Emile Durkheim: Social Facts | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Social Facts

To give sociology a clear and separate identity away from philosophy, Durkheim suggested that its unique subject matter should be the study of social facts. These social facts are the structures and norms that exist outside of individuals but exert influence over them. For instance, students are affected by the university's rules and the societal value placed on a college education. Similar external factors shape people's behavior in various aspects of life.

Social Facts as “Things”

• Durkheim emphasized that social facts should be treated as “things” and studied through empirical methods. This means gathering data through observation and experimentation rather than relying on personal beliefs or philosophies.
• This empirical approach distinguishes Durkheimian sociology from more philosophical perspectives.

Definitions of Social Facts

• A social fact is any way of acting, whether fixed or not, that can impose an external constraint on individuals. It can also refer to any way of acting that is widespread in a society but exists independently of individual actions.
• Durkheim provided two definitions to differentiate social facts from psychological concepts:
• A social fact is seen as an external constraint, not an internal drive.
• It is general across society and not tied to any specific individual.

Social Facts and Sui Generis

• Social facts, according to Durkheim, cannot be reduced to individual actions. They must be studied as distinct realities. He referred to them as sui generis, meaning “unique,” to highlight their special character that is not dependent on individual thoughts.
• If social facts were explained by individual actions, sociology would become a branch of psychology. Instead, social facts should be explained by other social facts.
• For example, Durkheim explained the division of labor and suicide rates using social facts rather than individual motivations.

Characteristics of Social Facts

• Social facts can be studied empirically.
• They are external to individuals.
• They exert coercive power over individuals.
• They are explained by other social facts.

Examples of Social Facts

• Durkheim provided examples of social facts such as legal rules,moral obligations, and social conventions.
• He also considered language a social fact. Language must be studied empirically as it has rules and exceptions that can only be discovered through observing actual language use, which changes over time.

Language as a Social Fact

• Language is external to individuals. Although people use language, it is not created or defined by them. Some philosophers argue that a private language is impossible because language must be social to function.
• Language is coercive of individuals. It can make it difficult to express certain ideas, such as the challenges faced by same-sex couples in finding appropriate terms to describe their relationships.
• Changes in language are explained by social facts, not individual intentions. Even if an individual is credited with a change, it is the social context that enables the change. For example, slang often originates in marginal social groups, and the group’s existence explains the slang’s history and function.

Criticism of Durkheim’s Position

• Some sociologists believe that Durkheim’s strict focus on social facts limited certain areas of sociology and disconnected it from related fields.
• Despite these criticisms, Durkheim’s concept of social facts established sociology as an independent discipline and argued for the importance of studying society as it is before making judgments about how it should be.

Material and Nonmaterial Social Facts

• Durkheim made a distinction between two broad types of social facts: material and nonmaterial. Material social facts, such as architectural styles, forms of technology, and legal codes, are more straightforward because they are directly observable. For instance, laws are external to individuals and exert a coercive influence over them. Material social facts often represent a larger realm of moral forces that are also external and coercive, which is the realm of nonmaterial social facts.
• Durkheim's primary focus in sociology was on nonmaterial social facts, which include what sociologists today refer to as norms, values, and culture. He acknowledged that nonmaterial social facts are partly found in the minds of individuals, but he believed that the interactions among people give rise to these facts in ways that are not solely determined by individuals. This idea led to the concept of "relational realism," where the interactions themselves, even when nonmaterial, have their own levels of reality.
• Durkheim viewed social facts on a continuum of materiality. Sociologists often start their studies with material social facts, which are empirically accessible, to understand the more abstract nonmaterial social facts. The most material social facts include population size, density, channels of communication, and housing arrangements. Durkheim referred to these as morphological facts, and they were central to his early work, such as in The Division of Labor in Society. At a different level, structural components like bureaucracies are a blend of morphological components and nonmaterial social facts.

Types of Nonmaterial Social Facts

Morality

• Durkheim was a sociologist of morality in the broadest sense of the word (R. T. Hall).
• Studying him reminds us that a concern with morality was at the foundation of sociology as a discipline.
• Durkheim’s view of morality had two aspects.
• First, Durkheim was convinced that morality is a social fact.
• This means that morality can be empirically studied, is external to the individual, and is coercive of the individual.
• Morality is explained by other social facts.
• Durkheim believed that morality must be studied as an empirical phenomenon.
• Morality is intimately related to the social structure.
• To understand the morality of any institution, one must study how the institution is constituted.
• It is essential to understand how the institution came to assume its present form and its place in the overall structure of society.
• One must also consider how various institutional obligations relate to the social good.
• Second, Durkheim was concerned about the moral health of modern society.
• Much of Durkheim’s sociology is a by-product of his concern with moral issues.
• One of Durkheim’s associates noted that one will fail to understand his works without considering that morality was their center and object.
• Durkheim did not think that society was becoming immoral.
• For Durkheim, morality was identified with society.
• Society could not be immoral, but could lose its moral force if the collective interest became mere self-interests.
• Morality, as a social fact, imposes obligations on individuals that supersede self-interest.
• Consequently, Durkheim believed that society needs a strong common morality.
• What the morality should be was of less interest to him.
• Durkheim’s concern with morality was related to his definition of freedom.
• He believed people were in danger of a pathological loosening of moral bonds.
• These moral bonds were essential; without them, individuals would be enslaved by ever-expanding passions.
• According to Durkheim, each new gratification leads to more and more needs; thus, humans always want more.
• If society does not limit desires, individuals become slaves to the pursuit of more.
• Durkheim held the paradoxical view that individuals need morality and external control to be free.
• This view of insatiable desire is central to his sociology.

Collective Conscience

• Durkheim attempted to deal with his interest in common morality in various ways and with different concepts. In his early efforts to deal with this issue, Durkheim developed the idea of the collective conscience. In French, the word conscience means both “consciousness” and “moral conscience.” Durkheim characterized the collective conscience in the following way: The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it the collective or common conscience. . . . It is, thus, an entirely different thing from particular consciences, although it can be realized only through them.
• Several points are worth underscoring in this definition. First, it is clear that Durkheim thought of the collective conscience as occurring throughout a given society when he wrote of the “totality” of people’s beliefs and sentiments. Second, Durkheim clearly conceived of the collective conscience as being independent and capable of determining other social facts. It is not just a reflection of a material base as Marx sometimes suggested. Finally, although he held such views of the collective conscience, Durkheim also wrote of its being “realized” through individual consciousness.
• Collective conscience refers to the general structure of shared understandings, norms, and beliefs. It is therefore an all-embracing and amorphous concept. As we will see below, Durkheim employed this concept to argue that “primitive” societies had a stronger collective conscience—that is, more shared understandings, norms, and beliefs—than modern societies.

Collective Representations and Social Currents

• Collective conscience, a broad and abstract concept, is challenging to study directly. Instead, sociologists approach it through related material social facts. For example, Durkheim examined the legal system to draw conclusions about the collective conscience. His frustration with this limitation led him to prioritize the more specific concept of collective representations in his later work. 
• The French term représentation, meaning "idea," refers to both a collective concept and a social "force." Examples of collective representations include religious symbols, myths, and popular legends, which reflect society's self-perception and motivate conformity to collective beliefs, norms, and values.
• Unlike collective conscience, which is difficult to study directly, collective representations can be examined more easily because they are often linked to material symbols like flags and icons or practices such as rituals. Sociologists can investigate how certain collective representations align or conflict with one another. For instance, a sociological study can reveal how representations of historical figures like Abraham Lincoln have evolved in response to social changes.

Abraham Lincoln as a Collective Representation
Abraham Lincoln serves as a powerful collective representation in American society, allowing people to reflect on their identity as Americans, whether as patriots or consumers. His various representations, such as heroic statues and portraits, convey different aspects of American identity and values.

Social Currents and Nonmaterial Social Facts

• Nonmaterial social facts, like social currents, can significantly impact even the most robust institutions. For example, rock concerts in Eastern Europe were seen as a threat by communist governments because they fostered the emergence and spread of cultural standards and behaviors outside of party control. These concerts provided a space for individuals to express and strengthen their feelings of alienation, transforming personal emotions into motivating social facts.
• Despite contemporary sociology's focus on norms, values, and culture, Durkheim's interest in nonmaterial social facts, such as social currents, poses challenges. Critics argue that his concept of social currents suggests an independent existence of nonmaterial social facts, separate from individual actors. However, Durkheim acknowledged that cultural phenomena cannot exist in isolation and are shaped by social interactions.
• Durkheim viewed the collective mind as a composite of individual minds, constantly interacting through the exchange of symbols. Social currents, or shared meanings within a collectivity, cannot be reduced to individual minds but emerge through social interactions. These collective "moods" vary across different collectivities, influencing behaviors such as suicide rates.
• There are parallels between Durkheim's theory of social facts and contemporary theories on the relationship between the brain and the mind. Both propose that complex systems exhibit new properties that cannot be predicted from the individual components. Durkheim argued that the intensity of interactions between individuals creates a new level of reality, similar to the mind emerging from brain functions. This modern understanding of nonmaterial social facts encompasses norms, values, culture, and shared social-psychological phenomena, aligning with Durkheim's perspective.