By focusing on the study of 19th century industrial society, Émile Durkheim realized the importance of understanding the factors that would explain the social organization, that is, understand what guaranteed life in society and a connection (greater or lesser) between the men. He came to the conclusion that the ties that would bind individuals to each other in the most different societies would be given by social solidarity, without which there would be no social life, this solidarity being of the mechanical or organic.
But what would social solidarity be? To understand it, it is necessary to take into account the ideas of collective (or common) consciousness and individual consciousness, also studied by this author. Each one of us would have our own (individual) conscience which would have peculiar characteristics and, through it, we would make our decisions and make choices on a daily basis. Individual consciousness would be linked, in a way, to our personality. But society would not be composed by the simple sum of men, that is, their individual consciences, but by the presence of a collective (or common) conscience. The individual conscience would be influenced by a collective conscience, which would be the result of the combination of the individual consciences of all men at the same time. The collective conscience would be responsible for the formation of our moral values, our common feelings, what we take for granted or wrong, honorable or dishonorable and, in this way, it would exert an external pressure on men at the time of their choices, to a greater or lesser extent degree. That is, for Durkheim the collective conscience would refer to the values of that group in which he would be inserted as individual, and would be transmitted by social life, from generation to generation through education, being decisive for our life Social. The sum of the individual conscience with the collective conscience would form the social being, which would have a social life among the members of the group.
Thus, we can say that social solidarity for Durkheim would occur through collective consciousness, as this would be responsible for the cohesion (connection) between people. However, the solidity, size or intensity of this collective consciousness would measure the connection between individuals, varying according to the model of social organization of each society. In societies with a simpler organization, a type of solidarity different from that existing in more complex societies, since the collective conscience would also occur differently in each situation. For a better understanding, a simple comparison between indigenous societies in the interior of Brazil and industrialized societies such as those in the metropolitan regions of the main capitals is enough. The feeling of belonging and similarity is much greater among the Indians around a lake when fishing than among the passengers in the São Paulo subway when going to work in the morning. In this way, according to Durkheim, we could perceive two types of social solidarity, one of the mechanical type and the other organic.
In a society of mechanical solidarity, the individual would be directly linked to society, and as a social being would prevail in their behavior always what is most considerable to the collective conscience, and not necessarily their desire as an individual. As Raymond Aron points out in his book the stages of the sociological thinking (1987), in this type of Durkheim's mechanical solidarity, most of the individual's existence is guided by social imperatives and prohibitions that come from collective consciousness.
According to Durkheim, solidarity of the mechanical type depends on the extent of social life that the collective (or common) consciousness achieves. The stronger the collective consciousness, the greater the intensity of mechanical solidarity. In fact, for the individual, his desire and his will are the desire and will of the group's collectivity, which provides greater social cohesion and harmony.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
This feeling would be at the base of the feeling of belonging to a nation, to a religion, to tradition, to the family, finally, it would be a kind of feeling that would be found in all the consciences of that group. Thus, individuals would not have characteristics that highlight their personalities, as we pointed out in the example given in relation to the indigenous tribe, as they are a social organization “more simple".
In constructing his theory, Durkheim also demonstrated what the general characteristics of solidarity societies of the organic type would be like. Therefore, it would be necessary to understand, above all, the idea of the division of social labor. As capitalism developed and large-scale production began, the means of production expanded and required more and more specialized functions. Furthermore, and most importantly, the interpersonal relationships necessary for life as they increased. In this way, the division of social labor, a consequence of capitalist development, was expanded, which would provide conditions for the emergence of societies with solidarity of the organic type.
In organic solidarity, according to Aron, there is a weakening of collective reactions against violation of prohibitions and, above all, a greater margin in the individual interpretation of imperatives social. In organic solidarity, there is a process of individualization of the members of this society, who assume specific functions within this division of social work. Each person is a piece of a great gear, in which each one has its function and it is the latter that marks its place in society. The collective conscience has its power of influence reduced, creating conditions of sociability well different from those seen in mechanical solidarity, with space for the development of personalities. Individuals come together not because they feel similar or because there is consensus, but because they are interdependent within the social sphere.
There is no greater appreciation of what is collective, but rather of what is individual, of individualism itself, an essential value – as we know – for the development of capitalism. However, just as an observation, it is important to say that, even if the social imperative given by the collective conscience is weakened in a society of organic solidarity, it is necessary that this same imperative be present to minimally guarantee the bond between people, no matter how individualistic they may be. are. Otherwise, we would have the end of society without any ties of solidarity.
Differences aside, we can say that both organic and mechanical solidarity have in common the function of providing social cohesion, this in a bond between individuals. In both there were general rules, such as laws on rights and sanctions. While in simpler societies of mechanical solidarity unwritten rules would prevail, but generally accepted, in more complex societies of organic solidarity there would be written laws, legal apparatuses also more complex. In short, Émile Durkheim sought to understand social solidarity (and its different forms) as a fundamental factor in explaining the constitution of social organizations, considering the role of a collective conscience and the division of labor Social.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Sociology - Brazil School