Durkheim proposed rules for distinguishing between normal and pathological social facts. Rule 1 states that a social fact is normal if it is present in most societies of that type at a given stage of development. Rule 2 is that a social fact's normality can be verified by showing it is tied to general societal conditions. Rule 3 states that verification of normality is needed for societies not fully evolved. Pathological facts harm solidarity while normal facts are integral to society. However, normality is relative, as what is normal can differ between groups.

1. RULES FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
NORMAL AND PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS
Submitted to:
Dr. Kiran
Submitted by:
Amanpreet (Ph.D)
1645205
Rabnoor Johar (M.Phil)
1645102
THE RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS
Emile Durkheim

2.  Emile Durkheim was born on ‘April 15, 1858’ in Epinal, a small
town in rural ‘France’.
 Emile Durkheim was a ‘French Sociologist, Social Psychologist
and Philosopher’. He is recognised as one of the important
French social thinkers, who ranks only next to Auguste Comte.
 He grew up in a traditional Jewish family. Durkheim’s love for
education took him to Germany where he was exposed to the
scientific psychology, economics and cultural anthropology.
 After his return from Germany, he went on publishing several
articles based on his experiences there. Thereafter Durkheim and
his writing became famous.
 These publications earned him a prominent place in the
department of Philosophy at University of Bordeaux in 1887.

3.  He was later asked to head the newly created department of Social
Sciences. Emile Durkheim is considered as founding father of
sociology because of his efforts to establish sociology as
discipline distinct from philosophy and psychology.
 In 1893,he published his French doctoral thesis, “The Division of
Labour in society”.
 In 1895, he published The Rules of Sociological
Method, a manifesto stating what sociology is and how it ought to
be done, and founded the first European department of sociology at
The University of Bordeaux. He was the first professor of
sociology.
 In first world war, he lost many of his friends and students which
adversely affected him mentally and physically. But after the death of
his son he could not bear the loss and after two years of his son’s
death, at the age of 59, Durkheim died on November 15,1917.

4.  MAIN WORKS:
1. The division of labour in society- 1893
2. The rules of sociological method- 1895
3. Suicide-1897
4. Collective and individual representations- 1899
5. Judgments of reality and judgments of value- 1911
6. The elementary forms of religious life- 1912.
 MAIN THEORIES:
1. Theory of social facts
2. Theory of social solidarity
3. Theory of division of labour
4. Theory of suicide.

5. According to Durkheim,” A social fact is a phase of
behaviour (thinking, feeling or acting) which can be
observed objectively and has a coercive compelling
power. Social facts constitute social institutions and
are the main subject matter of sociology.”
Social facts are things which can be observed
objectively.
Social facts are different from individual facts.
Social facts are the product of collective consciousness.
Social facts are external, having constraining power
and are treated as things.

6.  NORMAL SOCIAL FACT
 Facts which occur in day to day life.
 They help to keep the society integrated.
 They are the main controlling agencies which are operational in almost
all the aspects of social life.
 PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS
 Facts which work in abnormal social conditions and act as the main
disintegrating forces.
 According to Durkheim, social facts are relative in nature which
means they vary from society to society. Normal social facts at
one place may be regarded as pathological at another. For
instance, to kiss a woman is a normal social fact in America but
in India, it is regarded as a pathological social fact.

7. NORMAL SOCIAL FACTS
 Facts which are regarded
as average in a society
may be termed as
Normal social facts.
 Normal social facts are
the true representatives
of the social collectivity.
For instance : Marriage
is regarded as a Normal
social fact
 The facts which have
some abnormalities are
regarded as Pathological
social facts.
 Divorce is regarded as
Pathological social fact.
PATHOLOGICAL SOCIAL FACTS

8. As indicated in book three of the division of labour
however, Durkheim felt that social facts exhibits
both normal and pathological forms; and he now
added that it was an important part of sociological
method to provide rules for distinguishing between
them.
It is important to determine whether the social fact in
question is normal or not.
The criteria suggested by Durkheim for
distinguishing normal from pathological social facts
are statistical and structural, not moral.

9.  RULE 1: A social fact is normal in relation to a given social type,
viewed at a given phase of its development, when it is present in the
average society of that species, considered at the corresponding phase
of its evolution.
 This means that normal social fact shall be functional in the society in which
it exists.
 It is also statistically normal and does not have any harmful consequences for
the society.
 Durkheim’s criterion was discovered in the ordinary distinction between that
which is general and which is exceptional. Social facts which are ‘normal’, by
this criterion would simply be those found in most, if not all, individuals,
with narrow limits of variations.
 Social facts which are ‘pathological’, by contrast, would be those encountered
only in a minority of cases, and only for brief periods in the lifetime of the
individual even where they occur.
 Thus, pathological social fact shall have harmful consequence for society and
it affects the solidarity among the individuals and also affects the social
phenomena of the society. What is pathological for one group may not be for
another.

10.  RULE 2: One can verify the results of the preceding method by
showing that the generality of the phenomenon is bound up with the
general conditions of collective life of the social type considered.
 Durkheim gives the example of crime. He says that crime is normal because
there is no society that is not confronted with the problem of crime.
 He says that crime is inevitable i.e. it is an integral part of all societies.
Though he says that abnormally high rate of crime is a pathological fact but
crime is present in all forms of societies.
 But for Durkheim to describe crime as normal did not mean resignation to
a necessary evil; on the contrary, it meant that crime was useful, “a factor in
public health, an integrative element in any healthy society.”
 In book one of ‘The division of labour’, Durkheim had shown that “crime
consists of an action which offends strong, well defined collective feelings.
For such actions to cease therefore, those feelings would have to be
reinforced in each and every individual to the degree of strength required
to counteract the opposite feelings. Durkheim’s more scandalous argument,
however, was that crime is also useful, in both a direct and an indirect
sense.
 For instance: Delhi Rape Case was a very heinous crime against a single girl
and was directly related to her but it indirectly influenced the whole nation
to raise a voice against it. Thus in this way it shows the characteristic of
“collective conscience”.

11.  RULE 3: This verification is necessary when the fact in question
occurs in a social species which has not yet reached the full
course of its evolution.
 Aside from indirect utility, it happens that crime itself plays a useful
role in this evolution.
 Crime implies not only that the way remains open to necessary
changes but that in certain cases it directly prepares these changes.
 Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to
take a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the form
they will take.
 So many times, indeed, it is only an anticipation of future morality.
 For instance: According to Athenian law, Socrates was a criminal,
however, his crime, namely, the independence of thought, rendered
a service not only to humanity but to his country.
 It served to prepare a new morality and faith which the Athenians
needed.
 It would never have been possible to establish the freedom of
thought we now enjoy if the regulations prohibiting had not been
violated.

12.  The example chosen to illustrate the criteria of "the normality of
crime" reflects the same conservative preconception. Even if the
argument is accepted that the punishment elicited by the crime
reaffirms that the solidarity based on shared beliefs and
sentiments then also the question still arises;
1. which beliefs and sentiments?
2. shared by whom?
3. what degree of punishment ?
4. which criminal offence and committed by whom ?
 For example - Sati Pratha was considered normal at one point of
time but if we talk about it today it is pathological . Earlier it was
diffused in almost whole of the Indian society but now it is not.
Therefore it becomes difficult to categorize it either under
Normal or Pathological.

13.  The degree of punishment is not same for all. The crime
committed by political leaders and the same by a common
civilian might be the same like that of murder but the
punishment given to both will have huge difference . why
so?
 In the case of divorce it is both normal and pathological at
the same given time but in different societies. In Punjabi
society it is PATHOLOGICAL and in Western societies it is
NORMAL.
 So a normal fact in one society may become pathological in
other society. Thus normality is defined by generality but
since societies are different it would be impossible to
recognize generality in any abstract or universal manner.

14.  He particularly opposed to the humanist doctrine
which taught that human nature had a specific and
circumscribed character which was expressed in
institutions. ( Kenneth Thompson)
 Durkheim used the term constraint in a very vague
sense ; is the constraint the essence of social
phenomena or it is just an external characteristics
which help us to recognize it?( Raymond Aron)
 According to H.E Barnes, Durkheim has not made it
clear anywhere as to what he means by the term
'things' in the context of social facts. the term may end
up by different meanings to the people.

15. Durkheim, E. The Rules of Sociological method; The
Free Press of New York
Ritzer, G. Sociological theory; The press of university
Maryland