THE ORGANIC CONCEPT OF SOCIETY 139 
hence the need of a special department of investigation with 
its own terminology, — viz., sociology. This interest is revealed 
in his Régles de la méthode Sociologique, published in 1894,! in 
which we find the thesis that “ society is not a mere sum of in- 
dividuals, but the system formed by their association represents a 
specific reality which has its own characters.” 2 Yet Durkheim 
admits that there is no objective substratum of this collective 
consciousness corresponding to the physiological substratum of 
individual consciousness. 
The totality of the beliefs and sentiments common to the average members 
of a social group form a definite system which has its own life. One can call 
it the collective or common consciousness. Tobe sure it does not have a unique 
organ for its substratum, for it is by definition, diffused throughout the extent 
of the society; but nevertheless it has specific characters which make it a 
distinct reality. It is independent of the particular conditions in which 
individuals happen to be placed; they pass, itremains. It isthe same at the 
north and in the middle sections, in the large cities and in the small, in the 
different professions. Likewise it does not change with each generation but 
on the contrary unites them. It is then something different from particular 
consciousness although it is realized only through individuals. It is the 
psychic type of society, — a type which has its own properties, conditions of 
existence, mode of development, just as individuals have, although of a 
different kind. By virtue of this it has a right to be designated by a special 
word. 
While the above is true in a certain general sense of a sovereign 
group or “‘ people,’ —a conception elaborated by Le Bon, — it is 
also true and more specifically so, according to our author, of 
smaller social groupings within the state, as the family and 
professions, and of these at particular times. ‘‘ The study of 
these social solidarities,” he holds, “is the special province of 
sociology.”’ § 
In this conception we are getting away from the individual 
approach to sociology as made by Spencer,® Schéffle and Mac- 
kenzie to emphasize the reality of the group over against the 
1 Cf. Deploige, of. cit., pp. 156 f. 
2 Régles, p. 127, quoted by Deploige, of. cit., p. 157. 
3 De la Division du Travail Social, p. 84. 
4 “ Ce qui existe et vit réellement, ce sont les formes particuliéres de la solidarité, 
Ja solidarité domestique, la solidarité professionnelle, la solidarité nationale, celle 
hier, celle d’aujourd’hui, etc. Chacune a sa nature propre.”’ — Ibid., p. 69. 
5 Ibid., p. 69. § Tbid., p. 382. 
