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.
Themes
Combining Biology and Sociology: The Community as an Organism
Throughout The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim sets out to observe the institutions and frameworks that form the core of modern society. He notices that specialization, the act of dividing up work into smaller parts that was characteristic of the Industrial Revolution, can increase work efficiency. It can also improve the quality and complexity of the final product.
Durkheim finds a similar occurrence in biology, where advanced organisms develop progressively more complex organs that fulfill increasingly specific functions. These organs operate autonomously but also depend on the proper functioning of adjoining organs. As the external environment becomes more complex, organs working in solidarity collectively contribute to the survival of the organism. Durkheim observes that these biological traits are the result of evolution and adaptation to a changing external world.
Durkheim reprises this same logic to explain the framework of modern society. Whereas individuals in a society were previously bound by a collective consciousness that encouraged conformity, the modern city is neither uniform nor homogeneous. Traditional institutions such as religion are slowly giving way to nonclerical or lay social institutions. Durkheim concludes that specialization has frayed the traditional glue that bound society together and replaced it with something else entirely. A new kind of solidarity emerges from the division of labor, one that is based not on common beliefs but on diversity. As each individual in society begins to fill specialized roles, they each contribute, in their different ways, to the proper functioning of the collective. A new type of organic solidarity emerges, which is more complex that the previous structure.
Biological evolution parallels societal development under the division of labor. Just as evolution forces simple organisms to adapt, so does it force societies to redress its framework. Modern societies are likened to the complex organism, where each specialized field acts as an organ and fulfills a specific function. However, even with increasingly divided work, the link that ties them inexorably to each other also strengthens. They form a continuous process, the same way an assembly line cannot function if a problem occurs at an earlier point of the production process. Durkheim compares the central nervous system to the invisible and indivisible networks that tie individual functions in society to each other. The division of labor reinforces at every turn the survival of the collective through insuring the efficient operation of the sum of its parts. This makes organic solidarity based on difference possible.
The Division of Labor Is Inevitable
Durkheim concludes that the division of labor is a natural process in the course of human evolution. He believes this to be the case after observing how societies have changed from the undifferentiated “primitive” communities to today’s “modern” specialized societies. Durkheim theorizes that, given the scarcity of resources, a society bound by similarity would inevitably encourage competition and threaten harmony. As the external environment becomes more complex, individuals have an increasingly difficult time competing for the same resources. Diversification is one solution to this problem.
To better illustrate this argument, Durkheim compares a field where a single type of crop is planted. Those crops, by virtue of being similar, will quickly deplete the soil of the nutrients vital to the crops’ survival. When resources become scarce, those crops will have to compete for survival. However, plants that are dissimilar do not encounter this problem as easily: They are more likely to have different needs and to be able to coexist in close proximity. Durkheim believes a similar principle is at play in human society. Whereas “primitive” communities were smaller and could survive by enforcing similarity, modern cities house a much larger and diversified group of people. A “modern” society therefore requires another type of solidarity to survive and remain harmonious. Durkheim believes the answer to be specialization and organic solidarity.
Durkheim is careful to point out that the division of labor is not the only possible path forward in the course of evolution, but he also highlights it as the most widespread among “civilized” nations and the most morally appropriate. In other words, the natural course of history is one where “primitive” and uncomplicated societies bound by the collective consciousness gradually transition to the more “advanced” and complex societies formed through the division of labor. This form of reasoning paints history and the passage of time as linear and progressive: It stems from a “primitive” past and moves toward a “progressive” future. While Durkheim does not explicitly state that the division of labor is an inevitable step in the course of human history, given the moral and natural character he assigns to it, his conclusion veers close to inevitability.
Society Is the Source of Human Morality
One of the most important conclusions Durkheim draws is that human morality stems from collective life and not the other way around. He illustrates this through a thought experiment: If individuals were to live separate from others, there would be no need for morality, whose purpose is to guide actions based on shared, generalized, and transcendent beliefs. If humans were to be in the state of nature—a hypothetical condition in which every individual would live in solidarity—the default state would be immoral or amoral. In other words, it is not morality that made social life possible, but rather social life that gave rise to human morality.
Durkheim reasons the following: If the division of labor is the natural next step in human history, and if it facilitates social life in an increasingly complex external environment, then it must be a moral endeavor. In other words, if the division of labor truly encourages social cohesion in the modern world, then the logical conclusion would be that it also strengthens human morality. This is a point repeatedly emphasized in the concluding passages of The Division of Labor in Society.
This point is most strongly defended in Book III. This final third of the dissertation is entirely dedicated to examining instances where industrialization and specialization have caused human misery and dissatisfaction rather than happiness. Durkheim examines popular arguments—including, for example, Marxist critiques—against the desirability of the division of labor. Experts have observed that the Industrial Revolution has generated misery among workers, who are given unfulfilling tasks and can be undercompensated. Durkheim dismisses these concerns by arguing that the division of labor is the correct path forward, but is not foolproof: A robust legal system and an appropriate distribution of tasks are required for its positive effects to be fully felt. Ultimately, Durkheim’s argument reflects his optimism and belief in the division of labor as a profoundly moral social endeavor.
