Émile Durkheim and the philosophy of causation

Michael Travis BA/LLB (Hons) June 2001, University of Auckland Law School Please notify the author if you wish to cite this paper, or use extracts in your work. A PDF is also available via Google Drive.  To follow the influences of Durkheim’s innovative theories on his contemporaries one should understand Durkheim within the context of general sociology, and the philosophy of causation (aetiology). To respond to this need, I will explain Durkheim’s theories in context, and look for reflections or distinctions in the work of Hirschi and Merton. Durkheim in context. Durkheim’s theories come from the greater framework of macro-sociology, or structuralism. This conceives of an individual as being born into an ongoing social system, which is independent of the individual, and determines his behaviour: “[S]ociety was not the direct reflection of the characteristics of its individual members. Individuals could not always choose.” [1] Behaviour is shaped by the socialisation process, in which one is informed by the value system of a particular society. Thus it is a deterministic theory. It is also a functionalist theory, which looks at the ‘functional requirements’ to be met for a society’s continued survival. Most notably, a society desires order and stability, and functionalism looks at how this order is maintained. Emile Durkheim drew an analogy between a biological organism and society: “The various organs of a living thing work together in order to maintain a healthy whole in much the same way that various institutions in society work together to produce social order.” [2] Social order is usually achieved through the perpetuation of a ‘central value system’, which imposes common values on all its members – for example, equality of opportunity, Christian moral values, materialism, democracy and productivity. [3] Durkheim and ‘anomie’. Durkheim viewed crime (deviancy) as being just another function of society. He noted that it forms part of every society, and was therefore a natural occurrence. In fact, he viewed it as fulfilling various important social needs; it acted to unify law-abiding citizens against the criminal, thus “[c]rime brings together honest men and concentrates them.” [4] Recognition of crime was a validation of the existence of laws, which were in turn a reinforcement of our central values – afterall, “[w]e do not condemn [an act] because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we condemn it.” [5] The violation of norms was consequently important in maintaining the sanctity of those norms, and bonded members of society together in opposition against the violators: “[T]he characteristic of moral rules is that they enunciate the fundamental conditions of social solidarity ... which bind each of us to society [and makes] a unitary, coherent aggregate of the mass of individuals.” [6] Norm-violation could even help activate a change in the value system itself, provided it had the successful support of the majority of society. Durkheim then explained the origins of crime in society. Historically, he said, societies were simple, and non-specialised. These were labelled ‘mechanical’ societies – where communities were smaller and more closely knit, and people were constrained to control their desires and passions through religious observance. Eventually, though, societies evolved into larger, more complex and specialised ‘organic’ societies – in which the bonds between people were weakened by an emphasis on the ego. In other words the increased complexity leads to the formation of individual, and not uniform, goals. As a consequence, the core social values (norms) would be weakened, leading to confusion and a lack of certainty as to how we should act. This state of normlessness was given the name anomie. The consequence of anomie was that individuals were no longer constrained by social limits, and thus their goals had infinite scope – though these goals were frustrated by the impossibility of attainment. For this reason, periods of social disruption (eg economic depression) would lead to anomie, and an increase in crime, suicide and deviance – because “[t]o pursue a goal which is by definition unattainable is to condemn oneself to a state of perpetual unhappiness.” [7] This was also a product of increased impersonality: “Man is the more vulnerable to self-destruction the more he is detached from any collectivity.” [8] Social control theory. Prior to Durkheim, theorists tended to perceive social conformity as ordinary, and thus transgression as deviance, or abnormality. However, Durkheim had managed to illustrate how this was no more than a closed assumption. Once realised, theorists began to formulate strategies by which societies could regulate and guide human behaviour (in accordance with the dominant social values of that society). This, of course, is ‘social control’ theory. One might well ask, though, whether conformity to a dominant value system is actually a natural goal. Certainly Marxists would question these strategies on the basis that the dominant social values were corrupt and used as tools for oppression. Others ask whether the existence of rules alone can guarantee conformity and peaceful existence within a community. It is more likely that people conform to rule-based systems on the basis of everyday social and peer pressures. This last point formed the basis for Travis Hirschi’s ‘social bond’ theory, described in  “Causes of Delinquency”. Social bond theory. A combination of Durkheim and the classical school, this theory recognised criminal behaviour as a result of the failure of social groups (eg family, school) to bond with an individual. [9] Afterall, as Durkheim had shown, rule breaking was natural – a mere consequence of a lack of respect for conformity, rather than a specific desire to transgress. In order to maintain conformity, then, society must instil obedience within its members in the form of internalised constraints. Obviously these constraints were to be learned during the socialisation process – this, of course, placing the burden on the institutions. The socialisation process was comprised of the following interconnected functions: Interaction. Interaction with people and social groups encourages sensitivity. To be detached means to be unaffected by restraints – a distinct echo of Durkheim’s point that man is more vulnerable “the more he lives as an egoist.” [10] The institutions with a bearing on this function are notably the family unit and the quality of the parent/child relationship, and the school system. Poor school performance was linked with delinquency, as was a lack of respect from teachers and fellow students – if it wasn’t already linked in the commonsense. Commitment. By encouraging people to invest in personal objectives that are consistent with conventional goals, and incompatible with personal objectives, society maintains an ‘insurance policy’ over the individual. To transgress means to risk losing these goals, and it is believed that this keeps many people law-abiding; this is the “rational component in conformity”. Conversely, those without commitments – with ‘nothing to lose’ – are more likely to become offenders.   Involvement. Participation in activities, which comply with and stress conventional values encourages adherence to those values. The more time invested here the more transgression is discouraged, as the individual is insulated from criminal behaviour (if at least because he is too busy to commit crimes – in other words, idleness leads to crime; “[t]he child playing ping-pong, swimming in the community pool, or doing his homework is not committing delinquent acts”). [11] Belief. To accept the validity of social norms is to respect the people and institutions that enforce them. This reiterates the initial proposition that offending is caused by an absence of prohibiting beliefs (i.e. criminals don’t necessarily hold different values). Offenders tend to be those who don’t feel any moral obligation to conform, or believe that the law is unfair. This process echoes Durkheim’s ‘mechanical’ society where belief systems were central to conformity. Conclusion. It is clear that Hirschi’s social bond concept is a direct descendant of Durkheim’s theories; he reiterates the naturalism of offending, the need to be social and not an egoist, and the importance of encouraging a central value system. Anomie refers to a condition where norms no longer control our activities, and this is effectively the same as our lacking the necessary social bond. In terms of crime prevention, we should encourage the formation of this bond through the methods listed (this may require specific social strategies to be formed, such as educational programs). Indeed this theory emphasises prevention of crime through the strengthening of social institutions, rather than by the use of deterrence. Merton’s strain theory. Merton’s theory is directly based on Durkheim’s work, but he takes a different view of anomie. Where Durkheim had proposed that sudden social change causes an upheaval in norm-structures, thus creating dissolution in the goals of individuals, Merton posited that it was a lack of equality in the original social structure that was responsible for the ‘unattainable goals’. In other words society offers us all the same goals, but does not offer us equal means of attaining them – this causes the eponymous ‘strain’. Because not everyone has access to the legitimate and conventional methods of attaining these goals (through education, employment etc), some of us necessarily turn to illegitimate methods. Deviancy is thus a symptom of the social structure: “[H]igh rates of deviant behaviour … [occur] not because the human beings comprising them are compounded of distinctive biological tendencies but because they are responding normally to the social situation in which they find themselves.” [12] Adaptation to ‘strain.’ Individuals responded to this strain in different ways, depending on their attitudes toward cultural goals and the institutional means to attain them: i)                    The Conformist: accepts both the goals, and the legitimate methods for attaining them. Most members of a society are conformists. ii)                  The Innovator: accepts the goals, but either rejects or blocks the legitimate means by which to attain them. Thus they may pursue some conventional means, but otherwise ‘innovate’ their own, usually criminal, methods (eg robbery, fraud). iii)                The Ritualist: abandons his own goals, but without rejecting society’s prescribed means. Ritualists effectively ‘give up the game’, and retreat into the ritual of daily life. iv)                The Retreatist: abandons the goals, but also rejects the prescribed methods. They consequently ‘retreat’ into oblivion – for example drug use, and other non-productive activities. v)                  The Rebel: rejects both goals and means, and seeks to establish his own novel goals and methods. This often involves revolutionary activity. (Such norm-violation, as per Durkheim, could potentially result in new norms if sufficiently supported.) Most of these adaptive types are considered “non-threatening” to the system, but the existence of deviance does suggest that reform, or repair, is necessary (this lead to the social reform policies of the 1960s). Society is better armed to prevent crime once it is able to understand “how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconformist rather than conformist conduct.” [13] Conclusion. What these three theorists share in common is Durkheim’s central functionalist idea that crime is a normal ‘function’ of society. However, they differ on the utility of this function. Durkheim claims that crime allows the members of a society, who are otherwise quite different, to join together in condemning the criminal, a commonly perceived enemy. Thus by defining themselves in opposition to the criminal, individuals acquire a "collective cohesion." Plus, he also allows for the fine line between useful civil disobedience that may lead to social reform (eg Dr Kevorkian), and old-fashioned criminal offending. Merton, on the other hand does not argue that crime is required to generate solidarity or to achieve social progress. But he does argue that criminality is useful, and healthy for society – most people respond to systemic inequality by blaming their own shortcomings. This helps society preserve itself, because the social institution is not placed under scrutiny: “Thus crime too is functional … while … unpleasant to … its victims, it channels those who might join to challenge the overall social system into a less threatening response. In this way, crime serves to release social tension and let off steam, thereby preserving the stability of the social system.” [14] Hirschi, finally, was more concerned with establishing the micro-social link between the individual and crime. [1] Taylor The New Criminology. [2] Sociology at Hewett, Norfolk Social Systems Approach. [3] From Talcott Parsons. [4] Durkheim The Division of Labour in Society (1893). [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. [7] Durkheim Suicide (1897). [8] Durkheim Moral Education. [9] In contrast to Durkheim this is a micro-social perspective, concerned with informal control systems. [10] Ibid. [11] NB: This doesn’t necessarily account for white-collar crimes. [12] Robert K. Merton Social Structure and Anomie (1938). [13] Supra 12. [14] www.crimetheory.com Explicature of Merton’s Dream Machine.