Durkheim and Individualism: A Comment on Messner

Abstract

In his attempt at testing a Durkheimian model of relationship between societal development and homicide, Steven Messner committed an error which resulted in theoretical confusion and a false empirical conclusion. Relying on Anthony Giddens' (a, b) interpretation of The Division of Labor in Society, Messner reasoned that level of solidarity found in societies as they developed would not vary significantly, but would only change in type, from mechanical to organic. Thus, homicide rates, as reflections of degree of social solidarity, should remain relatively constant as societies develop economically. Messner added that trend toward organic solidarity was typically accompanied by a movement toward social equality and rise of moral individualism. It was clear from Messner's exposition that equality should be related positively to solidarity and negatively to homicide. Confusion arose, however, over part played by moral individualism in theoretical model and in Messner's empirical test. At first, Messner quite clearly presents moral individualism as supporting organic solidarity and, by implication, as having a negative effect on homicide rates. Moral individualism, he emphasizes (following Giddens), is not same as egoism. In fact, distinction between two is the key to understanding Durkheim's theory of development. Egoism, as pursuit of self-interest without regard for welfare or rights of others, could never be basis for social solidarity. Moral individualism, emphasizing concern for rights of others, could promote cohesion, and, in fact, was necessary to effective operation of organic solidarity. Giddens (a, 79-80) also notes that moral individualism is one area in which conscience collective (associated with mechanical solidarity) becomes strengthened as organic solidarity expands. So, should not moral individualism be related positively to organic solidarity and negatively to homicide? It would seem so. But on next