UNIT 2 EMILE DURKHEIM and his concept of social solidarity and social cohesion

David Emile Durkheim is a French sociologist. He is considered one of the chief architects of the discipline of sociology as part of modern social science. Emile Durkheim has put forward theories about how modern society can function (together) as one unit cohesively and also how society can retain its integrity.

His theories and analyses have laid the foundation of modern society as we know it today. Some of his popular works include ‘The Division of Labour in Society –1893,’ ‘The Rules of Sociological Method,’ and ‘The Elementary Forms of Religious Life –1912.’ His works greatly influenced the intellect of Frenchmen till 1917, when he passed away.

As far as the Emile Durkheim theory is concerned, he wished to set and achieve 3 social goals.

He wanted sociology to be officially recognised in the modern world as a social science.

He wanted to study how a society could maintain oneness and function as a single unit, despite having people from different ethnic backgrounds, cultures and religions as part of it.

Lastly, Emile Durkheim was very interested in the role that scientific thought and knowledge would play in modern society. He wanted to study the effect of exploring scientific knowledge.

1. EMILE DURKHEIM UNIT 2

2. EMILE DURKHEIM: SOCIOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF JURISPRUDENC Emile Durkheim (1858—1917), a French sociologist, rose to prominence in the late 19 th  and early 20 th  centuries. Along with Karl Marx and Max Weber, he is credited as being one of the principal founders of modern sociology. When Durkheim began writing, sociology was not recognized as an independent field of study. As part of the campaign to change this he went to great lengths to separate sociology from all other disciplines, especially philosophy. While clearly not a lawyer or a student of law, Durkheim wrote on legal issues ranging from criminal process to the law of contracts. His contribution to sociological jurisprudence is undeniable. In his various works, and particularly the book titled “Division of Labor in Society” he deals with the issue of law in society.

3. DURKHEIM VIEW ON SOCIETY Durkheim adopted an evolutionary approach in that he considered society to have developed from a traditional to modern society through the development and expansion of the division of labour .   He compared society to an organism, with different parts that functioned to ensure the smooth and orderly operation and evolution of society.   He is sometimes considered a structural functionalist in that he regarded society as composed of structures that functioned together – in constructing such an approach, he distinguished structure and function.   While he considered society to be composed of individuals, society is not just the sum of individuals and their behaviours , actions, and thoughts.  Rather, society has a structure and existence of its own, apart from the individuals in it.   Further, society and its structures influence, constrain, and even coerce individuals in it – through norms, social facts, common sentiments, and social currents.   While all of these were developed from earlier or current human action, they stand apart from the individual, form themselves into institutions and structures, and affect the individual. 

4. DURKHEIM’S CONCEPT OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY AND COHESION Durkheim was especially concerned with the issue of social order, how does modern society hold together given that society is composed of many individuals, each acting in an individual and autonomous manner, with separate, distinct, and different interests.   His first book,  The Division of Labour in Society , was an exploration and explanation of these issues, and he finds the answer in the concept of social solidarity, common consciousness, systems of common morality, and forms of law.  He asserts that law was the standard by which any society could be evaluated since “law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity. According to Durkheim, social solidarity refers to the system of social bonds which link individuals directly to the wider society. He also used the term solidarity to identify a system of social relations linking individuals to each other and to society as a whole. Without these social links, individuals would be separate and unrelated. Durkheim opines that social solidarity and cohesion describes the level of intensity that exists in the social attachments linking individuals to the collective structure of society. He thought that social cohesion acts as ‘social cement’ which creates attachments between individuals in a society and these attachments exercise an emotional hold over them by making their attachment more intense and cohesive. Social solidarity and social cohesion manifest themselves in two very broad and distinct ways and these two broad systems of social solidarity are ‘mechanical solidarity’ and ‘organic solidarity’.

5. SOCIAL FACTS AND LAW Durkheim postulates in The Rules of Sociological Method that the fundamental subject matter of sociology consists of the study of social facts. He defines social facts as those “ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with the power of coercion”. In other words, according to Durkheim, social facts exist outside of the individual’s physical body (and, at least initially, outside of his or her consciousness as well) and, yet, they exert an influence on the individual’s behavior. Another “thing-like” quality that is characteristic of social facts is that they are resistant to change and thus persist from generation to generation. They were here before we were born, and more than likely will be here after we are gone. Examples of social facts include gender roles, norms, values, morality, all the social institutions the suicide rate, the crime rate, and society itself. For Durkheim, law is the preeminent social fact. As an institution it has been around for a long time and, because only a few people would desire a society without some kind of legal system, it will undoubtedly continue indefinitely. The law is coercive because it constrains people’s actions by prohibiting certain behaviors like murder, theft, and prostitution. The law is real since its violation will almost invariably lead to very real consequences such as a fine, incarceration, or death. Durkheim’s image of law is similar to that held by the structural-functionalists who see the law as a mechanism of social integration. To summarize, Durkheim uses law as an external and objective index for mea suring the degree of social solidarity.

6. TWO TYPES OF SOLIDARITY Mechanical solidarity : According to Durkheim, mechanical solidarity prevails in small scale homogeneous societies. Durkheim assumes that most laws in such societies would be of a penal and repressive nature since the entire society would take an interest in criminal activity and would seek to suppress and deter it. In short, the focus of law in societies that form mechanical solidarity is more on criminal law rather than civil law and is more concerned with punishment and suppressing anti-social activities. In other words, it is not very complex society, but rather one based on shared sentiments and responsibilities. Organic solidarity: Durkheim states the organic solidarity is found in more heterogeneous and differential societies where there is a greater division of labor as well as greater differences between individuals. This more pronounced division of labor means that are positioned in society based on merit. Moreover, in such societies there is less of a common societal reaction to crime as the people come from many different backgrounds and so law becomes less repressive and more restitutive. In other words, societies characterized by organic solidarity are more secular and individualistic due to the specialization of people in their respective tasks. Put simply, organic solidarity is more complex with a higher division of labour .

7. DIVISION OF LABOUR According to Durkheim, the societies move from mechanical to organic solidarity through the division of labour . As people began to move into cities and physical density mounted, competition for resources began to grow. Like in any competition, some people won and got to keep their jobs, whereas others lost and were forced to specialize. As a consequence, the division of labour generated all sorts of interdependencies between people which is a key element of organic solidarity. Thus, following the above discussion, he argued that societies characterized by organic solidarity generated social solidarity not through sameness, but through interdependence.

8. ROLE OF LAW IN PRESERVING SOCIAL SOLIDARITY Durkheim believed that there was a fundamental relationship between judicial rules and social solidarity. The legal rules and the system of punishment reflect the system of social solidarity and social cohesion. For Durkheim, the laws of a society are the most visible symbol of social solidarity and the organization of social life in its most precise and stable form. Law plays a part in a society that is analogous to the nervous system in organisms. The nervous system regulates various bodily functions so they work together in harmony. Likewise, the legal system regulates all parts of society so that they work together effectively. According to him, two types of law are present in human societies: Repressive law (moral) Restitutive law (organic).

9. REPRESSIVE LAW AND PENAL LAW Repressive law is related to the center of common consciousness and everyone participates in judging and punishing the perpetrator. The severity of a crime is not measured necessarily by the damage incurred to an individual victim, but rather gauged as the damage caused to the society or social order as a whole. Punishments for crimes against the collective are typically harsh. Repressive law, says Durkheim, is practiced in mechanical forms of society. Penal law imposes harm and suffering upon the offender. It does this in either of the two ways: first, by reducing the social honour of the offender and thus inflicting some form of loss or damage; second, by depriving the offender of either their freedom or their life. Penal law corresponds to societies whose solidarity is mechanical and whose social cohesion is intense. Punishment is severe bringing physical harm to the offender and applying sanctions against offenders which are ‘repressive’. It is the essential function of the repressive sanctions to maintain social cohesion by setting examples by means of punishment which act to preserve and reinforce the collective rules and sacred beliefs and by repairing the damage done to the collective conscience as a whole as a sequel to the offence.

10. RESTITUTIVE LAW The second type of law is restitutive law, which does focus on the victim when there is a crime since there are no commonly shared beliefs about what damages society. Restitutive law corresponds to the organic state of society and is made possible by more specialized bodies of society such as courts and lawyers. In contrast to the repressive sanctions and penal laws, the system of contract law arises only in industrial societies whose social cohesion is organic. Contract law refers to the system of modern law in advanced societies. Under this system of judicial rules, sanctions are restitutive rather than repressive. Industrial society leads to the development of various social institutions which become increasingly specialized as they replace the institutions of the tribal segment. These social institutions begin to function through specialized agencies such as the courts, arbitration council, tribunals and administrative bodies. The authority of the legal rules is exercised through specific functionaries such as judges, magistrates and lawyers. Restitutive sanctions have the job of restoring things to the way they were before the offence took place. The intension is to undertake compensation and restore the damage created by the offense rather than to inflict suffering upon the offender. The job of contract law is to develop rules which bind individuals to each other by regulating contractual obligations. According to Durkheim, contractual laws do not arouse collective social sentiments and thus do not contribute directly to the overall cohesion of the society.

11. PENAL SANCTIONS AND THE LAW Durkheim advanced the idea that as the basic structure and organization of societies progressed from the mechanical to the organic type, repressive law would gradually be replaced by restitutive law. Durkheim in his publication, “Two Laws of Penal Evolution”, (1901) proposes two interrelated principles relating the transformations in the kind and degree of punishment to social changes. Durkheim refers to the first principle as the principle of quantitative change and he looks primarily at the magnitude, severity, and intensity of penal punishment. In the second principle, the principle of qualitative change , he focuses on the historical shift from an emphasis on corporal punishment to incarceration. Durkheim always correlated the severity of punishment with the level of social development. In this article he continues to maintain that punishment becomes less severe as societies become more advanced.

12. THE PRINCIPLE OF QUANTITATIVE CHANGE Durkheim introduces two variables- 1. Social Development and 2. Political Centralization. He claims that these two variables while explaining the intensity of punishment are wholly independent of each other; that is, society’s level of social development is separate and distinct from its degree of political centralization (governmental absolutism). He introduces the idea of political centralization and contends that punishments are likely to be severe when a society more closely approximates a less advanced type and/or when a society’s governmental power is centralized. Because centralized absolute power is found among the simpler societies as well as the advanced, Durkheim held that the level of social development was the more decisive factor and that the form of state power was of secondary importance. What Durkheim is saying in the principle of quantitative change is that the greater the centralization of political authority, the more repressive will be the punishment inflicted on the criminal offender. Conversely, the less centralized, or more differentiated (i.e., democratic), a society’s political power structure, the less draconian its penal measures will be.

13. Continue……… Through an historical analysis of various premodern societies and the punishments they inflicted on the offender, Durkheim demonstrates the principle of quantitative change. For example, he notes that even though the Hebrews did not possess an advanced type of society, due to the fact that they were essentially a democratic people and never developed a tyrannical monarch, they did not use the cruel and aggravated forms of death employed by the Egyptians, Syrians, and Assyrians. These latter groups beheaded, stoned, crucified, burned, and hanged the offender. As European society became progressively differentiated, the administration of punishment was itself affected by the specialized occupations of inquisitor and executioner, occupations specifically charged with inflicting punitive sanctions. Punishments became less cruel in the eighteenth century as the power of the monarchies declined and gave way to less centralized governments. The eighteenth century also witnessed a decrease in the number of offenses subject to the death penalty as well as the abolition of various forms of corporal punishment.

14. THE PRINCIPLE OF QUALITATIVE CHANGE In the principle of qualitative change Durkheim states that the more brutal forms of punishment will give way to a more humane alternative, namely , incarceration . According to him, the deprivation of liberty through incarceration tends to become increasingly the preferred form of punishment as society progresses and becomes more secular. It is important to note that Durkheim is not saying that repressive law is going to disappear entirely. Although crimes would be punished more leniently in the future, they would be punished nevertheless. Durkheim further proposes that the social practice of incarceration passes through several stages of historical development. Originally, the earliest prisons were not used as places of punishment but only as places of temporary detention. This was the case, for example, in Athens, where the offender, like Socrates, was detained in prison only while awaiting trial.

15. Continue……… Incarceration did not occur in premodern societies because criminal responsibility was seen as collective. In this case it is not just the offender who is considered guilty but the entire clan or family to which he or she belongs. It therefore becomes unnecessary to imprison the offender since in the case of flight others remain who can be punished in the offender’s stead. Gradually, prisons became institutions for the administration of penal sanctions where offenders were systematically subjected to all sorts of torments. The dungeons and torture chambers of the absolutist monarchs of seventeenth-century Europe are prime examples of this type of prison. Following the collapse of these authoritarian regimes, and their replacement by less-centralized governments, incarceration came to signify something different from the administration of direct physical cruelty on the offender. As society advanced, prisons lost their character of preventive custody and acquired their “pure” form as they became places of long term confinement. Loss of liberty was considered a distinctive penal form and came to replace corporal punishments.

16. Continue……. Once loss of liberty became accepted as a penalty in its own right, the various types of torture and execution were abolished. By the eighteenth century, the penal nature of the prison had become accepted and incarceration became the model of punishment. Indeed, the prison became the necessary and natural substitute for other punishments which were fading away. At this time in the United States, for example, the death sentence had been abolished for almost all but a handful of offenses and a term in the penitentiary became customary. Opening in 1776, the Walnut Street jail in Philadelphia was the first prison in the United States.

17. FUNCTIONALISM AND THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF DEFIANCE Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with how the different elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society. Social disorganization theory ,  Strain theory , and  cultural deviance   theory represent three functionalist perspectives on deviance in society. Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views. For instance, when African American students across the United States participated in “sit-in” protests during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society. Seeing a student given a detention for skipping class reminds other high schoolers that skipping classes isn’t allowed and that they, too, could get a detention.

18. THEORY OF ANOMIE Émile Durkheim's theory of anomie is a key concept in sociology, particularly in understanding the causes and consequences of deviant behavior within societies undergoing rapid social change. Anomie refers to a state of normlessness or a breakdown of social norms and values, which Durkheim identified as a significant factor contributing to increased rates of deviance and crime. Durkheim developed his theory of anomie during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a period marked by profound social and economic transformations, particularly in Western industrialized societies. Industrialization, urbanization, and the shift from traditional to modern forms of social organization were changing the fabric of society, leading to disruptions in established norms and values. Durkheim's theory of anomie revolves around the concepts of social integration (solidarity) and social regulation (control), Durkheim described anomie as a condition where societal norms become unclear, inconsistent, or conflicting. This can occur during periods of rapid social change, economic upheaval, or cultural shifts. Anomie arises when individuals no longer feel bound by traditional norms and struggle to adapt to new social conditions.

19. CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ANOMIE CAUSES OF ANOMIE: Disruption of Social Norms : Rapid economic growth, industrialization, and urbanization can disrupt traditional social structures and weaken established norms. Social Inequality : Unequal distribution of wealth and opportunities can create feelings of injustice and alienation among disadvantaged groups, leading to anomie. Crisis or Disasters : Events such as economic recessions, wars, or natural disasters can destabilize social institutions and weaken social cohesion, contributing to anomie. CONSEQUENCES OF ANOMIE: Durkheim argued that anomie increases the likelihood of deviant behavior, including crime. When individuals experience normlessness, they may lack clear guidelines for behavior and may resort to unconventional or criminal means to achieve their goals or assert their identity. Anomie undermines social cohesion and weakens the moral fabric of society, potentially leading to higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, and other forms of social disintegration.

20. THEORY OF CRIMINALITY Émile Durkheim who developed a seminal theory on criminality rests upon his broad approach to anti-social behavior. Scholars before and after him have attempted to find the "cause" for crime in external factors as in natural forces, climate, economic conditions, density of population or certain ecological areas. In contrast to these Durkheim maintained that if an explanation is to be found "it is necessary to look for an explanation" in the very nature of society. From this it follows that the "individual is rather a product than an author of society". In other words the individual is but a small image of the world in which he lives. For Durkheim crime is immanent in society and results from social interaction.

21. THE NORMALITY OF CRIME To present day social scientists it may seem strange that Durkheim should maintain that criminality is a "Normal" factor rather than a pathological one. He indicates that crime is found in all societies, "Crime is normal because a society exempt from it is utterly impossible". The "fundamental conditions of social organization-logically imply it." Crime is not caused by inherent flaws in human nature or societal imperfections; it is a natural occurrence, akin to birth or death, rather than an abnormal or pathological phenomenon. It is all a part of the totality of society. "A society exempt from it (crime) would necessitate a standardization of the moral concepts of all individuals which is neither possible or desirable. In reality crime can disappear only when the "collective sentiments" in a community reach such an intensity that all persons concur in the same common values and when "the horror of bloodshed becomes widespread and deep in those social strata from much murderers are recruited"

22. CONTINUE………… Durkheim maintains that crime is not only normal for society but that is necessary. Without crime there could be no evolution in law. If society is to progress each person must be able to express himself. "The opportunity for the genius to carry out his work affords the criminal his originality at a lower level". "Aside from this indirect utility, it happens that crime itself plays a useful role". "According to Athenian Law, Socrates was a criminal, and his condemnation was no more than just. However, his crime, namely, the independence of his thought, rendered a service not only to humanity but to his country.“ Crime, therefore, "must no longer be conceived as an evil that cannot be too much repressed". This however, does not lead Durkheim to condone crime or "to present an apology for crime". When he stated that crime is merely a normal element he viewed the whole of society as reality.

23. SIMPLER UNDERSTANDING OF DURKHEIM’S THEORY OF CRIME Durkheim argued that crime reflects a discrepancy between individual desires and societal norms. When collective sentiments—shared beliefs, values, and norms—reach a high intensity and consensus within a community, individuals are more likely to conform to these norms. In such a scenario, the boundaries of acceptable behavior are clearly defined and widely accepted, minimizing the occurrence of deviant acts like crime. Durkheim also noted that crime rates are influenced by societal attitudes towards violence and the severity of punishments for criminal acts. When the "horror of bloodshed" becomes widespread and deeply felt, especially within the social strata from which many criminals emerge, there is a stronger deterrent effect. This collective aversion to violence creates a strong social control mechanism, discouraging individuals from engaging in criminal behavior due to the fear of harsh consequences and societal condemnation. Durkheim's perspective suggests that reducing crime involves not only strengthening social cohesion and consensus around shared values but also addressing the social conditions that contribute to criminal behavior, such as inequality and lack of opportunity.

24. CONTINUE…….. Durkheim argued that crime should not be viewed solely as a moral evil that must be completely eradicated through severe repression. Instead, he saw crime as a normal element inherent in all societies. This perspective does not mean that Durkheim condoned or excused criminal behavior. Rather, he recognized that crime serves certain social functions and reflects underlying social conditions. By stating that crime is a normal element, Durkheim emphasized that it emerges from the complexities and dynamics of social life. It reflects societal norms, values, and conflicts. Therefore, understanding crime requires examining the broader social context in which it occurs, including factors such as social integration, moral boundaries, and the impact of rapid social change. Durkheim's approach does not justify or apologize for crime but rather seeks to understand it as a phenomenon that interacts with and shapes societal realities. This perspective invites a sociological analysis of crime that goes beyond moral judgments to consider its roles, functions, and implications within the fabric of society.

25. SUMMARING DURKHEIM’S THEORY OF CRIME There are three main aspects to Durkheim’s theory of crime: 1. A limited amount of crime is inevitable and even necessary 2. Crime has positive functions. A certain amount of crime contributes to the well-being of a society. 3. On the other hand,  too much crime is bad for society  and can help bring about its collapse, hence institutions of social control are necessary to keep the amount of crime in check. 

26. 1. A limited amount of crime is inevitable and even necessary Durkheim argued that crime is an inevitable and normal aspect of social life. He pointed out that crime is inevitable in all societies, and that the crime rate was in fact higher in more advanced, industrial societies. Durkheim theorised crime was inevitable because not every member of society can be equally committed to the  collective sentiments  (the shared values and moral beliefs of society). Since individuals are exposed to different influences and circumstances, it was ‘impossible for them to be all alike’ and hence some people would inevitably break the law. Durkheim also theorised that deviance would still exist even in a  ‘society of saints’  populated by ‘perfect’ individuals. The general standards of behaviour would be so high that the slightest slip would be regarded as a serious offence. Thus the individual who simply showed bad taste, or was merely impolite, would attract strong disapproval. A good example of this are the laws surrounding grass cutting in many towns in America. These laws stipulate a maximum grass height, typically of eight inches. If the grass grows above this, the local council may fine them, and they can even go to jail. Some people have been fined thousands of dollars for letting their lawns grow too long.

27. 2. Crime has positive functions Durkheim went a step further and argued that a certain amount of crime was functional for society. He argued that crime performed THREE positive functions for societies… Social regulation- Crime performs the function of social regulation by reaffirming the boundaries of acceptable behaviour . When a crime occurs and individuals are punished it becomes clear to the rest of society that the particular action concerned is unacceptable.  In contemporary society, newspapers also help to perform the publicity function, with their often-lurid accounts of criminal acts. In effect, the courts and the media are ‘broadcasting’ the boundaries of acceptable behaviour , warning others not to breach the walls of the law (and therefore society). Social integration-A second function of crime is to strengthen social cohesion. For example, when particularly horrific crimes have been committed the whole community joins together in outrage and the sense of belonging to a community is therefore strengthened. Social change-A further action performed by the criminals is to provide a constant test of the boundaries of permitted action. When the law is clearly out of step with the feelings and values of the majority, legal reform is necessary. Criminals therefore, perform a crucial service in helping the law to reflect the wishes of the population and legitimising social change.

28.   3 . Too much crime or too little crime is bad for society Durkheim further argued deviance was necessary for social change to occur because  all social change began with some form of deviance . In order for changes to occur,  yesterday’s deviance becomes today’s norm . Durkheim argued that crime only became dysfunctional when there was too much or too little of it – too much and social order would break down, too little and there would not be sufficient capacity for positive social change.

29. EVALUATION Durkheim talks about crime in very general terms. He theorises that ‘crime’ is necessary and even functional but fails to distinguish between different types of crime. It could be that some crimes may be so harmful that they will always be  dysfunctional  rather than functional. Functionalists suggest that the criminal justice system benefits everyone in society by punishing criminals and reinforcing the acceptable boundaries of behaviour . However, Marxist and Feminist analysis of crime demonstrates that not all criminals are punished equally and thus crime and punishment benefit the powerful for than the powerless. Interactionists would suggest that whether or not a crime is functional cannot be determined objectively; surely it depends on an individual’s relationship to the crime. Functionalists assume that society has universal norms and values that are reinforced by certain crimes being punished in public. Postmodernists argue society is so diverse, there is no such thing as ‘normal’.  The Functionalist theory of crime is teleological. It operates a reverse logic by turning effects into causes. I.e. in reality the cause of crime is the dysfunctional system. However in functionalist theory crime becomes the necessary cause which makes a system functional. This really makes no sense! 

30. CRITICISM Overemphasis on Social Integration-Critics argue that Durkheim may have overemphasized the role of social integration (solidarity) in preventing crime. While strong social bonds can indeed reduce certain types of crime, they may not completely eliminate all forms of deviant behavior. Durkheim's theory may not adequately address crimes that arise from structural inequalities, poverty, or systemic injustices. Neglect of Individual Agency- Durkheim's focus on societal factors and collective consciousness sometimes overlooks the role of individual agency in criminal behavior. Critics argue that individuals make conscious choices influenced by personal motivations, psychological factors, and situational contexts, which Durkheim's theory may not sufficiently account for. Simplistic View of Deviance- Durkheim categorized deviance as a normal and necessary part of society, serving to reinforce norms and boundaries. However, critics argue that this view may oversimplify the complexities of deviant behavior, which can stem from a variety of personal, social, economic, and cultural factors that Durkheim's theory does not fully address. Limited Historical and Cultural Scope- Durkheim developed his theories based largely on Western European societies of his time. Critics argue that his theories may not fully apply to diverse cultural contexts or historical periods where social structures and norms differ significantly. Insufficient Explanation of Anomie-While Durkheim introduced the concept of anomie—a breakdown of social norms—as a cause of crime, critics argue that his explanation of how and why anomie occurs, particularly in modern industrial societies, is not always clear or comprehensive. Normative Bias- Durkheim's theory assumes that societal norms and values are inherently beneficial and should be upheld. Critics argue that this normative bias may lead to overlooking legitimate challenges to existing norms, such as social movements for civil rights or gender equality, which have involved acts of deviance against prevailing norms.

31. CRIMINALITY Durkheim emphasized that crime is not just an individual pathology but a social phenomenon with deep-rooted causes in the structure and dynamics of society. He argued that understanding crime requires analyzing its social context, including the moral values, norms, and social institutions that shape individuals' behavior. While Durkheim's conceptualization of criminality may not neatly align with modern typologies of crime, his sociological perspective laid the groundwork for understanding crime as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon shaped by social forces. His emphasis on the role of social integration, regulation, and collective consciousness in shaping criminal behavior continues to influence sociological theories of crime and deviance. While he didn't categorize criminality into distinct types in the same way as some modern criminologists might, Durkheim's analysis provides insights into different forms of criminal behavior and their social context. Here are some key concepts related to criminality as per Durkheim are dealt in next slide:

32. TYPES OF CRIME RELIGIOUS CRIMES HUMAN CRIMES Religious crimes are acts directed against collective things having a tran scendent or mystical character, while human crimes are acts injuring only the individual or his or her property.

33. RELIGIOUS CRIMES Religious crimes, which are offenses against religion, state authorities, traditions, and the like, are predominant in less-developed societies and seriously violate the collective consciousness of those societies. Because government leaders and deeply cherished moral values are seen as having a quasi-religious aura, the religious crimes committed against them are considered sacrilege and blasphemy. In this case the collective consciousness, or that shared framework of sacred moralities, is assaulted severely; the acts are regarded as reprehensible; and, as a consequence of the community’s moral outrage, the punishments are par ticularly intense. In these simple societies, where political power is monopolized by one individual like a monarch, that individual assumes the attributes of a deity and is elevated to a superhuman level. Consequently, crimes against the society are really crimes against the absolute sovereign who makes the laws. Crimes against the king are seen as acts against divinity and are considered an abomination. Thus, wherever political power is absolute, violations of the law are always treated as religious criminality and punishment becomes an emotional act of vengeance. Religious crimes provoke a strong punitive response because they are seen as more odious. Although many, if not most, crimes are committed by the public against their own kind and not against the despot or his functionaries, such crimes are nevertheless treated as if they were offenses against the state. This is because the laws of the land “are supposed to emanate from the sovereign and express his will, so the principle violations of the law appear to be directed against him”. Thus, any breach of the despot’s laws—laws endowed with a divine quality—is interpreted as a religious crime and violently repressed. In this context, the function of punishment is to reaffirm group solidarity and restore the sacred collective consciousness violated by the criminal.

34. HUMAN CRIMES According to Durkheim, compared to religious crimes, society views human crimes (murder, theft, rape, fraud, and so forth) as less revolting because they involve only the private interests of the individual victim who is not seen as a religious or sacred entity. These types of crime predominate in more advanced, differentiated societies where the collective consciousness has lost its stern, religious character. Here the trend is away from the ethic of collective responsibility and towards the ‘individuation’ of the offended object. In modern legal systems, criminal and victim possess equal standing. Human crimes are not punished too heavily because one person’s injury does not threaten the entire society. As the coercive force of the collective consciousness grows weaker— that is, as society becomes increasingly secular—crime is no longer considered a des ecration and an act of impiety against the collectivity. Consequently, the collective outbursts of anger, outrage, indignation, and irrational vengeance are delimited and tempered. in an advanced society there emerges a secular morality—that is, a new collective consciousness—based on the values of human dignity, respect for the individual, and humanitarianism. Accordingly, there is an increasing sentiment of mercy and sympathy for the offender who suffers the pains of punishment. Because of this increase in public sympathy as well as the fact that crimes were no longer regarded as sacrilegious, punishments became progressively milder.

35. EVOLUTION OF CONTRACT AND CONTRACT LAW Emile Durkheim discussed the juridical bond of contract within the framework of social solidarity and legal theory. According to him, there are two principles from which the juridicial bond of contract is derive from. These two principles are as follows: 1. Contract Derived from Existing States or Conditions- Durkheim observed that contracts can derive from pre-existing states or conditions of individuals or things. For example, he cited the legal relationship between a slave and a master. In such cases, the legal bond of the contract is based on the social status or condition of the parties involved. The slave is bound to the master by virtue of their respective social positions, which are legally recognized and enforced. 2. Contract Derived from Desired or Willed States- Durkheim also noted that contracts can arise from states or conditions that are not yet in existence but are desired or willed by both parties. This implies that contracts can be based on mutual agreement and consent, where both parties voluntarily enter into an agreement with the intention of creating new legal obligations and relationships.

36. SACRED ORIGIN OF CONTRACT Durkheim explains the contract’s evolution from a bond that is based on a unilateral, sacred, coerced, and unequal relationship to a bond based on a bilateral, secular, free, and equitable relationship between contracting parties. Together, these types comprise a sequence of historical stages delineating the progression from the “pseudo” contract of the past to the true contract of the present and beyond. He considers five major types of contract in his analysis of its evolution: The blood covenant The real contract The contract of solemn ritual The consensual contract (or contract by mutual consent) The contract of equity (or the just contract)

37. THE BLOOD COVENANT In the case of the blood covenant, members of a group with a strong collective consciousness have certain rights and duties toward each other because they share a common sacred quality. They see themselves as being of the same blood. When these individuals wish to create relations with others outside their group, they simulate artificial bonds symbolizing the natural ties they have with their kind. As an artificial bond, the blood covenant took several forms. It could consist, for example, of two individuals mingling their blood thus becoming “blood brothers.” The Christian rite of communion, where the believers partake of the body and blood of Christ, is another form of blood covenant. This ritual sharing of the sacred blood symbolizes the contract made between God and the community of believers.

38. THE REAL CONTRACT The real contract, occurs only with the actual transfer and delivery of a thing, thus giving rise to a duty of debt. For example, in the Roman loan called mutuum,, the loan was concluded when its object (a sum of money or an amount of fungibles—goods that can be replaced in quantity and quality) was handed over to the debtor. In this contractual agreement, a buyer has the right to receive the thing purchased but also has the duty to pay for it. In later times, a symbolic article without value, such as a straw or a glove (in Germanic law), was substituted for the actual object of exchange.

39. THE CONTRACT OF SOLEMN RITUAL The contract of solemn ritual, involved the declaration of an oath. The words of the oath, said in ritual form, were endowed with a sacred force that served to bind the participants. The contracting parties carefully uttered a specific phrase in accordance with a consecrated formula. The formal pronouncement of the oath made the words sui generis; that is, it gave them an identity of their own. This idea still exists today when people say they “give their word.” The oath in the contract of solemn ritual was said to invoke a divine being who served as intermediary or guarantor (one who answers for the performance of another’s duty) of the promises made and exchanged. The deity was said to be offended if the participants failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement. Consequently, breach of the pact was considered a sacrilege and the retaliatory penalty inflicted on the offender was especially severe. According to Durkheim, the participants in the solemn contract are bound by two duties. First, the bargaining parties are under an extreme obligation to fulfill their promises because they have sworn an oath to the highest moral authority— the deity. Second, the promisor becomes closely bound to the promise because the promisor’s oath, by detaching his or her words and projecting them outwardly, enables the promise to possess them as if they were tangible things.

40. THE CONSENSUAL CONTRACT The consensual contract, emerged when sales and purchases of commodities and property became more frequent. As these new demands of economic life increased, it be came impractical and inexpedient to engage in the ritual formalities of the solemn contract. Unlike the solemn contract, which relied on the backing of sacred forces, the consensual contract is legitimated by the sanctions of positive law. In this way, the consensual contract protects not only the rights of the community but also the rights of the individual. Further, the consensual contract creates a bilateral bond of reciprocal duties between the two transacting parties; that is, each party plays the dual role of creditor and debtor, promisor and promisee . Durkheim considers the consensual contract the first “true” contract because the bargaining parties freely agree to the terms of the bargain. Indeed, its principal feature is the declaration of wills. Durkheim tells us that the transfer involved in the consensual contract is an internal state of mind as it pertains to the will or intention of the bargaining parties. If intention and will are absent, or if they are not freely given, the contract is considered invalid. The binding force of the consensual contract is thus internal or psychological and not based on a formal ritual or the transfer of a physical object.

41. THE CONTRACT OF EQUITY In addition to considering the internal state of mind of the transacting parties, the contract of equity also considers the external consequences of the agreement. Durkheim maintains that only by regarding both the internal and external aspects of the bargain can a truly equitable, objective, and just contract be realized. Even though an individual voluntarily enters into a contract, this does not necessarily mean that the transaction will turn out to be a fair one for him or her. Contractual consent can be obtained through fraud. In the contract of equity the notion of constraint recedes into the background while the idea of exploitation becomes ever more important. Durkheim contends that the exploitation of one person by another rouses our indignation. He attributes the interest in exploitation to the organic solidarity’s increased feeling of sympathy, or altruism, which we acquire for our fellow citizens.

42. PURPOSE OR SOCIAL FUNCTION OF CONTRACT Durkheim contends that the main social function of contract is not to encourage the exchange of goods and services between parties, but to ensure their regular cooperation and thus maintain the equilibrium of society. To be sure, because it gives rise to reciprocal obligations, the contract becomes “the supreme legal expression of cooperation”. In Durkheim’s view, the composite division of labor, or the specialization of tasks in organic society, depends on that form of cooperation that is best expressed by the contract. Contracts, as symbols of exchange, help to harmonize those social relation ships taking place between persons performing specialized and distinct functions. Some of these functions, for example, are manifest in the commercial code regulating such contracts specific to commerce as those made between agent and principle, between carrier and consignor, and between insurer and insured. The purpose of contractual law is to maintain social equilibrium by regulating and determining the contract’s legal outcome. It does this by constraining the bar gaining parties to respect each others’ rights and duties and, in the process, it helps to achieve a fair compromise by ensuring that the goods and services exchanged are of equivalent social value. Durkheim, however, makes it clear that the role of contract is not to abolish competition but only to moderate it. To be sure, he sees the contract as a precarious truce that can assuage disputes only temporarily. Durkheim points out that contracts also express the general consensus existing in society. This consensus is reflected in the special ties that originate in the agreement of wills between contracting parties. In sum, Durkheim sees the contract as having a pivotal, albeit limited, role to play in the maintenance of society. As Durkheim sees it, the law of contracts, through its authority to regulate, “constitutes the foundation of our contractual relationships ”.