Durkheim's Ideas Research Articles

The Educational Legacy of Durkheim

Durkheim has justifiably been dubbed not only one of the founding fathers of general sociology, but also of the sociology of education, and is perhaps the most distinguished of those scholars who have ever held a chair in education. From his first appointment as a lecturer in Bordeaux, and throughout his later appointment to a chair in Paris until his death in 1917 he lectured on education as well as sociology. In this way not only was sociology introduced as a discipline into French universities, but education also gained a tenuous foothold. His audience were future primary and secondary teachers, and included the intellectual high-fliers of the Ecole Normale Superieure preparing for the agregation. Indeed over half of all his university lecture courses were in educational studies. His range was wide, but the theme of the historical development of the French education system, together with 'practical exercises', predominated. Of the other courses-moral education, pedagogy (which he defined as 'practical theory', 'neither the educational activity itself, nor the speculative science of education'), the education of the intelligence, and psychology applied to education-it was the first he professed most frequently. However, his publications on education are confined mainly to the courses he gave, and it is for his general sociological works that he is most remembered today. This French symposium presents an up-to-date assessment by French sociologists of his status today exclusively as a writer on education. Reviewing the collection of papers, one is struck by the little impact Durkheim has made on education outside his own country. In Britain his general sociology was discussed as early as 1904 at a meeting of the newly-formed Sociological Society. The previous year sociology had been introduced as a discipline at London University; undoubtedly pioneers in teaching the new subject such as Patrick Geddes and Westermarck were familiar with his work. Although Karl Mannheim gave a series of brilliant lectures at the London Institute of Education immediately after the war, sociology of education was hardly developed in Britain until the 1960s, and Durkheim's ideas would appear to have made little impact. A paper by Brian Davies makes the case for Basil Bernstein to be considered 'Durkheimian', but the educational repercussions of his work on social codes show little evidence of this, with the possible exception of his classificatory framework. (By contrast, as Henriot-Van Zanten points out, in France, where the part played by language in education is more seriously esteemed than in Britain, Bernstein's work has been influential. Viviane Isambert-Jamati, in another paper on Durkheim's view of the place of the humanities in the secondary school, quotes him (p. 176) as declaring language to be 'the common foundation of all

Orthodoxy, Religious Discordance and Alienation

The purpose of this study is to determine if discordance theory is helpful in understanding the relationship between religiosity and alienation. Using a sample drawn from the general population in Memphis, Tennessee, hypotheses derived from the theory which implicate religious discordance (the perception that socio-cultural change is undermining religious ideals) as an intervening variable between orthodoxy and alienation were tested. Consistent with the theory, orthodoxy had a positive effect on alienation which was mediated through religious discordance. Unexpectedly, however, orthodoxy also had a negative direct effect on alienation which suggests that orthodoxy functions to integrate actors into society as well as alienate them from it. Implications of the findings for discordance theory and previous research are discussed, and an explanation is offered for orthodoxy's integrative influence. The notion that religion functions to integrate the individual into society dates back at least to the writings of Durkheim. In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), Durkheim proposed that religion provides an overarching system of sacred beliefs and practices which binds together societal members into a cohesive whole. Although Durkheim's major concern was to understand how religion performs an integrative function at the societal level, his ideas have clear implications for its integrative role at the level of the individual as well. In Durkheim's view, religious norms provide the very basis for the social and moral order and are essentially coterminous with social norms. Presumably, then, if one accepts religious norms, one is in effect accepting social norms and feels a deepened sense of societal integration or belonging - a feeling reinforced in the individual through participation in collective religious rituals. Durkheim developed his ideas after studying a simple, undifferentiated society in which religious norms permeated virtually all other sectors of life. Since complex societies are characterized by a greater separation of religious and social norms, the applicability of his ideas to such societies has often been questioned. Nevertheless, contemporary researchers have drawn heavily on Durkheim's ideas in formulating hypotheses about religion's integrative function for the individual. Most of these researchers have examined the effects of religiosity on alienation expressed in terms of personal anomie or normlessness. Although the theoretical reasoning which has guided their investigations varies from study to study, much of it has been strongly influenced by the writings of Durkheim and implies that religion reduces anomie because it encourages acceptance of social norms. Stack (1981: 299), for example, states

Admission to Citizenship

Previous articleNext article No AccessSymposium on Duties Beyond BordersAdmission to CitizenshipHerman R. Van GunsterenHerman R. Van Gunsteren Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Ethics Volume 98, Number 4Jul., 1988 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/293002 Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 34Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1988 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Rute Abreu Accounting for Citizenship: The Role of Accountant, Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (Jan 2015): 933–941.https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00909-0Hans Boutellier Active Citizenship: From Panacea to Political Program — In Search of an Appealing Narrative, (Jan 2014): 206–222.https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137351630_11Benjamin Gregg Politics Disembodied and Deterritorialized: The Internet as Human Rights Resource, (Oct 2012): 209–233.https://doi.org/10.1108/S0278-1204(2012)0000030012John French, Annika Hinze From the Inside Out: Citizenship and Democracy in Multinational States, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 10, no.22 (Dec 2010): 255–270.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9469.2010.01074.xPatti Tamara Lenard What’s Unique About Immigrant Protest?, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13, no.33 (Sep 2009): 315–332.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-009-9196-0Nada Kakabadse, Andrew Kakabadse, Kalu N. Kalu Reconceptualising Citizenship and Identity: Contextual and Attitudinal Responses Towards State and Civic Obligation in the United Kingdom, (Jan 2009): 101–144.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244887_7 Introduction, (Jan 2008): 1–22.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-002 Shifting Cosmopolitics, (Jan 2008): 27–50.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-003 “We Called for Labor, but People Came Instead”, (Jan 2008): 51–79.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-004 Making Ausländer, (Jan 2008): 80–108.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-005 Haunted Jewish Spaces and Turkish Phantasms of the Present, (Jan 2008): 109–140.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-006 Berlin’s Kreuzberg, (Jan 2008): 141–154.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-007 Beyond the Bridge, (Jan 2008): 155–183.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-008 Minor Literatures and Professional Ethnics, (Jan 2008): 184–205.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-009 Practicing German Citizenship, (Jan 2008): 206–231.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-010 Deracination to Diaspora, (Jan 2008): 232–247.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-011 Reimagining Islams in Berlin, (Jan 2008): 248–293.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-012 Veiling Modernities, (Jan 2008): 294–310.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-013 Conclusion, (Jan 2008): 311–326.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-014 Notes, (Jan 2008): 329–358.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-015 Works Cited, (Jan 2008): 359–402.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822389026-016Jonathan Seglow Quatre théories d'acquisition de la nationalité, Raisons politiques 26, no.22 (Jan 2007): 149.https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.026.0149Jonathan Seglow The Ethics of Immigration, Political Studies Review 3, no.33 (Sep 2005): 317–334.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2005.00026.xKalu N. Kalu Of Citizenship, Virtue, and the Administrative Imperative: Deconstructing Aristotelian Civic Republicanism, Public Administration Review 63, no.44 (Jul 2003): 418–427.https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00305P. Birnbaum Citizenship: Sociological Aspects, (Jan 2001): 1860–1862.https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01834-9Jet Bussemaker Vocabularies of citizenship and gender: the Netherlands, Critical Social Policy 18, no.5656 (Aug 1998): 333–354.https://doi.org/10.1177/026101839801805604Matteo Gianni CITTADINANZA DIFFERENZIATA E INTEGRAZIONE MULTICULTURALE, Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica 27, no.33 (Jul 2018): 495–518.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048840200025089William James Booth Foreigners: Insiders, Outsiders and the Ethics of Membership, The Review of Politics 59, no.22 (Aug 2009): 259–292.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670500026632Thomas Mertens Cosmopolitanism and Citizenship: Kant Against Habermas, European Journal of Philosophy 4, no.33 (Dec 1996): 328–347.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.1996.tb00081.xRainer Bauböck Nation, Migration und Staatsbürgerschaft, (Jan 1996): 325–348.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-86620-2_14Matteo Gianni Multiculturalisme et démocratie: quelques implications pour la théorie de la citoyenneté, Swiss Political Science Review 1, no.44 (Mar 2012): 1–38.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.1995.tb00456.xPamela Johnston Conover Citizen Identities and Conceptions of the Self*, Journal of Political Philosophy 3, no.22 (Apr 2006): 133–165.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.1995.tb00032.xVEIT BADER Citizenship and Exclusion, Political Theory 23, no.22 (Aug 2016): 211–246.https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591795023002001Raphael Cohen‐Almagor The Intifada: causes, consequences and future trends∗, Small Wars & Insurgencies 2, no.11 (Apr 1991): 12–40.https://doi.org/10.1080/09592319108422969

Durkheim, Deviance and Development: Opportunities Lost and Regained

The full theoretical potential of Durkheim's ideas on crime and punishment has not been developed by his followers, who have focused on his earlier, less defensible formulations at the expense of his later, more significant developments. While labeling theory and functionalist approaches have drawn heavily on Durkheim's work, his contribution to an evolutionary theory of crime and punishment has only recently begun to attract attention. It is argued that a reformulated Durkheimian model needs to be developed before further progress towards an adequate evolutionary theory may be achieved. Considering the size of the secondary literature on Durkheimian theory, it is surprising that so little has been done to develop a cumulative theory of crime and punishment on the basis of Durkheim's basic perspective. Durkheim appears to have suffered the sad fate of being often cited to legitimize a study or argument which promptly goes on to pursue different or only tenuously related theories. This ritual, moreover, generally involves references to a small number of statements taken from The Division of Labor in Society, or (more rarely) from The Rules of Sociological Method, with Durkheim's more general theoretical aims and his remarks in later works being for the most part ignored. In marked contrast to Marx, Durkheim has been ill-served by his followers; thus, while Marx has provided a basis for the development of a rich array of innovative theoretical advances within criminology (as well, of course, as in other areas) the potential for cumulative growth within Durkheim's work has remained undeveloped. This has been especially true of Durkheim's ideas on the evolution of crime and punishment, which have only begun to receive serious attention during the last few years. It is to this issue that we shall address ourselves in what follows, our purpose being not to undertake yet another exercise in detailed exegesis, but rather to consider the extent to which Durkheim and his followers failed to develop further what were promising and innovative ideas. We will contend that not only would the study of crime and punish01981 The University of North Carolina Press. 0037-7732/81/041009-24$01.60

A Durkheimian Analysis of International Crime Rates

Emile Durkheim's theory of the emergence of the division of labor and consequent state of anomie was presented as a model by which the variance in international crime rates could be explained. Durkheim recognized the possibility that a 4chronic state of anomie occurring concomitant with industrialization would produce an increase in the crime rate. A test of the model delineating the causal relationships suggested by Durkheim found that the variable of anomie was not predictive of crime rates. However, a modified model excluding anomie was examined and found to be useful in explaining property and total crime rates. Alternative interpretations consistent with a Durkheimian perspective were suggested and explored. The works of Emile Durkheim have long formed the basis for many sociological theories. Perhaps nowhere else is Durkheim's influence more apparent than in the sociology of deviance. The social bonding perspective (Hirschi, and the several varieties of anomie theory; Cloward and Ohlin; Cohen; Merton, a, b), need only be mentioned to testify to the pervasive and lasting impact of Durkheim's ideas in this area. Recently, there has been an effort to employ Durkheim's ideas on social change more directly in explaining the variation in rates of deviance which may accompany industrialization (Gibbs and Martin, c; McDonald; Miley and Micklin; Webb). The current effort continues and extends this line of inquiry by employing a Durkheimian model to explain the variation in cross-national crime rates.

The Implications of Durkheim's Philosophy of Science

Reading Durkheim's critics leads one to conclude that either Durkheim was very confused or they are. Between them there is certainly no collective. Some have claimed he was conserv ative1 while others deny it;2 his logic has been described as fallacious3 and incisive4; he is a moral philosopher5 to one critic and a great empirical scientist6 according to another; his use of conscience collective is praised by one writer7 and described as deplorable8 by another; he has been characterized as anti-individ ualistic9 by one critic while another has denied it.10 Perhaps the contradictory interpretations result from a real inconsis tency in his work. Possibly he cannot be understood because his work is of line with thought.11 Such explanations, however, are excessively superficial. What is the basis for the claim that Durkheim is inconsistent? It seems plausible that his thought is more complex than is typically realized by scholars searching it for simple logical continuities or discontinuities. Perhaps he merely appears inconsistent because he has been apprehended from diverse points of view or from a single point of view foreign to his own Many of his critics have ignored the possibility that Durkheim's ideas were subject to development (as might surely be expected of any competent scholar) and that his writings could not thus be expected to agree on every point. Moreover, Durkheim's ideas should not be loosely compared with twentieth-century thought. Such a comparison both takes Durkheim out of his temporal context and implies that modern methods are necessarily better. If Durkheim had a goal different from that of modern sociology his method could be expected to be different. Different scientific ideas and goals are not necessarily wrong ideas and goals — this assumption would lead to a science both static and

The Educational Sociology of Emile Durkheim

^ URING the whole of his teaching life at the Universities of Bordeaux Jand Paris, Durkheim taught educational theory and practice as well as sociology. In I887 a special post was created for him in the Facultd des Lettres at Bordeaux where he was put in charge of the social sciences and pddagogie until I902. During this period a large proportion of his teaching was devoted to education, although in these same years he produced most of his major works and initiated the modern approach to the science of sociology in France. In I902 he was appointed as deputy for Ferdinand Buisson, whom he succeeded in I906, in the chair of the Science de l'Bducation at the Sorbonne. At this time sociology was not much in favour in the University of Paris, and was thus introduced under the cloak of education until in I9I3 Durkheim's position was re-named as the chair of the Science of Education and Sociology. He was only destined to remain a few more years before his death in I9I7. It is the puipose of this paper to outline some of Durkheim's ideas on education, and to show how they are closely linked with his sociological thought. It can be no more than an introduction to a subject upon which the writer is preparing a more substantial work. None of the educational writings of Durkheim has yet been published in England. In fact most of them were only published posthumously in France. Some notes on the most important of them are given at the end of this paper.[I] The majority of them were prepared in the form of lectures, and are listed in order of the dates on thich the course was first given, and not according to the date of publication which is separately recorded. There are many lectures still existing in manuscript form.[:2] It was thought best to give quotations in the following pages in English, and the translations are those of the writer except where othertise noted as coming from existing translations.

The division of labor in society

Originally published in 1893 and never out of print, Emile Durkheim's groundbreaking work remains one of the cornerstone texts of the sociological canon--now updated and re-translated in this new edition.As the Industrial Revolution was changing the landscape of society, Durkheim presented a new vision of the social structures at the root of capitalism, and the issues he grappled with still resound today. If pre-industrial societies were held together by common values, sentiments, and norms, equally shared by all, what holds modern societies, with their complex division of labor and non-cohesive social structure, together? What did this new social order mean for the autonomy of the individual? Durkheim argued that class conflict is not inherent in a capitalist society, as Marx contended, but that the unfettered growth of state power would lead to the extinction of individuality. Only in a free society that promotes voluntary bonds between its members, Durkheim suggested, can individuality prosper. In this new edition, the first since 1984, world-renowned Durkheim scholar Steven Lukes revisits and revises the original translation to enhance clarity, accuracy, and fluency for the contemporary reader. Lukes also highlights Durkheim's arguments by putting them into historical context with a timeline of important information. For students and scholars, this edition of The Division of Labor is essential reading and key to understanding the relevance of Durkheim's ideas today.