Durkheim criticized the Comtean perspective for its generalization of the term "society", proposed as an object of study for the social sciences, which should use as a method the observation of social facts.
By proposing society as a social organism, Comte elevated it to the condition of BEING, with its own nature and laws, but it did not take into account the different types of existing societies, placing these differences as distinct stages of the same evolution. He intended to explain the consolidated social movement, placing social facts as identical everywhere, varying only in their intensity.
Durkheim, on the other hand, suggested the observation of the various societies, not as belonging to an evolution that leads to the same place, but as distinct species of an organism whose observations and comparisons would lead us to know such body. Furthermore, Comte did not give the term "organism" its proper value, as he was unable to explain where it came from. or how this new being that he suggests was consolidated, since this is not an evolution of the individual (continuity).
Spencer, in turn, noticed and studied the various societies, classifying them, looking for general laws of social evolution (which all societies should face and use), finding in the analogy between social being and living being (individual) the way to know the social organism, since social life derives from individual life and, therefore, has similarities to with her. Durkheim's criticism of Spencer is that he did not study social facts for to know them, but to deduce from them general laws that intend to explain all reality by the laws of evolution. In this way, he synthesized and generalized social facts, submitting them to the same general law, when each social fact should be studied in particular, with the objective to know it and to establish rules for that particular type of society, without abstract generalizations that do nothing for the development of this new science.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
After a brief analysis of the path taken by sociology since its birth, Durkheim proposed a specific object for this new science, namely: the social facts. To study them, he proposed the method of observation and indirect experimentation, that is, the comparative method, the only one by which sociology can become a positive science and reach solid results, free from abstractions metaphysical.
In this way, the nascent science itself, as it is constituted, produces its own essential divisions in order to have a greater understanding of the approached theme. The first one is the social Psychology charged with studying psychological phenomena that go beyond the individual's sphere, such as religious traditions, political beliefs and language. The second division is the moral that it must study moral maxims and beliefs as natural phenomena from which causes and laws are sought. The third division extends to the legal science and criminology who are responsible for studying the moral laws that must not be infringed. The fourth and last division concerns the political economy, which studies economic phenomena.
Thus, the social sciences propose to explain to the individual what society is, so that he can recognize himself in it as an organ in an organism, that is, as an essential part, but not the only one for the good functioning of the whole Social.
By João Francisco P. Cabral
Brazil School Collaborator
Graduated in Philosophy from the Federal University of Uberlândia - UFU
Master's student in Philosophy at the State University of Campinas - UNICAMP
Would you like to reference this text in a school or academic work? Look:
CABRAL, João Francisco Pereira. "Émile Durkheim and the critique of the sociological perspectives of Comte and Spencer"; Brazil School. Available in: https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/filosofia/Emile-durkheim-critica-perspectivas-sociologicas-comte-espencer.htm. Accessed on June 28, 2021.
