Throughout history, there have been massive social transformations that have continued to sweep the world. Industrialisation, globalisation, new information technologies and many other developments such as an almost fully connected world of the internet have surely changed how members of society relate to one another and thus how society is held together as a whole. Theorists have long studied the structure of groups, organisations and societies, and how individuals interact within these environments. One theorist in particular who is famous for his major contributions to the study is Emile Durkheim. Through his different studies on the aspects of social structures, Durkheim was able to influence other criminological theorists by looking at
…show more content…
After years of studying sociology, Durkheim began to present sociological theories of criminality that were seen as a reaction to the assumptions that the classicists made which was that “humans were free and rational in a contractual society,” (Gold & Bernard, 1986, p. 143). This was similar to Cesare Lombroso’s (1835–1909) way of thinking twenty years earlier, who focused on the “determinants of human behaviour within the individual” and argued that crime was an inherited characteristic (Gold & Bernard, 1986, p. 143). However, Durkheim was not satisfied by the biological determinism which was found in the work of Lombroso and his followers because he thought many of Lombroso’s ideas were unclear (Agarwal, 2011). Instead, Durkheim believed that crime was a result of social change or modernisation (Gold & Bernard, 1986). Accordingly, Durkheim’s work was set out in his first published book ‘The Division of Labour in Society’ (1893) (Gold & Bernard, 1986). In this famous writing, Durkheim examined how social order was maintained in traditional, feudal and agricultural societies compared to how it was maintained in more modernised or industrial …show more content…
93). In both types of societies explained by Durkheim, society is held together by a collective conscience which informs the laws (Gold & Bernard, 1986). However, Durkheim argued that a mechanical society has a stronger collective conscience because everyone is more or less the same (Gold & Bernard, 1986). For instance, a mechanical society wants to pull everybody into line and create uniformity and suppress all deviation no matter what the type, while an organic society on the other hand wants to mediate relationships and return people to their place in society to the greatest extent possible (Gold & Bernard, 1986). However in saying that, Durkheim saw all societies as being in somewhere in between the mechanical and organic structures, and argued that no society could be wholly one or the other (Gold & Bernard, 1986). He also argued that there will always be one dominant set of beliefs and codes set by the collective conscience that members of society have to abide by, but at the same time, there will obviously never be complete uniformity as “there cannot be a society in which the individuals do not differ more or less from the collective type,” (Durkheim, Rules, p.70 as cited in Gold & Bernard, 1986 p. 146). In other words, even in mechanical societies where there is supposed to be uniformity and where
After years of studying sociology, Durkheim began to present sociological theories of criminality that were seen as a reaction to the assumptions that the classicists made which was that “humans were free and rational in a contractual society,” (Gold & Bernard, 1986, p. 143). This was similar to Cesare Lombroso’s (1835–1909) way of thinking twenty years earlier, who focused on the “determinants of human behaviour within the individual” and argued that crime was an inherited characteristic (Gold & Bernard, 1986, p. 143). However, Durkheim was not satisfied by the biological determinism which was found in the work of Lombroso and his followers because he thought many of Lombroso’s ideas were unclear (Agarwal, 2011). Instead, Durkheim believed that crime was a result of social change or modernisation (Gold & Bernard, 1986). Accordingly, Durkheim’s work was set out in his first published book ‘The Division of Labour in Society’ (1893) (Gold & Bernard, 1986). In this famous writing, Durkheim examined how social order was maintained in traditional, feudal and agricultural societies compared to how it was maintained in more modernised or industrial …show more content…
93). In both types of societies explained by Durkheim, society is held together by a collective conscience which informs the laws (Gold & Bernard, 1986). However, Durkheim argued that a mechanical society has a stronger collective conscience because everyone is more or less the same (Gold & Bernard, 1986). For instance, a mechanical society wants to pull everybody into line and create uniformity and suppress all deviation no matter what the type, while an organic society on the other hand wants to mediate relationships and return people to their place in society to the greatest extent possible (Gold & Bernard, 1986). However in saying that, Durkheim saw all societies as being in somewhere in between the mechanical and organic structures, and argued that no society could be wholly one or the other (Gold & Bernard, 1986). He also argued that there will always be one dominant set of beliefs and codes set by the collective conscience that members of society have to abide by, but at the same time, there will obviously never be complete uniformity as “there cannot be a society in which the individuals do not differ more or less from the collective type,” (Durkheim, Rules, p.70 as cited in Gold & Bernard, 1986 p. 146). In other words, even in mechanical societies where there is supposed to be uniformity and where