Emile Durkheim: Social Integration

By Paul Andrew Bourne



In Durkheim's initial work, he explained social control and the maintenance of social order within society primarily from the perspective of external constraints. In his later works, however, he emphasized that social norms are internalized, they form society, they are living within us, and that they are not merely imposed on individuals from the outside (Coser, 1982). He contended that the processes of social and systems integration facilitated the internalization of norms. Durkheim proposed a socio-centric perspective that took the social group or society as the premise of analysis. The main tenet of this perspective is that the individual exists as a product of society (Calhoun et al, 1994).

To Coser (1977), a part of Durkheim's doctrine is his insistence that the study of society is a social phenomenon. He (Durkheim) was very attentive to the socio-structural determinants of the problems of humanity, and this fashioned his theorizing on social order (Coser, 1977). Durkheim said that
Social phenomena are social facts which are external to individuals and endure over time while individuals die and are replaced by others. Moreover, they are not solely external to the individual but they are endowed with coercive power, by which they impose themselves upon him, independent of his will (Durkheim, 1950, 123).


Constraints were either in the form of laws or customs that arose whenever social demands are isolated. Those sanctions seek to channel and direct the desires and propensities of men, thus serving to maintain order. As such, a social fact is everywhere, and is capable of exercising constraint on individuals.

Increasingly, the more events men experience, the more things they demand for the satisfaction of unforeseeable desires, and this is because attained satisfactions are only stimuli for more wants instead of their fulfillment. One sociologist believe that wants are natural insatiability and that the human animal's desires can only be held in check by external controls, that is, by societal control. Hence, society imposes limits on human desires and constitutes a regulative force that must play the same role for moral needs, which the organism plays for physical needs (Coser, 1977). Societies that are well regulated institute social controls on its populace, which set particular limits on an individual's propensities so that "each in his sphere vaguely realizes the extreme limits on individual propensities, so that each in his sphere vaguely realizes the extreme limits set to his ambitions and aspires to nothing beyond" (Coser, 1977).

Essentially, Durkheim professed that in his natural state, man is unrestricted and dangerous. He saw man as being homoduplex (Coser, 1977). This ?'homoduplexity' encompassed natural as well as the social man. Durkheim recognized the ?'true man', however, as one in which the social dominates the natural. It, therefore, follows that a complete individual has imprinted on his/her being the ?'Collective Conscience' despite the fact that he/she functions outside of his/her social space.
Durkheim stressed that social facts and more particularly moral rules become internalized in the consciousness of the individual while continuing to exist independently of that individual. "According to Durkheim's formulation, constraint is not a simple imposition of outside controls on individual will, but rather is a moral obligation to obey rules" (Coser, 1977). This explains why Durkheim coined the terminology "Collective Conscience" to address a certain social construct in society. This ?'Collective Conscience' speaks to the systematic acceptance of sets of norms, values, morals, rules and behaviours that are held as sacred and binding by the members of that group or society (Calhoun et al, 1994).

In seeking to distinguish between the typologies of society or solidarity, Durkheim coined the phrase ?'Mechanical and Organic Society/Solidarity'. A society in which ?'Mechanical Solidarity' prevails is one in which ideas and tendencies common to all members of that group are greater in number and intensity than those are, which pertain personally to each person (Coser, 1977). This type of solidarity grows only in inverse ratio to personality. In that, it prevails when individual differences are minimized. Solidarity in this case, which comes from likeness, is at its maximum when the ?'Collective Conscience' of the people envelops entire conscience and coincides with it at all points. ?'Organic Solidarity', on the other hand, is developed out of differences between individuals; it is a product of ?'division of labour' (Coser, 1977) with increasing differentiation in functions and difference between members of that society.

While individuals in an ?'Organic Society' have minute commonalities, they are nonetheless interdependent than under ?'Mechanical Solidarity'. This is precisely because people are involved in differentiated modes, and specialized dissimilar activities. People become highly dependent on each other and so networks develop between individuals. In these systems, there can be some release from external controls but such release is in tune with not in conflict with the high degree of dependence of individuals on their fellows (Coser, 1977). Both typologies of solidarity reveal that ?'Organic' societies are modern and complex; and are high in heterogeneity, division of labour and individuality. There are recitative laws and views. On the other hand, ?'Mechanical' societies are characterized by a simple way of life, homogeneity, limited division of labour, limited individuation, repressive laws and view individuals as dispensable and an unimportant, as they are alike in their mode of operations.

In Durkheim's early work, he stressed that ?'Mechanical societies' were characterized by a strong system of beliefs or ?'Collective Conscience' while ?'Organic societies' needed fewer common beliefs to bind members of that society. He, however, later revised this theorizing to stress that even ?'Organic societies' require a common faith or ?'Collective Conscience' if they are to function. Otherwise, they would disintegrate into a heap of mutually antagonistic and self-seeking individuals.

Durkheim believed that societal integration is achieved either through system or social mechanism. They allow for the regulation of society. First, social integration occurs through a process by which individuals are absorbed into groups. This has to do with the ?'Collective Conscience' interpenetrating the individual thus making him/her a ?'true' social\human being. Second, whereas systems integration speaks to the apparatus of the various groups into which individuals have been absorbed and the connectivity of those systems in a functional unit (Eitzen et al, 1993). Systems integration is, therefore, synonymous with organisms and how they are integrated into a cohesive and functional unit like an engine.

According to Nicos Mouzelis, social integration focuses on the individual's view and interpersonal relationship in specific social contexts. This is achieved through some orderly or conflictual relationships between them. He also emphasized that systems integration focuses on compatible or incompatible linkages between the different parts of the social system (Stones, 1998), and that this integration serves to incorporate the ?'Collective Conscience' into all individuals of that society. In keeping with Durkheim's view of the functionality, it is pertinent to note that he argued that "any society whether primitive or modern which is void of a common set of symbolic representations and common assumptions about the world to which its members are anchored is destined to degenerate or decay" (Coser, 1977). Therefore, if ?'Collective Conscience' is not imprinted on the individual's psyche within that society, because of insatiable appetites of man, he will develop into a self-seeking antagonistic creature that will be in continuous conflict. Moreover, as such it will be impossible to achieve social order.

Social and systems integration are responsible for the ?'culturization' of individuals. Individuals are socialized to the specific value system pertinent to the groups (or the societies) in which he/she exists through social and system integrations. This value system or the ?'Collective Conscience' is primarily responsible for the proper formation of individuals; this Durkheim argued is the rationale for man being ?'truly' social animal. This explains the harmony and functionality that exists in society. Therefore, social order is achievable and attainable because of the particular ?'culturization' that was embedded on the being and not because he/she was born in a certain space. Therefore, when social and systems integration occur effectively then they will serve directly as means of organizing the behaviours and thoughts of individuals and indirectly serve to maintain social order. In brief social and systems integration primarily serve to facilitate social order by ensuring that individuals develop the collective conscience that instructs them how to interact with each other.

?'Culturization' through socialization is the premise upon which social order is established for a group (i.e. a society). On the contrary, if the processes of integration do not occur smoothly then conflictual relationships will arise and if they are nonexistent, then the mechanism that holds that group together will be different from other social spaces to which linkages were effectively forwarded and appropriate instill in the social space. (Eitzen et al 1993). When social regulations operating within a society dissipate, then the influence of society on that individual's propensity to function appropriately within that space is no longer effective and that individual is left to his/her own devices. Social order is not automatic because a society exists, but is a learnt process through ?'culturization' from the process of socialization. As stated by Coser (1977) such a state of affairs Durkheim calls anomie. It characterizes a condition in which individual desires are no longer regulated by common norms and where, consequently, individuals are left without moral guidance in the pursuit of their goals. Anomie develops when social, systems integration fails, and the insatiable appetites and ambitions of humans are not curbed. Anomie does not refer to a state of mind, but to a property of the social structure.

According to Coser (1977) although complete anomie, or total "normless", is empirically impossible, societies may be characterized by greater or lesser degrees of normative regulations. Moreover, within any particular society, groups may differ in the degree of ?'anomie' that besets them. Social change may create ?'anomie' either in the whole society or in some parts of it. Durkheim, on the other hand, expressed great concern with the characteristics and structure of groups rather than with the attributes of the individuals themselves. Groups differ in the degree of their integration. Certain groups have a firm hold on their members and integrate them fully within their boundaries, while others may allow individuals a great degree of leeway. He focused on problems including cohesion or the lack of it.
Durkheim investigated the rates of different behaviours on specific populations, along with characteristics and the change of these characteristic in particular groups (Coser, 1977). For example, a significant increase in suicide rates in a particular group indicates that the social cohesion of that group has been weakened and its members are no longer sufficiently protected against existential crises. In a ?'strongly' integrated society, however, members are held under "control" through the socialization process, and thus the group cushions them to a significant extent from the impact of the frustrations and tragedies that afflict humans. Hence, they are less likely to resort to extreme behaviours such as suicide. However, in some cultures individuals are socialized to believe that during specific circumstances suicide serves the greater good of the society or ones fellowmen or that it essentially serves to preserve or restore honour and as such is the honourable thing to do (Eitzen et al, 1993). Therefore, this explains the rationale of the suicide bombers of the Middle East, and not that they are psychotic or maladjusted within the social system but that this is an aspect to the social order of that space.

One major element of integration is the extent to which various group members interact with one another. Within a group, several activities serve to improve and facilitate social integration. The example here is participating in rituals serves to ?'pull' the individuals into common activities and bind them together (Coser, 1977). On The other hand, tasks that depend on differentiated but complimentary tasks do the same. The principle of differentiation within a social space still subscribe to the general pattern of ?'division of labour' and not disintegration of task. When disintegration of roles occur within a social space, or when anarchy occurs, ?'division of roles' that blends like an organism fails to stipulate the task of each elements with the whole. This whole is fashioned on the principle of consensus, even though ?'division of labour' is occurring within the general setting.

Wherever there is a high degree of value consensus/'Collective Conscience', then there will be less behavioural deviance and as such, social disorder. Proper integration of individuals into society delivers social order to the said society. This order is synonymous with cohesion, consensus, reciprocity, stability, harmony and persistence (Eitzen et al, 1993). Societies are regarded as social systems composed of interdependent parts, which are linked in a boundary maintaining whole. Therefore, a high degree of integration results in consensus on societal goals and cultural values. Thus, it follows that social order will only be in existence when there is general conviction on the same rules essentially convincing members to cooperate rather than compete.

Conflict indicates that the system is in a process of obliteration (i.e. "breaking down") to which limits are boundless. Interconnectedness are low, which is the midpoint of complete disintegration of the social system. According to Coser (1982) conflict or the absence of social order serves two purposes. Firstly, it indicates that greater integrative issues must be resolved in order for the society to remain as a functional whole. Secondly, it strengthens the bonds between the elements in society. Conflict cultivates the integrative process of a social space, the members of the society are unified when the integrative bonds are strengthened resulting in a functionally integrative system that is in a perpetual state of renewal. Hence, Durkheim's theorizing that social order is a learnt process holds much merit as man is a social being because of socialization process of that society.

Durkheim maintained that the true essence of control lay in the individual's sense of moral obligation to rule, which is the voluntary acceptance of duty because of social and systems integration. Social integration serves to fully incorporate individuals within groups; these are in turn linked together via the process of systems integration. The internalization of the ?'Collective Conscience', which comes about due to social and systems integration is the most important element in maintaining social order. As such, it is clear that integration seeks to oppose deviance in society and hence achieve order.

Social and systems integration serve to perpetuate social order as the rules and sanctions that are passed on through the ?'Collective Conscience' serve to channel or direct the propensities of individuals and as such encouraging social order.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Calhoun, C. Light, D. Keller, S. & Harper, D. (1994). Sociology, (6th ed). McGraw Hill Inc.


Coser, Lewis A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context, (2nd ed). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanvich, Inc.

Coser, Lewis A. (1982). Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings, (5th ed). Macmillan Publishing.

Durkheim, Emile. (1953). Sociology and Philosophy. New York, The Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. (1950). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York, The Free Press.

Eitzen, D.S. & Zinn, M.R. (1993). In Conflict and Order: Understanding Society Allyn & Bacon.

Stones, Robb. (1998). Key Sociological Thinkers. Macmillan Press 1998.