Free Inquiry In Creative Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 51 POPULATION DECLINE AND CONTEMPORARY DURKHEIMIAN *

Swati Shirwadkar, University of Pune, India; Tom Segady, Stephen F. Austin State University; and Robert Szafran, Stephen F. Austin State University

ABSTRACT

Of the "classic" sociological theorists, it was Durkheim who established as a central concern the challenge of moral development in the face of rapid modernization. In traditional societies, characterized by mechanical solidarity, Durkheim saw constructing the basis for collective representations. The moral dimension of traditional societies was centralized and enforced with repressive laws. With the transition to organic solidarity, as a result of Durkheim's largely unstated assumption of the changes brought on by population growth-which he equated with 'moral density'-the centrality of religious beliefs de­ clined. From religion to law to social contracts, the foundations on which societies rest shifted dramatically. In postmodern societies, with declining populations and rapidly-evolving technological capabilities, the relationship between moral development and the basis for organic solidarity becomes less clear. Population growth and an increasing division of labor no longer foster the type of and moral density that Durkheim posited. The shifting modalities of moral development that are emerging in postmodern societies were, however, anticipated by Durkheimian theory, and out of this several propositions for further investigation are outlined.

'Things fall apart; the center cannot hold' ­ Durkheim's influence on the methods ofmod­ Yeats ern social was extensive. He moved social in the direction of DURKHEIM'S LEGACY a concern with facts. (1989 28) Beyond the honorific of being designated as one of the "masters" of sociological Alexander has raised the estimation of thought,1 Emile Durkheim has also become, Durkheim's contribution yet higher: in Foucault's words, a "founder of dis­ course."2 Of the great ideas in classical so­ ...the modern theory of social change as ciological theory, Durkheim's formulations differentiation begins with Durkheim. (Alex­ stand alone in several respects. It was the ander 1986 3) intellectual trajectory of Durkheim's 'positiv­ istic organicism'3 that allowed him to develop With these distinctive accomplishments, entirely new conceptual approaches for un­ the question must then be asked why Durk­ derstanding the modern social world. For ex­ heim has been praised so highly, often above ample, despite the incorporation of data into the other "masters," yet the implications of their analyses, Marx and Weber accom­ his substantive thought have yet to be fully plished this only sporadically in their writ­ explored and extended. When the sociologi­ ings and data were largely treated as anec­ cal problem to be addressed is one of moral dotal support for theoretical conclusions development, many of Durkheim's ideas re­ reached in advance. Durkheim's positivistic tain their capacity to inform contemporary so­ organicism-reflected, for example, in his ciological investigations and to provide a masterful analysis in -constituted a unique moderninist perspective on contem­ revolutionary shift in social thought and so­ porary moral development in society. Emir­ ciological method. Van Poppel and Day have bayer has recently remarked that: asserted that [Durkheim's] writings all take on the task of ...the analytical rigor and theoretical under­ thinking through the significance for mod­ pinning of Suicide have made it the most ern social life of the moral integration and influential ofworks. It is the customary start­ regulation of the individual and of the dele­ ing point for both the sociological and the terious impact, in particular, of modern ten­ epistemological analysis of suicide. (1996 dencies towards egoism and anomie. (2003 501) 2)

Cuzzort has remarked that: However, much of the surround- 52 Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology

ing Durkheim has been limited to descrip­ vative interpretations ofcurrent developments tive , from the outset of the wider in society have been made by utilizing a Durk­ reception of his works (cf. Merton 1934). In heimian framework. Recently, TenHouton's point of fact, Durkheim's own ideas seem to (1995) reexamination of Durkheim's explica­ be increasingly buried under increasing lay­ tion of interaction rituals in Elementary Forms ers of secondary interpretive literature, how­ produced a new conceptual framework for a ever well intended these efforts may have structural analysis of primary emotions. Simi­ been. In her masterful translator's introduc­ larly, Alexander (1988) provided a penetrat­ tion to The Elementary Forms, Karen E. ing illustration of the power of Durkheimian Fields remarks that thought with his depiction of the American collective conscience and the reaction to ... Formes is widely mentioned and charac­ moral transgression, symbolic transforma­ terized, if not so widely read. Like broccoli, tion, and political crisis through his analysis classics are said to be good for one, even of the Watergate scandal. The fact remains, if swallowed unwillingly. (1995 xxii-xxiii) however, that the vast majority of writings have unfortunately been about Durkheim and The result is that some rather less than sat­ his thought, rather than attempting to apply isfying portions of Durkheim have been his often seminal ideas.4 served up, thus lacking the elegance of his reasoning and the potential of his ideas to MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE COMING inform subsequent efforts. OF THE MODERN WORLD There have been notable exceptions: However his works have been treated, the Swanson's (1960) The Birth of the Gods inescapable fact remains that Durkheim's leads the list of seminal post-Durkheimian conceptual approach to sociological ques­ investigations. Shils and Young's (1956) ex­ tions-with the Leitmotiv being the existence position of charisma, sacred meaning, and of the social fact-was revolutionary and re­ ritual (see their article "The Meaning of the mains a driving force that distinguishes so­ Coronation") ciology from other disciplines. These social facts, for Durkheim, did not exist as static or redeemed Durkheim's claim that a theory purely analytical structural entities, divorced developed in relation to Aboriginal totemism from the moral development of societies. was still relevant. (Smith & Alexander 1996 Durkheim's linkage of moral development 588) to the social facts that were emerging in modern societies was not unique, however. Additionally, several efforts have been made The tradition of considering the conse­ by those following a theory constructionist quences of modernization on moral devel­ approach (e.g., Gibbs 2003), who have at­ opment in societies was taken up in various tempted to refine Durkheim's concepts by and often theoretically productive ways by all developing out of his division of labor thesis the thinkers now defined as 'classicaL' We­ a series of empirically testable propositions. ber (1904/1958) predicted-in a somewhat Van Poppel and Day (1996), utilizing histori­ contradictory nondeterministic and yet mor­ cal documents, and following earlier critics ally condemning light-the rise of 'special­ of Durkheim's methodological approach (e.g, ists without spirit; sensualists without heart' Pope 1976; Pope & Danigelis 1981; Stark, as a result of a 'spirit' of capitalism emerg­ Doyle, & Rushing 1983; Day 1987), found ing from and then reducing to a utilitarian little evidence for Durkheim's thesis regard­ shell the societal power of religious belief. ing the societally-engendered sources of Even the strong sense of the 'goodness' of suicide. Similarly, an extensive content analy­ contained within the Enlightenment, sis of wills and beneficiaries found little evi­ the 'laughing heir' to these beliefs, Weber dence for a shift from purely familial to organi­ saw as 'irretrievably fading.'s Marx saw one zational ties as Durkheim posited (Schwartz outcome of capitalistic development the so­ 1996). Again, however, Fields' cautionary note cial and moral isolation of self from others, is in effect: It is not necessarily the answers in which obtained by a great classic mind, but the questions generated that retain their rele­ ...the limits within every man can move with­ vance. Increasingly, it appears that quite inno- out harming [italics in original] others are Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 53

determined by the law, just as the bound­ In this way, Durkheim distanced his theoreti­ ary between two fields is determined by a cal position on morality from structural de­ fence-post. This is the of man as an terminism and acknowledging the impor­ isolated monad drawn into himself."6 tance of :

For Durkheim, by contrast, the possibilities Only an act we have performed in total free­ for moral development in the emerging world dom, without any kind of coercion, do we of appeared uncertain .and per­ regard as wholly moral. But we are not free haps dangerous, but certainly open. The if the law by which we regulate our behav­ thread ofthis theme repeats through his early ior is imposed upon us, ifwe have not freely works (The Division ofLabor, 1883; Suicide, desired it. (Durkheim 1925/1973 128) 1897) to his final major work (Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1912). This is the 'egoism' that Durkheim ascribed Perhaps the clearest expression of Durk­ to modernity not only asserting itself, but legit­ heim's organicist orientation toward moral imating its independent moral action. Thus, development appears in two works that were additional criteria for moral action are intro­ published posthumously: Sociologie et duced in modern societies: An action is fully Philosophie (1924/1974) and L' Education 'moral' if and only if the individual perceives Morale (1925/1973). In these essays, Durk­ other possibilities for action, yet acts against heim's belief in the primacy of structure over this in a way that he or or she defines as agency is firmly established, and represents 'moral.' one of his fundamental assumptions when It is, of course, the basis for morality that attempting to account for the moral develop­ Durkheim, during the rapid social changes ment of societies, whatever their stage of that were just beginning during his , saw development. 7 ln Moral Education, Durkheim as increasingly problematic. The emergence states this forcefully: of alternative moral possibilities in itself con­ stitutes a significant departure from earlier, ...[I]t is certainly true that the individual less differentiated, less 'modern' societies, seems to. be controlled by a law not of its in which the collective moral action and that own making. The morality ofour time is fixed ofthe individual were essentially isomorphic.8 in its essentials from the moment ofour birth; In Sociology and Philosophy, Durkheim be­ the changes it undergoes during the course gan to speak of two of an individual's life-those in which we can share-are infinitely limited. (1925/1973 divergent moralities, the one now existing 106) and the one in the process of becoming. (Durkheim 1974 59) Durkheim does acknowledge the "conflict" between the demands of the changing na­ It is science (specifically, sociology), that can ture of the collective 'moral conscience' and determine the nature and trajectory of these individual action, however, and his observa­ emerging 'moral facts,' and it is perhaps tions on this score indicate the beginnings Durkheim's confidence in this ambitious of his own struggle to comprehend the more sociological program to understand these rapid transformations of moral action and facts that leads him to a normative stance: belief demanded by the modern world. The individual actor in the modern world, accord­ Our science may help us to render these ing to Durkheim, may only understand his or ideas more precise and to direct them. [ital­ her actions as being fully 'moral' if they are ics added] (Durkheim 1974 59) perceived to be autonomously expressed apart from the dictates of the collective moral This normative tone is echoed in the final will. As Isambert has observed, this echoes stages of Suicide, as Durkheim (1897/1951 the Kantian position concern that 391-392) exclaimed:

...the genuinely moral act must be performed Once the existence of evil is proved, its through the autonomy of the will [italics in nature and its source, and we consequently original]. (1993 205) know the general features of the remedy and its point of application, the important 54 Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology

thing...is to set resolutely to work."9 erful that its effects are tangible in the every­ day lives of individuals, including their be­ It is somewhat ironic, however, that Durk­ liefs and actions. In this way, the totem orga­ heim's corpus reads "backwards" in his de­ nizes the community, imbuing it with a dis­ scription of societal and moral development. tinctive and stable identity: His earliest work, The Division of Labor, is primarily concerned with the conditions for All the beings that participate in the same social integration and the resultant course totemic principle consider themselves, by of moral development in modern, "advanced" that very fact, to be morally bound to one societies (cf. Morrison 1995). Elementary another; they have definite obligations of Forms, published nearly twenty years later, assistance, vengeance, and so on toward attempts to achieve an understanding of the each other, and it is these that constitute basis for in what Durkheim kinship. (Durkheim 1912/1995 5) termed the most 'primitive' of societies. As a result, there has been little agreement re­ The analysis of this type of society en­ garding the continuity of Durkheim's argu­ abled Durkheim to formulate his reductive ment with respect to the relationship of so­ structural argument: In its most "primitive" cial structure and individual moral develop­ form, society functions very much like a ment and action. Giddens (1971) has main­ simple organism. The bonds between the tained that there was a logical progression relatively undifferentiated elements of the in the ordering of Durkheim's ideas through­ social organism are held fast by a moral sen­ out the development of his works. Alexander timent that manifests as a powerful force (1989), in contrast, has observed that Durk­ within the religious institution, which is per­ heim's earliest work was concerned with ceived as permanent, uniting the community technological developments coupled with an and defining its core identity; the conscience expanding division of labor that was produc­ is thus truly collective. This is, in fact, a theme tive of a certain form of social order. How­ Durkheim first began to articulate in The Di­ ever, Alexander sees Durkheim's later vision of Labor: thought shifting to more subjective, internal forces objectifying differing forms of social The more primitive societies are, the more order. Nevertheless, what is clear is that Durk­ resemblances there are among the individu­ heim's last major work, Elementary Forms, als who compose them. (1893/1964 133) addresses the moral foundation of less dif­ ferentiated societies that possessed the Social contracts among individuals are clear­ character of "mechanical" solidarity. In these ly defined: both linkages and hierarchies sorts of societies, moral conscience is col­ among individuals are determined, as Durk­ lective and is founded in religious beliefs that heim states in The Division of Labor as well are represented both in abstract and con­ as in Forms, in a purely fixed, "mechanical" crete forms by the totem. 10 In his analysis of way. The tacit assumption is made in Durk­ Australian aboriginal religion, Durkheim heim's argument that this mechanical na­ pointed out that this collective morality, or ture involves action and thought that are re­ collective conscience, is represented quite flexive-the authority and means for social clearly through the society's totemic images: action have been predetermined (similar to Weber's more poetic reference to the tradi­ In other words, totemism is not the religion tional authoritative guiding hand of the 'eter­ of certain animals, certain men, or certain nal yesterday') and operate in a relatively au­ images; it is the religion of a kind of anony­ tomatic and nonreflective manner that is seen mous and impersonal force that is identifi­ to be immutable. able in each of these beings but identical to none of them...The individuals die; the gen­ POPULATION INCREASE, MORAL DEVELOP­ erations pass on and are replaced by oth­ MENT, AND THE ers; but this force remains always present, With the organic metaphor at the center of alive, and the same. (1912/1995 5) Durkheim's theory of social development, his subsequent task was to articulate the change Durkheim suggested that this "force" is a from largely undifferentiated to highly differ­ moral one, and manifests a reality so pow- entiated, complex societies. How, given the Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 55 fact that a society is undifferentiated and the changes that are qualitatively different from individuals in the collectivity see the tradition­ their antecedents. al social order as unchanging (it is precisely For Durkheim as for Marx, this qualitative change that can trigger the execution of often change does not usually occur over short violent repressive law), can a society undergo periods of time, and this is true for any popu­ transformation from 'simple' to 'complex'? lation increase. As societies become more And ifa society changes, what are the subse­ populous and concentrated (or, as Durkheim quent changes in its moral development? described it, "voluminous and condensed"), These are first-order questions11 that Durk­ there is a greater chance for competition, and heim is willing to confront squarely. Begin­ possibly, for conflict: ning with Australian aborigines, an undiffer­ entiated, "primitive" society, he proceeded (in Darwin says that in a small area, opened to an essay written with Marcel Mauss) in a immigration, and where, consequently, the manner that proceeds along standard an­ conflict of individuals must be acute, there thropological lines: is always to be seen a very great diversity in the species inhabiting it. (Durkheim 1893/ The most widespread form of social organi­ 1964 266) zation among these societies is well known. Each tribe is divided into two large funda­ If the species are of different types, then sur­ mental sections, which we shall call moi­ vival without conflict is possible-each de­ eties. Each society, in turn, comprises a velops a special niche which, beyond elimi­ certain number of clans... the classification nating conflict over the same resources, also of things reproduces this classification of can produce symbiotic relationships benefit­ men". [italics in orignal] (Durkheim &Mauss ting each type. Thus, differentiation is the key 1903/1963 10) to continued survival in an increasingly com­ plex environment. This, according to Durk­ Not only is this a "classification of men," but heim, is what will produce change in human it represents the moral basis for the founda­ populations as well: tion of social contracts between individuals. The social contract here is clearly non-utili­ Men must submit to the same law. In the tarian, and Durkheim argued forcefully same city, different occupations can co­ against the utilitarian perspective even as exist without being obliged mutually to de­ societies transformed to modern forms of stroy one another, for they pursue differ­ economic activity (cf. Rueshemeyer 1982).12 ent objects. (1893/1964 267) What serves as the primary mechanism of social transformation from mechanical so­ Herein lies the survival mechanism that an cieties to organic societies, from 'primitive' increasing division of labor provides. How­ to 'modern,' was once again rooted in Durk­ ever, if the occupations are similar in func­ heim's understanding of the organic nature tion (Durkheim supplied as an illustration of societies themselves: the brewer and the wine-grower), then the possibility for destructive conflict obtains The recent speculation in the philosophy of once again. One solution to this, however, biology has ended by making us see in the brought Durkheim somewhat closer to con­ division of labor a fact of a very general sidering the human condition as possess­ nature which the economists who first pro­ ing a quality distinct from a purely automatic posed it, never suspected. (1893/1964 40­ biological process: the development of com­ 41) munication. By this, he closely equated "com­ munication" with commerce and improved Relying on a Darwinian biological model for transportation. If, for example, the wine­ his explanation of social change, Durkheim grower and the brewer are able to exploit incorporated, significantly, demographic and new markets, this in turn will lead to the pro­ ecological factors to explain social change. ductive enhancement of both, reducing the In a very real sense, he was employing the potential for tension and conflict. It may, of same deductive strategy as Marx in explain­ course, also cause the division of labor to ing fundamental change-that significant become further differentiated by requiring quantitative change necessarily leads to transportation, distribution, and marketing of 56 Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology the product. This rationale for increase in the a utilitarian to an evolutionary approach to division of labor also marked his departure the social contract. With the decline of milita­ from the economists' perspective of his day: ristic or absolute monarchical authority, so­ cietal integration was engendered primarily The division of labor appears to us other­ by increasing industrialization. There is an wise than it does to economists. For them, increasing decentralization as social con­ it essentially consists in greater produc­ tracts are based more on voluntary associa­ tion. For us, this greater is only tions between individuals. Further, it was a necessary consequence, a repercussion Spencer who reacted against Malthus' posi­ of the phenomenon. (Durkheim 1893/1964 tion that population growth constituted a dan­ 275) ger to society. Instead, Spencer postulated that gains in population would actually con­ As Durkheim described the process: tribute to social contracts between individu­ als that were marked by heightened volun­ The division of labor is, then, a result of the tary cooperation and by formal contractual struggle for existence, but it is a mellowed relations. denouement. Thanks to it, opponents are Durkheim's formulation of his notion of not obliged to fight to a finish, but can exist the social contract in the modern world was one beside the other. Also... it furnishes the largely a reaction to these earlier positions. means of maintenance and survival to a He concurred with Spencer that social con­ greater number of individuals who, in more tracts engaged in voluntarily by social actors homogeneous societies, would be con­ were associated with a rising population and demned to extinction. (1893/1964 260) a growing division of labor. However, he dis­ puted the position of Enlightenment thinkers Durkheim's notion of how societies develop (such as Locke) that social cohesion could remained, in this passage, close to the dis­ be established merely through the willed in­ tant, impersonal description of a biologist teractions of individuals, apart from any over­ describing an organic process of growth. His riding structural influences. This might oc­ thinking was, however, both more subtle and cur on occasion, but it could not account for a complex than this: Durkheim, through his fully-developed social system. Nor does the engagement with the minds of his intellec­ modern condition necessarily lead to any tual predecessors, understood the 'qualita­ sense of personal sense of fulfillment, 'en­ tive' side of the change as well. The web of lightenment,' or happiness (Durkheim 1893/ social interaction and the form of social con­ 1964 275). Further, Durkheim recognized the tracts required by the modern, highly differ­ existence of 'noncontractural foundations' of entiated social world of Durkheim's time had the social contract. By this, he meant that been irreversibly altered. though a social contract might appear to be Durkheim's thought regarding the engaged in voluntarily and ended in the same changes in the social contract as a result of manner, this is not the case in modern soci­ this accommodation to population growth eties-as evidenced by the emergence of stemmed from several sources. Hobbes (d. contract and civil law. Thus, the division of 1679) posited that individuals formed social labor does not simply signal a transforma­ contracts through free association. The pres­ tion of a society from a reliance on the collec­ ervation of their 'natural rights,' however, ne­ tive to reliance on the individual; in fact it rep­ cessitated the restraint that could only be im­ resents a shift-and very possibly a de­ posed by a sovereign power. Locke (d.1704) cline- in the collective solidarity of a people, rejected the belief that a superior power which and is the basis on which individual 'autono­ transcended and superceded individual so­ my' (or perceived autonomy) rests. A Durk­ cial contracts was essential for the contin­ heimian perspective of the world would, at ued existence of a society. Locke also saw this point, largely abandon an emphasis on societal development being increasingly the 'collective conscience' so apparent in based on market transactions. Thus, Locke less differentiated societies. Moral action in asserted that the civic associations, through these societies was readily known, rooted in the increasing number of market networks, religious symbolism which was easily com­ were being increasingly transferred to the municated between and across generations, national level. Spencer (d.1903) moved from and transgressions against the collective Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 57

morality were based on repression rather and it now is the responsibility for individu­ than restitution. However, in a modern soci­ als to orient themselves with the emerging ety moral action becomes less transparent, social developments. Durkheim was em­ less certain. When moral action remains phatic regarding one's duty to face these con­ collective, it is less centered in religion than ditions, eschewing the comfortable but dy­ in law, which becomes increasingly restitu­ ing society of the past: tive. Egoism replaces al~ruism, social soli­ darity and thus the moral order becomes We distrust those excessively mobile tal­ jeopardized. Thus, the role of the sociologist ents that lead themselves equally to all uses, is not only to understand changes in moral refusing to choose a special role and keep development, to become actively engaged to it. We disapprove of those men whose in the debate over its direction, which was unique care is to organize and develop all once determined but has now become in­ their faculties, but without making any defi­ creasingly tenuous. nite use of them, and without sacrificing any of them, as if each man were sufficient DURKHEIMIAN MODERNITY AND MORALITY unto himself, and constituted an indepen­ IN A POSTMODERN WORLD dent world. It seems to us that this state of Having established that the division of la­ detachment and indetermination has some­ bor now forms the basis for social organiza­ thing anti-social aboutit [italics added]. ..The tion in modern, 'organic' societies, and hav­ praiseworthy man of former is only a ing acknowledged the problem of maintain­ dilettante to us, and we refuse to give dilet­ ing any sense of moral order in modern so­ tantism any moral value... (Durkheim 1893/ cieties, Durkheim saw that morality would 1964 42) be grounded in new social contracts engen­ dered by the increasing social differentiation. Durkheim followed this with what could His rhetorical question at the outset of The be an ode to the modern world, or could have Division of Labor, began his discussion: just as easily become the theoretical foil to the preface of Whyte's Organization Man of Briefly, is the division of labor, at the same the 1950's. Against the individual of the past time that it is a law of nature, also a moral who was self-contained and a generalist, rule of human conduct; and if it has this Durkheim praised the coming of the new, latter character, why and in what degree? "modern" individual: (Durkheim 1893/1964 41) ...we rather see perfection in the man seek­ Durkheim then came quickly to the point: to ing, not to be complete, to but to produce; be 'moral' in modern society is to conform to who has a restricted task, and devotes him­ the emerging patterns of the social organ­ self to it; who does his duty, accomplishes ism. To hearken back to earlier social forms his work. 'To perfect oneself,' says Secre­ would be, if not 'immoral,' certainly an exer­ tan, 'is to learn one's role, to become ca­ cise in futility and ignorance. The day of the pable of fulfilling one's function.' [Thus] the 'Renaissance Man' had irrevocably ended: categorical imperative of the moral con­ science is assuming the following form: The time has passed when the perfect man Make yourself usefully fulfill a determinate was he who appeared interested in every­ function. "[Italics in original] (Durkheim 1893/ thing without attaching himself exclusively 1964 42-43) to anything ... (Durkheim 1893/1964 42) In this passage written early in his career, Miller (2002 56) has summarized Durk­ Durkheim was bold and confident. The heim's argument: "The division of labor is emerging useful members of society will not moral, therefore, if it is a force for solidar­ be Weber's vacuous 'specialists without ity. "13 Durkheim's passionate, harshly criti­ spirit;' they will find fulfillment in their duty to cal judgment regarding the uselessness of society, which has lawfully and seemingly acting in concert with the dictates of earlier naturally developed out of an earlier form. cultural milieu is rooted in his evolutionary, This is in contrast to his somewhat more structural organicism. The primacy of struc­ measured comments of the 'late' Durkheim; ture is evident; it has evolved to a new stage for example, only a few years before his 58 Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology death, he remarked that: of other factors such as technological inno­ vation and economic prosperity, loses its util­ The old ideals and the divinities which in­ ity in leading to differentiation through the in­ carnate them are dying because they no creasing division of labor that Durkheim has longer respond sufficiently to the new as­ postulated. pirations of our day; and the new ideals But the relevance of Durkheim's keen which are necessary to orient our life are sense of social change as described within not yet born. (Bellah 1973) an organic model of development, his aware­ ness of the linkage between social contracts Thus the later, 'mature' Durkheim was no and social structure and the 'moral density' less structural in his orientation, but he that can be engendered by shifts in popula­ seemed less certain that the structure pro­ tion cannot be eliminated by dismissing him vided the clear sense of moral duty that he as a 'classical' theorist of a modernity whose had earlier proclaimed. This of course was relevance has long since passed away. It echoed in his concern with the growing was Durkheim above all others writing dur­ anomie and egoism in society that in turn ing his time who acknowledged that the led to the social pathologies that were so ground on which the moral foundations of masterfully expressed in Suicide. Durkheim society rested was shifting in ways that left adhered until the end of his life to the utility of the future open. In the face of claims that the the organic model in describing the devel­ social cannot adequately assess opment of social life and the resultant shift­ the moral shifts that are thus engendered, ing moral duties of individuals. If, however, one may offer as a reminder the power of there is a 'postmodern' age that supercedes Durkheim's comparative analysis of suicide. , of what utility is a metaphor of Irrespective of its methodological shortcom­ this sort, that describes moral development ings, his work revealed an entirely different in terms of an 'organism' which, if not break­ conceptual landscape that retains its utility ing down, appears to be losing its coher­ in understanding the nature of suicide. The ence? Bernstein (1992) and others have organic metaphor also retains theoretical identified several themes of , value, if conjoined with the idea that struc­ all of which appear to run counter to Durk­ tures, once created, are in fact the creation heim's assumptions regarding society. of individuals who retain interest in the surviv­ Among the most serious challenges to a al of that structure, often shaping the social purely Durkheimian perspective include: the and moral development of entire societies failure of any overarching or as a result. Lyotard's (1984) remarks regard­ 'grand metaphor' to explain social life; the ing the perseverance of the state provides a failure of the social sciences to provide solu­ salient example. As social differentiation con­ tions-or meaningful analyses-to emerg­ tinues, new patterns of organizational life de­ ing social problems; and that cultural de­ velop-often driven by technological innova­ bates, conflicts, and dissolution are intensi­ tions that in turn accelerate the differentia­ fying, rendering any theoretical model based tion process itself-and these developments on consensual social contracts improbable. may create new systems of morality that are To these must be added three other critical either divorced from, or in direct opposition observations regarding his theory. First-and to, the interests of the state. In this case the ironically, given Durkheim's emphasis on the legitimation of the state is jeopardized, and structural, organic processes of society-his its adherents must reconstitute new ration­ differentiation theory allows for little con­ ales to unify these increasingly disparate en­ scious control at this level. His treatment of tities. Lyotard suggests that the mechanism individual social contracts that flow from employed by the state toward this end is to these, by contrast, can be seen as highly instill in each group-no matter how inherent­ conscious and interactive, though bound ly disaffected or alienated from the state-a within their structural frameworks (cf. Alex­ sense of fear or terror of external forces, and ander 1986). Second, Durkheim clearly un­ offer strategies for controlling or eliminating derplayed the importance of technological that fear or terror. This line ofthought is clearly innovation and diffusion in assessing Durkheimian and modernist in its orienta­ changes in moral development. Third, mere tion, as opposed to postmodernist. population growth, considered independently Durkheim's thought may in fact form the Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 59

intellectual template on which new sociologi­ theoretical perspectives. This is particularly cal that combine both modernist and true when analyzing labyrinthine phenomena postmodernist perspectives of social such as moral development, which is found­ change and moral development can be for­ ed on so many complex institutional arrange­ mulated. ments that change at differing rates, are sub­ ject to widely diverse sets of influences and - As societies shift from a modernist to a often not in a linear or progressive fashion postmodernist phase, contracts that were (cf. Moore 1979). A Durkheimian perspective, based on earlier traditions will be eclipsed conscious of this increasingly intricate inter­ or modified. These will include such 'ba­ play of social factors, and serving constantly sic' social contracts such as marital con­ to remind us of the power of structural forces tracts, which will broaden in scope with surrounding the moral development of soci­ their terms more negotiable, and contracts eties, will not lose its contribution to contem­ within the workplace with both employ­ porary efforts to understand these processes. ees and employers engaging in constant Durkheim's notions of social contracts and shifts in conditions of , loca­ collective solidarity may illuminate an under­ tions, and requirements regarding skills. standing of postmodern society if, true to - Population decreases in postmodern so­ Durkheim's openness to societal change, cieties will lead to new forms of 'moral we recognize the new forms that social con­ density' as social contracts become less tracts and collective morality can take. How­ concrete and more 'virtual.' The importance ever, a Durkheimian perspective would hold of face-to-face interactions that were that a "global society" would have to achieve once required to form social contracts and a certain degree of moral consensus, and set moral limits to behavior will diminish. without this a global society would become This will in turn reshape the developmen­ increasingly pathological and subject to dis­ tal trajectories of structural, political, and integration. The focus of 'new Durkheimians' religious institutions. would thus center on investigations ofemerg­ -If, as Durkheim posits, the division of labor ing international institutions and international is the basis for an individual's personal laws, and the degree of consensus or identity and provides the basis for the for­ anomie and conflict these would engender. mation of social contracts, then data showing that individuals change jobs and ENDNOTES career tracks become potentially meaning­ 1 There are, of course, a plethora of references in ful in new ways. It indicates that not only which this honorific may be found. However, will identities change with participation in there are also several excellent publications that convincingly explicate the why a particular form of labor, but that these Durkheim remains a force in sociology. See, identities will become less stable as job for example, Don Martindale's The Nature and and career changes become more fre­ Types of (1988); Richard quent. It also means that, as social con­ Muench's Sociological Theory, Volume One: tracts are rapidly formed and re-formed, From the 1850's to the 1920's (1994). increasing flexibility of expectations re­ 2 See especially Foucault's discussion on pp. 108­ garding emerging norms of conduct will 109 in his 1969 address entitled "What is an be mandated. Positively, this may result in Author?" which is included in Textual Strate­ increased tolerance of diverging social gies, edited by Josue V. Harari (1979). 3 It was Martindale (1988 99) who locates Durk­ values and behaviors; negatively, it can heim's intellectual development in this genre, mean that morality (classically conceived) along with that of Toennies and Redfield. becomes shallowly rooted or replaced by 4 There are, or course, several notable excep­ legal mechanisms. tions. For example, Duffand Lawrence's (1995) article, "Age Density, Religiosity, and DeathAnxi­ Thus, just as the distinction between 'mod­ ety in Retirement Communities" found support ernism' and 'postmodernism' is increasingly for Durkheim's assertion that collective ritual seen to be artificial, as both forms exist si­ reduces anomie within the group and fosters multaneously in society, the traditional dis­ mutual support. tinction between 'classical' and 'contempo­ S Despite Weber's commitment to the principle of 'value freedom,' his concluding remarks to The rary' theoretical perspectives remains inno­ Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism cent ofa useful synergy that can develop new belie his unequivocal faithfulness to this daunt- 60 Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology

ing standard. REFERENCES 6 These were comments made by the "early" Marx, Adler M. & C. van Doren. 1972. How to Read a in his Comment on the Jewish Question (a Book. NY: Simon and Schuster. somewhat sympathetic critique of Bruno Alexander J.C. 1986. "Durkheim's Problem and Dif­ Bauer) in 1844. ferentiation Theory Today." Paper presented to 7 In many respects, Durkheim's position with re­ the second-German-American Theory Confer­ spect to the 'agency/structure' issue remains ence: Theories of Social Change and Moder­ less confounding (and conflating) than far more nity. Berkeley, California: August 26-28. recent efforts. See, for example, Alexander's ___. 1988. and political crisis: Water­ "Some Remarks on 'Agency' in Recent Socio­ gate and Durkheimian sociology. Pp. 193-209 logical Theory" (1992), which also makes this in Durkheimian Sociology, J.C. Alexander, ed. point. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press. S There is something of a contradiction in Durk­ ___. 1989. Structure and Meaning: Rethink­ heim's thought that has remained largely unex­ ing Classical Sociology. NY: Columbia U Press. plored here. If, as Durkheim stated, morality is ___. 1992. Some remarks on 'agency' in re­ uniformly and universally expressed in societ­ cent sociological theory. Perspectives: The ies characterized by mechanical solidarity, the Theory Section Newsletter of the ASA 15 1 1­ need for respressive laws would be far less 4. acute than he posited. Bellah R.N. 1973. (ed.) Emile Durkheim on Moral­ 9 Durkheim not only advocated the necessity of ity and Society. Chicago: U Chicago Press. providing sociological answers to societal prob­ Bernstein R.J. 1992. The New Constellation: The lems, he was actively involved in providing Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Post­ them, perhaps moreso than any other sociolo­ modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. gist during his time or any other. Giddens (1978 Cuzzort R.P. 1989. Using Social Thought: The 22-23), for example, has remarked that: Nuclear Issue and Other Concerns. Mountain The convergence between [Durk­ View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. heim's] sociology and the official ide­ Day L.H. 1987. Durkheim on religion and suicide­ ology of republicanism was so great a demographic critique. Sociology 21 449-461. that some contemporary critics spoke Duff R.W. & L.K. Hong. 1995. Age density, religios­ caustically of the pervasive hold of ity, and death anxiety in retirement communi­ 'State Durkheimianism' in the educa­ ties. Rev Religious Res 37 1 19-32. tional system." Durkheim E. 1893/1964. The Division of Labor in 10 Durkheim believed that societies with totemic Society. NY: The Free Press. were more elementary, more "funda­ ___. 1897/1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociol­ mental" than animistic societies because a com­ ogy. Trans. J.A. Spaulding & G Simpson. NY: parative analysis demonstrated that totemic The Free Press. societies, no matter where they were prac­ ___. 1912/1995. The Elementary Forms of ticed, demonstrated highly similar characteris­ Religious Life. Trans. K.E. Fields. NY: The Free tics. This led Durkheim to conclude that an un­ Press. derlying principle of social organization in to­ ___. 1924/1974. Sociologie et Philosophie. temic societies lay at the heart of social organi­ Paris: Alcan. Trans. D.F. Pocock. Glencoe: The zation taken as a whole (Morrison 1995). Free Press. 11 First-order questions are those which do not ___. 1925/1973. L'Education Morale. Paris: come with prescribed methods for obtaining Alcan. Trans. E.K. Wilson & H. Schnurer. NY: an answer. They can, of course, engender The Free Press. highly creative and seminal often explanations Durkheim E. & M. Mauss. 1903/1963. Primitive by minds willing to take them on after formulat­ Classification. Trans. R. Needham. Chicago: U ing them; See Adler and van Doren's explana­ Chicago Press. tion of the role of first-order questions in the Emirbayer M. 2003. Emile Durkheim: Sociologist chapter entitled "How to Read Philosophy" in ofAntiquity. Malden, MA: Blackwell. their How to Read a Book (1972). Foucault M. 1969. What is an author? In 1979 Tex­ 12 This, of course, is directly antithetical to Weber's tual Strategies. J. Harari. Ithica: Cornell U Press. thesis that a utilitarian ethic had, long before Gibbs J.P. 2003. A formal restatement ofDurkheim's Durkheim's writing, colored all social contracts 'Division of Labor' theory.' Sociological Theory in modern societies. 21 2 103-127. 13 Even more forcefully, Schmaus (2004 134) has Giddens A. 1978. Capitalism and Modem Social stated that, for Durkheim, Theory. London: Cambridge U Press. "... human society as we know it Isambert F.A. 1993. Durkheim's sociology of moral would not be possible without the facts. Pp. 193-210 in Emile Durkheim: Soci­ idea of moral obligation." ologist and Moralist. S.P. Turner, ed. NY: Rout­ ledge. Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 61

Lyotard J.F. 1984. The Post-Modern Condition: A Shils E. & M. Young. 1956. The meaning of the Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: U Minne­ coronation. Sociological Rev 1 2 63-82. sota Press. Smith P. & J.C. Alexander. 1996. Durkheim's reli­ Martindale D. 1988. The Nature and Types ofSocio­ gious revival. Amer J Socio/102 2 585-592. logical Theory. NY: Waveland Press. Stark R., D.P. Doyle & J.L. Rushing. 1983. Beyond Marx, K. 1844/1983. On the Jewish question. Pp. Durkheim: religion and suicide. J Scientific 96-114 in The Portable . E. Kamenka, Study Religion 11 120-131. ed. NY: Penguin. Swanson G. 1960. The Birth of the Gods: The Merton R. 1934. Durkheim's division of labor in Origins of Primitive Belief. Ann Arbor, MI: U society. Amer J Sociology 40 319-328. Michigan Press. Miller W.M. 2002. Morality and Ethics. Pp. 55-68 in TenHouton W. 1995. Dual symbolic classification Durkheim Today. W.S.F. Pickering, ed. NY: and the primary emotions: a proposed synthe­ Bergbahn Books. sis of Durkheim's sociogenic and Plutchik's Moore W.E. 1979. World Modernization: The Lim­ psychoevolutionary theories ofemotions. Inter­ its of Convergence. NY: Elsevier. nat Socio/10 4 427-445. Morrison K. 1995. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: For­ van Poppel F. &L.H. Day. 1996. A test ofDurkheim's mation of Modern Thought. London: Sage. theory of suicide-without committing the 'eco­ Muench R. 1994. Social Theory, Volume One: 1850 logical fallacy.' Amer Sociological Rev 61 3 to 1920. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 500-507. Pope W. 1976. Durkheim's Suicide: A Classic Weber M. 1904/1958. The Protestant Ethic and Analyzed. Chicago: U Chicago Press. the Spirit ofCapitalism. NY: Scribner and Sons. Pope W. & N. Danigelis. 1981. Society's 'one law'. White W. 1956. The Organization Man. NY: Simon Social Forces 60 495-516. & Schuster. Rueshemeyer D. 1982. On Durkheim's explanation of division of labor. Amer J Sociol 88 3 579­ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 589. *An earlier draft of this paper was presented Schmaus W. 2004. Rethinking Durkheim and His at the 2004 meetings of the Association for the Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge U Press. Study of Religion, San Francisco. The authors Schwartz T.P. 1996. Durkheim's prediction about would like to thank Richard M. Burkey, Professor the declining importance ofthe family and inheri­ Emeritus, University of Denver, for his valuable tance. Sociological Qrtly 37 3 503-519. comments and suggestions. 62 Volume 35 No. 1 May 2007 Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology

WORD OF MOUTH

Communication is power. An ideal passed person to person, and to can the

Start with the idea,

Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts offering • abstracts articles and • entries and book and other media revie'vvs.

LlBA's and "...... 'f"""\'..."".....""i!"'Ir·I;.;'"" coverage on current ideas in and language research.

Av'ailable in SiIverPlatter NISC) and on

our Web site: to relevant

llBA -. ..-"'>r.l'F..lr-r..

Linguistics and Language Beha.,tior Abstracts PO. Box san CA 92192-0206 6'19/695-8803 • socio@cerfnetcom