Editing Émile Durkheim (section)

==== Culture ====
Groups, when interacting, create their own culture and attach powerful emotions to it, thus making ''[[culture]]'' another key social fact.<ref name="Allan_110">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=110}}</ref> Durkheim was one of the first scholars to consider the question of culture so intensely.<ref name="Allan_103" /> Durkheim was interested in [[cultural diversity]], and how the existence of diversity nonetheless fails to destroy a society. To that, Durkheim answered that any apparent cultural diversity is overridden by a larger, common, and more generalized cultural system, and the [[law]].<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=111, 127}}</ref>

In a [[Sociocultural evolution|socio-evolutionary]] approach, Durkheim described the evolution of societies from [[mechanical solidarity]] to [[organic solidarity]] (one rising from mutual need).<ref name="Allan_103" /><ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref name="psz500">{{harvp|Sztompka|2002|p=500}}</ref><ref name="Allan_125">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=125}}</ref> As societies become more complex, evolving from mechanical to organic solidarity, the [[division of labour]] is counteracting and replacing to collective consciousness.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /><ref name="Allan_137">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=137}}</ref> In the simpler societies, people are connected to others due to personal ties and traditions; in the larger, modern society they are connected due to increased reliance on others with regard to them performing their specialized tasks needed for the modern, highly complex society to survive.<ref name="Calhoun2002-10632" /> In mechanical solidarity, people are self-sufficient, there is little integration, and thus there is the need for use of force and repression to keep society together.<ref name="psz500"/>{{Citation needed|date=July 2023|reason=Provided source does not appear to actually suggest that Durkheim considered societies of 'mechanical' solidarity less integrated - in fact Durkheim implies the opposite. Sztompka also does not seem to express such a view here, but this could be my reading.}} Also, in such societies, people have much fewer options in life.<ref name="Allan_123">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=123}}</ref>{{Clarify|date=July 2023}} In organic solidarity, people are much more integrated and interdependent, and specialization and cooperation are extensive.<ref name="psz500" />{{Citation needed|date=July 2023|reason=See reason given in "citation needed" tag two sentences prior.}} Progress from mechanical to organic solidarity is based first on [[population growth]] and increasing [[population density]], second on increasing "morality density" (development of more complex [[social interaction]]s) and thirdly, on the increasing specialization in workplace.<ref name="psz500" /> One of the ways mechanical and organic societies differ is the function of law: in mechanical society the law is focused on its [[punishment|punitive]] aspect, and aims to reinforce the cohesion of the community, often by making the punishment public and extreme; whereas in the organic society the law focuses on repairing the damage done and is more focused on individuals than the community.<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=123–24}}</ref>

One of the main features of the modern, organic society is the importance, [[sacredness]] even, given to the concept—social fact—of the [[individual]].<ref name="Allan_132-133">{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=132–33}}</ref> The individual, rather than the collective, becomes the focus of rights and responsibilities, the center of public and private rituals holding the society together—a function once performed by the religion.<ref name="Allan_132-133" /> To stress the importance of this concept, Durkheim talked of the "cult of the individual":<ref name=":1">Durkheim, Émile. 1974 [1953]. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=oCBNzbCG2N0C&q=editions:7biAPRA5u8AC Sociology and Philosophy]'', translated by [[David Francis Pocock|D. F. Pocock]], with introduction by J. G. Peristiany. Toronto: [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-02-908580-6}}. {{LCCN|74-19680}}.</ref><blockquote>Thus very far from there being the antagonism between the individual and society which is often claimed, moral individualism, the cult of the individual, is in fact the product of society itself. It is society that instituted it and made of man the god whose servant it is.</blockquote>Durkheim saw the [[population density]] and [[population growth|growth]] as key factors in the evolution of the societies and advent of [[modernity]].<ref>{{harvp|Allan|2005|pp=125, 134}}</ref> As the number of people in a given area increase, so does the number of interactions, and the society becomes more complex.<ref name="Allan_125" /> Growing [[competition]] between the more numerous people also leads to further division of labour.<ref name="Allan_125" /> In time, the importance of the state, the law and the individual increases, while that of the religion and moral solidarity decreases.<ref name="Allan_134">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=134}}</ref>

In another example of evolution of culture, Durkheim pointed to [[fashion]], although in this case he noted a more [[social cycle|cyclical]] phenomenon.<ref name="Allan_113">{{harvp|Allan|2005|p=113}}</ref> According to Durkheim, fashion serves to differentiate between [[Working class|lower classes]] and [[upper class]]es, but because lower classes want to look like the upper classes, they will eventually adapt the upper class fashion, depreciating it, and forcing the upper class to adopt a new fashion.<ref name="Allan_113"/>