EMILE DURKHEIM’S SOCIAL AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

Paul Andrew Bourne, B.Sc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.



Durkheim's initial work attempted to explain social control and the maintenance of order in society, primarily from the perspective of exterior constraints. In his later works, he was led to emphasis that social norms were internalized and that they are society, living in us and that they were not merely imposed on individuals from the outside (Coser, 1982). He contended that the processes of social and systems integration facilitate the internalization of norms. Durkheim proposed a socio-centric perspective that takes the social group or society as the starting point of analysis. The main tenet of this perspective is that the individual does not exist except 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 must consider social phenomena. He (Durkheim) was very attentive to the social-structural determinants of the problems of humanity (Coser, 1977).

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).


The constraints whether in the form of laws or customs arise 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 can be defined as every way of acting fixed or not, capable of exercising constraint on individuals.

The more men receive, the more men want, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of filling needs. "It follows from this natural insatiability of the human animal that his desires can only be held in check by external controls, that is, by societal control. Society imposes limits on human desires and constitutes a regulative force which must play the same role for moral needs which the organism plays for physical needs" (Coser, 1977). The societies that are well regulated have social controls which set limits on individual 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 sees man as being homoduplex (Coser, 1977). This ?'homoduplexity' encompassed natural and social man. The true man however he saw as one in which the social dominates. It therefore follows that the complete individual has imprinted on his being the collective conscience. Durkheim stressed that social facts and more particularly moral rules become internalized in the consciousness of individuals while continuing to exist independently of the 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 refers to the development of what Durkheim coined the "collective conscience". This collective conscience refers to the systematic acceptance of those sets of norms, values, morals, rules and behaviours that are held as sacred and binding by the members of a group or society (Calhoun et al, 1994).

Durkheim distinguished between two types of societies or solidarity coined Mechanical and Organic Society /Solidarity. A society in which mechanical solidarity prevails is one in which ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society 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 envelops our entire conscience and coincides with it at all points. Organic solidarity on contrast develops out of differences between individuals; it is a product of division of labour (Coser, 1977). With increasing differentiation in functions in a society comes an increasing difference between members.

While individuals in such a society have little in common, they are nonetheless interdependent than under mechanical solidarity. Precisely because when involved in differentiated ways of life and specialized activity individuals become highly dependent on each other and networks develop between them. 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). Comparison of both types of solidarity reveals that organic societies are modern and complex, high in; heterogeneity, division of labour and individuality, has recitative laws and views individuals as important almost indispensable entities. While Mechanical societies are characterized by a simple way of life, homogeneity, limited division of labour, limited individuation has repressive laws and view individuals as dispensable an unimportant as they are all very alike in their functions.

In Durkheim's early work, he stressed that mechanical societies were characterized by a strong system of beliefs or collective conscience and believed that organic societies needed fewer common beliefs to tie members to the society. However, he later revised this to stress that even Organic societies need a common faith or collective conscience if they were not to disintegrate into a heap of mutually antagonistic and self-seeking individuals.

Durkheim believed that integration into society is achieved in two categorically different ways, system and social integration. Those concepts allow for the regulation of society. Social integration refers to the process by which individuals are absorbed into groups. This has to do with the collective conscience interpenetrating individuals thus making them truly social\human. Whereas systems integration refers to how the various groups into which individuals have been absorbed into through social integration are connected in functional ways (Eitzen et al, 1993). Systems integration is synonymous with how various organs come together to form a cohesive and functional unit within an organism.

According to Nicos Mouzelis, the social integration perspective focuses on how individuals view and relate to each other in specific social contexts. It refers to the 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). This integration serves to incorporate the collective conscience into all individuals of a 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 the collective conscience is not imprinted on the individuals within a society then it follows that in light of the insatiable appetites of men that undoubtedly they will develop in self-seeking antagonistic creatures existing in constant conflict. Moreover, as such it will be impossible to achieve social order.

Thus social and systems integration are responsible for passing on to individuals the specific value system pertinent to the groups and societies in with they exist. When this value system or the collective conscience is properly passed on to individuals; then as Durkheim stated they become ?'truly' social beings. Moreover, as such exist in harmony and functionally. So, social order can be achieved. 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.

On the contrary, if these processes of integration do not occur smoothly then conflictual relationships will occur and weak or literally nonexistent linkages will hold society together (Eitzen et al 1993). When social regulations operating within a society are broken down, then the influence of society on individual propensities is no longer effective and individuals are left to their own devices. 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 normlessness, 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 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 leave individuals a great amount of leeway. He focused on problems including cohesion or the lack of it. He investigated the rates if 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" 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).

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, work tasks that depend on differentiated but complimentary tasks do the same.

Wherever there is a high degree of value consensus / collective conscience, then there will be less behavioural deviance and as such, social order will be maintained. 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. It thus 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 breaking down the limits and or their interconnectedness resulting from malintegration, 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. As conflict cultivates the integrative process 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.

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. Sociology 6th edition. McGraw Hill Inc. 1994.


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

Coser, Lewis A. Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings 5th edition. Macmillan Publishing Co. 1982.

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

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

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

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