You are on page 1of 9

HS301 Essay Assignment

Academic Year 2010/11 Semester 2

Tricia Anna Lim Peiyu


Tutorial 2

Word Count: 2499

Durkheim versus Giddens

What are the relationships between self and society? In his book, Rules of Sociological Method (1982), Durkheim proposes a dualism between the self and society, in specific, that social reality exists outside the individual. In this, he argues that the structure of society constrains individuals actions. On the other hand, Giddens, in New Rules of Sociological Method (1993), espouses the notion of the duality of structure, which states that social structures serve a dual purposeof governing an individuals behavior, as well as a medium through which individuals behave. Unlike Durkheim, who sees the society and self as distinct, Giddens seeks to bridge the gap between the two structure and agency. This essay will highlight the key arguments of each thinkerDurkheim and Giddensand how they postulate the relationship between the self and society. Structure & Agency Durkheim argues that to study society, we are required to consider what constitutes a social fact. He states that social facts represent ways of thinking and acting which exist independently of each single individual (Gane, 1988: 139). The origins of such facts are social in nature, and its basis does not come from individual persons. Social facts are therefore social structures that Durkheim argues, constrains and constitutes the individual. Social structures provide the external limits within which individuals act and think through obligatory behaviors and patterns, as well as a moral universe that holds society together. The forms of constrain are either sanctions or through the effects of the realities of the situation itself (ibid.) In essence, Durkheim takes on a structuralist approach, stating that although society is made up of individuals, society is what constitutes the individual.

Giddens (1993), however, provides us with an additional facet of structureit is both constraining (as Durkheim posits) and enabling. He defines it as rules and resources that actors draw upon and reproduce in social action (Ritzer, 2003). This include explicit rules like sanctions and punishments, and implicit ways of acting like body language. This duality of structure which he introduces, sees structures as both a constraining and enabling force for the individual, providing the rules to govern ones conduct, as well as the resources, which is the medium through which the individual is able to communicate and function within society. It simultaneously represents the means and ends of functioning in society two sides of the same coin (Giddens, 1993). Individuals have the power to reconstitute these rules and resources (structure), which will, in turn, constrain future action. This
2

Durkheim versus Giddens

definition therefore moves away from Durkheims functionalist definition of structureone that is external to and constrains the individual. Giddens argues that Durkheims approach does not recognize that individuals are purposive and reflexive creatures that possess agency. Actors reflexively draw upon rules and resources in the course of their day-to-day lives (Giddens, 1993: 3). To Giddens, structure and agency are therefore interdependent.

Durkheim states that social structures are external to and constrain the individuals conduct setting it in line with that of society. However, Giddens (1993) suggests that this argument does not hold, as what constrains one individual might not constrain anotherthere are different degrees to which one might experience constrain. There is a need to acknowledge that social life is hierarchical (Giddens, 1993: 4), meaning that there are different levels of social structures that might have a constraining effect on some, and less so on others. Therefore, it is inaccurate to assume that all individuals experience society in the same way.

In stating that social structures are external and constraining, Durkheim attempts at explaining how ones action relates to the characteristics of social collectivities (Hamilton, 1990: 345). Giddens however argues that Durkheim fails to acknowledge the existence of reflexivity and agency of individuals. It is in essence an ontological (Giddens, 1993: 100) problem, in that since the physical world has an existence independent of the knowing subject, it may causally influence his/her conduct from the constraining properties of social organization. (ibid.) In this, he means that the individual is not fully under the constrain of social structures, but possess independent thought and reflexivity that might affect his/ her behavior.

However, Durkheim (1982) contends that social phenomena, in essence are moral phenomena as they are governed by moral rules. The notion of moral rules refers to a set of conduct and rules that are consecrated by the group (Gane, 1988: 423) and impose obligatory ways of acting (Ibid.) on the individual. To Durkheim, what is moral is in effect anything that promotes social cohesion. Morality is a social construct that is external of the individual and compels one to act in a certain way in line with society, therefore, everything social can be classified as being moral. Moral sanctions are set apart from utilitarian sanctions, in that the former is a result of the the violation by that act of a pre-established rule (Cotterrell, 1999: 59), while the latter punishes the content of the act itself. Therefore, these moral rules not only have a constraining role, but also provide the very basis of
3

Durkheim versus Giddens

purposive and intended conduct.

Durkheim (1982) holds that society and thereby, social facts, can be studied as how the hard sciences study scientific factsbased on empirical research (i.e. observation, external to individual will and independent of the observer). He takes on a positivism stance, which general trend states that societies function in a determinate way (as in the case of natural laws), and individual agency and meanings are not importantsince individuals are situated within a society, we embody certain life chances and opportunities. This necessarily affects how one acts in response to the structure one is in. For example, a person who is born into an upper class family in Singapore, and whose both parents are graduates, would feel compelled to enter university as well. Durkehim illustrates this in his book, Suicide (1951), which claims that sociological factors can be used to explain something as personal as suicide. According to Durkheim, the highest number of suicides occurs during the time when social life is at its height. (Durkheim, 1951: 119). He claims that the reason for a suicide is taken as a response to the structure within which one is situated.

In line with Durkheims notion of structures being constraining, Giddens recognizes that individuals are born into pre-existing structures that have characteristics individuals must adhere to. However, the structural properties of social systems do not act, or act on anyone like forces of nature to compel him/her to behave in a particular way (Giddens, 1984: 181). As mentioned earlier, Giddens emphasizes that individuals possess a certain level of reflexivity, and have the power to decide if they want to adhere to societal rules or not. A societys form or order therefore does not occur in a mechanical and deterministic way like what Durkheim suggests. Internalization of Values; Consciousness Durkheim (1982) also asserts that individuals, although constrained, might not feel so because the moral rules and valuesexisting external to the individualthat govern them have already been internalized into ones consciousness. He states that constraint is not simply imposition of outside controls on individual will, but rather is a moral obligation to obey rules (Coser, 1977:129). This, he terms the conscience collective, which is a set of rules, behaviors, norms and values that are accepted by members of the society. These moral obligations therefore are internalized, and structure individuals behaviors in line with that of

Durkheim versus Giddens

society. It is worth pointing out that Durkheim still stands apart from Giddens in that these rules internalized by the individual is not a product of individual consciousness, but develops independently of it, within society.

Giddens (1984) acknowledges that individuals are not necessarily always aware of why they do certain things. This, he terms practical consciousness, which is the general unawareness and unreflexivity of the individual, when he acts or behaves in a certain way. Giddens defines it as what actors know (believe) about social conditions, including especially the conditions of their own action but cannot express discursively (Giddens, 1984: 375). It consists of shared tacit knowledge on how to act in a given situation, i.e. how one ought to queue up to wait for their turn at something, body language, etc. This knowledge is of vital importance of the individual to function within society. However, Giddens contends that alongside practical consciousness, individuals also possess discursive consciousness, which what actors are able to say, or to give verbal expression to, about social conditions, including especially the conditions of their own actions; awareness which has a discursive form (Giddens, 1984: 374). Therefore, to a certain extent, individual actors are reflexive and not totally constrained by social structures in society. Social Order Another aspect of Durkheims work involved the solidarity of individuals within a society. He starts off with the introduction of the dualism of human nature. According to him, there are two sides to an individual: one is the consciousness that is opposed to society (i.e. individual wants, desires and interests), and the other, which stems from society, is the socialized personality or the collective consciousness (Durkheim, 1982). The former deals with individual interests, while the latter takes the good of the larger society into consideration. Solidarity is thus maintained when the socialized personality takes precedence over the individual desiresmoral consensus. The limits of ones individuality are therefore a product of what the society expects of the individual.

Disorder, can then occur when the interests of individuals diverge from the conscience collective. An individuals desires and impulses could be in opposition with what is demanded of them in society. The problem therefore boils down to the tension, which purportedly exists between the interests of the two different components in human nature

Durkheim versus Giddens

the individual and the conscience collective. Giddens, however, contends that this theory is not comprehensive as it fails to take into account what these divergent interests of the individual might be. It also fails to consider the overall global community as well as the power alignments with which they are interlaced (Giddens, 1993: 105).

In his study of norms and interaction, Durkheim stressed that through the study of sanctions, it can be said that norms are constraining. He goes on to add that moral forms are specific and definite ways of acting imposed upon us. (Durkheim, 1964: 420). This moral order of interaction (Giddens, 1993: 114) involves normative sanctions, which is the actualization of rights and enactment of obligations (ibid.) To illustrate this, consider the scenario of a line of people queuing up for the bus. The person who came the earliest, would have the right to be the first in line, and the subsequent person who comes, would be obligated to acknowledge the right of the person by acting appropriately and not cut her queue by being the second in line.

Giddens (1993), asserts, however, that in the production of interaction, all normative elements have to be treated as a series of claims whose realization is contingent upon the successful actualization of obligations through the medium of the responses of other participants (Giddens, 1993: 115). In this, he means that Durkheims understanding of how normative sanctions function, rests on the assumption that participants involved in the interaction must necessarily be aware of the normative claims and subsequent appropriate actions to take. In short, the effectiveness of a normative sanction is largely determined by the compliance of those who are subjected to it. Giddens goes on to point out that Durkheim does not account for the possibility of norms being approached in a utilitarian manner, meaning that, in certain cases, some individuals refrain from transgressing what is socially accepted, not because they have a moral obligation not to do so, but because they do not want to run the risk of having to face an undesirable consequence due to the transgression. Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that the enactment of a moral obligation necessarily implies a moral commitment to it (Giddens, 1993: 115).

Additionally, since the transgression of moral claim, according to Giddens involves the reaction of other actors, there is some leeway for individual actors to mediate the severity of discipline, which might follow. Through this, he illustrates that the production of a normative order exists in close relation to the production of meaning (Giddens, 1993: 115)
6

Durkheim versus Giddens

explicating the interdependence of structure and agency, and thereby between the society and the self. He explains that the individual can negotiate the outcome of the transgression, and can thereby possibly even negotiate the characteristics of the transgression, which will in turn affect the sanctions involved. Individuals are therefore involved in the reproduction and negotiation of rules, which concurrently constrain and enable behavior. Conclusion In conclusion, Durkheim tended to conceive the relationship between the self and society from a structuralist perspective, suggesting that society, which is embodied in structures, constrains the individual. He theorizes human nature as having two sides, one individualistic, and the other, social. And to maintain social order, the latter has to take precedence over the former. Social structures being external to the individual, constrains individual impulses and desires, and provides the limits within which the individual ought to act. In his later works, despite his preoccupation with the social, Durkheim does introduce the concept of the cult of the individual. He acknowledges that in modern society, the new collective conscience that would pervade society would be that of individuality. This will occur as the old collective conscience decreases in volume, society will start to accept unique personalities with autonomous influences in the world (Hamilton, 1990: 157). What holds society together, then, would be the reverence for a common humanity. He however, does not provide an insight into how this might possibly develop.

Giddens (2003), on the other hand, argues that social structures are both constraining as well as enabling. He states that, social structures provide the frame of reference within which individual actors find and create meaning. Unlike Durkheim (1982), he recognizes that individuals are purposive creatures that have reflexivity, and therefore play a role in negotiating social structures. Power to adhere to certain rules and structures, to him, ultimately lies with the individual. He sees the individual and society as two sides of the same coinindividuals negotiate the rules, which in the future are the very structures that constrain them.

However, the question that beckons is whether the relationship between structure and agency, as Giddens (2003) puts forth, is symmetrical. He acknowledges that human knowledge is bounded, and at any one time, an individual is incapable of knowing everything related to

Durkheim versus Giddens

their agency. Additionally, there is question as to the power individuals have in violating moral claims. Without individuals, society is not possible. On the other hand, society is what gives meaning and provides the frame of reference within which the self is able to act and function. Giddens marriage of structure and agency gives us two sides of the coin, but ultimately, one that takes both aspects into consideration, but places more weight on the effects of structure (as what Durkheim suggests) would be a more reasonable and acceptable conjecture.

Durkheim versus Giddens

References Coser, L. A. (1977). Masters of sociological thought: ideas in historical and social context (2nd ed.). Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cotterrell, R. (1999). Emile Durkheim: law in a moral domain. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide, a study in sociology. New York City: Free Press. Durkheim, E. (1965). The elementary forms of the religious life. New York City: Free Press. Durkheim, E., Lukes, S., & Halls, W. D. (1982). The rules of sociological method. New York City: Free Press. Gane, M. (1988). On Durkheim's rules of sociological method. New York: Routledge. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method (2Rev.ed. ed.). Cambridge: Polity P.. Hamilton, P. (1990). Emile Durkheim, critical assessments. New York: Routledge. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Ritzer, G. (2003). The Blackwell companion to major contemporary social theorists. USA: Blackwell.

You might also like