Essay on Durkheim’s Theory of Division of Labour

Essay on Durkheim’s Theory of Division of Labour – Durkheim’s “Theory of Division of Labour” is often regarded as his major contribution to the field of sociological thought. Durkheim’s doctoral thesis, “Division of Labour in Society” – 1.893, is his first major book. In this, the influence of Auguste Comte is clearly evident.

The theme of this book is the relationship between individuals and society or the collectivity. It is indeed a classic study of social solidarity. In this book he reacted against the view that modern industrial society could be based simply upon agreement between individuals motivated by self-interest and without any prior consensus. He agreed that the kind of consensus in modern society was different from that in simpler social systems. But he saw both of these as two types of social solidarity.

In his famous work “The Division of Labour in Society” Durkheim tried to determine the social consequences of the division of labour in modern societies. A major theme in all Durkheim’s writings is the importance of shared social norms and values in maintaining social cohesion and solidarity. He argued that the nature of this social solidarity depends on the extent of the division of labour.

Meaning of Division of Labour:

The concept of “Division of Labour” has been used in three ways:

(i) in the sense of the technical division of labour, it describes the production process;

(ii) as the sexual division of labour, it describes social divisions between men and women;

(iii) as the social division of labour, it refers to differentiation in society as a whole. [It is in the third sense that Durkheim uses this term.]

In a general sense, the term division of labour involves the assignment to each unit or group a specific share of a common task.

As used by the early classical economists such as Adam Smith (1776), the term describes a specialisation in workshops and the factory system, and explains the advantages accruing in terms of the increased efficiency and productivity from these new arrangements?

Durkheim’s Optimistic View of Division of Labour:

“While Marx was pessimistic about the division of labour in society, Durkheim was cautiously optimistic. Marx saw the specialised division of labour trapping the worker in his occupational role and dividing society into antagonistic social classes. Durkheim saw a number of problems arising from specialisation in industrial society but believed that the promise of the division of labour outweighed the problems.

Two Main Types of Social Solidarity:

As it is made clear that the main theme of the book “Division of Labour in Society” by Durkheim is the relationship between the individual and society. The nature of this relationship could be stated in the form of two questions: (i) How can a large number of individuals make up a society-? And (ii) How can these individuals achieve ‘consensus’ which is the basic condition of social existence?

In his attempts to answer these vital questions Durkheim drew up a distinction between two forms of solidarity namely: (i) mechanical solidarity and (ii) organic solidarity, respectively. These two types of solidarity were found in the traditional tribal societies and in the modern complex urban societies.

The Link between Division of Labour and Social Solidarity Meaning of the Concept of Solidarity:

i. “Social solidarity” is synonymous with social cohesion or social integration.

ii. Social solidarity refers to “the integration and degree or type of integration, manifest by a society or group.

iii. Social solidarity refers to “the condition within a group in which there is social cohesion plus co-operative, collective action directed towards the achievement of group goals

The basis of social solidarity is different in simple societies and complex societies. Durkheim made comparisons between the primitive and the civilised societies in terms of his concept of solidarity. According to him, the primitive society is characterised by “mechanical solidarity” based on the “conscience collective”; and the advanced society is characterised by “organic solidarity” based on the “division of labour.”

1. Mechanical Solidarity:

As defined by Durkheim, mechanical solidarity refers to “social solidarity based upon homogeneity of values and behaviour, strong social constraint, and loyalty to tradition and kinship. The term applied to small, non-literate societies characterised by a simple division of labour, very little specialisation of function, only a few social roles and very little tolerance of individuality.

As Durkheim has stated mechanical solidarity is solidarity of resemblance. It is rooted in the similarity of the individual members of a society. In the society where this kind of solidarity prevails individuals do not differ from one another much. They are the members of the same collectivity and resemble one another because “they feel the same emotions, cherish the same values, and hold the same things sacred.

The society is coherent because the individuals are not yet differentiated.” Here we find the strong states of the “Collective Conscience.” Collective conscience refers “to the sum total of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of the society.” This prevails mostly in primitive societies. The common conscience completely covers individual mentality and morality. “Here social constraint is expressed most decisively in repressive, severe criminal law which serves to maintain mechanical solidarity.”

2. Organic Solidarity:

As defined by Durkheim, organic solidarity refers to “a type of societal solidarity typical of modern industrial society, in which unity is based on the interdependence of a very large number of highly special­ised roles in a system involving a complex division of labour that requires the co-operation of almost all the groups and individuals of the society.

This type of solidarity is called organic because it is similar to the unity of a biological organism in which highly specialised parts or organs, must work in co­ordination if the organism [or any one of its parts] is to survive”^

Organic solidarity is almost the opposite of mechanical solidarity. According to Durkheim, in­creasing density of population is the major key to the development of division of labour. Organic solidarity emerges with the growth of the division of labour. This especially is witnessed in the modern industrial societies.

Division of labour and the consequent dissimilarities among men bring about increasing interdependence in society. The interdependence is reflected in human mentality and morality and in the fact of organic solidarity itself. In organic solidarity, consensus results from differentiation itself.

The individuals are no longer similar, but different. It is precisely because the individuals are different that consensus is achieved. With the increase in division of labour the collective conscience lessens. Thus, criminal law tends to be replaced by civil and administrative law.

Here the stress is on restitution of rights rather than on punishment. An increase in organic solidarity would represent moral progress stressing the higher values of equality, liberty, fraternity, and justice. Even here, the social constraints in the form of contracts and laws continue to play a major role. Differences Between Mechanical and Organic Solidarities

Durkheim formulated the distinction between the two types of solidarity by identifying the demographic and morphological features basic to each type. He also identified the typical forms of law, and formal features and content of the conscience collective, which ought to be associated with each type.

Division of Labour is Different from Disintegration: Durkheim

Durkheim distinguishes between division of labour and disintegration. Disintegration is illus­trated by industrial failures, crises, conflicts and crimes. All these are pathological in nature. “In these forms the division of labour ceases to bring forth solidarity hence represents an “anomic division of labour” so to say. Division of labour in society is actually different from occupational division of labour in the factory as pointed out by Marx.

In his earlier work Durkheim stated that a society with organic solidarity needed fewer common beliefs to bind members to the society. But later he changed his view and stressed that even the societies in which organic solidarity has reached its peak, needed a common faith, a “common conscience collective.” This would help the men to remain united and not to “disintegrate into a heap of mutually antagonistic and self-seeking individuals.”

Division of Labour and Anomie:

Division of labour, though an essential element of society can do great harm to the society if carried to the extreme. Durkheim was quite aware of this and hence had cautioned against the adverse consequences of unregulated division of labour. “Anomie” is one such adverse consequence. In fact, Durkheim was the first to use this concept.

The Greek term “Anomie” literally means “without norms ” or “normlessness.” “Anomie” is the outcome of clash in one’s own values and those of the society and one is not clear in what way to go, how to behave and how to come upto the expectations of the society and also how to mould the environment to suit his expectations.

“Anomie is the strict counterpart of the idea of social solidarity. Just as solidarity is a state of collective ideological integration, anomie is a state of confusion, insecurity, normlessness. The collective representations are in a state of decay.

State of Anomie Leading to Personal and Social Disorganisation:

The essential problem of modern society, Durkheim argued, is that the division of labour leads inevitably to feelings of individualism, which can be achieved only at the cost of shared sentiments or beliefs. The result is anomie – a state of normlessness in both the society and the individual.

Social norms become confused or break down, and people feel detached from their fellow beings. Having little commitment to shared norms, people lack social guidelines for personal conduct and are inclined to pursue their private interests without regard for the interests of society as a whole. Social control of individual behaviour becomes ineffective, and as a result the society is threatened with disorganisation or even disintegration.

Durkheim was probably correct in his view that the division of labour and the resulting growth of individualism would break down shared commitment to social norms, and it seems plausible that there is widespread anomie in modern societies.

Yet these societies do retain some broad consensus on norms and values, as we can readily see when we compare one society with another, say, the United States with China.

Although this consensus seems much weaker than that in preindustrial societies, it is probably still strong enough to guide most individual behaviour and to avert the social breakdown that Durkheim feared. Durkheim’s analysis remains valuable, however, for his acute insights into the far-ranging effects that the division of labour has on social and personal life.

Concluding Remarks:

Durkheim’s views regarding division of labour could be summed up in the words of Raymond Aron in the following way:

According to Raymond Aron, the philosophical idea which underlies the theory of “divi­sion of labour” could be summed up like this: “The individual is the expression of the collectivity itself it is the structure of the collectivity that imposes on each man his peculiar responsi­bility.” “Even in the society which authorises each man to be himself and know himself, there is more collective consciousness present in the individual consciousness than we imagine.” Collective imperatives and prohibitions, collective values and things held sacred are needed to bind individuals to the social entity.

Hence Durkheim felt that only if all the members of a society were tied to a common set of symbolic representations or to common set of beliefs about the world around them, the moral unity of the society would be safe. “Without them, Durkheim argued, any society, whether primitive or modern, was bound to degenerate and decay.”