Summary in the Video
Explanation in the video
The ‘Overview, Summary, or Conclusion’ of this article can be found at the beginning of the YouTube video, so please refer to it.
If possible, we would appreciate it if you could subscribe to our channel to help maintain the site. It serves as motivation for us!
Introduction
This video series is structured around four major works by Émile Durkheim.
- The Division of Labor in Society (1893)
- The Rules of Sociological Method (1895)
- Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)
- The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912)
First, here is the overall structure of Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in Society.
This article focuses specifically on sociological theory.
The remaining topics will be discussed in the next video.
If you find this video helpful, please consider subscribing to the channel. It will motivate me to create the next one.
- Chronology
- What are the bonds that connect people to one another?
- What is division of labor and what are its functions?
- Why does division of labor produce social solidarity?
- [Column] What is sociology?
- The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity
- The difference between segmentary society and organized society
- Collective conscience and collective representations
- [Column] What is sociological theory?
- Examination of solidarity: repressive law and restitutive law
- Non-contractual elements in contracts
- A society without crime is unhealthy
- [Column] Durkheim’s critique of Tönnies
- Is individualism detrimental to solidarity?
- Coercive division of labor and anomic division of labor
- Intermediate groups as a measure against the adverse effects of modernization
What Is Sociological Theory
Sociologist Yumiko Ehara treats theory as a term that means a universal system of knowledge capable of coherently explaining individual phenomena.
First, theory determines which aspects of a phenomenon should be perceived, and then imposes coherence only on the information it selects.
The idea that theory “reduces the complexity and richness of the information contained in a phenomenon” is key.
As Max Weber put it, sociology is the task of interpreting and illuminating phenomena that are, in themselves, nothing more than infinite facts, by applying theories that are relevant at a given moment.
Without theory, we are confronted with chaotic and complex data, unable to determine which aspects we should perceive. It is like walking through a jungle at midnight without a light.
Even with a light, we cannot fully illuminate the truth itself—what phenomenology can only describe as an undefined “it.” Still, we can discuss the degree to which people are able to reach a shared understanding of what it seems to be.
In the words of Max Weber, this shared understanding reflects an objective possibility (Chance), and in the terms of Emile Durkheim, it corresponds to a social fact.
What Kind of Rationality Does Theory Require
According to Yumiko Ehara, being “rational” means identifying certain patterns or regularities within phenomena. Theory functions as a framework used when trying to understand the actions of others.
Emile Durkheim also attributed a role to science as discovering “laws,” but not laws of nature governing society; rather, he argued that there are social laws unique to society. The characterization of social facts as a distinct kind of reality signifies the difference between social reality and natural scientific reality.
In sociology in particular, rationality is not limited to the type of logic where 2 plus 2 equals 4; rather, emphasis has been placed on understanding the meaning, motives, and goals behind others’ actions. Max Weber’s interpretive sociology (verstehen sociology) exemplifies this approach.
However, in Weber’s case, the focus tends to be less on the psychology of specific individuals and more on the average psychology, or so-called “types,” which is similar to Durkheim’s emphasis, as Durkheim also adopted a perspective based on the average individual.
How Does Academic Theory Differ from Everyday Theory
According to Yumiko Ehara, theories in everyday life are inseparably linked to perception and experience, and people rarely become consciously aware of these theories.
Indeed, if asked to immediately provide concrete examples of everyday theories, it is difficult.
Intuitively, we might live within unconscious frameworks (theories) based on assumptions like “because it is this way.” These could be considered a type of tacit knowledge. For example, we can distinguish between Michael and John’s faces, but we do not know exactly on what basis we do so.
Similarly, we do not know why a stranger’s suicide causes us such deep sadness.
Unlike everyday theories, academic theories assume that the theory itself is recognized and critically examined in advance. It is commonly understood that theories are tested for their validity, logical consistency, and empirical support.
Making unconscious frameworks explicit and conscious is also important. For example, Robert Merton’s concept of latent functions is related to this (though unintended consequences and the unconscious are slightly different).
From Gregory Bateson’s perspective, the idea that unconscious processes are economical is significant as well.
If we consciously considered every step we take, walking would become difficult. Only when a breakdown occurs do we become aware and need to consciously address it.
Durkheim also argued that the role of science is to use reason to bring to consciousness the unconscious influences that blindly govern people.
He considered it the role of science—and sociology in particular—to make tacit knowledge and unconscious domains conscious, especially by presenting them to us indirectly as objective facts, almost like things. He did not believe these could be presented directly.
Especially in sociology, the unconscious is also seen as a latent reality—that is, an ideal. Durkheim expressed this by saying that what we cherish more is not the body of society but the soul of society.
It is not merely desire or habit, but includes ideals. In particular, the modern ideals of freedom and equality are involved.
What Is a Law in Sociology
Sociologist Kazuo Moriyama defines a law as a schema that makes complex and diverse observed facts intellectually and coherently understandable.
He also claims that most theories in sociology are merely “pseudo-theories.” He describes theory as a process of deduction through “basic propositions” and “structural hypotheses.” The important point is that propositions and structural hypotheses do not simply emerge from observing data; rather, the researcher’s inference is necessary.
Example: The statement “the suicide rate is higher among Catholics than Protestants” is merely data rather than a law.
From there, researchers infer from the data, formulate propositions and hypotheses, and then construct a coherent system of knowledge from which theories can be deduced. Without theory, it is difficult to even determine whether a particular act (that act) qualifies as suicide.
In Durkheim’s example, the process of constructing hypotheses such as “low social cohesion (integration, solidarity) leads to a high suicide rate” deepens understanding of the question and showcases the sociologist’s skill.
Furthermore, the idea of cohesion can be used deductively as a tool applicable beyond suicide rates. In other words, its generalizability becomes important.
- In sociology, simply finding correlations in data does not amount to discovering a law.
- Data should be considered together with frameworks, theories, and systems that explain it.
- The key focus lies in whether the scope of the theory is narrow (low-level empirical generalization), middle-range, or broad (overgeneralized).
In Merton’s view, a sociological theory is a logically connected set of propositions that serve as the basis for deriving empirical uniformities.
Empirical uniformity means the tendency or regularity by which multiple different phenomena can be explained similarly within the range observable in practice.
Example: Merton’s theory of reference groups can identify similar tendencies in schools, workplaces, and families.
In schools, friends; in workplaces, colleagues; and in families, siblings serve as reference groups that influence how individuals evaluate their own behavior.
The theory is not a single law but a logically connected and systematized set of propositions, such as whether groups one has not yet joined can still serve as reference groups, and what the concept of a reference group fundamentally entails.
Moriyama refers to the type of analysis that explains data through narratives as the “third-order interpretation,” which is an important point.
I find this “narrative” to be one of the enjoyable aspects of studying sociology. In the words of sociologist Toshiki Sato, it is the enjoyment of “skillfully letting go of common sense.” From Weber’s perspective, it corresponds to “unintended consequences,” from Merton’s to “latent functions,” from Luhmann’s to “functional equivalence,” and from Shinji Miyadai’s to the enjoyment of an “eye-opening revelation.”
Sociology has the unique appeal of offering alternative interpretations—showing other perspectives with narrative persuasiveness that guides readers to a “bonus in understanding” of phenomena, as Gregory Bateson might say.
That is why I love sociology. Additionally, though I’m not sure if it can be called a “narrative,” I also appreciate the “passion” that scholars exude.
Theories presented by scholars who possess a sense of crisis about society and feel a moral, normative, and value-laden imperative to act have something that excites readers even more.
This excitement differs from the “this can be used for something” thrill found in physics knowledge; it is closer to questions of why and what, rather than how.
What is society? What am I? What is my role? Where do we come from and where are we heading? Why does communication arise? Why does communication sometimes hurt or bring happiness? These questions are approached from a perspective that grants what C. Wright Mills called the sociological imagination.
Of course, there is a need to be cautious not to fall into what Alfred North Whitehead called the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” which happens when one is unaware of their own value judgments, group consciousness, or ideology.
References
Recommended Readings
Emile Durkheim「The Division of Labor in Society｣
Emile Durkheim「｢The Division of Labor in Society｣
DK Publishing, Sarah Tomley「The Sociology Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained (DK Big Ideas) (English Edition)」
About the Japanese version of this article
This article is a translation of an article written in [https://souzouhou.com/2024/11/27/durkheim-4-1/]. For detailed references, please refer to this link.
Comments