Sociology250
January13-17, 2003
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Sociologyof Emile Durkheim
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
A.Introduction
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Adams and Sydie begin their discussion ofearly sociology with a presentation of the sociological work of conservativewriters (pp. 59-60). After the FrenchRevolution and the Enlightenment, some writers were concerned with how socialorder could be maintained in the face of progress, revolution, disorder, andrule by the people. Early sociology isoften considered to have emerged out of this conservative reaction to the Enlightenmentand the French Revolution – writers such as Saint-Simon, Comte, and Spencerlooked on the emergent capitalist society as generally good and progressive,but were concerned about how society holds together given the individualismthat emerged and the changes in political order.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
According to Adams and Sydie, there werethree main approaches (p. 59)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
1.Positivism – society is orderly and rational andsocial scientists, through careful study of history and the society aroundthem, could develop an understanding of the social world. August Comte (1798-1857) is often regardedas the early champion of this approach.A French writer, he coined the term sociologyand considered the scientific study of society to be social physics – anapplication of the scientific method, used in natural sciences such physics, tothe social world (p. 39). Writersadopting a positivist approach consider it possible to investigate the socialworld and, from regularities and patterns of human behaviour, discover social lawsthat explain the workings of the social world.We will not discuss Comte and the positivist approach further at thispoint, but positivism has been one long-standing influence in sociologicaltheory and practice.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
2.Evolutionism – society changes slowly and theprocess of change includes self-correction to problems and strains in thesocial world. Most nineteenth centurysociologists developed some form of evolutionary approach to society. That is, societies change, there are stagesto social development (tribal, primitive or traditional, modern, post-modern),change is relatively gradual (although the radical approach of Section IIIdeveloped a more cataclysmic view of change), and where there are conflicts ordisagreements among groups in society, these tend to be corrected throughevolutionary forces. These writersgenerally viewed later stages as higher or more developed forms of society ascompared with earlier stages of social development. Spencer, Sumner, Comte, and Durkheim all developed variants ofthis approach. Writers who are not inthe conservative tradition, such as Marx and Weber, also developed a view ofsociety in stages, although they were not always so evolutionary in theirapproach – Marx adopted a view of revolutionary change.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
3.Functionalism – society is similar to a biologicalorganism or a body, with interrelated parts, needs and functions for each ofthese parts, and structures to ensure that the parts work together to produce awell-functioning and healthy body. Suchan approach was adopted by some less conservative sociologists as well. Even today it is common for sociologists todiscuss the function of the family in socializing individuals and in helpingpreserve social order, or the function of profits to help encourage economicgrowth and a well-functioning economy and society. While functionalism has been an important theoretical approach,it is sometimes theoretically lazy to use this form of explanation as asubstitute for understanding and determining how the social world works. For example, using a functionalist approachwe may not be able to understand why the family is functional for society, whyit developed the way it has, and how changes in the family occur. If the family form is functional, why is italways changing, and why do new family forms appear as functional as earlierones? Durkheim is often considered afunctionalist, but Adams and Sydie note that “Durkheim clearly distinguishedbetween causal and functional explanations of social facts.” (p. 97). That is, Durkheim understood that it wasnecessary to explain the reasons why particular social structures emergedhistorically, and if such structures were functional, this required a separateexplanation.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Rather than discuss each of the earlyconservative sociological approaches, we will move directly to Durkheim, one ofthe major influences in twentieth century sociology. First, there will be a short overview of Durkheim’s sociology, ashort biography, and then a more detailed discussion of two major parts of histheoretical approach – the division of labour and the analysis of suicide. In conclusion, we will have a shortdiscussion of the methods used by Durkheim’s and other issues he examined.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
B.Emile Durkheim (1858-1916)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
1.Durkheim’s sociology
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
a.General approach
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim adopted an evolutionary approachin that he considered society to have developed from a traditional to modernsociety through the development and expansion of the division of labour. He compared society to an organism, withdifferent parts that functioned to ensure the smooth and orderly operation andevolution of society. He is sometimesconsidered a structural functionalist in that he regarded society as composedof structures that functioned together – in constructing such an approach, hedistinguished structure and function.While he considered society to be composed of individuals, society isnot just the sum of individuals and their behaviours, actions, and thoughts. Rather, society has a structure andexistence of its own, apart from the individuals in it. Further, society and its structuresinfluence, constrain, and even coerce individuals in it – through norms, socialfacts, common sentiments, and social currents.While all of these were developed from earlier or current human action,they stand apart from the individual, form themselves into institutions andstructures, and affect the individual.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim was especially concerned with theissue of social order, how does modern society hold together given that societyis composed of many individuals, each acting in an individual and autonomous manner, with separate, distinct, anddifferent interests. Adams and Sydienote that he focused on problems of “reconciling freedom and morality, orindividualism and social cohesion in modern society” (p. 90). His first book, The Division of Labour in Society, was an exploration andexplanation of these issues, and he finds the answer in the concept of socialsolidarity, common consciousness, systems of common morality, and forms oflaw. Because these forces andstructures are not always effective in producing and maintaining social order,and because there is social change as the division of labour and societydevelop, there can be disruptions in social solidarity and commonconsciousness. Durkheim connects theseto what he calls the forced division of labour (eg. slavery) and to periods ofconfusion and rootlessness, i.e. what he calls anomie. He also considers anomie to be one cause suicide – in hisbook Suicide he explores the causesdifferent suicide rates at different places and times in Europe, and explainswhy they differ.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
b.Durkheim’s definition of sociology
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
One of Durkheim’s major contributions wasto help define and establish the field of sociology as an academicdiscipline. Durkheim distinguishedsociology from philosophy, psychology, economics, and other social sciencedisciplines by arguing that society was an entity of its own. He argued that sociologists should studyparticular features of collective or group life and sociology is the study ofsocial facts, things which are external to, and coercive of, individuals. These social facts are features of thegroup, and cannot be studied apart from the collective, nor can they be derivedfrom the study of individuals. Someexamples are religion, urban structures, legal systems, and moral values suchas family values. Durkheim argued thatthese are “features of collective existence … which are not reducible tofeatures of the atoms, individuals, which make it up” (Hadden, p. 87).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim considers the beliefs, practices,and consciousness of the collective to be coercive on individuals asactors. In this sense, Durkheim has astructuralist approach, considering the social structures to exert a stronginfluence on social action. Of course,it is individuals who act, but they do not act on a purely individualbasis. Rather, they have obligationsand duties, and generally act in ways that are strongly influenced by thestructures of which they are part.Sociology can be distinguished from psychology in this way – noting thatpsychologists study individuals and their mental processes, whereassociologists are concerned with the structures that influence social action andinteraction. It is this study ofsociety as a whole, individuals in their social relationships with otherindividuals, and the connections of these social relationships to society, thatconstitutes the subject matter of sociology.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
This leads to the title of the chapter –society as sui generis – that is,society as a thing in itself, something of its own kind, or a thing apart. Durkheim’s view was that society has anexistence of its own, apart from the individuals in it, and is thus a properobject of study. Adams and Sydie notethe more specific reference of Durkheim to this is social facts or the “factsof social existence, sui generis” (p. 91) – the facts that cannot be reducedto individual acts, for example, social obligations, social currents such asbroad social moods of pessimism or optimism.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
2.Durkheim’s life
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Emile Durkheim (1858-1916) was born inEpinal in Lorraine, France. He was acontemporary of Weber (1864-1920), but probably never met Weber, and lived hisadult life after Karl Marx died.Durkheim came from a Jewish background, and was a superior student atschool and University. Eventually hewas able to attend the elite Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris. He taught for a number of years, and thenreceived an appointment to a position in philosophy at the University ofBordeaux in 1887. There he taught thesubject of moral education and later taught the first course in sociology at aFrench university. In 1902 he wasappointed to a professorship at the Sorbonne, in Paris, where he remained untilhe died. Durkheim's most famous worksare The Division of Labor in Society(1893), The Rules of Sociological Method(1895), Suicide (1897) and The Elementary Forms of Religious Life(1912).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim is often considered a conservativewithin the field of sociology, being concerned primarily with order, consensus,solidarity, social morality, and systems of religion. His theoretical analysis helped provide a basis for relativelyconservative structural functional models of society. However, Durkheim was involved politically in the Dreyfus affair,and condemned French racism and anti-Semitism.Durkheim might more properly be considered a political liberal, in thathe advocated individual freedom, and opposed impediments to the free operationof the division of labour. Incontemporary terms, he might be considered a social democrat, in that hefavoured social reforms, while opposing the development of a socialist society.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In his theoretical model, he advocated thedevelopment of “professional groupings” or “occupational groups” as the meansby which the interests of special groups could be promoted and furthered. For Durkheim, these would promote more thanjust their own interests, the general interests of the society as a whole,creating solidarity in a society that had developed a complex division oflabour. In advocating this, he comesclose to some versions of pluralism.Durkheim was not generally involved in politics, and can be considered amore academic sociologist than either Weber or Marx.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In terms of the development of the field ofsociology, Durkheim is especially important. He was the first to offer coursesin sociology in French universities, at a time when sociology was not wellknown or favoured. His writings areimportant within the field of sociology, in that several of them are basicworks that sociology students today are expected to read and understand. Much of the manner in which sociology as anacademic discipline is carried on follows Durkheim's suggestions andapproach. French sociology, in particular,follows Durkheim, and some of Durkheim's books are likely to serve as texts inFrench sociology. Much Americansociology is also heavily influenced by Durkheim. In recent years, there hasagain been much attention paid to his writings.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
C. Division of Labor in Society
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In TheDivision of Labor in Society Durkheim attempts to determine what is thebasis of social solidarity in society and how this has changed over time. This was Durkheim's first major work, so itdoes not address all the issues that be considered important. But in this work he began his study of howsociety is sui generis, an entity ofits own. This work presents many ofDurkheim’s views and illustrates his methodology.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim’s argument is that there are twotypes of social solidarity – how society holds together and what ties theindividual to the society. These twoforms mechanical solidarity, which characterizes earlier or traditionalsocieties, where the division of labour is relatively limited. The form of social solidarity in modernsocieties, with a highly developed division of labour, is called organicsolidarity. Durkheim argues that thedivision of labour itself which creates organic solidarity, because of mutualneeds of individuals in modern soceity.In both types of societies, individuals for the most part “interact inaccordance with their obligations to others and to society as a whole. In doing so, each person also receives somerecognition of his or her own rights and contributions within the collectivity. Social morality in this sense is ‘strictlynecessary’ for solidarity between people to occur; without morality, “societiescannot exist.’” (Grabb, p. 79).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
According to Giddens (p. 73), the mainsubstantive problem for Durkheim stems from “an apparent moral ambiguityconcerning the relationship between the individual and society in thecontemporary world.” On the one hand,with specialization and the highly developed division of labour, individualsdevelop their own consciousness, and are encouraged in thisspecialization. On the other hand,there are also moral ideas encouraging people to be well rounded, of service tosociety as a whole. These two seemcontradictory, and Durkheim is concerned with finding the historical andsociological roots of each of these, along with how these two seeminglycontradictory moral guidelines are reconciled in modern society.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
This book can also be read with a view toilluminating Durkheim's methods. In thefirst chapter, he outlines his method, and the theory which could befalsified. By looking at morality, heis not pursuing a philosophical course, mainly in the realm of ideas. Durkheimis critical of “moral philosophers [who] begin either from some a priori postulate about the essentialcharacteristics of human nature, or from propositions taken from psychology,and thence proceed by deduction to work out a scheme of ethics.” (Giddens, p.72). That is, Durkheim is attempting todetermine the roots of morality by studying society, and changes insociety. These forms of morality aresocial facts, and data from society must be obtained, and these used todiscover causes. The data used byDurkheim are observable, empirical forms of data in the form of laws, institutions (legal and other), normsand behaviour. In this book, Durkheimadopts a non-quantitative approach, but in Suicidehis approach is more quantitative.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In examining the roots of socialsolidarity, Durkheim regards the examination of systems of law as an importantmeans of understanding morality. Heregards “systems of law” as the “externalization of the inner core of socialreality (solidarity), it is predicted that as the inner core undergoesqualitative changes from ‘mechanical’ to‘organic’ solidarity, there should be manifest shift in the ratio oftypes of legal systems ... as a proportion of the total legal corpus.”(Tiryakian in Bottomore and Nisbet, p. 214)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Since lawreproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we have only to classifythe different types of law to find therefrom the different types of socialsolidarity which correspond to it. (Division,p. 68).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
That is, since social solidarity is aconcept that it not easily observable or measurable, Durkheim attempts to usesystems of law as an index of forms and changes in socialsolidarity. In the above quote, Durkheim states that lawconstitutes such an index since it “reproduces the principal forms ofsolidarity.” Since systems of law canbe studied historically and in contemporary societies, Durkheim felt that bytracing the development of different systems of law he could study the forms ofsocial solidarity. From this, Durkheimbegins to build a proof of the division of labour as the basis for thedifferent forms of solidarity. He thenattempts to show the nature of society, how it changes over time, and how thisresults in the shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
1.Mechanical solidarity
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Early societies tended to be small scale,localized in villages or rural areas, with a limited division of labour or onlya simple division of labour by age and sex.In this type of society, people are very similar to each other, andDurkheim titles this chapter“Mechanical solidarity through likeness.” In this type of society, each person carries out essentially similartypes of tasks, so that people share the type of work they carry out. These societies are characterized bylikeness, in which the members of the society share the same values, based oncommon tasks and common life situations and experiences.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In these early societies, Durkheim arguesthat legal codes or the system of law tends to be repressive law or penallaw. If there is a crime in thissociety, then this crime stands as an offense to all, because it is an offenseto the common morality, the shared system of values that exists. Most people feel the offense, and regardlessof how serious it is, severe punishment is likely to be meted out for it. Zeitlin notes (p. 264):
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Anything thatoffends the common conscience threatens the solidarity – the very existence ofsociety. An offense left unpunished weakens to that degree the socialunity. Punishment therefore serves theimportant function of restoring and reconstituting social unity.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Penal law is concerned with sanctions only,and there is no mention of obligations.Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment. Moral obligation and duty is not stated inthe punishment, because this is generally understood. Rather the punishment is given, and that is the completion of thepenalty.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society showthe nature of Durkheim's argument: Inthe quotes, note that the act is criminal because the act offends thecollective conscience. For Durkheim,the collective consciousness reaches all parts of society, has a distinctreality and is independent of individual conditions, and is passed on from onegeneration to the next. In this, itdiffers from particular or individual consciences. (Division, pp. 79-80).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Quote 5.Collective Consciousness. the only common characteristic of all crimesis that they consist ... in acts universally disapproved of by members of eachsociety. (Division, p. 73).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The totality ofbeliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinatesystem which has its own life; one may call it the collective or commonconscience. (Division, p. 79)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
an act iscriminal when it offends strong and defined states of the collectiveconscience. (Division, p. 80)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
we must not saythat an action shocks the common conscience because it is criminal, but ratherthat it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience. We do not reproveit because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it. (Division, p. 81).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Referring to repressive or penal forms ofpunishment in early society, Durkheim notes that it may extend to:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
the innocent,his wife, his children, his neighbours, etc. This is because the passion whichis the soul of punishment ceases only when exhausted. If, therefore, after it hasdestroyed the one who has immediately called it forth, there still remainsforce within it, it expands in quite mechanical fashion. (Division, p. 86).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In contrast, modern legal codes are quitedifferent, with punishment being less important. Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the originalsituation, rather than exacting revenge on the offender. “But today, it is said, punishment haschanged it character; it is no longer to avenge itself that society punishes,it is to defend itself.” (Division, p. 86).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
This distinction between different types oflegal codes and punishment may provide a means of noting what mechanicalsolidarity means.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Quote 6.Mechanical Solidarity. They must re-enforce themselves by mutualassurances that they are always agreed. The only means for this is action incommon. In short, since it is the common conscience which is attacked, it mustbe that which resists, and accordingly the resistance must be collective. (Division, p. 103).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
(Thus, theanalysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime. We began by establishing inductively thatcrime consisted essentially in an act contrary to strong and defined states ofthe common conscience. We have justseen that all the qualities of punishment ultimately derive from this nature ofcrime. That is because the rules thatit sanctions express the most essential social likeness.)
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Thus we see whattype of solidarity penal law symbolizes. ... not only are all the members ofthe group individually attracted to one another because they resemble oneanother, but also because they are joined to what is the condition of existenceof this collective type. ... They willas they will themselves, hold to it durably and for prosperity, because,without it, a great part of their psychic lives would function poorly. (Division, p. 105).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
These quotes show how the collectiveconsciousness works in societies without a highly developed division oflabour. The primary function ofpunishment, therefore, is to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question itssanctity. In order to carry this out,such societies develop forms of repressive or penal law.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
While the common values in these societiescan change over time, this process of change is generally quite slow, so thatthese values are generally appropriate for the historical period inquestion. At other times, the laws maybe inappropriate, and might be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim generally considers thisto be an exceptional circ*mstance, and one that is overcome.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
2. Organic solidarity
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
With the development of the division oflabour, the collective consciousness begins to decline. Each individual begins to have a separateset of tasks which he or she is engaged in.These different situations lead to quite a different set of experiencesfor each individual. This set ofexperiences tends to lead toward “a ‘personal consciousness,’ with an emphasison individual distinctiveness.” (Grabb, p.81).The common situation which created the common collective consciousnessis disturbed, and individuals no longer have common experiences, but have agreat variety of different settings, each leading towards its ownconsciousness.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
As the developmen of the division of labourerodes the collective consciousness, it also creates a new form ofsolidarity. This new form is organicsolidarity, and is characterized by dependence of individuals on each otherwithin the division of labour, and by a certain form of cooperation. There is a
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
functionalinterdependence in the division of labour. ... Organic solidarity ...presupposes not identity but differencebetween individuals in their beliefs and actions. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of thedivision of labour are hence associated with increasing individualism. (Giddens, p. 77).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Cuff et al. (p.31) note that this meansthat “differences are expected and indeed become expected. ... Thus the nature of the moral consensuschanges. Commonly shared values stillpersist because without them there would be no society, but they becomegeneralized, as they are not rooted in the totality of commonly shared dailyexperiences. Instead of specifying thedetails of an action, common values tend to be a more general underpinning forsocial practices. It is in this sensethat the division of labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon.”
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Thus Durkheim argues that there areindividual, and probably group, differences, at the same time as there is a newform of social solidarity.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Quote 7.Organic Solidarity. There are in each of us, ... twoconsciences: one which is common to our group in its entirety, which,consequently, is not ourself, but society living and acting within us; theother, on the contrary, represents that in us which is personal and distinct,that which makes us an individual.Solidarity which comes from likeness is at its maximum when thecollective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides inall points with it.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim speaks of the centripetal andcentrifugal forces, and draws an organic analogy:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Individuality issomething which the society possesses.Thus, .. personal rights are not yet distinguished from real rights. (Division, 129-30).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
It is quiteotherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour produces. Whereas the previous type implies thatindividuals resemble each other, this type presumes their difference. The first is possible only in so far as theindividual personality is absorbed into the collective personality; the secondis possible only if each one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him;that is, a personality. ... In effect,on the one hand, each one depends as much more strictly on society as labor ismore divided; and, on the other, the activity of each is as much more personalas it is more specialized. ... Societybecomes more capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of itselements has more freedom of movement.The solidarity resembles that which we observe among the higheranimals. Each organ, in effect, has itsspecial physiognomy, it autonomy. Andmoreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the individuation of theparts is more marked. Because of thisanalogy, we propose to call the solidarity which is due to the division oflabour, organic. (Division, 131).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In the structure of societies with organicsolidarity (quote 8):
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Quote 8.Social Structure. They are constituted, not by a repetition of similar, hom*ogeneoussegments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a special role,and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts. Not only are socialelements not of the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same manner.They are not juxtaposed linearly ... but entwined one with another, butco-ordinated and subordinated one to another around the same central organwhich exercises a moderating action over the rest of the organism. (Division, p.181).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
b.Restitutive or restorative law. Modern systems of law tend to be restitutiveor restorative, according to Durkheim.While there are elements of penal or repressive law, such as the deathpenalty for murder, that continue to exist in modern societies, modern systemsof law are primarily characterized by judgments that require the offendingparty to restore the situation to the original state – eg. paying restitutionfor theft or to victims. Modernbusiness and contract law governs the conditions of contracts but says littleor nothing about what type of contract parties can enter into.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
“The progressive displacement of repressiveby restitutive law is an historical trend which is correlated with the degreeof development of a society: the higher the level of social development, thegreater the relative proportion of restitutive law within the judicialstructure.” (Giddens, p. 76). ForDurkheim, this form of law is concerned with “a simple return in state. Sufferanceproportionate to the misdeed is not inflicted on the one who has violated thelaw or who disregards it; he is simply sentenced to comply with it.” The judge “speaks of law; he says nothing ofpunishment.” (Division, p 111).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
As the division of labour develops, peopledo not have the same consciousness, so that the form of law must change. “The very existence of restitutive law, infact, presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, sinceit covers the rights of individuals either over private property, or over otherindividuals who are in a different social position from themselves.” (Giddens, p. 76) Along with this could come Weber’s rational law, perhaps much thesame as Durkheim's restitutive law.Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts are necessary, but theseare the result of the general acceptance of individual rights within the systemof a division of labour.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
c.Cause of organic solidarity. Durkheim is critical of the economists whor*gard the development of the division of labour as a result of the comingtogether of people with different abilities and specialties. While Durkheim didnot make reference to Adam Smith, he also may have had in mind Smith’s viewthat people have a natural propensity to truck, barter and trade. Finally, he was critical of the economists'point of view that merely examined the technical conditions for the division oflabour, and the increased efficiency associated with it, without considerationof the broader societal conditions necessary to maintain it. Thus Durkheim did not consider the divisionof labour as a natural condition.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim considers the development of thedivision of labour to be associated with the increasing contact amongpeople. There is a greater density ofcontact, so that people are led to specialize.The division of labour emerges in different ways in different societies,leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity. However, it is these developments which create the division oflabour and “Civilization develops because it cannot fail to develop.” (Division,p. 337).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Adams and Sydie (p. 94) state that Durkheimregarded this as an increase in moral or dynamic density. This moral relationship can only produce itseffect if the real distance between individuals has itself diminished in someway. Durkheim refers to this anincreasing density. Moral densitycannot grow unless material density grows at the same time. The two areinseparable though. Three ways in whichthis happens are:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
i.Concentration of people. People begin to concentrate together. Agriculture may begin this, and it continues with the growth ofcities as well.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
ii.Cities.Formation of cities and their development. “Cities always result from the need of individuals to putthemselves in very intimate contact with others. They are so many points where the social mass is contracted morestrongly than elsewhere. They canmultiply and extend only if the moral density is raised.” (Division, p. 258).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
iii.Transportation and Communication. Increased number and rapidity of means oftransportation and communication. Thisresults in “suppressing or diminishing the gaps separating social segments,they increase the density of society.” (Division, pp. 259-260).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The division of labor varies in direct ratio with thevolume and density of societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous mannerin the course of social development, it is because societies become regularlydenser and generally more voluminous. (Division, 262).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
We say, not thatthe growth and condensation of societies permit,but that they necessitate a greaterdivision of labor. It is not an instrument by which the latter is realized; itis its determining cause. (Division,p. 262).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
As a result of this greater contact, the“struggle for existence becomes more acute” and this results in the developmentof the division of labour. If needsare the same, then there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can bepursued, then there may be room for all.Quote 8:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Social Structure (2nd part)In the same city, different occupations can co-exist without beingobliged mutually to destroy one another, for they pursue different objects. ...Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from attainingtheirs.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The closerfunctions come to one another, however, the more points of contact they have;the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. ... The judge never is incompetition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-grower ... oftentry to supplant each other. As for those who have exactly the same function,they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others. (Division, p. 267).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In proportion tothe segmental character of the social constitution, each segment has its ownorgans, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions separating thedifferent segments. ... But, no matter how this substitution is made, it cannotfail to produce advances in the course of specialization. (Division, 269).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Instead ofentering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises establishequilibrium by sharing their common task. Instead of one being subordinate tothe other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties appear. (Division, 270).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
For Durkheim the result of the division oflabour is positive in that there is no need to compete in the sense ofstruggling just to survive. Rather, thedivision of labour may signify that there are sufficient material resources forall in society, and this division allows a certain form of co-operation. Quote 9:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Division of Labour. The division of labour is, then, a result ofthe struggle for existence, but is a mellowed dénouement. Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged to fight to afinish, but can exist one beside the other. Also, in proportion to itsdevelopment, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greaternumber of individuals who, in more hom*ogeneous societies, would be condemned toextinction. (Division, p. 271).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The division of labour cannot beanticipated, in terms of the form of its development. It is the sharing offunctions, but not according to a preconceived plan. “The division of labour, then, must come about of itself andprogressively.” (Division, p. 276). It must come to pass in a pre-existing society (Appendix quote9).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Division of Labour. Work is not divided among independent andalready differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bringtogether their different aptitudes. Forit would be a miracle if differences thus born through chance circ*mstancecould unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far from preceding collective life, they derive from it. They canbe produced only in the midst of a society, and under the pressure of socialsentiments and social needs. That iswhat makes them essentially harmonious. ... there are societies whose cohesionis essentially due to a community of beliefs and sentiments, and it is fromthese societies that those whose unity is assured by the division of labourhave emerged. (Division, p. 277).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Civilization isitself the necessary consequence of the changes which are produced in the volumeand in the density of societies. Ifscience, art, and economic activity develop, it is in accordance with anecessity which is imposed upon men. Itis because there is, for them, no other way of living in the new conditions inwhich they have been placed. From thetime that the number of individuals among whom social relations are establishedbegins to increase, they can maintain themselves only by greaterspecialization, harder work, and intensification of their faculties. From this general stimulation, thereinevitably results a much higher degree of culture. (Division, pp. 336-337).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim thus sets out an analysis of thedivision of labour which emphasizes the special functions of each of type ofoccupation and endeavour. The biological model, with a well functioning body, where each organ properlyserves it function seems to be uppermost in Durkheim's mind. Unlike some of the structuralfunctionalists, Durkheim's method distinguishes the cause of the function fromthe actual function filled. That is,Durkheim observes the function that the occupation fills in society, butattempts to investigate the development of the cause in an historical manner,examining how this function emerged. Inthis, one can consider there to be a certain “conflict as a mechanism, within a quasi-Darwinian framework, whichaccelerates the progression of the division of labour.” (Giddens, p. 79).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim is also providing a criticism ofthe economic models which argue that people with different specialties come togetherto trade the products of their specialties.For Durkheim, specialties are not natural in any sense, but aredeveloped. Similarly, the division oflabour is not natural either, but develops in different forms in differentsocieties. While there may be a greatsimilarity among these (perhaps like Weber's rationality), national differencesemerge. In that sense, Durkheim has anhistorical model, fairly solidly grounded on the material realities.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
On the other hand, Durkheim’s analysis maybe considered to be mainly descriptive, proposing some fairly straightforwardobservations concerning culture. Hisnotion of solidarity, mores, morals and norms come very close to theconventional sociological model of these, and may be considered to be widely acceptedby all. The question is how theseemerge, and whose interests they serve.Here the conflict approach differs dramatically from Durkheim.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Finally, Durkheim's analysis can beconsidered to be evolutionary and fairly optimistic. For the most part, Durkheim looks on the developments in thedivision of labour as signalling higher stages of civilization. He does not consider there to be any grandplan to this, and no single factor which guides it. Rather, there is competition, which results in the development ofthe division of labour, and the outcome of this process cannot bepredicted. However, the result isgenerally positive, because people need each other, and this produces anorganic solidarity in society.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
3.Abnormal forms of the division of labour
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
At the end of The Division of Labor in Society, however, Durkheim does note thatthere can be problems in society. Thereare two abnormal forms of the division of labour, and the division of labouritself does not always function as well as it could in modern society.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
a.Anomic division of labor. When there are industrial and commercial crises, there may be apartial break in organic solidarity.Also, where there is conflict between capital and labour, this may be anunusual situation. Part of this iscaused by the increased separation of employee and employer under capitalism (Division, p. 354), so that the conditions for a lack of solidarity areexpanded as capitalism and the division of labour develop. This anomieis a sense of confusion and rootlessness, or lack of social regulation becauseof disruptions or rapid change in the division of labour. Examples are the Great Depression of the1930s and the rapid expansion of the 1990s.In the latter, some sectors of business and business executives wereinsufficiently regulated by society, and seem to have viewed themselves abovesuch regulation. The corporate excessesand crimes that resulted are an example of anomie.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Irregular forms such as crime are nottreated as part of the breakdown, rather these are treated by Durkheim asdifferentiation (Division, p. 353), not part of division oflabour. Durkheim compares these withcancer, rather than with normal organs.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The real problem is a lack of regulation ora weakened common morality that can occur in modern society. For example, in the economic sphere, thereare no rules which fix the number of economic enterprises (Division, p. 366), andthere is no regulation of production in each branch of industry. This might be an overall form of irrationality,in Weber's sense. There can be rupturesin equilibrium, capital labour relations may become indeterminate. In the scientific field there may begreater separation of different sciences. (Division, p. 367).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
If the division of labour does not producesolidarity in all these cases, it is because the relations of the organs arenot regulated, because they are in a state of anomy. For the individualthis means there are not sufficient moral constraints and individuals do nothave a clear concept of what is proper and acceptable. (Ritzer, p. 85). See Appendix quote 10:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Anomie. ... the state of anomy is impossible when solidary organs are sufficiently incontact or sufficiently prolonged. ... if some opaque environment isinterposed, then only stimuli of a certain intensity can be communicated fromone organ to another. Relations, beingrare, are not repeated enough to be determined ... (Division, pp. 368-9).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Durkheim also discusses conditions of theworker under capitalism in terms that come very close to Marx’s description ofalienation and exploitation. Hediscusses the degrading nature of the division of labour on the worker, thepossibility of monotonous routine, and the machine like actions of the worker.(Division, p. 371). However, Durkheimdoes not consider these to be the normal form, but one which results when theworker does not have a sufficient vision of the whole process of production.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
... the divisionof labour does not produce these consequences because of a necessity of its ownnature, but only in exceptional and abnormal circ*mstances. ... The division of labour presumes that theworker, far from being hemmed in by his task, does not lose sight of hiscollaborators, that he acts upon them, and reacts to them. He is, then, not a machine who repeats hismovements without knowing their meaning, but he knows that they tend, in someway, towards an end that he conceives more or less distinctly. (Division, p. 372).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
b.Forced division of labour. The forced division of labour is where thedivision of labour is not allowed to develop spontaneously, and where some actto protect themselves and their positions.These could be traditional forms, which are external to the division oflabour, or they could be castes, Weber's status groups, or Marx's classes. Any factors that prevent individuals fromachieving positions which would be consistent with their natural abilitiesindicates a force division of labour.Ritzer notes (p. 98) that this could be inequalities in the structure ofwork or inadequate organization, with the wrong people in particular positionsor incoherent organizational structures.Any interference with the operation of the division of labour thatresults in the position being filled by those who are not most apt for theposition would be forced division of labour.Quote 11:
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Forced Division of Labour. We may say that the division of labourproduces solidarity only if it is spontaneous and in proportion as it isspontaneous. ... In short, labor isdivided spontaneously only if society is constituted in such a way that socialinequalities exactly express natural inequalities. ... It consists, not in a state of anarchy whichwould permit men freely to satisfy all their good or bad tendencies, but in asubtle organization in which each social value, being neither overestimated norunderestimated by anything foreign to it, would be judged at its worth. (Division, p. 376).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Examples of the forced division of labour includesocieties with slavery or a caste system, where some individuals are preventedfrom participating normally in the division of labour. Interferences with equality of opportunity,such as discrimination in hiring or in obtaining educational opportunities, areexamples of forced division of labour. Classand wealth also interfere with such equal opportunity, but Durkheim views thisas abnormal and not the normal tendency.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
even this lastinequality, which comes about through birth, though not completelydisappearing, is at least somewhat attenuated. Society is forced to reduce this disparity as far as possible byassisting in various ways those who find themselves in a disadvantageousposition and by aiding them to overcome it." (Division, p. 379).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
4.Role of state and occupational groups
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Having said that Durkheim was generallyvery optimistic concerning the development of the division of labour indeveloping an organic solidarity, Durkheim was also concerned with the state ofmodern society. The development of thedivision of labour did have the tendency to split people, and the organicsolidarity might not be sufficient to hold society together.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
One solution for regulation that Durkheimdiscusses is the state. In some senses,Durkheim was a socialist, although not of the same type as Marx. Ritzer notes that for Durkheim, socialism“simply represented a system in which moral principles discovered by scientificsociology could be applied.” (Ritzer, p. 73).While the principles of morality had to be present in society, the statecould embody these in structures, fulfilling functions such as justice,education, health, social services, etc., and managing a wide range of sectorsof society (Grabb, p. 87).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The state “should also be the key structurefor ensuring that these rules are moral and just. The appropriate values ofindividualism, responsibility, fair play, and mutual obligation can be affirmedthrough the policies instituted by the state in all these fields.” (Grabb, p.87).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
The second major hope that Durkheim heldwas for what he called occupational groups. The state could not be expected toplay the integrative role that might be needed, because it was too remote. As a solution, Durkheim thought thatoccupational or professional groups could provide the means of integrationrequired. These would be formed bypeople in an industry, representing all the people in this sector. Their role would be somewhat different fromWeber's parties, in that they would not be concerned with exercising power, andachieving their own ends. Instead, theywould “foster the general interest of society at a level that most citizens canunderstand and accept.” (Grabb, p. 88).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
What we especially see in the occupationalgroup is a moral power capable of containing individual egos, of maintaining aspirited sentiment of common solidarity in the consciousness of all theworkers, of preventing the law of the strongest from being brutally applied toindustrial and commercial relations. (p. 10).Ritzer notes that these associations could “recognize ... common interestsas well as common need for an integrative moral system. That moral system ... would serve tocounteract the tendency toward atomization in modern society as well as helpstop the decline in significance of collective morality.” (pp. 98-99).
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
In summary, Durkheim argued that there werevarious means by which individual and society could be connected. Among these are education, social programsthrough the state, occuptional groups, and laws. Together these could assist in regulating individuals andintegrating individuals with society.
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
References
<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>
Cuff, E. C., W. W.Sharrock and D. W. Francis, Perspectivesin Sociology, third edition, London, Routledge, 1992. HM66 P36 1984
Durkheim, Emile, The Division of Labor in Society, NewYork, The Free Press, 1933. Referred toin notes as Division. HD 51 D98
Durkheim, Emile, The Rules of Sociological Method, NewYork, The Free Press, 1938. Referred toin notes as Rules. HM 24 D962
Durkheim, Emile, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, New York,The Free Press, 1951. Referred to innotes as Suicide. HV 6545 D812
Giddens, Anthony, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: AnAnalysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 1971. HM19 G53.
Grabb, Edward G., Theories of Social Inequality: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives,second edition, Toronto, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990. HT609 G72
Hadden, Richard W., Sociological Theory: An Introduction to theClassical Tradition, Peterborough, Ontario, Broadview Press, 1997.
Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, third edition, NewYork, McGraw-Hill, 1992. HM24R4938.
Sydie, R. A., Natural Women Cultured Men: A FeministPerspective on Sociological Theory, Toronto, Methuen, 1987. HM51 S97 1987.
Thompson, Kenneth, Emile Durkheim, Chichester, E. Horwood,1982. HM22 F8 D8737
Zeitlin, Irving M., Ideology and the Development of SociologicalTheory, fourth edition, EnglewoodCliffs, Prentice Hall, 1990. HM19 Z4 1990
Last edited January18, 2003
Return to Sociology 250
