The Division of Labor in Society

“Since law reproduces the main forms of social solidarity, we have only to classify the different types of law in order to be able to investigate which types of social solidarity correspond to them.”

Durkheim sees the legal system as a reflection of societal organization. A society that relies on punitive law is bound by mechanical solidarity because it encourages similarity in people rather than diversity. A society that has an extensive civil law, on the other hand, is bound by organic solidarity and encourages individuality and specialization.

“The bond of social solidarity to which repressive law corresponds is one the breaking of which constitutes the crime.”

This explains Durkheim’s theory on the relationship between mechanical solidarity and penal law. The more a society is tied together by sharing a collective consciousness, the more its solidarity is mechanical, because any deviation from the collective is considered threatening to social cohesion. Penal law is a regulating force that serves the purpose of retaliating against threatening offenses.

“The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or common consciousness.”

This passage defines the collective consciousness, one of the core concepts in Durkheim’s theory on the division of labor. From this definition, it can be inferred that a society bound by a common consciousness is one that would encourage conformity. Solidarity between individual members is enhanced by thinking similarly.

“Thus punishment constitutes essentially a reaction of passionate feeling, graduated in intensity, which society exerts through the mediation of an organized body over those of its members who have violated certain rules of conduct.”

Punitive law is a reactionary measure meant to mediate people’s feelings when transgressions have been committed against the common consciousness. Durkheim has previously established that the common consciousness is a state characteristic of “earlier” societies. In this passage, he reinforces his belief that these societies are less rational and use punishment as a means to assuage their strong emotions.

“[T]he rules relating to ‘real’ rights and personal relationships that are established by virtue of them form a definite system whose function is not to link together the different parts of society, but on the contrary to detach them from one another, and mark out clearly the barriers separating them. Thus they do not correspond to any positive social tie.”

Durkheim argues that the legal system of “advanced” societies, unlike that of “primitive” societies, is not there to reinforce a common consciousness, but to delineate individual rights and separate different aspects of social life. This paves the way for greater specialization and for a more intricate division of labor in that community.

“In the end this law plays a part analogous in society to that of the nervous system in the organism. That system, in effect, has the task of regulating the various bodily functions in such a way that they work harmoniously together.”

Durkheim refers to civil law and likens it to the central nervous system, a regulatory organ that ensures the proper functioning of the organism. Organic societies where labor is divided are complex—each task is both separate and dependent on other tasks. Therefore, the regulatory system is crucial for maintaining harmony.

“If the two kinds of solidarity that we have just distinguished indeed assume the legal expression we have stated, the preponderance of repressive law over cooperative law must be all the greater when the collective type is more pronounced and the division of labor more rudimentary.”

This is a core principle for Durkheim’s theory on the division of labor. It argues that punitive law, which is the result of emotion and rarely matches the severity of the crime, is more prominent in “primitive” societies. When a civilization begins to specialize from the division of labor, its cohesion is maintained with an extensive civil legal system while criminal law atrophies.

“The weaker solidarity is, that is, the slacker the thread that links society together, the easier it must be for foreign elements to be incorporated into societies.”

Solidarity, whether mechanical or organic, is the glue that binds individual members of a society to the collective. It also delineates the boundaries of that community, in opposition with those outside of it. This quote points out that if the binds are weak, then foreign elements can more easily cross societal boundaries.

“But the most considerable loss from the penal code is the one due to the total—or almost total—disappearance of religious crimes. Thus here is a whole host of sentiments that have ceased to be counted among the strong and well-defined states of the common consciousness.”

Durkheim regards religion not as a belief in the divine, but a social enterprise. Religious institutions influence people’s thoughts and actions. They encourage individuals to conform to specific standards, which is only relevant in a collective environment. In “primitive” societies where the collective consciousness—religion occupying a large portion of it—is strong, there are numerous laws that punish religious transgressions. However, as a society develops and the division of labor encourages diversification, religion gradually separates from the legal system.

“Thus it is a law of history that mechanical solidarity, which at first is the only one, or almost so, should progressively lose ground, and organic solidarity gradually become preponderant.”

The division of labor possesses the power to refashion society. It also builds a society based on organic solidarity, which is fundamentally incompatible with societies forged from mechanical solidarity. Most notably, this passage illustrates Durkheim’s belief in the linearity of time: History advances in a single direction, from a “primitive” past toward a “progressive” future.

“If the individual is not distinct from the group, it is because the individual consciousness is almost indistinct from the collective consciousness.”

Durkheim argues that individuality was not encouraged—and sometimes nonexistent—in societies bound by a collective consciousness. Such communities require conformity to remain harmonious. Due to this, they are typically small in size.

“There are certainly many pleasures open to us today that more simple natures are unaware of. Yet on the other hand we are prone to much suffering that is spared them, and it is by no means sure that the balance is in our favor.”

Although Durkheim believes in a linear evolution of human civilization from a “primitive” past to a “progressive” future, he does not think that the “modern” individual is necessarily happier than the “primitive” man. This is because, biologically, pleasure is felt most acutely when it is not the default state of being. Although civilization has progressed with the division of labor to become more moral and efficient, it remains uncertain that people nowadays are happier than those of the past.

“The sole fact of experience that demonstrates that life is generally good is that the overwhelming majority of men prefer it to death. For this to be so it must be that in the average existence happiness triumphs over unhappiness.”

In this passage, Durkheim sides with philosophers, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who believe people are innately happy and good. At the same time, Durkheim argues that people generally prefer order over chaos. Although seemingly unrelated, these two assertions are fundamental to his theory on the division of labor. They provide the basis for solidarity and social harmony as the glue binding individuals to the collective.

“Social life, instead of concentrating itself in innumerable small foci that are distinct but alike, becomes general. Social relationships—more exactly we should say intra-social relationships—consequently become more numerous, since they push out beyond their original boundaries on all sides. Thus, the division of labor progresses the more individuals there are who are sufficiently in contact with one another to be able mutually to act and react upon one another.”

In this passage, Durkheim describes how the division of labor unfolds. He paints the picture of a society of diversified and independent people bound to one another by an extensive but cohesive network of intra-social relationships. This is the result of the division of labor, whereby everyone is engaged in differentiated tasks but dependent upon one another to remain harmonious.

“The division of labor is therefore one result of the struggle of life: but it is a gentle denouement. Thanks to it, rivals are not obliged to eliminate one another completely, but can coexist side by side.”

Durkheim posits that the division of labor is the next step in the progression of human evolution. In a society where resources are finite and similar organisms fight for survival, the division of labor becomes the solution to survival. By dividing tasks and allowing for differentiation, it deters competition and allows individuals to fill a previously unoccupied niche in society.

“Collective life did not arise from individual life; on the contrary, it is the latter that emerged from the former. On this condition alone can we explain how the personal individuality of social units was able to form and grow without causing society to disintegrate.”

Durkheim highlights another fundamental aspect of his theory on the division of labor. He points out that collective life is what allows individuals to differentiate themselves from one another. The division of labor makes it possible for diversity, instead of conformity, to tie society together.

“We must indeed not forget that specialization is not the sole possible solution to the struggle of existence: there are also integration, colonisation, resignation to a precarious and more contested existence, and, finally, the complete elimination of the weakest through suicide or other means.”

Durkheim reminds readers that although history is linear and evolution is progressive, the division of labor was not the only possible solution to the struggle for survival. Society could have resolved the problem of competition in several different ways. Nevertheless, Durkheim’s later arguments do paint the division of labor as the correct path by deeming it a moral endeavor.

“The greater mobility of social units that these phenomena of migration assume effects a weakening of all traditions.”

Here, Durkheim paints migration as a disturbing element to mechanical solidarity. People who are uprooted are less prone to conform to a specific tradition because the old sources of authority are no longer present in their new environment. This is a necessary step toward the division of labor.

“Thus if abilities are the less transmissible the more specific they are, the importance of heredity in the social organization of labor is all the greater when that labor is less divided up.”

This passage posits that the more complex a trait, the less likely it will be biologically passed down to future generations in its entirety. This forms the basis for Durkheim’s argument that the division of labor, by encouraging specialization, discourages a social organization based on heredity. Its function is to reinforce the idea that the division of labor encourages greater variation in aptitudes in individuals.

“This is not to signify that civilization serves no purpose, but it is not the services that it renders that cause it to progress. It develops because it cannot but develop.”

Durkheim highlights that humanity, in forming collectives, is only following the natural course of evolution. Civilizations are not the result of deliberate negotiation but a steppingstone in a history of human progress.

“The division of labor supposes that the worker, far from remaining bent over his task, does not lose sight of those cooperating with him, but acts upon them and is acted upon by them. He is not, therefore, a machine who repeats movements the sense of which he does not perceive, but he knows that they are tending in a certain direction, toward a goal that he can conceive of more or less distinctly.”

Durkheim refutes a popular argument against the division of labor—levied most often by Marxists—that accuses specialization of making individuals into unthinking and unfeeling machines by encouraging a repetitive and unfulfilling mode of labor. Durkheim rebukes this idea by pointing out that specialization does not necessarily have to be morally unfulfilling, as each task contributes to the harmonious functioning of the whole.

“Conversely, we may therefore state that the division of labor produces solidarity only if it is spontaneous, and to the degree that it is spontaneous.”

Durkheim believes that the division of labor is not a result of human negotiation or deliberation: It is a natural process in evolution. Therefore, the most optimal way to divide functions and tasks is not through regulation but spontaneity. This argument closely resembles Adam Smith’s economic theory of the invisible hand, which argues that people acting naturally through self-interest benefits the collective.

“We are thus led to acknowledge another reason that makes the division of labor a source of social cohesion. It causes individuals to be interdependent, as we have maintained up to now, not only because it limits the activity of each one, but also because it increases that activity.”

This quote once again paints society as a collective made whole by the proper functioning of the sum of its parts. This kind of society approximates the assembly line in a factory: The total output can only be increased if, at each step during the production, workers are provided with an adequate increase in supplies. Alternatively, if one element malfunctions, it affects the activity and output of the entire factory. Durkheim believes the same principle regulates intra-social relations in societies governed by organic solidarity.