45 pages • 1 hour read
Émile DurkheimThe Division of Labor in Society
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1893A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Book II, Chapters 3-5Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Book II: “The Causes and Conditions”
Book II, Chapter 3 Summary & Analysis: “Secondary Factors”
This chapter explores how the common consciousness weakens as the division of labor develops. Whereas similarities force individuals to seek differentiation, the common consciousness does the opposite, encouraging people to seek commonalities. Durkheim argues that social evolution is what ultimately pushes “civilized” societies to seek differentiation over commonality. This is because the division of labor cannot occur in societies where moral and penal law actively prevent specialization. Religion, for example, is a form of common consciousness that regulates people’s practical functions. If it exerts a strong control over social life, then people are not encouraged to seek independence and diversification cannot occur.
Durkheim observes the progression of civilization and concludes that an increasingly complex external environment forces the common consciousness to give way to more individual freedom. It gives rise to rationality and logic, which creates room for greater diversification. For example, “primitive” societies believed divine power resided in material objects which exist in the environment. Due to their proximity, they are believed to exert direct power over nature and humanity, thereby encouraging people to behave in a certain way and preventing the growth of individual variation. However, gradually, divinities develop into gods that transcend the material world and exist outside of the human realm; they no longer enjoy an absolutist rule over people but rather only offer guidance. At the same time, legal rules also shift from the particular to become more universalized, allowing for humans to seek independent thought and greater freedom of action. In sum, as the common consciousness recedes, it paves the way for greater individual variations.
Durkheim notes that social evolution is a gradual process; changes perceived in the present are merely extensions of a trend that began in the past. For example, tradition has less sway over people as societies gain greater physical mobility. This is because younger generations have more opportunity to move away from the environment in which they grew up, coming into contact with new ideas and forging new connections. In an unfamiliar environment, these youths are unlikely to see the older generation as an uncontested source of authority, and are less likely to follow their traditions. Cities, which are comprised mostly of younger people, are therefore centers of progress.
Finally, Durkheim observes that as cities become denser, the individual is less likely to be restrained. Small towns tend to frown upon individuals seeking to emancipate themselves from the group whereas cities welcome diversity. In fact, differentiation is required for survival: It allows the individual to attract interest and attention in a crowded and competitive environment. For example, as civil law expands, it also becomes more specialized, to the point where different types of law only regulate within their respective fields. Rules that delineate an individual’s professional life do not extend to the domestic sphere, leaving room for individual expression. The division of labor, insofar as it created greater professional regulation, proportionately encourages individual expression in every other sphere of social life. This in turn encourages the collective consciousness to regress, binding the minds of a smaller group, and allowing for greater variation within them.
Book II, Chapter 4 Summary & Analysis: “Secondary Factors (cont.)”
Chapter 4 discusses the extent to which organic and psychological factors influence the division of labor. Durkheim advances the theory that individuals are predisposed, due to their upbringing, their genetics, and their innate aptitudes, to be better at specific types of tasks, thereby limiting their capacity for variation and specialization. Whereas the division of labor might not have occurred in “extremely primitive” groups, as soon as it does occur, it first takes on the shape of heredity. This is the process through which later generations inherit the specialization of their parents or family. Although useful and widespread, heredity is not conducive to the division of labor because it is inherently conservative. It relies on stability and discourages variation. Durkheim uses the example of the development of medicine in Ancient Greece to prove his point: At the start, only a few families practiced medicine, and their skills were passed down to their children rather than taught to others within the community.
As civilizations evolve, however, heredity begins to lose its importance because individuals themselves become more complex. Durkheim disagrees with the belief that people are innately designated to practice certain professions over others. He argues that only simple traits, such as a person’s “race,” are easily passed down. However, as people become more specialized—as their abilities to reason become sharper and their fields of expertise narrow—it becomes less likely that their various aptitudes will be inherited. For example, a great scientist will pass down their “race” to their children, but the same cannot be said of their intelligence. Similarly, a father who is a thief might produce a son who also steals, but this trait is not so much hereditary as it is a result of upbringing: It stands to reason that if that son had been placed in a stable family, the chances of him pursuing thieving later on would be very low.
Durkheim spends many paragraphs discussing the principle of biological inheritance because social Darwinism and its principles were a topic of debate at the time. Many scientists, philosophers, and sociologists, contrary to Durkheim, advanced the theory that heredity held significant power over a person’s individuality. Durkheim argues the opposite: The more complex a trait, the less likely it is to be transmitted through heredity, thereby allowing people greater capacity for variation and specialization.
In fact, as societies progress, there is a decreasing need for specialized traits to be passed down while there are more opportunities for individual diversification. This is because more basic inherited faculties, such as courage or originality, are advantageous in many different fields. Someone who is courageous might perform equally well as a miner, a doctor, or soldier. Thus, inherited traits no longer bind individuals to particular professions as civilization develops. Instincts illustrate this: The more “advanced” an organism is, the less it relies on instinct to survive, preferring instead to use reasoning. The more people evolve, the more they rely on social factors, rather than organic (hereditary) factors to advance, accelerating the progress of the division of labor.
Book II, Chapter 5 Summary & Analysis: “Consequences of the Foregoing”
This section further develops the points explored in the previous chapter. Durkheim compares the division of labor to biology and notes that whereas individual cells in an organism always fulfill one specific function that cannot be interchanged, the same is not true of people in society. This is because the cell’s innate capabilities are predetermined whereas people are capable of variation and growth. Durkheim concedes that in relatively stable environments, it can be detrimental to specialize too much. However, in complex environments, such as the ones in which “civilized” societies live, flexibility is always preferable because it enables quicker adaptation and offers a better condition for survival.
Durkheim concludes that The Division of Labor Is Inevitable. Civilization did not evolve because people devised it as a way to increase their happiness or enrich their lives. Rather, this is an inevitable consequence of adaptation. As society grows in volume and density, the social environment becomes increasingly complex, pushing people toward specialization. Durkheim supports this idea by contrasting animals with humans: Whereas animals rely on their biology and environment for growth, human growth depends much more on the social conditions in the external environment than on innate hereditary traits. In other words, Durkheim argues that society “develops because it cannot but develop” (276).
Durkheim’s conclusion on the cause and future path of the division of labor is deterministic. However, he nevertheless believes there is an incentive to actively study and regulate the process, as the division of labor is the social framework that will allow people to live in a healthy state. Having refuted the idea that happiness is ever increasing, Durkheim proposes health as the ultimate state of balance and harmony society should strive for.
As society is ever fluctuating—it is inconceivable for Durkheim that factors such as birth rates, mortality rates, and immigration would one day come to a standstill—so will the division of labor continue to progress and adapt. Book II concludes with Durkheim once again refuting Spencer’s theory: It is not individuals who determine the shape of society, but societal conditions that push individuals to develop.
