Durkheim and Individualism Revisited: Response to Chandler

Abstract

Professor Chandler levels two criticisms at my attempt to develop and test Durkheimian model of development, equality, and homicide. First, he charges that argument is internally inconsistent. Second, he asserts that interpretation of Durkheim's theory that informs analysis is in error. With respect to latter issue, I would simply note that Durkheim's theory of societal development has been and will undoubtedly continue to be susceptible to varied interpretations. The clearly stated purpose of my research (225-26) was to apply one widely respected interpretation-that of Anthony Giddens-in an original context (the explanation of homicide rates). As title of my article indicates, I recognize that my study represents test of a Durkheimian model and not the Durkheimian model. The charge of internal inconsistency warrants slightly more detailed response. Chandler argues that, given my exposition of Durkheim's theory, measure of moral individualism should be negatively related to homicide, rather than positively related to homicide as I have asserted. Chandler arrives at this conclusion by following line of reasoning. Moral individualism serves as basis of organic solidarity, and development of organic solidarity decreases homicide rate. Hence, measure of moral individualism should be positively associated with organic solidarity (which is not directly measured) and negatively related with measure of homicide. Chandler thus concludes that finding of negative relationship between one of indicators of moral individualism (percent Protestant) and homicide is really consistent with proposed theoretical model despite my claims to contrary. My disagreement with Chandler centers around role of social structural changes in emergence of organic solidarity. Following Gid-