Pros And Cons Of Emile Durkheim

(1) “Durkheim assumed that society defines and direct individual wants, desires, and goals. Lacking adequate social regulation, individuals cannot organize their lives in a stable and coherent way” (Seidman 44). I agree with Durkheim’s argument of social facts having an existence on their own. Society controls everything including individuals and individuals need the norms of society to continue their lives harmoniously. “He made an argument that there are certain ways of thinking, feeling and behaving prior to any individuals birth and live on after that person dies” (Instructors comments 3). I truly agree with this statement because before I was born many things were set up for me. For example respect is something that was set up in a society even before we were born. We have to be respectful to older people, we have to be careful when talking to elderly people, and we cannot just talk to an older person the way we talk to our friends. This is a norm that is exist and we just learn that. Another example to that would be the language and culture we are born into.

There are some examples of both mechanical and organic solidarity that exist in contemporary society. Amish people represents the segmental or traditional societies and therefore are great example to mechanical solidarity. “Each family spends the day addressing its survival needs by obtaining food preparing meals, maintaining shelter, socializing their young, caring for its ill, etc.” (Instructors comments 5), and that describes the lifestyle of Amish. A great example to the organic solidarity would be USA, and organized and modern society. I think it is possible for both solidarity to exist simultaneously in the same social group. For example, Amish can continue their lives the way they want to