Division of Labour by Emile Durkheim

Durkheim’s Views on Division of Labor

In the realm of sociology, Émile Durkheim stands as a prominent figure with a deep-rooted concern for the theme of social order and integration. His inquiries revolved around questions like, “What holds society together?” and “What keeps it in an integrated whole?” In this article, we will delve into Durkheim’s views on the division of labor and how it plays a pivotal role in shaping social solidarity.

Historical Context: Comte and Spencer’s Perspectives

Before we explore Durkheim’s perspective, it’s essential to consider the ideas put forth by his predecessors, Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. Comte posited that social and moral consensus were the adhesive forces binding individuals and society together. Common ideas, values, norms, and mores formed the cohesive fabric of society.

On the other hand, Herbert Spencer proposed a different viewpoint. He argued that individual interests were the driving force behind social integration. Spencer believed that individuals, in pursuit of their selfish interests, would naturally strive for integration. In his view, social life was sustained by the pursuit of self-interest.

However, Durkheim took issue with both of these perspectives. He questioned whether moral consensus could truly hold together a modern industrial society characterized by heterogeneity, mobility, and diverse values. Additionally, he found fault in Spencer’s notion that selfish interests were the linchpin of societal cohesion. Durkheim foresaw that such an approach would breed competition and antagonism, ultimately leading to social disintegration.

The central question emerges: Is individualism inherently antithetical to social integration and solidarity? Would the Industrial Revolution, with its emphasis on individualism, erode the bonds that held society together? Durkheim’s perspective offers a unique insight into this conundrum.

Durkheim’s Theory of Division of Labor

Durkheim’s analysis of the division of labor revolves around the idea that the basis of social integration differs between pre-industrial and post-industrial societies. He demonstrates how the process of occupational specialization, or the division of labor, serves to integrate societies marked by heterogeneity, differentiation, and complexity. These societies, which he terms as being based on organic solidarity, form the focal point of his examination.

In the subsequent sections, we will delve into Durkheim’s exploration of the division of labor, focusing on its functions, underlying causes, and the deviations from the normal type of division of labor.

Functions of Division of Labor

Durkheim classifies human societies into two categories: those based on “mechanical solidarity” and those based on “organic solidarity.”

Mechanical Solidarity: Mechanical solidarity denotes a unity based on resemblance and likeness. In such societies, there exists a high degree of homogeneity and tightly-knit social bonds that make individual members feel interconnected. The collective conscience, which encompasses shared beliefs and sentiments, holds significant sway in these societies. Deviation from these shared values is met with severe consequences, and offenders face harsh punishment. In essence, this form of solidarity is characterized by a strong collective conscience and limited individual differences.

Organic Solidarity: Durkheim’s concept of organic solidarity, in contrast, describes a type of unity grounded in the differences and complementarity of these differences. In societies characterized by organic solidarity, heterogeneity, differentiation, and variety prevail. The collective conscience in these societies exerts less control over individuals, and individual conscience becomes more distinct and separate. Individualism gains prominence, and personal freedom and autonomy become as vital as social solidarity.

In this context, it becomes pertinent to address the question: Can modern society maintain integration amidst the rise of individualism? Durkheim contends that division of labor is the key to achieving this delicate balance. How does this process work?

Division of labor implies collaboration on specific tasks, fostering cooperation among individuals. As the division of labor becomes more intricate, two significant consequences arise. Firstly, individuals become specialists in their respective fields, enabling them to exercise their creativity and initiative within their specialized domains. Secondly, individuals become increasingly interdependent on society. Cooperation and complementarity become the cornerstones of such a society. This results in the creation of organic solidarity, a higher form of solidarity compared to mechanical solidarity. It enables individuals to exercise their freedom and initiative while remaining bound to each other and to society. In essence, division of labor is the process that simultaneously promotes individualism and social integration.

Causes of Division of Labor

The division of labor does not emerge arbitrarily; rather, it arises due to specific causal factors, as outlined by Durkheim. According to his sociological perspective, the division of labor is a consequence of increased material and moral density within society.

Material Density: Material density, as Durkheim defines it, signifies the sheer growth in the number of individuals within a society, in other words, population growth. As the population expands, a struggle for existence ensues. In societies characterized by mechanical solidarity, where individuals tend to be very similar and engage in similar occupations, competition for the same resources and rewards intensifies. The rapid growth of the population coupled with limited natural resources amplifies this competition. However, division of labor steps in to mitigate this competition by allowing individuals to specialize in different fields and areas, fostering coexistence and cooperation.

Moral Density: Moral density, as Durkheim elucidates, pertains to the increased interaction among individuals resulting from the growth in population numbers. This heightened interaction leads to a heightened sense of interdependence. As material and moral density increase, competition for resources becomes more pronounced, emphasizing the importance of division of labor in facilitating coexistence.

In essence, division of labor, according to Durkheim, arises as a solution to the escalating competition for survival engendered by the growth in material and moral density within society. It provides a mechanism for individuals to specialize and coexist harmoniously.

Abnormal Forms of Division of Labor

While Durkheim extolled the virtues of the division of labor in fostering social integration, he also recognized that not all forms of division of labor were conducive to societal harmony. He identified abnormal forms or deviations from the normal type, which posed challenges to social order. These deviations included:

Anomie: Anomie denotes a state of normlessness where material life evolves rapidly, but rules, norms, and values fail to keep pace. This results in a breakdown of societal norms and rules, particularly in the realm of work. In such cases, individuals engage in mundane and meaningless work, devoid of any sense of purpose or meaning. Anomie emerges when individuals fail to perceive the significance of their contributions to society. Norms and rules governing work remain stagnant, leaving workers disconnected from the belief that society values their role.

Inequality: Durkheim observed that division of labor based on inequality of opportunity could lead to discontent, tension, and conflict. Societies where individuals are assigned specific tasks based on their birth or social status may frustrate those who aspire to more rewarding occupations. This frustration can generate tensions, rivalries, and antagonism within society. The caste system in India serves as an example of division of labor based on inequality, where people are constrained to certain roles not because of their abilities but due to their birth.

Inadequate Organization: In this abnormal form of division of labor, the very purpose of division of labor is undermined. Work is poorly organized and coordinated, resulting in individuals engaging in meaningless tasks. There is a lack of unity of action, leading to disunity and disintegration within society.