Essay About Contemporary Of Weber And Law System

Durkheim Case
Essay Preview: Durkheim Case
Report this essay
1.0 Introduction
Durkheim was a contemporary of Weber, but his work was very much different. Both
Marx and Weber are generally known as conflict theorists. But, Durkheim believed that
harmony, rather than conflict, defined society. He had different ideas considering social facts,
solidarity and societal cohesion. He examines social facts with regard to their purpose in
producing or facilitating social cohesion. He studied the division of labor, from this point of
view. While Weber was preoccupied with rationality, Durkheim is mainly concerned with
solidarity: what holds society together? Durkheim believed that solidarity was the normal form
of society, and although he recognized the disorder associated with industrialization, he
considered conflict abnormal. Durkheim seems in general confident about the prospects for
modern society and the division of labor; nevertheless, he also has fears and apprehensions with
regards to the same. So as to understand these fears and apprehensions it is moreover important
to look at what the division of labor is, and how it has emerged; the shift from primitive society
to modern society.
1.1 Forms of Solidarity
While the division of labor might be at first being taken as only an economic term,
Durkheim believed its true purpose to be in increasing solidarity between people. He defines
solidarity as “cohesion of human groups into a social unity” and identifies two types of
solidarity:
a) mechanical
b) organic
1.1(a) Mechanical Solidarity
A primitive society is characterized by mechanical solidarity. These societies tended to
be small and homogeneous, meaning there is little differentiation in the kinds of labor that
individuals engage in. Social relations are regulated by a shared system of beliefs, what
Durkheim called the common conscience. A typical example is a situation in which the father is
the hunter whereas the mother is the career and housekeeper. The daily tasks of any given family
essentially look like that of the next family, and so on. There is little or no division of labor and
people are linked to each other only through similar beliefs, and do not depend on one another
for subsistence. Durkheim claims that primitive societies have a stronger common consciousness
because they all do alike things and consequently have more mutual understandings, norms, and
beliefs. In a sense, they belong to society, not to themselves. An example of a mechanical society
is tribal societies.
1.1(b) Organic Solidarity
A modern society is characterized by organic solidarity. As society develops and
becomes less primitive, it moves towards organic solidarity. Organic solidarity does not come
from the collective conscience, but rather, from the division of labor. In this type of society,
people are dependent on others and what they produce to survive. They are not like people in
primitive societies who are basically self-sufficient. Instead, they need to rely on many others,
such as the grocer, baker, butcher, mechanic, teacher, guard and so forth. This interdependence
causes not only more solidarity, but also a more evident moral character, wherein individuals feel
responsible for one another. It is the differences among the people that held together this type of
society. Organic solidarity is possible only when individuals are specialized and different.
This chart help show the emphasis of individual and common in past and present societies.
(Individual,
To measure the decline in mechanical solidarity, Durkheim has explored the law system
in both the traditional and modern societies.
1.2 Types of Laws
Durkheim believed that social life takes a specific and structured form and the best indicator
of this organization is law. He identifies two types of law:
a) Repressive Law
b) Restitutive Law
1.2(a) Repressive Law
In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law tends to be
repressive law or penal law. The goal of repressive law is to punish the individual. Repressive
law, which centers on punishment, is diffused all through a whole society, imbedded in the
conscience collective, and reflects the morals of the society. This type of society does not have a
very developed judicial institution because it reacts collectively when there is a crime. Most
people feel the offense, and regardless of how serious it is, severe punishment is likely to be
meted out for it. Penal law involves sanctions only, and there is no mention of obligations.
Punishment is harsh, maybe death or dismemberment. Moral obligation and duty is not stated in
the punishment, because