Mike Oren.com

In this piece, Durkheim levels some heavy volleys at contemporary theory, although at the time of the writing what we now call 'contemporary social theory' was 'Middle Age social philosophy' where instead of looking at everything objectively and examining facts (as Durkheim advocates) we apply value-driven interpretations of the world--albeit the 'contemporary theories' often focus on marginalized values rather than supporting the 'dominant norms' (Durkheim 1982). It should also be noted that Durkheim takes care to note that a plurality of societies exist and each society has its own sets of norms, further he takes pain to say that we should not judge one society as 'superior' to another, but rather that we should look at general trends and establish what is 'normal' for a given type of society (Durkheim 1982:64-65). Durkheim, therefore, is not trying to impose a 'Western European' model on all societies, rather he is asking that we seek clear objective views of society to understand the structure in which they operate and the components that allow it to operate. I have heard this view criticized as promoting the extension of society in a balanced structure forever, which he does suggest, but he also notes that it is important to understand societal change--he, in fact, notes that some change is natural and appropriate within society, although he does not want to see society collapse completely (Durkheim 1982:90 and 104-105). Furthermore, Durkheim establishes that no generalization matches everybody as everybody will deviate in various degrees from the norm, so he is not saying that all people are the same (or should be), merely that society is set up in a way that promotes certain norms and by objectively examining society we can establish and understand these social facts (Durkheim 1982:86-87 and 102). In fact, the only thing I would really consider faulting him for, personally, is that he appears to fix the unit of analysis at the societal level (and has, in my opinion, a flawed/incomplete conception of all societies stemming from one societal structure), although he does note that as we establish an understanding of the societal level we can begin to explore smaller organizational structures within society (Durkheim 1982:114-117).

In short, I have to say I'm generally a fan of Durkheim. I am hoping that upon further reflection, I can form a better grasp of the elements of contemporary theory that Durkheim feels should be rejected and the elements of it he supports although some contemporary theorists appear to reject or ignore his understanding of the multifaceted aspects of the world and society.

Durkheim, Emilie. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Methods. New York: Free Press.

This is a short 'bonus post' for this week, since I came across this article in Science Daily after I already posted for this week, plus if I'm remembering correctly Durkheim's primary discussion of hereditary succession was in the previous week's readings, although it did resurface this week as he discussed ways in which division of labor are corrupted. Apparently, hyenas use the advantages their parents have gained in order to gain their own higher place in society, see the Science Daily article. You can also read the article in Behavioral Ecology if you're interested in a more detailed scientific discussion.

In Durkheim's sobering concluding chapters, he discusses the pathological/corrupted forms of division of labor that exist in today's society. In contrast to Book I & II, Book III discusses the division of labor as a source of unnatural inequality when it is forced upon people or regulations are not in place to keep the division just. It seems that Durkheim sees this corruption occurring partially because economists have misinterepreted the division of labor as merely leading to increased efficiency when, in fact, the division of labor is a means of social solidarity that allows greater freedom for the individual (Durkheim 1997:308). Further, this solidarity is partially dependent on the government being properly organized in a fashion that allows it to serve as a means of connection between people leading otherwise diverse lives and having the regulations in place to ensure that production is in balance with consumption (Durkheim 1997:296 and 303). With that said, Durkheim does not call for negative regulations nor does he deny that the economic system eventually corrects for inconsistencies, but he sees regulations as necessary for stability of the system to avoid crashes like we are seeing in our current economy (Durkheim 1997:303).

Rather than go into further summary of this last section, I'm going to diverge slightly here and discuss some contemporary theory that seems like it might be seeking to achieve some of the goals of solidarity within division of labor. I am speaking of coordination theory, a theory which I have only recently stumbled upon (literally stumbled upon) and one that comes out of the world of management information systems (MIS) and has found application within human-computer interaction (HCI). This theory seeks to form a model of the ways in which activity within a system is divided and the ways in which they communicate and interact to achieve a shared goal where their tasks are divided. In application, it seeks to find ways in which information technology can be utilized to make it easier for the individual actors performing their separate tasks to be informed when the dependency they are waiting on has been met so they can fulfill their role in the system. Again, I have done very little readin on this particular theory, so I cannot speak of it in detail, but I'm pointing it out in case their interest in it, although I'm personally very skeptical as to its originality but I do enjoy its general practicality and seeming simplicity. It's of particular interest to me as I'm beginning to delve into the emerging area of service design, which is an area of current expansion within HCI that I'm planning to cover in a course I'm teaching this summer on the 'emerging practices of HCI', although like coordination theory, service design seems to not be wholly original either as many aspects of it seems to simply be a relabeling of 'experience design' where the focus is on the entire user experience rather than just the usability of the product's functions. On a side note, if any reader wishes to take this course, it is being offered online and on-campus as HCI 596X at Iowa State University (feel free to request a copy of the syllabus). The group project will be service design oriented, but the individual projects will be more traditional interaction design focusing on the usability of a computer application or web site. My apologies for the plug of the course in this blog post, but I'm hoping to get some students in the course with an interest in the social sciences as it will be a good addition to the group of primarily engineers and psychologists that make up the core of Iowa State's HCI program (it should be noted that internationally, HCI as a discipline is shifting in the direction of the social sciences as computers continually serve as a means of connecting people and become less about an individual performing isolated work).

Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.

Durkheim challenged the classical economist view of the causes of division of labor stating that the economists are wrong to think that human pursuit of happiness caused them to divide up labor to seek greater leisure time and happiness (Durkheim 1997:180). Instead, Durkheim sees the primary cause of the division of labor as a necessary result of population growth and condensing (Durkheim 1997:205). Essentially, because populations were growing and people were in close proximity, they divided up labor in order to more efficiently produce the means of sustenance as well as a way of reducing conflict. Unlike Marx, Durkheim believe conflict is a natural state of mankind when individuals have overlapping functions and can get in the way of one another's success; however, when labor is divided and tasks are separated in a way so that the scientist can be successful in conjunction with the business owner, politician, etc. since they serve different functions in society and therefore do not often come into points of contact where they might have competing interests (Durkheim 1997:210). Of course, through this division of labor, organic solidarity increases while mechanical solidarity (and the collective conscious) decrease, so that the individual opinions and personal beliefs are able to grow (Durkheim 1997:146).

While individuals continue on a path of diversity that allows for individual circumstances, Durkheim notes that society becomes increasingly rational due to a necessity to focus on what is universal since "[w]e can onlyponder effectively upon the general" (Durkheim 1997:232). In some ways this presents a conflict, although Durkheim does not acknowledge it as such, the reason behind this appears to be that Durkheim sees a need for individuals to be connected with one another in a way similar to mechanical solidarity as he sees organic solidarity as only functioning when a society has first established a 'sameness' (Durkheim 1997:222-223). Durkheim believes in a need for a level of collective conciousness, and he feels that collectivity formed through rational thought leads to a reduction in categorization of the collective consciousness and allows for greater free development of individual variations (Durkheim 1997:233). Contemporary theorists have questions this idea of rationality leading to increased freedom, with C. Wright Mills declaring that this focus on rationality has led to a loss of reason and what he refers to as the conversion of people into "The Cheerful Robot" (Mills 1963:236-246).

I would argue that rational thought has, in many ways, allowed greater freedom such as that described by Durkheim, although I would also tend to agree with Mills that a blind faith in rational thought without an eye to reason can lead to inhuman decisions if the only rationality is the thought of personal gain. However, if the rationality is an objective view of the consequences for the larger system, and not just the immediate gains, then I think many of the negative consequences of rationality are mitigated as most of the negatives of rational thought are due to a blindness of future consequences in favor of the immediate effects, but this is often difficult (if not impossible) with pure logical thought. To dismiss rationality is, according to Durkheim, to dismiss the universal and to dismiss the ability to effectively ponder the general, which I would argue would prevent us from seeing the forest among the leaves and prevent us from being able to effect the system in a positive manner (Durkheim 1997:232). Still, the pure logical positivism professed by Durkheim has limitations that we should be equally cautious of as following this to the letter would prevent us from seeing the leaves from the trees and blind us to the possible larger impact that simple causality often cannot see, so while the particular may defy the understanding (I'm assuming Durkheim means understanding of causality, mechanisms at play, etc.) they are still necessary to "keep things real" (Durkheim 1997:232). We need to keep both the forest, trees, and leaves in perspectives in order to understand how to effect change as well as to keep things in proper perspective, we should not as some social theorists seem to suggest throw the baby out with the bath water and completely reject the Enlightenment focus on rational thought (Ardorno 1991:53-84). I don't believe Mills was calling for an end to rational thinking within the social sciences but rather a need to rethink the focus and add an element of reason to the objective views of science.

Adorno, Theodor W. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. London: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1997 (1893) The Division of Labor in Society. W.D. Halls, trans. NY: Free Press.
Mills, C. Wright. 1963. Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. New York, NY: Oxford U. Press.