Tonnies vs. Durkheim

Although Tonnies and Durkheim are often equated in their views of the social change, it is not necessarily the case, since they look at very distinct social features as well as antecedents of change. While Durkheim focuses on the division of labor as the force behind change (as well as a response to change). Tonnies looks at social institutions and the way they change along with the installation of the new social order.

Family: cohesive family living is a prominent feature in Gemeinschaft, primary, kin-based social ties. Therefore, as families are the carriers and the enforces of cultures and traditions, societal living is guided by constant principles and rituals that are transmitted between the generations. living is homogenized, based on deep similarities of views, aspirations and ideas. Living is based on a collective vision and operation. So, the social constraint is in the eye of other people: since understandings of right and wrong are the same for everyone, other members of community have equal power to reprimand. Living is based on doing well by your people.

This changes or "decays", in Tonnies words, with the change toward Gesellschaft. As society moves away from kin-based settlements, family ties lose their power. "individuals and families are separate identities, and their common locale is only an accidental or deliberately chosen place in which to live" - the natural order of flocking together breaks down (e.g., nowadays, "still" living with your parents in your mid-twenties and thirties is a sign of abnormality rather than an appreciated social characteristic). Once family bond dissipates, the influence of tradition and ritual weakens as well, which allows for more diversity to sprout: individuals no longer have to live by their people's standard, since the idea of "my people" no longer exists in the similar sense.

Religion: as a unifying force, religion is used in place of laws throughout the Gemeinschaft living in larger settings (say, a township). Yet again, unity in understanding the moral absolutes allows for relatively straightforward living for most residents, since everyone (or the vast majoryt) subscribes to the same world view. As society changes and grows, using religion as the sole guiding mechanism in an elaborate urban setting is impractical and improbable as well: too much human variation, diversity of ideas and rituals requires a different, a more elaborate set of rules. Thus, the legislation is instated. "The state is hardly directly concerned with morality. It has only to suppress and punish hostile actions which are detrimental to the common weal or seemingly dangerous for itself and society,"- argues Tonnies, suggesting that by eliminating the legitimately evil forces, the state creates a platform for the new society to become better through culture and education (or so we all wish).

Other social institutions change along the similar patterns. For example, the previous economic structure, agriculture, is based on familiar rituals, while industry is based on innovation and rules. Trade in Gemeinschaft is based on mutual liking and understanding, while Gesellschaft trade is based on deliberate calculations and projections. Art of story-telling and culture transmission is merging with the science of recording and mass producing the culture.

So, the basic contrasts between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft can be summarized in the following system:

Communal -- Individual
Rural -- Urban
Religious -- Secular
Homogeneous -- Diverse
Agrarian -- Industrial
Kin-based -- Contract (money) based
Traditional -- Innovative

and so on. Important, though, to realize that most of today's industrialized societies still combine the elements of both. The more rural the area, the more Gemeinschaft characteristics could be found, and vice versa.

Tönnies, F. (2001). Community and Civil Society. Cambridge University Press.