Sociology

Emile Durkheim - The Division Of Labour

Emile Durkheim’s The Division of Labour (de la division du travail social) is a classic of intellectual analysis. This was the first published book by Emile Durkheim in 1893. The division of labour explains the relationship between individuals and collectivity and how the diversity of individuals achieves social coherence. Division of labour he postulates as the basis of social solidarity. Solidarity means the solidity of the organization. It is a characteristic trait of society. The concept of solidarity explains social differentiation or the division of labour in society. It makes individuals interdependent and affects social integration among them. This sociological analysis of Durkheim is based on his interest in social fact, his acceptance of the functional character of society, and the supremacy of the whole on the part.

Durkheim studied the division of labour as a social institution and not as an economic institution as it has generally taken to be. He took it to be an institution that produces morality in and of itself by subjecting individuals to the duties of their specialized existence. The moral effect of the division of labour he indicated is felt when people complement each other when dissimilar join hands, and unity comes out of diversity. It is felt in friendship patterns and the development of the family. It brings about social coordination and leads to solidarity.

In the division of labour, Durkheim 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 consensus in contemporary society was different from that in simpler social systems. But he saw both of these as two types of social solidarity. The measurement of social solidarity is the intensity of collective conscience. It is the total of band sentiments common to the member of society. Collective conscience persists through successive generations and keeps them united.

In the “Division of labour” in society, Durkheim employs his evolutionary functionalism to examine the changing bases of social solidarity. According to him, primitive society is characterized by mechanical solidarity based upon the conscience collective, and advanced society is characterized by organic solidarity based upon the division of labour.

The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity is due to the nature of social differentiation. Durkheim felt that the intensified struggle for existence produced the specialization and division of labour which permitted the same resources to support more people. Society undergoes structural and functional differentiation, as different individual activities are grouped into various institutions specializing in their respective functions. Individuals and institutions relate to one another based on the complementary differences which make them mutually dependent on one another. The collective conscience becomes weaker and more abstract, permitting the development of greater individuality and freedom.

Social existence means collectivity. Two types of law are present in human societies, and each corresponds with a type of social solidarity: repressive law (moral) and restitutive law (organic).

1. Repressive Law: Repressive law is related to the center of common consciousness, and everyone participates in judging and punishing the perpetrator. The severity of a crime is not measured necessarily by the damage incurred to an individual victim but instead gauged as the damage caused to the society or social order as a whole. Punishments for crimes against the collective are typically harsh. Repressive law, says Durkheim, is practiced in mechanical forms of society.

2. Restitutive Law:  The second type of law is restitutive law, which does focus on the victim when there is a crime since there are no commonly shared beliefs about what damages society. Restitutive law corresponds to the organic state of society and is made possible by more specialized society bodies such as courts and lawyers.

Durkheim is particularly concerned about how the division of labour changes how individuals feel they are part of society as a whole. Durkheim classifies human societies into mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.

1. Mechanical Solidarity:

A society characterized by mechanical solidarity is unified because all people are generalists. The bond among people is that they are all engaged in similar activities and have similar responsibilities. Mechanical solidarity is a solidarity of resemblance. As members of the same group or collectivity, they resemble each other, feel the same emotion, and cherish the same values.

According to Durkheim, mechanical solidarity prevailed to the extent that; “ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society are greater in number and intensity than those which pertain personality to each member.” He suggested 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.” This solidarity can grow only in inverse ratio to personality. Here individual differences are minimized. In mechanical solidarity, we find the strong states of the collective conscience. Collective conscience refers to the total of beliefs and sentiments common to the average member of the society. This prevails mostly in primitive societies. In mechanical solidarity, Repressive law prevails. It prevails at its core, underlying the harsh justice and severe punishments, which perpetuate the similarities underlying mechanical solidarity.

2. Organic Solidarity:

In contrast to mechanical solidarity in a heterogeneous society where the likeness and the resemblance are missing, the coherent unity of the collectivity is expressed by differentiation; the solidarity that exists is organic solidarity. Such a society is characterized by an advanced form of division of labour. According to Durkheim, increasing population density is the major key to developing the division of labour. This is mainly witnessed in modern industrial societies. The individuals are no longer similar. They may be differentiated in terms of thinking, emotions, and values. They have no collective conscience. Organic solidarity is characterized by specialization and individualism. It is also characterized by the weakening of collective conscience and repressive law. The collective conscience becomes weaker and more abstract, permitting the development of greater individuality and freedom.

Repressive law is largely replaced by restitutive law, which calls not for revenge but instead for the return of things to the conditions which would have prevailed had the legal offenses not occurred. The two forms of solidarity correspond to two extreme forms of social organization. The predominance of mechanical solidarity characterizes archaic societies. At the same time, modern industrial societies characterized by a complex division of labour are dominated by organic solidarity. In sum, the course of social evolution is marked by a transition from small, simple, homogeneous tribal societies integrated by likenesses and a powerful concrete collective conscience to large modern differentiated industrial societies integrated by the interdependence of individuals and structures created by the division of labour.

The contrasts between mechanical and organic solidarity co-exist with some basic similarities:

1. In Mechanical solidarity- likenesses similarities- interaction- moral rules, powerful, concrete, collective, conscience, repressive law – integration.

2. Organic solidarity- mutually complementary differences (division of labour) - interaction- moral rules, weaker, more abstract, collective conscience and restitutive law – integration.

One difference between mechanical and organic solidarity lies in the impetus to interaction: similarities versus differences. Another is the change in morality embodied in the changing nature of the collective conscience and the transition from repressive to restitution law. Beyond these differences, the causal chains are the same. Both mechanical and organic solidarity are proportional to rates of interaction and, therefore, the strength of the moral rules that integrate society.

Basic of Distinction between organic and mechanical solidarity

Basic of Difference	Mechanical Solidarity	Organic Solidarity
Morphological features	-Low level of population -Low material and moral density -Little interdependence	-High volume of population -High moral density -Greater interdependence
Type of norms	-Repressive law -Penal law	-Restitutive law -Co-operative law, civil, criminal commercial, and administrative
Formal features of conscience collective	-High volume -High determinateness -Collective authority	-Low volume -Low determinateness -More room for individual initiative
Content of conscience collective	-Highly religious -concrete and specific	-Secular and human-oriented -Abstract and general

According to Durkheim, division of labour is not to be regarded as a mere luxury, desirable perhaps, but not indispensable to society. Social life is derived from a double source: from a similarity of minds and the division of labour. The division of labour gives birth to regulations and laws that determine the divided functions' nature and relations. According to Abraham and Morgan, “to Durkheim, it is social differentiation begins with the disintegration of mechanical solidarity and of segmental structure. Occupational specialization and multiplication of industrial activities are only an expression of a more general form of social differentiation which corresponds to the structure of society as a whole.”

According to Durkheim, division of labour can only be explained in terms of three social factors: the volume, the material density, and the moral density of the society.

1. Volume of society: refers to the size of the population.

2. The material density: refers to the number of individuals on a given ground surface.

3. Moral density: refers to the intensity of communication between individuals.

With the formation of cities and the development of transport and communication, the condensation of society multiplies intra-social relations. Thus, the growth and condensation of societies and the resultant intensity of social intercourse necessitate a more significant division of labour.

Durkheim’s concept of division of labour includes organic and mechanical solidarity that sub-ordinates the individuals. The concept moves on to describe the supplanting of this subordination by using voluntary or organic solidarity in which the individual is influenced by comprehension of social values. Society is also indeed characterized by an increasing degree of functional organization.

“Social harmony comes essentially from the division of labour. It is characterized by a co-operation which is automatically produced through the pursuit by each individual of his interests. It suffices that each individual consecrates himself to a special function in order by the force of events, to make himself solidary with others.”

Durkheim was concerned with the social implications of increased specialization. Durkheim argued that as specialization increases, people are increasingly separated, values and interests become different, norms vary, and sub-cultures are formed.

The division of labour is not without problems. An industrial utopia does not form simply out of interdependence, for specialization has been seen to set people not only apart but against each other. Interests often collide, and conflict exists. Karl Marx devoted a significant portion of his time and energy to humanising the issues that were brought up by the division of labour. Durkheim did not fool himself into believing that the changes happening around him due to industrialization would bring about total harmony. Still, he did recognize that though specialization sets us apart, it does, in specific ways, bind us together.

Durkheim says, “But if the division of labour produces solidarity, it is not only because it makes each individual an exchangist; as the economists say, it is because it creates among man an entire system of rights and duties which link them together in durable way.”

Thus, Durkheim deals with the concept of social solidarity and conscience collective in a very scientific method, he negates the view that modern societies are based upon simply contractual agreements and do not have any prior consciousness. However, he agreed that the kind of consciousness characterizing modern societies differs. Yet it is a form of social solidarity.