Soci

ology250

Januar
y13-
17,2003

Soci
ologyofEmi
l
eDur
khei
m

A.I
ntr
oduct
ion

AdamsandSydi ebegi ntheirdiscussionofear l

ysociologywi thapr esentat
ionoft he
sociol
ogicalwor kofconser vati
vewr it
ers(pp.59-60) .AftertheFr enchRevol ut
ionandt he
Enli
ghtenment ,somewr iterswer econcer nedwithhowsoci alordercouldbemai ntainedin
thefaceofpr ogress,revol uti
on,disorder,andrulebyt hepeopl e.Ear l
ysociologyi soften
consideredtohaveemer gedoutoft hisconservati
ver eacti
ont otheEnlightenmentandt he
FrenchRevol uti
on–wr iterssuchasSai nt-Si
mon,Comt e,andSpencerl ookedont he
emer gentcapital
istsociet yasgener al
lygoodandpr ogressive,butwer econcer nedabout
howsoci etyholdst ogethergi ventheindividual
i
sm thatemer gedandt hechangesi npol i
ti
cal
order.

Accor
dingt
oAdamsandSydi
e,t
her
ewer
ethr
eemai
nappr
oaches(
p.59)

1.Positi
vi
sm –soci et
yisorder l
yandr at
ional
andsocialscienti
sts,t
hroughcarefulst
udyof
hist
oryandt hesocietyaroundt hem,coulddevel
opanunder standi
ngoft hesocialwor
ld.
Augus tComt e(1798-1857)isoftenregardedastheearlychampi onofthisapproach.A
Frenchwr i
ter,hecoinedthet erm soci
ologyandconsideredthescientif
icst
udyofsocietyto
besocialphysics–anappl icationoft hescienti
fi
cmet hod,usedi nnatural
sci
encessuch
physi
cs,tothesocialwor l
d( p.39).Wr i
tersadoptingaposi t
ivi
stapproachconsideri
t
possi
bletoinvesti
gatethesoci alwor l
dand,f rom regularit
iesandpat t
ernsofhuman
behavi
our,discoversociall
awst hatexplainthewor ki
ngsoft hesocialworl
d.Wewi l
lnot
di
scussComt eandtheposi ti
vistapproachf urtheratthispoint,butposit
ivi
sm hasbeenone
l
ong-standi
ngi nfl
uenceinsoci ologicaltheoryandpr actice.

2.Evol utionism –soci etychangess lowlyandt hepr ocessofchangei ncludesself-

correctiont opr oblemsandst rainsinthesoci alwor l
d.Mostni net eent hcent urysociologists
developedsomef orm ofevol utionaryappr oachtos ociety.Thati s,soci eti
eschange,t here
arestagest osoci al devel opment( tr
ibal,primi
ti
veort radit
ional,moder n,post -moder n),
changei sr elativelygr adual (
althought her adi
calappr oachofSect ionI I
Idevel opedamor e
cataclysmi cvi ewofchange) ,andwher ethereareconf li
ctsordi sagr eement samonggr oups
i
nsoci et y,theset endt obecor rectedt hroughevol uti
onaryforces.Thesewr it
ersgener ally
vi
ewedl at erst agesashi gherormor edevel opedf ormsofsoci etyascompar edwi t
hear li
er
st
agesofsoci al development .Spencer ,Sumner ,Comt e,andDur kheim alldeveloped
vari
ant soft hisappr oach.Wr i
ter swhoar enotintheconser vat i
vet radit
ion,suchasMar x
andWeber ,alsodevel opedavi ewofsoci etyinstages,althought heywer enotal waysso
evoluti
onar yint heirappr oach–Mar xadopt edavi ewofr evolutionar ychange.

3.Funct i
onalism –soci etyissimil
art oabi ologicalor gani
sm orabody,wi thinterr
elated
parts,needsandf unctionsforeachoft hesepar ts,andst ructurestoensur ethatthepar ts
wor ktoget hertopr oduceawel l
-funct i
oni ngandheal t
hybody.Suchanappr oachwas
adopt edbysomel essconser vati
vesoci ologist
saswel l
.Event odayi ti
scommonf or
sociologiststodi scusst hefuncti
onoft hef amil
yi nsoci al
izingindividualsandinhel ping
preser vesoci alorder,orthef unctionofpr ofit
st ohel pencour ageeconomi cgrowthanda
well-funct i
oningeconomyandsoci ety.Whi l
ef unct i
onali
sm hasbeenani mpor t
ant
theoret i
cal approach,itissomet imest heor eti
call
yl azytouset hisform ofexplanationasa
substituteforunder st
andinganddet ermi ninghowt hesoci al worldwor ks.Forexampl e,
usingaf unctionali
stappr oachwemaynotbeabl et ounder st
andwhyt hef amil
yisf uncti
onal
forsoci ety,whyi tdevelopedt hewayi thas ,andhowchangesi nthef amilyoccur.I fthe
familyf ormi sfunctional,whyi si
tal wayschangi ng,andwhydonewf amilyformsappearas
functi
onalasear l
ierones?Dur kheimisoftenconsideredaf unct
ional
ist
,butAdamsand
Sydienotethat“Dur kheim clearl
ydist
inguishedbetweencausal andfuncti
onalexpl
anati
ons
ofsocialf
acts.”(p.97).Thati s,Durkheim underst
oodt hati
twasnecessaryt oexpl
aint
he
reasonswhypar t
icularsocialstr
uctur
esemer gedhist
orical
l
y,andifsuchstruct
ureswere
functi
onal
,thisrequiredasepar at
eexplanat i
on.

Ratherthandi scusseachoftheear l
yconservati
vesociologicalapproaches,wewil
l move
di
rectlyt
oDur kheim,oneofthemaj ori
nfl
uencesi ntwentiethcenturysoci
ology.Fi
rst,t
here
wil
lbeashor tovervi
ewofDur kheim’ssoci
ology,as hor
tbi ogr
aphy,andt henamore
detai
leddiscussionoft womajorpartsofhi
st heoret
ical
appr oach–t hedivisi
onofl
abour
andtheanal ysisofsuici
de.Inconclusi
on,wewi llhaveashor tdiscussi
onofthemet hods
usedbyDur kheim’sandotherissuesheexami ned.

B.Emi
l
eDur
khei
m(1
858-
191
6)

1
.Dur
khei
m’ssoci
ology

a.Gener
alappr
oach
Durkhei m adoptedanevol uti
onar yapproachi nt hatheconsi deredsoci et
yt ohave
developedf r
om at r
adi t
ional tomoder nsoci etythr ought hedevel opmentandexpansi onof
thedivisi
onofl abour.Hecompar edsoci etytoanor ganism,wi thdiff
erentpar tsthat
functi
onedt oensuret hes moot handor der lyoper ati
onandevol uti
onofsoci ety.Hei s
somet i
mesconsi deredast r
ucturalfuncti
onal istint hather egardedsoci etyascomposedof
str
ucturest hatfuncti
onedt oget her–inconst ruct i
ngsuchanappr oach,hedi sti
ngui shed
str
uctureandf uncti
on.Whi leheconsi der edsoci etytobecomposedofi ndivi
dual s,society
i
snotj ustthesum ofi ndi vidualsandt heirbehavi our s,acti
ons,andt hought s.Rather ,s oci
ety
hasast r
uctureandexi s
tenceofi tsown,apar tfr
om t hei ndivi
dualsinit.Fur t
her,soci etyand
i
tsstructuresinfl
uence,cons tr
ain,andevencoer cei ndivi
dualsinit–t hroughnor ms ,social
fact
s,commonsent i
ment s,andsoci alcur rents.Whi leallofthesewer edevelopedf rom
earl
ierorcur renthumanact ion,theystandapar tfrom t heindivi
dual,formt hemsel vesi nto
i
nstit
uti
onsandst ructures,andaf fectthei ndividual .

Durkhei m wasespeci all

yconcer nedwi t
htheissueofsoci al order ,howdoesmoder nsoci et
y
holdtoget hergiventhatsoci etyiscomposedofmanyi ndi vidual s ,eachact i
ngi nan
i
ndividual andaut onomousmanner ,wi t
hsepar ate,distinct ,anddi f
ferentinter
ests.Adams
andSydi enotethathef ocusedonpr oblemsof“ r
econci li
ngf r
eedom andmor alit
y,or
i
ndividual i
sm andsoci alcohesioni nmoder nsoci ety”(p.90) .Hi sf ir
stbook,TheDi visionof
Labouri nSoci et
y,wasanexpl orati
onandexpl anat ionoft hesei ssues ,andhef i
ndst he
answeri ntheconceptofsoci alsoli
darit
y,commonconsci ousnes s,systemsofcommon
mor al
ity,andf ormsofl aw.Becaus et heseforcesandst ruct uresar enotal waysef f ectivein
produci ngandmai ntaini
ngsoci alorder,andbecauset her ei ss oci alchangeast hedi visi
on
oflabourandsoci etydevel op,therecanbedi sr uptionsi nsoci al soli
darityandcommon
consci ousness.Dur kheim connect sthesetowhathecal lst hef or ceddi vi
sionofl abour( eg.
sl
aver y)andt oper i
odsofconf usionandr ootl
essness ,i
.e.whathecal lsanomi e.Heal so
consider sanomi etobeonecausesui ci
de–i nhi sbookSui cideheexpl oresthecauses
di
fferentsui ci
der at
esatdi ffer
entpl acesandtimesi nEur ope,andexpl ainswhyt heydi ff
er.

b.Dur
khei
m’sdef
ini
ti
onofsoci
ology
OneofDur kheim’smaj orcont r
ibuti
onswast ohelpdef ineandest abl i
sht hefieldof
sociologyasanacademi cdiscipli
ne.Dur kheim dis ti
ngui shedsociol ogyf rom philosophy,
psychol ogy,economi cs,andot hersocialsciencedi sci
plinesbyar gui ngt hatsociet ywasan
entit
yofi t
sown.Hear guedt hatsociologist
sshoul dstudypar ti
cularf eaturesofcol lecti
veor
groupl i
feandsoci ologyisthest udyofsoci alfacts,thingswhi char eext ernalto,and
coerciveof ,i
ndivi
duals.Thesesoci alf
actsar efeat uresoft hegr oup,andcannotbest udied
apartf r
om thecol l
ecti
ve,norcant heybeder i
vedf rom t hest udyofi ndividuals.Some
exampl esar ereli
gion,urbanstructures,l
egal systems,andmor alval uessuchasf ami l
y
values.Dur kheim arguedt hattheseare“ featuresofcol l
ectiveex i
stence…whi char enot
reducibletofeaturesoft heatoms,i ndi
viduals,whi chmakei tup”(Hadden,p.87) .

Durkheim consi derst hebeliefs ,practices ,andconsci ousnessoft hecol lect

ivet obe
coerciveoni ndividualsasact ors.I nthissense,Dur kheim hasast ruct urali
stappr oach,
consider i
ngthesoci al str
uctur est oexer tast rongi nfl
uenceonsoci al act i
on.Ofcour se,i
tis
i
ndividualswhoact ,butt heydonotactonapur elyindividual basi
s.Rat her,theyhave
obli
gat i
onsanddut ies,andgener all
yacti nwayst hatar est r
onglyinf l
uencedbyt he
str
ucturesofwhi cht heyar epar t
.Soci ologycanbedi sti
ngui shedf rom psychol ogyi nthi
s
way–not i
ngthatpsychol ogistsst udyi ndividualsandt heirment alpr ocesses ,whereas
sociologist
sar econcer nedwi tht hestr ucturesthati nfl
uencesoci alact ionandi nter
acti
on.It
i
sthisst udyofsoci etyasawhol e,individualsinthei rsocial r
elati
onshi pswi t
hot her
i
ndividuals,andt heconnect i
onsoft hesesoci alrel
at i
onshi pstosoci ety,t hatconst i
tut
esthe
subjectmat terofsoci ology.

Thisleadstot heti
tleoft
hechapt er–soci et
yassui gener i
s–t hati
s,societ
yasat hi
ngin
i
tself
,somet hingofi t
sownkind,orat hingapart.Dur kheim’sviewwast hatsocietyhasan
exi
stenceofi tsown,apar tf
rom theindivi
dualsinit
,andi sthusaproperobj ectofstudy.
AdamsandSydi enot et
hemor especi f
icrefer
enceofDur khei
mt othisi
ssoci alf
actsorthe
“f
actsofsoci alexist
ence,suigeneris
”( p.91)–t hefactsthatcannotber educedto
i
ndividualacts,forexample,soci
al obli
gati
ons,socialcurrent
ssuchasbr oadsoci almoods
ofpessi
mism oropt
imi
sm.

2.Dur
khei
m’sl
i
fe

EmileDurkhei m( 1858-191 6)wasbor ninEpi nali

nLor r
aine,Fr ance.Hewasa
contempor aryofWeber( 1 864- 1920) ,butpr obablynevermetWeber ,andli
vedhi sadul tl
i
fe
aft
erKarlMar xdi ed.Dur khei m camef rom aJewi shbackgr ound,andwasasuper ior
st
udentatschool andUni ver si
ty.Event uallyhewasabl etoat tendt heel i
teEcol eNormal e
Supéri
eurei nPar is.Hetaughtf oranumberofyear s,andt henr eceivedanappoi ntmentto
apositi
oninphi l
osophyatt heUni versit
yofBor deauxi n1 887.Ther ehet aughtthesubj ectof
moraleducat ionandl at
ert aughtt hef ir
stcour seins ociologyataFr enchuni versit
y.In1 902
hewasappoi ntedt oaprof essor shipatt heSor bonne,i nPar is,wher eher emainedunt ilhe
di
ed.Dur khei m'smostf amouswor ksar eTheDi visionofLabori nSoci et
y(1893) ,TheRul es
ofSociol
ogi calMet hod(1 895),Sui cide(1 897)andTheEl ement aryFor msofRel i
giousLife
(1
91 2)
.

Dur khei
mi soft
enconsi deredaconser vati
vewi t
hint hef ieldofsoci ol
ogy,beingconcer ned
primaril
ywithor der,consensus ,soli
dar it
y,soci almor al
ity,andsyst emsofr eli
gion.Hi s
theoreti
calanalysishelpedpr ovideabasi sf orr elativelyconser vat
ivestr
ucturalfuncti
onal
model sofsociety.However ,Dur kheim wasi nvol vedpol it
ical
lyintheDreyfusaf fai
r,and
condemnedFr enchr acism andant i
-Semi t
ism.Dur kheim mi ghtmor eproperlybe
consideredapol i
ti
cal l
i
beral,int hatheadvocat edi ndividual freedom,andopposed
i
mpedi mentstot hefreeoper ationoft hedivi sionofl abour .I ncont emporaryterms,he
mightbeconsi der edasoci al democr at,inthathef avour edsoci alref
orms,whi l
eopposi ng
thedevelopmentofasoci ali
stsoci ety.
I
nhi stheor et
icalmodel ,headvocat edthedevel opmentof“ pr
of essionalgroupi ngs”or
“occupational groups”asthemeansbywhi chtheinterestsofspeci algroupscoul dbe
promot edandf urther
ed.ForDur khei
m,t hesewoul dpr omot emor ethanjustt heirown
i
nterests,thegener al
inter
estsofthesoci etyasawhol e,cr eati
ngsol idar
ityinasoci etyt
hat
haddevel opedacompl exdivisi
onofl abour.Inadvocat ingthis,hecomescl oset osome
versi
onsofpl ur ali
sm.Dur kheim wasnotgener all
yinvolvedinpol it
ics,andcanbe
consideredamor eacademi csoci ol
ogistthaneitherWeberorMar x.

I
nt ermsoft hedevelopmentoft hef i
eldofsoci ology,Durkheimisespeciall
yimpor t
ant.He
wast hefir
sttooffercour sesinsociologyi nFr enchuni versi
ti
es,atati
mewhens oci ol
ogy
wasnotwel lknownorf avour ed.Hi swr it
ingsar eimpor t
antwi t
hint
hefiel
dofsoci ology,i
n
thatseveralofthem arebasi cwor kst hatsociologyst udentstodayareexpect edtor eadand
understand.Muchoft hemanneri nwhi chsoci ologyasanacademi cdiscipl
ineiscar ri
edon
fol
lowsDur kheim'ssuggest ionsandappr oach.Fr enchsoci ol
ogy,i
npar t
icul
ar ,f
ollows
Durkheim,andsomeofDur kheim'sbooksar elikel
ytoser veastext
sinFr enchsoci ology.
MuchAmer i
cansociologyi salsoheavi lyinfl
uencedbyDur khei
m.Inrecentyear s,therehas
againbeenmuchat t
entionpai dtohi swr i
tings.

C.Di
vi
si
onofLabori
nSoci
ety

InTheDi visi
onofLaborinSocietyDurkheim attemptstodeterminewhati
sthebasisof
socialsol
idari
tyi
nsocietyandhowt hishaschangedovert i
me.Thi swasDurkhei
m'sfi
rst
majorwor k,soitdoesnotaddressalltheissuesthatbecons i
deredimpor
tant.Buti
nthis
workhebeganhi sstudyofhowsoci etyissuigeneri
s ,anenti
tyofit
sown.Thiswork
presentsmanyofDur khei
m’sviewsandi l
lustr
ateshismethodology.
Durkhei m’sar gumenti st hatther ear etwot ypesofsoci al solidar i
ty–howsoci etyhol ds
togetherandwhatt iesthei ndividual t
ot hesoci ety.Theset wof ormsmechani cal soli
dar i
ty,
whichchar acterizesearlierort radi
tional societi
es,wher et hedi visi
onofl abourisr elati
vely
l
imited.Thef orm ofsoci al solidari
tyinmoder nsociet
ies ,withahi ghl
ydevel opeddi vi
sionof
l
abour ,iscalledor ganicsol idarit
y.Dur khei m arguest hatthedi vi si
onoflabouri tselfwhi ch
createsor ganicsol i
darit
y,becauseofmut ual needsofi ndividual sinmoder nsocei t
y.I n
bothtypesofsoci et
ies,individualsfort hemostpar t“i
nter actinaccor dancewi tht heir
obli
gationst oot hersandt osoci etyasawhol e.Indoi ngso,eachper sonalsor eceives
somer ecogni t
ionofhi sorherownr ightsandcont ri
butionswi t
hi nthecollecti
vi
ty.Soci al
mor al
it
yi nthissensei s‘st r
ictl
ynecessar y’ f
orsolidari
tybet weenpeopl etooccur ;without
mor al
it
y,“soci eti
escannotexi st.
’”(
Gr abb,p.79) .

Accordingt
oGi ddens( p.73) ,themai nsubstanti
vepr oblem forDurkheim stemsf r
om “an
apparentmoral ambiguityconcer ningtherel
ationshipbet weentheindividual andsocietyi
n
thecontemporar ywor l
d.”Ont heonehand,wi t
hspeci ali
zati
onandt hehi ghlydeveloped
divi
si
onoflabour ,i
ndivi
dual sdevelopt hei
rownconsci ousness,andar eencour agedinthi
s
special
i
zati
on.Ont heot herhand,t herearealsomor al i
deasencour agingpeopl etobewell
rounded,ofservicetosoci etyasawhol e.Theset woseem cont radict
or y,andDur kheimis
concernedwithf i
ndingthehi stori
calandsociologicalrootsofeachoft hese,al ongwi t
hhow
thesetwoseemi nglycont r
adi ct
orymor algui
delinesarer econcil
edinmoder nsoci ety.

Thisbookcanal sober eadwi thaviewtoi l

luminati
ngDur kheim'smet hods.I nthefi
rst
chapter ,heout l
i
neshismet hod,andt hetheor ywhi chcouldbef alsif
ied.Byl ooki
ngat
mor al
i
ty,hei snotpur sui
ngaphi losophi
cal course,mai nl
yint her ealm ofi deas.Durkheimis
cri
ti
cal of“ mor alphi
losophers[who]begi neitherfrom someapr ioripost ul
ateaboutt he
essential characteri
sti
csofhumannat ure,orfrom pr oposit
ionstakenf r
om psychology,and
thencepr oceedbydeduct i
ont owor koutaschemeofet hi
cs.”(Gi ddens ,p.72) .Thatis,
Durkhei mi sattempt i
ngtodet erminetherootsofmor al
i
tybyst udyi ngsoci ety,andchanges
i
nsoci et y.Thesef ormsofmor ali
tyaresocialfacts,anddat af r
om soci etymustbeobt ai
ned,
andtheseusedt odiscovercauses.ThedatausedbyDur khei
m areobser
vable,empi
ri
cal
for
msofdat ai
nthef or
m oflaws,inst
it
uti
ons(l
egalandother)
,normsandbehaviour
.Inthi
s
book,Dur khei
m adoptsanon- quant
it
ati
veapproach,buti
nSuici
dehisapproachismore
quanti
tat
ive.

I
nexami ningt herootsofsocialsol
idari
ty,Dur kheimr egardstheexami nationofsystemsof
l
awasani mpor tantmeansofunder st
andingmor ali
ty.Her egards“syst emsofl aw”asthe
“ext
ernal
izationofthei nnercor
eofsoci alrealit
y(soli
dar i
ty)
,iti
spr edictedt hatastheinner
coreunder goesqual i
tati
vechangesf r
om ‘mechani cal’to‘organic’soli
darity,t
hereshould
bemani f
estshi f
tinther ati
ooftypesoflegal systems. ..asapr opor t
ionoft hetotall
egal
corpus.
”(TiryakianinBot t
omoreandNi sbet ,p.21 4)

Sincelawr eproducest
hepri
ncipalf
ormsofsoci
alsoli
dari
ty,wehaveonl
ytocl
assi
fyt
he
di
f f
erenttypesoflawtofi
ndtheref
rom t
hedi
ffer
enttypesofsoci
alsol
i
dari
tywhi
ch
correspondt oit
.(Di
vi
si
on,p.68).

Thatis,sincesocial soli
darit
yisaconceptt hatitnoteasi l
yobser vableormeasur able,
Durkhei m at
tempt stousesyst emsofl awasani ndexoff ormsandchangesi n
social
sol i
dar
ity.Intheabovequot e,Dur khei
m statesthatl awconst i
tutessuchani ndex
si
ncei t“repr
oducest hepr i
ncipal f
or msofsolidari
ty.
”Si ncesyst emsofl awcanbest udi
ed
hist
oricall
yandi ncont empor arysoci eti
es,Durkheimf eltthatbyt racingthedevelopmentof
diff
erentsystemsofl awhecoul dstudytheformsofsoci al sol
idarit
y.Fr om thi
s,Durkhei
m
beginst obuil
dapr oofoft hedi vi
sionoflabourast hebasi sf orthedi ff
erentformsof
soli
dar i
ty.Het henat tempt stoshowt henatureofsoci ety,howi tchangesovert i
me,and
howt hisresultsi
nt heshi f
tfrom mechani cal
solidari
tytoor ganicsol i
dar i
ty.
1
.Mechani
cal
sol
i
dar
it
y

Ear l
ysocietiestendedt obesmall scal e,local
izedinvil
lagesorr ural
areas,wi thal
imited
divisi
onofl abouroronl yasimpl
edi visionoflabourbyageandsex.I nthi
st ypeofsociety,
peopl earever ysimil
artoeachot her ,andDur kheimtit
lesthischapter“ Mechanicalsoli
dari
ty
throughlikeness.”Int hi
stypeofsoci et y,eachper soncarriesoutessent i
all
ysimil
artypesof
tasks,sot hatpeopleshar ethet
ypeofwor ktheycar r
yout .Thesesoci eti
esar e
char act
erizedbyl i
keness,inwhicht hemember softhesoci et
ysharet hesameval ues,
bas edoncommont asksandcommonl i
fesit
uationsandexper iences.

I
nt heseear lysoci
eti
es,Durkhei
m ar guesthatl
egalcodesort hesystem oflawtendstobe
repressivelaworpenal l
aw.I ft
herei sacri
mei nthi
ss ociety,thenthi
scrimestandsasan
offenset oall
,becauseiti
sanof fensetothecommonmor ali
ty,theshar
edsystem ofval
ues
thatexists.Mostpeoplefeeltheof f
ense,andregardlessofhowser i
ousiti
s,sever
e
punishmenti sli
kel
ytobemet edoutf ori
t.Zeit
li
nnotes( p.264) :

Anythi
ngthatof
fendst
hecommonconsci encethr
eatensthesoli
dari
ty–thever
yexistence
ofsociet
y.Anoff
enselef
tunpuni
shedweakenstothatdegreethesocial
unit
y.Punishment
ther
eforeser
vesthei
mpor t
antf
uncti
onofrest
ori
ngandr econst
it
uti
ngsocial
uni
ty.

Penall
awisconcernedwithsanct
ionsonl
y,andt
her
eisnomenti
onofobl
igat
ions
.
Puni
shmentissevere,per
hapsdeathordi
smemberment.Mor
alobl
i
gati
onanddut yi
snot
st
atedi
nthepuni
shment
,becauset
hisi
sgeneral
lyunder
stood.Rat
hert
hepuni
shmenti
s
gi
ven,andt
hati
sthecompl
eti
onofthepenal
ty.

Someoft hefoll
owingquot esf
rom TheDi visi
onofLabori nSocietyshowt henatureof
Dur kheim'sar
gument :Inthequotes ,notethattheacti scri
minalbecauset heactof fends
thecol l
ecti
veconscience.ForDur khei m,thecollecti
veconsciousnessr eachesal lpartsof
society,hasadisti
nctreal
i
tyandisi ndependentofi ndi
vidualcondit
ions,andi spassedon
from onegener at
iontothenext.Int his,i
tdi f
fer
sf r
om parti
cularorindi
vidual consciences.
(Divisi
on,pp.79- 80).

Quote5.Coll
ectiveConsciousness
.theonlycommonchar
acter
ist
icofal
lcr
imesisthat
theyconsi
st.
..i
nactsuniversal
lydi
sappr
ovedofbymembersofeachsociet
y.(Di
visi
on,p.
73).

Thetot
ali
tyofbel
iefsandsenti
mentscommont oaver
ageci
ti
zensoft
hesamesoci
etyf
orms
adeter
minatesystem whichhasi
tsownli
fe;onemaycal
li
tthecol
l
ecti
veorcommon
consci
ence.(Di
vi
sion,p.79)

anacti
scri
minalwheni
tof
fendsst
ronganddef
inedst
atesoft
hecol
l
ect
iveconsci
ence.
(Di
vi
si
on,p.80)
wemustnotsayt hatanact
ionshocksthecommonconsci
encebecauseiti
scr
imi
nal,but
rat
herthati
tiscr
iminal
becauseitshockst
hecommonconsci
ence.Wedonotreproveit
becauseiti
sacrime,buti
tisacrimebecausewer
eprovei
t.(
Divi
si
on,p.81)
.

Ref
err
ingtor
epressi
veorpenal
for
msofpuni
shmenti
near
lysoci
ety,Dur
khei
m not
est
hati
t
mayextendt
o:

thei
nnocent,hi
swif
e,hi schil
dren,hisnei
ghbour
s,et
c.Thisisbecausethepassionwhichis
thesoul
ofpunishmentceasesonl ywhenexhaust
ed.I
f,therefor
e,aft
eri
thasdest r
oyedthe
onewhohasi mmediatelycall
edi tfor
th,t
her
esti
ll
remainsforcewithi
nit
,itexpandsinqui
te
mechanical
fashi
on.(Divis
ion,p.86) .

I
ncontr
ast,moder
nl egalcodesarequitedif
ferent,wit
hpunishmentbei nglessimpor t
ant.
I
nst
ead,soci
etyi
sconcer nedwithrest
orati
onoft heorigi
nalsi
tuati
on,ratherthanexacting
r
evengeontheoffender.“Buttoday,i
tissai
d,puni shmenthaschangedi tcharact
er;i
tisno
l
ongert
oavengeitselft
hatsoci
etypunishes,iti
stodef endi
tself
.”(Di
vi
sion,p.86) .

Thi
sdi
sti
nct
ionbet
weendif
ferentt
ypesoflegal
codesandpuni
shmentmaypr
ovi
dea
meansofnoti
ngwhatmechanical
sol
idar
it
ymeans.
Quot
e6.Mechani calSol
i
dari
ty.Theymustr e-enforcethemsel
vesbymut ual
assurances
t
hatt
heyar eal
waysagreed.Theonlymeansf orthisisact
ioni
ncommon.I nshort
,sinceiti
s
t
hecommonconsci encewhichisat
tacked,itmustbet hatwhi
chresi
sts,andaccor
dingly
t
heresi
stancemustbecoll
ecti
ve.(
Divi
sion,p.103).

(Thus,theanal
ysisofpunishmentconfir
msourdef ini
ti
onofcrime.Webeganby
establi
shi
nginducti
velyt
hatcri
meconsi stedessenti
all
yinanactcontrarytostr
ongand
definedstat
esofthecommonconsci ence.Wehavej ustseenthatal
lthequali
ti
esof
punishmentult
imatelyderi
vefr
om thi
snat ureofcri
me.Thati sbecauset herul
esthati
t
sanctionsexpr
essthemostessentialsociall
i
keness.)

Thusweseewhatt ypeofsol i
dari
typenallawsymbolizes...
.notonlyareallt
hemember sof
thegroupi ndi
viduall
yat t
ract
edtooneanot herbecauset heyresembleoneanot her,butal
so
becauset heyar ej
oinedt owhatistheconditi
onofexistenceofthiscol
lect
ivetype...
.They
wil
lastheywi llt
hemsel ves,hol
dtoitdurablyandforprosperit
y,because,wit
houtit,agreat
partoftheirpsychicli
veswoul dfunct
ionpoorly.(
Divi
sion,p.105).

Thesequotesshowhowt hecol
lecti
veconsciousnessworksinsoci
eti
eswit
houtahighly
developeddivisi
onoflabour.Thepr i
maryfuncti
onofpunishment,t
heref
ore,i
stoprotect
andreaffi
rmt heconsciencecol
lecti
veinthefaceofactswhichquesti
onit
ssancti
ty.I
n
ordertocarr
yt hi
sout,suchsocieti
esdevelopformsofrepressi
veorpenall
aw.
Whi l
ethecommonval uesinthesesociet
iescanchangeovertime,t
hisprocessofchangei s
generall
yquiteslow,sothatt
hes eval
uesaregenerall
yappropri
atef
orthehistori
calper
iod
i
nquest i
on.Atot herti
mes,thelawsmaybei nappr
opri
ate,andmightbemai ntai
nedonly
thr
oughf orce.However ,Durkhei
m generall
yconsi
dersthi
stobeanexcept i
onal
cir
cumst ance,andonet hati
sovercome.

2.Or
gani
csol
i
dar
it
y

Withthedevel opmentoft hedi vi

sionoflabour,t
hecol l
ect
iveconsci ousnessbeginsto
decli
ne.Eachi ndivi
dualbegi nstohaveasepar at
esetoft askswhi chheorshei sengaged
i
n.Thesedi fferentsituat
ionsl eadt oquit
eadi f
fer
entsetofexper iencesforeachindivi
dual
.
Thi
ssetofexper i
encest endst ol
eadt oward“a‘personalconsciousness ,
’wit
hanemphasi s
onindivi
dualdistinct
iveness.”( Grabb,p.81).Thecommonsi tuat
ionwhi chcreatedthe
commoncol l
ect i
veconsci ousnessi sdistur
bed,andindivi
dualsnol ongerhavecommon
experi
ences,buthaveagr eatvarietyofdif
fer
entsetti
ngs,eachleadi ngtowardsit
sown
consciousness.

Asthedevelopmenoft hedivi
sionofl
abourerodest
hecollect
iveconsciousness,i
tal
so
creat
esanewf orm ofsoli
dari
ty.Thi
snewf ormisorgani
csoli
dari
ty,andischaracter
izedby
dependenceofindi
vidual
soneachot herwithi
nthedivi
si
onoflabour,andbyacer tai
nf or
m
ofcooperat
ion.Thereisa
funct
ionali
nter
dependenceinthedi visi
onoflabour..
..Organi
csoli
dari
ty.
..pr
esupposesnot
i
dentit
ybutdiff
erencebetweenindividualsi
ntheirbel
ief
sandactions.Thegrowthof
organicsol
i
darit
yandt heexpansi
onoft hedi
visi
onoflabourarehenceassoci
atedwit
h
i
ncreasingi
ndivi
duali
sm.( Gi
ddens,p.77) .

Cuffetal.(p.31)notethatthismeanst hat“di
ff
erencesareexpectedandindeedbecome
expected....Thusthenat ureoft hemor al
consensuschanges.Commonl ysharedvalues
sti
l
lpersistbecausewi thoutthem therewouldbenosoci et
y,buttheybecomegener alized,
astheyar enotr oot
edi nthetotali
tyofcommonl yshareddail
yexperi
ences.Insteadof
specif
yingthedet ai
lsofanact i
on,commonval uestendtobeamor egeneralunderpinning
forsocialpract
ices.Itisinthissensethatthedivi
si
onoflabourcanbeseenasamor al
phenomenon. ”

ThusDurkhei
m ar
guest
hatt
her
eareindi
vidual
,andprobabl
ygr
oup,di
ff
erences
,att
he
sameti
meast her
eisanewfor
m ofsoci
alsoli
dar
it
y.

Quote7.Or ganicSoli
dari
ty.Ther eareineachofus,. .
.twoconsciences :onewhi chis
commont oourgr oupinitsenti
rety,which,consequent l
y,isnotoursel
f,butsocietyli
vi
ng
andactingwi t
hinus;theother,ont hecontrary,representsthati
nuswhi chi spersonaland
di
sti
nct,thatwhichmakesusani ndivi
dual.Solidari
tywhichcomesf r
om likenessisatit
s
maximum whent hecollecti
veconsci encecompl etelyenvelopsourwholeconsci enceand
coi
ncidesinal l
pointswithit
.
Dur
khei
m speaksoft
hecent
ri
pet
alandcent
ri
fugal
for
ces,anddr
awsanor
gani
canal
ogy:

I
ndivi
dual
i
tyi
ssomethi
ngwhichthesoci
etypossesses.Thus,.
.per
sonal
right
sar
enotyet
di
sti
ngui
shedfr
om r
ealri
ght
s.(
Divi
si
on,129-30).

I
ti squi t
eot herwisewi t
ht hesol i
dari
tywhi chthedi visionofl abourpr oduces .Wher east he
previoust ypei mpl i
est hatindividualsresembl eeachot her,t
hi stypepr esumest hei r
difference.Thef irstispossi bl
eonl yinsof arast hei ndividual personal i
tyisabsor bedi nto
thecol lecti
veper sonal it
y;thesecondi spossibleonl yi feachonehasaspher eofact i
on
whi chi speculiartohi m;t hatis,aper sonali
ty....Inef fect,ont heonehand,eachone
dependsasmuchmor est ri
ctl
yonsoci etyaslabori smor edivided;and,ont heot her ,the
act i
vit
yofeachi sasmuchmor epersonal asitismor especi alized....Soci et
ybecomes
mor ecapabl eofcol l
ectivemovement ,atthesamet i
met hateachofi tselementshasmor e
freedom ofmovement .Thesol idar
ityresembl esthatwhi chweobser veamongt hehi gher
animal s.Eachor gan,i nef fect,hasitsspecialphys iognomy,i taut onomy.Andmor eover,
theuni tyoft heor ganism i sasgr eatast heindividuationoft hepar tsismor emar ked.
Becauseoft hi
sanal ogy,wepr oposet ocal lt
hesol i
dar i
tywhi chi sduet othedivisionof
l
abour ,organic.(Di vi
sion,1 31).

I
nthest
ruct
ureofsoci
eti
eswi
thor
gani
csol
i
dar
it
y(quot
e8)
:

Quote8.Soci
alSt
ruct
ure.Theyareconsti
tut
ed,notbyar
epet
it
ionofsi
mil
ar,homogeneous
segment
s,butbyasyst
em ofdi
ff
erentorganseachofwhi
chhasaspecial
role,andwhi
ch
arethemsel vesformedofdi f
ferenti
atedpart
s.Notonlyaresocialelement snotofthesame
nature,buttheyar enotarr
angedi nthesamemanner .Theyarenotj uxtaposedli
nearl
y..
.
butent winedonewi t
hanother,butco-ordi
natedandsubor di
natedonet oanotherar
ound
thesamecent ralorganwhichex er
cisesamoder at
ingactionoverther estoftheorgani
sm.
(Di
vision,p.181).

b.Restit
uti
veorrestorati
velaw.Moder nsyst
emsofl awt endt ober esti
tuti
veorrestor
ative,
accordingtoDurkheim.Whi l
et her
ear eel
ement sofpenal orrepressivelaw,suchast he
deathpenaltyformur der,t
hatcontinuetoexi
stinmoder nsoci eti
es,moder nsystemsofl aw
areprimaril
ycharacteri
zedbyj udgment st
hatrequir
etheof fendingpar t
yt orest
orethe
sit
uati
ont otheori
ginalstat
e–eg.payi ngr
esti
tut
ionfortheftortovictims .Moder nbusiness
andcont r
actlawgover nsthecondi t
ionsofcontr
actsbutsaysl it
tl
eornot hingaboutwhat
typeofcont r
actparti
escanent erinto.

“Thepr ogressivedisplacementofr epr essivebyr est i

tutivelawisanhi stori
cal t
rendwhichi
s
cor relat
edwi tht hedegreeofdevel opmentofasoci ety:thehighert hel evelofsocial
devel opment ,thegreaterther el
ati
vepr oporti
onofr estitut
ivel
awwi thinthej udici
al
struct ur
e.”(Gi ddens,p.76).ForDur khei m,thisform ofl awisconcer nedwi th“asimple
retur ninstate.Suf fer
ancepr oport
ionat etothemi sdeedi snotinfl
ictedont heonewhohas
violatedthel aworwhodi sregardsit;hei ssi
mpl ysent encedt ocompl ywi thit.
”Thejudge
“speaksofl aw;hesaysnot hingofpuni shment .”(Division,p1 11
) .

Asthedi vi
si
onofl abourdevelops,peopledonothavet hesameconsci ousness,sot hatthe
form ofl awmustchange.“ Theveryexist
enceofresti
tuti
velaw,infact,presupposest he
prevalenceofadi ff
erenti
ateddivi
si
onoflabour,si
nceitcoverstherightsofindi
vi dualseit
her
overpr ivat
epr operty,oroverot
herindivi
dual
swhoar einadi f
ferentsocialposi
tionf r
om
themsel ves.”(
Giddens,p.76) Al ongwi t
hthi
scouldcomeWeber ’
sr at
ionall
aw,per haps
mucht hesameasDur kheim'sr
esti
tut
ivelaw.Systematiccodesgover ningexchangeand
cont
ract
sarenecessar
y,butt
hesear
etheresul
toft
hegener
alaccept
anceofi
ndi
vi
dual
ri
ght
swithi
nthesyst
em ofadivi
si
onofl
abour.

c.Causeofor gani csol i

darit
y.Dur kheimi scr i
ti
caloftheeconomi stswhor egardthe
developmentoft hedi vi
sionofl abourasar esultofthecomi ngtogetherofpeopl ewi t
h
dif
ferentabil
it
iesandspeci alt
ies.Whi leDur kheim didnotmaker eferencet oAdam Smi t
h,he
al
somayhavehadi nmi ndSmi th’sviewt hatpeopl ehaveanat uralpropensitytotr
uck,
barterandtrade.Fi nal l
y,hewascr it
icaloftheeconomi st
s'pointofviewt hatmerely
exami nedthet echnical condi
tionsfort hedi vi
si
onofl abour,andthei ncr
easedef fi
ciency
associatedwithit,withoutconsi derationoft hebroadersoci et
alconditi
onsnecessar yto
maintainit
.ThusDur kheim didnotconsi dert hedivisi
onoflabourasanat uralcondit
ion.

Dur kheim considerst

hedevel opmentoft hedivi
sionoflabourtobeassoci at
edwiththe
i
ncr easingcont actamongpeopl e.Ther eisagreaterdensit
yofcont act
,sothatpeopleare
l
edt ospeciali
ze.Thedi visi
onoflabouremer gesindif
ferentwaysindi f
fer
entsoci
eti
es,
l
eadi ngt osomewhatdi fferentf
ormsofsol i
dari
ty.However ,i
tisthesedevelopmentswhich
creat et
hedi vi
sionoflabourand“ Civi
l
izati
ondevelopsbecausei tcannotfail
todevel
op.”
(Divisi
on,p.337) .

AdamsandSydi e(p.94)st
atethatDur khei
mregardedthi
sasani ncr
easeinmor alor
dynami cdensi
ty.Thismoralr
elati
onshipcanonlyproduceitseffecti
ftherealdi
stance
betweenindivi
dualshasit
sel
fdiminishedinsomeway.Dur khei
mr ef
erst
ot hi
sani ncr
easi
ng
densit
y.Mor aldensi
tycannotgrowunl essmateri
aldensi
tygrowsatt hesamet i
me.Thet wo
areinseparabl
ethough.Threewaysi nwhicht
hishappensar e:
i
.Concent
rat
ionofpeopl
e.Peopl
ebegintoconcent
rat
etoget
her
.Agr
icul
tur
emaybegi
nthi
s,
andi
tcont
inueswit
hthegrowthofci
ti
esaswell
.

i
i.Cit
ies.Formati
onofciti
esandthei
rdevelopment .“Ci
ti
esalwaysresul
tfr
om t
heneedof
i
ndividual
stoputthemselvesi
nveryint
imatecontactwit
hot her
s.Theyaresomanypoint
s
wher ethesoci
almassiscontr
actedmor estr
onglythanelsewhere.Theycanmult
ipl
yand
extendonlyift
hemor al
densit
yisrai
sed.”(
Divisi
on,p.258).

i
ii
.Transportat
ionandCommuni cati
on.I ncreasednumberandr api
dityofmeansof
tr
ansportat
ionandcommuni cati
on.Thi sresult
sin“suppr
essi
ngordi mi nishi
ngthegaps
separat
ingsoci al
segment
s,theyincreasethedens it
yofsoci
ety.”(
Division,pp.259-260)
.

Thedivisi
onofl
aborvar
iesindi
rectr
ati
owit
ht hevol
umeanddensi tyofsociet
ies
,and,i
fit
progressesi
naconti
nuousmannerinthecourseofsoci
aldevelopment,i
tisbecause
societ
iesbecomeregul
arl
ydenserandgenerall
ymorevoluminous.(Di
vi
sion,262).

Wesay,notthatt
hegrowthandcondensati
onofsoci
eti
esper
mit
,butt
hattheynecess
itat
e
agreat
erdivi
si
onofl
abor.I
tisnotani
nstr
umentbywhichthel
att
eri
sreal
i
zed;iti
sit
s
det
ermini
ngcause.(
Divi
si
on,p.262).
Asar esultofthi
sgreat
ercontact
,the“st
ruggleforexi
stencebecomesmor eacut
e”andthis
resul
tsinthedevelopmentofthedivi
si
onofl abour.Ifneedsarethesame,thenther
eis
alwaysas truggl
eforexi
stence.Butwher ediff
erenti
nterest
scanbepursued,t
henthere
mayber oom foral
l.Quote8:

SocialSt
ruct
ure(2ndpart
)Inthesamecity,dif
fer
entoccupati
onscanco-existwit
hout
beingobli
gedmutual
lyt
odest r
oyoneanother,f
ortheypursuedif
fer
entobject
s...
.Eachof
them canatt
ainhi
sendwithoutpr
event
ingtheothersf
rom att
aini
ngthei
rs.

Thecl oserfuncti
onscomet ooneanot her
,however ,themor epointsofcont
acttheyhave;
themor e,consequently,ar
etheyexposedt oconfl
ict...
.Thejudgeneverisincompet i
ti
on
withthebusi nessman,butthebrewerandt hewine- grower...of
tentryt
osupplanteach
other.Asf orthosewhohaveexact l
ythesamef unction,theycanf or
geaheadonl yt
othe
detri
mentofot her
s.(
Divisi
on,p.267).

Inpr
oport
iontothesegmentalcharacteroft
hesocial
const
it
uti
on,eachsegmenthasi t
s
ownorgans,prot
ect
edandkeptapar tfr
om li
keor
gansbydivi
sionsseparat
ingthedi
ff
erent
segment
s...
.But,nomat t
erhowt hi
ssubstit
uti
oni
smade,itcannotfai
ltoproduceadvances
i
nthecourseofspecial
i
zati
on.(Di
visi
on,269) .
I
nsteadofenter
ingi
ntoorremaini
ngincompet i
ti
on,t
wosimil
arenter
pri
sesestabl
ish
equil
i
bri
um byshari
ngthei
rcommont ask.I
nsteadofonebeingsubordi
natet
ot heother
,
theyco-or
dinat
e.But,i
nal
lcases,newspecial
ti
esappear
.(Divi
si
on,270).

ForDur khei
mt heresul
toft
hedi visi
onoflabourisposi
ti
veinthatthereisnoneedt o
compet einthesenseofstr
ugglingjusttosurvi
ve.Rather,thedi
visionoflabourmaysi
gnif
y
thatt
her ear
esuf f
ici
entmateri
alresourcesforal
linsoci
ety,andthisdivi
si
onallowsacert
ain
form ofco-operat
ion.Quot e9:

Divisi
onofLabour.Thedivi
si
onoflabouri s,t
hen,ar esultoft
hestruggl
ef orexi
stence,buti
s
amel loweddénouement.Thankstoit,opponentsarenotobl igedt
of i
ghttoaf i
nish,butcan
existonebesi
detheother.Al
so,i
npr oporti
ontoitsdevel opment,i
tfur
nishesthemeansof
mai nt
enanceandsurvi
valtoagreaternumberofi ndividualswho,i
nmor ehomogeneous
societi
es,woul
dbecondemnedt oextinct
ion.(Di
vi
sion,p.271 ).

Thedivi
si
onoflabourcannotbeanticipated,intermsofthefor
m ofi
tsdevel
opment.I
tisthe
shar
ingoffuncti
ons,butnotaccor
dingt oapr econceivedpl
an.“Thedivi
si
onofl
abour,then,
mustcomeaboutofi tsel
fandprogressivel
y.”(Divi
si
on,p.276)
.Itmustcometopassina
pre-
exist
ingsoci
ety(Appendixquot
e9) .

Di
vi
sionofLabour
.Wor kisnotdi
vi
dedamongi ndependentandalr
eadydiffer
ent
iat
ed
i
ndi
vi
dualswhobyuniti
ngandassociat
ingbri
ngtoget
herthei
rdif
ferentapt
it
udes.Fori
t
woul
dbeami racl
eifdi
ff
erencest
husbornthroughchancecir
cumst ancecoul
dunit
eso
perf
ectl
yastoform acoher entwhole.Farfr
om precedingcol
lecti
velif
e,theyderivef r
om i
t.
Theycanbepr oducedonlyinthemi dstofasoci
ety,andunderthepr essureofsocial
sent
imentsandsocialneeds.Thatiswhatmakest hem essent
ial
lyharmoni ous..
..thereare
soci
eti
eswhosecohesi onisessent
iall
yduetoacommuni t
yofbeliefsandsentiment s,andi
t
i
sfrom t
hesesocieti
esthatthosewhoseuni t
yisassuredbythedivisi
onoflabourhave
emerged.(Di
vi
sion,p.277).

Civil
izati
onisit
sel
fthenecessar yconsequenceoft hechangeswhi char epr oducedi nthe
volumeandi nthedensityofsoci eti
es.Ifscience,ar t
,andeconomi cactivit
ydevel op,i
tisin
accor dancewithanecessi tywhi chisimposeduponmen.I ti
sbecauset hereis,forthem,
noot herwayofl i
vinginthenewcondi t
ionsinwhi chtheyhavebeenpl aced.Fr om thet i
me
thatthenumberofi ndi
vidualsamongwhom soci al r
elat
ionsareestabli
shedbegi nsto
i
ncr ease,theycanmai ntaint hemselvesonlybygr eaterspecial
izat
ion,harderwor k,and
i
ntensi f
icat
ionoftheirf
aculties.From thisgeneral st
imulati
on,t
hereinevitablyresult
sa
muchhi gherdegreeofcul ture.(Di
visi
on,pp.336- 337).

Dur kheimt hussetsoutananalysisofthedi visi

onofl abourwhi chemphasi zesthespecial
functionsofeachoft ypeofoccupat i
onandendeavour .Thebi ol
ogi calmodel ,wit
hawel l
functioningbody,wher eeachorganpr operlyservesi tfuncti
onseemst obeupper mostin
Dur kheim' smind.Unl i
kesomeoft hestructuralf
unct ionali
sts,Dur kheim' smet hod
disti
ngui shesthecauseoft hefuncti
onf rom theact ual f
uncti
onf il
l
ed.Thati s,Durkheim
obser vest hefunct
ionthattheoccupat i
onf i
l
lsinsoci ety,butat t
empt stoinvest i
gatethe
devel opmentoft hecausei nanhistori
cal manner ,exami ninghowt hi
sfunct ionemer ged.In
this,onecanconsi dert her
etobeacer tain“confl
ictasamechani sm,wi thinaquasi -
Dar winianf r
amewor k,whichacceleratesthepr ogressionoft hedi visionofl abour.”(
Giddens,
p.79) .

Dur
khei
misal
sopr
ovi
dingacr
it
ici
sm oft
heeconomi
cmodel
swhi
char
guet
hatpeopl
ewi
th
dif
fer
entspecialt
iescomet ogethert
ot r
adet hepr oduct
soft heirspecial
ti
es.ForDur khei
m,
speci
alti
esarenotnaturali
nanysense,butar edeveloped.Si mil
arly,t
hedivisi
onofl abour
i
snotnat ur
aleit
her,butdevelopsindif
ferentf or
msi ndif
fer
entsoci eti
es.Whi letheremay
beagr eatsi
mi l
ari
tyamongt hese(perhapsl i
keWeber 'srat
ionalit
y),nati
onaldiff
erences
emerge.I nthatsense,Durkheim hasanhi stori
calmodel,f
ai r
lysoli
dlygroundedont he
materi
alreal
it
ies.

Ont heotherhand,Durkheim’sanalysi
smaybeconsi der
edt obemai nl
ydes cri
pti
ve,
proposingsomef ai
rl
ystrai
ghtforwardobservati
onsconcerningcult
ure.Hisnot i
onof
soli
dari
ty,mores,moral
sandnor mscomever yclosetot
heconvent i
onalsociol
ogicalmodel
ofthese,andmaybeconsi deredtobewi del
yaccept edbyall.Thequest i
onishowt hese
emer ge,andwhosei nt
ereststheyserve.Her etheconfl
ictapproachdiff
ersdramatical
l
y
fr
om Dur khei
m.

Final
ly,Dur khei
m'sanalysiscanbeconsi deredtobeevol ut
ionaryandf air
lyopt i
mi sti
c.For
themostpar t,Dur
kheiml ooksont hedevelopmentsinthedi vi
si
onofl abourassi gnal l
ing
higherstagesofci vi
l
izati
on.Hedoesnotconsi dertheretobeanygr andpl antot his,andno
singl
ef actorwhichguidesi t.Rather,t
hereiscompetit
ion,whichr esul
tsinthedevel opment
ofthedi vi
sionoflabour,andt heoutcomeoft hispr
ocesscannotbepr edi
cted.However ,
theresulti
sgener all
yposit i
ve,becausepeopleneedeachot her,andthispr oducesan
organicsol i
dari
tyi
nsoci ety.

3.Abnor
mal
for
msoft
hedi
vi
si
onofl
abour
Att
heendofTheDi vi
si
onofLabori
nSoci
ety,however
,Durkhei
m doesnotethatther
ecan
beprobl
emsinsociet
y.Ther
earetwoabnormalfor
msofthedivi
si
onoflabour,andthe
di
vi
sionofl
abouri
tsel
fdoesnotal
waysf
uncti
onaswellasi
tcouldinmodernsociety.

a.Anomi cdi vi
sionofl abor .Whent her ear eindust ri
al andcommer cialcri
ses,t
heremaybe
apar t
ialbreaki nor ganics olidarit
y.Al so,wher et hereisconf l
ictbetweencapi t
alandl abour
,
thi
smaybeanunusual si
tuation.Par toft hi
si scausedbyt hei ncr
easedsepar ati
onof
employeeandempl oyerundercapi t
alism (Division,p.354) ,sot hatt
hecondi ti
onsf oralack
ofsoli
dar i
tyareexpandedascapi t
ali
sm andt hedi vi
sionofl abourdevelop.Thi sanomi eisa
senseofconf usionandr ootlessness,orl ackofsoci al regul
ationbecauseofdi sruptionsor
rapi
dchangei nthedi visionofl abour .Exampl esar etheGr eatDepr essionofthe1 930sand
therapidexpansi onoft he1 990s.I nt helatter,somesect or
sofbusi nessandbusi ness
executiveswer ei nsufficientl
yr egulatedbysoci ety,andseem t ohavevi ewedthemsel ves
abovesuchr egul ati
on.Thecor porateexcess esandcr imesthatresult
edar eanexampl eof
anomi e.

I
rregul
arfor
mssuchascr i
mear enottr
eatedaspar tofthebreakdown,rathert
heseare
t
reatedbyDurkhei
m asdiff
erent
iat
ion(
Divi
sion,p.353),notpartofdivi
si
onoflabour
.
Durkhei
m comparesthesewithcancer
,rat
herthanwi t
hnormal organs.

Therealproblem isalackofregulati
onoraweakenedcommonmor ali
tythatcanoccurin
modernsoci ety.Forexample,intheeconomi cspher e,t
herearenor ul
eswhi chfixthe
numberofeconomi centerpr
ises(Divisi
on,p.366),andthereisnor egul at
ionofproducti
on
i
neachbr anchofi ndustr
y.Thismi ghtbeanover all
form ofi
rrat
ionalit
y,inWeber 'ssense.
Therecanber upt
uresinequil
ibr
ium,capi t
all
abourrelati
onsmaybecomei ndeter
minate.In
thesci
enti
ficfiel
dtheremaybegr eaterseparat
ionofdiff
erentsciences .(Divi
si
on,p.367).
I
ft hedivi
si
onoflabourdoesnotpr oducesoli
dari
tyinal
lthesecases,i
tisbecauset
he
relati
onsoftheorgansar
enotr egulat
ed,becausetheyar einastat
eofanomy.Fort he
i
ndi vi
dualt
hismeanstherearenotsuf f
ici
entmoralconst
raintsandi
ndivi
dualsdonothavea
clearconceptofwhatisproperandaccept abl
e.(Ri
tzer
,p.85) .SeeAppendixquote10:

Anomie.. ..t
hestateofanomyi simpossi
blewhensol i
daryorgansar esuffi
cient
lyincontact
orsuff
icientl
yprol
onged...
.ifsomeopaqueenvi ronmentisinterposed,thenonlystimul
iofa
cert
ainintensi
tycanbecommuni cat
edf r
om oneor gantoanot her
.Rel ati
ons,beingrar
e,
arenotrepeat edenoughtobedet er
mined. .
.(Di
visi
on,pp.368- 9).

Dur kheim alsodiscussesconditi

onsofthewor kerundercapit
ali
sm inter
mst hatcomevery
closet oMar x’sdescri
pti
onofalienat
ionandexpl oit
ati
on.Hediscussesthedegr adi
ng
natur eofthedi vi
si
onofl abouronthewor ker,thepossibi
li
tyofmonot onousrouti
ne,andt
he
machi nel
ikeact i
onsofthewor ker.(
Divi
sion,p.371 ).However,Dur khei
m doesnotconsi
der
theset obet henor malform,butonewhi chr esultswhenthewor kerdoesnothavea
suffici
entvisionofthewhol eprocessofpr oduction.

..
.thedi
visi
onoflabourdoesnotpr oducetheseconsequencesbecauseofanecessi tyofit
s
ownnat ur
e,butonlyi
nexcept ionalandabnor malci
rcumstances....Thedi vi
si
onofl abour
presumesthattheworker,farfrom beinghemmedi nbyhi stask,doesnotl osesightofhis
coll
aborat
ors,t
hatheactsupont hem,andr eact
stothem.Hei s,then,notamachi newho
repeat
shismovement swithoutknowi ngtheirmeaning,butheknowst hattheytend,in
someway,t owardsanendt hatheconceivesmor eorlessdist
inct
ly.(Divi
si
on,p.372) .
b.Forceddi visionofl abour.Thef orceddi vi
sionoflabouriswher ethedi vi
sionofl abouri s
notall
owedt odevel opspont aneous ly,andwher esomeactt opr otectthemsel vesandt hei
r
posit
ions.Thesecoul dbet r
aditi
onal for ms ,whichar eexter
naltothedi visi
onofl abour ,or
theycouldbecast es,Weber 'sstatusgr oups ,orMar x'scl
asses.Anyf actorsthatprevent
i
ndivi
dualsfrom achi evi ngpositi
onswhi chwoul dbeconsi st
entwi t
ht heirnaturalabili
ti
es
i
ndicatesaf or cedi vi
si onoflabour.Ri tzernot es(p.98)thatthi
scoul dbei nequal i
ti
esi nthe
str
uctureofwor kori nadequat eorgani zation,withthewr ongpeopl einpar ti
cularposi t
ionsor
i
ncoher entor ganizational st
ructures.Anyi nt
erferencewiththeoper ati
onoft hedivisi
onof
l
abourt hatresul t
sint hepositi
onbei ngf i
l
ledbyt hosewhoar enotmostaptf ortheposi ti
on
wouldbef or ceddi visionoflabour .Quot e1 1
:

ForcedDivisionofLabour .Wemaysayt hatt

hedivisi
onofl abourpr oducessolidari
tyonlyi
f
i
tisspontaneousandi npr oport
ionasitisspontaneous ..
..Inshor t,l
aborisdi
vided
spontaneouslyonlyifsoci etyisconstit
utedinsuchawayt hats ociali
nequali
ti
esexact l
y
expressnatur al
inequalit
ies....Itconsi
sts,noti
nas tateofanar chywhi chwouldper mi tmen
fr
eelytosatisfyallt
heirgoodorbadt endencies,butinasubt l
eor ganizat
ioninwhi cheach
socialval
ue,beingnei therover esti
matednorunder esti
mat edbyanyt hi
ngforei
gnt oit,woul
d
bejudgedati tswor t
h.( Divisi
on,p.376).

Examplesofthef orceddivisi
onoflabouri ncludesoci et
ieswithslaver
yoracast esystem,
wheresomei ndividual
sar epreventedfrom par ti
cipati
ngnor mall
yi nt
hedivi
sionoflabour.
I
nterf
erenceswithequal i
tyofoppor tuni
ty,suchasdi scr
iminati
oni nhi
ri
ngorinobtaini
ng
educati
onaloppor tuni
ti
es,areexampl esoff orceddi vi
si
onofl abour.Classandweal t
halso
i
nterf
erewithsuchequal opportuni
ty,butDur kheim viewsthisasabnor malandnotthe
normaltendency.
event hi
slasti
nequal
it
y,whichcomesaboutt hroughbirth,t
houghnotcompl
etely
disappeari
ng,isatl
eastsomewhatat t
enuat
ed.Soci etyisfor
cedtoreducet
hisdispari
tyas
faraspossiblebyassi
sti
nginvari
ouswayst hosewhof i
ndthemsel
vesinadisadvantageous
positi
onandbyai di
ngthem toovercomeit.
"(Divi
sion,p.379).

4.Rol
eofst
ateandoccupat
ional
groups

Havingsai
dthatDurkhei
m wasgeneral
l
yveryopti
mi sti
cconcer ni
ngthedevelopmentofthe
divi
si
onoflabouri
ndevelopi
nganorganicsol
i
dari
ty,Dur khei
m wasal soconcernedwitht
he
st
ateofmoder nsoci
ety.Thedevel
opmentofthedivisi
onofl abourdi
dhavet hetendencyto
spli
tpeopl
e,andtheorgani
csoli
dar
it
ymightnotbesuf fi
cienttoholdsoci
etytogether
.

Onesol uti
onforr egulat
iont hatDurkheim di
scussesi
st hestate.Insomesenses ,Durkhei
m
wasasoci ali
st,althoughnotoft hes amet ypeasMar x.Ritzernotest hatf orDur
kheim,
social
ism “si
mplyr epresentedasyst em inwhichmoral pri
nciplesdiscover edbyscienti
fi
c
sociologycouldbeappl i
ed.”(Rit
zer,p.73).Whi l
ethepr i
ncipl
esofmor ali
tyhadtobe
presentinsociety,thest at
ecoul dembodyt heseinstruct
ures,f ul
fi
ll
i
ngf uncti
onssuchas
j
ustice,educati
on,heal th,socialser
vices,etc.
,andmanagi ngawi der angeofsect or
sof
society(Grabb,p.87) .

Thest
ate“shouldal
sobethekeystr
uct
ureforensuri
ngthatt
heserul
esar
emor al
andj
ust.
Theappropri
ateval
uesofi
ndi
vidual
i
sm,responsi
bil
i
ty,f
airpl
ay,andmut
ualobl
i
gati
oncan
beaf
fi
rmedt
hrought
hepol
i
ciesi
nst
it
utedbyt
hest
atei
nal
lt
hesef
iel
ds.
”(Gr
abb,p.87)
.

Thesecondmaj orhopet hatDurkheim hel

dwasf orwhathecal l
edoccupati
onalgroups.The
stat
ecoul dnotbeexpect edtopl aytheint
egrativerol
ethatmightbeneeded,becausei twas
tooremot e.Asasol uti
on,Dur kheimthoughtt hatoccupati
onalorprof
essi
onalgroupscoul d
providethemeansofi ntegrati
onr equi
red.Thesewoul dbeformedbypeopl einanindustry,
representi
ngallthepeopl einthissector.Theirrolewouldbesomewhatdi f
ferentfr
om
Weber 'sparti
es,inthattheywoul dnotbeconcer nedwithexerci
singpower,andachieving
thei
rownends.I nstead,theywoul d“fost
erthegener ali
nter
estofsoci
etyatalevelthat
mostci t
izenscanunder st
andandaccept .
”(Grabb,p.88) .

Whatweespeci all
yseei ntheoccupat i
onal groupisamor alpowercapabl eofcont aining
i
ndivi
dual egos,ofmai ntai
ningaspi r
itedsent imentofcommonsol i
darit
yinthe
consciousnessofal lt
hewor kers,ofpr eventingthelawoft hestr
ongestfrom beingbr ut al
l
y
appli
edt oindustr
ialandcommer cialrelati
ons .(
p.10).Rit
zernotesthattheseassoci ations
could“recognize...commoni nt
erestsaswel lascommonneedf oranintegr
ati
vemor al
syst
em.Thatmor alsystem ..
.wouldser vetocounteractthetendencytowardat omi zationin
moder nsocietyaswel lashelpstopt hedecl ineinsigni
fi
canceofcol l
ecti
vemor ali
ty.”( pp.
98-99).

Insummar y,Durkhei
m ar
guedt
hattherewer evar
iousmeansbywhi chi
ndividualand
societ
ycouldbeconnected.Amongt heseareeducati
on,soci
alpr
ogramst hroughthest
ate,
occupti
onalgroups,andl
aws.Togetherthesecouldassi
sti
nregul
ati
ngindivi
dualsand
i
ntegrati
ngindi
vidual
swit
hsoci
ety.
Ref
erences

Cuff
,E.C.,W.W.Shar r
ockandD.W.Franci
s,Per
spect
ivesi
nSoci
ology,t
hir
dedi
ti
on,
London,Rout
ledge,1
992.HM66P361 984

Dur
kheim,Emi
le,TheDi
vi
sionofLabori
nSoci
ety,NewYor
k,TheFr
eePr
ess,1
933.
Ref
err
edtoinnotesasDi
vi
sion.HD51D98

Dur
kheim,Emi
le,TheRul
esofSoci
ologi
cal
Met
hod,NewYor
k,TheFr
eePr
ess,1
938.
Ref
err
edtoinnotesasRul
es.HM 24D962

Dur
khei
m,Emil
e,Suici
de:ASt
udyi
nSoci
ology,NewYor
k,TheFr
eePr
ess,1
951
.Ref
err
ed
t
oinnot
esasSuici
de.HV6545D812

Gi
ddens,Anthony,Capi
tal
i
sm andModernSocial
Theory:AnAnalysi
softheWri
ti
ngsof
Marx,Dur
kheim andMaxWeber ,Cambr
idge,Cambri
dgeUniversi
tyPress,1
971
.HM1 9G53.

Grabb,EdwardG. ,Theori
esofSocial
Inequal
i
ty:Classical
andCont
empor
aryPer
spect
ives
,
secondedit
ion,Toronto,Hol
t,Ri
nehartandWinst
on,1 990.HT609G72

Hadden,Richar
dW. ,Soci
ologi
cal
Theory:AnInt
roduct
iont
otheCl
assi
cal
Tradi
ti
on,
Pet
erborough,Ont
ario,Br
oadvi
ewPress,1997.

Ri
tzer
,Geor
ge,Soci
ologi
cal
Theor
y,t
hir
dedi
ti
on,NewYor
k,McGr
aw-
Hil
l
,1992.HM24
R4938.
Sydie,R.A.
,Natur
alWomenCult
uredMen:AFemi
nistPer
spect
iveonSoci
ologi
cal
Theor
y,
Toronto,Met
huen,1987.HM51S971987.

Thompson,Kennet
h,Emi
l
eDur
khei
m,Chi
chest
er,E.Hor
wood,1
982.HM22F8D8737

Zei
tl
i
n,I
rvi
ngM.,Ideol
ogyandtheDevel
opmentofSoci
ologi
cal
Theor
y,f
our
thedi
ti
on,
Engl
ewoodCl
if
fs,Prent
iceHal
l
,1990.HM19Z41 990

Lastedi
tedJanuar
y18,2003

Ret
urnt
oSoci
ology250