The sociological paradigms developed by Emile Durkheim in the late nineteenth century remain an important part of academic discourse. For instance, Durkheim believed that deviance was a functional and even natural part of society. In an effort to demonstrate how Durkheim was able to reach this conclusion, this brief investigation considers the basic tenets of Durkheim’s sociology and the specific manner in which this scholar drew his conclusions about social discourse.
Researchers examining Durkheim’s work note that this scholar had a unique perspective on social development (Webb, 643). In particular Durkheim believed that the basic context of daily life served as the foundation for creating a collective consciousness for most individuals. This collective consciousness could be used as a basis for the development of rules and policies that govern action and behavior. Although the collective consciousness provided a foundation for modern society, the division of labor that existed in society created an individual consciousness which often conflicted with the collective consciousness. The conflict created between these two consciousnesses is what promulgates the development of deviance (Webb, 643).
Taking this analysis one step further, Krohn observes that Durkheim did not lament the division of labor that was occurring during the industrial revolution. Rather, Durkheim saw the division of labor as a natural progress of social development: “The division of labor was necessitated by both the material growth (population) of society and the concentration of that growth (density)” (655). As such, the division of labor was an unavoidable process that was directly related to the larger needs of an expanding population. Without the division of labor, society would not have been able to ensure its successful development (655).
Even though Durkheim could see the inevitable progression of society toward the division of labor, he was well aware that this situation was not a panacea for social development. In order for the division of labor to exist certain social realities had to exist as well. “The needs for a normative system appropriate for the emerging division of labor, stems directly from the fact that the division of labor increase individual variation and innovation” (656). Durkheim argued that this situation spawned a condition of anomie in which “man’s desires exceed his means to satisfy them”(656).
When placed in this situation, it becomes evident that while the division of labor makes it possible for man to exist it also creates considerable tension for the individual. The individual is not solely responsible for his or her survival. This interdependence that is created as a direct result of the division of labor generates conflict, which in turn generates anomie and deviant behavior. “The more industrialization and greater the division of labor in a country the greater the level of anomie can be expected. Finally, a society with high anomie is expected to have a high degree of social disorganization (crime rate)” (656).
The perspective of deviance that is advocated by Durkheim appears to have notable credence when applied to modern society. To illustrate this point, one only needs to consider an offender that has chosen to engage in drug trafficking in order to make a living. Looking at the background of this individual, one would more than likely find that economic circumstances served as the impetus for this individual to engage in this type of illegal activity. Unable to secure employment or unable to command a living wage, the offender has sought drug trafficking as a means to effectively build a better life and meet his basic needs for survival.
Seeking to better understand the specific social conditions that fostered the economic situation for the offender, one could argue that the division of labor created in modern society has made it difficult, if not impossible, for an individual without a college degree to acquire a decent job. The division of labor makes it difficult for the offender to control his economic development, even when he acquires employment. In order to survive the offender turns to criminal behavior as a means to effectively buck the system and garner more control over his situation.
In addition to garnering more control, the offender is also satiating his need to have more. Western culture has created an imperative need for immediate gratification when it comes to material possessions. As such, the offender may see drug trafficking as a quick means to garner money and possessions. Acquisition of a college degree would take at least four years, with no guarantee that a well paying job will be available. As such, the urgency of the offender’s needs have been exceeded by the social environment in which he lives. This would be described by Durkheim as a state of extreme anomie.
As the conflict between the needs of the offender and the regulations of society-i.e. stiff penalties for drug trafficking-come into conflict the offender experiences considerable conflict. This conflict could lead to the decision to follow the collective consciousness of society. However, as developed by Durkheim the state of anomie that has been created in this situation is often too overwhelming for the individual. As the offender weakens and gives into anomie, the true nature of Durkheim’s examination of deviance is elucidated. Society simply cannot meet the needs of all individuals. When this occurs, deviance results as a means to reduce the internal conflict of the individual.
Works Cited
Krohn, Marvin D. “A Durkheimian analysis of international crime rates. Social Forces, 57(2), (1978): 654-670.
Webb, Stephen D. “Crime and the division of labor: Testing a Durkheimian model.” American Journal of Sociology, 78(3), (1972): 643-656.
