Analyzing Deviance and Social Solidarity: A Durkheimian Perspective

This essay critically examines the statement that deviance is an outmoded concept based on the Durkheimian model of social solidarity, particularly within the context of modern, diverse Australia. The analysis begins by outlining the foundational concepts of social order, social deviance, and social solidarity as articulated by Durkheim and other classical thinkers like Aristotle, Hobbes, and St. Augustine. It then delves into Durkheim's model, focusing on the interplay between social order, conformity, and deviance, with a specific emphasis on his theory of suicide as a manifestation of social disorganization. The essay explores the different types of suicide – egoistic, fatalistic, anomic, and altruistic – and relates them to the Australian context, highlighting issues such as marginalization, racial and ethnic tensions, and the impact of societal norms. The discussion also covers the concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity, and their relevance to understanding social cohesion in modern Australia, arguing that while the Durkheimian model provides valuable insights, the nature of deviance and solidarity has evolved in contemporary societies. The essay concludes by evaluating the continued relevance of Durkheim's perspective in a modern, diverse society.

Running head: DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
Introduction
The concept of Deviance, Social Order and Social Solidarity as sociological concepts
have been harped upon by thinkers like Aristotle, Hobbes and St Augustine, even before
Durkheim had provided his ideas in a coherent form. The basic idea of social order lying in the
maintenance of social solidarity and vice versa by means of following a particular method of
conduct had been found in the works of Aristotle, Hobbes and St Augustine as maintaining a
conformity to the system of a statist society and social deviance that was indicated by them had
been a situation of disorder which would have arisen as a result of challenging the state
authority. Aristotle had opined that human beings are social beings on the basis of the reasoning
that for the full fledged development of the human beings it is necessary that the overall
development of the intellectual and the emotional faculties of the human being are facilitated. It
can only be facilitated in a framework which can be provided in a social setting. According to
Aristotle, it is only by living in a collectivity can human beings realize their true potentialities,
and thus the development of the self lies in the contribution to the society. Such a formulation
was quite necessary for championing the State Authority and that was the way in which Aristotle
had defined and conceptualized social solidarity and social order (Everson 1988). Thomas
Hobbes had on similar lines with Aristotle had tried to define social solidarity and social order by
propagating for the supremacy of the authority of the King over the subjects. St. Augustine had
defined social solidarity and social order by defining the supremacy of the state as the march of
God on Earth (Schochet 1967).
The maintenance of the social solidarity is thus as per the views of the classical
sociologists, the enlightenment thinkers and the champions of modernity lies in the maintenance

2DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
of the social order. Ushering in modernity by breaking away from the shackles of the medieval
age was aimed at creating a new social order and a new method of social solidarity that would be
beneficial for catering to the new social and economic ventures of a new society. Hence, social
solidarity and social order are thus complementary to each other (McCloskey 1976).
This particular essay shall be analyzing the validity of the hypothesis that Deviance is a
socially outmoded concept based on a Durkheimian model of social solidarity that is no longer
useful in a (post) modern progressive and diverse society like Australia. This particular
hypothetical statement shall be substantiated with evidences to prove its validity in the given
context of Australia. In the following sections the discussion shall be focusing upon the
providing the theoretical understanding of Durkheimian Model of Social Solidarity, following
which the evaluation and applicability of the Durkheimian Model of Social Solidarity in the
contemporary Australian context shall be provided. For the purpose of explaining the concept of
social order and social deviance the concept of suicide shall be explained and related to the
Australian context to show if the concept of social deviance as explained by Durkheim is
applicable in the Australian context or not. The Durkheimian concept of social solidarity shall be
explained by means of explaining the concept of organic and mechanical solidarity, and shall be
related to the Australian context.
Discussion
Durkheimian Model of Social Deviance
Social order prescribed a specific way of behaviour in the social sphere and to some
extent in the private sphere as well, and this disciplining effect that was generated in regulating
the behaviour of the human beings and that way the social solidarity was sought to be

3DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
manufactured. In other words by social solidarity, the maintenance of a proper social order and
adherence to it was a central feature of modernity (McCloskey 1976). The concept of social
order, social deviance and social solidarity as provided by Aristotle, Hobbes and St Augustine,
and Durkheim are thus similar. Aristotle, Hobbes and St Augustine had defined social order and
social solidarity by means of acknowledging the state authority and deviance as challenging the
state authority. The concept of Social Order, Social Deviance and Social Solidarity as per
Durkheim has been broader in scope, and not as specific as mentioned by Aristotle, Hobbes and
St Augustine. Durkheim has provided the idea that social order gives birth to social solidarity
and that happens by means of following the rules of the society and the social deviance is the act
of non conformity to the social order and it leads to the weakening of the social solidarity.
From the argument provided in the previous section, it thus becomes clear that social
order is a specific code of conduct that an individual is supposed to adhere to and the opposite of
social order shall imply social deviance. The conception of deviance has been existing ever since
the days of biblical discourses and back then social conformity and social deviance used to be
defined as virtue and vice respectively, aimed at regulating the conduct of the members of the
society by the mechanism of rewards and punishments. In the modern age, Durkheim has
provided the most coherent, scientific and comprehensive understanding of the act of deviance
through his conceptualization of suicide, which is also inclusive of the concept of social
solidarity. The only factor which the Durkheimian concept of social solidarity, social conformity
and social deviance are different from all other conceptualization of them is that Durkheim had
been quite direct in providing the conceptual base of understanding what deviance, conformity
and solidarity stands for rather than just metaphorically dealing with it (McCloskey 1976).

4DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
In this section, the Durkheimian concept of social solidarity shall be explained with
reference to the concept of social deviance as they are inter related to each other for the purpose
of the conceptual clarity. As it has already mentioned that the following the social order is the
basis of the formation of social solidarity and not being in conformity with the social order leads
to social deviance and that in turn causes the social solidarity to get loosened.
For the purpose of understanding the concept of Deviance, the comprehension of the
theorization of the concept of suicide is important. The concept of social solidarity, social
conformity and social deviance are embedded in the understanding of the concept of suicide. In
the path breaking work of Durkheim ‘Le Suicide’, he had described the act of suicide, the act of
taking one’s life away before the unfolding of the natural course of events as beyond the generic
definition. Suicide had deep sociological underpinnings, and death as per the Durkheimian
discourse if self imposed is to be understood against the light of the social causes that must have
driven the person to commit such an act. Death has been understood by Durkheim in a very
normative sense which must come about naturally and human beings who choose death over life
have essentially committed an act which have been a violation of the laws of nature and has thus
has violated the social rules as well which makes suicide an act of deviance. Suicide as per
Durkheimian discourse happens due to both the underpinning of individual predispositions
towards maintaining social solidarity and social conformity and also because of societal causes
affecting the individual predispositions and vice versa. However the basic idea is that suicide as
an act of deviance is a result of normlessness, or anomie as described in sociological terms
(Marks 1974).
There are four types of suicide as per Durkheim, Egoistic, Fatalistic, Anomic and
Altruistic. Each of the forms of suicide is committed for a specific kind of normlessness in the

5DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
society, and they shall be related to the Australian context. When relating the concept of suicide
to the Australian context, it has to be considered as an act of deviance and not literally as putting
an end to one’s life.
Egoistic suicide is committed by individuals who are wrought with the feeling that they
are detached or they are alien to the society. This particular form of suicide usually takes place
when the individual is cut off from the society and relegates oneself to isolation. The situation of
self imposed isolation is a result of the reversal of the Aristotelian premise that “man is a social
animal.” Aristotle had opined that human beings are social beings on the basis of the reasoning
that for the full fledged development of the human beings it is necessary that the overall
development of the intellectual and the emotional faculties of the human being are facilitated. It
can only be facilitated in a framework which can be provided in a social setting (Marks 1974).
According to Aristotle, it is only by living in a collectivity can human beings realize their true
potentialities, and thus the development of the self lies in the contribution to the society. The
Aristotelian premise is wrought with a degree of altruism in it and social life demands altruism,
thus anyone who refuses to conform to the altruistic concerns that governs the functioning of the
society with harmony is rejecting the social order and the social norms, hence it is an act of
deviance. This particular form of deviance is seen in the modern diverse context of Australia in
form of which take the form of social menace such as drug addiction, alcoholism, delinquency
among the minority communities as a result of marginalization by the dominant white
community (Australian Crime Commission 2015).
Fatalistic suicide on the other hand happens when the social solidarity in the society is
too constrictive and that destroys the individualistic instinct of human beings. Aristotle had
talked of the overall development of the intellectual and the emotional faculties of the human

6DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
beings being developed by means of being a part of a collectivity which shows that the society is
supposed to facilitate the growth of an individual and not constrict it. Constricting the growth of
an individual is a deviance from the function that society is supposed to play and that deviance
leads to another form of deviance which is Fatalistic suicide. It is an act of altruism towards the
self (Marks 1974). In this regard the majoritarian violence on the minorities of nation must be
cited to relate its validity in the Australian context. The racial, ethnic and sexual minorities do
have right which are equal to the majority white community of the nation but still, the expression
or the manifestation of the distinctiveness of the minority communities from majority community
makes them vulnerable, and that is very much evident in the high rate of hate crimes that exist in
the nation (Australian Crime Commission 2015).
Society is supposed to be governed by a set of norms which shall regulate the behaviour
and conduct of human beings forming a part of the social collectivity. The social order and the
social solidarity rests upon the norms that govern the social conduct of the members of the
society, and an absence of norms implies that the conduct of the members of the society lack a
regulatory authority thereby driving people to deviant acts. This is in Durkheimian lexicon,
anomic suicide, a sort of deviance which happens as a result of lack of regulations and
predisposition on part of the individuals to not adhere to norms. In the Australian context, this
particular form of deviance is also present and the nature and manifestation of it is similar to the
ones that has already been discussed while discussing the manifestations of Egoistic suicide
(Pope 1976). Australia follows the system of Rule of Law and in general the nation is quite
peaceful which is why it attracts tourists and immigrants from other nations. However, like most
other nations Australia also has her share of crime prone areas where normlessness prevails
(Australian Crime Commission 2015).

7DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
Altruistic suicide is somewhat similar to Fatalistic Suicide, and it implies that the suicide
is an obligation as a result of too much of integration in society. In the Australian context which
is a multicultural society and many ethnic communities reside in the nation but they follow their
own customs and practices that are quite different from the mainstream Australian culture (Pope
1976). For example, the ethnic Indians and Pakistanis despite staying in Australia for generations
still practice honour killings something which is alien to the Australian culture (Australian Crime
Commission 2015).
Evaluation and Application of the Durkheimian Model of Social Solidarity in the
contemporary Australian context
Durkheim had talked of two kinds of solidarity, mechanical and organic solidarity.
Organic solidarity is typical to primitive society where the urge to form a community is a matter
of natural predisposition guided by conventions and customs. This particular feature is not
manifested in the general Australian context as Australia is a modern statist society, but amongst
the Aboriginal population this is found (Prescott, Colliver and Nichols 2016). Mechanical
solidarity is rather a product of modernity and a complex society characterized by
bureaucratization, secularization and impersonalization whereby individualism has taken over
the spirit of communitarianism. People enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of
achieving the modern goals of the corporate world. Thus the urge to enter into agreements for
interdependence with fellow human beings is a result of the market interests to be fulfilled.
Economy of a society like Australia guided by mechanical solidarity is not pastoral but it is
industrialized. Thus generally Australia might be guided by mechanical solidarity but the organic
solidarity also prevails in the nation (Gale 2019).

8DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
Conclusion
Thus from the above set of discussion it becomes clear that the Durkheimian concept of
solidarity and deviance is very much applicable in the modern context and that belies the
hypothesis that Deviance is a socially outmoded concept based on a Durkheimian model of
social solidarity that is no longer useful in a (post) modern progressive and diverse society like
Australia. Australia is thus indeed quite diverse as it has both primitive aspects of the society
very well discerned by the fact that one can find both organic solidarity in form of the existence
of the aborigines, as well as mechanical solidarity which is found in the cities and town which
are administered by the state authority. Thus shows that the Durkheimian concepts of mechanical
and organic solidarity are very much applicable in the modern diverse Australian context.
Australia has law and order situation which is regulated and imposed by the state authority
however the deviance from the rules and regulations are also found which are defined as crime.
This shows that the Durkheimian concept of deviance is very much applicable in the modern
diverse Australian context. Hence the Durkheimian model of social solidarity that is very much
useful in a (post) modern progressive and diverse society like Australia.

9DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
Reference
Australian Crime Commission, 2015. Organised crime in Australia 2015.
Everson, S., 1988. Aristotle on the Foundations of the State. political studies, 36(1), pp.89-101.
Gale, F., 2019. The Circular Economy in (Corporate) Australia: a Preliminary Analysis. In 4th
Edition of the International Conference on Public Policy (ICPP4) (pp. 1-3).
Marks, S.R., 1974. Durkheim's theory of anomie. American Journal of Sociology, 80(2), pp.329-
363.
McCloskey, D., 1976. On Durkheim, anomie, and the modern crisis.
Pope, W., 1976. Durkheim's Suicide: A classic analyzed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prescott, D., Colliver, A. and Nichols, S., 2016. The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines
Made Australia—ERRATUM. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), p.135.
Schochet, G.J., 1967. Thomas Hobbes on the Family and the State of Nature. Political Science
Quarterly, 82(3), pp.427-445.
Bibliography
Miller, JM, Wright, RA & Dannels, D 2001, ‘Is deviance “dead”? The decline of a
sociological research specialization’, The American Sociologist, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 43-59.
Peretti-Watel, P & Moatti, J 2006, ‘Understanding risk behaviours: how the sociology of
deviance may contribute. The case of drug-taking’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 63, no.
3, pp. 675-679.
Roach Anleu, SL 2006, Deviance, difference & conformity, Pearson Education Australia,
Frenchs Forest.

10DURKHEIMIAN MODEL OF SOCIAL SOLIDARITY
Goode, E 2004, ‘Is the sociology of deviance still relevant?’, The American Sociologist, vol.
35, no. 4, pp. 46-57.
Heckert, A & Heckert, DA 2002, ‘A new typology of deviance: integrating normative and
reactivist definitions of deviance’, Deviant Behaviour: An interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 23,
no. 5, pp. 449-479.