify a death as suicide than in countries where such a legality does not apply, for example when suicide was illegal in Britain the punishment was that departed property would be ceased by the state, so it would be justifiable to confine a suicide as something else to avert any more tragedy. in addition where the victim was insured against death, coroners tend to be less likely to classify death as suicide than in instances where there is none, as such an act can void the coverage. One final criticism is that he does not take into loo k into individual action as a cause however he does briefly acknowledge it but claims that it has no part in sociology (Ibid)BibliographyDurkheim, E (1973). Moral Education. Macmillan USADurkheim, E (1975). On Morality and Society. revised ed. Chicago Chicago University PressDurkheim, E (1982). The Rules of the Sociological Method. revised ed. London The Free Press.Durkheim, E (1997). The Division of Labour in Society. revised ed. London The Free PressHaralambos and Holborn (2004). Sociology themes and perspectives. 6th ed. London CollinMarsh.I (1998). immaculate and Contemporary Readings in Sociology. London Pretince Hall.Thompson.K and Tunstall.J (1983). Sociological Perspectives. 9th ed. London Penguin Books