In a previous video, we mentioned that the founders of sociology, Durkheim, Marx, and Weber, we're acutely interested in social suffering. By social suffering we mean suffering that is caused by larger social forces, as opposed to something peculiar about an individual. Bad luck or plain stupidity. In this next module, we asked, what did each of these classical theorists think about the causes and forms of social suffering? Let's first consider what Emile Durkheim had to say about the subject. Writing over a century ago in the late 1800s. Durkheim was very concerned about how is it that human societies are able to create and maintain social order? He argued that the desires and self interests of human beings can only be held in check or prevented from spinning out of control by a force outside them. Namely, what he called a collective conscience, or what we today might call norms. According to Durkheim, a collective conscience is the set of values that all members of a society agree on. These values specify what is considered acceptable and unacceptable behavior within a society. They are also institutionalized in the form of laws, rituals, traditions, and so forth. Thus can also be said to exist outside individuals. So for example, members may adopt certain laws that they feel reflect their shared values and creates symbols like flags that represent their shared identity. But once created, those laws and symbols take on a life of their own, in the sense that they can outlive the individuals who originally created them and influence the behavior of future generations. The collective conscience provides the glue of society, or what Durkheim called its social solidarity. Durkheim also identified two forms of social solidarity. Mechanical solidarity, is a solidarity based on likeness. It is the bond felt by individuals who live in the same area, embrace identical beliefs, do similar activities, and very often share a common ancestry. This solidarity characterize most early human societies, where values where so homogeneous and pressures to conform so great, that there was virtually no room for individuality. Indeed the idea that one might have an identity outside the group into which one was born, was almost inconceivable. An example of a setting where mechanical solidarity operates, would be a traditional village. The second form of solidarity identified by Durkheim is organic solidarity. This is a solidarity based on differences. Differences that are complimentary. He argued to as societies modernize and develop more specialized roles and institutions. Individuals have less in common in terms of where they live, what they do, and what they believe. At the same time, they also become more dependent on one another. In that the various specialized roles and institutions spawned by modernity, must compliment one another, if a society as a whole is to survive. Just like the specialized organs of the body must be in sync if it is to survive, hence the term organic solidarity. Now, although the diversity of beliefs and activities associated with modernity has the potential to liberate persons and allow them to realize their individual potential. This diversity also can create problems, according to Durkheim. In particular, he was concerned that as members of a society become more individualistic, they might lose their sense of common identity. The social bond that in the past, regulated behavior, and motivated persons to make sacrifices on behalf of their community might weakened to the point where individuals are left with no coherent and consistent moral guidance as how to behave as members of a society. Instead of asking, Is this moral, or does my family approve? Individuals are more likely to ask, does this action meet my needs? Thus, the individual is left to find his or her own way in the world. A world in which options for personal satisfactions continually multiply as strong and insistent norms weaken. A world in which individuals are confronted by a bewildering variety of values, each competing for their allegiance. Durkheim referred to this as a state of enemy, or a condition of relative normlessness. In a society when social regulations begin to break down, and individuals are left to their own devices. Durkheim believed that if not addressed, enemy will eventually lead to widespread problems of isolation and deviance.
