[From above] Durkheim suggests that by measuring the proportion of legal rules (restitutive versus repressive), we can determine whether a society is largely or organically integrated. Is the proportion of these laws sufficient to determine the solidarity of society, or do other factors play a role? Can`t you have more repressive laws AND heterogeneity? Or more restorative laws AND homogeneity? The most visible symbol of social solidarity is the law (24). Law is the organization of social life in its most stable and precise form. All essential forms of social solidarity are reflected in the law (25). We can classify different types of laws to see what types of social solidarity correspond to them. There are two types of laws. The first type is repressive (including criminal law), which inflicts a kind of «harm» on the perpetrator. The second type is reparation, which does not necessarily involve suffering on the part of the offender, but consists of restoring previous relationships that have been disturbed (including civil, Community and procedural law) to their normal form. [28] Readers, pp. 188-189.
«It does not seek to find the most advantageous solution for opponents and does not propose compromise» – p. 188 The remaining treaties are completely detached from the sphere of individual negotiation and subject to the regulatory power of society. Contract law exists to determine the legal consequences of our actions that we have not previously regulated. It expresses the normal conditions for achieving balance and obliges us to honour commitments that we have not made. It is for the undertaking to determine which contractual conditions can be fulfilled and, if so, to restore them to their normal form (162). And just as society plays a role in making contracts, contracts play a role in shaping society. A vast network of relationships contributing to social solidarity can emerge from contracts. In human societies, there are two types of law, each corresponding to a type of social solidarity: repressive (moral) law and restorative (organic) law. (87) Becker, Howard, Outsider: studies in the sociology of deviance (New York: The Free Press, 1963)Google Scholar. Crime is normal, an inevitable and necessary part of any society. (It can take abnormal forms, such as when the crime rate is abnormally high.) «A society exempt from this would be completely impossible» (872).
Since people are different from the «collective type», there are certain divergences that tend towards criminality. However, what gives deviations from the collective type a «criminal character» is not «the intrinsic quality of a particular action, but the definition that the collective consciousness gives them» (873). In sociology, dynamic density refers to the combination of two things: population density and the amount of social interaction within that population. Émile Durkheim used the term to explain why societies move from simple forms to more complex forms, especially with regard to the division of labor within this society. He suggested that it would take both an increase in population and an increase in the frequency of social interaction to form more specialized professions, which would then lead to a new type of society. People in this new type of society are less independent and more dependent on each other and therefore develop what he called organic solidarity, where people are no longer bound by the same morality and determination. Critics argue that this is not a verifiable hypothesis, and it does not logically follow that dynamic density would provoke this new type of solidarity, assuming that it actually existed. In this chapter, Durkheim asks what the division of labor (DOL) is in society. First, he notes that since the DOL increases both the reproductive capacity and the capacities of the worker, it is the necessary condition for the intellectual and material development of societies (12). However, the DOL also has a moral character that is more important.
It can create a sense of solidarity between two or more people (17). But asceticism and negative worship do not only serve religious purposes. Religious interests are only the symbolic form of social and moral concerns. Not only do the gods demand suffering and denial from their followers, but also society. In order to fulfill his duties towards society, the individual must always suppress his instincts, regardless of the dogmas or mythologies of the time (356). (62) Carlston, Kenneth S., Social Theory and Africana Tribal Organizations (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1968), p. 412Google Scholar. It is also possible to argue that the main purpose of the blood quarrel was to perform a primitive means of redressing injustice, and although cruel and repressive in form, it was fundamentally restorative in its motivation and philosophy. Durkheim`s characterization of civil law is of a different nature from criminal law and therefore offers greater social benefit by appealing to as many individuals as possible in society. Instead of imposing a majority sentiment on the minority, the purpose of the right to restitution is to recognize the individual in a specialized way.
Durkheim acknowledges this, arguing that because of a greater part of restitutive law, modern Western society «does not cause a narrowing of the sphere of individual activity. While society no longer imposes certain uniform practices on all, it requires greater care in defining and regulating the particular relationships between the various social functions. [37] That is, Durkheim`s civil law is able to connect individuals at the same time, while recognizing and, above all, protecting their differences. This, as Perrin argues, makes the individual «a sacred entity in a society of specialists; He has dignity, value and talents that should be fully developed. [38] (Perrin, p. 11). In a modern context, this recognition of the individual is reflected in the multitude of human rights, consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws, to name just two examples. Instead of relying on a collective conscience, Durkheim gave civil law a place and function that allowed it to work as best it could in defense of individual rights. This essentially means that the above questions relating to the likely unfair imposition of the individual by the criminal law must not creep into the sphere of civil law. Durkheim is to be commended for its place and function as a civil law in our modern society.
[41] On the fundamental role of mechanical/repressive, see paragraph 30 above. For restitutive/organic substances, see LSM II, 78-79. Mechanical solidarity connects the individual to society without intermediaries. That is, society is organized collectively and all members of the group share the same tasks and core beliefs. What binds the individual to society is what Durkheim calls «collective consciousness,» which is sometimes translated as a «collective consciousness,» meaning a common belief system. The second type of right is the right of restitution, which focuses on the victim when there is a crime, because there are no common beliefs about what harms society. Remedial law corresponds to the organic state of society and is made possible by more specialized organs of society such as courts and lawyers. To determine whether Durkheim really discovered «society,» it is best to begin with his characterization of society itself. Durkheim begins by noting that in any study of «society» it is crucial to identify what constitutes that society in a broader sense.