But if "generality" is thus the criterion by which we recognize
the normality of a social fact, this criterion itself still requires
an explanation. Durkheim thus added the method of Cartesian doubt to Bacon's
caveats concerning praenotiones, arguing that the sociologist must deny himself the use of those
concepts formed outside of science and for extra-scientific needs:
"He must free himself from those fallacious notions which hold
sway over the mind of the ordinary person, shaking off, once and
for all the yoke of those empirical categories that long habit
often makes tyrannical. Durkheim distinguishes sociology from other sciences and justifies his rationale. The term "constraint" seems to have enjoyed a still greater elasticity,
for Durkheim used it variously to refer to the authority of laws
as manifested through repressive sanctions; the need to follow
certain rules in order to successfully perform certain tasks;
the influence of the structural features of a society on its cultural
norms and rules; the psychological pressures of a crowd on its
members; and the effect of socialization and acculturation on
the individual. Durkheim distinguished two types of social facts: normal social facts – which, within a society, occur regularly and most often – and pathological social facts – which are much less common. Sociology is the science of social facts. "23, Acknowledging that society, once formed, is the proximate cause
of social phenomena, however, a second objection insisted that
the original causes of the association itself were psychological
in nature. But where the exercise of social constraint is less
direct, as in those forms of economic organization which give
rise to anomie, their presence is more easily ascertained by their
"generality combined with objectivity" -- i.e., by how widespread
they are within the group, while also existing independently of
any particular forms they might assume. The practical utility of social
science would thus be limited to revealing which causes produce
which effects, thus offering us the means to produce causes at
will. To serve as proof, therefore, the comparison of social facts must
control for the stage of a society's evolution; and for this purpose,
Durkheim concluded, it will be sufficient to consider societies which one is comparing
at the same period of their development: "According to whether, from one of these stages to the next,
it displays more, less, or as much intensity, one will be able
to state whether it is progressing, regressing, or remaining static. Nonetheless, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this
is Durkheim at his worst, and that he is at his best when, where,
to precisely the extent, and even "because" he departed from these
programmatic utterances. In particular, Durkheim thus
endorsed the study of those aspects of social reality which had
"crystallized" -- legal and moral rules, the facts of social structure,
proverbs and aphorisms etc. As the means to this end, Durkheim again endorsed the method advocated
in Bacon's Novum Organum -- namely, to look for decisive or crucial facts which, regardless
of their number, have scientific value or interest.16 But which facts are most "decisive" or "crucial"? Where the two phenomena are produced
artificially by the observer, we call this method experimentation; and where the artificial production of phenomena is impossible,
we compare them as they have been produced naturally, a procedure
called indirect experimentation, or the comparative method. A "thing" is recognizable
as such chiefly because it is intractable to all modification
by mere acts of will, and it is precisely this property of resistance
to the action of individual wills which characterizes social facts. [2] They not only represent behaviour but also the rules that govern behaviour and give it meaning. A similarly reduced significance
was granted to the external environment of neighboring societies: first, because its influence
can be felt only through the prior mediation of the internal environment;
and second, because this would make present social facts dependent
on past events. First, when dealing with very general
facts (e.g., suicide) about which we have extensive statistical
data,34 the sociologist might limit his study to a single, unique society. Durkheim
gave two answers, one pointing backward to The Division of Labor, the other forward to Suicide. ).5 The second class of "structural" facts, Durkheim argued, exhibits
precisely the same characteristics of externality and coercion
as the first -- a political organization restricts our behavior
no less than a political ideology, and a communication network
no less than the thought to be conveyed. Durkheim admitted that there
are no "first causes" in science, and that a fact is "primary"
only in the sense that it is general enough to explain many others. But
precisely because the constraint of society is the consequence
of its natural superiority, there is no need to resort to Hobbes's
or Rousseau's "social contract" in order to explain the individual's
subservience; and inversely, precisely because this natural superiority
derives not from Spencer's individual, but from a social reality
sui generis, the constraint it exercises is not merely physical, but also
moral and intellectual. Mill's
"Method of Residues" suggested that we subtract from a phenomenon
what is known already to be the effect of certain causes, the
"residue" being the effect of the remaining antecedents; but here
again, Durkheim objected to the assumption that a considerable
number of causal laws are already known, and that the effects
of all causes but one might thus be eliminated in a science so
complex as sociology. "[14] This implies that sociology must respect and apply a recognized objective, scientific method, bringing it as close as possible to the other exact sciences. NOTE ON SOURCE: These passages are from Durkheim’s Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique, published in 1895 in Paris by Alcan Press. Social facts which are "normal," by this criterion,
would simply be those found in most, if not all, individuals,
within narrow limits of variation. In so far as social facts
are culturally transmitted from one generation to another, and
individuals do learn and are thus shaped by them, this is unobjectionable;
but it is equally true that social facts are themselves constituted by the meanings attached to them by those agents whose acts,
thoughts, and feelings they are, and that such subjective interpretations
are thus a part of the reality to be "known." Durkheim thus set about classifying social types
according to the same principle which had guided that activity
in The Division of Labor, and eventually codified it in a rule: We shall begin by classifying societies according to the degree
of organization they manifest, taking as a base the perfectly
simple society or the single-segment society. Emile Durkheim. "24, Durkheim thus arrived at another rule: The determining cause of a social fact must he sought among the
antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual
consciousness. [Excerpt from Robert Alun Jones. Finally, Durkheim warned against an error characteristic of such
extended comparisons -- i.e., in attempting to judge the direction
of social evolution, the sociologist compares the state of a social
fact during the decline of one society with its state during the
early stages of its successor. First,
the function of the definition is neither to explain the phenomenon
in question nor to express its essence; rather, it is to establish
contact with things, which can only be done through externalities. But the new science of sociology frightened timid souls and conservative philosophers, and he had to endure many attacks. [4] Law, language, morality and marriage are all examples of ideals formed through individual thought that have manifested into these concrete institutions which we must now abide by. Finally, these "things" are pre-eminently social things, and Durkheim's method was thus exclusively sociological. [4] This method must at all cost avoid prejudice and subjective judgment.[4]. The Rules of Sociological Method (French: Les Règles de la Méthode Sociologique) is a book by Émile Durkheim, first published in 1895. When crime is defined by punishment, for example, is it not then
derived from punishment? In particular, Durkheim attacked Mill`s postulate that the same
effect can result from various causes as one which would render
the scientific analysis of such causes utterly intractable.