The Progressive Preponderance of Organic Solidarity; its Consequence.

The objective if this chapter is to expose the preponderance of organic solidarity over the

mechanical solidarity. In other words, the chapter is to trace the progress of cooperative

law over the repressive law. Durkheim concluded that “the totality of relationships which

come under penal regulation represent only the smallest fraction of general life; and,

consequently, the ties which bind men to society and which come from the community

of beliefs and sentiments are much less numerous than those which result from the

division of labor”. This means that in general thought, the social relations establish by

division are more numerous than that of community of beliefs and sentiments.

In fact, it was assumed that penal law has not entirely expressed the relations

established by common conscience and solidarity. Though in same manner, cooperative

solidarity doesn’t entirely expresses the relations in division of labor, but its divided

function is regulated by usage. This usage implies that there are already unwritten rules

that surpass that of repressive laws of the earlier societies. And as the preponderance of

organic solidarity progresses the more cooperative laws become. Moreover, primitive

society has formed solidarity out of resemblance; it has lesser resistance to new social

links. The division of labor, has filled functions to the different parts of the aggregate,

thus, this functions cannot easily be separated.

As society advances, mechanical solidarity becomes weaker and slacker in

connecting relations than that of organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity relies on three

conditions: the relation between the volume of the common conscience and that of the

individual conscience, the average intensity of the states of the collective conscience, and
the greater or lesser determination of these same states. The condition would tell that

volume of common conscience must be strong and must over power the individual

conscience, thus there should be uniformity of conscience through a well define belief

and ideas. The well define and define states of common conscience is the root of penal

law. But once again, as society is reaching to its social type, relations link by penal law is

also diminishing. What is collective and common has bowed down to personal and

individual conscience.

Using a numerical variation of criminological type, Durkheim has concluded that

there are regression and progressive disappearance of a number of criminology in the

progress of society, from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. And that even today,

“domestic life has almost lost all penal character” and “sentiments have no longer have

any place in penal law”. Moreover, religious associated crimes also progressively

disappeared along the way. Durkheim also concluded that there are a number of

criminological types which have progressively disappeared without any compensation, for

no new ones replaced those which disappeared. Lastly, it becomes more apparent that

common conscience consists of lesser strong determined sentiments and the average

intensity and mean degree of determination of collective states are always diminishing.

The most important conclusion, which is a significant cause for the diminishing, is

the individual. It was observed that the only collective sentiments that have become

“more intense are those which have for their object, not social affairs, but the individual”.

Durkheim, in marvel, explained that “individual-personality” must have become a much

important element in the life of society. Individuality was before governed by collective
sentiments and common conscience, today was a reversal. Individuality has dethroned

its old masters.

In order to prove this proposition, Durkheim goes on to analyze history, the history

of religion. He concluded that religion tends to embrace a “smaller and smaller portion of

social life”. Originally, it pervade everything, that everything social is religious. However,

other social functions such as political, economic, scientific functions and others have

“freed themselves from the religious function”. Secular functions have established

themselves apart from religious character and take on a more “acknowledged temporal

character”. In this scenario, the individual “becomes a source of spontaneous activity,

replacing God of religion. This result is somewhat similar to the previous contention of

regression and progression processes.

The implication of the analysis of Durkheim is challenging and somewhat dark, if

the person who is reading is conservative. It would lead to the question, whether common

conscience would eventually disappear? Durkheim answers with, a no! However, the rise

of the individual brought indeterminate ways of thinking and feelings which “open a place

for growing individual differences”. More and more human beliefs and practices will lost

its religious character, what remains is a new God, the individual.

However, in the end, individual alone is non-social, it has no social link. It remains that

individual is still the object of the society. Individuality alone would not suffice; individual

end is not social without the force taken from the society, this force is the division of labor.

The social link out of common conscience and collective sentiments may regress but not

to the individual, but to the division of labor.