Smith Vs Durkheim

Many theorists like Karl Marks, Hobbes, and John Locke have proposed theories that help to explain human behavior. Likewise, M.G. Smith and E. Durkheim both sought to explain human behavior by examining the effects that crime has on society. M.G. Smith’s and Durkheim’s writing share similar concepts such as the importance of crime in society. Moreover, both authors acknowledge the fact that society changes. Despite these similarities Smith and Durkheim’s writing contain major differences such as their opinions on how society changes. Both authors also have different viewpoints when it comes to the significance of crime. Despite containing some minor similarities, the differences between M.G. Smiths writing and Durkheim’s are striking.

M.G.

Smith argues that society does not automatically change after one part of it changes. For instance, Smith writes “I cannot accept as Levi Strauss and others do the view of society as a set of structured models which are so systematic that if any parts of any one of them are modified, that automatically generates modifications in the remainder. Such a postulate seems to me to fly blindly in the face of too many important and diverse historical facts and ecological processes that clearly controvert it” (pg. 9). Smith is implying that he disagrees with people who believe that a change in one part of society automatically leads to other changes because these people often miss other factors that caused society to change. On the other hand, Durkheim argues that crime is the only thing necessary to create change in a society. For example, Durkheim (1993) writes “Crime is, then, necessary; it is bound up with fundamental conditions of all social life, and by that very fact it is useful, because these conditions of which it is part are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law” (pg. 82). This implies that crime is a useful tool to help create change since society and crime are linked together. Meaning that once crime changes it automatically generates changes in society and vice

MG Smith believes that crime is only one of the factors that contribute to social order. In the reading Smith writes “All questions of that kind should surely be set aside until the empirical data have been analyzed … by assuming those conclusions in advance, especially as regards the nature or bases of social order, casualty, and motivation. In doing so they only reflect the traditions that have inherited and personal factors” (pg. 4). In this line Smith is emphasizing how focusing on one aspect led to scientist like Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim to focus on only the things they already knew and personal factors. Similarly, Smith writes “Faced with such alternatives, I prefer to conceive social structure and study it as an empirical reality, rather than as a set of imaginary constructs that distort the reality by accentuating and abstracting one of its aspects to the exclusion of others” (pg. 21). This demonstrates how Smith thinks scientist should focus on all the aspects that make up “reality” because if they focus on only one aspect they will wind up excluding other essential factors, thus, making their research not dependable. On the contrary, Durkheim believes that crime is the only thing necessary for social order and social change. For example, Durkheim (1993) states, “the collective sentiments at the basis of morality must not be hostile to change, and consequently must