Friday, February 6, 2009
Mechanical and Organic Solidarity
In this essay, I explain the differences between mechanical and organic solidarity. Then I connect the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas, with building mechanical solidarity in Bolivia's recent history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Durkheim presents two different types of solidarity, organic and mechanical; the latter can be applied to the Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation. Mechanical solidarity differs from organic solidarity through its basic foundation and the relationship between the collective consciousness and individual consciousness held by members within society. Mechanical solidarity is based upon the likenesses that exist to unite society as one body(60). On the other hand, organic solidarity is based upon the complimentary differences between individuals within society(85). The common consciousness that develops under mechanical solidarity is much greater than the consciousness held by each individual. Durkheim explains that mechanical solidarity allows people to lose their sense of individualism and act as one collective being that share the same beliefs(38-39). However, through organic solidarity the individual consciousness is held much higher than the collective consciousness(84). One’s individual consciousness is linked to that of society through the development of one’s personality. This development contributes to the necessary dependence of individuals upon one another within society.
ReplyDeleteMechanical solidarity is also different from organic solidarity through the form of law solidarity is measured and the role of the state in how solidarity is carried out. Mechanical solidarity is measured through repressive laws which serve to maintain the social order sustained through the common consciousness held within society(60). In contrast, organic solidarity is measured through restituitive law. This allows for more specialized bodies within society such as representatives, a key component of organic solidarity (70). These laws then lead to the significant role of the state within either forms of solidarity. The role of the state under mechanical solidarity serves to defend and represent the collective common consciousness of society (42-43). On the contrary, under organic solidarity, the state serves to organize increasing relations within society (83). Durkheim’s theory of solidarity is applicable to modern institutions like the Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation.
In the relationship between the Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation and Bolivia, WHISC serves to ensure mechanical solidarity for the Bolivian government. In carrying out this solidarity, the Bolivian WHISC alumni students divide its citizens through oppression. In 1996, the Pentagon released the SOA teaching manuals which supported torture, extortion, and execution. Alumni act to defend the state from “enemies” that were targeted at the SOA (43). These “enemies” are those who advocate union organizing, distribute propaganda in favor of the workers, and those that make accusations that the government is not fulfilling their basic needs. From 1971 to 1978, Bolivia was under the control of the dictator Hugo Banzar Suarez, a graduate of the former SOA. In October of 2006, two graduates of the WHISC were arrested on charges of murder, torture and violation of the constitution for their responsibility in the deaths of 67 people living in El Alto, Bolivia during the Gas Wars of 2003. The WHISC instills the idea that unity within one’s country comes about as a result of punishing these “enemies” which coincides with Durkheim’s theory of mechanical solidarity in the idea that these military men are defending the collective consciousness organized by the state.
Janeen, this was well written. I like how you explicitly distinguished the differences between mechanical and organic solidarity. This institution inevitably reflects mechanical solidarity because of Bolivian’s belief in defending its strong collective consciousness through the repression of their “enemies”.
ReplyDelete