Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) defined social facts as ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that exist outside the individual but exert control over them. In other words, they are part of society’s collective life rather than any single person’s choices.
For example, laws, customs, or even table manners don’t depend on one individual to exist—but they influence how we all behave. They form part of society’s “collective consciousness” (the shared beliefs and values of a community) and exist whether we like them or not.
Durkheim argued that just as biology studies cells or chemistry studies molecules, sociology must study these external social forces if it is to be a science.
Key Takeaways
- Definition: Social facts are shared ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that exist outside individuals but shape their behaviour through social pressure.
- Characteristics: They are external, coercive, and objective, meaning they can be studied systematically like natural phenomena.
- Examples: Laws, morals, customs, fashions, and norms all function as social facts that guide everyday life and maintain social order.
- Durkheim’s Use: Émile Durkheim applied the concept to explain solidarity, anomie, and even patterns in suicide rates, showing behaviour is socially influenced.
- Debates: Critics argue social facts are not entirely objective but socially constructed, highlighting the role of interpretation and meaning in human action.
Key Characteristics of Social Facts
Émile Durkheim developed the concept of social facts in his book The Rules of Sociological Method (1895).
He wanted to establish sociology as a discipline distinct from philosophy and psychology, with its own subject matter and methods.
Durkheim identified three main features that distinguish social facts:
- External to the individual – Social facts exist outside personal consciousness. You are born into a society with pre-existing norms, language, customs, and institutions. They are not created by you, though you participate in them.
- Coercive in nature – Social facts shape and sometimes constrain behaviour. They may be subtle (social disapproval for being rude) or formal (legal punishment for breaking laws). Even everyday habits like queuing are sustained because people feel pressure to conform.
- Objective and measurable – Durkheim argued that social facts should be studied “as things.” This means treating them as objective realities, not as subjective opinions. For example, divorce rates, suicide statistics, or patterns of religious practice can be measured empirically.
By insisting on these characteristics, Durkheim sought to prove that sociology was a science of society, capable of uncovering patterns and laws in human behaviour.
Durkheim himself often used laws to illustrate social facts because they are:
- External – they exist independently of any one person.
- Coercive – breaking them leads to formal sanctions (fines, prison).
- Collective – they represent the shared rules of a society, created and maintained by the community as a whole.
For instance, traffic laws (like stopping at a red light) are not based on personal preference, but everyone must follow them, and failure to do so brings punishment.
👉 Other everyday, highly relatable examples include language (you must use the accepted grammar and vocabulary of your society) and social norms like queuing in line.
Examples of Social Facts
Durkheim divided social facts into two main categories: material and non-material.
Both types exist outside individuals and influence behaviour, but they operate in slightly different ways.
1. Material Social Facts
Material social facts are the tangible, institutional aspects of society that exist in the physical or structural world.
They are often formalised, written down, or embedded in organisations.
Examples include:
- Legal systems (laws, courts, prisons)
- Political structures (governments, bureaucracies)
- Educational institutions (schools, universities)
- Religious organisations (churches, temples, mosques)
- Economic systems (markets, banking, taxation)
These material structures are “out there” in the social environment, exerting authority over individuals.
For example, a law prohibiting theft exists regardless of whether you agree with it, and breaking it carries legal consequences.
Durkheim sometimes described material social facts as “crystallised” because they are fixed into institutions and have a visible, external form.
2. Non-Material Social Facts
Non-material social facts are intangible, cultural, and moral forces that shape how people think and behave.
They do not exist in physical form but are deeply rooted in the collective consciousness of society.
Examples include:
- Shared values (e.g., honesty, respect, freedom)
- Norms (e.g., queuing, table manners)
- Morality (ideas of right and wrong)
- Beliefs and ideologies (religious faith, nationalism, political ideals)
- Social currents (collective emotions such as anger, enthusiasm, or panic)
- Language (a system of communication that structures thought)
These non-material facts are often more subtle but no less powerful.
For example, feeling ashamed after breaking a social norm, or proud when conforming to cultural values, reflects the influence of non-material social facts.
Durkheim stressed that non-material social facts are especially important because they create the moral order of society, providing cohesion and meaning.
They explain why people feel connected to something greater than themselves.
Importance of the Distinction
- Material social facts can often be studied directly by looking at institutions, structures, or written laws.
- Non-material social facts require sociologists to investigate collective beliefs, moral codes, and values, often using indirect measures such as statistical patterns or ethnographic study.
Together, these two categories allow Durkheim to argue that sociology must study both the structures of society and the collective consciousness that sustains them.
Durkheim and Positivism
Durkheim was strongly influenced by the philosophy of positivism, developed by Auguste Comte, which argued that society could be studied using the same scientific methods as the natural sciences.
Durkheim believed that because social facts are observable and external, they can be studied empirically, without relying on subjective interpretation. He called on sociologists to:
- Collect data (such as official statistics).
- Look for correlations and patterns.
- Formulate general laws about society.
He set out strict rules for studying social facts in The Rules of Sociological Method:
- Treat social facts as “things” (external realities).
- Avoid personal bias or subjective interpretation.
- Use systematic, comparative methods to uncover regularities.
This scientific approach was groundbreaking and helped to legitimize sociology as a discipline.
Social Facts in Durkheim’s Theories
Social Solidarity
Durkheim argued that the cohesion of society depends on social solidarity, or the bonds that connect individuals. He distinguished between two types:
- Mechanical solidarity: Found in small-scale, traditional, homogeneous societies. Here, individuals are bound together by similarity and a strong collective conscience (shared beliefs and values). Conformity is high, and deviation is harshly punished.
- Organic solidarity: Found in large, modern, industrial societies. Here, individuals are specialised and interdependent due to a complex division of labour. The collective conscience is weaker, but people are bound together by mutual dependence.
In both cases, social facts are the glue holding societies together—whether shared traditions in simpler societies or institutions and laws in complex ones.
Anomie
Durkheim introduced the concept of anomie (normlessness) to describe situations where social facts lose their power.
During periods of rapid change (industrialisation, economic crises, war), existing norms and values may weaken, leaving individuals uncertain about how to act.
Anomie, he argued, can lead to social instability, alienation, and deviant behaviour, showing the importance of strong and coherent social facts in maintaining order.
Suicide
In Suicide (1897), Durkheim provided one of the first major empirical studies of social facts.
While suicide seems like a deeply individual act, Durkheim showed that suicide rates are influenced by levels of social integration and regulation—in other words, by social facts.
He identified four types of suicide:
- Egoistic suicide: Low integration into society (e.g., weak family or religious ties).
- Altruistic suicide: Excessive integration, where the group dominates the individual (e.g., soldiers sacrificing themselves).
- Anomic suicide: Low regulation due to normlessness (e.g., during economic crises).
- Fatalistic suicide: Excessive regulation (e.g., individuals trapped by oppressive rules).
This study demonstrated how even the most private actions are shaped by collective social forces.
Why Social Facts Matter in Sociology
Durkheim’s theory of social facts is fundamental because it:
- Defines sociology’s subject matter: It separates sociology from psychology by focusing on social structures rather than individual minds.
- Explains social order: Social facts create shared expectations that allow society to function predictably.
- Provides a method of study: By treating social facts as measurable realities, Durkheim showed how sociology could be a scientific discipline.
- Reveals hidden influences: Social facts help explain how seemingly personal behaviours (like suicide) are shaped by wider social contexts.
In short, social facts illustrate the sociological imagination—seeing individual experiences as connected to broader social patterns.
Critical Evaluation
Critics argue that Durkheim overstated the objectivity and coercive power of social facts, downplaying human agency, subjective meaning, and cultural variation. While the concept remains foundational, it has been revised and challenged by interpretivist and constructionist perspectives.
1. Overemphasis on Objectivity
Durkheim has been criticised for treating social facts as if they were objective “things” that exist independently of people, in the same way as natural phenomena like rocks or trees.
This is problematic because many social phenomena, such as morals, traditions, and religious beliefs, are constructed and maintained by people.
Unlike objects in the natural world, they cannot be directly observed in the same way, and their meaning often depends on cultural or historical context. For example, the meaning of marriage or morality varies significantly across societies and time periods.
This means that Durkheim’s attempt to study social facts with the same scientific objectivity as natural sciences may oversimplify human behaviour.
If social facts are partly products of interpretation, then treating them as fixed entities may lead to incomplete or distorted explanations of society.
2. Determinism and Lack of Agency
Durkheim’s theory has been criticised for being overly deterministic, portraying individuals as passive products of powerful external forces.
In his framework, people appear to be shaped entirely by social facts such as norms, laws, and institutions, leaving little room for human agency or resistance.
This perspective ignores the fact that individuals can interpret, challenge, or even transform social rules.
For example, social movements like the civil rights movement or feminist activism demonstrate that people can change social facts rather than simply being controlled by them.
The deterministic element of Durkheim’s theory limits its usefulness in explaining social change or individual diversity.
By neglecting the active role of individuals, it risks presenting a static and overly rigid view of society.
3. Neglect of Subjective Meaning
Interpretivist sociologists, such as Max Weber, argue that Durkheim neglected the importance of the subjective meanings individuals attach to their actions.
While Durkheim relied on statistics and patterns to identify social facts, Weber and others insisted that sociology must also study the intentions, motives, and understandings that people bring to their behaviour.
For instance, in the case of suicide, official statistics may reveal correlations, but they cannot explain the personal reasons behind an individual’s decision.
This suggests that Durkheim’s positivist approach may overlook the richness of human experience.
If sociology only looks at external forces, it may fail to capture the very meanings that drive social behaviour, making explanations incomplete.
4. Social Construction Critique
Later sociologists, such as Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, argue that reality is socially constructed, which challenges Durkheim’s view of social facts as objective entities.
According to Berger and Luckmann’s The Social Construction of Reality (1966), what we call “facts” are the outcome of ongoing human interaction and negotiation.
For example, ideas about gender roles or crime are not fixed realities but are constructed differently across societies and historical periods.
This means that Durkheim’s insistence on treating social facts as fixed and external may miss their fluid and changeable nature.
If social facts are constructed and reconstructed through interaction, then sociologists need to study the processes of meaning-making, not just external patterns.
5. Cultural and Historical Specificity
Durkheim has also been criticised for assuming that social facts operate universally, when in reality they may be culturally and historically specific.
What counts as a social fact in one society may not exist in another.
For example, arranged marriage, caste systems, or ancestor worship function as powerful social facts in some cultures but are absent in others.
Similarly, norms that regulated behaviour in Durkheim’s 19th-century France may no longer hold the same force today.
This limits the generalisability of Durkheim’s theory.
By presenting social facts as universal, he risks ignoring cultural diversity and historical change, making his framework less applicable to global or contemporary sociology.
Reading List
Appelrouth, S. & Edles, L. D. (2020). Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.
Durkheim, É. (1895/1982). The Rules of Sociological Method (trans. W. D. Halls). New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, É. (1897/2002). Suicide: A Study in Sociology (trans. J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson). London: Routledge.
Durkheim, É. (1912/2001). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (trans. C. Cosman). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fulcher, J. & Scott, J. (2011). Sociology (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Giddens, A. (1978). Durkheim. London: Fontana.
Giddens, A. & Sutton, P. W. (2021). Sociology (10th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lukes, S. (1973/2013). Émile Durkheim: His Life and Work – A Historical and Critical Study. London: Penguin Classics.
Ritzer, G. & Stepnisky, J. (2021). Sociological Theory (11th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thompson, K. (2002). Emile Durkheim. London: Routledge.
Weber, M. (1949/2011). Methodology of Social Sciences. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
