The Division of
Labor in Society
»
Emile Durkheim
THE FREE PRESSIntroduction
‘The Problem
Although the division of abou snot of recent origin was ony at
the end ofthe last century that societies began fo Become wate a
thislaw,towhich upto then they had submited almost uniting
Undoubtedly even fom antiquity several thinkers had perceived iy
importance." Ye Adar Smith was the fst to attempt to elaborate
the theory ofit. Moreover, twas he who ist coined the erm, which
social science later lent t0 biology
[Nowadays the phenomenon has become so widespread that it
Catches everyone's atention, We can no longer be undet
ihsion about the trends in modera industry. Itinvalvesincreasingl |
Powerful mechanisms, large-scale groupigs of power and capital,
and consequently an extreme division of labour. lasde factories
otony are jobs demarcated, becoming extremely specialised, but
‘ach produt is ite a speciality entalling the existence of others
‘Adam Smith and John Stoart Mil persisted in hoping. tht
‘agscuture at east would prove an exception tothe rule. seeing init
the lst refuge of smal scale ownership. Although in such & matter
‘we must guard agninst generating unduly, nowadays it appears
situ to deny thatthe main branches of the agricultural nds)
ae increasingly swept along in the general trend" Finally. com
meee self contives ways 10 follow and reflect, in al thet
‘stnetive nuanees, the Boundless diversity of instil undertak-
ings. Althouh this evolution occurs spontaneously and unthink-
ingly, those economists who study tscausesand evaluate its esl,
far from condemning such diversification or atacking it, proclim
itsnecesity. They perceive in tthe higher law of human sotetis
and the condition for progres,2 Ioduction
Yet the division o labour isnot peculiar toesonomic life. We can
‘observe its increasing influence in the most diverse sectors ol
society. Functions, whether politic, administrative or jie. are
becoming more and mote specialised. The same is eve in the aris
and siences. The tine lis far behind us when philosophy const
tuted the sole scence. It has become fragmented into & host of
special disciplines, cach having its purpose, method and ethos
From one half-century to apather the men who have lef their mark
ssave become more specialized.”
‘centuries had engaged the mos celebrated sents de Candole
oted that in the age of Leibtz and Newton he would have had
sent down
‘wo oF three descriptions almost always for each scientist: for
‘example, astonomer and” physicist, of mathematician,
!stronomer and physicist, or alternatively. t0 use only such
general tems as phlosopheror naturalist, Even that would aot
have heen enough. Mathematicians and naturalists were some
limesscholars or poets: Evenat the endothe eighteenth century,
4 numberof designations would have been needed to indicate
reciscly what was remarkable about men such as Wolf, Haller
‘or Charles Bonnet im several different branches of science and
letters. Inthe nineteenth century this difcltyn longer exists or
at least oecuts very stteguenty*
Nor ony isthe scientist no longer immersed in different sciences a
fe stme time, but he can no longer encompas the whole fel of
‘ne science. The ange of his research is imited toa init category
of problems orevento single one of them Likewise, the functions
of the scientist which formerly were almost always enereised
alongside another more lucrative one, sch a that of doctor, pis,
imapisrate or soldier, ate iereasngly sufficient by themselves. De
CCandalie even predicts thut one day. not too far distant the
profession of ciemtit and tht of teacher at preset sls closely
inked, wil be rrevocblyseparted,
The recent phitsophical speculations in biology have finally
‘caused us toreaise hate divson of labour ie afat ofa generality
"hat the ceonomits, who were the fst to speak of i had been
incapable of suspecting Inded, since the work of Wolf, von Bact
and Mile: Edwards we know that the law ofthe division of labour
Imiroduction 3
applies to organisms as well aso societies t may even be stated
Ahat an organism occupies the more exalted place inthe ania
Inerarchy the more specialised is unetions are Ths discovery has
Id the est of notonlyenfargng enormously thefield of action of
the divison of labour, But also of setting its origins hack into an
fnfsely distant past, since it becomes slmort contemporaneous
Wit the coming of life upon earth. tno longer a mere socal
fnsttution whore oot nthe inteligence andthe willo men, but
general biological phenomenoa, the conditions for which most
seemingly be sought inthe essential properties of organised matter
‘The division of labour ia society appears ao more than a special
form of this general development. In conforming 10 this law
‘societies apparently yield toa movement that arose longtefore they
‘used and'which sweeps slong the sme direction the whole of|
the living word
Such a Tact cestly cannot manifest itsslf without fecting
proounaly our moral constitution, forthe evolution of mankind
Wil develop sn two utterly opposing diestions, depending on
‘ehethere abandon ourselves thin tendency or whether me Fests
1. Yet. then, one question poses itself urgently: ofthese $40