Parsons, Talcott.

mile Durkheim, III : The development of the Theory of Social

Control.

[Introduction]

Dukheim had two maior interests: the theory of social control and Religion
(representations).

Empirical insights are often well ahead of theoretical and especially methodological
formulations of their implications, and in the present instance this is certainly true of
Durkheim. [376]

Normative rule and a mechanism of control. Thus the emphasis on the normative rule as
an agency controlling individual conduct, for which it was so difficult find a place in his
earlier methodology, is from the start in the center of empirical attention. [376-7]

Stability of social relations and personal equilibrium. The basis of this general thesis
finds perhaps its clearest theoretical formulation in the discussion of anomie in the
Suicide. There, not merely contractual relations but stable social relations in general and
even the personal equilibrium of the members of a social group are seen to be dependent
on the existence of a normative structure in relation to conduct, generally accepted as
having moral authority by the members of the community, and upon their effective
subordination to these norms. [377]

Perfect integration. Coordinate with and opposite to the state of anomie is that of
"perfect integration" which implies two thingsthat the body of normative elements
governing conduct in a community forms a consistent system and that its control over
the individual is actually effective that it gets itself obeyed. [377]

Individual element x Normative rule. Back of this lies a fundamental theoretical

distinction which becomes sharper and sharper in Durkheim's mind. On the one hand,
there is the element of chaotic, undisciplined impulse and desirethe "individual"
element in Durkheim's sense; on the other hand, the normative rule ; in order that the
whole conception of normative control may make sense in the way in which Durkheim
thinks of it these two elements must be kept radically heterogeneous in principle. For
unless in "individual" desires there were this inherently chaotic "centrifugal" quality the
need of control would not be present at all [377-8]

Comments: Durkheims concern with social control was there in his eraly works, but the
methodological formulation of this problens were absent. As Parson said, this theory in
grounded in Durkheims eraly works, therefore a great number of the suppositions and
basic theoretical standings derive from these sources, see the words in bold.
[Further comments second reading]

The first phase of Durkheims thought begins in The division of labor and is strongly
linked to his critics of utitarianism: conciliation of interests x binding rules (normative
rules), that is, the contract is only possible because certain normative rules bind the
contractual parts to a set of rules, otherwise the contract would be impraticable.
(Normative rule as an agency controling individual conduct)

Suicide. The basis of this general thesis finds perhaps its clearest theoretical formulation
in the discussion of anomie in the Suicide. There, not merely contractual relations but
stable social relations in general and even the personal equilibrium of the members of a
social group are seen to be dependent on the existence of a normative structure in
relation to conduct, generally accepted as having moral authority by the members of the
community, and upon their effective subordination to these norms. They not merely
regulate the individual's choice of means to his ends, but his very needs and desires
themselves are determined in part by them. [377]

Critics of Utilitarianism (pressumptions). Back of this lies a fundamental theoretical

distinction which becomes sharper and sharper in Durkheim's mind. On the one hand,
there is the element of chaotic, undisciplined impulse and desirethe "individual"
element in Durkheim's sense; on the other hand, the normative rule ; in order that the
whole conception of normative control may make sense in the way in which Durkheim
thinks of it these two elements must be kept radically heterogeneous in principle. For
unless in "individual" desires there were this inherently chaotic "centrifugal" quality the
need of control would not be present at all. Moreover it is important to note that the
analysis is couched in terms of the subjective point of view of the actor. [378]

Comments: It seems to me that this position changes along the development of

Durkheims theory of social control.

The changing meaning of constraint

The way these things fit into Durkheims methodological system is shown in the
development of the concept of constrain

1 Phase of the concept.

As was stated in the last chapter, the starting point of the concept isby contrast with
the utilitarian conception of an "arbitrary" individual want, desire or motivetaken
from the point of view of the actor. Then any element in his action is a constraining
element which is not spontaneous or arbitrary, but which is part of the general "given"
situation in terms of which he must actwhich is thus beyond his control. Thus it
seems to lay emphasis on the situation as opposed to the ends of action. Now, from this
point of view any element which forms a part of the determinism of external nature
exercises constraint over the individual and the term constraint has a tendency to
become identified with causal dependence in general. [378]

Comments: 1 Ph. Constrain : 1) Starting point; 2) Enphasis on the situation; 3) Causal

dependence.

It has been shown how, by his doctrine of "social realism" he was forced to throw out
one category of causal forcesall those which, though in this sense constraining the
individual, were causally independent of his social relations.[378] Question: So, does it
mean that he ruled out normative rules? If it was so, what, then, remained? Social
forces?

Being, at the time he wrote his Regies, presumably preoccupied mth the objective study
of suicide statistics, he seems, for the time being, to have lost sight of the problems
raised by his treatment of normative rules in the Division of Labor... [378]

Comments; So, did constrain in this first phase assume the meaning of a causal
relation? For example: the courrant suicidognes constrain the individual like a
phisical force to... Does it mean that the role accomplished by normative rules was ruled
out? or a least were not concerned here?

Parsons critics: Using the concept of constrain in this way intails some problens,
because people do not observe social rules as we observe phisical laws.

Comments: For Parsons, contrain as defined above is independent from all human
will

2 Phase of the concept

In a late passage Durkheim clearly distinguishes in this respect between a sanction and
what may be called the "natural" consequences of an act. [379]

Rules of this sort do constrain human action in a sense. This is simply one way of
stating the fact that action is subject to conditions. [379]

Comments: Two meanings of constrain? 1) Someone is constrained to eat in order not

to die and 2) someone is contrained to conform himself to certain standards in order to
avoid possible sanctions?
This distinction, elementary as it may seem, is a most important step for Durkheim.
While it enables him to maintain his original critical starting point that the constraining
element is independent of the actor's will, he no longer implies that it is independent of
all human will as he did at first. On the contrary, it is precisely the fact that it is an
expression of human will which distinguishes social from natural constraint. [380]

Comments: 1) Independence from the actors will x Independence from humain will; 2)
Social constrain x Natural constrain.

It is significant that at this stage Durkheim seems to think of a rule and its sanctions as
morally or emotionally neutral to the actor. The actor is thought of as if he were a
dispassionate and objective scientist. Just as the conditions of biological existence are
unalterable facts of the external world which it would be foolish either to approve or to
resent, so are the rules of conduct of ore's society and the things that will happen to one
if one violates them just facts. His attitude is one of calculation. Here the "individual " is
still thought of in utilitarian terms as pursuing his own private ends under a given set of
conditions. The only difference is that the conditions include a set of socially sanctioned
rules. [380]

Comments: This meaning of constrain rules out the subjective significance of a social
rule for the actor. He is thought of as a kind of scientist dettached from these social rules
and only considering its possible negative effects upon himself. Positive attatchement to
social rules is of secondary importance; what really matters here is why that people
conform to rules because they want to avoid possible sanctions (negative attatchement
to social rules). Social rules as given data to the actor.

But there are certain difficulties if the analysis is pushed farther. It is all very well to
think of social rules as given facts to a single concrete individual. But to the sociologist
they are not given data in the same sensethey are just what he is trying to explain.
Naturally Durkheim's first task was the demonstration of their existence and importance
to action. But he cannot rest content with that. What then is their source and what is the
nature of the force which constrains? [381]

Comments: I think that in this 2 phase the actor is thought of as pursuing interests and
conforming his wants to possible sanctions coming from outside from breaking social
rules.

3 Phase of development

The direction he takes in answering this question is really implied in his analysis of
anomie. There he was led to take another great step, the implications of which bring him
to the next great phase of his development. Up to this point he has always thought in
terms of the utilitarian dilemmafrom the subjective point of view action must be
explained either in terms of "individual" ends or wants [1 phase], or in terms of the
objectively knowable conditions [2 phase]. [381-2]

Nowhe
makesthefarreachingempiricalobservationthatsinceindividual
wantsareinprincipleunlimited,itisanessentialconditionof
bothsocialstabiUtyandindividualhappinessthattheyshould
beregulatedintermsofnorms.Butherethenormsthoughtofdo
not,asdotherulesofcontract,merelyregulate"externally,"

e.g.,astheconditionsofenteringintorelationsofcontract^they
enterdirectlyintotheconstitutionoftheactors'endsthemselves.[382]

Thisreallyinvolvesacompleterejectionnotonlyasbeforeof
theutilitariansolutionofthedilemma,butofthedilemmaitself.
Theindividualelementsinactionarenolongeridentifiedwiththe
concretesubjectiveindividual,butthelatterisrecognizedtobea
compoundofdifferentelements.Theelementofendsasitappears
inthemeansendschemaisnolongerbydefinition"individual"
butcontainsa"social"element.[398]

Comments: In its 3 phase, the actor internalized the social rules: they belong to his
aims or ends.
Firstofall,itopensthedoortoanewconceptionoftherelation
oftheindividual,andhenceofconstraint,tothenormative
rule.Thenormativeelementneednolongerbethoughtofasa
"condition"ofactiononthesameleveltotheactorasother
conditions,inthispeculiarsense,asafacttobetakenaccount
of.Its"constraint"overtheindividualmaynotmerelydiffer
fromthatofthe"natural"consequencesofanactinthatthe
consequenceshavebeen"arbitrarily"placedtherebyahuman
agencyotherthanthatoftheactor.Inthis'^senseDurkheim
altogetherceasestothinkofconformitywiththenormassecured
mainlybythedesireto.avoidtheprobable"external"'consequencesofitsviolation.Inthe
presentanalyticaltermsthis
meansessentiallythattheelementofsocialconstraintistransferred
fromthecategoryofconditionstothatofnormative
elements.[3823]

Thereremainsthenonlytheabandonmentofalltheattempts
andtheacceptanceoftheviewthattheessenceofconstraint

isthemoralobligationtoobeyarule thevoluntaryadherence
toitasaduty.ThisisthepathDurkheimfollowsmoreandmore
decisivelyuntilhislaterworksdealingwiththissubjectbecome
inthisrespectquiteclearandconsistent.[383]