SOC UG 502: ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGY

UNIT II (a) EMILE DURKHEIM: DIVISION OF LABOUR

The division of labour is not of recent origin but it was only at the end of the 18th century
that social cognizance was taken of the principle. The division of labour in society was
Durkheim‟s first major theoretical work. It was first and foremost a study that developed a way
of thinking about society which was completely new and has several key aims. First, Durkheim
wanted to make a distinction between what he called the „social division of labour‟ in contrast
to the „economic division of labour‟. Second, he wanted to make inquiries into the nature of the
links connecting the individual to the society and the social bonds which connects individuals to
each other. Third, he wanted to examine the specific origin of the social links and bonds in
order to see in what way they were related to the overall system of social cohesion in society,
and the extent to which this cohesion was formed within the different social groups he studied.
Fourth, Durkheim wanted to look at the extent to which the system of social links change as the
structure of society became more complex and subject to changes in the division of labour.

The term “division of labour” is used in social theory to refer to the process of dividing
up labour so that the major economic and domestic tasks are performed by the different people
for the purposes of the collective maintenance of the society. Durkheim used the term social
division of labour to describe the social links and bonds which develop during the process that
takes place in societies when many individuals enter into cooperation for the purposes of
carrying out joint economic and domestic tasks. The process of the division of labour begins as
soon as individuals form themselves into groups where instead of living isolated or alone, they
co-operate collectively by dividing their labour and by co-coordinating their economic and
domestic activities for purposes of survival. Durkheim believed that the division of labour was
therefore the result of a social process taking place within the structure of the society rather than
the result of the private choices of the individual or the result of the organic traits that emerge
during evolution.

Durkheim‟s explicit focus on the division of labour is on the social solidarity.

Initially, Durkheim used the term solidarity in several distinct ways. First, to refer to the system
of social norm which link individuals to the society. „Without these social links‟, he wrote,
„individuals would be independent and develop separately, but instead, they pool their efforts.
Second, Durkheim used the term solidarity to identify a system of social relations linking
individuals to each other and to the society as a whole. Without these social links, he stated,
individuals would be separate and unrelated. Third, he used the term to refer to the system of
social interchanges which go beyond the brief transactions that occur during economic
1
exchange in society. This system of interchanges forms a vast network of social solidarity
which extends to the whole range of social relations and acts to link individuals together in
some form of social unity. Fourth, Durkheim uses „solidarity‟ to describe the degree of social
integration which he thought linked individuals to social groups outside themselves.

Durkheim then turned his attention to looking at how social solidarity is expresses in
different societies. Solidarity, according to Durkheim can be expressed in two broad and
distinct ways, and the terms he used to designate these are „mechanical‟ and „organic‟. Societies
whose solidarity is mechanical are based on common roots of identity and similarity. In
societies of this type, the individual is linked directly to society through various points of
attachments which acts to bind all members of the group together collectively. The force of
these social links is such as to discourage individual autonomy and the social whole envelops
the individual so completely that there is no distinction between the individual conscience and
the collective conscience. The division of labour is rudimentary and divided up so that
individuals perform tasks for collective purposes. Beliefs are primarily religious in nature and
the common conscience is rooted in religious law. Offences against the common beliefs and
social rules are deliberate where punishment is based on repressive sanctions. The individuals‟
relation to society is such that the individual is an indistinguishable part of the collective whole
and any individual differences are subordinated to the solidarity of the group. Social bonds are
ones of obligation rather than contract. A fundamental criterion of mechanical solidarity is its
ability to mobilize the entire social mass of society due to the immense leverage the common
conscience has over the beliefs and the social practices of the group.

In direct contrast to mechanical solidarity is the form of solidarity which Durkheim refers
to as organic. In societies whose solidarity is organic, labour is specialized and individuals are
linked to each other than they are to the society as a whole. The forces of social bonds integrates
individual in their economic and occupational functions and the ties to society becomes indirect
and operate through the division of labour. Social bonds between the individual are enforced by
contract rather than by the force of prevailing customs or religious belief. The individual‟s place
in the society is determined by occupation rather than by kinship affiliation. The system of law
is based on restitutive sanctions in which judicial rules redress social norms by restoring things
to their original state. Individualism is at its highest point of development and the individual has
greater autonomy of legal rights and freedom. In addition, social bonds are formed on the basis
of interdependencies on each other‟s occupational function. The collective conscience is less
resistance to change and becomes weaker as its content becomes secular and economic. There is
a minimum of shared understanding between members of the group and instead of individual
resembling each other; their weaker solidarity pre-supposes individual differences.
2
 In Durkheim‟s thought, the two forms of solidarity correspond to two extreme forms of
social organization embodied with the opposition between the segmental societies and societies
characterized by modern division of labour. The notion of segmental societies is identified with
solidarity of resemblance or mechanical solidarity. It implies that this type of society is isolated
from the outside world and is self-sufficient. For instance, a segmental society might consist of
tribal groups who have common norms, values and interest whereas societies characterized by
modernity or organic solidarity have differentiation. These two are the fundamental theme of
the division of labour according to Durkheim.

With effect to this view mentioned before, the focus now is on the collective
consciousness of the individual given by Durkheim which is of first importance in his thesis of
the division of labour. Collective consciousness as defined by Durkheim in his book is simply
“the body of belief and sentiments common to the average of the members of a society”. So
basically, collective consciousness is a constellation of ideas, beliefs and values that a great
number of individuals in a given society share and this acts as a unifying force within the
society. This collective consciousness is a product of human similarities when they are most
prominent and it is separable from individual consciousness. Collective consciousness provides
an explanation for the question on how one can see oneself not just as an individual but as part
of the larger society. For Durkheim, individuals in society, while we have our own individual
conscious, also share solidarity with one other. We work together in many ways and collective
consciousness is what allows this to happen. The strength of collective consciousness is
indicated by such things as drastic reactions against violations of group institutions. However,
the collective consciousness varies from one society to another. In societies where mechanical
solidarity prevails, collective consciousness embraces a greater part of the individual
consciousness. In societies of organic solidarity, the individuals are free to act according to their
own preferences.

With effect to the phenomena of consciousness, Durkheim distinguishes two types of

law, each of which is a characteristic of one type of solidarity. These are repressive laws which
punish misdeeds or crime and restitutive or cooperative laws whose essence is not to punish
breaches of social rules but to restore things to order when a misdeed has been committed.
Repressive law is the index of collective consciousness with mechanical solidarity. Since it
multiply punishment, it reveals the forces of common sentiments, their extent and
particularization. The more wide spread economic activity is, the more crimes there will be. The
second type of law is one Durkheim generally refers to as restitutive. The point is no longer to
punish but establish state of things as it should have been in accordance with justice.

3
 Further, the division of labour, being a social phenomenon can only be explained by
another social phenomenon. This social phenomenon is of a combination of the volume,
material density and moral density of the society. The volume of the society is simply the
number of individuals belonging to a given collectivity. But the volume alone is not the cause
of social differentiation. In order for volume to bring about differentiation there must be both
material and moral density. Material density is the number of individuals on a given ground
surface and Moral density is the intensity of communication between individuals. The more
communication there is between individuals, the more they work together, the more trade or
competition they have with one another the greater the density. In other words, as societies
become more voluminous and denser, more people come into contact with one another and they
compete for scarce resources. As the struggle for survival becomes severe, social differentiation
then develops a peaceful solution to the problem. When individuals learn to pursue different
occupations, the chances of conflict diminish. Each man is no longer in a competition with all,
but only with a few of his fellows who pursue the same vocation. So the physician does not
struggle with a teacher or the politician with the engineer. Division of labour is thus, the result
of the struggle for existence. Therefore, putting the phenomena of volume, material density and
moral density together, produce the result of social differentiation. Thus, Durkheim argues that
as the number of people in the society and the degree of interactivity between them increases,
competition increases creating a natural drive for a society to find more efficient ways of doing
things. So, division of labour arises and gradually becomes the foundation of organic solidarity.

The normal function of the division of labour is to produce a form of social solidarity but
Durkheim says that there can be problems with the division of labour through the presence of
„pathological‟ forms which produce different and contrary results. These are:

1. Anomic Division of Labour: Here the individuals are increasingly isolated by their more
specialized tasks and they lose any sense of being integral parts of a larger whole.
Basically, there is too much individualism among people. Also in this state of anomie,
people are isolated and are reduced to the repetition of meaningless tasks. Among its
examples, Durkheim cites certain commercial and industrial crises and the conflict
between labour and capital.
2. Forced Division of Labour: This is a consequence of that structural condition in which
the distribution of social functions does not correspond to the distribution of natural
talents. Sometimes if change is too fast or if there is a problem in society, a situation
might occur where economic power or status is determining who is performing what
economic role rather than actual qualifications. If people‟s place in the division of labour
is based on ascribed characteristics such as gender, race, class background, etc., rather
4
 than talent and training, people‟s place in the division of labour is „force‟ that is coerced
and unjust.
Durkheim recognizes both of these as bad but sees them as unusual and temporary
phenomena that society quickly corrects with new rules and systems.

In conclusion, we can summarize briefly the essential ideas of this concise study of
division of labour since the study deals with collective consciousness of individuals in the
society, differentiation is bound to be there. Social differentiation which is a
characteristic of modern societies is the formative condition of individual liberty where
consciousness has lost part of its overpowering rigidity. The main problem is concerned
with the maintenance of collective consciousness without which organic solidarity would
lead to social disintegration. The individual in mechanical solidarity in essence are
interchangeable. Due to this solidarity, social differentiation arose in the society.
Dissatisfaction prevailed in the collective consciousness of the individual which lead
them to suicidogenic impulses as Durkheim terms it. These social forces are the real
cause of social disintegration in society. They vary from one group to another.

CRITICISM

One of the criticisms put forth towards Durkheim‟s theory is his failure to see conflict
which happens to be seen having a profound influence on society throughout history. There are
severe and unjust imbalances of power in the world that arise from division of labour such as
world wealth inequality, with the instances of revolution and slavery. Durkheim mentions that
conflict is not the cause but the symptom of social problems. Karl Marx however, founded the
conflict theory. According to him, the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of
class struggle. Marxist thought sees capitalism as well as modern society as being founded on
domination, exploitation and alienation.

Second, it is difficult to share Durkheim‟s confidence in the self-regulating quality of

organic solidarity. Durkheim‟s account of the anomic division of labour alone for example,
exposes all the evils of unregulated capitalism – commercial and industrial crises, class conflict,
meaningless alienated labour, etc., but his analysis of these evils was particularly uncritical.

It must be noted that Durkheim‟s conception of the division of labour is different from
that envisaged by economists. To Durkheim, the division of labour is thus, the result of the
struggle for existence and its social function is to produce a form of social solidarity. Social
differentiation begins with the disintegration of mechanical solidarity and the emergence of
occupational specialization. Such corresponds to the structure of the society as a whole. The

5
division of labour Durkheim is talking about is thus, with reference to a structure of society as a
whole of which economic division of labour is merely an expression.

****************************