Durkheim studies society to discover what builds social solidarity—i.e., unity of individuals—which, to him, is an unquestioned moral good (24). He claims there is a succession two types of solidarity, first mechanical and then organic solidarity. The two rely on totally different solidarity-building mechanisms and can be measured by changes in types of laws which indirectly indicate the dominant type of solidarity (28-9).
Mechanical solidarity relies on the social glue of society-wide similarities engendered by a collective consciousness. In these societies individuals are born into and hold throughout their lives beliefs and feelings that are nearly universal to the society. This society-wide state of mind and world-view is called the collective consciousness (38-9). Because everyone thinks and feels the same, they also act the same and have unity with all other individuals. The state develops out of this consciousness and thus embodies and symbolizes its essence (42-3). The state also defends the consciousness by punishing criminals, whom, in effect, attack the collective consciousness (40). This punishment acts not to reform the criminal but to deter others from such attacks (63), and so, it is conducted publicly, passionately, and is organized (55-9). Because of this deterrence effect, this system is called repressive law (29).
Conversely, organic solidarity exists in societies where each individual is more prized because society needs them to fulfill their specialized role in the collective division of labor. Since society’s productive roles are so divided, the individuals in each role become inextricably interdependent on each other (85). These interdependencies create the unity by necessity found in organic solidarity. Simultaneously, the collective consciousness is replaced by stronger individual consciousnesses (172). Thus, the type of law found in such societies, restitutive law, exists not to protect the collective consciousness but to restore relationships between individuals that have been broken (68). This law does not attempt to destroy criminals and does not make public examples of them, but attempts to re-place individuals into the unity of division of labor.
In my institution, a child tutoring program, organic solidarity is most apparent in the division of labor between students and tutors. Students depend on tutors to teach them, and tutors depend on the students to learn from them. This interdependency creates the solidarity that the program survives on. Still, this solidarity is not guaranteed and restitutive-like rules exist. Most commonly, students are given detention if they have behavioral issues, such as not staying on task, or do not fill out their assignment log completely. Both problems disrupt their ability to be a student, and the punishment applies pressure for them to return to their student role. Conversely, if tutors fail to show up for work or are unprepared, they are reprimanded but then given several opportunities to return to the tutor role.
Mechanical solidarity, meanwhile, is most pronounced in the students. When in their role as students they exhibit remarkably similar ideas. All protest at some point about having to attend after-school and weekend tutorials. But despite these protestations, they all do attend and, for the most part, work diligently without constant supervision or threat of punishment. Punishment does, however, exist and is handed down by the tutor/adult group. This group can be seen as the state, since it embodies the children’s desire to learn and will punish deviations as attacks on this collective desire to learn. This is even true when those attacks are not seen as hostile (43), but instead—as they so commonly are—as disconnected comical outbursts that receive overblown repression. A perfect example of this is when a child was caught writing on art publicly displayed on a wall. This defacement of art, whose creators daily walked by, threatened the sanctity of well-performed learning. The leadership team then required him to erase all his marks during crowded tutorial hours. Many people—including myself—asked him what had transpired. Thus, this punishment was very publicly displayed and, so, understood by the general population; it evoked passion since each creator could see their defacer; and it was organized by the “state.” Finally, it drew the student out of his role as student for the time of the punishment, showing the “state” was not at all interested in restoring him to that specialized role.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Nick,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your explanation of mechanical and organic solidarity and how well it was written. I thought it was very thorough and covered a lot of great, important points that Durkheim would appreciate. I also liked how you articulately described Durkheim's theory in your institution of the child tutoring program. I found it quite interesting because last semester I volunteered at an after-school tutoring program at Saint Martin de Porres Elementary School, and realized after reading what you wrote, how much one could actually apply mechanical and organic solidarity in this particular context. You gave an interesting example of how a child writing on the art could be seen as a threat to others. I wouldn't have been able to explain as well as you did how mechanical solidarity is present in this institution. Thanks for your great work. I think I can understand Durkheim much better now!
Christine