Division of Labour

The Division of Labour in Society (French: De la division du travail social) is

the doctoral dissertation of French sociologist Émile Durkheim, published in
1893. It was influential in advancing sociological theories and thought, with
ideas which in turn were influenced by Auguste Comte. Durkheim described
how social order was maintained in societies based on two very different
forms of solidarity (mechanical and organic), and the transition from more
"primitive" societies to advanced industrial societies.
Durkheim suggested that in a "primitive" society, mechanical solidarity, with
people acting and thinking alike and with a collective or common conscience, is
what allows social order to be maintained. In such a society, Durkheim
viewed crime as an act that "offends strong and defined states of the collective
conscience" though he viewed crime as a normal social fact.[1] Because social
ties were relatively homogeneous and weak throughout society, the law had to
be repressive and penal, to respond to offences of the common conscience.
In an advanced, industrial, capitalist society, the complex division of
labor means that people are allocated in society according to merit and rewarded
accordingly: social inequality reflects natural inequality, assuming that there is
complete equity in the society. Durkheim argued that moral regulation was
needed, as well as economic regulation, to maintain order (or organic
solidarity) in society with people able to "compose their differences
peaceably".[2] In this type of society, law would be more restitutive than
penal, seeking to restore rather than punish excessively.
He thought that transition of a society from "primitive" to advanced may bring
about major disorder, crisis, and anomie. However, once society has reached the
"advanced" stage, it becomes much stronger and is done developing.
Unlike Karl Marx, Durkheim did not foresee any different society arising out of
the industrial capitalist division of labour. He regards conflict, chaos, and
disorder as pathological phenomena to modern society, whereas Marx
highlights class conflict.

An Overview of the book by Emile Durkheim

By Ashley Crossman
The Division of Labor in Society is a book written, originally in French,
by Emile Durkheimin 1893. It was Durkheim’s first major published work and
the one in which he introduced the concept of anomie, or the breakdown of the
influence of social norms on individuals within a society. At the time, The
Division of Labor in Society was influential in advancing sociological
theories and thought.
In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim discusses how the division of
labor is beneficial for society because it increases the reproductive capacity,
the skill of the workman, and it creates a feeling of solidarity between people.
The division of labor goes beyond economic interests; it also establishes social
and moral order within a society.

There are two kinds of social solidarity, according to Durkheim: mechanical

solidarity and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity connects the individual
to society without any intermediary.

That is, society is organized collectively and all members of the group share the
same beliefs. The bond that binds the individual to society is this collective
conscious, this shared belief system.
With organic solidarity, on the other hand, society is a system of different
functions that are united by definite relationships. Each individual must have a
distinct job or action and a personality that is his or her own. Individuality
grows as parts of society grow. Thus, society becomes more efficient at moving
in sync, yet at the same time, each of its parts has more movements that are
distinctly its own.

According to Durkheim, the more primitive a society is, the more it is

characterized by mechanical solidarity.

The members of that society are more likely to resemble each other and share
the same beliefs and morals. As societies becomes more advanced and civilized,
the individual members of those societies start to become more unique and
distinguishable from each other. Solidarity becomes more organic as these
societies develop their divisions of labor.

Durkheim also discusses law extensively in this book. To him, law is the most
visible symbol of social solidarity and the organization of social life in its most
precise and stable form. Law plays a part in society that is analogous to the
nervous system in organisms, according to Durkheim. The nervous
system regulates various body functions so they work together in harmony.
Likewise, the legal system regulates all the parts of society so that they work
together in agreement.
Two types of law exist and each corresponds to a type of social solidarity. The
first type of law, repressive law, imposes some type of punishment on the
perpetrator. Repressive law corresponds to the ‘center of common
consciousness’ and tends to stay diffused throughout society. Repressive law
corresponds to the mechanical state of society.

The second type of law is restitutive law, which does not necessarily imply any
suffering on the part of the perpetrator, but rather tries to restore the
relationships that were disturbed from their normal form by the crime that
occurred. Restitutive law corresponds to the organic state of society and works
through the more specialized bodies of society, such as the courts and lawyers.
This also means that repressive law and restitutory law vary directly with the
degree of a society’s development. Repressive law is common in primitive, or
mechanical, societies where sanctions for crimes are typically made across the
whole community. In these lower societies, crimes against the individual are
common, yet placed on the lower end of the penal ladder. Crimes against the
community take priority because the evolution of the collective conscious is
widespread and strong while the division of labor has not yet happened. The
more a society becomes civilized and the division of labor is introduced, the
more restitutory law takes place.

Durkheim bases his discussion of organic solidarity on a dispute with Herber

Spencer,who claimed that industrial solidarity is spontaneous and that there is
no need for a coercive body to create or maintain it. Spencer believed that social
harmony is simply established by itself and Durkheim disagrees. Much of this
book, then, is Durkheim arguing with Spencer’s stance and pleading his own
views on the topic.
Durkheim also spends some time discussing division of labor and how it is
caused. To him, the division of labor is in direct proportion to the moral density
of the society. This increase can happen in three ways: through an increase
of the concentration of people spatially, through the growth of towns, or
through an increase in the number and efficacy of the means of
communication. When one or more of these things happen, labor starts to
become divided because the struggle for existence becomes more strenuous.

(References: Durkheim, E. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society. New

York, NY: Free Press.)

According to Giddens (p. 73), the main substantive problem for Durkheim
stems from "an apparent moral ambiguity concerning the relationship between
the individual and society in the contemporary world." On the one hand, with
specialization and the highly developed division of labour, individuals develop
their own consciousness, and are encouraged in this specialization. On the other
hand, there are also moral ideas encouraging people to be well rounded, of
service to society as a whole. These two seem contradictory, and Durkheim is
concerned with finding the historical and sociological roots of each of these,
along with how these two seemingly contradictory moral guidelines are
reconciled in modern society.

This book can also be read with a view to illuminating Durkheim's methods. In
the first chapter, he outlines his method, and the theory which could be falsified.
By looking at morality, he is not pursuing a philosophical course, mainly in the
realm of ideas. Durkheim is critical of "moral philosophers [who] begin either
from some a priori postulate about the essential characteristics of human nature,
or from propositions taken from psychology, and thence proceed by deduction
to work out a scheme of ethics." (Giddens, p. 72). That is, Durkheim is
attempting to determine the roots of morality by studying society, and changes
in society. These forms of morality are social facts, and data from society must
be obtained, and these used to discover causes. The data used by Durkheim are
observable, empirical forms of data in the form of laws, institutions (legal and
other), norms and behaviour. In this book, Durkheim adopts a non-quantitative
approach, but in Suicide his approach is more quantitative.

In examining the roots of social solidarity, Durkheim regards the

examination of systems of law as an important means of understanding
morality. He regards "systems of law" as the "externalization of the inner core
of social reality (solidarity), it is predicted that as the inner core undergoes
qualitative changes from ‘mechanical’ to ‘organic’ solidarity, there should be
manifest shift in the ratio of types of legal systems ... as a proportion of the total
legal corpus." (Tiryakian in Bottomore and Nisbet, p. 214)

Since law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we

have only to classify the different types of law to find therefrom
the different types of social solidarity which correspond to it.
(Division, p. 68).

Giddens notes that Durkheim is "attempting to measure changes in the nature of

social solidarity. Since social solidarity is ... not directly measurable, it follows
that in order to chart the changing form of moral solidarity ‘we must substitute
for the internal fact which escapes us an external index ... which symbolizes it.’
Such an index can be found in legal codes. From this, Durkheim begins to build
a proof of the division of labour as the basis for the different forms of solidarity.
He then attempts to show the nature of society, how it changes over time, and
how this results in the shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.
1. Mechanical Solidarity
Early societies tended to be small scale and relatively simple, with little division
of labour or only a simple division of labour by age and sex. In this type of
society, people are very similar to each other, and Durkheim titles this chapter
"Mechanical solidarity through likeness." In this type of society, each person
carries out essentially similar types of tasks, so that people share the type of
work they carry out. These societies are characterized by likeness, in which the
members of the society share the same values, based on common tasks and
common life situations and experiences.

In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law
tends to be repressive law or penal law. If there is a crime in this society,
then this crime stands as an offense to all, because it is an offense to the
common morality, the shared system of values that exists. Most people feel
the offense, and regardless of how serious it is, severe punishment is likely to be
meted out for it. Zeitlin notes (p. 264):

Anything that offends the common conscience threatens the

solidarity – the very existence of society. An offense left
unpunished weakens to that degree the social unity. Punishment
therefore serves the important function of restoring and
reconstituting social unity.

Penal law is concerned with sanctions only, and there is no mention of

obligations. Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment. Moral
obligation and duty is not stated in the punishment, because this is generally
understood. Rather the punishment is given, and that is the completion of the
penalty.

Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society show the
nature of Durkheim's argument: In the quotes, note that the act is criminal
because the act offends the collective conscience. For Durkheim, the
collective consciousness reaches all parts of society, has a distinct reality and is
independent of individual conditions, and is passed on from one generation to
the next. In this, it differs from particular or individual consciences. (Division,
pp. 79-80).

Collective Consciousness. the only common characteristic of all

crimes is that they consist ... in acts universally disapproved of by
members of each society. (Division, p. 73).
 The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens
of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own
life; one may call it the collective or common conscience.
(Division, p. 79)

An act is criminal when it offends strong and defined states of the

collective conscience. (Division, p. 80)

We must not say that an action shocks the common conscience

because it is criminal, but rather that it is criminal because it shocks
the common conscience. We do not reprove it because it is a crime,
but it is a crime because we reprove it. (Division, p. 81).

Referring to repressive or penal forms of punishment in early society, Durkheim

notes that it may extend to:

the innocent, his wife, his children, his neighbours, etc. This is
because the passion which is the soul of punishment ceases only
when exhausted. If, therefore, after it has destroyed the one who
has immediately called it forth, there still remains force within it, it
expands in quite mechanical fashion. (Division, p. 86).

In contrast, modern legal codes are quite different, with punishment being less
important. Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the original
situation, rather than exacting revenge on the offender. "But today, it is said,
punishment has changed it character; it is no longer to avenge itself that society
punishes, it is to defend itself." (Division, p. 86).

This distinction between different types of legal codes and punishment may
provide a means of noting what mechanical solidarity means.

Mechanical Solidarity. They must re-enforce themselves by

mutual assurances that they are always agreed. The only means for
this is action in common. In short, since it is the common
conscience which is attacked, it must be that which resists, and
accordingly the resistance must be collective. (Division, p. 103).

(Thus, the analysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime.

We began by establishing inductively that crime consisted
essentially in an act contrary to strong and defined states of the
common conscience. We have just seen that all the qualities of
punishment ultimately derive from this nature of crime. That is
because the rules that it sanctions express the most essential social
likeness.)
 Thus we see what type of solidarity penal law symbolizes. ... not
only are all the members of the group individually attracted to one
another because they resemble one another, but also because they
are joined to what is the condition of existence of this collective
type. ... They will as they will themselves, hold to it durably and
for prosperity, because, without it, a great part of their psychic
lives would function poorly. (Division, p. 105).

These quotes show how the collective consciousness works in societies without
a highly developed division of labour. The primary function of punishment,
therefore, is to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts
which question its sanctity. In order to carry this out, such societies develop
forms of repressive or penal law.

While the common values in these societies can change over time, this process
of change is generally quite slow, so that these values are generally appropriate
for the historical period in question. At other times, the laws may be
inappropriate, and might be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim
generally considers this to be an exceptional circumstance, and one that is
overcome.

2. Organic Solidarity
With the development of the division of labour, the collective consciousness
begins to decline. Each individual begins to have a separate set of tasks which
he or she is engaged in. These different situations lead to quite a different set of
experiences for each individual. This set of experiences tends to lead toward "a
‘personal consciousness,’ with an emphasis on individual distinctiveness."
(Grabb, p.81). The common situation which created the common collective
consciousness is disturbed, and individuals no longer have common
experiences, but have a great variety of different settings, each leading towards
its own consciousness.

As the development of the division of labour erodes the collective

consciousness, it also creates a new form of solidarity. This new form is organic
solidarity, and is characterized by dependence of individuals on each other
within the division of labour, and by a certain form of cooperation. There is a

functional interdependence in the division of labour. ... Organic

solidarity ... presupposes not identity but difference between
individuals in their beliefs and actions. The growth of organic
solidarity and the expansion of the division of labour are hence
associated with increasing individualism. (Giddens, p. 77).
Cuff et al. (p.31) note that this means that "differences are expected and indeed
become expected. ... Thus the nature of the moral consensus changes.
Commonly shared values still persist because without them there would be no
society, but they become generalized, as they are not rooted in the totality of
commonly shared daily experiences. Instead of specifying the details of an
action, common values tend to be a more general underpinning for social
practices. It is in this sense that the division of labour can be seen as a moral
phenomenon."

Thus Durkheim argues that there are individual, and probably group,
differences, at the same time as there is a new form of social solidarity.

Organic Solidarity. There are in each of us , ... two consciences:

one which is common to our group in its entirety, which,
consequently, is not our self, but society living and acting within
us; the other, on the contrary, represents that in us which is
personal and distinct, that which makes us an individual. Solidarity
which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective
conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and
coincides in all points with it.

Durkheim speaks of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and draws an organic
analogy:

Individuality is something which the society possesses. Thus , ..

personal rights are not yet distinguished from real rights.(Division
, 129-30).

It is quite otherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour

produces. Whereas the previous type implies that individuals
resemble each other, this type presumes their difference. The first
is possible only in so far as the individual personality is absorbed
into the collective personality; the second is possible only if each
one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him; that is, a
personality. ... In effect, on the one hand, each one depends as
much more strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the
other, the activity of each is as much more personal as it is more
specialized. ... Society becomes more capable of collective
movement, at the same time that each of its elements has more
freedom of movement. The solidarity resembles that which we
observe among the higher animals. Each organ, in effect, has its
special physiognomy, it autonomy. And moreover, the unity of the
organism is as great as the individuation of the parts is more
 marked. Because of this analogy, we propose to call the solidarity
which is due to the division of labour, organic. (Division, 131).

In the structure of societies with organic solidarity (quote 8):

Social Structure. They are constituted, not by a repetition of

similar, homogeneous segments, but by a system of different
organs each of which has a special role, and which are themselves
formed of differentiated parts. Not only are social elements not of
the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same manner.
They are not juxtaposed linearly ... but entwined one with another,
but co-ordinated and subordinated one to another around the same
central organ which exercises a moderating action over the rest of
the organism. (Division, p.181).

Organic Solidarity and Restitutive Law. "The progressive displacement of

repressive by restitutive law is an historical trend which is correlated with the
degree of development of a society: the higher the level of social development,
the greater the relative proportion of restitutive law within the judicial
structure." (Giddens, p. 76). For Durkheim, this form of law is concerned with
"a simple return in state. Sufferance proportionate to the misdeed is not
inflicted on the one who has violated the law or who disregards it; he is simply
sentenced to comply with it." The judge "speaks of law; he says nothing of
punishment." (Division, p 111).

As the division of labour develops, people do not have the same consciousness,
so that the form of law must change. "The very existence of restitutive law, in
fact, presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, since it
covers the rights of individuals either over private property, or over other
individuals who are in a different social position from themselves." (Giddens, p.
76) Along with this could come Weber's rational law, perhaps much the same as
Durkheim's restitutive law. Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts
are necessary, but these are the result of the general acceptance of individual
rights within the system of a division of labour.

Cause of Organic Solidarity. Durkheim is critical of the economists who

regard the development of the division of labour as a result of the coming
together of people with different abilities and specialties. While Durkheim did
not make reference to Adam Smith, he also may have had in mind Smith's view
that people have a natural propensity to truck, barter and trade. Finally, he was
critical of the economists' point of view that merely examined the technical
conditions for the division of labour, and the increased efficiency associated
with it, without consideration of the broader societal conditions necessary to
maintain it. Thus Durkheim did not consider the division of labour as a natural
condition.

Durkheim considers the development of the division of labour to be associated

with the increasing contact among people. There is a greater density of contact,
so that people are led to specialize. The division of labour emerges in different
ways in different societies, leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity.
However, it is these developments which create the division of labour and
"Civilization develops because it cannot fail to develop." (Division, p. 337).

But this moral relationship can only produce its effect if the real distance
between individuals has itself diminished in some way. Durkheim refers to this
an increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows
at the same time. The two are inseparable though. Three ways in which this
happens are:

i. Concentration of people. People begin to concentrate together. Agriculture

may begin this, and it continues with the growth of cities as well.

ii. Cities. Formation of cities and their development. "Cities always result from
the need of individuals to put themselves in very intimate contact with others.
They are so many points where the social mass is contracted more strongly than
elsewhere. They can multiply and extend only if the moral density is raised."
(Division, p. 258).

iii. Transportation and Communication. Increased number and rapidity of

means of transportation and communication. This results in "suppressing or
diminishing the gaps separating social segments, they increase the density of
society." (Division, pp. 259-260).

The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and
density of societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in
the course of social development, it is because societies become
regularly denser and generally more voluminous. (Division, 262).

We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permit,

but that they necessitate a greater division of labor. It is not an
instrument by which the latter is realized; it is its determining
cause. (Division, p. 262).

As a result of this greater contact, the "struggle for existence becomes more
acute" and this results in the development of the division of labour. If needs are
the same, then there is always a struggle for existence. But where different
interests can be pursued, then there may be room for all. Quote 8:
 Social Structure (2nd part) In the same city, different occupations
can co-exist without being obliged mutually to destroy one another,
for they pursue different objects. ... Each of them can attain his end
without preventing the others from attaining theirs.

The closer functions come to one another, however, the more

points of contact they have; the more, consequently, are they
exposed to conflict. ... The judge never is in competition with the
business man, but the brewer and the wine-grower ... often try to
supplant each other. As for those who have exactly the same
function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others.
(Division, p. 267).

In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution,

each segment has its own organs, protected and kept apart from
like organs by divisions separating the different segments. ... But,
no matter how this substitution is made, it cannot fail to produce
advances in the course of specialization. (Division, 269).

Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar

enterprises establish equilibrium by sharing their common task.
Instead of one being subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But,
in all cases, new specialties appear. (Division, 270).

For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no
need to compete in the sense of struggling just to survive. Rather, the division of
labour may signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society,
and this division allows a certain form of co-operation. Quote 9:

Division of Labour. The division of labour is, then, a result of the

struggle for existence, but is a mellowed dénouement. Thanks to it,
opponents are not obliged to fight to a finish, but can exist one
beside the other. Also, in proportion to its development, it furnishes
the means of maintenance and survival to a greater number of
individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be
condemned to extinction. (Division, p. 271).

The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its

development. It is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived
plan. "The division of labour, then, must come about of itself and
progressively." (Division, p. 276). It must come to pass in a pre-existing society
(Appendix quote 9).
 Division of Labour. Work is not divided among independent and
already differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating
bring together their different aptitudes. For it would be a miracle if
differences thus born through chance circumstance could unite so
perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far from preceding
collective life, they derive from it. They can be produced only in
the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments
and social needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious.
... there are societies whose cohesion is essentially due to a
community of beliefs and sentiments, and it is from these societies
that those whose unity is assured by the division of labour have
emerged. (Division, p. 277).

Civilization is itself the necessary consequence of the changes

which are produced in the volume and in the density of societies. If
science, art, and economic activity develop, it is in accordance with
a necessity which is imposed upon men. It is because there is, for
them, no other way of living in the new conditions in which they
have been placed. From the time that the number of individuals
among whom social relations are established begins to increase,
they can maintain themselves only by greater specialization, harder
work, and intensification of their faculties. From this general
stimulation, there inevitably results a much higher degree of
culture. (Division, pp. 336-337).

Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of the division of labour which emphasizes
the special functions of each of type of occupation and endeavour. The
biological model, with a well functioning body, where each organ properly
serves it function seems to be uppermost in Durkheim's mind. Unlike some of
the structural functionalists, Durkheim's method distinguishes the cause of the
function from the actual function filled. That is, Durkheim observes the function
that the occupation fills in society, but attempts to investigate the development
of the cause in an historical manner, examining how this function emerged. In
this, one can consider there to be a certain "conflict as a mechanism, within a
quasi-Darwinian framework, which accelerates the progression of the division
of labour." (Giddens, p. 79).

Durkheim is also providing a criticism of the economic models which argue that
people with different specialties come together to trade the products of their
specialties. For Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but are
developed. Similarly, the division of labour is not natural either, but develops in
different forms in different societies. While there may be a great similarity
among these (perhaps like Weber's rationality), national differences emerge. In
that sense, Durkheim has an historical model, fairly solidly grounded on the
material realities.

On the other hand, Durkheim's analysis may be considered to be mainly

descriptive, proposing some fairly straightforward observations concerning
culture. His notion of solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to
the conventional sociological model of these, and may be considered to be
widely accepted by all. The question is how these emerge, and whose interests
they serve. Here the conflict approach differs dramatically from Durkheim.

Finally, Durkheim's analysis can be considered to be evolutionary and fairly

optimistic. For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in the
division of labour as signalling higher stages of civilization. He does not
consider there to be any grand plan to this, and no single factor which guides it.
Rather, there is competition, which results in the development of the division of
labour, and the outcome of this process cannot be predicted. However, the result
is generally positive, because people need each other, and this produces an
organic solidarity in society.

Abnormal Forms of the Division of Labour

At the end of The Division of Labor in Society, however, Durkheim does note
that there can be problems in society. There are two abnormal forms of the
division of labour, and the division of labour itself does not always function as
well as it could in modern society.

a. Anomic Division of Labor. When there are industrial and commercial crises,
there may be a partial break in organic solidarity. Also, where there is conflict
between capital and labour, this may be an unusual situation. Part of this is
caused by the increased separation of employee and employer under capitalism
(Division, p. 354), so that the conditions for a lack of solidarity are expanded as
capitalism and the division of labour develop.

Irregular forms such as crime are not treated as part of the breakdown, rather
these are treated by Durkheim as differentiation (Division, p. 353), not part of
division of labour. Durkheim compares these with cancer, rather than with
normal organs.

The real problem is a lack of regulation or a weakened common morality that

can occur in modern society. For example, in the economic sphere, there are no
rules which fix the number of economic enterprises (Division, p. 366), and there
is no regulation of production in each branch of industry. This might be an
overall form of irrationality, in Weber's sense. There can be ruptures in
equilibrium, capital labour relations may become indeterminate. In the scientific
field there may be greater separation of different sciences. (Division, p. 367).

If the division of labour does not produce solidarity in all these cases, it is
because the relations of the organs are not regulated, because they are in a state
of anomy. For the individual this means there are not sufficient moral
constraints and individuals do not have a clear concept of what is proper and
acceptable. (Ritzer, p. 85). See Appendix quote 10:

Anomie. ... the state of anomy is impossible when solidary organs

are sufficiently in contact or sufficiently prolonged. ... if some
opaque environment is interposed, then only stimuli of a certain
intensity can be communicated from one organ to another.
Relations, being rare, are not repeated enough to be determined ...
(Division, pp. 368-9).

Durkheim also discusses conditions of the worker under capitalism in terms that
come very close to Marx's description of alienation and exploitation. He
discusses the degrading nature of the division of labour on the worker, the
possibility of monotonous routine, and the machine like actions of the worker.
(Division, p. 371). However, Durkheim does not consider these to be the normal
form, but one which results when the worker does not have a sufficient vision of
the whole process of production.

... the division of labour does not produce these consequences

because of a necessity of its own nature, but only in exceptional
and abnormal circumstances. ... The division of labour presumes
that the worker, far from being hemmed in by his task, does not
lose sight of his collaborators, that he acts upon them, and reacts to
them. He is, then, not a machine who repeats his movements
without knowing their meaning, but he knows that they tend, in
some way, towards an end that he conceives more or less distinctly.
(Division, p. 372).

b. Forced Division of Labor. The forced division of labour is where the

division of labour is not allowed to develop spontaneously, and where some act
to protect themselves and their positions. These could be traditional forms,
which are external to the division of labour, or they could be castes, Weber's
status groups, or Marx's classes. Any factors that prevent individuals from
achieving positions which would be consistent with their natural abilities
indicates a force division of labour. Ritzer notes (p. 98) that this could be
inequalities in the structure of work or inadequate organization, with the wrong
people in particular positions or incoherent organizational structures. Any
interference with the operation of the division of labour that results in the
position being filled by those who are not most apt for the position would be
forced division of labour. Quote 11:

Forced Division of Labour. We may say that the division of

labour produces solidarity only if it is spontaneous and in
proportion as it is spontaneous. ... In short, labor is divided
spontaneously only if society is constituted in such a way that
social inequalities exactly express natural inequalities. ... It
consists, not in a state of anarchy which would permit men freely
to satisfy all their good or bad tendencies, but in a subtle
organization in which each social value, being neither
overestimated nor underestimated by anything foreign to it, would
be judged at its worth. (Division,p. 376).

Of course, wealth interferes with this, but Durkheim views this as abnormal and
not the normal tendency.

even this last inequality, which comes about through birth, though
not completely disappearing, is at least somewhat attenuated.
Society is forced to reduce this disparity as far as possible by
assisting in various ways those who find themselves in a
disadvantageous position and by aiding them to overcome it."
(Division, p. 379).

Role of State and Occupational Groups

Having said that Durkheim was generally very optimistic concerning the
development of the division of labour in developing an organic solidarity,
Durkheim was also concerned with the state of modern society. The
development of the division of labour did have the tendency to split people, and
the organic solidarity might not be sufficient to hold society together.

One solution for regulation that Durkheim discusses is the state. In some senses,
Durkheim was a socialist, although not of the same type as Marx. Ritzer notes
that for Durkheim, socialism "simply represented a system in which moral
principles discovered by scientific sociology could be applied." (Ritzer, p. 73).
While the principles of morality had to be present in society, the state could
embody these in structures, fulfilling functions such as justice, education,
health, social services, etc., and managing a wide range of sectors of society
(Grabb, p. 87).

The state "should also be the key structure for ensuring that these rules are
moral and just. The appropriate values of individualism, responsibility, fair
play, and mutual obligation can be affirmed through the policies instituted by
the state in all these fields." (Grabb, p. 87).

The second major hope that Durkheim held was for what he called occupational
groups. The state could not be expected to play the integrative role that might be
needed, because it was too remote. As a solution, Durkheim thought that
occupational or professional groups could provide the means of integration
required. These would be formed by people in an industry, representing all the
people in this sector. Their role would be somewhat different from Weber's
parties, in that they would not be concerned with exercising power, and
achieving their own ends. Instead, they would "foster the general interest of
society at a level that most citizens can understand and accept." (Grabb, p. 88).

What we especially see in the occupational group is a moral power capable of

containing individual egos, of maintaining a spirited sentiment of common
solidarity in the consciousness of all the workers, of preventing the law of the
strongest from being brutally applied to industrial and commercial relations. (p.
10). Ritzer notes that these associations could "recognize ... common interests as
well as common need for an integrative moral system. That moral system ...
would serve to counteract the tendency toward atomization in modern society as
well as help stop the decline in significance of collective morality." (pp. 98-99).

References

Adams, Bert N. and R. A. Sydie, Sociological Theory. HM585 A33 2001

Cuff, E. C., W. W. Sharrock and D. W. Francis, Perspectives in

Sociology, third edition, London, Routledge, 1992. HM66 P36 1984

Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society, New York, The Free
Press, 1933. Referred to in notes as Division. HD 51 D98

Durkheim, Emile, The Rules of Sociological Method, New York, The

Free Press, 1938. Referred to in notes as Rules. HM 24 D962

Durkheim, Emile, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, New York, The Free

Press, 1951. Referred to in notes as Suicide. HV 6545 D812

Giddens, Anthony, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of

the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1971. HM19 G53.
Grabb, Edward G., Theories of Social Inequality: Classical and
Contemporary Perspectives, second edition, Toronto, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1990. HT609 G72

Hadden, Richard W., Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the

Classical Tradition, Peterborough, Ontario, Broadview Press, 1997.

Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, third edition, New York, McGraw-

Hill, 1992. HM24 R4938.

Sydie, R. A., Natural Women Cultured Men: A Feminist Perspective on

Sociological Theory, Toronto, Methuen, 1987. HM51 S97 1987.

Thompson, Kenneth, Emile Durkheim, Chichester, E. Horwood, 1982.

HM22 F8 D8737

Zeitlin, Irving M., Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory,

fourth edition, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, 1990. HM19 Z4 1990

Last edited September 20, 2002

Aleem Akhtar.