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 IIIChapter Summaries & Analyses
Book III: “The Abnormal Forms”
Book III, Chapter 1 Summary & Analysis: “The Anomic Division of Labor”
The purpose of Book III is to observe the various exceptional cases that do not neatly align with the theories delineated in Book I and defended in Book II. Durkheim dubs these “pathological” cases, reprising his use of biological terms to explain social phenomenon. He firmly believes that a scrutiny of deviant cases will not only reinforce his theory, but will enhance people’s understanding of the laws guiding the normal development of the division of labor. Criminal professions are the notable exception: They are not the result of the division of labor, but of differentiation. They contribute to variety but do not help the survival of the organism, the same way cancer increases the type of cell tissues but can be harmful to survival. Durkheim lists three exceptional social forms that most often reoccur. He explores each of them in turn in the following chapters.
The first form, covered in Chapter 1, are instances in which the division of labor do not give rise to organic solidarity. This is the case of commercial or industrial crises, which occur more frequently in “advanced” societies, indicating that organic solidarity, even when already formed, can disintegrate. Neither the division of labor nor organic solidarity is perfect or foolproof.
A further example can be seen in the hostility between industries and their workers and the frequency of labor strikes in industrialized societies. These clearly indicate a decrease in social cooperation and organic solidarity. Although abject poverty encourages rebellion even in “earlier” societies, general strikes tend to be a phenomenon characteristic of big industries. In the field of the sciences, specialization has discouraged interdisciplinary work, which previously was the norm—for instance, the philosopher was also astrologer and mathematician, and his theories could contribute to all three fields.
Some philosophers, such as Auguste Comte, believe that solidarity will disintegrate as science develops and individual scientific fields become increasingly specific and disjointed from others. In the industrial world, as workers are less educated, there will be an incentive to treat them as machines rather than as individuals with autonomy and morality. Some argue that if the division of labor is pushed to the extreme, it will ultimately lead again to fragmentation.
Durkheim rebukes this idea, having previously established that a weakening of the collective consciousness is a normal part of the development of the division of labor. He argues that conflicts arising from the division of labor are due to changing social conditions, whereby there is an increasing distance between the employer and employee. If this gap were to be bridged, and the two groups were forced in closer contact, solidarity would naturally emerge once more from the negotiation and contracts that the two parties form. Durkheim’s vision is optimistic: Conflicts are not necessarily derivative of the division of labor. Under the right type of regulation, they can be corrected. As such, they are best seen as deviations that strengthen the norm, rather than evidence that weakens his theory.
Book III, Chapter 2 Summary & Analysis: “The Forced Division of Labor”
The second abnormal type is the forced division of labor, which occurs when immoral regulations constrain people within “castes” that do not correspond to their natural state. A classic example of the forced division of labor can be seen in class wars, where people revolt against the social constraints forced upon them and aspire to ascend the social ladder. Rather than seeing this as a knock against his theory, Durkheim believes it is proof that society is truly organic; there is no comparative situation to be found in biology. No organ rises up to usurp the function of another organ because they are mechanically programmed—the way they operate is predetermined. In contrast, humans constrained within boundaries that do not correspond to their natural abilities will feel the need to push back because they are organic beings.
Durkheim concludes that the division of labor produces solidarity only if it is spontaneous and not premeditated. In other words, although a governing body such as the law or the government are required to enforce boundaries, those boundaries are most appropriate when they are the result of spontaneous negotiation between individuals. Of course, these spontaneous negotiations are theoretical rather than a fact realized in practice. Individuals are capable of evolution and diversification.
Therefore, insofar as “castes” and social divides correspond to the abilities of individuals, they can only be approximate rather than perfect. Class rebellions are to be considered exceptional instances where the division of labor has been imposed rather than spontaneous, as the process is not always foolproof. Durkheim concludes using a logic approximating Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory, which holds that parties acting in self-interest benefit society, such as by lowering costs in a competitive environment. Durkheim argues that social equality remains an element toward which the division of labor is inclined, more often than not.
Book III, Chapter 3 Summary & Analysis: “Another Abnormal Form”
The third abnormal form of the division of labor arises when it fails to distribute functions in an efficient manner, resulting in waste, inefficiency, and a breaking down of solidarity. This happens when an enterprise fails to give sufficient work to occupy its workers. In an organic society, each individual unit contributes to the proper functioning of the whole; therefore solidarity depends on all parts of the system functioning efficiently.
For example, if a person suffocates, although the blockage is concentrated in one area, soon other biological processes become affected, and the person quickly dies. For humans, organic solidarity can only be maintained if all its parts assume their respective functions. In comparison, a frog can live for a long time without breathing because it is not as integrated an organism. Some parts of its biology work independently from others; therefore another process can distribute enough oxygen throughout its body for survival. The frog’s biology is an example of imperfect solidarity.
Because solidarity is inexorably tied to functional activity, one cannot increase without the other. For one part to increase its output, it requires every other part upon which it is dependent to also increase their outputs. This relationship is continuous and sequential; if one unit is not granted enough work, solidarity becomes affected. Durkheim considers instances where functions are not correctly distributed as abnormal, resulting from an unsound regulatory system. In order to restore solidarity, a leader or central organizational system must appropriately assign each function the right amount of work.
Conclusion Summary and Analysis
The Conclusion reaffirms the various points Durkheim delineated in Book I. It highlights the difference between mechanical solidarity, which is found in “lower” societies, and organic solidarity, which arises from the division of labor among the “civilized.” It also reiterates that the collective consciousness, maintained primarily by repressive sanctions, is the social glue in “lower” societies. In contrast, “advanced” civilizations rely on social solidarity, regulated by a central body through mainly restitutive sanctions.
Durkheim derives one final idea from his theory on the division of labor. He argues that Society Is the Source of Human Morality, not the consequence. This is proven with a simple thought experiment. If humanity were to live independently from one another, without ever interacting, there would be no need for morality. Durkheim contends with other philosophers at the time, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that such an environment would be amoral, if not immoral. Therefore, it is by living in a collective that human morality becomes useful.
If society confers morality, then the division of labor itself, which propels the most organic type of solidarity, is moral. Durkheim believes it is the duty of “higher” societies to become more specialized. This encourages diversity because individuals can occupy a niche. Far from only being an economic process, the division of labor establishes an entire legal system and creates a new way of life.
