Located on the highest shelf of America’s beloved collection of patriotic proverbs is Patrick Henry’s famous declaration, “United we stand, divided we fall.” Though Henry spoke these words in reference to the survival of a nation, the phrase’s sentiment can be applied the French sociologist Emile Durkheim’s work, The Division of Labor in Society, which was largely concerned with the survival of society. Although the broad topic of Durkheim’s book, division of labor, had been touched upon by scholars like Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations) and Karl Marx (“The Communist Manifesto”), Durkheim was among the first to consider the effect that this division has on the cohesion of society; while Smith forewarned of the dehumanization that the division
…show more content…
But, according to Durkheim, this void left by religion does not go unfilled. Rather, “as all the other beliefs and practices assume less and less religious a character, the individual becomes the object of a sort of religion.” (118-122). Fundamentally, Durkheim sees the growth of individualism into a “religion” as disconcerting. To him, “[this] is only possible because of the collapse of other faiths and consequently it cannot engender the same results as that multiplicity of extinct beliefs.” In other words, individualism cannot fill the role that religion used to claim in the collective consciousness, as the end-goal of a “religion of individualism” is not a social one; though there exists some commonality in individualism, it binds us not to society, but, rather, “to ourselves.” Still, Durkheim does not believe that individualism will spell out the end of society based on some very simple reasoning: society is still intact. He observes, “social progress does not consist in a process of continual …show more content…
One need only raise an issue like abortion, marriage, or immigration at the dinner table to see this division for himself. In the past, the collective consciousness of society would have dictated the appropriate view that members ought to hold on such controversial topics. But with individualism and the relativism that is born by it, moral issues are not decided by any universal standard, but, rather, by personal whims. Evidence of the disunity that this individualistic system of moral determination has brought about can be readily seen in the American political arena. In 2014, the Pew Research Center found that “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines— and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive— than at any other point in the past two decades.” Division between the two parties so strong, in fact, that 36% of Republicans viewed Democrats as “a threat to the nation’s wellbeing” and 27% of Democrats saw Republicans as filling the same role (Pew 6). While some might dismiss these ideological differences as a natural product of politics, it is important to remember that high polarization on such issues resulted in a civil war in the not too distant
But, according to Durkheim, this void left by religion does not go unfilled. Rather, “as all the other beliefs and practices assume less and less religious a character, the individual becomes the object of a sort of religion.” (118-122). Fundamentally, Durkheim sees the growth of individualism into a “religion” as disconcerting. To him, “[this] is only possible because of the collapse of other faiths and consequently it cannot engender the same results as that multiplicity of extinct beliefs.” In other words, individualism cannot fill the role that religion used to claim in the collective consciousness, as the end-goal of a “religion of individualism” is not a social one; though there exists some commonality in individualism, it binds us not to society, but, rather, “to ourselves.” Still, Durkheim does not believe that individualism will spell out the end of society based on some very simple reasoning: society is still intact. He observes, “social progress does not consist in a process of continual …show more content…
One need only raise an issue like abortion, marriage, or immigration at the dinner table to see this division for himself. In the past, the collective consciousness of society would have dictated the appropriate view that members ought to hold on such controversial topics. But with individualism and the relativism that is born by it, moral issues are not decided by any universal standard, but, rather, by personal whims. Evidence of the disunity that this individualistic system of moral determination has brought about can be readily seen in the American political arena. In 2014, the Pew Research Center found that “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines— and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive— than at any other point in the past two decades.” Division between the two parties so strong, in fact, that 36% of Republicans viewed Democrats as “a threat to the nation’s wellbeing” and 27% of Democrats saw Republicans as filling the same role (Pew 6). While some might dismiss these ideological differences as a natural product of politics, it is important to remember that high polarization on such issues resulted in a civil war in the not too distant