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

SOCIAL FACTS
A social fact, in sociology, is a way of acting, thinking, or feeling that is
external to and coercive over individuals, shaping their behavior and social
reality
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 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 a social fact. 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 that are independent of
human observation.
2.​An entity existing independent of human volition.
3.​ An entity that 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 facts 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.
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
preconceptions should be eradicated. Observation of social facts should go
beyond of their individual manifestations. Observation should seek always those
external distinguishing characteristics about which there can be no doubt, which
others can objectively perceive. The observation and the study of social facts
should be as definitive 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 Rajputs.

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

5.​ Rules for Testing Sociological Explanations: For establishing

sociological proofs.

Durkheim believed that in sociology, we cannot do experiments like scientists

do in a lab. Social facts—such as laws, beliefs, customs—cannot be made or
changed just for testing. So, instead of direct experiments, sociologists have to
use indirect experiments, which means comparing different social situations to
understand patterns. This method is called the comparative method.

Durkheim's Key Points About Testing Sociological Theories:

1.​ Comparing is key: Since we can't experiment directly on society, we

compare different social situations that naturally exist. This helps us see
patterns or regular links between social facts.​

2.​ Concomitant variations: This is a fancy term for observing how two
things change together. If one social fact always changes when another
one does, it suggests a relationship between them. For example, if crime
rates go up when unemployment rises, there may be a connection.​

3.​ Finding regular patterns: When we consistently see two things

happening together across different situations, we can say there's a law or
rule connecting them. Once this link is found, we can study it more deeply
by making guesses (hypotheses), testing them further, and comparing
more cases.​

4.​ Study across all societies: To fully understand these links, we should
study them in many different types of societies—not just one.​

Features of the Sociological Method (According to Durkheim):

1.​ Independent from philosophy: Sociology is its own science and doesn’t
rely on philosophical ideas. It is similar to other sciences but deals with
social (not natural) facts.​

2.​ Believes in cause and effect: Like in science, sociology believes that one
thing can cause another. So, if something happens in society, there must
be a reason for it.​

3.​ Focuses on real facts: Sociology studies real, observable social facts. It
pays close attention to actual evidence and details.​

4.​ Objective: Sociologists must treat social facts like "things" that exist
outside of our personal opinions. This means being neutral and not letting
personal beliefs affect the study.​

5.​ Sociology is its own field: It’s a separate science with its own tools and
ways of thinking. To understand society well, a sociologist needs training
that is purely sociological.​

6.​ Only social facts explain other social facts: If you want to understand a
social behavior or event, you must look for its cause in other social
 factors, not in psychology or biology.​

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
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
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.
(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 phenomenon 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.
(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.”