Sociological Significance of the

Durkheims Division of Labour

Article shared by

Emile Durkheims De la division du travail social (The Division of labour) is a

classic of intellectual analysis. This was the first published book of Emile
Durkheim in 1893. The Division of labour explains the relation between
individuals and the collectivity and the manner in which the multiplicity of
individuals achieve the social coherence. Division of labour he postulates as
the basis of social solidarity. Solidarity means the solidity of the organization. It
is the characteristic trait of a society.

The concept of solidarity explains social differentiation or the division of labour

in society. It makes individuals interdependent and effects social integration
among them. This sociological analysis of Durkheim is based on his interest in
social fact; on his acceptance of the functional character of society and of the
supremacy of the whole on the part.

Durkheim studied division of labour as a social institution and not as an

economic institution as it generally taken to be. He took it to be an institution
which 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 in the development of the family. It
brings about social co-ordination and leads to solidarity.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

In 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 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. The measurement
of social solidarity is the intensity of collective conscience. It is the sum total of
belief and sentiment 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, the primitive society is characterised by mechanical solidarity based upon
the conscience collective and the advanced society is characterised by
organic solidarity based upon 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 permit
the some resources to support more people.

ADVERTISEMENTS:
Society undergoes structural and functional differentiation, as different
individual activities are grouped into different institutions specializing in their
respective functions. Individuals and institutions relate to one another on the
basis of 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.

It is based on solidarity which is of two types:

Mechanical Solidarity:
A society characterised 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 solidarity of
resemblance. As a member of the same group or same collectivity they
resemble each other, feel the same emotion, cherish the same values.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

According to Durkheim, the 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 sum total of
beliefs and sentiments common to the average of the member of the society.

This prevails mostly in primitive societies. In mechanical solidarity Repressive

law prevails. It prevails at its core underlie the harsh justice and severe
punishments which perpetuate the similarities underlying mechanical
solidarity.

Organic Solidarity:
In contrast to mechanical solidarity in a heterogeneous society where the
likeness and the resemblance is missing, the coherent unity of the collectivity
is expressed by differentiation; the solidarity that exists is organic solidarity.
Such a society is characterised by an advanced form of division of labour.
According to Durkheim, increasing density of population is the major key of
development of division of labour.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Organic solidarity emerges with the growth of division of labour. This is

especially witnessed in the modern Industrial societies. The individuals are no
long similar. They may be differentiated in terms of thinking, emotions and
values. They have no collective conscience. The organic solidarity is
characterised by specialization and individualism.
It is also characterised 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 rather for the return of things to the conditions which would have
prevailed had the legal offences not occurred.

The two forms of solidarity correspond to two extreme forms of social

organisation. Archaic societies are characterised by the predominance of
mechanical solidarity. Whereas modern industrial societies characterised by
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 solidarity and organic solidarity co-

exist with some basic similarities:
Diagrammatically:
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 restitutive law. Beyond these differences the
causal chains are the same, and both mechanical and organic solidarity are
proportional to rates of interaction and therefore the strength of the moral
rules which integrate society.

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 from the division
of labour. The division of labour gives birth to regulations and laws which
determine the nature and relations of the divided functions.

According to Abraham and Morgan: To Durkheim, 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 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 greater division of labour.

Durkheims concept of division of labour includes an original or mechanical

solidarity that sub-ordinates the individuals. The concept moves on to
describe the supplanting of this subordination by the use of voluntary or
organic solidarity in which the individual is influenced by a comprehension of
social values. It is also true that society is characterised by an increasing
degree of functional organisation.

Social harmony comes essentially from the division of labour. It is

characterised by a co-operation which is automatically produced through the
pursuit by each individual of his own interests. It suffices that each individual
consecrate 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, as specialization increases, people are
increasingly separated, values and interests become different, norms are
varied, 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 spent a great deal of effort identifying the problems that arise due to
the division of labour. Durkheim did not fool himself in believing that the
changes happening around him as a result of industrialization would bring
about total harmony, but he did recognize that though specialization sets us
apart, it does, in certain 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.

To sum up, 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 is different. Yet it is a form of
social solidarity.