Emile Durkheim (1858 –1917) was a French sociologist who believed that every part of society should be studied, not exclusive to, but rather in the context of its relationship to every other part that forms that society. It was his view that ‘no one part of a society can be studied separately from the others, but must be seen in the context of its relationships to all other parts’ (Craib, 1997, p.26).
A founding father of modern social science, his work tends to focus on the social changes that he observed as a traditionally older and more stable society transitioned to an industrialized and more secular society. Consequently, his observations and studies of societal change and evolution are particularly relevant to the modern and increasingly technological society, which has enabled rapid transformation in relation to personal communication methods, the emergence of virtual worlds and the use of communication technologies in ways that have profoundly transformed the landscape of human social interaction.
Durkheim’s work is of particular relevance to the study of adolescent cyberbullying because of his contribution to our understanding of human social dynamics and the regulation of society. Taking a scientific approach to the study of society, he coined the term “social facts” to describe laws and customs external to the individual and contents that these “facts” can be analysed in a systematic sociological manner in the same way that biological facts are studied by scientists. These social facts incorporate a number of social dynamics such as social regulation, imitation and integration, collective consciousness, social rejection and the outcomes of same – issues that are of particular relevance to adolescent online social behaviour and will be discussed in more detail in this section.
For Durkheim, ‘social facts’ differ from other scientific facts in that they are imposed upon us from the outside. He perceives them as normative expectations or
‘obligations’ that are placed on the individual by his/her society and consequently contends that only a mainstream social group has authority to create or amend these ‘social facts’ regardless of whether they are ethical or otherwise; in other words, individuals cannot alter these conditions or social moral imperatives. He defines them as: ‘ways of acting, thinking, and feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him.’ The community or social group anticipate (and communicate their anticipation) that each individual member will fulfil his social duty in order to achieve a social harmony. Thus, Durkheim notes that "When I fulfil my obligations as brother, husband, or citizen, when I execute my contracts, I perform duties which are defined externally to myself and my acts, in law and in custom." (in Farganis 2000, p. 63). In this sense, social facts can be perceived both as shared values and equally as constraints that are placed upon the individual. These constraints are imposed by ‘the public conscience’ and failure to comply with the accepted social values or expectations may bring about a punishment by use of the ‘appropriate penalties’ available (Farganis, 2000, p.63). These social expectations and normative obligations can therefore provide an important function in stabilising society. The individual is perceived as being similar to a cog on a wheel; although cogs on their own are ineffective, together they stabilise the functional wheels of society that is dependent on each individual cog functioning in unison.
Just as it did in Durkheim’s time, the concept of ‘social fact’ holds as true today in adolescent sub-groups or sub-cultures. For example, consequences, expectations and external pressures are exerted upon adolescents that pressure them to conform to the accepted social order within the school environment. The reward for conformity is unity, affiliation and acceptance within a social group. However, one consequence of this is that individual independence can be sacrificed for the sake of social cohesion and in order to prevent tensions and instability from developing within the social group. This dynamic and its consequence remain independent of a particular environment. For example, the adolescent’s conformity or lack of it during the school period can also directly influence the social response that that he or she will experience after school-time has concluded.
Many examples of cyberbullying have served to confirm this social phenomenon; a classic example being the homophobic reaction of certain social groups to adolescents who are considered to be gay or effeminate. Whilst, in modern Europe the greater macrocosm of society would appear to permit individual expression of sexual orientation, at the microcosm or sub-strata level, such tolerance is often limited and can vary according to the norms of a particular social grouping. As a result, individuals who are perceived as being outside the heterosexual majority may run the risk of being perceived as being non-conformist and as a consequence be considered unacceptable by certain social groups. This is as true in the adolescent school environment as it is in wider society and adolescents who are perceived to exhibit non-conformist behaviour in terms of sexual orientation may find themselves marginalised and oppressed by other members of their sub-group. As previously mentioned, gifted students who declare themselves as LGBT face double- victimization. This can be particularly difficult and hurtful if they are obliged to relate to or participate in activities with that same sub-group either face-to-face or through online activity.
Attempts to avoid such oppressive marginalisation tend to manifest in increased conformity. Therefore, in The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim argues that ‘imitation’ should be perceived as the consequence rather than the cause of the coercive nature of a social fact (Durkheim, 1895/1982: 57). The obligatory, coercive nature of ‘social facts’ manifests in individuals because it is imposed upon them, most notably through educational means. He maintains that society (and the social group) shapes and influences the individual who in turn must conform to societal “norms” in order to be accepted into society and thus avoid oppression.
In a school environment, individuality can be expressed via school-dress, talk, type of mobile phone, hair-style, sexual orientation, manner of speaking, and in a myriad of other ways. It is understandable that insecure and emotionally vulnerable students making the transition from primary to secondary school would tend to “go with the flow” and conform to social expectations by dressing and behaving in a similar manner to the majority. However, in later years the desire to express individuality often manifests in rebellious behaviour against family structure, the educational system and even the student’s social group in the school. The tension between
wanting to belong and yet, at the same time, maintain independence as the concept of self-identity increases with the passing of the years. Carducci (2009), in describing this phenomenon, points to Erikson’s Stages of Development, and states:
… a crisis occurs at each stage of development. For Erikson these crises are of a psychosocial nature, because they involve psychological needs of the individual (i.e. psycho-) conflicting with the expectations of society (i.e. – social (p.188).
Moreover, it should be noted that the level of integration, which the individual has with their immediate social group, has the potential to influence the degree of social acceptance (and potentially overcome the social tension resulting from non- conformist traits). Thus, for adolescents, the degree to which they are socially accepted can be influenced by different variables such as the number of classes shared with peers, time spent with the peers both within and outside school time, years bonding with influential members of that group, common shared goals and objectives and a shared social background with principal members of that same social group.
Clearly, adolescents who have not integrated with the social grouping and consequently not benefited from integrative acceptance are more likely to experience alienation at best, if not become a sustained target of physical and/or online bullying at worst. However, in certain cases, rather than choosing to fully conform to group norms, the adolescent may deliberately choose to remain on the periphery of the social group or within a certain social boundary, conforming to some social expectations, but not becoming fully aligned to the social group in which they exist. Mallinckrodt (2000) uses the term ‘avoidant strategy’ to describe this and considers it to be a defence mechanism whereby the individual seeks to avoid being completely drawn into a social group, but can avail of its resources when required. This same behaviour is described by Holmes (2001) as follows: ‘The avoidant strategy means staying near to a protective other, but not too near for fear of rejection or aggression – here a measure of intimacy is sacrificed in which affect is ‘deactivated’ (p.3). Thus, some of the desired social regulation and integration is achieved and contrary expressions of independence are moderated, if not entirely sublimated. This perspective is valuable as it provides us with insight as to why non-conformity may result in some adolescents becoming the target of cyberbullying behaviour whilst
others who have learnt to “give and take” (and are thereby more integrated) with their immediate social circle do not suffer the same outcome. An example of complete social alienation is provided by the Phoebe Prince case, where a vulnerable adolescent who was seeking to establish social roots but was perceived by others to have ignored the cultural norms and rules of her new environment, was consequently alienated and exposed to the harassment and extreme levels of bullying both physically and online, with fatal consequences.
One concept that is closely linked to ‘social facts’ – (the social obligations and expectations of the social grouping) - is that of the ‘collective conscience’. This concept refers to the fact that the individual must not only conform in their behaviour, but also fully accept that which is deemed to be acceptable by the greater society of which the individual is a part. What this means in essence is that the individual’s morality is subject to influence from the greater social majority. It is akin to the old adage “when in Rome” which applies as a bias rule in any given society. In his book, ‘The Division of Labour in Society’ Durkheim clearly links ‘collective conscience’ to a common sense of morality by stating:
The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it the collective or common conscience … It is, thus, an entirely different thing from particular consciences, although it can be realized only through them.
(Durkheim, 1983/1964: 79-80).
It has been suggested by Stones (2008) that this ‘collective conscience’ or totality of beliefs of a given society can have its own ‘life’ or culture. This is of significance when analysing technology-mediated behaviour. For example, social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace reveal groups of individuals united by common interests, such as ‘friends’, ‘likes’, ‘dislikes’ and shared agendas. In many cases, these ‘dislikes’ can take a more personal tone where individually-shared dislike of one person’s behaviour or personal beliefs “justifies” a mutually-accepted attack on the individual’s personality, which has become known as ‘trolling’. Thus, it could be argued that the ‘collective conscience’ of these sub groups justifies (in the individual’s eyes) the right to punish a particular individual who is perceived as being in breach of the accepted normative behaviour.
However, it is possible (and very likely) that an individual whose behaviour may appear consistent with the collective conscience of their social group may in fact not fully embrace the moral beliefs of that group to the same degree as others. For example, it is possible that some members of social networking websites may choose to imitate negative online behaviour in order to ensure their social acceptance within the group, rather than because they embrace the prevailing viewpoint. In other words, in some cases, individualism can be temporarily sublimated to the social expectations of the group.
Additional support for the contention that the collective conscience may not be as unified as Durkheim would purport it to be, is provided by the fact that an individual’s behaviour in a group setting can differ considerably from their behaviour when separated from that group. For example, some people take part in violent behaviour under the common protection and guise of mass action. However, separated from the group that same behaviour is avoided, as these actions, if exposed at a personal level, would bring shame and embarrassment. Thus, it would appear that in some cases the collective conscience could have the potential to facilitate moral disengagement on the part of some who would, in an individual context, behave differently.
This phenomenon of distinction between personal versus group behaviour is even more evident in the case of group online harassment of an individual as cyberbullying behaviour has specific characteristics that facilitate the anonymity of the perpetrator and work against the target. For example, not only do the perpetrator and intended target not engage face-to-face, but also the deliberate intention to cause distress and wound the target is covert and hidden from public scrutiny. The target may not even know the perpetrator and the attack can be carried out in an anonymous manner regardless of geographic location and time constraints. As Mura (2011) notes:
Being unable to see and perceive the counterpart of an ICT mediated interaction influences the activation of the cognitive mechanisms associated with anonymity, reducing the impact of empathy and facilitating the activation of moral disengagement strategies … In the case of cyberbullying, moral disengagement seems to play a double role, not only allowing bullies to justify
their actions, but explaining the relevance of the counterpart invisibility in facilitating certain aggressive behaviours (p.36).
Consequently, it follows that the stronger the negative group feeling towards an individual who is perceived to have transgressed the social norms of the group, the greater the perceived “carte blanche” or lack of empathy within the ‘collective consciousness’ of the group towards the individual.
Just as European society in the time of Durkheim was undergoing huge social changes, moving from a predominantly agrarian to industrialized society (which brought about deep ramifications for past norms and individual standing in society), so too 21st century society has been radically transformed through telecommunications and ever-evolving Internet-based technologies. For example, technology facilitates faster development and communication of opinion to a wider audience than has ever previously been the case and therefore represents a social upheaval in terms of information dissemination as well as group think outcomes. For example, technology-enabled ability to speed the dissemination of opinion and thus create a mass viewpoint in a short period of time may enable hysterical responses that can have devastating outcomes including the mass social rejection and ostracization of an individual. Durkheim alludes to this when he states that 'great upheavals in society, like great popular wars, sharpen collective feelings' (p.223).
Many cyberbullying cases typify the wide and consistent dissemination of negative collective opinion by technology. One prominent case that received worldwide attention and highlighted the potential tragic impact of cyberbullying was seen in the case of Phoebe Prince. Her interaction with ex-boyfriends of girls who were members of a strong social unit brought about continuous hostile responses. As a group, they retaliated against her with sustained online character denigration, insults and threats, thus creating an environment which Phoebe Prince found intolerable and which caused her to contemplate suicide as an option. Although multiple factors influenced her eventual death by suicide, the social facts and behaviour demonstrated by the perpetrators are consistent with the collective conscience group dynamic as described by Durkheim. In dating ex-boyfriends of girls within a dominant social group, Phoebe Prince unwittingly exacerbated tension and hostile feelings amongst
individual members of that same group which inevitably led to social disharmony directed at her. This is consistent with the view propounded by scholars such as Durkheim who maintain that those who violate a group’s social norms (or that which is deemed to be acceptable behaviour) run the risk of punishment from that same social unit.