A Philosophical Reexamination of Durkheim’s Socio-political Deviation

Durkheim’s theory of deviation has powerfully influenced the scholars of sociology. His idea is still one of the fundamental theories in sociology. Durkheim’s whole investigation is threefold: first, to establish a framework of theory; second, to solidify it once established; and third, to promote its greater perfection. In general, Durkheim’s establishment of this framework was fruitful. This paper attempts: 1) to re-formalize the rules of socio-political deviation; 2) to re-correlate socio-political deviation and other socio-political phenomena; 3) to re-justify the necessity and causality of socio-political deviation. We can concede that Durkheim was an original deviser of a blueprint for a new theoretical mansion, but at the same time, one should realize that he was also a failure as a builder of this construction.

"Abnormal Being or Abnormal Nature of Being"; 2. Leve1 2: "Normal Fact or Normality of Fact" vs.
"Abnormal Fact or Abnormality of Fact"; and 3. Leve1 3 "Normal Phenomenon or Normality of Phenomenon" vs. "Abnormal Phenomenon or Abnormality of Phenomenon." Those three levels indicate: 1) Normal or abnormal being is regarded as a final reality which determines or underlies the full manifestation of normality or deviation; 2) Normal or abnormal fact is regarded as the actual performance of normal or abnormal being in the practical world; 3) Normal or abnormal phenomenon is regarded as a superficial manifestation of normal or abnormal being in the empirical world. Durkheim attempts to adopt an ontological argument for the reality of deviation. He recognizes certain distinctions between deviant being, deviant nature, deviant existence, deviant facts, and deviant phenomena in a very abstract description: 1) He discovers the non-reliability of deviant phenomena but cannot find a practical approach to handling deviant essence which underlies all outward deviant manifestations through the phenomena; 2) he discovers a subjective demand for the justification of deviant fact and normal fact, but cannot identify an objective standard for them; 3) he discovers material deviation-tangible deviant substance or existence, but cannot comprehend its relationship to spiritual deviation-consciousness; 4) he discovers the ontological gradations in deviation, but cannot describe the interactions between the three levels.

The Epistemological Rule of Deviation
Very significantly, A. W. Rawls asserts that it is an attempt by Durkheim to establish a unique epistemological basis for the study of sociology and moral relations. According to Rawls, Durkheim's epistemology is a type of dualism: an anti-Kantian/anti-rationalist position, and he stresses "sociology of knowledge: idealism versus concrete practice." Durkheim had, throughout his career, been a proponent of science. He believed that many social problems were exacerbated by unscientific "solutions." His task, as he saw it, was to establish valid empirical grounds for the study of social relations, and in particular those social relations that were properly moral relations, which determined the possibility of rational, stable and equitable social life.
For this he needed to ground his studies on an epistemology that would establish social and moral relations as possible subject of valid empirical study. Durkheim situated his argument within the context of the epistemological debates between empiricism (including Pragmatism) and what he called apriorism: that is, between Hume and James on one hand, and Kant on the other. (Rawls, 2009, p Paris with a reputation as a powerful intellect pursuing an aggressively scientific approach to all problems (everything else was mysticism, dilettantism, and irrationalism)." (Jones 1985, pp. 12-20) In the Scientia article Durkheim argues that there are two aspects of each human being: a pre-rational animal being; and a rational social, or human, being. These two aspects of the person conflict with one another, producing the internal tension that philosophers across the ages have referred to as dualism. In Durkheim's regard: "It is this disagreement, this perpetual division against ourselves, that produces both our grandeur and our misery; our misery because we are thus condemned to live in suffering; and our grandeur because it is this division that distinguishes us from all other beings. The animal proceeds to his pleasure in a single and exclusive movement; man alone is normally obliged to make a place for suffering in his life." (Durkheim, 1974, p. 329) Max Weber is much more interested in deviation from these ideals than the ideals themselves. However, Durkheim believes "in theories (social facts), but he says that sociologists understand what's going on with these theories better than 'lay' people-i.e., not sociologists, but the people that we study." (Lukyanova, 2016) On what basis are normal and abnormal distinguished? Is it objective or subjective? In Durkheim's view, our practical reasoning must be based on the norm; the normal phenomenon can be established 20 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 by observation. Therefore, it can be explained. Generally, we may regard Durkheim as a rationalist, conceptualist, and realist.
For this reason, it is easy to establish a norm since it can be observed in a great many cases. For instance, the normal state can be known at each moment and even in periods of crisis, and the same is also true in sociology for societies belonging to a lower culture, such as uncivilized culture. However, for the highest and most contemporary societies, the law of evolution for normal states is by definition unknown. Concerning such societies, people are used to deciding whether or not a phenomenon is normal just from an objective standpoint as approved and accepted without any point of reference.
Interestingly enough, in the first case, the sociologist may properly designate the phenomenon as normal; and, in the second, refuse this designation. Durkheim adopted an example to explain this point.
When we want to determine whether the present economic state of Europe is normal or not, we shall investigate the causes which brought it about.
If these conditions still exist in our present-day society, this situation is normal in spite of the dissent it arouses. But if, on the contrary, it is found to be related to the old social structure which we have elsewhere qualified as segmental and which, after having been the essential framework of societies, progressively disappears, we shall have to conclude that the present situation, however universal, is pathological. By the same method should be settled all converse questions of this kind, such as those concerning the normality of the decline in religious beliefs or of the development of state power. (Durkheim, 1966, p. 62) It is, essentially, a teleological argument. If it continues to exist, that is because it serves a necessary or desirable function. Durkheim aims to tell us that for societies as for individuals, health is good and desirable; disease, on the contrary, is bad and to be avoided. So, it is necessary to find an objective criterion (inherent in the facts themselves) to distinguish scientifically between health and morbidity in the various orders of social phenomena. Clearly, without the objective criterion (Note 3), anybody might interpret the normal and the abnormal at will. Durkheim criticizes relativism in deviation theory and considers subjective effect to be the basis of this position. The diversity of human behavior and the relativity of morals show us that it is impossible to declare that some offense is a violation of "social health" or that it is universally immoral concerning a set of standards.   Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 fascinating view: some social disorder is associated with apparent progress in which the crime rate drops noticeably below the average level. For him, the increase of criminality in the nineteenth century was a normal phenomenon. In general, a certain amount of increase of certain forms of criminality would be normal, for each civilization has its criminality. Indeed, the crime itself will have abnormal forms when its rate is unusually high. However, if it does not exceed a certain level, we may consider it a normal type.
We classify specific social deviation, such as crime, among the phenomena of normal sociology because it is a factor in public health, an integral part of all healthy societies. In other words, social deviation, such as crime, is valuable and necessary; it is bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life, which are themselves indispensable to the normal evolution of morality and law.
We may indicate the source and the purpose of a pragmatic rule of deviation: 1 Durkheim seems to have been influenced by utilitarianism (Note 4) and American pragmatism. For him, the most important criterion for socio-political deviation is "useful and useless," or "necessary or unnecessary," rather than "true and false," "good and bad," or "right and wrong." In contrast with Aristotle, he emphasizes the positivity of deviation. However, Durkheim only stresses the positive function of certain "negative deviations," such as criminality. He does not pay much attention to the positive function of "positive deviation," such as social reform. In a sense, Durkheim's pragmatic argument for deviation is apt to be employed as a purely subjective justification for self-interests because anybody, any group, any force, even any state can have an excuse to emphasize the usage and utility of their activities and behaviors (Note 5). Besides, another possible result of this argument is to be led to immorality. Since the "good and bad" or the "right and wrong" are not the essential criteria for socio-political deviation, it is easy to justify deviant egoism--any deviant activities just for a selfish goal. To some extent, the statesman himself is advised not to plan for a better-an "ideal"-future society, but to maintain the general = average = normal = healthy state of society. Durkheim   "utopian fiction" to the actual condition. He also affirms that deviation cannot be considered a motive force for social development. Unfortunately, Durkheim failed to base his social analysis of deviation on the social ensemble--economic, political, and other cultural factors considered a unified whole (Note 6).
For our purposes, we will probe into the social importance of deviation in detail in the next section.

The Re-correlation of Socio-political Deviation
Like Aristotle, Durkheim explains his theory of deviation through an organic approach. Furthermore, he intends to combine the physiological approach with the sociological approach. However, to a certain extent, he still oversimplifies social theory and reduces complex social phenomena to simple physiological phenomena. Durkheim reviewed the social importance of deviation in its relationship with other phenomena of society. In other words, he attempts to examine the matter from various social angles and the re-correlation of socio-political deviation.

Deviation and Normality
One of Durkheim's meaningful inquiries is to distinguish social "normality" from "pathology." In his eyes, an initial criterion of normality can be derived from the "external" characteristic of the degree of "generality" of the phenomenon in question. The real test of the normality of a social phenomenon is whether or not it is found in the conditions of existence of the societal type in question. We may notice that some survivals from the previous phase of its development are no longer "normal" in a society changing. The goal of humanity recedes into infinity, discouraging some by its very remoteness and, by contrast, arousing others who, in order to draw a little nearer to it, quicken the pace and plunge into relation. This practical dilemma may be escaped if the desire is defined in the same way as its health
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 and if health is defined as inherent in things. For then, the object of our efforts is both given and defined at one stroke. It is no longer a matter of pursuing desperately an objective that retreats as one advance but of working with steady perseverance to maintain the normal state and re-establish it if threatened. The statesman's duty is no longer to violently push society toward an ideal that seems attractive to him, but his role is that of physician: he prevents the outbreak of illnesses by good hygiene and seeks to cure them when they have appeared. (Durkheim, 1972, p. 105) In order to define the concept of deviation, Durkheim put forward two specific terms: one is "average organism," the other is "average circumstances." The former, perhaps, is to be taken in a physiological sense, the latter, in a sociological sense. For instance, morbidity is merely an outgrowth of an afflicted organism; in other words, it does not maintain its proper relation to average circumstances, from which everyone deviates more or less. Durkheim gives us the following account of deviation. First, the normal type merges with the average type, and every deviation from this standard of health is a morbid phenomenon; second, this deviation or morbidity is judged to harm society or to disturb the normal functioning of society; third, the deviation or anomaly appears disconnected from the conditions of all collective life, and if the collective conscience has enough authority practically to suppress divergences, it will react to the slightest deviations; fourth, a deviation, such as a crime, in a sense tends to lose the character of normality; fifth, there seems to be a range within which a thing would still be normal after some quantitative change, but if it exceeds a certain limit, it becomes a deviant or abnormal type; sixth, a social fact can be called abnormal or deviant only when it goes beyond a given phase of its development; finally, the normality of a thing can inspire sentiments of aversion, so that, for example, if the crime is normal, it is nonetheless undesirable.
Durkheim seems to apply a quantitative measurement and a qualitative evaluation for justifying social deviation. Despite his efforts, it still is impossible to find an exact or precise criterion for what is considered "averageness" of the social organism, social circumstances, social types, and collective social life. He also cannot define the size of the range or the limit in which a quantitative change may become a deviant type (Note 7). This paper now turns to Durkheim's examination of "norms." In his view, differentiated norms, as part of a cultural pattern, are derived from the evaluative judgments that have been institutionalized in the value system in a society. Norms are generalized patterns of expectation that define differentiated patterns of expectation for differentiated units within a system.
Values can legitimize norms, but not vice versa. In his study of suicide, Durkheim seems to postulate an "average man" as one kind of norm that can explain the regularity of specific modes of behavior associated with each society-a personality type characteristic of each society and reproduced by the majority of its members. For him, if the behavior of the average individual had been the standard of generality and social health, then crimes and suicides would have been classified as exceptional concerning their frequency of occurrence and as morbid for "normality." However, even these extraordinary or morbid things are still kinds of social facts that are normal and general for a social type when they occur in the average society of that type or at a corresponding stage of its evolution. 26 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 There is a hierarchy of allocative mechanisms whose relations to each other are ordered by institutionalized norms. The available reference of norms at the level of the collectivity is no longer general but is made specific to the particular goals, situations, and resources of the collectivity.
"Institutionalized norms" is a significant concept in Durkheim's deviation theory. Indeed, he contributed to the specification and conceptualization of institutional norms. For him, 1) the people's freedom, rights, and obligations must be defined in terms of complex sets of institutionalized norms in the market sphere; 2) one primary institutionalized norm has to do with the institutionalization, limitation, and legitimate use of the monetary mechanism; another lays stress on the institutionalization of conditions under which market transactions involving different subcategories of resources may be entered into; 3) a whole complex of institutionalized norms is a condition of the stability of a functionally differentiated system; 4) values must be brought to bear on the legitimization of the differentiated and institutionalized norms which are necessary to regulate behavior in the area of that function; 5) the structure of a society must consist in patterns of normative culture, as a norm, which are institutionalized in the social system; 6) the institutionalization of norms is a matter of degree ; 7) institutional norms may be treated as being independent of the goals of the individual; 8) institutionalized norms may be more or less formal--"legal and moral rules, religious, financial system, etc."-established beliefs and practices which have their origin or "substratum" either in the political society as a whole, or in one of the partial groups which comprise it. Clearly enough, from the above eight key points, it follows that deviation will occur with departure from these institutionalized norms.
Durkheim seems to ignore legalization and institutionalization of deviation or abnormality. In the last analysis, normalization can be regarded as a process from a potential "norm" to an actualized or realized norm. A potential "norm" might be a deviation that departs from a previous norm. Through legalization and institutionalization, a previous deviation may be normalized quantitatively and qualitatively. In a sense, the institutionalization and legalization of deviation would be much more significant than normality. Durkheim subjectively creates two types of criterion and sources for normality and abnormality or deviation. Durkheim    interest groups, occupations, roles, or other "actors" in a larger social system must cause anomie. For instance, there must be a conflict between staff and line in an industrial organization, or between administration and personnel in a university.
What is so-called anomie? Accordingly, it is the effect of mal-adjustment, disorganization, or any denormalized social phenomena. In contemporary societies, economic anomie is one of the decisive anomies, chronic in the industrial and commercial world. Durkheim created the anomie theory and accentuated the so-called "deviant or abnormal" forms of social organization. He argued that the causes of deviation are: 1) anomic division of labor, 2) social transition, 3) lack of regulation over the relations between functions which are vital parts of the large organic whole-society, 4) social disorganization, which can be measured as a variable apart from the disruption of a previous organization, 5) functional 28 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 disintegration which can be considered as a universal characteristic of society, 6) "over-organization," which can be regarded as a possible "abnormal form of society," 7) mal-adjustment in various functions with changes in social conditions: such as changes in population, urbanization, transportation, etc.
It is important to note that Durkheim never discussed anomie and deviation in only a negative sense. At this point in his argument, Durkheim asserts that social disorganization cannot be denounced as a bad thing, but it can beget a better organization through periodic anomie. Anomie is likely to be functional for social change. For Durkheim, anomies and conflicts can be regarded as results of the development of new functions. Periodic anomie is probably inevitable in the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity, as "functions must emerge before they can be regulated or before they can adjust mutually." Thus, social change and division of labor result in functional disorganization or disintegration, which leads to a higher form of social organization. Periodic anomie, as a deviation, probably occurs in any ongoing developing social group. Durkheim's theory seems to imply three ways: the negative, the neutral, and the positive, for defining anomie as indicated in the following

Deviation and Anomic Division of Labor
In his The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim intends to find out what divides labor deviate from its natural course better to determine the conditions of existence of the normal state. As for the social norms corresponding to organic solidarity, some legal rights corresponding to the division of labor can determine the nature and the relations between divided functions, "but their violation only entails restitutive measures without any expiatory character." Generally speaking, Durkheim defines "the division of labor" as a "normal phenomenon" and claims that "normally, the division of labor produces social solidarity." However, he also regularly admits that it sometimes has different and even opposite Here, as elsewhere, Durkheim focused on identifying the ways in which the realities of his time deviated from a future, ideal state of "normality," rather than applying his mind to the study of 'the concrete facts of industry, administration and commerce'! He preferred to see them as transitional and remediable phenomena. However, as we have seen, he was soon to move toward a more activist view of the remedy, and would no longer count on the naturally emergent consequences of the division of labor. This change was crucial to the development of his ideas about moral education and his move towards socialism. (Lukes, 1972, p. 178) We may find the following four main drawbacks in Durkheim's theory of the division of labor and abnormal forms: 1) he seems to be conceiving utopian fiction rather than investigating the real social 30 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 situation; 2) he is haranguing abstract concepts rather than attempting to understand the concrete facts; 3) he is observing only the appearance of things rather than probing into the essence of things; 4) he is inquiring only about certain isolated cases rather than viewing the situation as a whole. Properly speaking, some of these drawbacks are to be found only in the early stages of Durkheim's studies and were overcome by him later; again, some of them are only partially true about the whole framework of his theory. Generally speaking, Durkheim did not provide very profound or creative ideas for the theory of division of labor because 1) his theory, at least most parts, does not go too much beyond the scope of what his predecessors, such as Marx, have already discussed; in other words, it does not provide significant progress in this field; 2) his theory was useful, correct, or effective during a certain period of historical time (such as the nineteenth century and the first half of this century), but it is debatable, questionable, and changeable in our time. For example, as we have discussed in the contemporary Western developed countries, society has confronted the expansion of the white-collar class. The so-called anomic division of labor has been changed into a new form: on the one hand, the social contradiction or class conflict is retarded; on the other hand, some higher-level negative deviations, such as organized crime or white-collar crime, have occurred rapidly.  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 change; only evolution can make real change. Here, Durkheim contradicts himself vis-a-vis his other statements. He appraises the moral significance of the French Revolution by providing a sociological interpretation. According to him, the revolution offered a moral lesson to this society in a state of "anomie"; therefore, he holds that it is necessary to search for new moral~ for a society whose structure had been shattered. (Durkheim, 1973, pp. 34-42) Durkheim wants to cure the injured society by specific "anomic changes"-industrial, social, scientific, and so on. In a sense, to use the criteria of normality and pathology is to place reliable limits upon the anomic boundlessness of aspirations for change. Durkheim recognizes that the abolition of the forced division of labor demands a significant process of institutional reorganization centering upon the interrelationship between the state and occupational associations. At one point, he says that "sociology" can then be defined as the science of institutions, their genesis, and functioning. Logically, in a sociological perspective, any deviation, such as anomic division of labor, maybe a process and a function of institutional change. A fundamental issue in his major works is to discuss the nature of the institutional change from mechanical to organic solidarity. For Durkheim, an important task is to disclose the confrontation between the dissolving "traditional" society and the Of course the individual plays a role in their genesis. But for a social fact to exist several individuals, at the very least, must have contributed their action, and it is this combined action which has created a new product. Since this synthesis takes place outside each one of us..., its necessary effect is to fix, to institute outside us, certain ways of acting and certain judgments which do not depend on each particular will be taken separately. Thus it has been pointed out that there is a form, which, provided that one extends the ordinary meaning somewhat, expresses this mode of reality quite well: this is "institution." One can, indeed, without distorting the meaning of this expression, call institutions all the beliefs and modes of conduct instituted by the collectivity (Durkheim, 1972, p. 71) Durkheim stresses a notion of institutionalized anomie that is considered to have invariably damaging consequences for society. In L'Allemaqne au-dessus de tout (Durkheim, 2015), Durkheim employs an institutional analysis in applying his theory of anomie to problems of imperialism. According to him, imperialism was a form of anomie fostered by dominant institutions like the state and military, and a thinker like Treitschke attempted to legitimize institutionalized anomie in the form of a national will to power. The limitless expansion of the power of a state at the expense of other states was for Durkheim "a morbid hypotrophy of the will; a kind of will mania." Durkheim realized that anomie might be furthered by dominant institutions, instilled into citizens' personalities through education, and legitimated by intellectuals. (Lacapra, 1972, pp. 77-78) Durkheim cannot study imperialism further because he ignores the fact that any dominant institution is only an effect of social, political, and economic conditions. Durkheim provides the following description of institutionalized and ideological anomie.
Governmental power, instead of being the regulator of economic life, has become its instrument and servant. The most opposite schools-orthodox economists and extreme socialists-agree that it should 32 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 be reduced to the role of a more or less passive intermediary between different social functions. One side wishes it to be simply the guardian of individual contracts. The other side delegates to it the task of collective bookkeeping, i.e., to chalk up the demands of consumers, to transmit them to producers, to inventory aggregate income, and to distribute it according to a set formula. But both sides refuse government the right to subordinate other social organs and have them converge toward a higher goal.
On all sides, men declare that nations ought to have as their sole or principal objective the achievement of industrial prosperity. Thus the dogma of economic materialism serves as the basis of these seemingly opposed systems. And since these theories merely express the state of opinion, industry, instead of being viewed as a means to an end which transcends, has become the supreme end of individuals and societies. (Durkheim, 1951, pp. 283-284) Like Marx, Durkheim believes that the institution of classes or castes constitutes a strictly regulated organization of the division of labor that can be considered a source of conflict. For example, the lower classes, not being, or no longer being, satisfied with their role by custom or law, aspire to functions that have been closed to them and seek to dispossess those who are exercising them. Furthermore, suppose the institution of classes or castes sometimes gives rise to unfortunate frictions instead of producing solidarity. In that case, the distribution of social functions on which it rests does not correspond, or rather no longer corresponds to the distribution of natural talents. Here, Durkheim does not offer much more new insight than Marx or Lenin offered because Marx and Lenin devoted their attention to the social causes (such as the economic) of class struggle or political conflicts rather than the non-social or natural reasons. The concept of "social transition" is an essential insight into Durkheim's theory of social change. He creatively maintains that so-called social deviation is an essential aspect of the social transition from mechanical to organic solidarity. For Durkheim, as in folk society, mechanical solidarity is a society at a low level, but organic solidarity, as in urban society, is a society at a higher level.
It is clear that during periods of transition, the normal type does not correspond to the actual state of one or more societies of this type but to a state which has already been superseded. We may distinguish six fundamental questions to be asked in analyzing the two types of social solidarity: 1) the scope of the division of labor, 2) the functions of two primary forms of law-the repressive and the restitutive, 3) the degree of influence in two kinds of conscience-the strongly collective and the individual, 4) the adaptability of society to the crisis, 5) the nature of government 6) the typical reaction towards deviation. James Invevarity seeks to provide an approach to definitions of deviance based on the theoretical conceptions of law and society developed by Marx and Durkheim. The synthesis of Marx's contrast between feudal and bourgeois law and Durkheim's analysis of repressive and restitutive law begins to spell out the social-organizational conditions under which certain types of reactions to and definitions of deviance will occur. He emphasizes the similarities between Marx and Durkheim more than the differences.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 If this paper is not mistaken, the last is the most profound one because it directly indicates the relationship and interaction between deviation and social transition. In the final analysis, the sixth and the first five are related to "deviation." Perhaps the following table may be helpful to clarify and understand Durkheim's notion of social transition (the transition from one type of social solidarity to another one) and its relation to social deviation. From this table, we may infer: 1) mechanical solidarity, as a lower social form, should be replaced by a higher social form; and 2) organic solidity, as a higher social form, should be developed continuously. However, Durkheim does not show us whether there would be post-organic solidarity or whether there would be different stages in organic solidarity.

Deviation and Political Society
Durkheim narrowly defines a "political society" as one of the formed social groups, which is subject to one joint authority, where this is not itself subject to any other permanently constituted authority. For our purposes, the word "state" can be used to indicate the particular group of officials entrusted with representing this authority. Imprecisely speaking, the term "state" means the agency of the sovereign authority or a specialized agency whose responsibility is to work out specific ideas that apply to the collectivity; the term "political society," the complex group state is the highest organ. According to circumstances, the same society may pass from being an absolute government into an entirely different form; a single society can change its type during its evolution. For example, although the regulative agency was transformed, France of the seventeenth century and France of the nineteenth century belong to the same type. In other words, the change of political form or governmental type does not mean the change of social type, because the specific form of political organization does not depend upon the fundamental constitution of society, but upon the nature of the social type and contingent circumstances: "The nature of the social type and that of the government type must be carefully distinguished, since as they are independent, they act independently of one another, and sometimes even in opposite ways." (Durkheim, 1972, p. 194) We   (Durkheim, 1980, p. 65) Here, Durkheim repeats the principle of checks and balance, but his statement implies that political deviation will occur without this principle. Durkheim correctly classifies two types, the social and the governmental, but he overlooks that the two types cannot be separated. The two types may have only relative independence. In many cases, the nature of the social type can determine the governmental type, and the latter type can react to the former. Expanding its power and adding luster to its fame was the fundamental nature of aims pursued by the state in many societies. We confront a severe dilemma.  Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 society must try to keep an equilibrium between the powers of government and the individual's rights; otherwise, socio-political anomaly and deviation may occur immediately. No society can keep this equilibrium without any change. There are two possibilities. A rapid or sudden socio-political deviation may occur if the equilibrium is fundamentally broken; the other is that socio-political evolution may continue if the equilibrium needs some adjustment. Only in the second situation is the appearance of anomaly and deviation normal for society.
In Durkheim's analysis, the contact between the particular agency and other social organs may vary in its degree of closeness and constancy. These differences of degree can be significant: they vary depending on the presence or absence of definite institutions designed to establish this contact and whether they are developed or merely rudimentary. Therefore, neither extreme, where the government has absolute power, nor the people have an absolute right, is beneficial to the society. For instance, "democracy," understood as the absolute right of the people, can only exist in the early phases of the development of society. If everyone attempted to govern, it means there would be no government at all.
Collective sentiments may sway the people. The societies of this description are like individuals whose actions are directed solely by routine and prejudice. Deliberative politics in no way guide the life of such people. However, here, Durkheim seems never to delineate a clear distinction between democracy and anarchy. Durkheim argues that the state has a much stronger influence today than in other times because the sphere of this clarified consciousness has widened. The more the depths of social life become illuminated, the more changes can be introduced. Durkheim demarcates two different kinds of democratic societies: the real ones and the pseudo-ones. The real ones are more malleable and flexible, and this advantage they owe to the fact that the government consciousness has expanded in such a way as to include a much broader range of objects; by contrast, the pseudo-ones have been unorganized from the start, and have wholly yielded to the yoke of tradition.
Durkheim was unable to give us a clear definition of the difference between so-called actual and pseudo-democracy. He did not provide any more creative points than his predecessors did; some

Re-justification of Socio-political Deviation
Durkheim offers a bold challenge to the traditional views, given that no society has been discovered, in history or travel, without crime. He maintains that some types of crime are a sound indication of general well-being in the social order and can often result in the attention of society being called to conditions that are deserving in themselves of reform. Durkheim affirms that we must study crime among the "phenomena of normal sociology"; in other words, deviant behavior must be seen in terms of the same processes that are operative in behavior that is not declared deviant. Durkheim presumes that in the first place, crime is normal, because a society exempt from it is utterly impossible. He points out: 1) criminal acts must be found to exist with the same degree as sentiments contrary to them; 2) crime will not disappear; 3) crime constantly changes its form. offended them deeply, their sense of evil led them to blame, not this or that particular and transient form of moral discipline, but the principle itself of discipline. (Nisbot, 1974, p. 220) Regrettably, Durkheim did not contribute a more persuasive examination of the necessity of socio-political deviation. In general, he confines his justification within a limited pragmatic or utilitarian perspective because he seems to believe that emotional needs can judge the usage or utility of deviation. What is the causality of deviation? Durkheim's analysis suggests the following points: 1) Moral equilibrium is breakable. If rules of morality lose their authority, people's emotions and appetites will be unrestricted and uncontained in the moral sector. If man no longer feels the moral forces that restrain him and limit his horizon, it is because they no longer carry their normal degree of authority.
2) The nature of things is transformable. Today, old forces no longer exercise their regulative function in the same manner or spirit as formerly. For instance, an industry that is now more highly developed and important to the social organism can no longer be contained within the same narrow bounds, subjected to a heavily repressive system, and kept by regulations in such a subordinate position.
3) Social crisis or anomie is constant and normal. A society that was made up only of average 39 www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 individuals would be essentially abnormal. No society does not contain a profusion of individual anomalies, and such a universal phenomenon cannot exist without reason. "It is therefore socially normal that there should be psychologically abnormal individuals in every society." (Durkheim, 1972, p. 106) For example, the pervasiveness of crime is only a particular case of this general proposition. A specifiable level of crime is a normal condition of functioning of every type of society. 4) The tendency towards infinity is inevitable. It is continually repeated that man's nature is eternally dissatisfied and to advance constantly without rest or respite toward an indefinite goal. 5) The gulf between the hereditary disposition of an individual and the social functions he or she will fill is unsurmountable. The field is also subject to many factors which can make an individual nature deviate from its normal direction and Second, Durkheim overemphasized spontaneous deviation, automatic deviation, or deviation-in-itself, distinguished from rational deviation, conscious deviation, or deviation-for-itself. The socio-political deviation is only a blind and dehumanized force because the human being is unaware and determined by a mysterious cause of deviation. Accordingly, active, rational choices may not be essential for deviant activities. Third, Durkheim overlooked the deep source of social crisis and anomie. He adopted a teleological and subjective attitude to describe, generalize, or explain specific superficial facts or appearances about deviation without grasping the essence (the necessary or defining characteristics or properties of deviation). Fourth, Durkheim overestimated the role of abstract human nature. In his opinion, like Hume, irrational or emotional passion is the ultimate motivation for deviant activities.
Fifth, Durkheim overstressed man's conflict with society. It seems that relations among people are just like "the war of all against all," as Hobbes says. Therefore, class, racial, religious, political, economic, or other social hatreds and struggles are the primary "dynamics" for deviant socio-political activities.
Sixth, as we have discussed in section II, Durkheim did not give us any new ideas concerning the division of labor. Seventh, Durkheim improperly considered religious life a significant cause of social deviation. Undoubtedly, religion is still one of the important social forces in the world (Note 9).
However, on the whole, it is no longer a significant cause for social change.
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/jrph Journal of Research in Philosophy and History Vol. 4, No. 3, 2021 It is worth reminding the reader that, for Durkheim, it is impossible to provide an exact or "correct" analysis of the nature of the deviation and resolve all difficulties caused by this analysis. Nevertheless, he opened up a new path to explaining social and political phenomena and set up a creative methodology to deal with the problems confronted in social and political studies.

Conclusion
Durkheim's whole investigation is threefold: first, to establish a framework of theory; second, to solidify it once established; and third, to promote its greater perfection. In general, his establishment of this framework was fruitful: 1) to re-formalize the rules of socio-political deviation; 2) to re-correlate socio-political deviation and other socio-political phenomena; 3) to re-justify the necessity and Deviation, Organizational Deviation, Governmental Deviation. It was unfortunate that his solidification of this framework was not very successful because, in a theoretical sense, his views could not effectively explain what he discussed, such as the facts we have mentioned above. In a practical sense, it is still doubtful whether or not his methodology can be regarded, as a workable and valuable tool, to resolve real social problems. His many points are only subjective "prescriptions" which cannot be tested or verified by social practice.
For this reason, his framework is far from attaining the perfection he intended. Despite the above serious shortcomings, undoubtedly, Durkheim's theory of deviation has powerfully influenced the scholars of sociology. His idea is still one of the fundamental theories in sociology. So, one can concede that Durkheim was an original deviser of a blueprint for a new theoretical mansion, but at the same time, one should realize that he was also a failure as a builder of this construction.