RULES FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL

FACTS

Submitted to:Dr. Kiran

Submitted by:Amanpreet (Ph.D)1645205Rabnoor Johar (M.Phil)

1645102

THE RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS

Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim was born on ‘April 15, 1858’ in Epinal, a small town in rural ‘France’.

Emile Durkheim was a ‘French Sociologist, Social Psychologist and Philosopher’. He is recognised as one of the important French social thinkers, who ranks only next to Auguste Comte.

He grew up in a traditional Jewish family. Durkheim’s love for education took him to Germany where he was exposed to the scientific psychology, economics and cultural anthropology.

After his return from Germany, he went on publishing several articles based on his experiences there. Thereafter Durkheim and his writing became famous.

These publications earned him a prominent place in the department of Philosophy at University of Bordeaux in 1887.

Emile Durkheim

He was later asked to head the newly created department of Social Sciences. Emile Durkheim is considered as founding father of sociology because of his efforts to establish sociology as discipline distinct from philosophy and psychology.

In 1893,he published his French doctoral thesis, “The Division of Labour in society”.

In 1895, he published The Rules of Sociological Method, a manifesto stating what sociology is and how it ought to be done, and founded the first European department of sociology at The University of Bordeaux. He was the first professor of sociology.

In first world war, he lost many of his friends and students which adversely affected him mentally and physically. But after the death of his son he could not bear the loss and after two years of his son’s death, at the age of 59, Durkheim died on November 15,1917.

cont…

MAIN WORKS:1. The division of labour in society- 18932. The rules of sociological method- 18953. Suicide-18974. Collective and individual representations- 18995. Judgments of reality and judgments of value- 19116. The elementary forms of religious life- 1912.

MAIN THEORIES:1. Theory of social facts2. Theory of social solidarity3. Theory of division of labour4. Theory of suicide.

According to Durkheim,” A social fact is a phase of behaviour (thinking, feeling or acting) which can be observed objectively and has a coercive compelling power. Social facts constitute social institutions and are the main subject matter of sociology.”

Social facts are things which can be observed objectively.

Social facts are different from individual facts. Social facts are the product of collective

consciousness.Social facts are external, having constraining power

and are treated as things.

WHAT IS SOCIAL FACT ?

NORMAL SOCIAL FACT Facts which occur in day to day life. They help to keep the society integrated. They are the main controlling agencies which are operational in

almost all the aspects of social life.

PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS Facts which work in abnormal social conditions and act as the main

disintegrating forces. 

According to Durkheim, social facts are relative in nature which means they vary from society to society. Normal social facts at one place may be regarded as pathological at another. For instance, to kiss a woman is a normal social fact in America but in India, it is regarded as a pathological social fact.

TYPES OF SOCIAL FACTS

NORMAL SOCIAL FACTS

Facts which are regarded as average in a society may be termed as Normal social facts.

Normal social facts are the true representatives of the social collectivity. For instance : Marriage is regarded as a Normal social fact

The facts which have some abnormalities are regarded as Pathological social facts.

Divorce is regarded as Pathological social fact.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS

PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS

As indicated in book three of the division of labour however, Durkheim felt that social facts exhibits both normal and pathological forms; and he now added that it was an important part of sociological method to provide rules for distinguishing between them.

It is important to determine whether the social fact in question is normal or not.

The criteria suggested by Durkheim for distinguishing normal from pathological social facts are statistical and structural, not moral.

RULES FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL

FACTS

RULE 1: A social fact is normal in relation to a given social type, viewed at a given phase of its development, when it is present in the average society of that species, considered at the corresponding phase of its evolution.

This means that normal social fact shall be functional in the society in which it exists.

It is also statistically normal and does not have any harmful consequences for the society.

Durkheim’s criterion was discovered in the ordinary distinction between that which is general and which is exceptional. Social facts which are ‘normal’, by this criterion would simply be those found in most, if not all, individuals, with narrow limits of variations.

Social facts which are ‘pathological’, by contrast, would be those encountered only in a minority of cases, and only for brief periods in the lifetime of the individual even where they occur.

Thus, pathological social fact shall have harmful consequence for society and it affects the solidarity among the individuals and also affects the social phenomena of the society. What is pathological for one group may not be for another.

RULES

RULE 2: One can verify the results of the preceding method by showing that the generality of the phenomenon is bound up with the general conditions of collective life of the social type considered.

Durkheim gives the example of crime. He says that crime is normal because there is no society that is not confronted with the problem of crime.

He says that crime is inevitable i.e. it is an integral part of all societies. Though he says that abnormally high rate of crime is a pathological fact but crime is present in all forms of societies.

But for Durkheim to describe crime as normal did not mean resignation to a necessary evil; on the contrary, it meant that crime was useful, “a factor in public health, an integrative element in any healthy society.”

In book one of ‘The division of labour’, Durkheim had shown that “crime consists of an action which offends strong, well defined collective feelings. For such actions to cease therefore, those feelings would have to be reinforced in each and every individual to the degree of strength required to counteract the opposite feelings. Durkheim’s more scandalous argument, however, was that crime is also useful, in both a direct and an indirect sense.

For instance: Delhi Rape Case was a very heinous crime against a single girl and was directly related to her but it indirectly influenced the whole nation to raise a voice against it. Thus in this way it shows the characteristic of “collective conscience”.

cont…

RULE 3: This verification is necessary when the fact in question occurs in a social species which has not yet reached the full course of its evolution.

Aside from indirect utility, it happens that crime itself plays a useful role in this evolution.

Crime implies not only that the way remains open to necessary changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes.

Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to take a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the form they will take.

So many times, indeed, it is only an anticipation of future morality. For instance: According to Athenian law, Socrates was a criminal,

however, his crime, namely, the independence of thought, rendered a service not only to humanity but to his country.

It served to prepare a new morality and faith which the Athenians needed.

It would never have been possible to establish the freedom of thought we now enjoy if the regulations prohibiting had not been violated.

cont…

The example chosen to illustrate the criteria of "the normality of crime" reflects the same conservative preconception. Even if the argument is accepted that the punishment elicited by the crime reaffirms that the solidarity based on shared beliefs and sentiments then also the question still arises;

1. which beliefs and sentiments? 2. shared by whom? 3. what degree of punishment ? 4. which criminal offence and committed by whom ?

For example - Sati Pratha was considered normal at one point of time but if we talk about it today it is pathological . Earlier it was diffused in almost whole of the Indian society but now it is not. Therefore it becomes difficult to categorize it either under Normal or Pathological.

CRITIQUE OF NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL

FACTS

The degree of punishment is not same for all. The crime committed by political leaders and the same by a common civilian might be the same like that of murder but the punishment given to both will have huge difference . why so?

In the case of divorce it is both normal and pathological at the same given time but in different societies. In Punjabi society it is PATHOLOGICAL and in Western societies it is NORMAL.

So a normal fact in one society may become pathological in other society. Thus normality is defined by generality but since societies are different it would be impossible to recognize generality in any abstract or universal manner.

cont…

He particularly opposed to the humanist doctrine which taught that human nature had a specific and circumscribed character which was expressed in institutions. ( Kenneth Thompson)

Durkheim used the term constraint in a very vague sense ; is the constraint the essence of social phenomena or it is just an external characteristics which help us to recognize it?( Raymond Aron)

According to H.E Barnes, Durkheim has not made it clear anywhere as to what he means by the term 'things' in the context of social facts. the term may end up by different meanings to the people.

SOME OTHER CRITIQUES

Durkheim, E. The Rules of Sociological method; The Free Press of New York

Ritzer, G. Sociological theory; The press of university Maryland

REFERENCES

Thank You!!!