Mark Zuckerberg's philanthropy through Durkheim's theory of organic solidarity

Durkheim and the Times

Event Summary

Vindu Goel and Nick Wingfield of The New York Times (2015) report that Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has promised to donate 99% of his shares in the company to charity over the course of his lifetime. What prompted this idea was the birth of his new child. He and his wife wrote a letter to the child in which they asserted that they "have a moral responsibility to all children in the next generation" (Zuckerberg, 2015). The letter goes on to mention that Zuckerberg with his billions hopes to focus on "two ideas: advancing human potential and promoting equality" (this after pointing out how technology and the advancement of medicine will help save lives). Zuckerberg's Facebook post went viral in the media, and the report by Goel and Wingfield discusses the practical arrangements of the new organization, which they note will be an LLC -- not a typical charitable organization; thus the two (Zuckerberg and his wife Dr. Priscilla Chan) "will be able to go beyond making philanthropic grants. They will invest in companies, lobby for legislation and seek to influence public policy debates, which nonprofits are restricted from doing under tax laws" (Goel, Wingfield, 2015).

Theory

Building on the theory of Adam Smith regarding society and the division of labor, Durkheim (1997) notes in The Division of Labor in Society that solidarity in society has two parts -- mechanical and organic. Organic solidarity comes about as a result of a certain complementary process on the part of the different individuals (Durkheim, 1997, p. 105). Of the two he asserts that organic solidarity is the more efficacious. Durkheim states that "not only does mechanical solidarity generally bind men together less strongly than does organic solidarity, but, as we mount the scale of social evolution, it becomes increasingly looser" (p. 105). What Durkheim means by this is that as a society becomes more organic and individualized due to modern integration, its laws and rules and collective consciousness all change from the rigid, punitive and mechanical structure (typically represented by religion) to a more person-focused society, in which the role of the individual replaces that once given to ritual.

This theory of organic solidarity fits into Durkheim's larger theoretical framework by fleshing out the socio-evolutionary theoretical aspect of Durkheim's thought. Through an increased and ever-more complex web of interrelations and dependence within society, the division of labor accrues interest, so to speak, as a sense of collectivity and collective consciousness is reduced due to the total reliance upon integration of the whole. For example, as society becomes more organic, the individual becomes more important and takes a more central position in society -- because it is understood that his or her contribution is what keeps society functioning (remove one gear and the whole thing falls apart). Essentially, the individual replaces the esteem once given to religion, and as the individual rises, culture (as that which is mechanical like a society with a collective view towards religion) decreases and so too does the collective consciousness (Allan, 2013, p. 119-122).

The nuance of Durkheim's theory is seen in the fact that it relates the modern society to the society of the Old World and sees the difference in outlook as relating primarily to religion, which in the Old World served as a kind of social adhesive. Religion played the fundamental role of binding people together because society was less integrated at the time and people were not as dependent upon one another as they are in a modern society, where all groups and sectors essentially feed off one another, each producing some aspect of the grid that the whole relies upon, whether it is energy, money, food, government, entertainment, military, education: each is intricately interconnected. A good example is the role of the banks, which were deemed "too big to fail" in 2008: tax payers were obliged to bail them out when they started going bust because of bad investments. The rationale was completely based in the theory of Durkheim on socio-evolution: if the banks were allowed to fail, all of society would fail. That is one simple example of the nuance to this idea.

The limitation of this theory, however, is rooted in its simplistic approach towards the Old World and the modern society by viewing religion simply as a binder. It does not approach the subject from the Platonic perspective of truth, which is how the medieval scholastics approached it. Instead, it is approached from the perspective of the Enlightenment ideologist -- like Dewey, for example. What is fostered is a spirit of empirical science in which all that matters for the advancement of knowledge and understanding is that observable facts be recorded and used to develop a theory of society. What is missing is the Platonic or Aristotelian concept of what makes man happy -- what virtue is -- where knowledge comes from (for Plato it came from the soul's communion with God), and these questions were not used to "bind" society but rather to lead individuals towards a more transcendental outlook on life. Durkheim views the Old World through the lens of the new instead of viewing the new through the lens of the Old to question his own theory of society. Thus his theoretical framework is limited in that he does not turn the telescope around, so to speak, to see how one from a different perspective might view his own ideas.

Question

Why did Zuckerberg decide to donate 99% of his shares in Facebook, roughly $45 billion dollars, to the betterment of society over the course of his lifetime?

Hypothesis

Using the concept of Durkheim on organic solidarity, it may be hypothesized that the reason Zuckerberg decided to donate this money to the development of society is that he views himself as an individual who can make a considerable difference in the world and make it a better place for the next generation. Like the Church in the Old World looking after the poor and giving spiritual guidance and sacramental gifts, Zuckerberg is a modern day priest whose religion is science and technology (and social media) and whose sacramental gifts are monetary donations used to finance research on the development of cures to diseases, etc.

Conclusion

The hypothesis does help to explain this event but only partially -- that is, it has limitations in the sense that it views it mainly from a materialistic perspective that is modern. It explains Zuckerberg's emphasis on "connectedness" and community-building as well as on the personalization of the gift by identifying the important role of the individual in the modern society (as a result of organic solidarity). However, it fails to engage the topic from any other perspective, for instance, from a scholastic or Platonic perspective, in which a discussion of whether or not Zuckerberg's aim is good or not in terms of the Platonic definition of goodness. Such an approach or perspective would throw an entirely new light on the subject and raise a number of new questions not only about the donation but also about modern society in general. Thus, another theoretical approach to this subject would be to use the classical theory or theory of universalism when addressing this issue, touching upon the existence of universals. A hypothesis derived from this theoretical approach would likely contradict the hypothesis described herein based on Durkheim's sociological framework.