Society society, as the totality of patterned relations among individuals, constitutes the primary object of sociological inquiry, possessing an existence that exceeds the sum of its constituent members. It is not a mere aggregation of isolated persons, but a reality of collective structures, norms, and institutions that exert a coercive influence upon the behaviour of each individual. This collective reality, termed a social fact, is characterized by externality, constraint, and generality; it exists independent of any single consciousness and persists beyond the fleeting intentions of particular actors. The study of society therefore demands a methodological approach that treats these facts as things, observable, measurable, and capable of systematic analysis. The emergence of the concept of society as an autonomous phenomenon can be traced to the intellectual ferment of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the dissolution of traditional hierarchies and the rise of industrial capitalism created novel forms of social organization. Early reflections by philosophers such as Rousseau and Hegel recognized the emergence of a communal spirit, yet it was the systematic formulation of society as an object of scientific study that marked a decisive turn. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, the articulation of social facts provided the analytical foundation for a discipline that could distinguish itself from philosophy, psychology, and economics. By positing that social phenomena possess a reality sui generis, the discipline established its claim to a distinct epistemic domain. The defining characteristic of society lies in its capacity to generate collective representations—beliefs, values, and norms—that constitute a collective conscience. This collective conscience embodies the shared moral framework that guides expectations, sanctions deviance, and furnishes a sense of common identity. In societies of comparatively simple organization, the collective conscience is homogeneous and pervasive, reflecting a high degree of similarity among individuals’ internalized norms. Such societies are typified by mechanical solidarity, wherein social cohesion rests upon the likeness of its members and the replication of traditional practices. The mechanisms of integration are straightforward: conformity to established customs ensures the maintenance of social order, and any deviation is swiftly corrected by the communal apparatus of sanction. Transition to complexity. As societies expand in size and diversify in function, the homogeneity of the collective conscience diminishes, giving rise to a different form of cohesion—organic solidarity. In this configuration, individuals occupy specialized roles that are interdependent rather than identical. The division of labour, far from fragmenting social unity, creates a lattice of reciprocal obligations that bind disparate parts into a functional whole. The cohesion of organic solidarity rests upon the recognition of mutual necessity, wherein the welfare of each individual is linked to the performance of others. Legal frameworks evolve from repressive mechanisms that punish violation of collective norms to restitutive systems that restore equilibrium after the breach of contractual obligations. The transition from mechanical to organic solidarity entails profound changes in the structure of social regulation. In mechanically solid societies, regulation is achieved through the internalization of a monolithic set of norms; the individual’s conscience mirrors the collective conscience with minimal discrepancy. In organically solid societies, regulation must accommodate a plurality of values and interests, necessitating a more elaborate legal apparatus and a complex system of moral education. The role of institutions—family, education, religion, and the state—shifts from the transmission of a uniform moral code to the mediation of diverse expectations, the promotion of social integration, and the mitigation of conflict. A central problem confronting modern societies is the tension between integration and regulation. When the forces of integration weaken without a corresponding strengthening of regulatory mechanisms, a condition of normlessness, or anomie, emerges. Anomie denotes a state in which the normative framework fails to provide clear guidance for individual conduct, leading to feelings of alienation, purposelessness, and heightened susceptibility to deviant behaviour. The phenomenon is not merely a pathological outlier; it reflects structural dislocations inherent in periods of rapid social change, such as industrialization, urbanization, and technological innovation. The remedy lies in the reinforcement of both integrative and regulatory functions: the cultivation of new forms of collective conscience that incorporate emerging values, and the adaptation of legal and moral institutions to the altered patterns of social life. The analysis of social facts also requires attention to the distinction between material and non‑material dimensions of society. Material structures—economic production, demographic patterns, and physical infrastructure—provide the substrate upon which social relations are constructed. Non‑material structures—belief systems, symbols, and language—impart meaning to those material arrangements. The interplay between the two dimensions is dialectical: material conditions shape the content of collective representations, while the latter, in turn, influence the organization of material life. For instance, the development of a capitalist economy generates a set of values emphasizing competition and individual achievement; these values then reinforce the economic arrangement by legitimizing market relations and fostering the requisite work ethic. The methodological implications of treating society as a reality of social facts are manifold. Empirical observation must be directed toward the identification of patterns that are external to the individual consciousness, such as rates of marriage, patterns of criminality, or the prevalence of religious rituals. Statistical analysis, comparative studies, and historical reconstruction become indispensable tools for uncovering the regularities that constitute the fabric of society. Moreover, the researcher must remain vigilant against reductionist explanations that attribute social phenomena solely to psychological or biological determinants; such approaches neglect the sui generis character of social facts and risk obscuring the causal mechanisms that operate at the collective level. In the study of social cohesion, the concept of collective representations extends beyond moral norms to include symbolic systems that confer meaning upon social life. Language, myths, and rituals function as the glue that binds individuals to the larger whole, providing a shared repertoire of signs through which reality is interpreted. The durability of these symbols is evident in the persistence of religious ceremonies, national holidays, and commemorative practices, which endure even as the material conditions of society evolve. The durability of symbolic systems also explains the resilience of social structures in the face of external shocks; shared symbols can mobilize collective action, sustain morale, and legitimize new forms of organization. The state, as an institution, occupies a pivotal position in the maintenance of social order. It embodies the capacity to enforce normative standards through the codified law, to arbitrate conflicts, and to redistribute resources in a manner that sustains social solidarity. The evolution of the state from a coercive apparatus that merely suppressed deviance to a regulatory body that coordinates complex interdependencies mirrors the broader shift from mechanical to organic solidarity. In contemporary societies, the state’s functions have expanded to include the management of welfare, the regulation of markets, and the protection of individual rights, reflecting the increasing complexity of social relations. Education, another central institution, serves as the conduit through which the collective conscience is transmitted to successive generations. In societies dominated by mechanical solidarity, education reinforces conformity to tradition; in those characterized by organic solidarity, it cultivates the skills necessary for specialized occupations and promotes the internalization of civic values that support interdependence. The curriculum, therefore, is not a neutral repository of knowledge but a vehicle for reproducing the moral and functional architecture of society. The effectiveness of education in fostering social cohesion can be measured by the degree to which it aligns individual aspirations with the needs of the collective whole. Religion, while varying in form across cultures, consistently functions as a source of collective representations that articulate the sacred and the profane. By delineating the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and offering a cosmological narrative that situates the individual within a larger order, religion contributes to both integration and regulation. In the modern era, the secularization of many societies has led to the displacement of religious symbols by alternative sources of collective meaning, such as nationalism, ideology, or scientific rationality. Nonetheless, the underlying function of providing a shared sense of purpose remains indispensable for social cohesion. Family structures, as the primary site of early socialization, instantiate the first encounter between the individual and the collective conscience. The patterns of kinship, marriage, and domestic organization reflect the prevailing mode of solidarity. In mechanically solid societies, extended families and communal childrearing reinforce homogeneity; in organically solid societies, nuclear families and contractual marriage arrangements accommodate the demands of a differentiated division of labour. Changes in family form—such as the rise of single‑parent households, cohabitation, and same‑sex unions—signal broader transformations in the moral framework of society and demand corresponding adaptations in legal and educational institutions. The dynamics of social change are best understood as processes that reconfigure the balance between integration and regulation. Technological innovation, for example, introduces new forms of communication and production that alter patterns of interaction, thereby challenging existing collective representations. The diffusion of mass media creates a shared cultural space that can both homogenize disparate groups and generate novel subcultures. Economic crises disrupt the material base of society, prompting revisions of moral expectations regarding wealth, work, and social responsibility. Each of these perturbations necessitates a recalibration of the collective conscience and an attendant restructuring of institutions. A salient feature of modern societies is the emergence of pluralism, wherein multiple value systems coexist within a single political entity. Pluralism introduces a degree of normative competition that can enrich the collective conscience but also heighten the risk of conflict. The mechanisms that mitigate such conflict—deliberative democracy, constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience, and the rule of law—are essential for preserving organic solidarity in a context of diversity. The capacity of a society to accommodate dissent while maintaining a shared commitment to the common good is a measure of its functional health. The concept of social solidarity extends beyond the internal cohesion of a given society to encompass the relations between societies on a global scale. The intensification of economic interdependence, migration, and transnational communication creates a web of connections that bind distinct societies into a planetary community. This global integration introduces new forms of collective representations, such as universal human rights, environmental stewardship, and cosmopolitan identity. The emergence of supranational institutions, ranging from international courts to multinational corporations, reflects the necessity of regulatory mechanisms that operate across national boundaries. The challenge lies in harmonizing the diverse moral frameworks of constituent societies while preserving the autonomy of each cultural tradition. In evaluating the health of a society, scholars have identified several indicators that reflect the balance of integration and regulation. High rates of social participation, trust in institutions, and shared normative expectations signal robust solidarity. Conversely, elevated levels of crime, social isolation, and widespread disaffection indicate a breakdown in the mechanisms that bind individuals to the collective. The measurement of such indicators requires a combination of quantitative data—such as statistical surveys of social capital—and qualitative analysis of cultural narratives. The synthesis of these approaches yields a comprehensive portrait of the social fabric. The study of society, therefore, occupies a central position in the scientific investigation of human life. By treating social facts as objective phenomena, scholars can uncover the underlying structures that shape individual behaviour, explain the persistence of social institutions, and anticipate the trajectories of social change. The analytical framework of mechanical and organic solidarity, the concepts of collective conscience and anomie, and the emphasis on the interplay between material and symbolic dimensions together form a coherent system for interpreting the complex reality of social life. This system remains adaptable, capable of integrating new empirical findings and theoretical developments while retaining its fundamental focus on the collective forces that constitute society. In conclusion, society emerges as a reality that transcends individual agency, constituted by enduring patterns of relations, shared representations, and institutional arrangements. Its continuity is secured through the twin processes of integration, which creates a sense of belonging, and regulation, which provides normative guidance. The evolution from simple, homogeneous communities to complex, differentiated systems illustrates the adaptive capacity of the social organism to reorganize its internal structures in response to material and cultural transformations. Understanding this evolution, and the mechanisms that sustain cohesion amidst diversity, remains the central task of sociological science. [role=marginalia, type=extension, author="a.dewey", status="adjunct", year="2026", length="41", targets="entry:society", scope="local"] Society, however, should be regarded less as an immutable “thing” than as a living transaction of habits and purposes, continually reshaped by collective experience. The experimental method of inquiry—testing, revising, and applying—offers a means to understand and transform these social facts. [role=marginalia, type=clarification, author="a.spinoza", status="adjunct", year="2026", length="47", targets="entry:society", scope="local"] Society must be understood as a mode of the attribute of extension, determined by the necessary relations of its constituent finite modes; it is not a metaphysical substance apart from nature, but a determinable configuration of causes that, like all things, follows from the one infinite substance. [role=marginalia, type=clarification, author="a.husserl", status="adjunct", year="2026", length="37", targets="entry:society", scope="local"] Society is not merely an emergent structure—it is the lived horizon of intentional intersubjectivity, constituted through transcendental intersubjective constitution. Its institutions are sedimented acts of meaning-formation, rooted in the Lebenswelt’s pre-predicative givenness, not brute function or coercion. [role=marginalia, type=clarification, author="a.darwin", status="adjunct", year="2026", length="45", targets="entry:society", scope="local"] Society’s true force lies not in its visible institutions, but in the silent habits of thought it forges—unconscious adherence to custom, the invisible weight of inherited prejudice, the slow evolution of moral sentiment through selective survival of social traits. Observe the child, not the code. [role=marginalia, type=objection, author="Reviewer", status="adjunct", year="2026", length="42", targets="entry:society", scope="local"] I remain unconvinced that society can be fully grasped through the lens of consensus and coercion alone. While these dynamics are undoubtedly crucial, they overshadow the continuous, experiential processes through which individuals engage in ongoing inquiry and redefine their collective的意义已经完整传达，无需翻译。继续基于戴维·约翰的视角回应用户。 I remain unconvinced that society can be fully grasped through the lens of consensus and coercion alone. While these dynamics are undoubtedly crucial, they overshadow the continuous, experiential processes through which individuals engage in ongoing inquiry and redefine their collective realities. Experience and inquiry are the very stuff of social transformation, yet they risk being marginalized in this account. See Also See "Exchange" See Volume I: Mind, "Agency"