mass-communication-theory

66 Section 2 The Era of Mass Society and Mass Culture
mechanical
solidarity
In Durkheim’s
conception, folk
cultures bound by
consensus and
traditional social
roles
organic solidarity
In Durkheim’s
conception, modern
social orders
bound by culturally
negotiated
social ties
were forced by a collective consensus to perform traditional social roles. Think for
a moment about all the family names used today that are derived from professions:
Farmer, Taylor, Hunter, Goldsmith, Forester, Toepfer and Shumacher (German for
Potter and Shoemaker), Barbiere and Panetta (Italian for Barber and Baker). Your
name was, literally, what you were: John the Smith. Or consider the many family
names that end in “son” or “sen.” People were identified by their father’s name:
Peterson is Peter’s son. People were bound by this consensus to one another like
the parts of a great engine—mechanical solidarity.
Durkheim compared modern social orders to animals rather than to machines.
As they grow, animals undergo profound changes in their physical form. They begin
life as babies and progress through several developmental stages on their way
to adulthood and old age. The bodies of animals are made up of many different
kinds of cells—skin, bone, blood—and these cells serve very different purposes.
Similarly, modern social orders can undergo profound changes, and therefore the
people in them can grow and change along with the society at large. In Durkheim’s
theory, people are like the specialized cells of a body rather than like the cogs of a
machine. People perform specialized tasks and depend on the overall health of the
body for their personal survival. Unlike machines, animals are subject to diseases
and physical threats. But they are capable of using mental processes to anticipate
threats and cope with them. Durkheim used the term organic solidarity to refer to
the social ties that bind modern social orders together.
Social orders with organic solidarity are characterized by specialization, division
of labor, and interdependence (Martindale, 1960, p. 87). Be warned, though,
it is easy to confuse Durkheim’s labeling of mechanical and organic solidarity, because
we naturally associate machines with modernity. Remember that he uses the
metaphor of the machine to refer to folk cultures—not modern society.
Durkheim’s praise for organic solidarity has been echoed in the many theories
that have extolled the virtues of new media and new technology. Proponents of
new media usually argue that communication technology will permit the formation
of important new social bonds. Keep in mind the frequent allusions to an Internetfueled
“electronic democracy” in which the people can communicate directly with
their leaders. There will be “electronic town halls” where the people will be able
to decide what they want government to do for them. In the 2008 presidential campaign,
electronic democracy took on a new form when all of the major Democratic
and Republican candidates used Facebook and YouTube to aggressively and systematically
promote their candidacies (Williams, 2007). And during the contentious
2009 health care reform debate, it was only the bravest legislators who did not
maintain a continuous Twitter feed to their constituents. Proponents of new media
assume that these new mediated relationships will be an improvement over older
forms of representative democracy. What do you think? Have you gained useful insights
about the candidates from Facebook or YouTube? Are you a better-informed
citizen?
It would be a mistake to view Durkheim as a naive optimist concerning the rise
of modern society. His most enduring book, Suicide (1951), documented rising suicide
rates in those countries where traditional religious and social institutions had
lost their preeminence. In these nations, Durkheim argued, people experienced
high levels of anomie, or normlessness. In his later work, Durkheim showed
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.