What the Left Can Learn From Durkheim
On anomie, the sacred and the case against the profanity of profit
As a sociology teacher and lecturer, I spend lots of time discussing the ideas of two of the ‘founders’ of sociology with my students — Marx and Durkheim. Traditionally, students are sold a contrasting story, one of consensus in Durkheim’s case, and one of conflict for Marx. For Durkheim, we teach the story of beehives, consensus, solidarity & function. For Marx the story of exploitation, alienation & surplus.
However, this is bastardised and reductivist. I argue that there is a lot that leftists can learn from Durkheim. Whilst he is often accused of being right-wing, or conservative, his structural approach to understanding society means he can be a useful figure for the left.
One of Durkheim’s most famous works was his study of Suicide (1897). In this famous piece of research Durkheim makes, for me at least, an incredibly left-wing claim. Namely, that the more socially integrated and connected a person is, the less likely he or she is to commit suicide. Whilst analysing his data, Durkheim developed the concept of ‘social integration’ — how integrated into society's norms and values one is. According to his research, as social integration decreases, people are more likely to commit suicide.
Is Durkheim here really that far away from the Marxist theory of alienation? Particularly in our modern context, we can apply this lack of social integration to workers in low-paid labour, being exploited by platform capitalism. In our late modern society, we are not integrated into anything collective, individualised and atomised, we are expected to compete against each other rather than understand ourselves as part of something bigger. Durkheim, I believe, would be astonished by the giving up of anything social, meaningful and sacred in the society we have created.
What the French sociologist’s work does, is analyse the symptom, rather than the cause. The structure, rather than the self. Durkheim looked at statistics and rather than explain suicide through biological or psychological modes, he wanted to understand what were the underlying social causes for killing oneself.
Again, we can apply this to our modern society. In terms of mental health and psychological issues, we are nowhere near Durkheimian enough. If statistics tell us that depression and anxiety are moving in an upward direction, we treat it like a weather report, as if there was nothing that caused it, it just happens. We then treat this cause — therapy, pills & mindfulness apps are some modern favourites. Very rarely do we ask the question ‘What is happening in our social world to create this?’.
Durkheim would have no doubt agreed with Mark Fisher when he claimed that the mental health statistics show us that far from being the only system that does work, capitalism is, in actuality, the only system shown NOT to work, if human beings become mentally ill by being part of it.
One of Durkheim’s key explanations for suicide was his concept of anomie. Anomie, he explains, is a social condition whereby the moral values and standards have been emptied.
Whilst this can sound rather conservative, it is worth considering how the left can use this concept. It is certainly the case that values and standards have been lacking in our late modern society. Everything, be it education, healthcare, social security & even the family, has been subjected to market forces. Privatised education and healthcare systems certainly feel anomic to me. The challenge for the left is perhaps to reinstall values into politics.
Is it not the case that decent healthcare, free at the point of use (I’m talking about the UK here) should be a key value we all buy into? Should knowledge for its own sake, free from the profit motive not also be a value?
Perhaps the left has lost itself in identity politics. Still, we need to start reinstating what values are important to us, and how neoliberal capitalism undermines these values and creates anomie.
The last concept I will draw upon from Durkheim is his idea of the Sacred and Profane, developed throughout his work, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Durkheim outlines the two ideas as follows: the sacred is extraordinary and magnificent and can easily be contaminated by the unholy profane.
Is it not the case in (especially late) capitalism, that nothing is sacred anymore? Profanity rules, everything is for sale, everything is disposable and everything is secondary to profit. Public space is an example here — many spaces that we should value — libraries and public parks, have been shut, or worse — commodified. Some fine public spaces now require a cash payment to enter.
Nothing is sacred enough to be outside of the profit motive.
The left needs to find out what it feels is sacred, the right to healthcare, education, and public spaces. Then it needs to defend them, sacredly.
Perhaps Durkheim’s message to the modern left might have been — “decide what is sacred and defend it from the profanity of profit.”
