Exploring Mechanical Solidarity and Crime in Social Order
1. Mechanical Solidarity and Similarities
The bond of social solidarity, characterized by repressive law, defines crime as any act that elicits a characteristic reaction from society, termed an offense. While crimes vary, they share a commonality in the societal reaction they provoke, differing only in degree. Regardless of their apparent differences, these acts impact the moral conscience of nations similarly. All constitute crimes, acts repressed by defined punishments.
Analyzing crime requires understanding not only where alleged crimes occurred but also abstracting from cases where criminal acts seemingly took place. This abstraction reveals the essence of crime.
Note: The commonly accepted definition of crime excludes significant societal ills, such as economic crises. Do insults trigger the same anger in democratic countries?
Is the concept of crime a social fact?
Concept of Crime: A crime is an act universally disapproved by members of society, deeply etched in the collective consciousness. These feelings are strong and precise. A crime also necessitates a specific penalty. (Crimes, according to Camila, possess general characteristics and the diversity of social facts. Despite varying degrees of repression among society members, all express disgust.)
Crime is not simply harm to collective sentiments but an offense deeply engraved in the conscience. Some injuries, like incest (an immoral action), are not crimes. Superficial feelings, such as being a bad son, do not constitute crimes. To be a crime, the feeling must be strong and precise.
Criminal law enforcement, characteristic of societies with mechanical solidarity, has remained largely unchanged since Rome’s Law of the XII Tables. Innovations in criminal law are rare and limited. In simpler societies, law is almost exclusively criminal and therefore stationary.
Social Solidarity, Émile Durkheim – Mechanical Solidarity or Similarities (2.3)
By Falbo:
Background: In the nineteenth century, with capitalism establishing its foundations in European social organization, the bourgeoisie gained power, and bankruptcies and unemployment threatened social order. Conservatives, viewing the advancement of liberalism and individualism as the cause, opposed these threats. Durkheim, however, sought to understand the source of social order, making it the focus of sociological study.
Capitalism emerged from economic activity and task specialization. Conservatives saw the division of labor as a threat to social cohesion and solidarity. Durkheim, conversely, recognized it as a normal producer of social solidarity. Exceptionally, the division of labor may not produce solidarity (anomie: the absence of regulations).
Liberal Revolutions were not peaceful, planned, or slow (Reform vs. Revolution). They lacked a framework for the succeeding society. (Durkheim viewed Liberal Revolutions as destructive to social order because they did not establish rules, leaving individuals unregulated. Individualistic postures were emphasized. He was thus seen as anti-liberal and a conservative positivist.)
For Durkheim, if rules are defined a priori, the division of labor produces social solidarity. He focused on what is, not what should be, aligning with positivism and empirical analysis.
The nature of society is distinct from the nature of the individual. Sociology studies the social, not the individual.
Note: Durkheim argued that individuals are influenced by collective ways of acting, thinking, and feeling (social facts). However, individuals raised in the same environment (e.g., siblings) can exhibit different characteristics and attitudes. This suggests Durkheim’s conception is limited and cannot fully explain society. Individual analysis (genetic, biological, etc.) is also relevant, though not the focus of sociology. (Durkheim’s views should be considered within their historical context.)
According to a normative view of the division of labor, strikes would be unacceptable. Individuals should accept their position without complaint. In Durkheim’s perspective, the social dominates the individual, leaving little room for freedom.
Law, for Durkheim, maintains social cohesion, order, and solidarity. It serves as a visible sign of society’s enduring nature (since the social is not empirically observable, Durkheim studied law as a tangible expression of the social, e.g., laws).