Emile Durkheim Is Associated With Which Paradigm Of Law?

Emile Durkheim Is Associated With Which Paradigm Of Law
Emile Durkheim is associated with Conflict paradigm of law. MrG |Points 12981| Log in for more information.

Which paradigm of law highlights the inequality of a capitalist system?

​ the Marxist paradigm.

Which paradigm is governance based on power?

Conflict paradigm, which views society as being made up of competing and conflicting interests. According to this view, governance is based on power; if some win, others lose, and those who hold power in society promote self-interest, not a greater good.

What is Emile Durkheim theory quizlet?

Moral Regulation/Consensus. Durkheim believed a harmonious society is one in which an individual can flourish and live productively with others.

What paradigm states that most people have similar beliefs values and goals and that societal laws reflect the majority view?

In chapter 8, there is a discussion about paradigms of law. There are three paradigms: consensus, conflict, and pluralist. Explain the role of law in society and these paradigms that have developed to understand how law is formed and enforced. In other words, show me that you understand the paradigms and what they mean.

  • I would suggest three paragraphs.
  • Paradigms are models of how ideas relate to each other and form a model of the world around us.
  • These paradigms can help us to organize the knowledge that we gain every day.
  • These enable us to understand the roles of our laws in society and how they function.
  • Three different paradigms could affect our view on the law.

These three are; consensus, conflict, and pluralist paradigms. The consensus paradigm views society as a community of like-minded people. This is the idea that most people have similar beliefs, values, and goals. The consensus paradigm states that the societal laws reflect the majority view.

law is representative law reinforces social cohesion law is value-neutral.

The second paradigm that we can see is the conflict paradigm. This is the idea that groups in society have fundamental differences and that those in power control societal elements, such as the law. Society can be made up of competing and conflicting interests.

  1. In this view, governance is based on power.
  2. Some people are going to win, and others are going to lose.
  3. Those who hold power in a community are going to promote self-interest, not the greater good.
  4. In this paradigm, the law is seen as a tool of power used to maintain and control the status quo.
  5. Crime is defined by those people who control major societal institutions.

In this paradigm, there are three things seen;

law is repressive law is a tool of the powerful law is not value-neutral

The pluralist paradigm is the final one. This is the concept that there are many groups in society, and they form allegiances and coalitions in a dynamic exchange of power. This shares the same idea that society is made up of competing interests, but pluralism recognizes that power may shift as a dynamic social change.

An example of this is that the definition of crime can change based on which interest groups have the power to define criminal behavior. According to this paradigm, laws are written by the group whose voice is more powerful at any given time. Sydney, Great post! You did a good job of describing the differences between each paradigm.

When reading your post, it is easy to see how these three ideas can differ. The paradigms we discuss this week all have their own ideas, but generally affect the view on laws to anyone. Each paradigm has their own role in society, but overall help us to understand how law functions and the role that it plays.

What are the 3 paradigms of law?

Paradigmatic Concerns in Criminal Justice All social theory that may be the basis for criminal justice policy and strategy derives from one of three basic paradigms: (1) rational choice paradigm; (2) deterministic paradigm; and (3) result paradigm. The application of these paradigmatic perspectives determines how criminals are defined, processed, and treated within the criminal justice system.

The authors contend that most systemic problems in the criminal justice system emanate from the application of conflicting multiple paradigms as a basis for policy and programs. A major source of this dilemma is the lack of a clear, conceptual understanding of the nature of and assumptions supporting rival paradigms.

The authors conclude that the impact of conflicts among paradigms can be lessened if criminal justice practitioners are educated as practitioner philosophers and are capable of decisionmaking in the context of ethical consistency in a pluralistic society.26 references and 5 endnotes : Paradigmatic Concerns in Criminal Justice

What are the 4 paradigms of Public Administration?

Paradigm 1: the politics-administration dichotomy, 1900–1926. Paradigm 2: the principles of administration, 1927–1937. Paradigm 3: public administration as political science, 1950–1970. Paradigm 4: public administration as management, 1956–1970.

Is e governance a paradigm?

E-Governance is in this paper propounded as a paradigm that needs to be considered seriously within context of developments in the field of Public Administration. Perennial wisdom suggests that unless one understands key concepts in their discussion they unambiguously define key concepts.

What type of theory is Emile Durkheim’s?

Key Points –

  • Durkheim believed that society exerted a powerful force on individuals. According to Durkheim, people’s norms, beliefs, and values make up a collective consciousness, or a shared way of understanding and behaving in the world.
  • The collective consciousness binds individuals together and creates social integration.
  • Durkheim saw increasing population density as a key factor in the advent of modernity. As the number of people in a given area increase, so does the number of interactions, and the society becomes more complex.
  • As people engage in more economic activity with neighbors or distant traders, they begin to loosen the traditional bonds of family, religion, and moral solidarity that had previously ensured social integration. Durkheim worried that modernity might herald the disintegration of society.
  • Simpler societies are based on mechanical solidarity, in which self-sufficient people are connected to others by close personal ties and traditions. Modern societies are based on organic solidarity, in which people are connected by their reliance on others in the division of labor.
  • Although modern society may undermine the traditional bonds of mechanical solidarity, it replaces them with the bonds of organic solidarity.
  • In the Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim presented a theory of the function of religion in aboriginal and modern societies and described the phenomenon of collective effervescence and collective consciousness.
  • Durkheim has been called a structural functionalist because his theories focus on the function certain institutions (e.g., religion) play in maintaining social solidarity or social structure.

What is the theory of Emile Durkheim?

A. Introduction – Adams and Sydie begin their discussion of early sociology with a presentation of the sociological work of conservative writers (pp.59-60). After the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, some writers were concerned with how social order could be maintained in the face of progress, revolution, disorder, and rule by the people.

Early sociology is often considered to have emerged out of this conservative reaction to the Enlightenment and the French Revolution – writers such as Saint-Simon, Comte, and Spencer looked on the emergent capitalist society as generally good and progressive, but were concerned about how society holds together given the individualism that emerged and the changes in political order.

According to Adams and Sydie, there were three main approaches (p.59) 1. Positivism – society is orderly and rational and social scientists, through careful study of history and the society around them, could develop an understanding of the social world.

August Comte (1798-1857) is often regarded as the early champion of this approach. A French writer, he coined the term sociology and considered the scientific study of society to be social physics – an application of the scientific method, used in natural sciences such physics, to the social world (p.39).

Writers adopting a positivist approach consider it possible to investigate the social world and, from regularities and patterns of human behaviour, discover social laws that explain the workings of the social world. We will not discuss Comte and the positivist approach further at this point, but positivism has been one long-standing influence in sociological theory and practice.2.

  • Evolutionism – society changes slowly and the process of change includes self-correction to problems and strains in the social world.
  • Most nineteenth century sociologists developed some form of evolutionary approach to society.
  • That is, societies change, there are stages to social development (tribal, primitive or traditional, modern, post-modern), change is relatively gradual (although the radical approach of Section III developed a more cataclysmic view of change), and where there are conflicts or disagreements among groups in society, these tend to be corrected through evolutionary forces.

These writers generally viewed later stages as higher or more developed forms of society as compared with earlier stages of social development. Spencer, Sumner, Comte, and Durkheim all developed variants of this approach. Writers who are not in the conservative tradition, such as Marx and Weber, also developed a view of society in stages, although they were not always so evolutionary in their approach – Marx adopted a view of revolutionary change.3.

Functionalism – society is similar to a biological organism or a body, with interrelated parts, needs and functions for each of these parts, and structures to ensure that the parts work together to produce a well-functioning and healthy body. Such an approach was adopted by some less conservative sociologists as well.

Even today it is common for sociologists to discuss the function of the family in socializing individuals and in helping preserve social order, or the function of profits to help encourage economic growth and a well-functioning economy and society. While functionalism has been an important theoretical approach, it is sometimes theoretically lazy to use this form of explanation as a substitute for understanding and determining how the social world works.

For example, using a functionalist approach we may not be able to understand why the family is functional for society, why it developed the way it has, and how changes in the family occur. If the family form is functional, why is it always changing, and why do new family forms appear as functional as earlier ones? Durkheim is often considered a functionalist, but Adams and Sydie note that “Durkheim clearly distinguished between causal and functional explanations of social facts.” (p.97).

That is, Durkheim understood that it was necessary to explain the reasons why particular social structures emerged historically, and if such structures were functional, this required a separate explanation. Rather than discuss each of the early conservative sociological approaches, we will move directly to Durkheim, one of the major influences in twentieth century sociology.

B. Emile Durkheim (1858-1916) 1. Durkheim’s sociology a. General approach

Durkheim adopted an evolutionary approach in that he considered society to have developed from a traditional to modern society through the development and expansion of the division of labour. He compared society to an organism, with different parts that functioned to ensure the smooth and orderly operation and evolution of society.

He is sometimes considered a structural functionalist in that he regarded society as composed of structures that functioned together – in constructing such an approach, he distinguished structure and function. While he considered society to be composed of individuals, society is not just the sum of individuals and their behaviours, actions, and thoughts.

Rather, society has a structure and existence of its own, apart from the individuals in it. Further, society and its structures influence, constrain, and even coerce individuals in it – through norms, social facts, common sentiments, and social currents.

  • While all of these were developed from earlier or current human action, they stand apart from the individual, form themselves into institutions and structures, and affect the individual.
  • Durkheim was especially concerned with the issue of social order, how does modern society hold together given that society is composed of many individuals, each acting in an individual and autonomous manner, with separate, distinct, and different interests.

Adams and Sydie note that he focused on problems of “reconciling freedom and morality, or individualism and social cohesion in modern society” (p.90). His first book, The Division of Labour in Society, was an exploration and explanation of these issues, and he finds the answer in the concept of social solidarity, common consciousness, systems of common morality, and forms of law.

  1. Because these forces and structures are not always effective in producing and maintaining social order, and because there is social change as the division of labour and society develop, there can be disruptions in social solidarity and common consciousness.
  2. Durkheim connects these to what he calls the forced division of labour (eg.

slavery) and to periods of confusion and rootlessness, i.e. what he calls anomie, He also considers anomie to be one cause suicide – in his book Suicide he explores the causes different suicide rates at different places and times in Europe, and explains why they differ.b.

Durkheim’s definition of sociology One of Durkheim’s major contributions was to help define and establish the field of sociology as an academic discipline. Durkheim distinguished sociology from philosophy, psychology, economics, and other social science disciplines by arguing that society was an entity of its own.

He argued that sociologists should study particular features of collective or group life and sociology is the study of social facts, things which are external to, and coercive of, individuals. These social facts are features of the group, and cannot be studied apart from the collective, nor can they be derived from the study of individuals.

  • Some examples are religion, urban structures, legal systems, and moral values such as family values.
  • Durkheim argued that these are “features of collective existence which are not reducible to features of the atoms, individuals, which make it up” (Hadden, p.87).
  • Durkheim considers the beliefs, practices, and consciousness of the collective to be coercive on individuals as actors.

In this sense, Durkheim has a structuralist approach, considering the social structures to exert a strong influence on social action. Of course, it is individuals who act, but they do not act on a purely individual basis. Rather, they have obligations and duties, and generally act in ways that are strongly influenced by the structures of which they are part.

Sociology can be distinguished from psychology in this way – noting that psychologists study individuals and their mental processes, whereas sociologists are concerned with the structures that influence social action and interaction. It is this study of society as a whole, individuals in their social relationships with other individuals, and the connections of these social relationships to society, that constitutes the subject matter of sociology.

This leads to the title of the chapter – society as sui generis – that is, society as a thing in itself, something of its own kind, or a thing apart. Durkheim’s view was that society has an existence of its own, apart from the individuals in it, and is thus a proper object of study.

  1. Adams and Sydie note the more specific reference of Durkheim to this is social facts or the “facts of social existence, sui generis” (p.91) – the facts that cannot be reduced to individual acts, for example, social obligations, social currents such as broad social moods of pessimism or optimism.2.
  2. Durkheim’s life Emile Durkheim (1858-1916) was born in Epinal in Lorraine, France.

He was a contemporary of Weber (1864-1920), but probably never met Weber, and lived his adult life after Karl Marx died. Durkheim came from a Jewish background, and was a superior student at school and University. Eventually he was able to attend the elite Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris.

He taught for a number of years, and then received an appointment to a position in philosophy at the University of Bordeaux in 1887. There he taught the subject of moral education and later taught the first course in sociology at a French university. In 1902 he was appointed to a professorship at the Sorbonne, in Paris, where he remained until he died.

Durkheim’s most famous works are The Division of Labor in Society (1893), The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Suicide (1897) and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912). Durkheim is often considered a conservative within the field of sociology, being concerned primarily with order, consensus, solidarity, social morality, and systems of religion.

  • His theoretical analysis helped provide a basis for relatively conservative structural functional models of society.
  • However, Durkheim was involved politically in the Dreyfus affair, and condemned French racism and anti-Semitism.
  • Durkheim might more properly be considered a political liberal, in that he advocated individual freedom, and opposed impediments to the free operation of the division of labour.

In contemporary terms, he might be considered a social democrat, in that he favoured social reforms, while opposing the development of a socialist society. In his theoretical model, he advocated the development of “professional groupings” or “occupational groups” as the means by which the interests of special groups could be promoted and furthered.

For Durkheim, these would promote more than just their own interests, the general interests of the society as a whole, creating solidarity in a society that had developed a complex division of labour. In advocating this, he comes close to some versions of pluralism. Durkheim was not generally involved in politics, and can be considered a more academic sociologist than either Weber or Marx.

In terms of the development of the field of sociology, Durkheim is especially important. He was the first to offer courses in sociology in French universities, at a time when sociology was not well known or favoured. His writings are important within the field of sociology, in that several of them are basic works that sociology students today are expected to read and understand.

Much of the manner in which sociology as an academic discipline is carried on follows Durkheim’s suggestions and approach. French sociology, in particular, follows Durkheim, and some of Durkheim’s books are likely to serve as texts in French sociology. Much American sociology is also heavily influenced by Durkheim.

In recent years, there has again been much attention paid to his writings.C. Division of Labor in Society In The Division of Labor in Society Durkheim attempts to determine what is the basis of social solidarity in society and how this has changed over time.

  1. This was Durkheim’s first major work, so it does not address all the issues that be considered important.
  2. But in this work he began his study of how society is sui generis, an entity of its own.
  3. This work presents many of Durkheim’s views and illustrates his methodology.
  4. Durkheim’s argument is that there are two types of social solidarity – how society holds together and what ties the individual to the society.

These two forms mechanical solidarity, which characterizes earlier or traditional societies, where the division of labour is relatively limited. The form of social solidarity in modern societies, with a highly developed division of labour, is called organic solidarity.

Durkheim argues that the division of labour itself which creates organic solidarity, because of mutual needs of individuals in modern soceity. In both types of societies, individuals for the most part “interact in accordance with their obligations to others and to society as a whole. In doing so, each person also receives some recognition of his or her own rights and contributions within the collectivity.

Social morality in this sense is ‘strictly necessary’ for solidarity between people to occur; without morality, “societies cannot exist.'” (Grabb, p.79). According to Giddens (p.73), the main substantive problem for Durkheim stems from “an apparent moral ambiguity concerning the relationship between the individual and society in the contemporary world.” On the one hand, with specialization and the highly developed division of labour, individuals develop their own consciousness, and are encouraged in this specialization.

On the other hand, there are also moral ideas encouraging people to be well rounded, of service to society as a whole. These two seem contradictory, and Durkheim is concerned with finding the historical and sociological roots of each of these, along with how these two seemingly contradictory moral guidelines are reconciled in modern society.

This book can also be read with a view to illuminating Durkheim’s methods. In the first chapter, he outlines his method, and the theory which could be falsified. By looking at morality, he is not pursuing a philosophical course, mainly in the realm of ideas.

Durkheim is critical of “moral philosophers begin either from some a priori postulate about the essential characteristics of human nature, or from propositions taken from psychology, and thence proceed by deduction to work out a scheme of ethics.” (Giddens, p.72). That is, Durkheim is attempting to determine the roots of morality by studying society, and changes in society.

These forms of morality are social facts, and data from society must be obtained, and these used to discover causes. The data used by Durkheim are observable, empirical forms of data in the form of laws, institutions (legal and other), norms and behaviour.

In this book, Durkheim adopts a non-quantitative approach, but in Suicide his approach is more quantitative. In examining the roots of social solidarity, Durkheim regards the examination of systems of law as an important means of understanding morality. He regards “systems of law” as the “externalization of the inner core of social reality (solidarity), it is predicted that as the inner core undergoes qualitative changes from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity, there should be manifest shift in the ratio of types of legal systems,

as a proportion of the total legal corpus.” (Tiryakian in Bottomore and Nisbet, p.214) Since law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we have only to classify the different types of law to find therefrom the different types of social solidarity which correspond to it.

  • Division, p.68).
  • That is, since social solidarity is a concept that it not easily observable or measurable, Durkheim attempts to use systems of law as an index of forms and changes in socialsolidarity.
  • In the above quote, Durkheim states that law constitutes such an index since it “reproduces the principal forms of solidarity.” Since systems of law can be studied historically and in contemporary societies, Durkheim felt that by tracing the development of different systems of law he could study the forms of social solidarity.

From this, Durkheim begins to build a proof of the division of labour as the basis for the different forms of solidarity. He then attempts to show the nature of society, how it changes over time, and how this results in the shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.1.

Mechanical solidarity Early societies tended to be small scale, localized in villages or rural areas, with a limited division of labour or only a simple division of labour by age and sex. In this type of society, people are very similar to each other, and Durkheim titles this chapter “Mechanical solidarity through likeness.” In this type of society, each person carries out essentially similar types of tasks, so that people share the type of work they carry out.

These societies are characterized by likeness, in which the members of the society share the same values, based on common tasks and common life situations and experiences. In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law tends to be repressive law or penal law.

  • If there is a crime in this society, then this crime stands as an offense to all, because it is an offense to the common morality, the shared system of values that exists.
  • Most people feel the offense, and regardless of how serious it is, severe punishment is likely to be meted out for it.
  • Zeitlin notes (p.264): Anything that offends the common conscience threatens the solidarity – the very existence of society.
See also:  Which Statement Is True About Newton'S First Law Of Motion?

An offense left unpunished weakens to that degree the social unity. Punishment therefore serves the important function of restoring and reconstituting social unity. Penal law is concerned with sanctions only, and there is no mention of obligations. Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment.

  • Moral obligation and duty is not stated in the punishment, because this is generally understood.
  • Rather the punishment is given, and that is the completion of the penalty.
  • Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society show the nature of Durkheim’s argument: In the quotes, note that the act is criminal because the act offends the collective conscience.

For Durkheim, the collective consciousness reaches all parts of society, has a distinct reality and is independent of individual conditions, and is passed on from one generation to the next. In this, it differs from particular or individual consciences.

  • Division, pp.79-80). Quote 5.
  • Collective Consciousness,
  • The only common characteristic of all crimes is that they consist,
  • In acts universally disapproved of by members of each society.
  • Division, p.73).
  • The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it the collective or common conscience,

( Division, p.79) an act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collective conscience. ( Division, p.80) we must not say that an action shocks the common conscience because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience.

  • We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it.
  • Division, p.81).
  • Referring to repressive or penal forms of punishment in early society, Durkheim notes that it may extend to: the innocent, his wife, his children, his neighbours, etc.
  • This is because the passion which is the soul of punishment ceases only when exhausted.

If, therefore, after it has destroyed the one who has immediately called it forth, there still remains force within it, it expands in quite mechanical fashion. ( Division, p.86). In contrast, modern legal codes are quite different, with punishment being less important.

  • Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the original situation, rather than exacting revenge on the offender.
  • But today, it is said, punishment has changed it character; it is no longer to avenge itself that society punishes, it is to defend itself.” ( Division, p.86).
  • This distinction between different types of legal codes and punishment may provide a means of noting what mechanical solidarity means.

Quote 6. Mechanical Solidarity, They must re-enforce themselves by mutual assurances that they are always agreed. The only means for this is action in common. In short, since it is the common conscience which is attacked, it must be that which resists, and accordingly the resistance must be collective.

  1. Division, p.103).
  2. Thus, the analysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime.
  3. We began by establishing inductively that crime consisted essentially in an act contrary to strong and defined states of the common conscience.
  4. We have just seen that all the qualities of punishment ultimately derive from this nature of crime.

That is because the rules that it sanctions express the most essential social likeness.) Thus we see what type of solidarity penal law symbolizes. not only are all the members of the group individually attracted to one another because they resemble one another, but also because they are joined to what is the condition of existence of this collective type.

  1. They will as they will themselves, hold to it durably and for prosperity, because, without it, a great part of their psychic lives would function poorly.
  2. Division, p.105).
  3. These quotes show how the collective consciousness works in societies without a highly developed division of labour.
  4. The primary function of punishment, therefore, is to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question its sanctity.

In order to carry this out, such societies develop forms of repressive or penal law. While the common values in these societies can change over time, this process of change is generally quite slow, so that these values are generally appropriate for the historical period in question.

At other times, the laws may be inappropriate, and might be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim generally considers this to be an exceptional circumstance, and one that is overcome.2. Organic solidarity With the development of the division of labour, the collective consciousness begins to decline.

Each individual begins to have a separate set of tasks which he or she is engaged in. These different situations lead to quite a different set of experiences for each individual. This set of experiences tends to lead toward “a ‘personal consciousness,’ with an emphasis on individual distinctiveness.” (Grabb, p.81).

The common situation which created the common collective consciousness is disturbed, and individuals no longer have common experiences, but have a great variety of different settings, each leading towards its own consciousness. As the developmen of the division of labour erodes the collective consciousness, it also creates a new form of solidarity.

This new form is organic solidarity, and is characterized by dependence of individuals on each other within the division of labour, and by a certain form of cooperation. There is a functional interdependence in the division of labour. Organic solidarity,

presupposes not identity but difference between individuals in their beliefs and actions. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of the division of labour are hence associated with increasing individualism. (Giddens, p.77). Cuff et al. (p.31) note that this means that “differences are expected and indeed become expected.

Thus the nature of the moral consensus changes. Commonly shared values still persist because without them there would be no society, but they become generalized, as they are not rooted in the totality of commonly shared daily experiences. Instead of specifying the details of an action, common values tend to be a more general underpinning for social practices.

  • It is in this sense that the division of labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon.” Thus Durkheim argues that there are individual, and probably group, differences, at the same time as there is a new form of social solidarity. Quote 7.
  • Organic Solidarity,
  • There are in each of us,,
  • Two consciences: one which is common to our group in its entirety, which, consequently, is not ourself, but society living and acting within us; the other, on the contrary, represents that in us which is personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual.

Solidarity which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides in all points with it. Durkheim speaks of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and draws an organic analogy: Individuality is something which the society possesses.

  • Thus,, personal rights are not yet distinguished from real rights.
  • Division, 129-30).
  • It is quite otherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour produces.
  • Whereas the previous type implies that individuals resemble each other, this type presumes their difference.
  • The first is possible only in so far as the individual personality is absorbed into the collective personality; the second is possible only if each one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him; that is, a personality.

In effect, on the one hand, each one depends as much more strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the other, the activity of each is as much more personal as it is more specialized. Society becomes more capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of its elements has more freedom of movement.

  1. The solidarity resembles that which we observe among the higher animals.
  2. Each organ, in effect, has its special physiognomy, it autonomy.
  3. And moreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the individuation of the parts is more marked.
  4. Because of this analogy, we propose to call the solidarity which is due to the division of labour, organic.

( Division, 131). In the structure of societies with organic solidarity (quote 8): Quote 8. Social Structure, They are constituted, not by a repetition of similar, homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts.

Not only are social elements not of the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same manner. They are not juxtaposed linearly, but entwined one with another, but co-ordinated and subordinated one to another around the same central organ which exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism.

( Division, p.181).b. Restitutive or restorative law, Modern systems of law tend to be restitutive or restorative, according to Durkheim. While there are elements of penal or repressive law, such as the death penalty for murder, that continue to exist in modern societies, modern systems of law are primarily characterized by judgments that require the offending party to restore the situation to the original state – eg.

paying restitution for theft or to victims. Modern business and contract law governs the conditions of contracts but says little or nothing about what type of contract parties can enter into. “The progressive displacement of repressive by restitutive law is an historical trend which is correlated with the degree of development of a society: the higher the level of social development, the greater the relative proportion of restitutive law within the judicial structure.” (Giddens, p.76).

For Durkheim, this form of law is concerned with “a simple return in state, Sufferance proportionate to the misdeed is not inflicted on the one who has violated the law or who disregards it; he is simply sentenced to comply with it.” The judge “speaks of law; he says nothing of punishment.” ( Division, p 111).

As the division of labour develops, people do not have the same consciousness, so that the form of law must change. “The very existence of restitutive law, in fact, presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, since it covers the rights of individuals either over private property, or over other individuals who are in a different social position from themselves.” (Giddens, p.76) Along with this could come Weber’s rational law, perhaps much the same as Durkheim’s restitutive law.

Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts are necessary, but these are the result of the general acceptance of individual rights within the system of a division of labour.c. Cause of organic solidarity, Durkheim is critical of the economists who regard the development of the division of labour as a result of the coming together of people with different abilities and specialties.

  • While Durkheim did not make reference to Adam Smith, he also may have had in mind Smith’s view that people have a natural propensity to truck, barter and trade.
  • Finally, he was critical of the economists’ point of view that merely examined the technical conditions for the division of labour, and the increased efficiency associated with it, without consideration of the broader societal conditions necessary to maintain it.

Thus Durkheim did not consider the division of labour as a natural condition. Durkheim considers the development of the division of labour to be associated with the increasing contact among people. There is a greater density of contact, so that people are led to specialize.

The division of labour emerges in different ways in different societies, leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity. However, it is these developments which create the division of labour and “Civilization develops because it cannot fail to develop.” ( Division, p.337). Adams and Sydie (p.94) state that Durkheim regarded this as an increase in moral or dynamic density.

This moral relationship can only produce its effect if the real distance between individuals has itself diminished in some way. Durkheim refers to this an increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the same time. The two are inseparable though.

  • Three ways in which this happens are: i.
  • Concentration of people,
  • People begin to concentrate together.
  • Agriculture may begin this, and it continues with the growth of cities as well. ii. Cities,
  • Formation of cities and their development.
  • Cities always result from the need of individuals to put themselves in very intimate contact with others.

They are so many points where the social mass is contracted more strongly than elsewhere. They can multiply and extend only if the moral density is raised.” ( Division, p.258). iii. Transportation and Communication, Increased number and rapidity of means of transportation and communication.

  • This results in “suppressing or diminishing the gaps separating social segments, they increase the density of society.” ( Division, pp.259-260).
  • The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social development, it is because societies become regularly denser and generally more voluminous.

( Division, 262). We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permit, but that they necessitate a greater division of labor. It is not an instrument by which the latter is realized; it is its determining cause. ( Division, p.262). As a result of this greater contact, the “struggle for existence becomes more acute” and this results in the development of the division of labour.

If needs are the same, then there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can be pursued, then there may be room for all. Quote 8: Social Structure (2nd part) In the same city, different occupations can co-exist without being obliged mutually to destroy one another, for they pursue different objects.

Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from attaining theirs. The closer functions come to one another, however, the more points of contact they have; the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. The judge never is in competition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-grower,

Often try to supplant each other. As for those who have exactly the same function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others. ( Division, p.267). In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution, each segment has its own organs, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions separating the different segments.

But, no matter how this substitution is made, it cannot fail to produce advances in the course of specialization. ( Division, 269). Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises establish equilibrium by sharing their common task.

Instead of one being subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties appear. ( Division, 270). For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no need to compete in the sense of struggling just to survive. Rather, the division of labour may signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society, and this division allows a certain form of co-operation.

Quote 9: Division of Labour, The division of labour is, then, a result of the struggle for existence, but is a mellowed dénouement, Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged to fight to a finish, but can exist one beside the other. Also, in proportion to its development, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greater number of individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be condemned to extinction.

Division, p.271). The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its development. It is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived plan. “The division of labour, then, must come about of itself and progressively.” ( Division, p.276). It must come to pass in a pre-existing society (Appendix quote 9).

Division of Labour, Work is not divided among independent and already differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bring together their different aptitudes. For it would be a miracle if differences thus born through chance circumstance could unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole.

Far from preceding collective life, they derive from it. They can be produced only in the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments and social needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious. there are societies whose cohesion is essentially due to a community of beliefs and sentiments, and it is from these societies that those whose unity is assured by the division of labour have emerged.

( Division, p.277). Civilization is itself the necessary consequence of the changes which are produced in the volume and in the density of societies. If science, art, and economic activity develop, it is in accordance with a necessity which is imposed upon men.

  1. It is because there is, for them, no other way of living in the new conditions in which they have been placed.
  2. From the time that the number of individuals among whom social relations are established begins to increase, they can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, harder work, and intensification of their faculties.

From this general stimulation, there inevitably results a much higher degree of culture. ( Division, pp.336-337). Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of the division of labour which emphasizes the special functions of each of type of occupation and endeavour.

The biological model, with a well functioning body, where each organ properly serves it function seems to be uppermost in Durkheim’s mind. Unlike some of the structural functionalists, Durkheim’s method distinguishes the cause of the function from the actual function filled. That is, Durkheim observes the function that the occupation fills in society, but attempts to investigate the development of the cause in an historical manner, examining how this function emerged.

In this, one can consider there to be a certain ” conflict as a mechanism, within a quasi-Darwinian framework, which accelerates the progression of the division of labour.” (Giddens, p.79). Durkheim is also providing a criticism of the economic models which argue that people with different specialties come together to trade the products of their specialties.

  • For Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but are developed.
  • Similarly, the division of labour is not natural either, but develops in different forms in different societies.
  • While there may be a great similarity among these (perhaps like Weber’s rationality), national differences emerge.

In that sense, Durkheim has an historical model, fairly solidly grounded on the material realities. On the other hand, Durkheim’s analysis may be considered to be mainly descriptive, proposing some fairly straightforward observations concerning culture.

His notion of solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to the conventional sociological model of these, and may be considered to be widely accepted by all. The question is how these emerge, and whose interests they serve. Here the conflict approach differs dramatically from Durkheim. Finally, Durkheim’s analysis can be considered to be evolutionary and fairly optimistic.

For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in the division of labour as signalling higher stages of civilization. He does not consider there to be any grand plan to this, and no single factor which guides it. Rather, there is competition, which results in the development of the division of labour, and the outcome of this process cannot be predicted.

However, the result is generally positive, because people need each other, and this produces an organic solidarity in society.3. Abnormal forms of the division of labour At the end of The Division of Labor in Society, however, Durkheim does note that there can be problems in society. There are two abnormal forms of the division of labour, and the division of labour itself does not always function as well as it could in modern society.a.

Anomic division of labor, When there are industrial and commercial crises, there may be a partial break in organic solidarity. Also, where there is conflict between capital and labour, this may be an unusual situation. Part of this is caused by the increased separation of employee and employer under capitalism ( Division, p.354), so that the conditions for a lack of solidarity are expanded as capitalism and the division of labour develop.

This anomie is a sense of confusion and rootlessness, or lack of social regulation because of disruptions or rapid change in the division of labour. Examples are the Great Depression of the 1930s and the rapid expansion of the 1990s. In the latter, some sectors of business and business executives were insufficiently regulated by society, and seem to have viewed themselves above such regulation.

The corporate excesses and crimes that resulted are an example of anomie. Irregular forms such as crime are not treated as part of the breakdown, rather these are treated by Durkheim as differentiation ( Division, p.353), not part of division of labour.

Durkheim compares these with cancer, rather than with normal organs. The real problem is a lack of regulation or a weakened common morality that can occur in modern society. For example, in the economic sphere, there are no rules which fix the number of economic enterprises ( Division, p.366), and there is no regulation of production in each branch of industry.

This might be an overall form of irrationality, in Weber’s sense. There can be ruptures in equilibrium, capital labour relations may become indeterminate. In the scientific field there may be greater separation of different sciences. ( Division, p.367).

  1. If the division of labour does not produce solidarity in all these cases, it is because the relations of the organs are not regulated, because they are in a state of anomy,
  2. For the individual this means there are not sufficient moral constraints and individuals do not have a clear concept of what is proper and acceptable.

(Ritzer, p.85). See Appendix quote 10: Anomie, the state of anomy is impossible when solidary organs are sufficiently in contact or sufficiently prolonged. if some opaque environment is interposed, then only stimuli of a certain intensity can be communicated from one organ to another.

Relations, being rare, are not repeated enough to be determined, ( Division, pp.368-9). Durkheim also discusses conditions of the worker under capitalism in terms that come very close to Marx’s description of alienation and exploitation. He discusses the degrading nature of the division of labour on the worker, the possibility of monotonous routine, and the machine like actions of the worker.

( Division, p.371). However, Durkheim does not consider these to be the normal form, but one which results when the worker does not have a sufficient vision of the whole process of production. the division of labour does not produce these consequences because of a necessity of its own nature, but only in exceptional and abnormal circumstances.

See also:  How Red Law Indiana?

The division of labour presumes that the worker, far from being hemmed in by his task, does not lose sight of his collaborators, that he acts upon them, and reacts to them. He is, then, not a machine who repeats his movements without knowing their meaning, but he knows that they tend, in some way, towards an end that he conceives more or less distinctly.

( Division, p.372).b. Forced division of labour, The forced division of labour is where the division of labour is not allowed to develop spontaneously, and where some act to protect themselves and their positions. These could be traditional forms, which are external to the division of labour, or they could be castes, Weber’s status groups, or Marx’s classes.

  • Any factors that prevent individuals from achieving positions which would be consistent with their natural abilities indicates a force division of labour.
  • Ritzer notes (p.98) that this could be inequalities in the structure of work or inadequate organization, with the wrong people in particular positions or incoherent organizational structures.

Any interference with the operation of the division of labour that results in the position being filled by those who are not most apt for the position would be forced division of labour. Quote 11: Forced Division of Labour, We may say that the division of labour produces solidarity only if it is spontaneous and in proportion as it is spontaneous.

  1. In short, labor is divided spontaneously only if society is constituted in such a way that social inequalities exactly express natural inequalities.
  2. It consists, not in a state of anarchy which would permit men freely to satisfy all their good or bad tendencies, but in a subtle organization in which each social value, being neither overestimated nor underestimated by anything foreign to it, would be judged at its worth.

( Division, p.376). Examples of the forced division of labour include societies with slavery or a caste system, where some individuals are prevented from participating normally in the division of labour. Interferences with equality of opportunity, such as discrimination in hiring or in obtaining educational opportunities, are examples of forced division of labour.

  1. Class and wealth also interfere with such equal opportunity, but Durkheim views this as abnormal and not the normal tendency.
  2. Even this last inequality, which comes about through birth, though not completely disappearing, is at least somewhat attenuated.
  3. Society is forced to reduce this disparity as far as possible by assisting in various ways those who find themselves in a disadvantageous position and by aiding them to overcome it.” ( Division, p.379).4.

Role of state and occupational groups Having said that Durkheim was generally very optimistic concerning the development of the division of labour in developing an organic solidarity, Durkheim was also concerned with the state of modern society. The development of the division of labour did have the tendency to split people, and the organic solidarity might not be sufficient to hold society together.

One solution for regulation that Durkheim discusses is the state. In some senses, Durkheim was a socialist, although not of the same type as Marx. Ritzer notes that for Durkheim, socialism “simply represented a system in which moral principles discovered by scientific sociology could be applied.” (Ritzer, p.73).

While the principles of morality had to be present in society, the state could embody these in structures, fulfilling functions such as justice, education, health, social services, etc., and managing a wide range of sectors of society (Grabb, p.87). The state “should also be the key structure for ensuring that these rules are moral and just.

The appropriate values of individualism, responsibility, fair play, and mutual obligation can be affirmed through the policies instituted by the state in all these fields.” (Grabb, p.87). The second major hope that Durkheim held was for what he called occupational groups. The state could not be expected to play the integrative role that might be needed, because it was too remote.

As a solution, Durkheim thought that occupational or professional groups could provide the means of integration required. These would be formed by people in an industry, representing all the people in this sector. Their role would be somewhat different from Weber’s parties, in that they would not be concerned with exercising power, and achieving their own ends.

  • Instead, they would “foster the general interest of society at a level that most citizens can understand and accept.” (Grabb, p.88).
  • What we especially see in the occupational group is a moral power capable of containing individual egos, of maintaining a spirited sentiment of common solidarity in the consciousness of all the workers, of preventing the law of the strongest from being brutally applied to industrial and commercial relations.

(p.10). Ritzer notes that these associations could “recognize, common interests as well as common need for an integrative moral system. That moral system, would serve to counteract the tendency toward atomization in modern society as well as help stop the decline in significance of collective morality.” (pp.98-99).

What is Emile Durkheim most known for?

Émile Durkheim was a French sociologist who rose to prominence in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. Along with Karl Marx and Max Weber, he is credited as being one of the principal founders of modern sociology. Chief among his claims is that society is a sui generis reality, or a reality unique to itself and irreducible to its composing parts.

It is created when individual consciences interact and fuse together to create a synthetic reality that is completely new and greater than the sum of its parts. This reality can only be understood in sociological terms, and cannot be reduced to biological or psychological explanations. The fact that social life has this quality would form the foundation of another of Durkheim’s claims, that human societies could be studied scientifically.

For this purpose he developed a new methodology, which focuses on what Durkheim calls “social facts,” or elements of collective life that exist independently of and are able to exert an influence on the individual. Using this method, he published influential works on a number of topics.

  1. He is most well known as the author of On the Division of Social Labor, The Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide, and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,
  2. However, Durkheim also published a voluminous number of articles and reviews, and has had several of his lecture courses published posthumously.

When Durkheim began writing, sociology was not recognized as an independent field of study. As part of the campaign to change this he went to great lengths to separate sociology from all other disciplines, especially philosophy. In consequence, while Durkheim’s influence in the social sciences has been extensive, his relationship with philosophy remains ambiguous.

Nevertheless, Durkheim maintained that sociology and philosophy are in many ways complementary, going so far as to say that sociology has an advantage over philosophy, since his sociological method provides the means to study philosophical questions empirically, rather than metaphysically or theoretically.

As a result, Durkheim often used sociology to approach topics that have traditionally been reserved for philosophical investigation. For the purposes of this article, Durkheim’s strictly sociological thought will be set aside to allow his contributions to philosophy to take prominence.

What are 3 paradigms in sociology?

These three theoretical orientations are: Structural Functionalism, Symbolic Interactionism, and Conflict Perspective.

What is the functionalist paradigm?

The Functionalist Paradigm (Structural Functionalism) – The Functionalist paradigm describes society as stable and describes all of the various mechanisms that maintain social stability. Functionalism argues that the social structure is responsible for all stability and instability, and that that the social structure is continuously attempting to maintain social equilibrium (balance) among all of the components of society.

Functionalism argues that a stable society is the best possible society and any element that helps to maintain that stability must add to the adaptability (functionality) of society. This is a macro-level paradigm that describes large-scale processes and large- scale social systems; it is uninterested in individual behavior.

The Functionalist paradigm does a very good job of explaining the ways in which the institutions of society (the family, education, religion, law/politics/government, the economy, medicine, media) work together to create social solidarity (a social contract in which society as a whole agrees upon the rules of social behavior and agrees, more or less, to abide by those rules) and to maintain balance in society.

  • Functionalism, or Structural Functionalism, or the Functionalist paradigm describes the elements in society that create social stability FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE,
  • This paradigm, like the Conflict paradigm, is very interested in the structure of society and how it impacts people’s lives.
  • However, Functionalism sees the social structure as creating equilibrium or balance.

It also describes the various elements of society that maintain that balance. One of its basic premises is that society is structured to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Unfortunately, this perspective ignores minorities and is unable to explain inequality except to say that it must have a social function—it must make society more adaptable—simply because inequality has always existed.

Functionalism describes, analyzes, and is interested in any social element that maintains the status quo—keeps things as they are—and maintains social balance between and among all of the institutions of society (the family, education, religion, law/politics/government, the economy, medicine, and media).

The war in Iraqwhich began in 2003, according to the Functionalist paradigm, is being fought in order to maintain security and stability in the US by keeping terrorism at bay thousands of miles away. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack was an act of extreme deviance caused by anomic conditions (conditions of social chaos when the rules for normative behavior seem to have disappeared) in the Middle East and among Muslim people throughout the world.

Because of the cultural influence of the American media throughout the world, and because of the rapidity of social change taking place due to that cultural influence, the terrorists engaged in an act of deviance based on their belief that they were acting at the behest of God, and for the good of their own people, that took their own lives as well as the lives of thousands of others.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Socialization The socialization process is coercive, forcing us to accept to the values and norms of society. The values and norms of society are agreed upon by all members of society because there is a “social contract” in effect which protects us from one another and keeps society stable and balanced.

  1. People follow and accept the values and norms of society in order to maintain their own safety as well as maintaining the social order.
  2. The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Paradigm’s Explanation of the Social Structure The social structure exists in time and space, is objective/external, concrete, coercive.

and relatively static. Members of society see the social structure as legitimate (acceptable and working properly) and therefore strive to maintain that social structure. Legitimation (acceptability) maintains social equilibrium or balance which maintains the status quo.

The structure itself creates consensus. The social structure is stable The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Bureaucracies The bureaucracy exists to serve the needs of society. The bureaucracy provides for the economic and social needs of a society and helps to maintain social stability.

The bureaucracy is a major characteristic of large-scale industrial societies. The bureaucracy is the response to large-scale formal organizations. The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Deviance Behaviors are not offensive because they are deviant; they are deviant because they offend.

  1. Deviance is usually dysfunctional for society and arises from conditions of anomie.
  2. Deviance may be functional for society because it may bring about necessary social change.
  3. Deviance is integral to human societies.
  4. Deviance exists in all societies, and all societies create institutionalized methods of preventing and punishing deviance.

T he Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Inequality Inequality is less widespread than the Conflictualists believe. Inequality, in general, is functional for society because it engenders competition which serves as an incentive for people to attempt to rise to the top.

Inequality, overall, is highly dysfunctional for society because it fails to permit large groups of people from competing for the goods of society. Inequality is always functional (adaptive) for some segments of society and dysfunctional (non-adaptive) for others. The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of the Family The family creates well-integrated members of society and teaches culture to the new members of society.

The family provides important ascribed statuses such as social class and ethnicity to new members. The family regulates sexual activity. Family is responsible for social replacement by reproducing new members, to replace its dying members. Family gives individuals property rights and also affords the assignment and maintenance of kinship order.

  1. Families offer material and emotional security and provides care and support for the individuals who need to be taken care of.
  2. The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Education Enhances the operation and stability of society by systematically teaching certain cognitive skills and knowledge, and transmitting these skills and knowledge from one generation to the next generation.

Education has several manifest and latent functions for society. Cultural transmission passes culture from one generation to the next and established social values are taught thoroughly. EducationUH also serves to enhance social and cultural integration in society by bringing together people from diverse social backgrounds so that they share widespread social experiences and thus acquire commonly held societal HUnormsUH, attitudes and beliefs.

The Structural Functionalist Paradigm’s Explanation of Religion Religion (along with the family and law) serves to legitimate (make acceptable) the social structure of any given society. Religion (along with the family and law) helps to maintain social stability and balance by binding people to the normative aspects of their society.

Religion (along with law) provides a system of behavioral guidelines for society.

What are the 3 major sociological paradigms of deviance?

Learning Objectives – By the end of this section, you should be able to:

  • Describe the functionalist view of deviance in society through four sociologist’s theories
  • Explain how conflict theory understands deviance and crime in society
  • Describe the symbolic interactionist approach to deviance, including labeling and other theories

Figure 7.4 Functionalists believe that deviance plays an important role in society and can be used to challenge people’s views. Protesters, such as these PETA members, often use this method to draw attention to their cause. (Credit: David Shankbone/flickr) Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories that attempt to explain what deviance and crime mean to society.

What are the 5 paradigms?

4.1 Abstract – Since the 1950s, psychologists have studied the behavioral aspects of computer programming. However, it has been difficult to integrate their data with theory because of the mixture of psychological paradigms that have guided their research.

  • This chapter will review the research results that have been generated under the five psychological paradigms used most often in exploring programming problems.
  • These five paradigms are 1) individual differences, 2) group behavior, 3) organizational behavior, 4) human factors, and 5) cognitive science.

The major theoretical and practical contributions of each area to the theory and practice of software engineering will be discussed. Based on current trends, it appears that research guided by the paradigm of cognitive science will be the easiest to integrate with new developments in artificial intelligence and computer science theory. Copyright © 1988 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

What are the 2 paradigms?

Highlights – • Software development research is divided into two incommensurable paradigms. • The Rational Paradigm emphasizes problem solving, planning and methods. • The Empirical Paradigm emphasizes problem framing, improvisation and practices. • The Empirical Paradigm is based on data and science; the Rational Paradigm is based on assumptions and opinions.

What are the main paradigms?

Research Paradigms Described Four major paradigms seem to compete in qualitative inquiry: positiv- ism, postpositivism, critical theory, and constructivism.

What is paradigm and its types?

A Paradigm is a set of theories and assumptions that comprise a worldview, or developed framework that informs action. Explore examples of where three major theoretical paradigms appear in sociology: Structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory. Updated: 10/16/2021.

What is paradigm in theory?

July 2020) In science and philosophy, a paradigm (/ˈpærədaɪm/) is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns, including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what constitute legitimate contributions to a field.

What is an example of a paradigm?

Paradigms in Science – Paradigms provide models upon which “particular coherent traditions of scientific research” can be based. For example, the scientific method itself is a paradigm (though which “science” views the world: a traditional Western, empirical, quantitative approach to studying things).

Another example of a paradigm is the theory of evolution. Evolution is the underlying structure which best fits the observable evidence in fields as diverse as biology (the evolution of species), geology (the evolution of the earth), and cosmology (the evolution of the stars, the galaxies, and the universe).

A third example is Newtonian mechanics. This was the basic paradigm for physics until Einstein came a long and demonstrated that relativity was a better fit to the available facts a better approximation to the real world. Its not that mechanics was false and relativity true.

Newtonian mechanics fit most of the available data found in the everyday existence of human beings, but broke down at extremes of mass and speed. But as a model, it was and is still very useful when dealing with the engineering, construction, and use of the technology and artifacts that people use in everyday life.

Newtonian mechanics has been replaced as the dominant paradigm in physics, but it is not false, because it never was true. It is simply a model of how things work, and is either useful for ones purpose or it is not useful. Like theories, paradigms are “useful fictions.” Like theories, they provide a framework upon which we can hang many or most of the observable facts (data) and better see the relationships among those facts.

Paradigms are often theories that help define entire areas of study (“disciplines”). But the notion of paradigms that shape our world-view has been expanded beyond science to everyday life. Kuhns original focus was on the creation, testing, and replacement of major scientific theories with better theories closer approximations to the observable data.

Today, the term has been popularized to refer to things as simple as beliefs, attitudes and tastes. In this sense, a paradigm is analogous to a set of glasses one puts on. If the lenses are yellow, we see the world as yellow. After a while, we forget we have decided to look at the world through yellow lenses we simply believe that the world is yellow.

What are the inequalities of capitalism?

Other Types of Inequality in Capitalism – Monopoly Power, The above types of inequality may seem ‘fair’ or justified. If you work hard, you get to benefit from your enterprise. However, capitalism can also lead to inequality which may be seen as unfair.

For example, a firm may develop monopoly power. Then it is in a position to charge consumers artificially high prices and deter entry. If firms have monopsony power, they can get away with paying a wage much lower than the productivity of the worker. Workers have no choice but to work for a very low wage.

Therefore, capitalists with access to private property can ‘exploit’ their monopoly power to make a much higher profit than other people in society. Inheritance, Another aspect of capitalism is that private property can be passed on from one generation to another.

Therefore those who inherit capital can enjoy high income even without any effort. They have access to the best private education and jobs. This creates inequality of opportunity as well as inequality of outcome. These types of inequality mean that there isn’t a level playing field; some in society get an unfair advantage, and there isn’t equality of opportunity.

It is hard to argue that capitalism won’t inevitably lead to inequality. A principle of capitalism is to allow income and wages to be distributed by the free market. The only way to ensure wage equality would be through government intervention. Some people who support a ‘capitalist system’ may argue there is also still necessary for the government to redress some of the inequalities of capitalist society.

Capitalism vs Socialism Advantages of Capitalism Problems of Capitalism

What laws support capitalism?

Property law, employment contract law and corporate law are central to the maintenance of that stratification because they fix ownership of assets within one class while organising the obligations of the other classes as different types of workers.

What is the main reason that inequality is common in a capitalist system?

Political legitimation – As a consequence of the Thirty Years’ War and the civil war, the United Kingdom installed a parliament. However, only a small fraction of the population was represented in it, namely the nobility in the upper house and the bourgeoisie in the lower house.

Well into the twentieth century, government and leading bureaucrats were recruited only from these two groups. It was a democracy of capital owners (Polanyi Levitt, 2013: 147). This changed only with the social reforms by the Labour Party after the Second World War. Textbooks tell us that the French and American revolutions made democracy a reality and that the West became democratic.

However, many European states witnessed democratic revolutions only in the twentieth century or not at all. And until the twentieth century, the majority of the population was excluded from democracy, even in France and the US. Slaves and workers gained citizen rights in the late nineteenth century, women and people from the colonies in the twentieth.

  • Some groups, such as foreigners and convicts, are denied citizen rights up to this day in many countries.
  • Democracy was introduced step by step over centuries.
  • The formerly underprivileged groups remain underprivileged because their lack of means and respect was never compensated for.
  • Today, most nation states call themselves democracies: Great Britain with a monarch and an aristocracy privileged by the constitution, Sweden with a strong social system and a monarch (and the highest wealth inequality in the world), Switzerland with elements of a direct democracy and China with a communist one-party rule.

None of these countries has made equality a reality. They differ significantly from one another but they have in common that capitalists are privileged. The differences result from history and political struggles. Some countries have abolished many privileges of the nobility and some have even limited the privileges of capital.

The structures of domination, however, with a tiny privileged group dominating the rest of society persist everywhere. The degree of inequality in capitalist societies is evident to any observer. At the same time, democracy proclaims the ideal of equality. In any democracy, there is a tension between the concentration of capital and the ideal of equality.

It plays out as a conflict between state and economy (or “market”). In principle, the population has the option to change the status quo and to achieve more equality via the state. Capitalists try to prevent this and have many powers to do so but the possibility of creating more equality exists and is sometimes realized.

That this rarely happens is partly due to the symbolic universe of capitalism and the way inequality is legitimized. Inequality in capitalism is supposed to be the result of competition between free and equal individuals – in contrast to other forms of organized states, which were openly unequal. The meritocratic myth was shaped by mainstream social science since the seventeenth century, especially by liberal traditions.

Even though it clearly contradicts everything we experience every day, all of us believe at least to some degree in the meritocratic myth: we are all equal, all opportunities are open to everyone of us, inequality results from competition on a level playing field, and whoever lives in misery has to take at least some of the blame.

  1. Liberalism and the meritocratic myth can be traced back to Thomas Hobbes who published his main work, Leviathan (Hobbes, 1986 HOBBES, Thomas.
  2. Leviathan.
  3. London: Penguin Books, 1986.), in the midst of the English civil war in 1651.
  4. Hobbes applied Galileo’s mechanics to society and interpreted human beings as identical atoms.
See also:  What Is Required For The Law Of One Price To Hold The Law Of One Price Will Hold Exactly If?

Just like Galileo explained the physical world on the basis of one single defining characteristic of the atom, namely movement, Hobbes explained the social world on the basis of the defining characteristic of the human, namely survival or self-interest.

  • Since self-interested beings would kill each other in an endless competition, Hobbes called for a regulating force: each individual transfers some of its powers to the sovereign (or state) that limits self-interested action and guarantees a peaceful competition.
  • Hobbes suggested that a monarch be the best incorporation of the sovereign but a century later, Rousseau replaced the monarch by the idea of a democracy, which was then partly realized by the American and French revolutions.

Adam Smith’s economics is basically an application of Hobbes’ socio-political science to the economy. In the Wealth of Nations, published in the same year as the American Declaration of Independence (1776), Smith explains that the market guarantees a maximum of productivity, quality and price efficiency, if it is an unfettered competition between legally free and equal individuals (Smith, 2007).

  1. The same should be true for the world market of nation states.
  2. Nations and individuals should pursue their self-interest and, in the course, specialize on what they do best.
  3. Thereby, they would acquire relative advantages.
  4. Smith suggests a similar role for the state as Hobbes: to regulate markets in such a way that a free and equal competition is possible.

Just like Hobbes, Smith ignores the inequalities between individuals (and nations) before any competition. He takes for granted that there are capitalists and laborers and that capitalists should get the profits and laborers a wage to secure their subsistence (Smith, 2007: 7).

  • He has no problem admitting that there are classes in society and that people are born into and die in their class.
  • Since the advent of democracy, this is no longer acknowledged.
  • Everyone is supposed to be equal – in spite of the existence of slavery, exclusion of women and no voting rights for the poor.

Today, with full suffrage for (almost) everyone and full economic rights for all, this seems to be a problem of the past.

What is capitalist in distributive justice?

Distributive Justice:

  • Distributive Justice:
  • One of the things that can be evaluated as just of unjust is the distribution of the benefits and burdens of a society,
  • Contrast this notion of “Justice” with two other notions:

Retributive Justice: (Lex Talionis). That principle of justice which requires that we “give back (re-tribute) to the giver what he initially gave.” Alternatively, it is the motivation behind the idea of “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Most often this principle of justice is invoked to justify the punishment of crimes.

  1. This is the concern (arguably) of criminal courts.
  2. Also contrast with: Compensatory Justice: That principle of justice which requires that individuals be compensated for effort they have expended or harms they have suffered.
  3. Here the aim is not punishment for a crime or sin or moral infraction, but rather compensation.

This is the concern of civil courts when plaintiffs seek compensatory (not punitive) damages. It is also the concern of arbiters seeking “just wages.” Distributive Justice is concerned with the just distribution of societal burdens and benefits. Any given society with limited resources has only a certain amount of assorted benefits which it can bestow in a number of different ways on its members.

Given the limited resources, who should get the goodies and how much of them should they get?

Given the necessary burdens generated by social groupings, who should get the nasty jobs? Who should shoulder the unpleasant work, live in the not-so-nice part of town in the not-so-nice houses?

In short, every society with limited resources must decide who will get the ocean-view condo’s and who will live next to the elevator. The following Theories of Distributive Justice express competing views as to which of these ways is just. Various Answers: Theories of Just Distribution Any notion of distributive justice accepts the idea that ” equals should be treated equally and unequals treated unequally,” (Purely formal principle of logic).

Granted by all parties is that “like cases should be decided alike and where we decide differently we must provide the morally relevant difference which justifies the distinction.” But WHAT makes (or would make) a relevant difference? Is it size, shape, color, race, creed, religion, sexual orientation? Are differences in character, need, ability, effort, or productivity relevant? The following theories make out what they take to be the relevant differences among the members of society in virtue of which they are entitle to unequal portions of the benefits and burdens.

Egalitarianism For a just distribution each member of society should get completely equal shares of the burdens and benefits. Egalitarians usually contend that there are no relevant differences among the members of society to justify unequal treatment.

Therefore, a just distribution according to an egalitarian is one in which every member of society is given exactly equal shares of society’s benefits and burdens. The argument for this view depends on the notion that all human beings are equal (in some fundamen­tal respect) and that in recognition of this they ought to be accorded equal shares of society’s burdens and benefits.

Socialism (Distribution Based on Needs and Abilities) (The Theory, not the Political Party) Burdens and benefits should be distributed on the basis of abilities and needs. Or more specifically, the position claims that work burdens should be distributed on the basis of abilities and benefits should be distributed on the basis of need.

  1. Further, the benefits produced by such an arrangement should be distributed so as to maximize the welfare of the society, aimed first at meeting the “basic biologi­cal needs” of the members of society, then other “non-basic needs” until ultimately meeting the “luxury wants.”
  2. Notice how this contrasts with Egalitarianism. Rather than claiming that there are NO relevant differences that would justify a difference in distribution of burdens and benefits, they claim that there ARE relevant differences (needs and abilities) and to overlook these differences would be unjust (treating unequals and equals)
  3. Protestant Work Ethic (Distribution based on Contribution)

Note: This is sometime referred to as the ‘Work Ethic’ or the ‘Puritan Work Ethic’. But it is widely held by people of varied or even no particular religious convictions and many Protestants reject it. For a just distribution each member of society should be rewarded in proportion to his or her (socially) productive work.

Some theorists argue that the benefits and burdens of society should be distributed on the basis of the contributions that the individual makes to society. The more people con­tribute through their work, for example, the more they should receive of the benefits of that society. This raises the question: how is “contribution” to be measured? One way would be to reward on the basis of the effort an individual expends in his attempt to contribute to society (whether he is actually successful or not).

The idea behind this is that hard work is a good thing (virtuous ) and people should engage in hard work and should not avoid it. When they work hard they deserve more and should be rewarded. Another way of rewarding on the basis of contribution is to assess the actual productivity of the individual.

The question here is not whether the individual has actually worked hard to further the ends of society, but whether he has in fact contributed to the society. On this view of dis­tributive justice, the just distribution rewards, not on the basis of effort, but on the basis of results, the quality of the product of the individual, regardless of the labor that went into the production of that product.

(This seems to diverge from the original justification and relies rather on notions of social responsibility and gratitude.) Usually along with the Protestant Work Ethics there is a commitment to the DUTY of charity. If an individual is unable to contribute to society (too young, too old, or infirm, etc.) then society as a duty to look after him.

They may differ on the extent of the charity owed such individual (health care, housing, education, art?), but they do believe that a society which ignores this obligation is acting unjustly. It is worth noting that a system of distributive justice which sees the just distribution as the one proportional to individual merit would seem to rest on the presumption of freewill and personal responsibility.

Productive people merit more only if one assumes that they are personally responsible for their productivity. Further, unproductive people only merit less if “it is their own fault” that they are unproductive. The Protestant Work Ethic is consistent with this, in that it makes exceptions for charity cases.

  • Libertarianism (Distribution Based on Freedom)
  • (The Theory, not the Political Party)
  • The just distribution is whatever distribution results from free exchange.
  • They take themselves to be heirs to philosopher Immanuel Kant.

No particular distribution can be said to be just or unjust apart from the free choices individuals make (Note the anti-consequentialist, intentionalist character to the theory- like Kant.). Any distribution of the benefits and burdens of society is just if it resulted from the free choices of the members of that society,

It may be stated (albeit awkwardly) as follows: From each according to what he chooses to do (give), to each according to what he makes for himself (perhaps with the contracted aid of others) and what others choose to do for him and choose to give him or what they have been given (under this maxim) and haven’t yet expended or transferred.

Any distribution that results from an attempt to impose a certain pattern on society (for instance, imposing equality on everyone or taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots) will therefore be unjust- no matter how noble it may appear since it is coercive.

  1. Libertarians take the Kantian notion that coercion is wrong and run with it.
  2. They seem committed to the idea that coercion is the ONLY intrinsically wrong action.
  3. The only thing that could make a distribution unjust is that it resulted from coercive practices.
  4. And the only thing that could make a distribution just is that it resulted from free exchanges.) Note: the idea of “deserving” has dropped away here.

LeBron James doesn’t deserve the money he has. Rather, he is entitled to it only because people have freely given it to him. Libertarians have no “target” distribution in mind (as the previous theories do) and are wary of any such utopian targets. Often the only way to arrive at such targets is through the coercive re-distribution of wealth, unjustly taking the justly acquired goods of one in order to distribute them to some other.

  1. This is why they object to taxation for social spending programs (health care, welfare, the NEA, etc.).
  2. All taxation is a coercive use of government power.
  3. Notice the I.R.S.
  4. Is not simply suggesting that you contribute, but threatening with fines and prison).
  5. While taxation for the military, police and legal system is a necessary evil to safeguard our freedom, and thus a just activity of government, taxation for social welfare programs has no such justification.

When governments do so they exceed their just charter and abuse their power. Closely related to Libertarianism are the Notions of Negative and Positive Rights, and Contractualism, Negative Right: A right, the observance of which requires only that others to not interfere with the holder.

  1. A “freedom from.” Consider the constitutional right to property.
  2. This does NOT mean that the government/society is obligated to provide you with property; it only means that if you already have property, the government has to see that you are left alone.
  3. Similarly with the freedom of religion (Government does not need to see that everyone has one.) and freedom of press (Government does not need to see that every citizen has a newspaper in which to publish his or her views.).

Notice I can respect each and every one of your negative rights simply by staying at home and leaving you alone. Positive Rights: A right, the observance of which requires that others provide a good or service for the holder. An “entitlement.” Some claim that we have a right to healthcare and by this they do not merely mean that we have a negative right to healthcare, that we may pursue healthcare free from interference.

  1. But rather they mean that each of us is entitled to healthcare (of some minimal standard) and that if society fails to provide any of us with healthcare then the rights of this person have been violated.
  2. Contractualism : The ethical position which claims that one has no positive moral obligations to anyone else other than those one freely accepts.

(I do not OWE anyone anything.) All morality requires is that I don’t actively harm anyone; I am not morally obligated to help anyone out unless I choose to do so- ( e.g. I agree to watch your purse while you go on the rollercoaster.). Whether there are such things as “positive rights” is a matter of debate.

The Contractualist seems to believe that there are none. But even among those who reject Contractualism, the lists of alleged positive rights vary. It is worth noting that the more recently drafted “Bills of Rights” and national constitutions are, the more likely they are to contain positive rights. The contains many.

(See article 24 for instance.) If there ARE positive rights, say to healthcare, than a libertarian might be persuaded that taxation for Medicare, like taxation for the military, is also a necessary evil required to safeguard the rights of the citizens and therefore justified.

Justice as Fairness John Rawls’ theory is based on the assumption before we state what principles of distribution are just, we must first devise a fair method for choosing principles, Once a fair method for choosing the principles is devised, the principles we choose using this method should serve as our own principles of distributive justice.

Veil of Ignorance To see if a principle is just or not, we must first determine whether original bargainers would select it from “behind the veil of ignorance.” That is, imagine normal, self-interested people in a hypothetical position of getting to select what principles would govern distribution in a future society.

The condition is that they will have to live in that society AND they don’t know who they will be in the society. They don’t know if they will be rich or poor, what race they will be, old, young. In short, they know none of their empirically determined features. Whatever principles these original bargainers select then will, necessarily, be fair to everyone and will not be based on personal advantage (since they lack the information to craft principles based on personal advantage).

Rawls proposes two basic principles that he argues we would select if we were to use a fair method for choosing principles for resolving social conflicts. The principles of distributive justice that Rawls proposes can be paraphrased by saying that the distribution of benefits and burdens in a society is just if and only if: 1.

  1. and
  2. 2. Social and Economic inequalities are arranged so that they are both;
  3. a.) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons in society
  4. b.) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
  5. So note, while Rawls is an egalitarian with regard to political burdens and benefits, he would tolerate inequalities in the distribution of social burdens and benefits provided they adhere to conditions 2a and 2b
  6. Capitalism
  7. Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Capitalism is better thought of as a system of distribution rather than a theory of distributive justice. I mean by that that Capitalism is a system where burdens and benefits are distributed more or less according to market forces. When individuals argue in favor of capitalism as the best or the preferred system of distribution they usually do so on the basis of other moral theories of distributive justice.

Three Arguments for Capitalism: 1. Capitalism is a system that insures that individuals are rewarded in proportion to their productive effort. Therefore, this is the system that most nearly approximates the Protestant Work Ethic ideal distribution.2. Capitalism is a system built on a foundation of respect for individuals’ rights to private property and free exchange.

Therefore, this is the system that most nearly approximates the Libertarian ideal distribution.3. Capitalism has been seen to be the most beneficial system of distribution, motivating the most talented and creative to complete and innovate and to provide better goods at lower prices and thereby secure larger market shares.

  • Therefore, this system most nearly approximates the goals of an Utilitarian, securing the greatest good for the greatest number.
  • Critiques of these Arguments: 1.
  • There is nothing in the system that guarantees that individuals will be rewarded according to their productive effort.
  • They will only be rewarded to the extent that the market dictates.

And that is a function of demand (a fickle public, marketing, fashion) and supply (which increases and decreases according to forces unconnected with “social worth”). Also there is nothing in the Capitalist system the speaks to our obligation to look after those who cannot look after themselves.2.

First, critics of Libertarianism would be unmoved by this defense. But there is a more nuanced critique here. There is a presumption that these “free exchanges” are between individuals in symmetric relationships; that is, in positions of relatively equal power. But such symmetric relationships rarely occur in real life.

And Capitalism per se does nothing to regulate these exchanges to insure that they are indeed fair. Further, capital has been produced, historically, via all sorts of oppressive and coercive means (slavery, violence, threats of violence, deception). If I received wealth from my father, say, who used coercive means to get it, then it really does not belong to me, since it was not his to give.

Likewise, if I made money in a system that came into existence by coercive means, the profit I generate is similarly tainted. Finally, even a Libertarian would have to acknowledge the need for taxation in order to secure the protection of individual rights. And if there are positive rights, then the even this Libertarian defense of capitalism would have to consent to a modification allowing for taxation to address these entitlement rights.3.

Most will acknowledge that Capitalism does spur economic growth, innovation and development. Marx believed a capitalist phase in economic evolution was necessary for this very reason, even as we progress to a Communist utopia. However, there is nothing in Capitalism per se which assures that all or most members of society will see these benefits.

Critics of capitalism point to the disparity between rich and poor, the mindless and monotonous work heaped upon the vast majority of laborers, and the crass materialism they allege capitalism to encourage. Adam Smith (1723-1790) Smith seems to have agreed with David Hume that humans have a natural impulse to sympathy, and that helping one’s fellow humans is inextricably bound to one’s one happiness and success.

If so, then economic individualism (Capitalism) would naturally result in societal flourishing. Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others and render their happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.” Accordingly, Smith approved of individuals freely pursuing their “self-interest” since it was paradoxically “other directed.” Smith did not view compassion for others and individual self-interest as contradictory, but rather as complementary.

  • Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only,” Charity, government regulated and enforced or not, cannot sustain a vibrant and innovative economy or system of wealth distribution.
  • Self-interested economic individualism (capitalism) can, he believed.

Said Smith: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest” (ibid.). A final word about Private Property: Most who defend the notion of private property being a right suggest that value is often created through work.

Since I have the “right” to self determination and to my body, I can do with it what I like (within certain limitations) and no one else has that right. Likewise, my labor is “mine” and the increased value created by my labor is mine. I therefore have a right to that value and no one else does. All this to say that defender of private property say that individuals have the right to determine what to do with their bodies, their labor and the fruits of their labor.

In short, I own what a make and I am free to keep it, sell it, trade it or give it away. These are the free exchanges within the capitalist system. However, note that Marx would critique this by pointing out that the factory owner is not the producer of the value, but rather the factory workers are.

  • The owner of the factory can lay little claim on the value produced by the factory workers.
  • That value belongs mostly, if not entirely, to the laborers, Marx would claim.
  • Critics of Marx would claim that the owner invested risk capital for there to be a factory at all.
  • They would also point out that the laborers negotiated to work for and agreed upon compensation package.

: Distributive Justice: