To Durkheim society is a reality Sui generis. Hence society represents a specific reality, which has its own characteristics. Societal reality is apart from individuals and is over and above them. Thus the reality of society must be the subject mater of sociology. A scientific understanding of any social phenomenon must emerge from the ‘collective’ or associational characteristics manifest in the social structure of a society. Collective representations and collective conscience are the leading concepts to be found in the social thought of Durkheim.

Durkheim draws a sharp line between individual and society (society is a separate reality from the individuals who compose it and has its own characteristics) and also a line between psychology and sociology. Any attempt to explain social facts directly in terms of individual characteristics or in terms of psychology would make the explanation false. Therefore in the case of causal explanation “the determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual consciousness”. In the case of functional explanation “the function of a social fact ought always to be sought in its relation to some social end”.

Society has a nature, which is peculiar to itself. It is different from individual nature. Society pursues ends, which are special to it. The compulsion of collective existence is such that individuals must forget their particular interest. Thus society imposes upon individuals the nature of its collectivity.

Now society does not confine itself to demanding scarifies or efforts from individuals. Society exists in and through individual consciousness. Hence societal force must also penetrate individuals and organise itself within them. Thus it becomes an integral part of individual consciousness. This is the reason that societal beliefs, morals and rules etc are elevated and magnified by individuals. Their source of origin cannot be traced or attributed to single individuals. Rather their perpetuation lies in collective existence.

Durkheim looks into the role of collective beliefs and sentiments and especially of morality and religion in all societies. How are they inculcated and how do they exercise control over society? How are they affected by society and how in turn do they affect other features of social life? How do collective beliefs and sentiments change during different stages of a society’s development? To prepare for such answers Durkheim used the concept of ‘collective representation’.

Collective Representations

The concept of ‘collective representations’ is a major contribution of Durkheim’s social theory. In fact, Durkheim’s later work (1897 onwards) can be seen as a systematic study of ‘collective representations’. Initial definition forwarded by Durkheim (in his book Suicide) stated that ‘essentially social life is made of representation’. There is a difference between an object, and they way it is seen, the manner in which it is described, and its meaning understood commonly in a society. The object or the word is ‘represented’; for a scientist, water is represented as the formula H2O, for a doctor ‘fever’ is represented as ‘temperature above 99oF. in case of religion a piece of stone may be represented as ‘God’. College or school teams are represented through their symbolic colours, light blue, etc.

Collective representations express the states of collective conscience, which are different in nature from the states of the individual conscience. They express the way in which a particular group of individuals conceives itself in relation to the objects, which affect the social group. Collective representations are socially generated.

Individual representations have their own characteristics and have relative autonomy. Further various individual representations can directly influence one another and combine according to their own convenience.

Collective representation is either a concept or a category of thought held in a sufficiently similar form by many persons to allow effective communication. These collective symbols have force because they have been jointly created and developed. They possess tremendous force over individuals. They exercise an integrative effect on society. E.g. flag is a political representation; sacred texts are often a religious representation, like the Bible, the Ramayana, the Guru Granth Sahib, and so on.

Durkheim states that collective representations result from the substratum of associated individuals. But they cannot be reduced to and wholly explained by features of constituent individuals. They are ‘sui generis’ that is, they generate themselves. Original and fundamental forms of collective representations bear the marks of social consciousness. According to Durkheim, However once the primary basis of representations has thus been formed, they become partially autonomous realities. Then they live their own life with the power to attract and repel one another. As examples, Durkheim noted the enormous growth of myths, regents, theological systems and religious sects etc.-which combine and separate and over a period of time get transformed and give rise to a complex of beliefs, values and morals etc.

Concepts as collective representations express categories and classes rather than particular objects, because unique and variable characteristics of things only rarely interest society. Collective representations are the work of society and they are enriched by the societal experience. For example in the context of modern nation states, collective representations are social facts located in the constitutions, the national flag, and the national anthem.

Collective Conscience

The concept of collective conscience was originally used and developed by Durkheim in his first major work i.e. The Division of Labour in Society (1895).  In his later works, Durkheim developed the concept of ‘collective representations’, which had greater theoretical potential. The notion of collective conscience is of paramount importance in Durkheim’s thought. Durkheim describes collective consciousness as ‘the body of beliefs and sentiments common to the average of the members of a society and form a determinate system, which has its own life-style.’ No doubt, it has not a specific organ as a substratum; it is, by definition, diffuse in every reach of society. Nevertheless, it has specific characteristics which make it a distinct reality. It is, in effect, independent of the particular conditions in which individuals are placed; they pass on and it remains. Moreover, it does not change with each generation, but, on the contrary, it connects successive generations with one another. It is thus an entirely different thing from particular consciences, although it can be realized only through them.

Durkheim mentions certain properties of collective conscience which help us in identifying them. The system of these beliefs and sentiments has a life of its own.  It is spread out over the whole of the territory of a society-to large and small towns and villages.  It is common to all occupations or professions etc.  It links successive generation to one another.  Individuals come in and go out of society, however collective conscience remains.  Collective conscience varies in extent and force from one society to another. In less advanced societies collective conscience embraces the greater part of individual consciousness. In such societies the extent of collective conscience is stronger and greater.  For example social controls and prohibitions prevalent in primitive societies are imposed upon individual members in strongest fashion and they all submit to it.

Collective conscience is also reflective of the degree of cohesion, integration or solidarity of a society. In primitive societies, collective conscience is strongest and all embracing. However, in advanced societies there occurs a greater differentiation of individuals. Everyone becomes more and more free to believe, to desire and to act according to one’s own or one’s group preferences in a large number of circumstances. Thus the sphere of influence of collective conscience is reduced. There also occurs a weakening of collective reactions against violations of prohibitions etc.

Collective Conscience In Mechanical Solidarity

Durkheim views that the strength of social bonds is the feature of mechanical solidarity and is a function of three variables. They are: Relation between the volume of collective conscience and individual’s conscience, Average intensity of the stages of collective conscience, The greater or lesser firmness of all those stages.

The more the beliefs and sanctions are present in the society, the less are the chances of freedom of an individual. Thus, where the mechanical solidarity is effective, there is strong and extensive collective conscience. It brings harmonious relationships in the activities of the people extensively. In such a social condition, it is difficult to distinguish individual’s conscience from the collective one. Hence, collective authority becomes the mode of totality, whether it involves the whole of the community or it incarnates the chief of the community.

Collective Conscience in Organic Solidarity

Organic social structure is thus characterised by high degree of interdependence. The increase in industrialization corresponds to the progress of division of labour and the latter determine the concentration of the social mass (population). Whenever the social norms correspond to the organic solidarity, the division of labour gives rise to legal rules. These will determine the nature and relation specialized functions and any violation is to be entailed through restitutive measures. Here one can reasonably neglect those interdependent relations, which are regulated by the customs binding the individuals. For the existence of such solidarity it is necessary that different parts cooperate in a determined way (if not in all respects, at least in predetermined conditions). Therefore, the contract is not self-sufficient, but it presupposes a set of regulations, which are as extensive and complicated as the contracted aspects.

Advancement of society through progressive development in the division of labour leads to a decline in the intensity and determinateness of collective states. The collective conscience seems to have less strength to carry the individuals in collective directions. An individual gets more changes for self-reflection, which, in turn, provides more opportunity for self-freedom. In other words, individual conscience no longer remains so tightly enmeshed in collective conscience; it acquires a certain degree of autonomy.

The content of collective gradually becomes human oriented, secular and rational. These social conditions start weakening the values of collective curiosity from the society. The religious domain contracts in greater degrees and the ever-strong domain of collective religious beliefs and sentiments starts decreasing with the rise of scientific procedures. The transcendental characters of society, which were superior to the human interests, begin losing their luster increasingly.

Durkheim has seen the features of collective conscience in the system of beliefs. In advanced societies the supreme values not only bring dignity to an individual but also equality of opportunity. This has been explained in his work Ethic and social justice.