Freedom of Speech and Society: A Social Approach to Freedom of Ex ...

urbanised and more complex. For example, this included school teachers as being distinct from parents, school principals separate from teachers, and math teachers separate from chemistry teachers.

To Durkheim, social division of labour was the key factor in determining the unifying factor or solidarity of society and, solidarity was a central concept to Durkheim and remained so throughout his writings. Imagine the most basic society of hunter-gatherers where each individual fulfils the same role with no distinctions among their roles. In Durkheim’s terminology, these less complex societies were held together by mechanical solidarity where the social facts (that is, roughly, morals) were universally held by all members of the society in their collective conscience because the members performed functions indistinguishable from one another and division of labour was at a minimum. In societies where mechanical solidarity prevailed, any behavioural deviation by a member of the group was an affront to the entire group because all values were shared. As societies evolved through urbanisation and population growth, division of labour allowed for specialisation and the bonds of society were no longer merely mechanical and based on identity of interests but transitioned to what he called organic solidarity––a binding together caused by the dependency of each member to the other. As shared values diminished as a result of division of labour, members of complex societies developed individualism. Extrapolating to a free speech perspective, freedom of expression was both unknown and unnecessary in a society dominated by mechanical solidarity because everyone shared the same beliefs and knowledge––there was very little to talk about, and controversy or conflict would have been minimal.

In the legal manifestation of mechanical versus organic solidarity, Durkheim espoused as one of his fundamental concepts the progression from criminal punishment to civil sanctions or restitution for the same conduct as societies became more complex. He saw this as a function of the division of labour in more complex social settings. In more primitive societies, there was less division of labour among individuals and