Learning process of human beings initiate since conception. Children are being conditioned with the norms and values of society. They learn gender roles via observing and interacting with their family members. Observation and social interaction are the tools of learning deviant behavior. Those individual who frequently interact with criminal minded people are most likely to learn criminal behavior.

An individual personality is formed through interaction, in a primary group. Parents, friends, girlfriend and siblings are the people who can influence the behavior of an individual because, interaction with them is inevitable. It is most likely for an individual to adopt the personality traits of primary group members. If someone among the members of primary group possess the criminal tendency and an individual frequently interact with him, the probability of adopting the criminal behavior is high.

Criminals are not born but made, no one is criminal by birth. They learn how to become a criminal, the crimes they commit is not rational for them in the beginning. However, they were taught to rationalize the unacceptable or deviant behavior, once which was alien to them.

In every country there is multiple cultures some cultural norms may differ from the state laws. Those cultures whose norms are hand in hand with state laws, members of such culture follows the state laws. However, cultures which norms differs from the state laws, members of such cultures might violate the state laws.

Those people who interact generally with criminals, compare to law abiding citizens are most likely to commit crimes or break the laws. The probability of deviant behavior can be identified through the number favorable and unfavorable associations.

Criminal behavior cannot be learned only from observation. There are many other ways to learn criminal behavior. For example, learning of criminal behavior might be the result of compulsion and seduction. Moreover, criminal behavior cannot be rationalized for gratifying basic needs because, majority satisfy their basic need trough normatively acceptable way in the similar scenario.    

The post Differential Association Theory appeared first on Sociology Learners.

“Emile Durkheim” belonged to the structural-functional school of thought. He was interested in the study of social structure and its functions. How different part of society function and contribute to the functioning of society as whole. He believed that social solidarity is the main element which hold society together. Social solidarity is the feeling of unity among individuals with one another and with society or what makes society solid, viable and hold it together. He explained solidarity in two different type of societies. He says that, mechanical solidarity exist in a societies which has simple social structure like rural society. Whereas organic solidarity exist in the society which has complex social structure like urban society.

Mechanical Solidarity

According to “Emile Durkheim”, traditional societies or rural societies has mechanical solidarity. Individuals bond together in traditional society by the homogeneity. The division of labor is very slight in this type of society. Individual almost have similar skill sets and have similar job responsibilities. In traditional society individuals earn their livelihood from agriculture and in agriculture societies there is very low division of labor almost every individual is peasant. Moreover, people of rural society share similar religion, culture, norms, believes and values. Due to the homogeneity they are connected with one another and society, which is characterized by, “Emile Durkheim” as mechanical solidarity. Mechanical solidarity is based on the sameness of people living in a society. Emile Durkheim built an analogy which compare a society with a machine or a series of machines which are manufactured similarly. Suppose if there is a problem in a part of machine because of which machine is not working. It can be replaced by the same part of other machine and it will start working again. By this analogy Durkheim was trying to prove that, traditional or rural societies are held together by homogeneity.

Organic Solidarity

Emile Durkheim believed that, modern industrial societies has organic solidarity. Individuals in modern bond together by heterogeneity. In urban society division of labor is very high; every individual possess different skill set or specialization. Moreover, individuals dissimilar, religion, believes, values norm and culture. So the logic dictated question arises here that, what hold them together? The answer is interdependence. Individuals in urban society are dependent on each other because of high division of labor, they trade their skills with one another which connects them with each other. Suppose if someone need legal assistance he will hire a lawyer, if someone car is broke he will go to mechanic for repair and if someone need hair cut he will go to barber. Individuals in urban society rely on each other that is what unify them. Emile Durkheim compared modern societies with organism, which are composed of multiple organ and each organ has its specialized function, organism is healthy if each part or organ perform its function. Similarly, modern society are composed of multiple institutions and each has its own specialized function if each individual and institution perform its function then it will result in healthy society.

By Khushdil Khan Kasi

The post Mechanical and Organic Solidarity appeared first on Sociology Learners.