SOC 101: Understanding Social Facts in

Durkheim's Sociological Rules

Ba (hons) sociology (University of Delhi)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Freeuse
SOCIAL FACTS
Durkheim in “The Rules of Sociological Method” stated that social facts must
be treated as things and all preconceived notions about social facts must be
abandoned. Durkheim had a naturalistic conception of the society. He believed
that Sociology could become as objective as the natural sciences if it devised
an objective method of its own. Durkheim intended the Rules as a manifesto on
behalf of a cause of Sociology, that is objective, specific and methodical.
According to him, sociology is not merely a theoretic discipline rather it is
intimately connected with the practical facts of life. The true nature of social
facts lies in the collective or associational characteristic inherent in society.

Durkheim’s objectivity was a matter of adopting social facts as its method of

study. He defined sociology as “the scientific study of social facts.” According
to him, sociology would become as objective as the natural sciences if they
identified and treated everything as social facts. In his book “The Rules of
Sociological Methods” he defines what social facts are, explains their
characteristics and outlines several rules through which they could be studied.
“A social fact is identifiable through the power of external coercion which it
exerts or is capable of exerting upon individuals.” Social facts are to be
regarded as things because they refer to:
1. An entity possessing certain characteristics which are independent of
human observation.
2. An entity existing independent of human volition.
3. An entity which can be known only through external observation and not by
introspection.

CHARACTERISTICS IOF SOCIAL FACTS

The characteristics of social facts are:
(a.) They are external to individuals - They are immutable to changes by any
one individual because they are outside the consciousness of the individual. We
don't choose the types of 'social facts' we get to live under. They differ from
physical fact as they do change though at a slower pace.
(b.) They constrain the individual - Social facts are invested with a coercive
power by virtue of which they impose themselves upon the individual. Social
facts exercise constraints by means of normative pressure, legal pressures,
linguistic and cultural factors etc.
(c.) They are general throughout the social unit - Social facts are general
because they are collective. Thoughts and actions common to all the members
of a society or a majority are not social because general, but general because
social. They vary from society to society depending on the manner in which the
constituent parts of a society are grouped and on the different forms of
association in a society.

Downloaded by Freeuse
Because social facts exist external to and above individuals, they are very slow
to change. Socialization and education are key to the transmission of social
facts. Every other phenomenon can be reduced to a social fact and when we
learn to do that, social science becomes as objective as natural science.

According to Durkheim society is the reality sui generis. It is an independent

entity. Only social facts are real. Social facts are objective and are capable of
being perceived from outside. Social facts are understood only by sociological
laws. There can be no psychological explanation of these facts. Sociology
cannot be explained by the principle of utility or individual’s motivation. Its
explanation can only be social. Durkheim defines sociology as a science of
social facts.

RULES FOR USING SOCIAL FACTS

After defining and explaining the characteristics of the social facts, Durkheim
then proceeds on to formulate rules about how to use the social facts.
1. Rules for Observing Social Facts - Social facts should always be treated as if
they are things. A basic rule in the study of social facts, for Durkheim involved
the positivistic approach of treating social facts as things. In doing so,
Durkheim focused on external, objective, demonstrable, measurable
relationships among social facts, just as the physicist objectively measures and
records the relationships among physical things as the facts or data of study.
The voluntary nature of a social fact should never be assumed beforehand. All
pre-conceptions should be eradicated. Observation of social facts should go
beyond that of their individual manifestations. Observation should seek always
those external distinguishing characteristics about which there can be no doubt,
which can be objectively perceived by others. The observation and the study of
social facts should be definitive as far as possible.

2. Rules for distinguishing between “Normal” and “Pathological” Social facts

Durkheim classified social facts into – Normal social facts and Pathological
social facts. Normal social facts are the most widely distributed and useful
social facts assisting in the maintenance of society and social life. Pathological
social facts are those that might associate with social problems and ills of
various types. Normal social fact confirms to the given standards. But normality
varies from society to society and also within a society. It is important that a
social fact which is normal may not be normative. For example, Sati Pratha is
not regarded as a normal social fact in castes other than Rajput’s.

According to Durkheim when the rate of crime exceeds what is more or less
constant for a given social type, then it becomes pathological facts. Similarly
using the same criteria, Suicide is normal social fact. Durkheim claimed that a
healthy society can be recognized because the sociologist will find similar

Downloaded by Freeuse
conditions in other societies in similar stages. If a society departs from what is
normally found it is probably pathological. The distinction between normal and
the pathological plays an important role in Durkheim’s thought. It is one of the
intermediate phases between observation of facts and the formation of precepts
is precisely the distinction between the normal and the pathological. If a
phenomenon is normal, we have no grounds for seeking to eliminate it, even if
it shocks us morally, on the other hand, if is pathological; we possess a
scientific argument to justify projects of reform.

3. Rules for classifying societies: The construction of “Types” or “Species”

According to Durkheim, the scope of sociology can be divided into three

divisions or fields of study. They are social morphology, social physiology, and
general sociology. Durkheim called ‘Social morphology’ that part of sociology
concerned with the constitution and classification of social types. Durkheim
spoke of the types as social species and defined them in terms of their degrees
of composition. Emile Durkheim used the term in sociology in order to classify
the substratum of the society, the structural relationship between people. This
classification was based on how the different types of human populations are
distributed and organized across the world. This is known as social morphology
and it is one of Durkheim’s approaches to studying society. It includes
fundamentally geographic subjects like population and its size, density,
distribution, mobility, etc.

Classification is based on the principle that societies differ in degree of

complexity. Durkheim calls the simplest-aggregate, “society of one segment”
“the horde.”

1. A hypothetical ‘horde’ which was the simplest of all human groupings.

2. The aggregation of these into “simple poly-segmental” societies consisting of
clans within tribes.
3. The aggregation of tribes themselves into confederations to form “poly-
segmental societies simply compounded.”
4. The aggregation of these unions of tribes to form larger societal forms
like the city-states which were “poly-segmental societies doubly
compounded.”

As the society, Durkheim noted there are several possible pathologies that could
lead to a breakdown of social integration and disintegration of the society: the
two most important ones are anomie and forced division of labour; lesser ones
include the lack of coordination and suicide. To Durkheim, anomie refers to a
lack of social norms; where too rapid of population growth reduces the amount
of interaction between various groups, which in turn leads to a breakdown of
understanding (i.e. norms, values, etc.). Forced division of labour, on the other

Downloaded by Freeuse
hand, refers to a situation in which those who hold power, driven by their desire
for profit (greed), results in people doing work that they are unsuited for. Such
people are unhappy, and their desire to change the system can destabilize the
society.
4. Rules for the explanation of Social Facts
When the explanation of a social phenomenon is undertaken, we must seek
separately the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfills.
There are two approaches which may be used in the explanation of social facts.
The causal and the functional. The causal is concerned with explaining “why”
the social phenomena exist. The functional involves establishing the co-relation
between the fact under consideration and the general needs of the social
organism, and what this correspondence consists.

In finding out the causal relationship between social facts, Durkheim laid the
foundation for the functional method. He stressed that social facts are to be
studied in terms of their usefulness in meeting human desires. The task of
sociology is to know the cause as well as the function of social facts. Thus
sociology must inquire into the functions of social institutions and other social
phenomena that contribute to the maintenance of social whole.

The causes which give rise to a given social fact must be identified separately
from whatever social functions it may fulfill. Normally, one would try to
establish causes before specifying functions. This is because knowledge of the
causes which bring a phenomenon into being can, under certain circumstances,
allow us to derive some insight into its possible functions. Cause and function
although have a separate character but this does not prevent a reciprocal
relation between the two. One can start either way. For example, Crime offends
collective sentiment in a society, while the function of punishment is to
maintain these sentiments at the same degree of intensity. If offences against
them were not punished, the strength of the sentiments necessary for social
unity would not be preserved.

In causal explanation: the determining cause of a social fact should be sought

among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual
consciousness. According to Durkheim any attempt to explain social facts
directly in terms of individual characteristics or in terms of psychology would
make the explanation false. In functional explanation the function of a social
fact ought- always to be sought in its relation to some social end.

5. Rules for Testing Sociological Explanations: For establishing sociological

proofs.
For the testing of sociological explanations the only alternative according to
Durkheim is indirect experiment: the comparative method. Social facts, as

Downloaded by Freeuse
described and defined by Durkheim could not be artificially manipulated, or
even produced, to accord with anything like controlled experimental conditions.
It was only possible to bring them together in the way that they have
spontaneously been produced and compare and contrast them in some carefully
controlled way, within the framework of some carefully constructed procedure.

Durkheim’s rules for establishing proofs are:

Crucial experiment is the method of testing theories. The comparative method
is the only alternative to experiment which sociology possesses. The most
stringent formulation of the comparative method is to base it upon the method
of “concomitant variations.” To establish constant concomitance is itself to
establish laws—to establish demonstrable “regularities of connection.” The
causal relations underlying this concomitance can then be investigated further—
by deducing inference, more refined hypotheses and further comparisons. For a-
full explanation of such a concomitance, and for a full test of such an
explanation, the social facts in question should be studied in all social species.

Durkheim then summarizes the characteristics of the sociological method as

follows. Firstly, it is independent of all philosophy. Though it is like any other
science, it is not naturalistic because its facts are social and not natural. It asserts
that the principle of causality should be applicable to social phenomena.
Sociology should attempt detailed examination of facts. It is then going to
become more specific and specialized. In the second place, it is objective. It is
wholly dominated by the idea that social facts are things and must be treated as
such. Finally, the method is exclusively sociological. Sociology is in itself a
distinct and autonomous science. Only a purely sociological culture can prepare
the sociologist to understand social facts. A social fact can only be explained by
means of another social fact.
Social fact is a technique of control. Societal norms shape our attitudes, beliefs,
and actions. They inform what we do every day, from who we befriend to how
we work. It's a complex and embedded construct that keeps us from stepping
outside the norm. Social fact is what makes us react strongly to people who
deviate from social attitudes. For example, people in other countries who have
no established home, and instead wander from place to place and take odd jobs.
Western societies tend to view these people as odd and strange based on our
social facts, when in their culture, what they're doing is completely
normal. What is a social fact in one culture can be abhorrently strange in
another; by keeping in mind how society influences your beliefs, you can
temper your reactions to what is different.
SUICIDE
Durkheim’s study of suicide is just about the best illustration of the application
of social facts that there is – in which he researched official statistics on suicide

Downloaded by Freeuse
in several European countries and found that the suicide rate was influenced by
social facts such as the divorce rate, the religion of a country, and the pace of
economic and social changed – Durkheim further theorized that the suicide rate
increased when there was either too much or too little integration and regulation
in society.
In his work ‘Suicide’ , Durkheim explores the differing suicide rates
among Protestants and Catholics. He argues that stronger social control among
Catholics results in lower suicide rates. According to Durkheim, Catholic
society has normal levels of integration while Protestant society has low levels
of integration. Durkheim considered suicide as a social fact, explaining
variations in its rate on a macro level, considering society-scale phenomena
such as lack of connections between people (group attachment) and lack of
regulations of behavior, rather than individuals' feelings and motivations.
Durkheim’s theory of suicide is cited as “a monumental landmark in which
conceptual theory and empirical research are brought together. Durkheim
believed that to commit suicide there is more than extremely personal individual
life circumstances like a losing a job, divorce, etc. Instead, he took suicide and
explained it as a social fact instead of a result of one's circumstances. Durkheim
believed that suicide was an instance of social deviance. Social deviance being
any transgression of socially established norms.

Durkheim used a number of statistical records to establish his fundamental idea

that suicide is also a social fact and social order and disorder are at the very root
of suicide. As Abraham and Morgan have pointed out, Durkheim made use of
statistical analysis for two primary reasons. They are stated below:
(a) To refute theories of suicide based on psychology, biology,
genetics, climate, and geographic factors
(b) To support with empirical evidence his own sociological explanation
of suicide.

Durkheim wanted to know why people commit suicide, and he chooses to think
that explanations focusing on the psychology of the individual were inadequate.
Experiments on suicide were obviously out of question. Case studies of the past
suicides would be of little use, because they do not provide reliable
generalizations, about all suicides. Survey methods were hardly appropriate,
because one cannot survey dead people. But statistics on suicide were readily
available, and Durkheim chose to analyze them.

He created a normative theory of suicide focusing on the conditions of group

life. Durkheim based his system on the contention that the primary cause of
suicide was an individual’s lack of bonding with others. That is, an individual

Downloaded by Freeuse
was disposed to suicidal act(s) in inverse proportion to the strength of social ties
(e.g., family, friends, and so on), and adherence to the collective consciousness.

This system encompassed four types of suicide: these reflecting the prevailing
theories of human behavior for that period. The first two are based on the
freedom accorded the individual by the group to which the individual belongs
(i.e., normative or social integration). The first type, egoistic suicide, is located
on the low end of this scale. This is the consequence of too little social
integration. At the opposite end is altruistic suicide, the result of too much
integration.

The other two forms of suicide are on the second scale, that of moral regulation.
That is, both of these are based on the external regulation of the individual –
little or much. The first is anomic suicide, located on the low end, and the
second, fatalistic suicide at the high extreme of the moral regulation continuum.
Emile Durkheim classified different types of suicides on the basis of different
types of relationship between the actor and his society.

(a.) Egoistic suicide - According to Durkheim, this type of suicide was a

consequence of the deterioration of social and familial bonds. It occurred when
an individual was detached from others in his/her community Individuals not
sufficiently tied to social groups (i.e., those with well-defined, stable values,
traditions, norms, and goals) had little social support and/or guidance, and
therefore tended to commit suicide. The bonds that normally integrated
individuals into the group had weakened, leading to a breakdown in social
integration. During his research, Durkheim discovered that unmarried
individuals committed suicide at higher rates than married, especially single
males, who had less to bind and connect them to stable social norms and goals.
Loosely-bound liberal Protestant groups had higher suicide rates than
Catholics and Jews, because in the latter regular religious participation was
mandated.

(b.) Altruistic suicide - This type of suicide occurs when individuals and the
group are too close and intimate. This kind of suicide results from the over
integration of the individual into social proof. An example is someone who
commits suicide for the sake of a religious or political cause, such as the
infamous Japanese Kamikaze pilots of World War II, or the hijackers that
crashed the airplanes into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, and a field in
Pennsylvania in 2001. During World War II, Japanese Kamikaze pilots were
willing to lay down their own lives for their countries in the hope that they will
win the war. These pilots believed in their nation’s cause and were willing to
sacrifice their lives. Similarly, suicide bombers around the world were willing
to give up their lives in order to make a political or religious statement because
they firmly believed in their group’s cause.

Downloaded by Freeuse
(c.) Anomic suicide - According to the literature, Durkheim linked the third
type of suicide, anomic, to disillusionment and disappointment. (Anomie was a
concept Durkheim developed to describe a state where social and/or moral
norms were confused, unclear, or simply not present. In short, normlessness).
Durkheim asserted that when a society (i.e., a regulated system) completely
broke down, the lack of norms and restrictions on behavior would engender
suicidal behavior. (In this perspective, social and moral norms and values
imposed meaning and order on the collective and individual conscience,
functioning as a guide for moral and ethical decisions.) If these external
guidelines were absent, there would be nothing in place to restrain people’s
aspirations and/or appetites.

This type of suicide can occur when societies change drastically due to
industrialization, economic expansion, massive layoffs, and so forth. Another
example is when owing to cultural contact, the traditional values of Indigenous
peoples are undermined. Some members, unable to identify with the cultural
values imposed upon them, can lose their sense of belonging. Durkheim
subdivided this type into four sub-categories: acute and chronic economic
anomie, and acute and chronic domestic anomie.

(d.) Fatalistic suicide - According to Durkheim, fatalistic suicide occurred

within tightly knit groups whose members sought, but could not attain escape.
He viewed this type a rare phenomena in the real world. Examples cited
included individuals with over-regulated, unrewarding lives such as slaves,
childless married women, and young husbands. Slaves might commit suicide in
order to demonstrate control over their lives. Then again, if a society espoused
suicide as an act beneficial in some situations for social welfare, then social ties
and integration in such a society could foster suicide. One such example
occurred in various aboriginal communities when elders voluntarily went off to
die so as not to be a burden.

LIMITATIONS
Subsequent research has concurred with Durkheim’s analysis that social
structures are a significant factor with regard to suicide. Nonetheless, critics
have elucidated two limitations to Durkheim’s system for classifying these
types:

(1). Whereas all in a group are subject to the same social structures,
Durkheim’s classification system does not clarify as to why one individual
commits suicide while other members of the same group do not. In short, it has
difficulty elucidating why some individuals succumb to societal pressures and
others do not;

Downloaded by Freeuse
(2). The four types of suicide overlap and may, in some cases, be difficult
to differentiate.

CONCLUSION
Despite such limitations, Durkheim’s framework, over a century later, remains
beneficial, germane, and inclusive. It reveals that, albeit suicide is a highly
personal act, social factors are a force in every suicide. Succinctly, such factors
function even at that moment when an individual is pondering ending his or her
live. The cold reality is that social factors can support individuals during
arduous times or leave them exposed, defenseless to the onslaught of
loneliness, hopelessness, and desolation. Whereas those forces can set the stage
for self- destruction, it is essential that people have access to social networks
that function as a source of emotional support during difficult times.

Durkheim in his study of “suicide” has been successful in establishing a social

fact that there are “specific social phenomena which govern individual
phenomena. The most impressive, most eloquent example is that of the social
forces which drive individuals to their deaths, each believing that he is obeying
only himself.”

Downloaded by Freeuse