Emile Durkheim

3. Emile Durkheim: Sociology in Praise of Society

3.1 Introduction

Émile Durkheim, founding father of French sociology, once said “If you wish to mature your thinking, devote yourself to the study of a great master.” Nowadays students can ripen their thinking by studying his work. Around 1900, he presented fascinating studies of fundamental changes in western societies, such as the growing division of labour, increasing individualization, and rising suicide rates. He wondered whether these processes were correlated and whether they were leading towards a disintegration of modern societies.

Émile Durkheim was born and raised in a conservative Jewish family. His father was a rabbi, like his grandfather. Émile was raised as a Jew, lost his faith at a young age but always held a positive view on the social functions of religion. Religious beliefs, gatherings and rituals play an important role in binding people. In his view, ongoing secularization had to be countered by a secular alternative for religion. Instead of priests and parsons school teachers must offer moral education.

Humans are intelligent living organisms. This makes the study of social phenomena rather complicated. For Durkheim, this was all the more reason, to advocate the application of rigid research methods. He strongly advised sociologists to use methods that had proven their worth in natural sciences like biology, chemics and  physics. His study of social causes of suicide is a brilliant example of gathering and analyzing statistics. His main conclusions were that too little but also too much social cohesion can lead to an increase in the rate of suicides. The same is true for too much or too little social order or regulation. He explained why suicide rates differ between men and women, between single and married people, between different countries, religions and ethnic categories. This topic and his ideas are still relevant to day, for suicide rates have been climbing throughout the twentieth century. A recent US study shows that suicide is taking more lives from young Gen Z adults, aged 18-27, than from Millennials of the same age 10 years ago.[1] Gen Z is the generation born between 1997 and 2012. Gen Z has been shaped by the aftermath of 9/11, the introduction of the I-Phone in 2007, the financial crisis, the economic recession of 2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Gen Z suicide rate is significantly higher among Black and Hispanic men than among Whites. Some experts point to growing economic despair, especially among non-white men. Others see an upsurge of depression, treated and untreated, which might be related to bullying on social media. They point to the growing resistance against seeking help for depression. Note that Gen Z is the first generation that grew up with the internet, without being warned against the dangers of social media. Not only the younger generation, but also older ones suffer from social media addiction. This addiction cuts individuals loose from proper face to face interaction with significant others, such as children, parents, siblings, or peers. Addiction specialists have noticed that obsessive use and focus on social media cause relationship issues and lowers one’s self-esteem. Being hooked for more than 8 hours a day, makes people feel anxious, dissatisfied and isolated.[2]

3.2    Short biography

Émile Durkheim[3] was born on April 15, 1858, in Épinal, a small town in Northeast France. He grew up in a stable Jewish family. This provided him with a model of a tight-knit community of disciplined and virtuous people, which influenced his view  on society.[4] As a young boy, Durkheim studied Hebrew, the Hebrew Bible, and the Talmud after school hours. As a teenager, he turned his back on Jewry and became agnostic. Émile Durkheim excelled at secondary school. He attended Lyceum Louis Le Grand in Paris to prepare for the very difficult entrance exams to the École Normale Supérieure, still one of the best academies of France. They select only the very best. In 1879, after two failed attempts, Durkheim was admitted to the éns. There he could mix with the future intellectual elite of France.

The éns formed a close-knit world of its own. Many friendships that started at the éns lasted a lifetime. Durkheim befriended Jean Jaurès, future leader of the French socialist party. Alas, Victor Hommay, another close friend at the ÉNS, ended his life in 1886. This tragic event might have inspired Durkheim to choose suicide as a topic of sociological research.

At the éns excellent professors urged their students to study very hard. Durkheim got inspired by professor Renouvier. He valued his uncompromising rationalism, his concern with morality and his emphasis on the dignity of the individual. He agreed with Renouvier that social cohesion was based on people’s sense of unity and on the dependence on others.[5] Renouvier tried to reconcile the sacredness of the individual with social solidarity.[6] Durkheim also backed his advocacy of associations, such as co-operatives for producers, and his plea for secular state schools.

Also professor Boutroux stimulated Durkheim’s thinking.[7] Boutroux taught him that each science must explain its subject matter by ‘its own principles’. Sociology could not be reduced to biology, just as biology is irreducible to chemistry. This idea guided Durkheim’s thoughts about the right methods of sociological research. He also admired history professor Fustel de Coulanges, who viewed history as a pure science, not as an art. Coulanges emphasized that ‘preconceived ideas’ were the most common evil of his time.[8]

3.2.1 Academic career, Dreyfus affair, the Great War and early death

Durkheim was ill for several months during the last year at the éns. He finished bottom of his class and started his career as philosophy teacher at a regional Lyceum. There, he taught with great pleasure. After five years, he received a grant to write a report for the Minister of Education about higher education in Germany. What could France learn from the Germans? Experiments of psychologist Wilhelm Wundt aroused Durkheim’s curiosity. He admired Wundt’s precise and objective approach. He was also impressed by Wundt’s approach to the study of morals.

In 1887, Durkheim was asked to teach pedagogy and social sciences at the University of Bordeaux. The French Revolution and the weakened influence of the Catholic Church had opened the way for appointing an agnostic professor of Jewish descent. Until then this had been unthinkable. That same year, Durkheim married Louise Julie Dreyfus, daughter of a director of a foundry. She was born in Paris in 1866. Louise Julie Dreyfus was well-educated. She copied Durkheim’s manuscripts, corrected proofs and handled his correspondence.[9] Durkheim would never have produced so many essays, reports and books without her help.1902, he was appointed at the Sorbonne. It took seven more years and much lobbying before he became the first professor of sociology of France. [10]

17 July 1914, a French nationalist murdered Jean Jaurès, leader of the socialist party, diligent advocate of peace and fierce opponent of compulsory military service. One day later, after a Yugoslavian nationalist had killed Prince Franz Ferdinand, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. This triggered The Great War that brought tremendous damage to many countries, disrupted many families, and ended or ruined the lives of numerous young men. Many students were being mobilized and sent to the battlefield. Half of them got killed. No longer could Durkheim concentrate on his academic work. He lost his objectivity, and started writing pamphlets against the Germans. In January 1916, his son André was reported missing in action. Durkheim was overcome by anxieties. A few months later, he learned that André had been killed and withdrew from social activities. Things got even worse when Senator M. Gaudin de Vilaine accused Durkheim, who had a German name, of being a spy for the Germans. Thanks to the unanimous disapproval of the Senate, Gaudain de Vilaine was forced to withdraw his accusation. Durkheim resumed his activities. A few months later he suffered from a heart attack. He died 15 November 1917, 59 years of age, too early to finish his treatise on morals.[11]

3.2.2 The Dreyfus Affair

16 July 1870, after chancellor Otto von Bismarck had made some provocative remarks, France declared war on Prussia. 2 August, French troops invaded German territory. Two days later, German troops invaded France. The German army was larger, stronger and better led. They won a series of hard-fought battles, killing numerous French soldiers and civilians. Also they captured thousands of troops and officers, including Emperor Napoleon III. January 1871, the fall of Paris clinched the final victory for the Germans. Within half a year they had killed, wounded or captured about 756,000 men. The French troops had killed, wounded 145,000 men. Also, 450,000 French civilians had died from war-related famine and diseases. In Germany about 162,000 people died in a smallpox epidemic that had started among French Prisoners of War.[12] After the French defeat Communist uprisings emerged in several cities. Insurgents seized control of Paris on 8 March 1871. They set up their own government, called The Paris Commune. Its policies included the separation of church and state and the abolition of child-labor. And they closed all Catholic churches and schools. 21 May 1871, counter revolutionary forces killed about 15,000 Communards and took more than 40,000 prisoners. 13,500 were found guilty; 95 were sentenced to death and 1169 were deported to French colonies overseas.[13] France was in great trouble. National solidarity and stability were near breaking point. Within a few decades, the share of industrial workers had risen to 23 %. Many of them had been peasants and farm hands. In a short time, the rural population had dropped from over 90 per cent to less than 50 percent.[14] New industries had produced a big working class. Cities were growing at an unhealthy speed. The construction of new houses lagged far behind the ever soaring demand. Families of 7 or more had to live in one-room accommodations. Imagine that. Uprooted country men and women missed the social networks of their former small communities. The plight of the urban working class became a big issue. Class conflicts posed a great threat to the nation. Durkheim worried about new revolutions, and rightly so. In 1885, revolutionaries tried to topple the government. They failed. During the next decade times were changing in a positive way, but Durkheim remained focused on pathological social phenomena.

The Dreyfus affair was such an abomination. In 1894, Major Esterhazy, son of a general, had been caught selling military secrets to the Germans. Why did an officer, of aristocratic descent[15], dishonor himself by secretly helping the enemy? The answer is simple. He had squandered a nice inheritance and lived above his means. To solve his financial troubles he had married a wealthy wife, but had frittered her dowry within two years. His excessive lifestyle and risky speculation made him an easy target for bribery.[16] When his treason was discovered Esterhazy managed to put the blame on Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jew originating from a German speaking region in northeast France. Due to anti-Semitic sentiments, forged evidence and biased judges, Captain Dreyfus was convicted, degraded and publicly dishonored, and sent to the labour colony on Devil’s Island.

Soon serious doubts arose about his guilt. Novelist Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the President of France, which started with the well-known headline: ‘J’accuse’. When Zola was taken to court, riots broke out. Ministers were forced to resign, fights erupted in the National Assembly, and students fought in the streets. Some university professors protested.[17] Durkheim was one of them. He vented his opinions when giving speeches outside the university. He sided with Captain Dreyfus. Conservatives and reactionaries viewed all Dreyfusards at universities “as anarchists of the lecture-platform, in particular those mad and arrogant sociologists who treat our generals as idiots, our social institutions as absurd and our traditions as unhealthy.”[18]

A long story short: Some men discovered irrefutable proof that Esterhazy was the real traitor. He was put before a military court of fellow officers, but was acquitted. Wisely, he moved to England. There he lived comfortably for many years, though haunted by a guilty conscious.[19] Dreyfus was taken to court for a retrial, sentenced again, but released anyhow. He was exonerated in 1906. In 2025, President Macron declared July 12 as annual commemoration day for Alfred Dreyfus.[20]

Was Durkheim an arrogant left-wing professor? Definitely not. He was a reformist. He opposed agitation, which disturbs without improving. He denounced social changes that destroy without replacing. Like Comte, he favored a harmonious liaison between order and progress. In the economic sphere, he aimed at just and fair relations between employers and employees. He pursued social equality and favored individual freedom. As a conservative, he advocated a strong state. In his view, the state had to safeguard individual rights but also collective order. He also advocated independent non-governmental associations that could counterbalance the power of the state. But first and foremost he wanted a moral revitalization of society.[21]

3.3 Sociology: the study of social facts

Auguste Comte argued that social phenomena are not reducible to biological or psychological characteristics. Durkheim agreed. Social facts have a distinct character. They are sui generis: they generate and are generated by other social facts.

“The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social acts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness.”[22]

Social facts are observable. They cannot be explained in terms of characteristics of individuals. They endure while individuals die and are replaced by others. Social facts are external to individual persons and “endowed with coercive power … they impose themselves upon persons, independent of their individual will.”[23]

         Examples of solid social facts are official laws and regulations. Also less formal customs, social expectations and obligations exert forces upon individuals. We encounter them as soon as we are born. Most of our laws, our beliefs, our customs, our views on what is fair or unfair, right or wrong, false or true, are embedded in the culture of our society and in the subculture of our social group. They will endure after our death. Traditional views and customs can and will change, and so can rules and regulations, but in many cases this is far from easy.

         Yet, from time to time, some spectacular changes do occur. Hundred years ago, courageous women have united, and successfully campaigned and finally for the right to vote and to be elected. New waves of feminism have achieved that women now have equal  educational opportunities and better access to the labour market. In 1961, President Kennedy issued his Executive Order No.10925, to bridge the gap in incomes and career opportunities of women, and ethnic and religious minorities more quickly. Political leaders in Europe, post-Apartheid South Africa and India have copied his affirmative action programs.[24] Employers had to reach hard quotas of women or members of minority groups. Human resource officers had to choose female candidates over male candidates when equally qualified.[25] Positive discrimination women and minorities led to a virulent and tenacious backlash of men, whites and members of higher castes who see themselves as being duped. [26] In the US it took these “Backlashers” more than half a century of political lobbying and legal actions to stop one specific affirmative admission policy. June 29, 2023 the Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were unlawful.[27]

         Here we see a clear proof of the obstinacy of social facts, and the process in which social facts generate other social facts, like a Hegelian or Marxist thesis generates its antithesis. The introduction and institutionalization of positive discrimination triggered feelings of being discriminated among men or among members of privileged classes or castes. The introduction of affirmative action shows that cultures can change, supported by large groups of people, but the actions of a counter movement also show that deeper layers of cultural patterns of the past are living on in the mindset of the formerly privileged categories. For them this is hard to stomach, being raised in culture that was built on “their” privileged entitlements.

But how to explain the emergence of “Trad-Wives”? Top influencers of this Trad-Wive social media movement propagate young modern wives to give up their career, to become stay-at-home mums, wearing freshly colored aprons, baking cakes, and dedicating their whole life to their three or more children and their husband.[28]

More waves of feminism have showed that deep-rooted social patterns can be up-ended. But again, undercurrents of traditionalism have lingered on in dogma of orthodox religious groups, in great novels of the past, in modern love stories, brought to life in films and TV-series. In this way, social patterns of the past can easily re-emerge in new forms and shapes, offering dream worlds for modern women having a hard time to combine, perfectly please, the challenges of being a good mother, an efficient career woman, and an astonishing lover for one’s husband. For the large majority of these wonder women, their husbands fail to do their share of “women’s tasks” such as cooking, cleaning, shopping, and looking after the kids. Also their chiefs and managers are not willing to accommodate the needs and wishes of female employees. All these social influences steer a rising number of women on the road to a predictable burnout, as shiploads of recent studies and extensive media attention do show.

An extreme example: FGM as a real and impactful social fact

At first, Durkheim defined social facts by their exteriority and constraint. He stressed that social facts, such as traditions, customs, and moral rules, become effective only to the extent that they are being internalized in the consciousness of the members of a society or social group. At first sight, social constraints are seen as outside controls on the individual will, but through the process of socialization most of these constraints are turned into inner-felt obligations to obey prevailing rules of your social group or society. In this sense, society is “something beyond us and something in us.”[29]

Later, Durkheim defined social facts as:

“ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, endowed with a power of coercion that will control his acts.”[30]

It might seem odd to see ways of thinking and feeling as exterior to the individual. To prove Durkheims point, today, living in a highly individualized world, we all “feel an urge” to renounce his perspective. We have come to believe that our thoughts and feelings are truly individual and authentic. We cherish the idea that our ideas, views, tastes and preferences are based on pure individual choices and characteristics. Durkheim would consider such a view as naïve and non-sociological. From the moment we are born, actually already from the moment our mother has become pregnant, we are confronted with existing rules, patterns of action and ways of thinking seven days a week.[31] We are raised to act in the same way as our parents. Gradually and often unconsciously we internalize the views that are shared by the bulk of our society, views that belong to what Durkheim describes as the collective conscience. So, most of us tend to express views and act in ways that are widely accepted in our society. We have learned that deviant views, attitudes and forms of behavior will be criticized or penalized. Deviancy can lead to being shunned and the ending of friendships. Many forms of deviancy are made illegal, though what is made illegal will differ between societies. Durkheim has made us aware that sanctioning deviant behavior results in an extra emphasis on the importance of following prescribed ways of doing things. Thus, a measure of deviant behavior can strengthen social cohesion, which is crucial for the continuation of any social group, organization or society.[32]

         Durkheim wanted to teach his students, the first generations of sociologists,  that what is defined as criminal, deviant, immoral or inhumane depends on public opinion. The view on deviancy is an important part of our “collective conscience”. What is defined as right or wrong, as illegal and criminal can change over time. A quick peek at modern history shows that Durkheim is right. In western countries homosexuality no longer is illegal, and the same is true for the use of soft drugs. I bet that Durkheim never could have imagined that marriages between two men or two women would become legal and widely accepted, though not by all.

         Let us discuss a non-western example. Condoning and even stimulating Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been and still is part of the collective mindset of several African and Middle Eastern countries. This brutal practice still exists, even in countries where it has become illegal.[33] Half a century ago most people in the rest of the world had never heard of it. Before the nineteen sixties everything related to sexual intercourse was not openly discussed, let alone an extreme abomination such as FGM. Nowadays, in the rest of the world, it is considered to be one of the most horrific examples of violating women’s rights. Though in regions and circles, where FGM is most prevalent, it is seen as a prerequisite for marriage. Refusal is hardly an option. Refusing FGM brings shame upon one’s family; daughters will stay single. According to UNICEF, this custom of partial or total removal of external genitalia is practiced in 31 countries. It is estimated that more than 230 million females have undergone this practice, which can cause great health problems, such as infertility and even death, because it is being done by elderly women who have not got any medical training. It causes mental problems as well. Yet it remains a stubborn part of the collective conscience, in particular among conservative and illiterate people in Africa and The Middle East. Does anyone need more proof of the reality, force and impact of social facts?     

3.3.2 Coercive nature of social facts.

We are so accustomed to our way of life that we seldom notice the coercive nature of social facts. But as soon as one violates an established custom, norm or a law, we will notice it is there. Perpetrators are being penalized, mildly or harshly, and in many different ways. Deviation from the dress code of our class or friends triggers ridicule, stealing a car will trigger police activity. The coercive power of society affects us all. Durkheim defined a social fact as:

every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations.”[34]

He stressed that humans are social beings. They have to undergo the influence of social facts and learn to adjust to social constraints, not only for their survival, but also for their personal development. On the other hand, they must recognize that living in a social community creates opportunities that otherwise would not exist.[35]

Different meanings of “Social constraint”:

1        The authority of legal rules, moral maxims, and customs, as manifested by the sanctions brought to bear when a person violates them.

2        The need to follow certain rules, procedures, or methods in order to carry out certain social activities properly, such as speaking the national language.

3        The influence of ecological and infrastructural factors (roads, railways, channels, rivers, networks of communication). They determine the direction and intensity of patterns of social contact, trade and migration.

4        The psychological compulsion of a crowd when collective movements of enthusiasm, sorrow, pity, indignation, anger or even hate carry people away in spite of themselves. Durkheim spoke of “social currents”.

5        The cultural determination and influence of socialization, when socially given beliefs, ideas, norms and values are internalized by (young) people.[36]

Not all of them are experienced as external constraints or obligations to which one has to consent, fully and immediately.[37] Their impact on social life can be superficial and temporary. Fashion styles change every year or season. These changes push people to buy new garments long before their ‘old’ clothes are threadbare, simply because fashion defines last year’s clothes as outdated. People risk being ridiculed when we hold on to their favorite, but phased-out clothes. The desire to belong to a group can be so strong that people even buy new fashionable clothes on credit, when they cannot afford it.

The presence of so many social influences and constraints appears to leave little room for individuality. But when people internalize customs, rules, norms and values, they only need to make minor variations, to rend their habits and lifestyle a personal touch.

          “This is why every one of us, up to a certain point, forms his personal religious faith, his own cult, his own morality, and his own technology. There is no social uniformity, which does not accommodate a whole scale of individual gradations; there is no collective fact, which imposes itself on all individuals uniformly. Nevertheless, the area of variations that are possible and tolerated is always and everywhere more or less restricted.”[38]

Durkheim’s main concern was to make his students aware of the potency of social forces. He denounced individualistic philosophies. Individual persons are socialized human beings, strongly influenced by social forces. In addition to being born with a unique biological nature, humans also develop a socialized nature based on collective morals, views and ways of behavior that prevail  in the social collective in which one is raised. That is why Durkheim spoke of the individual person as a homo duplex. More on this later on.

         All social groups influence new members to adapt to their demands and expectations. If persons join a particular social community, they will have to abandon, or hide, some or maybe several of their personal inclinations, desires, and views. Thus they become a more socialized or “collectivized” person.

         Durkheim observed that modern societies, in comparison to the past, were becoming more individualized. Industrialization led to higher levels of specialization and individualization, which, subsequently, was evolving into a ‘cult of the individual’. It is a development within modernizing societies. Also other social forces were pushing towards an expansion of individualistic norms, values and behavior. Philosophers of the Enlightenment emphasized the dignity and value of humans. New political movements advocated the enhancement of welfare and self-fulfillment of all members of society.[39] Durkheim was one of the firsts society analysts who detected and critically discussed this cult of individuality. After his death, in 1917, the process of individualization kept speed-marching ahead. Before the end of the century it had reached a level and intensity that Durkheim never could have foreseen.[40]  Ever more people are searching for self-fulfillment and personal well-being. In the 21^st century this individualization process is still going on.

3.3.3 Institutions and collective representations

According to Durkheim, social facts play a major role in the genesis of institutions. Institutions are sets of convictions and practices, opinions and patterns of behavior that have acquired an obligatory character. Well-known examples are legal systems, sets of moral rules, religious prescriptions, norms of decency and civilized behavior.

Hard social facts are the volume, density and dispersion of the population. Other important morphological social facts are stone hard structures such as bridges, tunnels, railway systems, and motorways. They have a visible impact upon the feasibility and frequency of social contacts between people. It is harder to make contacts and start enduring social relations with people that live at different sides of a border, mountain, river, lake or sea.

The second level of institutionalized social facts concerns official laws, moral precepts and religious doctrines. In the economic sphere there are official rules for signing contracts but also unofficial rules, such as oral agreements settled with a handshake.

At the third level of social facts one finds social phenomena such as collective representations. They belong to the symbolic sphere. Think of widely shared values and ideals. Think of self-images of a society, legends, myths, and national symbols.

At the fourth level we encounter ephemeral social facts: social phenomena that emerge from a sudden collective inspiration, euphoric sentiment, or wave of panic. They will not last long: a few minutes, maybe a few hours. Yet, their impact can be devastating as we can learn from the Heysel Stadium disaster in Brussels. 29 May 1985, an hour before for the kick off of the Europa Cup soccer final, violent incidents between aggravated supporters of FC Liverpool and FC Juventus (Turin) had evolved into very dangerous situations. Scared Juventus supporters began to run for safety. But, the exit was blocked and the police did not allow them to enter the pitch. Scores of panicking Juventus supporters were pressed against a wall until it collapsed. 39 fans got killed, mostly Italians, and more than 600 fans got injured.[41] Meanwhile, the game went ahead as authorities feared that stopping the match create a social fact that might produce even more mayhem and casualties.[42] This event has been analyzed and evaluated. This has lead to many measures that has improved the safety of visitors of soccer matches.

3.3.4 Conscience collective – collective conscience

Time and again Durkheim conveyed that social existence is based on a conscience collective; a coherent set of collective representations. He defined this collective conscience as:

“The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or common consciousness.”[43]

The conscious collective concerns every way in which a group perceives itself in relation to phenomena that influence her. These collective representations arise from social facts and not from individual phenomena. Material aspects such as extreme poverty, together with immaterial aspects such as unrealistic expectations about tempting prospects that are assumed to be on offer in big cities or richer countries can trigger and enhance migration flows from rural to urban areas or from one country or continent to another. Quite easy poor people are made to believe that big cities or wealthy nations will offer them well-paid jobs, decent houses, modern medical care and good schools for their children. Furthermore, the flux of migration is aided and guided in specific directions because of historical, social and political relations between regions and countries. Even men and women from former colonies that have been treated as an inferior kind of people, have chosen to migrate to the homeland of the colonizers. Their colonizers had always been telling that thing were better in their home country. Thus, this idea had become one of the core elements of the collective conscience of groups of colonized people. No wonder that, after decolonization, many of them migrated to the land of their colonizers.[44]

         The colonizers have been guilty of idealizing their home country too much. But this is nothing compared to great lies migrated people have been telling to the people they left behind. Sociologist Abdelmalek Sayad observed that, amongst other things, migration from North Africa to France is, stimulated by collective representations of immigrants that, out of shame about their miserable situation in France, persist in telling flagrant lies to their family and friends at home. They lie about their dismal living conditions, they overstate the height of their earnings and keep silent about the low quality of their jobs or the incidents of discrimination they have endured. As long as their relatives regularly receive a share of the income of their migrated husband or son, people at home are prepared to believe this false information.[45] So, a persistent pattern of distorted or downright false information can become a social fact the generates real social facts, such as ongoing patterns of migration.

3.3.5 The study of social facts as ‘real and objective things’

Durkheim’s mantra was that sociology should use rigorous methods of research, similar to those of the physical sciences. Social facts should be researched ‘as if they were things’. He never claimed that they are similar to physical things such as bricks and mortar, water and steam, rubber and plastics, but emphasized that they must be studied, checked and double checked through observation and inspection. His prescription tells us how we can learn to know social phenomena better. Since society is more than the mere sum of individuals, social facts should not be examined by investigating individual motives and intentions. That is the subject matter of psychology. Social systems, formed by the association of groups of individuals, have their own characteristics. Durkheim admitted that nothing collective can be produced without assuming individual consciousnesses. But living in social groups, mingling and interacting with other people, leads to the fusing of individual minds. This gives birth to a conscience collective. Hence, social groups often will ‘think’, ‘feel’, and ‘act’ a bit  different than many of their individual members. The conscience collective prevails and lives on  while some individuals have other ideas and another, not overlapping subgroup has different or feelings. In each society or social group there has emerged a substratum of views and action preferences that will be shared by the large majority or even by all. This collective conscience will steer society or the social group in a specific direction. Therefore, Durkheim asserted that every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we can be sure that the explanation is false.[46]

Durkheim contended that most people have a primitive mentality regarding social facts. They have no idea of the force of social facts, their resistance against change. Far too many people believe that social miracles are possible, for example, that a legislator can create or transform an institution out of nothing by a mere injunction of his will.[47] Think of all followers of and voters for politicians that promise that they will close the borders of their country, and stop the inflow of all foreigners or refugees. So far, they have not achieved much, despite having stretched the limits of international law and human rights. These politicians and their voters ignore that are several push and pull factors at work that will keep generating and supporting streams of migrants.

No politician can transform one social system into another, supposedly far better one, overnight. Social systems are complex and difficult to understand. Time and time again, policy makers have learned that their well-meant and well-prepared plans generate unintended consequences that wreck their plans or bring new harm to society. Most probably they have taken advise from social scientists, but even that will not guarantee that everything will work out as planned. Keep in mind that Durkheim told social scientists not to overestimate themselves. They still have to learn a lot.

3.4    Classic functionalism

3.4.1 The necessity of functional explanations in sociology

For Durkheim, functional analysis of society was just as crucial as the search for historical causes and origins. Sociology should stand on two legs. We have to explain its emergence and development causally and make clear how it survives by fulfilling specific core functions. Causal analysis alone does not suffice, because society is a whole of interrelated social facts. A change in one of its parts has consequences for other parts. Functional analysis should reveal how a particular social fact affects the working of the whole system or its parts.

Durkheim conceived of society as a kind of organic whole. Societies can be discerned from inorganic things because of their growth and development. Expansion often generates more complexity and differentiation. And structural differentiation goes hand in hand with differentiation in functions. Furthermore, each part of the organic social whole is a micro-organism in itself. But we should not stretch the analogy with biological organisms too far. Biological organisms stay alive by a circulation of material elements, societies survive through a circulation of immaterial elements, such as common values, ideals, and collective representations.

The analytical legacy of early functionalists like Durkheim can be summarized as follows:

• Functionalists view the social world in systemic terms. Such systems have needs and requisites that have to be met to assure their survival.
• When viewed as a system, the social world is composed of interrelated parts; the analysis of these parts focuses on how they fulfill requisites of systemic wholes and maintain system normality, homeostasis, and equilibrium.
• Functionalists tend to view systems as having ‘normal’ and ‘pathological’ states.[48]

Durkheim reacted against renowned English philosopher, biologist, anthropologist Herbert Spencer (1820 – 1903). Spencer tended to view society as a set of means created by people to satisfy personal needs. Durkheim rejected this reductionistic explanation. His central theme is that the social originates from the social; that social facts emerge from the co-existence of people in groups, and not from physical and psychological needs of individuals. Individual goals are simply too diversified to shape a force that can engender a social phenomenon without the help of some collective orchestration that already is social by nature.[49] To Durkheim society is a social system that creates and further develops itself. It creates and fulfills its own needs. Simply looking for causes in premeditated acts of social actors will not suffice.

Durkheim’s conception of social functions and needs cannot be separated from his view on the autonomous nature of social entities.[50] Social functions must fulfill social needs.[51] Durkheim defines the function of a social entity as its significant effect on the general condition and development of society. A phenomenon is dysfunctional when it endangers the survival of the social whole.

Durkheim preferred ‘function’ to words like ‘goal’ or ‘objective’, for only conscious individuals can set goals for themselves. As society develops, new needs are developed to sustain this development. When structural changes occur, certain functions of its parts or subsystems have to change in the same movement. This is a basic assumption of all structural-functionalists. They do not ignore social change. On the contrary, they acknowledge that social functions and needs could change. That is why each society must be endowed with an immanent capacity to change its constituting parts in order to warrant its continuation.[52]

3.4.2 Functionalist versus causal explanation

It is clear that the functionalist method of explanation differs from the causal model. They are two completely different paradigms.[53] Epistemologists have fiercely denounced functionalism. Added to their critique was the ideological critique that functionalist sociology only focuses on the explanation of the existing social order. Thus, it helps to maintain the status quo. Hence, functionalist analysis is considered to be useless for a critical sociology or praxis, for a sociology that wants to explain social conflicts and social transformations. However, this critique misses the point that prominent functionalists such as Durkheim, Parsons and Merton have devoted a large part of their academic work to explain social change. The so-called inherent conservative nature of functionalism rests on a biased and partial reading of their work. Deep down, in the dark cellar of scientific presuppositions, many sociologists have rekindled the theological idea that order and stability cannot co-exist with social change. And then there is the false idea that anyone that wants to understand social order must be politically conservative and opposed to change.[54]

Functional analysts are not interested in the question whether variable a is causally related to variable b, and whether b in its turn causes c. They want to discover whether system S will survive or disintegrate if a specific subsystem or part of S is degenerating. Furthermore, they find it relevant to know what constitutes the connection between parts or subsystems p, q, and r, and their relation to the system S as a whole. They want to understand how, for example, p co-operates with q to keep the whole system going. In other words, what q needs from p to go on contributing to the continuation of the whole? This type of reasoning can be clarified by observing a living organism. Does it make sense to say that the heart ‘causes’ the circulation of the blood, which transports food and oxygen to the cells, oxygen that was put in the blood by the lungs.? In turn, the heart and the lungs need food for their own cells, which is transported to these cells by blood pumped around by the heart. Doesn’t it make much more sense to speak of functions instead of causes here, for instance the pump function, the transport function, the nutrition function, the filter function, and so on?

The preference for causal or functionalist method stems from a difference in perspective. Functionalists try to explain everything from the perspective of the social or organic whole and investigate what function each part performs for the benefit of the whole. Causalists restrict their analysis to sub-processes only. The reason why is purely pragmatic. They believe that the whole system of a living organism is too complex for a complete analysis. Functionalists are not deterred by this challenge. They are driven by a strong wish to understand the coherence of the whole system and the mechanisms that see to its endurance. In contrast, they have no taste for researching minor details or partial explanations of a few small causal steps in a long chain of events. This is exactly the opposite of what Causalists want to do. They believe that this is the only way to go about it.

3.4.3 The social construction and social functions of deviant behavior

To Durkheim, deviant and criminal behavior are no intrinsic pathological phenomena but “normal actions” of individuals and groups. They exist all over the world. In that statistical sense deviant behavior is ‘normal’.

Durkheim’s main point here is that a specific act is criminal because society  has defined it as criminal. It is not an intrinsic of this specific act. Other societies might see it as normal and not as an illegal act.[55] In general what is classified as deviancy or crime is rather arbitrary. Not all countries have the same laws concerning the production, selling, and consumption of alcoholic drinks, soft drugs or hard drugs. The same is true for the possession of firearms. Durkheim was convinced that societies need to define certain acts as criminal. This is a prerequisite for the creation and continuance of social cohesion. Whatever the definition deviancy or crime may be is unimportant. The main function of punishing deviancy and crimes is to keep the large majority of people on the straight and narrow and to enhance social cohesion between those who abstain from deviancy and crime.

Durkheim argues that crime has another important social function. Deviant behavior can trigger social change and innovation; without it cultures and structures will fossilize. There are many acts that at one time were deemed illegal, but are now no longer so. Durkheim also points to the fact that deviant acts confront society with alternatives. They can prepare society for change. Some patterns of behavior that were defined as illegal in the past turned out to be heralds of a new moral. Take euthanasia. In the past it was forbidden to assist people that wanted to end their life, because they were suffering of extreme levels of pain and because there was no cure to stop it and to heal them. In the past euthanasia was considered homicide. Nowadays, in countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, there is a policy that strictly regulates in which cases doctors may euthanize a patient that wants to die. They are only allowed to do this in the case patients that are terminally ill and suffer from excruciating pain and have made very clear that they want to die. The doctor is compelled to consulting a colleague first and to follow strict procedures. This example supports Durkheim’s view on the innovative force of deviant behavior. Yet it is difficult to imagine that any type of deviation could herald a change of social practices. Could pedophilia ever be accepted as a legitimate form of sexual activity? Considering what we know about the traumatic consequences for the children involved, this appears to be a no-brainer.

Surely, deviant actions can produce cultural innovation. But the possible change of certain norms and values appears to be a side effect and not a crucial function of deviancy. Social change can also, and most often will, arise from other social changes that precede it. Strictly speaking, society does not need deviant actions to create new norms and values. They can also emerge without planning, spontaneously and unintendedly. History also shows cases of making some types of behavior illegal that were being condoned before. Think for instance of caning disobedient pupils, a “pedagogical” treatment that was widely accepted till the first half of the twentieth century. Nowadays, teachers that have slapped a boy or girl will be reprimanded  and probably suspended for a period. Clearly, what is defined as deviant or criminal is closely related to historic and cultural conditions.

3.5    Specialization and social integration

Durkheim did not grieve over the ebbing of religious life, but worried about the loss of its integrative effects on society. He worried about side-effects of industrialization, too. Numerous people left the countryside, lured by jobs in factories. In rapidly expanding cities life was freer, more diverse, and more hectic. Social bonds and social control were weaker than in small villages where everyone went to the same church or village school. Where people knew each other, were related via familial bonds, or trough working together on farms or in small workshops. These close networks forged mutual friendship and solidarity. When these networks fell apart solidarity got weaker.

Industrialization increased the division of labour. The creation of many new and different jobs severed daily contacts between workers. As a result social ties became weaker and more superficial, endangering social cohesion. Industrialization produced more specialization, more professional segmentation, more individualization and erosion of feelings of solidarity. These transformations inspired Durkheim to focus on the concept of solidarity. Did a modern industrialized and more individualized society need or spawn a new and other kind of solidarity? 

3.5.1 Durkheim’s dichotomy: Mechanic and Organic solidarity

In The Division of Labour  Durkheim discussed two forms of solidarity: mechanic and organic.[56] Mechanic solidarity could and can be found in truly traditional societies.

Mechanic solidarity prevails where all members of society are very similar, like atoms in an iron bar; where all members share the same ideas and are easily replaceable. They carry out similar tasks, and share a broad set of norms and values. In other words in traditional societies and smaller social groups the collective conscience nearly encompasses one’s entire consciousness.

Durkheim based his conceptualization of mechanic solidarity on his reading of anthropological reports of the life in clans. He assumed  that, in the Stone Age, clan members were very much alike. He assumes that the mechanic solidarity of that era is closely related to the segmental structure of the tribal society. This type of society had a complete hold on all its members. In modern societies, such a  homogenous mindset can be found in religious sects or in cells of political extremists, or, on a larger scale,  among men and women that have fallen under the spell of charismatic populist leaders that are good in promising easy solutions. People that have become aficionados of such “strong leaders,” will accept all the whims of these autocratic men,  – in most cases these are men. The followers ignore all the small, medium,  big and even the huge mistakes and blunders of their revered leader, even when they lead their people to the abys of hopeless wars. The solidarity of such populist groups is mainly mechanic and so strong that they break with their friends and family if they criticize their autocratic leader. Within the boundaries of one’s tribe, clan or sect the individual is focused on a very limited part of the world. This collective unanimity regarding all convictions and shared practices render them a specific, almost religious intensity.[57]

Durkheim spoke of organic solidarity when solidarity is based on functional coherence. Modern societies are heterogeneous: individuals are specialized in different tasks or jobs. Working alone or in small teams people grow apart from the men and women in other jobs and work situations. The shared set of ideas, opinions, norms and values becomes relatively small. Thus, individuals develop different attitudes, lifestyles and opinions. There is an increase of diversity of opinions about what is good or bad, right or wrong. In this more heterogenous situation the cohesive force of society has to be found in the acceptance that members of society are rather different, but depend upon each other; that society depends on the diversity and complementarity of a scala of different jobs, functions and skills. The large majority has to recognize that all these different skills and jobs are needed for the functioning of society as a whole. Durkheim called this type of solidarity organic, because the members of society  resemble various cells in living organisms. But these cells and also clusters of cells must cooperate to keep society alive.[58] So far so good. But in modern societies cooperation is not a given. Differences in types of jobs, levels of education, skills, and income can entice competition, rivalry, antagonisms, even insurgencies and class conflicts.

         On the other hand, for most members of modern heterogenous societies, it is easy to see that we all depend on the work of other people, of men and women that supply material products or services we cannot produce or deliver. Also is easy to see that we need the people who need the products we produce or the services we supply to our colleagues, clients, patients, students. It is the task of any society, but modern societies in particular, to make everyone aware that this interdependency also exist outside national borders, at a global scale. That last idea has not yet become a crucial element in the conscience collective of modern nations. See the emergence of political movements that oppose globalization and federalization and propagate an autarkic “our nation first” mentality.

3.5.2 Conscience collective

Durkheim defined the collective conscience (or collective consciousness) as the set of convictions and feelings that are characteristic for the modal members of society.[59] He discerned two consciences: a collective conscience that we share with the large majority of our society, “…which, in consequence, is … society living and acting within us.” The other conscience is personal and distinctive to each of us.[60] He added, and this makes it sociological, that the collective conscience leads a life of its own, and follows its own course of development. Theoretically, the collective conscience can be discerned from individual consciences. In practice they are connected. The thoughts and feelings of individuals are carriers of our collective conscience. In modern societies the collective conscience is less visible because it is overshadowed by the rich variation in individual opinions and beliefs. General norms are less binding. Hence, deviations of common norms tend to arouse less indignation.

Early in his career, Durkheim asserted that only so-called primitive societies are characterized by strong systems of shared beliefs and convictions. Later, he changed his opinion and emphasized that also systems with a strong degree of organic solidarity need a collective conscience based on a solid substratum. Only if the large majority of a society is connected to a set of collectively shared views, it can warrant its unity. Otherwise, each social unit, primitive or modern, would fall apart. The difference is that the collective conscience within modern societies leaves more space for individuality and variation in lifestyles, norms and values. This is compensated by a collective conscience at a more abstract level, which recognizes the mutual dependency of people. Therefore, the optimistic main thesis from La Division is that modern societies will not disintegrate. Modern societies will survive as integrated and stable units as long as they maintain a critical mass of organic solidarity.[61]

3.5.2 Increased specialization explained

Durkheim did not search for individualistic explanations of the division of labour. He looked for causes in preceding social conditions. In his view, organic solidarity, based on specialization and co-operation, developed from a pre-existing social situation, It remained adapted to it, whilst it developed further.[62] Changing conditions made co-operation possible and necessary. Expansion of co-operation and interdependence would not be possible if changing social sentiments had not opened the door. How could prehistoric man, if, he were, by nature, an individualist, or even an egoist, have resigned himself to an existence that goes strongly against his nature? From autonomous individuals nothing can emerge save what is individual. So, co-operation is a social fact. Co-operation is subject to social rules, that can only arise from other social facts. Durkheim cherished this idea all his life. The centre of his sociological approach has always been that the individual is born of society and not the other way around. Therefore, we must explain individualization by the state of the collectivity and not the state of the collectivity by individual phenomena.[63]

The utilitarian explanation, flatly rejected by Durkheim, implied that people already had become aware of the fact that they varied in character, abilities, and skills, long before society had produced the different tasks and jobs that demanded variety of skills and abilities. In Durkheim’s view it was the other way around, but this hypothesis is difficult to test. Undoubtedly, in prehistoric times, humans lived under social conditions that were very homogenous and repetitious. But there is no reason to assume that ten, twenty or fifty thousand years ago, the genetic variation between individuals also was significantly less diversified than nowadays. Hence, also in ancient times, humans must have perceived that some group members were better hunters or fishermen, or better suited to lead the group or tribe, better in maintaining order than others. There has always been a genetic basis for individual variations in abilities and the development of all kinds of skills. So it seems wiser to assume that the evolution of society, including the increase of specialization, has evolved in an interactive and mutually reinforcing process. During this long process individuals must have influenced the course of social events and vice versa.

         For Durkheim, the only valid explanation for increased specialization was the growth of populations. The denser the population, the quicker the exhaustion of natural resources. When more people live in the same area and have to live of the produce of the same piece of land, then social or moral density will increase, because more people have to interact, communicate and co-operate with one other. This results in an intensified competition that leads to social differentiation.[64] Here, Durkheim used Darwin’s hypothesis: the more organisms look alike, the tougher the competition for scarce resources. Social differentiation is a peaceful solution for the problematic struggle for life. Differentiation enables more people to live closely together. It mitigates competition. No longer everybody is a direct competitor of everyone else. Now, the only rivals are people with the same specialization. Specialization gives people some freedom to contribute in one’s own way to the continuation of the social whole. Raymond Aron summarizes this as follows: “Social differentiation, a phenomenon characteristic of modern societies, is the formative condition of individual liberty. Only in a society where the collective consciousness has lost part of its overpowering rigidity can the individual enjoy some amount of autonomy of judgment and action. In this individualistic society, the major problem is to maintain that minimum of collective consciousness without which organic solidarity would lead to disintegration.”[65]

Durkheim conveys that we, living in modernized societies, societies that allow individuals greater freedom, are not fully aware of the range and force of its collective conscience. Without a viable collective conscience moder societies will not survive. Modern societies need needs a substantial collective fund of norms, values and things held “sacred” to bind individuals to the whole.[66]  

Increased division of labour within modernizing societies creates a growing need for contractual arrangements. Individuals only will agree to make contracts on the presumption that both parties have similar norms for honoring contracts. The increase of contracts is propelled by the strong increase in specialization. We can’t reverse the historic and logical order of things. Only by studying social developments can we understand the emergence of individualistic man; and why individuals are capable of and opting for closing contracts with each other.[67]  

3.5.3  Anomie

Karl Marx had noticed some negative effects of industrialization. In his view, It mutilated the worker, transformed him into an alienated being, and reduced him to a nut or bolt in the machinery of economy. To Durkheim, these were negative outcomes of a bad organization of labour. This could be improved. To Marx, these negatives were unavoidable effects of capitalism. These flaws could only be solved by the destruction of capitalism. Like Marx, Durkheim was concerned about the soaring inequality between the numerous poor and the relatively small group of the rich and the very rich. This divide could forebode social unrest, if not a real revolution. It  weakened feelings of solidarity, and might lead to the collapse of society. A cluster of far-reaching changes had produced moral confusion. One of those threatening forces was the migration of tens of thousands of peasants and farm workers to industrialized urban areas. There, they faced all kinds of setbacks. The grass was not greener in the cities. And there were other issues, such as the loss of social networks, and cramped housing conditions. They had lost a lot and gained little. Disappointment was rife.

Like Marx, Durkheim viewed people as beings with boundless desires as insatiable animals. In contrast to animals, humans are not satisfied when their biological needs are fulfilled. “The more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of fulfilling needs.”[68] Unlimited desires have to be reined in. All societies must create a set of social norms and controls to restrain individual desires and passions. Without sufficient social control, individuals have to rely on their own strategies. This creates a state of anomie – a social situation without enough rules to keep control, peace and quiet.[69] In a state of anomie most norms and values have lost their attractiveness and credibility. Sudden far-reaching social changes can turn stable societies into uncontrollable anomic situations. When economic recessions results in lower incomes for large groups of people, this will disruption or even upend personal lives. It impacts people’s self-respect and lifestyle in negative ways. Demoralization can trigger extreme behavior. Sudden wealth can also lead to a loss of moral standards. All quick changes in social position or in the social structure can cause an anomic situation and lead to a high number of suicides.

= = = =

3.6 Sociological explanation of rising rates of suicide

During Durkheim’s life the number of suicides had been rising fast. In the nineteenth century, in several European countries, the rate of suicide had tripled. And the rates of suicide went further upward in the 20^th and the 21^st century. Presently, among adolescents suicide is the third largest cause of death. [70] The rates vary between countries and regions. This shows that suicide rates might be linked to cultural and social factors.

Also Durkheim found it intriguing that three times more women are suffering from mental illness, but the female suicide rate significantly smaller than that of men.[71] To date, women are about three times more likely to experience mental health problems than men. Yet, the male suicide rate is more than twice as high as that of women.[72]

Seven countries with the highest rates of Suicide, per 100,000 (2023) [73]

Even within the seven countries with the highest rates we see remarkable differences. Greenland’s rate is about three times higher than the rate of the other countries with a high of suicides. And the rate of Suriname is 25 percent higher than that of Uruguay. National differences become even more poignant when we also check the 7 countries with the lowest rates. Then we see that suicide in Greenland is 75 times higher than in the five countries with the lowest rate. Ignoring this outlier, we see that the rates in the high scoring countries is about 25 times higher than that of the low-rating countries. The male rate is always higher than the female rate, in some countries the male rate is a shocking five times higher. This gap also exists in the countries with the low rates.

Seven countries with the lowest Suicide Rates per 100,000 (2023)

Another remarkable phenomenon is that six of the seven countries with the lowest rates are Muslim countries. [74] This indicates that religion plays an important role. Religions tend to bind people and to control them, in particular Islam. [75] Have Muslim countries developed optimal degrees of these two functions?

As a self-conscious founder of a new science, Durkheim was eager to show that the interpretation of what, at first sight, might appear to be a wholly individual or psychological affair can be linked to social factors. He also stressed that a strict separation must be made between the explanation of regional differences in suicide rates and the causal explanation of individual cases of suicide.[76] Durkheim liked to crush popular non-sociological explanations. He dismissed the suggestion that rates of mental illness are related to rate of suicides. In his day and age, hardly anyone sought help from a psychiatrist. Maybe that’s why he boldly asserted that most victims of suicide never were diagnosed as “insane”. Presently, there is no denying that, at an individual level, depressions are related to suicide, and that depression is associated with suicidal ideation. The time between the first suicidal thoughts and suicidal attempts is often less than one year. Worldwide almost 16 per cent of adolescents, that is about 1 in 6, have thoughts about suicide. Fortunately, 999 of 1000 youngsters with morbid thoughts will not end their life by suicide.[77]

3.5.1 Individualism and suicide

Durkheim defined suicide as “… any death which is the direct or indirect result of a positive or negative act accomplished by the victim himself which he knows will produce this result.”[78]

It is easy to see why Durkheim added ‘direct or indirect’ and ‘positive or negative’. If a person refuses to eat and drink and dies of starvation this is true suicide like a person who quickly dies after deliberately swallowing something that is lethally poisonous.

Durkheim discerned different types of suicide: altruistic, egoistic, anomic and obligatory suicide.

When societies become more individualized and freer, they experience fewer social constrains. This tends to make social contacts more superficial and short-lived, which makes people more lonely. It mitigates the number and the quality of their contacts with other people. Hence there is less opportunity for detecting mental issues among your siblings, cousins, friends, colleagues, or neighbors; less opportunity to show some concern, to give them extra attention, help or good advice. All this makes humans more susceptible for suicidal behavior. When societies get more individualized and the number of suicide rises Durkheim speaks of egoistic suicide . I would have preferred another label. To begin with egoism is a psychological concept, not a sociological one. Secondly, there is nothing egoistic in falling victim of suicidal thoughts or behavior when you become less integrated in society. Anyhow, the main thing is that Durkheim presented and defended the thesis that rates of suicide correlate with the degree of individualization.

Religion appears to shield persons against suicide. Why? Believers go to their church, synagogue, or mosque once a week or even more frequently. Thus it provides contact opportunities and facilitates and encourages bonding with fellow-believers. Many believers also participate in non-profit organizations connected to their religious community. Thus, on average, church-goers are better integrated society. This can help explain why religious people have a lower rate of (egoistic) suicide than non-religious people. The percentage of believers in cities is lower than in rural areas, so suicide rates are higher in cities. Durkheim related the decline in suicides in times of war to an increased level of nationalism. During wars social cohesion becomes stronger.[79] It unites people because they all hate the same enemy.

Religions differ. Some are more cohesive and show more concern for their flock than others. The rates of suicide are very low in Muslim countries. In Muslim countries  adherence to Islam is almost 100 per cent. Secularization appears to be non-existent and the level of individualization is low. Besides, Islam strictly forbids committing suicide. It brings huge shame on your family.

What about Christians? Data from many countries show that suicide is less frequent amongst Catholics than Protestants. Protestantism stimulates intellectual and moral individualism much more than Catholicism. Protestants attach great value to individual Bible study. Their device is ‘to prove everything; hold fast that which is good.’[80] They are taught to question all preachings and official doctrines of the church. They have to rely on common sense and their own reading of the Holy Bible. They believe that, after death, each one will have to justify his own actions before God. This individual responsibility comes at a price. Compared to Catholicism, Protestantism exert more mental strain on believers. [81] Besides, Protestants are taught that they never can be sure that God will welcome them in heaven. According to Luther and Calvin, all men are born as sinners. Not even a life of good works can save them from an eternal afterlife in hell. Only the grace of Jesus Christ could save them from the horrors of hell. The Catholic Church offers worrying believers much more support. Catholic Priests can relieve confessors from the burden of their sins and sinful thoughts. Moreover they are taught that good works and frequent prayers do matter. Thus, the Catholic Church shields believers against the agony of insecurity about the afterlife.

Does Durkheim’s hypothesis still stand the test? It still inspires many sociologists to study its validity. Outcomes of recent studies add support to Durkheim’s theory, whereas others show results that appear to refute his thesis, when one compares Protestants and Catholics with similar levels of education or income.[82]    

In Durkheim’s view, many people suffer from too much freedom and too much individualism, but also from too little freedom and a high degree of social cohesion puts too much stress on individuals. Durkheim spoke of altruistic suicide when social cohesion becomes too strong. Again I would have preferred a less psychological label. But, I repeat, the main thing is that Durkheim detected a curvilinear relationship between degree of social cohesion and rate of suicide. Suicide rates will be lowest when individualization is moderate, and highest when individualization is too weak or too strong.

3.5.2 Suicide, gender, age and marital status

All over the world many more men than women commit suicide, regardless of age. Part of the gender difference can be explained by the fact that men tend to opt for strategies that cannot be reversed once started. A Dutch study showed that 60 per cent more females than males were medically treated following a suicide attempt.[83] The data of this study show that most suicides could be categorized in two groups. The younger age group (15-29 years) was single, living alone or with their parents. The middle-aged cluster (30-49 years) was divorced, living alone, and economically inactive. A high percentage of the middle age category reported physical and mental abuse by parents in childhood, as well as physical and mental abuse by a partner. Durkheim would label both clusters as egoistic suicides, because these victims seem to be poorly integrated in society at large, and in their families. One might label them non-integrational suicides

In his attempt to explain the sex gap, Durkheim echoed some truths and prejudices about women. First, he observed that women were less educated than men, which was true in his time. But, he was wrong to state that women were conventional by nature and lacked great intellectual needs. He acknowledged that the level of female literacy was much higher in England than in France. But literacy seemed to come at a price. In England, the female rate of suicides was higher than in other European countries. Durkheim also noted that on average Black women in the United States were better educated than Black men. Again, this was reflected in a relatively high rate of suicides among Black American women. All this seemed to indicate that increasing the level of education boosts suicide rates. Durkheim made clear that we should not blame the increase in education per se, but should look at other factors that are related to a higher rate of suicide. In his view, the increase is due to the weakening of traditional beliefs, resulting in moral individualism. There is no increase in suicides when education does not undermine traditional values and high moral standards.

That was Durkheim’s reasoning more than a century ago. Much has changed, but some patterns have stayed. Nowadays Black women still are outpacing men in most levels of education in the US. This gender gap exists in all major racial and ethnic groups. According to a recent report women are higher achievers than men in all OECD countries.[84] But world-wide two to eight times more men commit suicide than women. With the rising level of education value patterns have changed. First marriages and first pregnancies are being postponed. And then there is the increase of divorce. So which social factors are inducing more men to end their lives than women? What could men learn from women to avoid suicidal thoughts, planning and acts? How can we reorganize the modern world in such a way that the rates of suicide will drop, for men and for women, for young adults and for older age-groups? We must think of more challenging research projects than simply gathering data that prove that the difference in suicide rates between countries and religions.

Durkheim noted that marriage and the start of a family, which can be viewed as social integration at micro level, appears to keep people from committing suicide. His data showed that marriage decreases the suicide rate, but marriage at a young age does not have this positive effect. He refers to subcultures where honor plays an important role and shotgun marriages are common, when the young lady has become pregnant. In a footnote, Durkheim contended that this type of suicide might be found in cultures in which marriages are arranged.[85] Some young men or women see no other way out than the most drastic one: committing suicide. Recent research shows that this negative effect from forced marriages and early marriages does exist, especially among persons younger than 16 years of age.[86]

Durkheim held on to his theory that the suicide prevention effect of marriage in less traditional cultures must be attributed to the influence of the domestic environment; in particular the spouse and the children. French statistics showed that the category of married men committed one third less suicides than unmarried men. As protection against suicidal inclinations, marriage is somewhat less advantageous for women. If they do not give birth to one or more children, the rate of suicide increases. A century ago, married but childless women in France committed suicide half as often as unmarried women of the same age. So for women, birthing babies seems to be more crucial. Living with a partner and having children are clear forms of social integration. They mitigate the incidence of suicide to some extent.

Durkheim made an attempt to explain why women can endure life in isolation more easily than men. When he lived, women did spend a lot of  time at home. Their participation in the wider society was far less frequent than that of men. Hence they were less infused by its challenging demands. Durkheim deemed their social life far less complicated. At the time, men were raised to handle more complex social situations; they need to find more pillars of support outside themselves. Hence, their morale is easier disturbed. So. a significant increase in female suicide rates may be expected as soon as women participate more fully in society at large. Data from the second half of the twentieth century show that Durkheim was right. The increase of female participation in education and the labour market went along with an increase in suicide among women. Yet, the rate remained much lower than that of men. The increase of male suicides might partly be explained by the fact that men’s life also became more challenging as soon as their partners spread their wings and no longer restricted themselves to the traditional role of caring mother and housewife. Without all this motherly help their life became much more challenging. Often, after coming home from work, they were forced to do the cooking and to take care of the children.

The increase in the rate of suicides during the 20^th century and the first quarter of the 21^st could easily be explained by the combination of hypotheses put forward by Durkheim hundred years ago. Secularization led to a steady decline in participation in religious communities. Fewer people got married, couples did beget lesser children,  and more couples ended in divorce. More men than women ended their life after a divorce. For divorced women considering suicide was less likely, because they still felt a strong responsibility to see after their children. All these trends are manifestations of individualization, resulting in an increased number of “egoistic” suicide.[87]

The last hundred years also showed intermittent surges of anomic suicides, for instance, during the financial crisis of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed. Other strong, but temporary rises of suicide rates have been observed during the beginning and the end of the Second World War and also in the period following the demise of the communist empire in many central-European countries. More recently the COVID-19 pandemic presented the world with a very different, but far-reaching crisis leading to remarkable fluctuations of the rate of suicides. The first few months showed a decrease, but after June 2020 the rate began to rise sharply, in particular for women. A similar volatile pattern happened after the Great East Japan Earthquake of March 2011.[88] The first two months there was some decline, but then, for a few months, the rate rose above average. Also in this case, women did suffer more than men.

In modern, ever further individualizing western societies “collectivistic” suicide is in decline. The opposite trend can be seen in the non-western world. Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire clearly belong to the category of “altruistic” suicide. Recent examples from the Muslim world have re-introduced the model of the Kamikaze pilots. For the sake of what they see as a holy war or Jihad, they combine “altruistic” suicide with horrific attacks on their enemies, defined in a very broad way. These enemies can be Israeli children on a school bus, holidaymakers on the island of Bali, Iraqi shoppers in a market place, a Russian audience in a theatre or almost three thousand Americans in the Twin Towers in New York. Unfortunately the topicality of these examples show that Durkheim’s theories and concepts still help to explain current events well. Again, I wish to question Durkheim’s choice of terminology here. I prefer “sacrificial suicide.” Clearly so-called Jihadi fighters are prepared to give their life for the sake of their religion, the Prophet and their belief in being rewarded with a paradisiacal life in heaven, including a rich choice of beautiful virgins.

Durkheim discussed another variable that showed a strong, but curvilinear association with the rate of suicide. He states that the rate is low when the amount of social control is moderate and high when there is too little or too much regulation.  When societies offer too much liberty or too little freedom the suicide rate tends to be high. When level of individual freedom social cohesion is moderate, allowing enough space for individual freedom, but not too much as not to make one feel isolated or closed in. People must feel connected with the rest of society. They must have the feeling that they can count on the attention and solidarity of the group whenever they feel a need for this. Relatively high levels of suicide occur when individualization goes too far or when the collective bonding becomes suffocating or too demanding.

Durkheim has often been accused of favoring a collectivistic and moralistic philosophy with a strong focus on restricting individual drives and desires, and redirecting this individual energy to collective tasks to fulfill the needs of society. But his treatment of altruistic (or collectivistic) suicide shows that he was aware that societies can put an excessive strain on individuals. He firmly believed that a severe disorganization of society could be fatal for many people, but he also realized that too much cohesion and social constraint could be just as disastrous.

Durkheim spoke of obligatory altruistic suicide in the case of Japanese Kamikaze pilots who deliberately crashing their planes against the decks of enemy war ships, to destroy and sink it, including its entire crew.

Altruistic or “sacrificial” suicide is based on a powerful collective conscience, which regulates individual actions to such a high degree that individuals are prepared to sacrifice their lives for a collective value. Think of Muslim terrorists who kill themselves by driving trucks or cars full of explosives into crowded streets, market places or schools.

3.6    The elementary forms of religious life

3.6.1 Points of departure

Since the Jacobins tried to destroy Catholicism in France, French thinkers have grappled with the theme of morality. How could morals be maintained without traditional religious endorsement. Like Fyodor Dostoevsky’s character Ivan Karamazov they posed the question: “Does everything become permissible once God is dead?”  Also Durkheim feared that the demise of traditional religion would lead to the dissolution of solidarity and morale, to the breakdown of societies.[89] Though, being an agnostic, he started a quest for a functional equivalent for religion in a secular age. He thought to find it in moral education.

Durkheim’s fascinated by the work of William Robertson Smith, a Scottish theologian who had been purifying biblical sources from all kinds of additions and distortions. In his Religion of the Semites, his account of Jewish life, he pioneered a sociological approach. Thus he became aware of the social importance of beliefs and practices, such as its power to unite people and to reaffirm their common bonds. [90] In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life Durkheim shows a sharp insight in the importance of religious rituals and ceremonies for social cohesion. His study of anthropological reports gave him the idea that the cults of indigenous Australian clans represent religion in its simplest form. They still lived in The Stone Age, isolated from the rest of the world. Living that isolated for thousands of years they could not have borrowed religious ideas or practices from other religions. Hence, Durkheim was quite certain that their religious ideas and practices offer a valid model for the origin of religions, for religion in its most basic form. Studying them could teach us a lot about the essential elements of religious thinking.[91]

3.6.2 The cult of the tote

Indigenous Australian cults did not revere divine spirits or personalities. Therefore, Durkheim did not think that Gods or other supernatural entities are essential for any religion. What is crucial for these cults is the divide between the profane and the sacral, between Holy and unholy locations and events, between sacred and non-sacred things. These indigenous people treat Holy Matters with respect and awe. They are being placed on a very high level. Therefore, people who engage in religious rituals have to cross some kind of frontier, some mental barrier. They have to undergo rites of initiation (rites de passage). Usually, religions need specific practices, rituals and ceremonies. Every religion has a kind of church or ‘church community’. Religion truly is a collective phenomenon. It binds people. Durkheim presents the following definition:

          “A religion is an interconnected system of beliefs and practices concerning sacred things, that is, things that have acquired a separated role and are tabooed. Religious convictions and practices unite all people who belong to it in a specific moral community called a church.”[92]

Indigenous Australians are organized in clans. Clan have two important characteristics. Clan members consider themselves kin, because they all share the same ‘family name’: the name of the clan. They need not to be blood relatives, nor to live close together. They may be scattered over different parts of the tribal territory. Secondly, the name of the clan is the name of the totem. The totem has a special meaning for all members of the group. Each clan has its own totem. In general, these totems are normal, worldly things. In most cases, the totem represents a class of objects, for instance a specific animal that is declared taboo. Clan members are forbidden to kill and eat them, maybe with the exception of special occasions such as sacrificial ceremonies.

Being taboo is the prototype of the sacred.[93] In most cults, all members are considered to be sacred. However, one individual person or the few members of very small subgroup can be seen as more sacred than others, because they live an exemplary life. They are believed to possess specialized knowledge about their religion, its rites and ceremonies. Clan members do not make sharp distinctions between men, nature and the entire cosmos. They see themselves as parts of nature. The scope of religion encompasses everything. Outside reality there is nothing that can be the source of a ‘divine’ power. The power of the sacred has to be found within the clan itself. According to Durkheim, these tribes relate feelings produced by the dominating power of society to the image of the totem, to the most characteristic symbol of the group. He concluded that the principle of the totem is nothing else than the clan personified and represented by that which functions as totem.

3.6.3 Homo duplex and the origin of religions

Durkheim discarded the theory that religion had developed from animism. According to him, people deduced from their dreams that they had two identities: a physical and a spiritual identity. While dreaming people have the feeling that they are somewhere else, meeting other people, in another place or in another period. To many people, this seems to imply that we have a soul or spirit that also can exist outside our body. The final and definitive separation of body and soul occurs when a person dies. People observe that the body dies, that breathing stops after one last sigh. They know that the body will wither away, but assume that the soul will live on forever. Therefore, it is possible that the spirits of our ancestors, long dead, are still powerful while butterflying around. Animists believe that these spirits exert influence on the living. Prehistoric people considered these spirits to be sacred. From then on, it is only a small step to attach a divine quality to the spirits of ancestors and designate the first ancestor as the God, as the creator of the tribe or  all of mankind.

Durkheim did not see why the other side of man, the side that we know from our dreams, should have a holy status. Everyone who has dreamt that he or she was involved in some heroic, adventurous, romantic or erotic action has also come to realize that none of this actually happened, because the other people involved in the dream deny that anything of the sort ever occurred. Another why such dreams are dreams and have not happened in reality, is that it concerns people that have died, or moved to a faraway country. Durkheim deemed it impossible that humanity would maintain lines of thought that are easily refuted through common experience. Besides, not all prehistoric societies show a belief in an immortal soul.

Durkheim favored the idea of humans as a homo duplex. Humans have physical as well as spiritual experiences. Durkheim did not relate this to animistic thinking. To him, human sapiens has two sides: the worldly and the sacred, the useful and the moral,  the hedonistic versus the virtuous; the egoistic or individual side and the altruistic or collective one. In his view, all humans host a ‘spark of divinity’, that is kept alive through influences of society.

          “For society, this unique source of all that is sacred, does not limit itself to moving us from without and affecting us for the moment; it establishes itself within us in a durable manner. It arouses within us a whole world of ideas and sentiments which express it, but which, at the same time, form an integral and permanent part of ourselves.”[94]

Here Durkheim made one of his most daring mental leaps. He sees religion as a man-made construction. To him, religion is the deification and sanctification of society. To Durkheim the real origin of religious beliefs is the collective effervescence that can  overwhelm people assembled in lengthy ceremonious processions, ritual dances, and songs. It is highly probable that Durkheim borrowed this idea from studies of mass psychology. Such euphoric states can give birth to religious ideas or reshape them. The religious life of indigenous Australians passes through successive phases of complete lull and super excitation. In these periodic conditions of collective exhilaration, all members of the group undergo these feelings. The repetitive celebration of collective representations of the sacred during collective rites and ceremonies, during ritual songs and dances, can arouse great excitement and euphoric sentiments.[95] After such events, the mind is full of sacred representations. People are overwhelmed with thoughts about the heroic deeds of his illustrious and sacred ancestors. These collective representations gain power over the individual. It is society, the tribe or the clan that steers individual actions in a socially desirable direction. In this way, society’s moral conscience comes to life in the inner self of its members. This moral conscience forms a crucial part of their entire consciousness. It works like a voice that speaks to individual humans whenever they breach a rule. This inner voice represents the social consciousness of his society, or that part of society that is most significant for him. This inner voice becomes the manifestation of a higher power or spirit. As a consequence of socialization, modern man experience similar things.

          “In this voice which makes itself heard only to give us orders and establish prohibitions, we cannot recognize our own voices; the very tone in which it speaks to us warns us that it expresses something within us that is not of ourselves. This is the objective foundation of the idea of the soul: those representations whose flow constitutes our interior life are of two different species that are irreducible one into another. Some concern themselves with the external and material world, others, with an ideal world to which we attribute a moral superiority over the first.”[96]

Our consciousness is made up of two parts. The social part has pre-eminence over the on-socialized individual part. In most cases, the social part will curb our inner egoistic and biological drives. Such is the profound meaning of the conflict that exists within us, within the species of homo duplex.

3.6.5 Social functions of religion

According to Durkheim, religion fulfills many social functions. Religious rituals prepare people for social life. It teaches discipline and prudence. Religious gatherings and ceremonies reinforce mutual social bonds and solidarity. Religious supervision retains the cultural heritage of a social group, a clan or a society. It helps to transfer values to future generations. It also smothers feelings of frustration or losing sight of life’s purpose, for instance, when a loved-one dies or is suffering from illness or misfortune. Religious texts can mend feelings of sorrow and support the idea of the essential virtue of our society.[97]

Religion binds individuals together. It produces means through which people can forget their worries. It enables them to devote themselves to revered things and activities. Thus, religion makes that people can live with their daily chores and survive setbacks. It puts their inclinations to have fun, to comfort and convenience at the backburner, for the sake of higher goals such as supporting others in need. Religion is a strong anti-individualistic force. It inspires humans to engage in collective devotion to ethical goals. Traditions fulfill a major role in all religions. Hence, they are not meaningless. Although their apparent function appears to be to intensify one’s relationship with divine powers, their real function is to tighten the bonds between members of the group and to create and reproduce a social morale.[98] All religions without a ‘negative cult’, that is, a set of rules, commandments, interdictions, or taboos. People who violate these interdictions are sanctioned, in the present or in the hereafter. Sacrilegious acts offend public opinion, which evokes a reaction, thus resulting in a closing of the ranks.

Also some modern religious denominations engage in ceremonial practices that arouse euphoric feelings. During sermons with songs and dance some devotees become ecstatic. This gives them an idea of external powers that steer their actions and determine their will. By wearing special decorations and painting their bodies, by consuming special ceremonial dishes and drinks, participants experience a completely different life – a domain of existence that is sacred. During everyday life, persons lead their own selfish life. So, periodically, ceremonies and rites must reinforce the loyalty to the group as a whole. Intrinsically, ceremonial actions are unimportant. What is important is their influence on the conscience collective, on feeling to be  a member of a group of equal minded people, or on experiencing close contact with something sacred. Whatever the form of religious rites, they are all functionally equivalent; they all fulfill the same function of social bonding. In that sense, all religions are alike and equally sincere, for all are directed at the functioning and bonding of society.

3.7    Socialization and moral education

Durkheim started his academic career as pedagogue. He asked himself the question: “What is the role and the effect of education as an institution for socialization? His sociological approach to socialization was innovative. He presented new insights: for example, that the goals and methods of socialization and formal education are determined by social factors. They are neither God-given, nor idiosyncratic prerogatives of individual parents. For Durkheim education, which he also called socialization méthodique, is a social fact. It is society as a whole that determines the ideals that formal education should help to realize. The objectives and methods of schooling exist outside particular individuals; they have a ‘compulsory character’. Society can only survive when people achieve a sufficient degree of cohesion and homogeneity. Education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fitting children with prevailing views, attitudes, and  basic knowledge that living in society demands. On the other hand, society also needs diversity. Education guarantees this diversity by being diversified and specialized itself. All this led Durkheim to devise the following definition:

          “Education is the influence exercised by adult generations on those that are not yet ready for social life. Its object is to arouse and to develop in the child a certain number of physical, intellectual and moral states which are demanded of him by both the political society as a whole and the special milieu for which he is specially destined.”[99]

Without society individuals cannot survive. Without society, they would never develop into social beings, into truly human beings. That is why individuals often have to submit their own interests to group interests. That is why Durkheim took so much interest in moral education. Moral conduct is acting in the interest of the community. It is acting within the boundaries of socially accepted norms and values. Each child must learn to accept social duties. To Durkheim, the normative order must restrict the insatiable needs of human beings. Otherwise they would fall victim to their own instincts and desires. One needs to be freed from several instinctive drives and desires. Only if children are kneaded and plied through processes of socialization or enculturation, will they become valuable human beings. Without socialization no one can develop into a sufficiently developed member of society. Take away language, ethics, and culture and you end up with a pack of animals. Enculturation is the key to social evolution for each new generation.

In Durkheim’s view, the newborn baby is a tabula rasa. Durkheim, the sociologist, is not interested in the idea of an innate nature or similar “vague and indefinite tendencies which can be attributed to heredity.”[100] He draws our attention to the fact that with each new generation, society is challenged with the task to compose social beings out of this ‘raw material’. Fortunately, people, in particular young children, are endowed with an astonishing pliability or plasticity. We need not view this as a negative characteristic. This exceptional adaptability stands us in good stead when we have to survive in difficult physical and social conditions.

In contrast to his broad elaboration on the social character of socialization, Durkheim seldom discussed the process itself. Yet, he pointed at three important aspects: (1) imitation, (2) co-operation, and (3) identification. These processes reinforce each other. Generally it is true that children imitate the people with whom they live and interact. These are the people they tend to love – their parents, brothers and sisters. It is rather easy to identify with them. Co-operation implies communication, accepting advice from others, following their example and thus imitating them. In this way, socialized adults guide and support the socialization of youngsters. Via this process children acquire the knowledge, skills, and moral standards of the community or profession for which they are destined.

3.7.1 Elements of moral education

To Durkheim moral education is the most important element of socialization. Behavior that reckons with the interests and feelings of other people keeps society intact. He distinguishes three aspects of moral education:

• discipline;
• attachment to social groups;
• autonomy

Discipline accounts for the obligatory aspect of norms and rules. If a critical mass of individuals do not act according to the prevailing rules, then social life will become chaotic. No longer do we know what to expect from the other. Social organizations will fall apart. Therefore, viable societies need authorities and institutions that set the norms and rules of individual behavior, to guarantee continuity, consistency and stability. In general, yesterday’s rules should still apply today, tomorrow, and in the foreseeable future. Of course, from time to time things will change. If these changes are relatively small and occur in a slow gradual way, people will adapt easily.

The disciplinary function of teaching new generations to follow moral rules is to maintain social order and to preserve society. Each generation has to learn the difference between responsible and irresponsible social action. Responsible behavior is acting in the interest of the collectivity. Responsible social actions require strong attachment to one’s society or social group. [101]  

Complex modern societies showcase a diversity of ideals, values, norms and opinions. But modern societies must remain integrated too. They have to inculcate a universal respect for cultural and ethnic diversity and also respect for more comprehensive and more abstract ideals, such as individualism, justice, and peace. Besides, multi-ethnic and multicultural societies have to find ways to solve issues when values from different cultures clash and trigger conflict, hate and animosity. Their governments and their laws have to be clear about the overarching values of society. It must be clear which value or legal right prevails when different cultural values or rights stand in each other’s way. Then it is up to the schools, to teach its student about the specific values and rights of minorities and when they have to give way for the overarching laws and values of society as a whole. Durkheim was convinced that it was possible to acquire a set of general values, skills, and cognitive elements, as well as a specific set, meant for  particular subgroups or professional categories, because he realized that humans are exceptionally malleable.[102] He is right about the plasticity and adaptability of humans, about their potential ability to adjust to new situations. But creating and maintaining social cohesion, order and stability in culturally and religiously divided multi-ethnic societies is asking extra attention from parents, social groups, policy makers and  schools. I am sure that Durkheim, would he be living in our day and age, still would be convinced that society would succeed in solving the issues raised by multi-ethnicity and multiculturality. Why, because he did not only believe in the adaptability of individuals, but as a functionalist, he also had a strong belief in the adjustability and vitality of societies.

The third element of moral education is enhancing individual autonomy. How can the free will be complied with conformity to the collective rules and demands of society? Durkheim found the solution in building autonomy and responsibility on a solid basis of valid and reliable knowledge of society, on valid knowledge of its core needs and functions. The difference between self-determination and autonomy and the complete subjection to the social group lies in the ability to predict the consequences of alternative actions for oneself and for other people.[103] The more precise these predictions are, the better people can determine which line of action would be best. When well-socialized people make up their minds about what to do or not to do, they will consider the needs and demands of the group or organization to which they belong. Durkheim argues that it is not enough to respect discipline and to be committed to the group. We must have knowledge of the reasons for our conduct too. This insight grants our behavior the autonomy that the public conscience requires. Morality no longer consists merely in behaving in an acceptable way. Social rules must be freely accepted too.[104] This requires a new attitude in education. Education should pay more attention to the nature of society and its great meaning for the individual. At school, morality should not be preached but taught. Explication is the first and most important assignment. Durkheim viewed discussion and intellectual reflection of moral principles as a necessary element of modern education.[105] The authority that emanates from morals stems from ‘above.’ In the past this “higher” source was religion as taught by the Church. Nowadays we must clarify that society, as a supra-individual and objective fact, is the true source of moral authority. Because, we owe our existence to society. Take away our language, laws, technology, art, and culture, and we are left without civilization. If we can accept this moral authority as a good thing in itself, then we will obey moral rules for their own sake. Therefore, it is necessary that formal education teaches each new generation that we have to respect the moral rules of society.

= = = = =

The rules we experience, as forces from without or from “above”, have to be transformed into forces that work from within. Thus, we will follow these rules as if it is the most normal thing to do, as if they no longer need any reflection or discussion. This taken-for-granted quality makes that social life runs smoothly. The question whether it is desirable that individuals give up some or many of their personal desires and thus appear to yield to the demands of society is answered in two steps. First and foremost, the human being can only attain his true self and develop his own talents and character if he is integrated in society. Secondly, the demands of society can only become the desires of the individual, when the rules and customs of society have been internalized in his inner self, and the values of society have become an integral part of his own goals.

= = = = = =

Being a homo duplex can trigger inner conflicts. Only moral conduct can bring men to the point that they will suppress or postpone their strictly individual impulses. This dualism of human nature manifests two aspects of his existence, an existence as a mere individual and an existence as a social being. Frequently, society commands its members to go against their biological and psychological nature. Often we cannot satisfy the two beings within us. Since society has its own nature, its requirements are quite different from our individual natures. The interests of the whole are not necessarily those of the part. “Therefore, society cannot be formed or maintained without our being required making perpetual and costly sacrifices.”[106]

3.8    Durkheim’s socialism

As a student, Durkheim had discussed politics very often. As a beginning sociologist, he had cherished the idea that a mature sociology could fuel socialism by transforming scientific insights into political practice. Like all socialists Durkheim favored social equality, but he had no idea how to achieve this. He rejected the materialism of Marx. He rejected that class struggle forms an essential and cancerous element of capitalist society. He also renounced economic liberalism. He could not envisage how egoistic actions of competing businesses would produce a stable social order. Durkheim aimed at an orderly functioning of society as a whole. In his view, improving social conditions of workers was a challenging goal, but much more had to be done. In his view, the misery of modernity had far deeper roots than a badly organized economy. Therefore, he aimed at the revitalization of social morality.[107] He emphasized that organic solidarity would solve the issue of finding the right balance between individualism and collectivism. In societies based on organic solidarity individualism will flourish as soon as collective needs are fulfilled and social norms are obeyed. Durkheim observed that maximizing individual rights seems to be the highest value of modern societies. Each individual is taught to develop his or herself as much as he or she can. That is why modern societies have a great problem with achieving the required level of social cohesion and solidarity. Especially, individualized societies need a well-developed collective conscience. Individuals have to respect other members of society. This is a prerequisite for a peaceful cohabitation with other people, with people that have different jobs, skills, political opinions, hobbies, norms and values. Precisely in societies that attach a great value to individual rights, sociologists must address the issue of maintaining a basic set of shared beliefs and convictions. Too much individualism will endanger social cohesion. The more individual rights are propagated, the more it appears to imply that the interests of the collective are unimportant. Therefore, society must constrain the insatiable desires of human beings. A balance has to be found, peacefully. Durkheim abhorred the employment of violence to attain one’s political objectives. He stuck to his idea that the real problem was a lack of moral and social cohesion.

For Durkheim, socialism simply was a more sensible organization of social life. The goal and result of social existence should be to integrate individuals in the framework of communities that are endowed with moral authority and are capable of performing pedagogical and educational needs.[108]

After the French Revolution, socialism attracted many followers. A growing number of people no longer accepted the soaring divide between the rich and the poor. On the one hand, modern industry created a great abundance and great scarcity. On the other hand it created poverty on a large scale. Socialists presented new ideas to reorganize the economy to better fulfill the basic needs of all people and erase poverty in all walks of life. Durkheim distrusted this solution for humans are insatiable beasts. How successful we ever might become in improving labour conditions, shortening working days, raising wages, laying out social support to widows, the sick, and the invalids, it would never lead to the complete satisfaction of all. Social reformists direct their energy to things that are important, but not all-important. To Durkheim, the essential problem of modern societies is creating and maintaining a public spirit and moral discipline that directs and restrains the desires of people.

3.9    Concluding remarks

As Founding Father Émile Durkheim dreamt of a mature and solid sociology that uses objective scientific methods. His books Division of Labour in Society and Suicide still are landmark studies in the field of sociology. Many of his theoretical insights are still valid today.

Durkheim was convinced that social processes follow scientific laws just like the laws of physics. Hence, he urged sociologists to investigate social facts as if they were material things. Many of their characteristics, such as their relative inflexibility and the influence they exert on people, seem to legitimate this approach. Durkheim showed that his positivistic approach was applicable in many cases, especially where social facts are crystallized in objectified ‘things’ such as constitutions, laws, customs, age-old traditions, types of organizations, and systems of transport.   

As founding father of sociology he emphasized that social phenomena constitute a realm of their own. They are a sui generis, meaning that they are generated by social facts. Therefore, sociology should occupy itself with sociological explanations only. It must explain social phenomena with other social factors, and not with biological or psychological factors. Nowadays, we would view this perspective as somewhat narrow-minded. Human existence and social life are such complex phenomena that an interdisciplinary approach is favored over a strictly disciplinal approach. Nevertheless, sociologists should keep his advice in mind and should offer more than an aggregation of individual data. We should acknowledge that the large majority of the subjective meanings people attach to their lives and social conditions are social facts. These subjective meanings can and must be examined objectively.

Durkheim never got tired to tell us that collectively shared ideas and views lead to great similarities in conduct and social cohesion. Without this collective element in our personal make-up, we could not have become the kind of people we are now. Without a common language and a set of shared customs, norms, values, morals, and laws, individuals and societies would not have developed. Durkheim showed a deep understanding of and respect for the value of collective life. In his view, people should show a great respect for society, because individuals owe almost everything to social life, to their upbringing and socialization in social groups. The real sanctuary is the good society but Durkheim did not think that all societies are perfect and never should be changed. The conscience collective of some societies, dominant political parties, groups of believers and reactionary movements are in need of revision, in light of new insights and developments. Societies that manifest clear signs of anomie should be reorganized to give them more structure and regulations. On the other hand, societies that show too much regulation or far too strong cohesion should be loosened up to make individual life more satisfactory.[109]

Durkheim was a moralist pur sang. He feared that the negative consequences of modernization, industrialization, urbanization, secularization manifested in increasing individualization. He worried that modern societies could fall apart at the cost of humanity. Should the moral constraints of religion or the social control of small communities fall away, then secular constraints must fill the gap. In his view, formal education should become an institute for preparing new generations for society: intellectually, vocationally, and morally.

/// This is a revised version of chapter 3 of my book: Icons of Sociology. Boom Academic, Amsterdam, 2007. (Daft 2-5-2026. Words: 17914)

[1] Tim Henderson, 2 October 2025.  Suicide claims more Gen Z lives than the previous generation, the Millennials. Stateline.org. Retrieved: 29-1-2026

[2] Addiction Center: Social Media Addiction (addictioncenter.com): Retrieved: 29-1-2026. 

[3] His name of birth was David Émile Durkheim, but he became widely known as Émile Durkheim. Why? Did he drop the typical Jewish name David after he had lost his faith? Or did he do this in view of the anti-Semitic climate in France when he became a professor and author of sociology books?

[4] S. Fenton (1984): Durkheim and modern sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[5] This is also the core of the African Ubuntu-philosophy. See:

[6] Steven Lukes: Emile Durkheim. His life and work, Hammondsworth: Allan Lane, The Penguin Press, 1973, pp 54-55

[7] Boutroux wrote: Natural Law in Science and Philosophy and also “Education and Ethics.” Durkheim studied these books with great interest.

[8] Lukes: o. c., pp 59-60

[9] Chr. Charle (1984): Le beau mariage d’Emile Durkheim. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 55, 45-49.

[10] K. Thompson (1982): Emile Durkheim (p.50). London: Tavistock Publications

[11] W.S.F. Pickering (1979): Introduction by W.S.F. Pickering. In Durkheim: Essay on morals and education. London, Routledge Kegan Paul.

[12] Franco-Prussian War, Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 16 December 2025

[13] Paris Commune, Wikiedia.org. Retrieved: 16 December 2025

[14] Since 1960 the rural population of France has further decreased to 18%. Rural population share in France 1960-2024: statistica.com; retrieved 25 November 2025.

[15] Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy: His paternal grandfather was the illegitimate son of Countess Esterhazy de Galantha. Wikipedia.org Retrieved: 25 November 2025.

[16] Idem

[17] R. Collins & M. Makowsky (1972): The Discovery of Society: New York: Random House. (pp 80-81)

[18] S. Lukes: o. c., pp. 331-332

[19] In 1923, before he died, Esterhazy confessed his crime to an English journalist.

[20] Le Monde, 12 July 2025

[21] S. Lukes; o, c,, pp 321-325

[22] Idem; p 110

[23] E. Durkheim (1950): The Rules of Sociological Method (p.2) New York: The Free Press.

[24] Affirmative action: Wikipadia.org. Retrieved: 27 April 2026

[25] Allessandro Belmonte & Armando Di Lillo: Backlash against affirmative action: Evidence from the South Tyrolean package. European Economic Review; Volume 137, August 2021, 103802. Retrieved: 27 April 2026.

[26] US Backlash Against Affirmative Action. thecanadianencyclopedia.ca: Retrieved: 26-4-2026

[27] University of Minnesota Twin Cities: Affirmative Action Reversal 30 June 2023: cla.umn.edu. Retrieved: 26-4-2026

[28] Social Media’s dangerous fantasy. How the “trad wife” movement fuels inequality and gender. Assessment and Development Matter; Vol. 17, Issue 2.  British Psychological Society

[29] E. Durkheim (1953): Sociology and Philosophy (p.55) New York: The Free Press.

[30] Idem, p. 3

[31] Different societies and cultures have different rules about what pregnant mothers should  do or not, what to eat or drink, what kind of medical care she will get during the pregnancy and during the process of giving birth. 

[32] Émile Durkheim: The Rules of the Sociological Method, 1938

[33] Female genital mutilation (FGM) refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons. FGM  can lead to serious, long-term complications and even death. Immediate health risks include hemorrhage, shock, infection, HIV transmission, urine retention and severe pain.  UNICEF: What is FGM? unicef.org; Retrieved: 20 December 2025

[34] E. Durkheim: The Rules of Sociological Method (1895); trans. Sarah A. Solovay and John M. Mueller, ed. George E. G. Catlin (1938, 1964), 13. 

[35] Social structures have restrictive as well as facilitating characteristics. A. Giddens (1984): The constitution of society (p.169) Cambridge: Polity Press.

[36] S. Lukes: o. c., p. 12

[37] Idem: p. 13-14

[38] E. Durkheim (1960): Sociology and its scientific field. In Kurt H. Wolff (Ed), Emile Durkheim et al., Essays on Sociology and Philosophy (p. 367-368). New York: The Ohio State University Press

[39] K. Thompson (1982): Emile Durkheim (pp.51-52). London: Tavistock Publications.

[40] See: Robert D. Bowling Alone; The Collapse and Revival of American Communities.  etc.

[41] The Heysel Stadium disaster: Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 15 December 2025

[42] The game was broadcasted live on Eurovision TV. The cameras remained focused on the players, avoiding shots of people being squeezed, being trampled or having fallen down were not shown during the match, although the commentators were telling about the drama they were witnessing. I was looking in shock and awe, loosing all interest in the game and its outcome. I could think of nothing else than the big question: “What am I witnessing now?” Who are the people that have decided to proceed with this match in stead of aborting it, while supporters are being injured or even killed?       

[43] Durkheim, É. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society. New York (p 108): Free Press.

[44] When Surinam became independent in 1975 almost a third of the entre population migrated to The Netherlands. When the special arrangement to get visas to The Netherlands stopped in 1980, again thousands of Surinamese people boarded a plane to Holland to beat the ban.

[45] Abdelmalek Sayad: The Suffering of the Immigrant. Polity Cambridge; 2004.

[46] The Rules of Sociological Method, o. c., pp 103-104

[47] Presently, and this is has been going on for many decades and in many countries, mischievous political leaders tell their voters that they will stop the existing flow of migrants in no time. So far, no body has been able to keep his promise, but they still get elected.  

[48] J.H. Turner (1978, rev. edition): The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood; The Dorsey Press, p. 37.

[49] A. Pierce (1960): Durkheim and functionalism. In: Kurt H. Wolff (Ed.). Emile Durkheim, A collection of Essays (pp.154-169). Pierce gives six quotations from Les Rules and from Suicide that put a sharp light on Durkheims view.

[50] E. Durkheim (1983): Le suicide (p. 366). Paris: Quadrige, PUF

[51] Durkheim never spoke of functions of society as a whole. He only used this term when he discussed a part or an aspect of a social system, for instance, the function of the division of labor or the social function of religion. In turn, he exclusively used the concept of need to express a characteristic of society or an autonomous social system. In his approach aspects or parts of society have no needs but fulfill functions for society as a whole.

[52] Pierce: o. c.

[53] T. Kuhn (1970): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[54] J. C. Alexander (1982): Theoretical Logic in Sociology, Volume Two. The antinomies of classical thought, Marx and Durkheim (pp. 76-80). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

[55] E. Durkheim (1991): De la division du travail social, Paris: Quadrige, PUF. E. Durkheim (1984): The Division of Labour in Society. Houndmills and London: Macmillan.

[56] La Division; o. c., p 143

[57] Idem

[58] R. Aron (1987): Main Currents in Sociological Thought. (Part 2) Hammondsworth: Penguin Books (p. 21).

[59] In French ‘conscience’ means conscience as well as consciousness.

[60] La Division; p. 99.

[61] A. Giddens (1971/1991): Capitalism and modern social theory, an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber (p. 72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[62] The Division of Labour, o. c., p. 241

[63] Aron; o.c. p 321

[64] The Division of Labour, o. c., p 201

[65] R. Aron; o. c.

[66] R. Aron: Main Currants in Sociological Theory (part 2). p. 33

[67] Aron; o. c., pp 326-327

[68] E. Durkheim (1951): Suicide (p.248) New York, The Free Press.

[69] The Greek nomos means rule or law, so anomie means without rules and laws.

[70] Suicide rate by age; World 2000 to 2021: Ourworlddata.org. Retrieved: 20 November 2025

[71] Mental Health Foundation: Men and women: statistics. www.mentalhealth.org.uk. Retrieved: 8-12-2025. Some researchers stress that more women attempt to commit suicide than men, but women tend to use methods that are less lethal.

[72] Suicide rate by age; World 2000 to 2021: Ourworlddata.org. Retrieved: 20 November 2025

[73] World Population Review: Suicide rates by country. Published in 2026. The data are from 2023. Worldpopulationreview.com. Retrieved: 26 March 2026.

[74] World Population Review: Suicide rates by country. Published in 2026. The data are from 2023. Worldpopulationreview.com. Retrieved: 26 March 2026.

[75] Miles Simpson and Georg H. Conklin (1989): Socioeconomic Development, Suicide and Religion. A Test of Durkheim’s Theory of Religion and Suicide. Social Forces, Vol. 67, Issue 4, June 1989, pp 945-964.

[76] A. Giddens (1971): Capitalism and modern social theory, an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber (p. 82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[77] John Hopkins Medicine: Suicide and Depression. Hopkinsmedicine.org. Retrieved: 26-3-2

[78] E. Durkheim (1852, 1987): Suicide. London. Routledge Kegan Paul.

[79] E. Durkheim (1852, 1987) o. c.

[79] L. A. Coser: o. c.

[80] Thessalonians 5: 21

[81] E. Durkheim (1852, 1987): Suicide (p. 209). London. Routledge Kegan Paul Durkheim: Suicide, o. c., p. 209

[82] Miles Simpson and Georg H. Conklin (1989) o. c.

[83] E. Arensman (1997): Attempted Suicide: Epidemiology and Classification. Leiden, Universiteit van Leiden.

[84] Pew Research Center: US women are outpacing men in college completion, including in every major racial or ethnic group. Pew Research Center: Short read. November 18, 2024.

OECD (2025), Gender Equality in a Changing World: Taking Stock and Moving Forward, Gender Equality at Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e808086f-en

[85] Suicide; o. c., p 276

[86] Sixby Pridmore, Gary Walter: Suicide and Forced Marriage. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Science (2013 Mar, 20 (2) pp 47-51. Ali Fakhar c.s.: Early marriages, stressful life events and risk of suicide and suicide attempts; a case-control study in Iran. BMC Psychiatry. Link.springer.com. Retrieved: 8 Dec 2025-12-08.

[87] May be it would be better to label these suicides “”disconnection” suicides or “non-integrational” suicide. These label are more sociological and fit Durkheims theory about the effects of increased individualization much better.

[88] Yonoatsu Osaki, cum suis: Suicide rates during social crises: Changes in the suicide rate in Japan after the Great East Japan earthquake and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Psychiatry Res. 2021 May 26; 140: 39–44; Retrieved from PMC PubMed Central: 5-2-2026

[89] Coser; o. c., pp 136-137

[90] William Robertson Smith: Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 2 Dec 2025

[91] E. Durkheim (1971): The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (p. 13). London: George Allan & Unwin.

[92] E. Durkheim: The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, o. c., p. 47.

[92] S. Fenton: o. c.: p. 148.

[93] Idem, p. 140

[94] Les formes, p. 376; Elementary forms: p. 262.

[95] Les formes, p. 494; Elementary forms: p. 346

[96] Idem, p. 376-377: Elementary forms: p. 263.

[97] L. A. Coser: o. c.: p. 139.

[98] Les formes, p. 323; Elementary forms: p. 226

[99] E. Durkheim (1956): (translated by Sherwood D. Fox). Education and Sociology. New York: The Free Press. p. 71

[100] Idem, p. 72

[101] Moral Education, p. 59

[102] Education et sociologie, o. c., p. 118

[103] Education morale, 1963, p 34

[104] Moral Education, o. c.,  p. 120

[105] Steve Fenton, o. c., p 148

[106] E. Durkheim (1960a): The Dualism of Human Nature and its Social Conditions. In: K. H. Wolff (Ed.), Émile Durkheim et al. Essays on Sociology and Philosophy (pp. 337-338). New York

[107] S. Lukes: o. c.: pp. 330-332

[108] R. Aron: o. c.: 376-377

[109] T. Parsons (1973). Durkheim on Religion Revisited: Another Look at The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. In Charles Y. Glock and Phillip E. Hammond (1973): Beyond the Classics: Essays on the Scientific Study of Religion. New York: Harper and Row. pp. 156-18