Critically compare Durkheim’s methodological holism and Smith’s methodological individualism

Durkheim and Smith both develop their own thesis on the relationship between the society and the individual by examining the role each plays. Smith uses individualism to reason that individual choices and actions lead to an aggregate outcome, whereas Durkheim claims that we can only correctly examine the relationship between the individual and society from a holistic approach, by considering how the collective leads to individualism. While Durkheim and Smith both show that social interactions between individuals play a pivotal role in the development of society, Smith’s way of examining the individual in isolation from society gives an incomplete account of the relationship between the two. It is limited because it focuses on economic self-interest as a factor in how individuals relate to one another. Durkheim believes that the individual cannot exist without society, and shows how the society endows the individual with notions of morals, mutual liking, and mutual dependence, underlining that the individual should be studied within a social context. Durkheim’s methodological holism allows him to understand the function of society in relation to the individual. It establishes the context from which Smith’s premise originates from: individualism from society, and henceforth, establishes how individualism supports and sustains society.
Both Durkheim and Smith consider the role of the division of labour as an example of how their methodology provides a framework to examine the individual and the society. A critical point of deviation between Smith and Durkheim, other than their different premises (starting from the individual or from society), is their investigation of the role of the division of labour. Durkheim criticizes Smith for limiting the role of the division of labour to an economic interpretation. For Smith, the reason why one should specialize, other than inherent differences, (innate abilities and disposition towards certain skills), is to benefit from the economic efficiencies of others, as well as promoting one’s own economic advantages: our actions are motivated primarily on personal and economic gains. Durkheim, on the other hand, extrapolates on this idea by considering the social division of labour. Durkheim claims that it does not simply make individuals agents of exchange, but, “whole system of rights and duties joining them in a lasting way to one another” .
Durkheim and Smith also differ in the origin of the division of labour. Smith believes that it arises out of “a propensity in human nature to exchange” . From Smith’s economic viewpoint, greater productivity brings greater prosperity to society. Durkheim states that this productivity is merely a side phenomenon, a consequence of the division of labour. He believes instead that the division of labour is an evolutionary driving process in the development of society and individualization: “the division of labour is one result of the struggle for existence: but it is a gentle denouement” . It is preceded by society, (clearly demonstrating the social context of the division of labour), but plays a social role that allow us to adapt and live in the new conditions that society has created. Competition in society becomes progressively more intense with individualization. At the same time, the degree of interdependence between these individuals increases. The social role of the division of labour is to create a more complex and diverse society, replacing society’s former homogenous conditions where mechanical solidarity played a greater role suited for like-minded individuals to a more heterogeneous society composed of dissimilar individuals. Durkheim notes as the individual becomes more specialized, the more his sense and intellect is developed, because it is exercised frequently and in an acute fashion. Thus, as he exemplifies in this statement: “without having willed it, humanity finds itself prepared to accept a more intense and varied culture” . The structure of society becomes more and more intricate because the number of links between individuals grows. At the same time, social solidarity is enhanced. Once social solidarity has been enforced and strengthened, the individual cannot live without society. If social solidarity dissolves, the individual perishes. In the absence of any social context, the individual has no reason to differentiate and specialize.
Durkheim not only shows how the division of labour shapes society but also how it shapes the individual. Rather than separating and alienating individuals from one another, it draws them closer together because of increased mutual dependence. As the social climate changes, individuals become ever increasingly distinguished from one another. At the concluding end of the division of labour is the realization that the individual will emerge from society. He also observes how over many generations, society transitions from one dominated by ‘mechanical solidarity’ to one by ‘organic solidarity’, whereby differentiated individuals relate to one another as “social functions” . Durkheim draws on an anthropological evidence of why individualism could not have been present in primitive societies: “If individualism was to such an extent congenital in humanity one cannot see how primitive tribes were able so easily to subject themselves to the despotic authority of a chief” . As Smith can only pay attention to the individual’s motives one at a time, his methodology does not encompass other factors involved in decision making, such as the recognition to live harmoniously. Smith misses this critical point: “Individuals, instead of subordinating themselves to one group, subordinate themselves to the one who represented it” .
The difference between Durkheim and Smith’s methodology serves to highlight the emphasis one places on individualism or society. Durkheim’s assumptions are sociological; all human beings are political animals, so the need to live in a society is natural. Even though Smith’s premise does include the fact that human nature is political, it places a greater emphasis on personal gain as the sole objective of all social interactions. Where Smith fails to explain how a potential conflict, where the individual’s self-interest does not correspond to the interest of the great majority is resolved, Durkheim shows that instead of competing with one another, “they co-ordinate their activities. But in every case new specialties appear” . He highlights this flaw of individualism by critically pointing out that “any personality, however powerful it might be, could do nothing alone against a whole society” . Moreover, the society takes priority over the individual, since the individual’s existence depends on whether the society is in a healthy state. The individual draws its strength from society; society is strengthened by their social interdependence. Durkheim concludes at the end of The Division of Labour in Society with this observation:
“The human consciousness that we must realize within ourselves in its entirety is nothing other than the collective consciousness of the group of which we form part”
For Durkheim, the individual not only depends on society but also cannot escape from it: “the duties of the individual to himself are duties to society” .
Durkheim further elaborates and extends his thesis to other spheres of life that arises out of society and realized by the individuals. Smith’s methodology implies that some notion of the state exists based on some vague conceptualizing of some higher authority. In reality, however, it only appears to come from some higher principle, because the task of society is to maintain social cohesion, and to “endow their blessings” on the individual. Regarding this phenomenon, Durkheim observed that the only force that is superior to the individual and the sole entity that possess such a quality is that of the group. Moreover, in realizing that the society is literally and metaphorically an ‘organism’, Durkheim’s insightful perspective shows how the society also takes an independent existence of its own: “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own” . It can be termed the collective or common consciousness Out of this arises altruism. It is interesting to note this because Durkheim sees altruism as “scarcely more than a private virtue, which is laudable for the individual to pursue” yet it prevails in society and is needed to ensure solidarity. Altruism is virtuous because it neutralizes and softens the brutal effects of the struggle for existence aggravated by the ongoing process of the division of labour.
Durkheim further shows how social solidarity is reinforced by the individuals. “The very pronounced sentiment that each one of us today possesses of our own individuality has caused them to believe that personal rights could not be restricted to such a degree save by an organization that exercised coercion.” . It is clear that in the domain of the civil society, Smith’s account fails to demonstrate how social cohesion is maintained. Without any recognition of the power of the collective – indeed Smith’s account does not include the concept of ‘collective consciousness,’ – methodological individualism fails to explain the establishment of institutions in society that could not have originated from the individual. Smith’s individualism believes that the rational individuals would not possess any personal interest or motivation to form a governing body, or a law of courts. These institutions, whose function is to maintain social cohesion, are formed when groups of individuals come together. Moreover, Durkheim shows how even if one were to base their premise on individualism, it would have to demand “a strange conclusion that social evolution has attempted, from the very outset, to produce the most perfect types [of individuals], since “no governmental force exists at first save that of the common will expressed by the assembled horde” . Thus, where Smith fails to consider the social influence of the collective, Durkheim shows how it engenders upon the individual some notion of unity and of the necessity of cooperation.
Perhaps the most powerful conclusion of Durkheim’s holistic view of society is that there are many examples of cooperation and understanding of universal rights in society that cannot be explained through the pursuit of self-interest. Morals, for example, only exist in a society, and not as an independent entity. The concept of morality cannot be reached by deduction starting from the individual. Every society is a moral society, because this involves at the most of fundamental basis learning to live together, to agree with one another, and which Durkheim observed, “cannot be achieved without making mutual sacrifices” . Smith’s methodological individualism fails to come to such a conclusion as it is grounded in a rather pessimistic and fundamentally selfish view of how individuals behave. If Smith’s point of view were absolutely correct, one would never need to interact socially beyond satisfying personal gains. Durkheim shows that this was not true, citing this example:
“For man to acknowledge that others have rights, not only as a matter of logic, but as one of daily living, he must have agreed to limit his own. Consequently this mutual limitation was only realizable in a spirit of understanding and harmony” (p. 76)
Even though Smith and Durkheim both agree on the importance of the division of labour as a self-perpetuating process that accompanies the development of society, where Smith fails to explain how different interests can still guarantee a functioning society and cohesion among individuals, Durkheim’s methodological holism provides a sound explanation by tying the role of the division of labour with social interdependence. In Smith’s account of society, the concept of morals spring from sympathy, but self-interest is a dominant ‘strategy’ in social interactions. Durkheim believed that only by examining the society as a whole do we understand the need for morals and how it arises from society:
“What is moral is a source of solidarity, everything that forces man to take account of other people, to regulate his actions by something other than the promptings of his own egoism” (p. 331)
We see how Durkheim differs from Smith’s view that morality originates from private sentiments. Durkheim believes that society endows the individual with notions of morals that could not have originated from the individual: how to best protect the collective from harm, through written laws, which are verbal representations of morals used enforce social solidarity. Morality must therefore originate from what Durkheim identifies as “social consciousness” and which can be interpreted as the ‘thought’ of society when we consider society as an ‘organism’. To elaborate, “social consciousness” shows how his methodology encompasses some aspects of Smith’s account, as the term implies how some elements of individualism, such as self-interest, influence the way that society enforces cooperation and maintains social solidarity. Smith’s methodological individualism is useful when studying the individual in more developed societies, but only focuses on one individual at a time and therefore fails to consider the greater role played by society in moderating and regulating private actions. While Durkheim and Smith’s methodologies are hermeneutic, Durkheim’s methodological holism demonstrates a paradigm shift from Smith’s methodological individualism, presenting a more encompassing perspective on the role of the individual in society.