Emile Durkheim's Theorizes About Modern Society

Within this essay I will be looking at the ways in which Emile Durkheim theorizes the key components of modern society. He argues that modern society is characterized by “cultural pluralism, secularization and individualism” which has led to society moving away from ‘mechanical’ solidarity a new form of ‘organic’ solidarity (). He makes a distinction between the simple ‘primitive’ society and the complex modern society, which he argues is made up of a highly differentiated social structure and a new division of labor (the premise of sociology page 38). Durkheim argued that modern society

According to Durkheim, two types of society have existed; the traditional, primitive society and the modern society. The primitive society is made up of a segmental structure which is comprised of different tribes/family units who have little contact with one another (Ritzer). Every individual is assigned roles at birth that contribute to the overall functioning and survival of the tribe, such as childcare or finding food. For example, if one member, whose role is to find food, decides not to carry out his/her assigned role this could result in the demise of the tribe through starvation (the demise of sociology). On the other hand, modern society has a “highly differentiated social structure” (the demise of sociology, 39) whereby many different institutions, such as the education system, the welfare system and the law, take up the different roles that used to be fulfilled by the tribe/family unit alone – Durkheim calls this the new division of labor (Ritzer, 83).

Durkheim believed that modern society has become more secular and “religion has lost its power” (suicide and modernity, 80). he argued that the transition from primitive society to modern society is characterized by a more rational way of thinking and religious ways of explaining the world have given way to logic and science (the premise of sociology, 39). () Despite this, Durkheim argued that although religious beliefs surrounding the supernatural are becoming weaker, society has not become “de-sacralized” (the guardian) as the concept of the individual has taken up sacred connotations (Ritzer, 102). Durkheim argues that the concept of the individual has become a civic religion which he describes as “the cult of the individual” (Ritzer, 103). This helps to bind people together despite the highly “differentiated” nature of modern society which has led to people holding many differing morals and values (the premise of sociology, page 39). This could be criticized by Weber's view that modernity is becoming wholly more rational and therefore de-sacralized rather than the ‘sacred’ simply taking on new forms (guardian). 

According to Durkheim, sociologists must look at religion in the most primitive societies to understand its core. He did this in order to draw conclusions about modern society (ritzer, 98). Durkheim studied empirical evidence of an Aborigine tribe called the Arunta (sociological theory ,97). The Arunta tribe periodically gather to worship a symbol or ‘totem’ that represents the group as a whole. He argues that the group identity is re-enforced through these rituals as the individuals gets a collective sense of belonging through the worshiping of the sacred item. According to Durkheim, it is actually the unity of the clan that is being worshiped here rather than the symbol itself, therefore the group is actually worshiping society (Ritzer, 101). Durkheim argues that this very essence of religion is “eternal” (TEFORL, 190) and can therefore be translated into the modern day. He argues that there is no difference between a religious gathering or, for example, a gathering of a nation to celebrate a national event, as both inspire a sense of group belonging (TEFORL, 190). Durkheim can be criticized for drawing his claims about religion from secondary sources of information, which makes the data less reliable. For example, Miller argues that Durkheim crafted the concept of ‘the sacred and the profane’ from only one reference in the original work of Spencer and Gillen and therefore the work isn't always “accurate in its representation” (). It could also be argued that it is unfair and undermining to assume that religious individuals are unaware of what they are worshiping.