Emile Durkheim's "Division of Labor
in Society", as the title suggestes, engages with the topic of the
division of labor and its relations to social cohesion and solidarity.
Economists prior to Durkeheim's times,
such as Adam Smith or Karl Marx, considered the division of labor and its
progress to be a natural law of human societies. Without it, human
societies would never progress, or so the economists believed.
Durkheim tried to take this a step
further to argue that the division of labor was not just a natural law, but a
moral rule. That is, he argued that the division of labor created greater
social cohesion or solidarity.
Durkheim opens his argument with the
question of what is the function of the division of labor?
Adam Smith might answer, "To get the advantages of
civilization."
But Durkheim responded: If so, then it's not a moral rule
since suicide and crime greatly increase with the division of labor.
He continued by noting that civilization, by itself, has no intrinsic value. It's only value consists in fulfilling certain human needs. Fulfilling needs would not mean anything if the needs were created by civilization itself.
He continued by noting that civilization, by itself, has no intrinsic value. It's only value consists in fulfilling certain human needs. Fulfilling needs would not mean anything if the needs were created by civilization itself.
Durkheim
proceeds in asking if the division of labor satisfy any needs that it didn't
create itself?
Durkheim says that to answer this question, it is useful to
consider the old saying, "differences attract," but, he twists
it to include only those differences that complement each other instead of
exclude. [Nationalities might exclude, whereas male and female, in many
cases, complement each other (at least in D’s eyes… see Lehmann’s critique
elsewhere.]
"we seek in others what we lack in ourselves, and associations
are formed wherever there is such a true exchange of services -- in short where
there is a division of labor."
The function, then, of the division of labor is primarily moral,
not economic (though there are, of course, economic results as well); it's
the feeling of solidarity created in two or more persons which it creates.
Then
Durkheim moves on, asking to what degree does the solidarity produced by
the division of labor contribute to the general cohesion of society?
To answer this question, Durkheim used an external symbol
of solidarity, since it is otherwise “too indefinite to easily understand” (27)
- Law.
Laws, Durkheim argued, can be categorized by type of sanction:
a) repressive sanctions (penal laws):
with these laws, some loss or suffering is inflicted on the agent
b) restitutive sanctions (civil, commercial,
administrative law): these sanctions just seek to return things to the
way they were before the infraction.
These two types of sanction corresponded with the two types
of solidarity:
a) Mechanical Solidarity - characterized by repressive
sanctions.
-
This type of solidarity is based on the attraction of like
for like.
in-group solidarity, out-group hostility
repressive sanctions because offenses offend/shock our our conscience collective [defined as the "totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average citizen of the same society. " (DL, p179)]
in-group solidarity, out-group hostility
repressive sanctions because offenses offend/shock our our conscience collective [defined as the "totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average citizen of the same society. " (DL, p179)]
-
“we should not say that an act
offends the common consciousness because it is criminal, but that it is
criminal because it offends the common consciousness” (40)
-
We react aggressively against
those ideas and sentiments which contradict our own. This links the
individual to the social order - by virtue of his or her resemblance to others.
-
MS is solidarity “deriving from
resemblances, bind[ing] the individual directly to society” (61)
-
Anything that offends collective
sentiments in turn offends the collective itself, weakens society – that’s why
even “victimless” crimes need to be punished (e.g., food laws) (62)
-
Punishment needed not just to
deter actors, but to (re)affirm the power of the CC
-
Punishment protects society by
producing atonement
b) Organic Solidarity - characterized by laws with
restitutive sanctions
-
Laws with restitutive sanctions must not have a strong
source in the collective conscience. Instead, they have a source in the
division of labor.
-
Goal is to restore the status quo
-
Presumes the differences of
individuals - there has to be a sphere of action peculiar to the individual for
these sanctions to exist [self-interest].
-
That is, the conscience
collective must leave part of the individual conscience untouched.
The more the individual conscience is expanded, the greater the cohesion
produced from this kind of solidarity.
For any
particular society, then, the ratio of laws with repressive sanctions to those
with restitutive sanctions should be the same as the conscience collective to
the division of labor.
More "civilized" societies,
Durkheim found, did, in fact, have fewer repressive sanctions - except for
those types of repressive sanctions that protect the individual.
Thus, the individual becomes the new
religion - the last remaining piece of the collective conscience is the
sanctity of the individual.
More differences… (83-84)
1) MS
links individual to society w/o intermediary; OS, individual depends on society
b/c depends on parts that constitute it
2) MS:
society is composed of beliefs and sentiments common to all; OS: society is
system of different and special functions united by definite relationships
(AND, these societies are not 2, but really one)
3) MS: can
be strong to extent idea/tendencies common to all exceed in number and
intensity those of the individual – solidarity at max when CC squeezes out the
individual – 2 opposing forces, which cannot increase together: “if we have a
strong inclination to think and act for ourselves we cannot be strongly
inclined to think and act like other people” (84); OS: assumes that individuals
are different from each other, CC leaves some space in individual consciousness,
so that special functions can emerge, free of CC regulation.
Changes in structural features of
societies:
The horde: This structure was seen in
mechanical societies and is characterized by a homogeneous mass of
indistinguishable parts. This structure was never seen in reality, but the
clan had been. This was when the horde became a part of a more
extensive group - basically, a number of hordes interacting with each
other. The clan also was internally homogeneous and based on resemblances,
not differences.
Organized type: This structure
was seen in organic societies. It was coordinated around a central organ
[regulative action. Individuals place in this structure was determined by
occupation instead of kin-group. This structure also was not anywhere
observable in its true form.
Causes
of the Division of Labor:
- not the desire for happiness [Durkheim wanted it to be
sociological, not psychological]. Are we happier than those in more
mechanical societies?
- Instead it was due to an increase in dynamic or moral density:
a) smaller geographic distance b/w members of a
society
b) smaller technological distance b/w members of a society
c) sheer social volume of a society.
b) smaller technological distance b/w members of a society
c) sheer social volume of a society.
These factors make the struggle for existence more acute.
The only way to survive, Durkheim might argue, is
differentiation/specialization - > then we each need different resources.
Durkheim also discussed Pathological or Abnormal forms of
the division of labor (Anomic and forced). These however, will be more
easily discussed based on his next work - Suicide.
see also a shorter summary and review of Division of Labor in Society by Emile Durkheim and Durkheim's Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity Explained
Emile Durkheim - Suicide
"The Genesis of the Notion of the Totemic Principle or Mana" – summary and review" - part 1 -2 -3
What is Social Fact?
Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Moral Education
Types of Suicide according to Emile Durkheim
suggested reading:
Additional article summaries by Emile Durkheim:
Emile Durkheim - The Rules of Sociological MethodEmile Durkheim - Suicide
"The Genesis of the Notion of the Totemic Principle or Mana" – summary and review" - part 1 -2 -3
What is Social Fact?
Elementary Forms of Religious Life
Moral Education
Types of Suicide according to Emile Durkheim
suggested reading: