Home > Positioning > Persons > Durkheim

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917)

Durkheim founded sociology on a single claim: that society is a reality sui generis — of its own kind, irreducible to the psychology or biology of its members. Social facts — ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that are general across a society, exterior to any individual, and constraining on each — are, he insisted, things: to be studied as things, explained by other social facts, never explained away downward. When individual consciousnesses associate, something forms that none of them contains — as he put it, the hardness of bronze is in none of the copper, tin, or lead. The claim made a science possible: a domain of its own facts needs its own discipline. It is also the social sciences’ founding irreducibility claim — the contemporary emergence literature reads Durkheim as its earliest sustained practitioner (Sawyer applies the label explicitly), though the word was never his.

Life

Born 15 April 1858 in Épinal, Lorraine, into a family of rabbis — a lineage he left, without leaving its seriousness. Educated at the Lycée Louis-le-Grand and the École Normale Supérieure (agrégation 1882), he taught philosophy in provincial lycées, spent a formative period in German universities, and in 1887 received at Bordeaux the first post in France with “social science” in its title. The four books that built the discipline followed: The Division of Labour in Society (1893), The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Suicide (1897), and — after his move to the Sorbonne (1902), where he held the chair until his death — The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912). Around the journal he founded, L’Année Sociologique (1898), he assembled the school that made sociology an institution, his nephew Marcel Mauss among them. A committed republican and Dreyfusard, he threw the discipline’s weight behind the Third Republic’s secular morality. The war destroyed the school’s generation and then its founder: his son André died on the Salonika front in 1915, and Durkheim, broken, died 15 November 1917, aged 59.

The programme

Social facts, and the rules for studying them. The Rules is the methodological manifesto: treat social facts as things; recognise them by exteriority and constraint (the currency you did not choose, the language you must speak to be heard, the obligations that outlive your consent); explain the social by the social. The polemical target was reduction — explaining institutions by individual psychology — which Durkheim held to be a category error: the association itself is productive, and what it produces has its own laws.

Division of labour, and anomie. The first book asks what holds modern societies together when shared belief thins. His answer: solidarity changes kind — from mechanical (likeness, common conscience, repressive law) to organic (difference, interdependence, restitutive law). The pathology of the transition he named anomie: normlessness, the state in which the regulating framework fails to keep pace with change — a concept that escaped the book and became a permanent tool.

Suicide. The demonstration piece: the most private act shown to have social causes. Stable, society-specific suicide rates — varying with religion, family, integration, regulation — are facts no psychology of individuals explains; Durkheim’s typology (egoistic, altruistic, anomic, fatalistic) reads each kind off a deficit or excess of integration or regulation. Methodologically it is the discipline’s founding empirical study; its statistics have been re-analysed and contested ever since, and its central claim — the social patterning of the personal — has survived every re-analysis.

Religion, and the collective made visible. The Elementary Forms completes the arc: religion as society worshipping itself — the sacred as the form in which the group’s own force appears to its members. Collective representations (the shared categories in which a society thinks) and collective effervescence (the assembled group generating an energy no member brought) are the mechanisms; even the categories of thought — time, space, class, cause — Durkheim traces to social origins. It is the boldest statement of the sui generis claim: not just behaviour but the very frames of thought as products of association.

The live disputes. Methodological individualism has contested the programme from the start: social “things,” the critics run (from Tarde in Durkheim’s own day to rational-choice theory and analytical sociology since), are patterns of individual action, and explanation bottoms out in individuals — the social sciences’ own version of the exclusion argument. Durkheim’s defenders answer with his own bronze: relational organisation is real and does explanatory work no inventory of individuals replaces. The debate is the discipline’s permanent fault line, not a settled episode; every generation restates both sides in its own vocabulary.

Where Durkheim stops

The programme explains the social by the social, and its boundary is the join it declines to theorise: how individual association generates the sui generis level — the mechanism between interacting consciousnesses and the emergent fact — is asserted by analogy (the bronze, the compound) rather than supplied. Durkheim acknowledged the join’s difficulty and worked it late (effervescence is his nearest approach to a mechanism); what he did not do is give the micro-to-macro account his own ontology presupposes, and the discipline he founded has been supplying candidates ever since. The constraint face of social facts also drew its permanent question — how the constrained ever change what constrains them — the structure-and-agency problem, named after him and left to his heirs.

Key works

See also: Berger · Luckmann · Social construction of reality · Schelling · Hayek