Abstract
This chapter examines the philosophical underpinnings of Durkheim’s account of anomie as social pathology. It examines and evaluates Durkheim’s conception of social pathology and his claim that (many) social problems must be understood as analogous to illnesses. Further, it explores the vision of social ontology—of the kind of being that human societies have—underlying Durkheim’s position, which involves articulating the ways in which human societies are both different from and similar to biological organisms. Because Durkheim conceives of the task of social theory as similar to that of medicine, his account of anomie can be regarded as compatible in important ways with the tradition of Frankfurt-style critical theory. Both approaches to social reality attribute to social theory three inter-related tasks: theoretical understanding, normative evaluation, and guidance for practical action directed at changing the pathologies it diagnoses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
I. Kant, Critique of Judgment, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1987, §§64–65.
- 2.
Durkheim believes there are differences between societies and biological organisms with regard to the extent to which each is functionally organized. He admits that there are more instances of useless “organs” in societies than in organisms, and he denies that the sociologist assumes in approaching his object that “each detail [of a society] has […] a useful role to play”. É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, New York, Free Press, [1895] 1982, pp. 120 and 88. Most English quotations have been modified by me.
- 3.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, New York, Free Press, [1893] 1997, p. 13.
- 4.
Ibid., p. xxxix.
- 5.
Durkheim uses se maintenir at, for example: É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. pp. liv, 214.
- 6.
For the importance of “structural continuity” to a living system’s self-maintenance, see A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, A Natural Science of Society, Glencoe, Ill., The Free Press, 1957, p. 25.
- 7.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. p. 92.
- 8.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. xxxv.
- 9.
Ibid., p. xxxii.
- 10.
Durkheim uses “moral” and “ethical” interchangeably.
- 11.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. 15.
- 12.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. p. 51.
- 13.
É. Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London, Routledge, [1897] 1952, p. 209.
- 14.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. xxviii.
- 15.
Ibid., pp. xxxii–xxxiii. Durkheim’s social morality does not seek to eliminate all forms of conflict but only those with socially destructive consequences (ibid., pp. 302, 313). If we extrapolate from his views on the unhealthiness of a society in which crime or suicide was completely eliminated, we can expect he would say the same about some forms of conflict that appear to be destructive: eliminating them altogether would undermine a society’s vitality and capacity for change.
- 16.
Ibid., p. xxxiii.
- 17.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. p. 50.
- 18.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. 23.
- 19.
É. Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, cit. p. 167.
- 20.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. 22.
- 21.
Ibid., p. xliii.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 23.
- 23.
Ibid., p. 27.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 292.
- 25.
Ibid., p. 309 note 25.
- 26.
Ibid., p. 291. In addition, Durkheim’s universal history, as well as his conception of the “stages of life” of a given social species, provides resources for diagnosing social pathology in terms of regression or other developmental failures.
- 27.
Ibid., p. 292.
- 28.
É. Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, cit. pp. 215–217, 219.
- 29.
Ibid., p. 214.
- 30.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. pp. xxxi–xxxii.
- 31.
See also Durkheim’s brief description of the family in: ibid., pp. xliv–xlv.
- 32.
For more on Durkheim’s view of the state, see: B. Karsenti, La société en personnes, Paris, Economica, 2006, pp. 25–29.
- 33.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. 297.
- 34.
Ibid., p. 310.
- 35.
Ibid., p. 323.
- 36.
The pathologies of chapter three appear to be analogous to “circulation” problems in living organisms, whereas those of chapter one involve the failure of organs to adjust themselves to one another in order to work in concert. But why one involves the absence of rules (or regularity) while the other does not is difficult to understand.
- 37.
Ibid., p. 292.
- 38.
Ibid., p. 297.
- 39.
Sometimes Durkheim uses “spontaneous” to describe conscious assent (É. Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, cit. p. 209), but generally it refers to cooperation not mediated by consciousness.
- 40.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. 302.
- 41.
Ibid., p. xxxiv.
- 42.
Ibid., pp. 304–305.
- 43.
Ibid., p. 297.
- 44.
Ibid., p. 304. It is unclear how this proposed solution is compatible with the increasingly international nature of markets, of which Durkheim, no less than Marx, was aware (ibid., p. 305).
- 45.
Ibid., p. 292.
- 46.
Ibid., pp. 304–306.
- 47.
Ibid., p. 295.
- 48.
Ibid., p. 306.
- 49.
Ibid., pp. 306–307.
- 50.
Ibid., p. 307.
- 51.
Ibid., p. 308.
- 52.
Ibid., p. 308.
- 53.
Ibid., pp. 307–308.
- 54.
Ibid., p. 307.
- 55.
Ivi.
- 56.
Ibid., p. 293.
- 57.
Ibid., p. 310.
- 58.
Ibid., p. 314.
- 59.
Ibid., pp. lv, 314.
- 60.
Ibid., p. 313.
- 61.
J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 63.
- 62.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. 314.
- 63.
Ibid., p. 317.
- 64.
Ibid., p. 320.
- 65.
Ibid., p. xxvii.
- 66.
Neither is it completely absent (ibid., pp., 162, 172–173).
- 67.
Ibid., p. xxxii.
- 68.
Ivi.
- 69.
Ibid., p. xxxii.
- 70.
Ibid., pp. xxxix, xliv.
- 71.
Ibid., p. liv.
- 72.
Ibid., p. xliii.
- 73.
Ibid., p. lii. I am indebted to Conor Cullen for impressing this point on me.
- 74.
Ibid., p. xliii.
- 75.
Ibid., p. xxxix.
- 76.
Ibid., p. xliii.
- 77.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. p. 86; É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. xxvi.
- 78.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. xxxv.
- 79.
É. Durkheim, The Rules of Sociological Method, cit. p. 34.
- 80.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. xliii.
- 81.
F. Neuhouser, Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2000, chap. 1, pp. 17–54.
- 82.
É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, cit. p. xliii.
- 83.
É. Durkheim, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, cit. p. 219.
- 84.
Ibid., cit. p. 215. It is typical of Durkheim that he fails to understand these rapid transformations and the accompanying dérèglement as consequences of a specifically capitalist commerce and industry.
- 85.
Ibid., cit. p. 216.
- 86.
Ibid., cit. p. 217.
- 87.
Durkheim uses “normal” here in the statistical sense, not to refer to health.
- 88.
Ibid., cit. pp. 216–217.
- 89.
Ibid., cit. p. 234.
Bibliography
Durkheim, Emile, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, London, Routledge, [1897] 1952.
Durkheim, Emile, The Rules of Sociological Method, New York, Free Press, [1895] 1982.
Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society, New York, Free Press, [1893] 1997.
Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Judgment, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1987.
Karsenti, Bruno, La société en personnes, Paris, Economica, 2006.
Neuhouser, Frederick, Actualizing Freedom: Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 2000.
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred R., A Natural Science of Society, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1957.
Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neuhouser, F. (2021). Anomie: On the Link Between Social Pathology and Social Ontology. In: Marcucci, N. (eds) Durkheim & Critique. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75158-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75158-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75157-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75158-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)