EMILE DURKHEIM: DIVISION OF LABOUR AND MORAL BASIS OF COMMUNITY

Émile Durkheim is one of the founding figures of sociology and has had a tremendous influence on
its development. However, he is often taught in a way which, I feel, does him a disservice. There is an
emphasis on his “functionalism” and use of an “organic analogy” for society both of which suggest a
concern for social order and the status quo and an implication of conservatism. There are, however,
more radical aspect of his work which the sociologist Stjepan Meštrović has done a lot to draw out.

I think this through best in his later work, particularly The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. It is
here where he provided a thorough and wide-ranging critique of categories of thought. He claimed
that society influences not just what we think (our opinions) but the way we think. How we
categorise aspects of the world, understand cause and effect or measure time and space are all
produced by the particular social context from which we emerge. Crucially, there is also a moral
foundation to all of these things.

For Durkheim, morality is the basis of all society. By morality he doesn’t just mean what is considered
to be good or bad but the broader question of how we live with one another and the very fact that
we live with others at all. Human beings need (and want) to live together in groups. This means that
we can’t simply do whatever we (as individuals) want all the time. To live in groups with other people
means we have to think about others and what they want; there needs to be some system of
morality. For Durkheim all of the moral things we do are to do with thinking about others rather than
ourselves.

What religion offers is a way of bringing people together physically and emotionally. This is why all
religions have some central spatial focus to them such as a church, temple or mosque. What this
does is to take us outside of ourselves for a short time and make us feel part of the group and to lose
our sense of individuality for a while. However, this does not have to happen in a religious context.
Today it can also be seen in groups of football supporters, at music festivals or just amongst friends
or family.

In the process of being brought together people develop shared ways of understanding their worlds
and lives. Our sense of morality, of what is wrong and right is derived from these kinds of group
activities, particularly (but not only) religion. So we get morality from religion but not because it is
transmitted from God(s), rather morality is created in the process of people coming together.

This is a highly profound insight but Durkheim pushes this analysis even further. He claims that it is
not only morality that is produced through communities but all ways of thinking and understanding
the world. All of our categories of thought are actually the products of group understanding.

The ways in which we classify plants, animals and people are not natural but socially produced.
Similarly, the ways in which we measure time, distance and speed are all contingent on the specifics
of our social situations. These categories of thought are what Durkheim calls “social facts”; they are
objective (because they exist outside of individuals) but they are not universal nor would they exist
without human beings.

Durkheim does not question the existence of objective reality as such (like, for instance, Descartes)
but claims that there is no way for us to understand the world except through the mental categories
available to us which are socially produced.

These categories of thought (or ways of understanding) are produced by people coming together in
groups which, for Durkheim, is always a moral act. Having ways of understanding and talking about
distance or time are crucial for living in groups with other people so that we can communicate and
work together.

If I were to live an entirely solitary existence (if this were even possible) then I could simply use ways
of measuring and interpreting the world which are only relevant to me. I could divide the physical
world up into things which are on my right or my left. Or I could think about the passage of time only
in relation to things which happened before and after important moments in my life. If I want to live
with other people I need categories which are common to other members of my group and
meaningful to all of us.

Categories of thought are, therefore, moral categories even when they seem to be referring to things
which we consider to be objective or morally neutral such as time or distance.

DIVISION OF LABOUR

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

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.

MAX WEBER

Max Weber, a prominent German sociologist, made significant contributions to the understanding of
social structures, institutions, and the dynamics of modernity. One of his key ideas revolves around
the relationship between the city and the growth of rationality. In this essay, we will explore Weber's
insights into the transformative role of the city in fostering rationalization processes.

Weber argued that the rise of rationality was intricately linked to the development of the modern
city. He observed that urbanization was accompanied by a shift in social, economic, and political
structures, paving the way for rationalization—a systematic and efficient mode of organizing human
activities. The city, with its dense population and diverse interactions, acted as a catalyst for the
rationalization of various aspects of life.

One of the central elements in Weber's analysis was the concept of the "iron cage of rationality." He
believed that as societies urbanized and embraced rationalization, individuals became increasingly
trapped in bureaucratic systems governed by rational-legal authority. The city, as a hub of
administrative and economic activities, was a breeding ground for such rational-legal structures,
characterized by rules, regulations, and formalized procedures.
Weber identified the emergence of a new class of professionals and bureaucrats within the city,
whose roles were defined by the rational organization of tasks. The bureaucracy, in particular,
exemplified the rationalization of authority and decision-making processes. This shift from
traditional charismatic authority to rational-legal authority, according to Weber, was a defining
feature of modern urban life.

Furthermore, the city played a crucial role in the rationalization of economic activities. Weber's
concept of the "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" highlighted how the urban
environment, with its concentration of trade and commerce, contributed to the growth of rational
economic practices. The pursuit of profit, coupled with a disciplined and rational approach to work,
became integral to the ethos of the modern city.

In addition to economic and administrative aspects, Weber explored the impact of rationalization on
social relationships and cultural values within the urban context. The city, as a melting pot of diverse
communities, necessitated the establishment of rationalized norms and regulations to ensure social
order. Traditional customs and beliefs were gradually replaced by rationalized and standardized
systems of governance and morality.

However, Weber was not entirely celebratory of the rationalization process. While acknowledging its
role in fostering efficiency and productivity, he also recognized its dehumanizing tendencies. The
iron cage of rationality, in its pursuit of calculability and predictability, risked suppressing individual
creativity and spontaneity. The rationalization of everyday life, according to Weber, posed a threat
to the richness and diversity of human experiences.

In conclusion, Max Weber's analysis of the city and the growth of rationality provides a profound
understanding of the transformative forces shaping modern societies. The city, with its
concentration of people and resources, became a crucible for the rationalization of economic,
administrative, and social spheres. While rationalization brought about unprecedented efficiency
and order, it also raised concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms and the potential
dehumanization of human existence within the iron cage of rationality. Weber's insights continue to
be relevant in contemporary discussions on the complexities of urban life and the challenges posed
by the rationalization of society.