Émile Durkheim

Émile Durkheim, one of the founding thinkers of sociology, was born in France
on April 15, 1858 and He died on November 15, 1917. His major works are:

Division of Social Labor (1893)

The Rules of Sociological Method (1895),

Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897)

The Elementary form of Religious Life (1912)

Education and Sociology (1922)

He gave some major concepts like Anomie, social facts, social solidarity,
cultural relativism, philosophy of religion, morality, Sacred and Profane.

His major concern was to know What Makes Society Work?

Durkheim's body of work as a researcher and theorist focused on how a society

forms and functions, which is another way of saying, how it maintains order and
stability (See his books titled The Division of Labor in Society and The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life). For this reason, he is considered the
creator of the functionalist perspective within sociology. Durkheim was most
interested in knowing the glue that holds society together, which means he
focused on the shared experiences, perspectives, values, beliefs, and behaviors
that allow people to feel that they are a part of a group and that working
together to maintain the group is in their common interest.

In essence, Durkheim's work was all about culture, and as such, it remains
deeply relevant and important to how sociologists study culture today. We draw
on his contributions to help make sense of what holds us together, and also, and
quite importantly, to help us understand the things that divide us, and how we
deal (or don't deal) with those divisions.

Durkheim’s “Theory of Division of Labour” is often regarded as his major

contribution to the field of sociological thought. Durkheim’s doctoral thesis,
“Division of Labour in Society” 1893, is his first major book.

In his famous work “The Division of Labour in Society” Durkheim tried to

determine the social consequences of the division of labour in modern societies.
Meaning of Division of Labour:

The concept of “Division of Labour” has been used in three ways:

(i) in the sense of the technical division of labour, it describes the production
process;

(ii) as the sexual division of labour, it describes social divisions between men
and women;

(iii) as the social division of labour, it refers to differentiation in society as a

whole.

In a general sense, the term division of labour involves the assignment to each
unit or group a specific share of a common task.

According to Emile Durkheim, Division of labour is seen as the separation and

specialization of work among people. By separation, it is meant that various
components of the work process are separated. By this is meant that the various
aspects that make up the work are set up into various component and co-
functioning processes. For instance, in the production of a car, the productions
of the tyres are separated from the production of the engines. According to my
understanding, in these separated components, production can be maximized as
in the production of the car, the producers will be able to produce several tyres
while the producers of the engine will produce several engines. Therefore in
Durkheim’s opinion, separation leads to specialization. Because separation is
viewed as one of the constitutive element of division of labour, it means that
producers must be specialized in specific tasks in any activity of labour.
Division of labour includes separation of the work force into different
categories of labour; dividing the work required to produce a product into a
number of different tasks that are performed by different workers.

Durkheim’s Optimistic View of Division of Labour:

The major theme of the book “Division of Labour in Society”, work done in
1893 by Durkheim, is the relationship between the individual and society. The
nature of this relationship could be stated in the form of two questions: (i) How
can a large number of individuals make up a society? and (ii) How can these
individuals achieve ‘consensus’ which is the basic condition of social existence?
In his work The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim examined how social
order was maintained in different types of societies. He focused on the division
of labor, and examined how it differed in traditional societies and modern
societies. Authors before him such as Herbert Spencer and Ferdinand Toennies
had argued that societies evolved much like living organisms, moving from a
simple state to a more complex one resembling the workings of complex
machines. Durkheim reversed this formula, adding his theory to the growing
pool of theories of social progress, social evolutionism and social darwinism.
He argued that traditional societies were 'mechanical' and were held together by
the fact that everyone was more or less the same, and hence had things in
common.

In traditional societies, argues Durkheim, the collective consciousness entirely

subsumes individual consciousness-social norms are strong and social behavior
is well-regulated.In modern societies, he argued, the highly complex division of
labor resulted in 'organic' solidarity. Different specializations in employment
and social roles created dependencies that tied people to one another, since
people no longer could count on filling all of their needs by themselves. 

In 'mechanical' societies, for example, subsistence farmers live in communities

which are self-sufficient and knit together by a common heritage and common
job. In modern 'organic' societies, workers earn money, and must rely on other
people who specialize in certain products (groceries, clothing, etc.) to meet their
needs. The result of increasing division of labor, according to Durkheim, is that
individual consciousness emerges distinct from collective consciousness-often
finding itself in conflict with collective consciousness. Durkheim also made an
association of the kind of solidarity in a given society and the preponderance of
a law system. He found that in societies with mechanical solidarity the law is
generally repressive: the agent of a crime or deviant behaviour would suffer a
punishment, that in fact would compensate collective conscience neglected by
the crime-the punishment acts more to preserve the unity of consciences. On the
other hand, in societies with organic solidarity the law is generally restitutive: it
aims not to punish, but instead to restitute normal activity of a complex
society.The rapid change in society due to increasing division of labor thus
produces a state of confusion with regard to norms and increasing impersonality
in social life, leading eventually to relative normlessness, i.e. the breakdown of
social norms regulating behavior; Durkheim labels this state anomie. From a
state of anomie come all forms of deviant behavior, most notably suicide.
In his attempts to answer these vital questions Durkheim drew up a distinction
between two forms of solidarity namely:

(i) mechanical solidarity and

(ii) organic solidarity, respectively.
These two types of solidarity were found in the traditional tribal societies and in
the modern complex urban societies. Durkheim made comparisons between the
primitive and the civilised societies in terms of his concept of solidarity.
According to him, the primitive society is characterised by “mechanical
solidarity” based on the “collective conscience”; and the advanced society is
characterised by “organic solidarity” based on the “division of labour.”

The Link between Division of Labour and Social Solidarity: Meaning of the
Concept of Solidarity:

i. “Social solidarity” is synonymous with social cohesion or social integration.

ii. Social solidarity refers to “the integration and degree or type of integration,
manifest by a society or group.

iii. Social solidarity refers to “the condition within a group in which there is
social cohesion plus co-operative, collective action directed towards the
achievement of group goals.

1. Mechanical Solidarity:

In Mechanical solidarity social cohesion and integration occurs as a result

of the commonness or the homogeneity of the individuals i.e. individuals
believe they are connected through similar work, value systems, family,
kinship, religion etc.

As defined by Durkheim, mechanical solidarity refers to ‘‘Social solidarity

based upon homogeneity of values and behaviour, strong social constraint,
and loyalty to tradition and kinship. The term applied to small, non-literate
societies characterised by a simple division of labour, very little
specialisation of function, only a few social roles and very little tolerance of
individuality.’’

As Durkheim has stated mechanical solidarity is solidarity of resemblance. It is

rooted in the similarity of the individual members of a society who might share
same desires, feelings and ideas towards the production of any given product. In
the society where this kind of solidarity prevails individuals do not differ from
one another much. They are the members of the same collectivity and resemble
one another because “they feel the same emotions, cherish the same values, and
hold the same sacred things.” They are really similar in thought and activity.

As Durkheim has stated “mechanical solidarity is solidarity of resemblance. In

the society where this kind of solidarity prevails individuals do not differ from
one another much. They are the members of the same collectivity and resemble
one another because they feel the same emotions, cherish the same values, and
hold the same things sacred. The society is coherent because the individuals are
not yet differentiated.”

2. Organic Solidarity:

As defined by Durkheim, organic solidarity refers to “a type of societal

solidarity typical of modern industrial society, in which unity is based on the
interdependence of a very large number of highly specialised roles in a system
involving a complex division of labour that requires the co-operation of almost
all the groups and individuals of the society. This type of solidarity is called
organic because it is similar to the unity of a biological organism in which
highly specialised parts or organs, must work in coordination if the organism [or
any one of its parts] is to survive”.

It is quite clear from the above quote that organic solidarity is in opposition to
the concept of mechanical solidarity. While in mechanical solidarity there is no
differentiation, in organic solidarity, just like in differentiated biological cells,
there is high level of specialization and specificity of differentiated organs
designated for specific functions for the completion of a given function or task
that when combined makes the organism a complete functioning unit. Organic
solidarity is almost the opposite of mechanical solidarity. According to
Durkheim, “Increasing density of population is the major key to the
development of division of labour.” By this, the explanation is quite clear. In
places where the population density is high, that is many more people per a
given space, it is but obvious that some will be more suited for specific
functions than others. So automatically there is division of labour so as to
maximize production and profits in the corporate world. Organic solidarity
emerges with the growth of the division of labour. This especially is witnessed
in the modern industrial societies.
This type of solidarity is called organic because it is similar to the unity of a
biological organism in which highly specialized parts or organs, must work in
coordination if the organism [or any one of its parts] is to survive”

Organic solidarity is almost the opposite of mechanical solidarity. According to

Durkheim, increasing density of population is the major key to the development
of division of labour. Organic solidarity emerges with the growth of the division
of labour. This especially is witnessed in the modern industrial societies.

Division of labour and the consequent dissimilarities among men bring about
increasing interdependence in society. The interdependence is reflected in
human mentality and morality and in the fact of organic solidarity itself. In
organic solidarity, consensus results from differentiation itself.

The individuals are no longer similar, but different. With the increase in
division of labour the collective conscience lessens.

Here the stress is on restitution of rights rather than on punishment. An increase

in organic solidarity would represent moral progress stressing the higher values
of equality, liberty, fraternity, and justice. Even here, the social constraints in
the form of contracts and laws continue to play a major role. Differences
Between Mechanical and Organic Solidarities

Durkheim formulated the distinction between the two types of solidarity by

identifying the demographic and morphological features basic to each type. He
also identified the typical forms of law, and formal features and content of the
conscience collective, which ought to be associated with each type.

Division of Labour is Different from Disintegration: Durkheim distinguishes

between division of labour and disintegration. Disintegration is illustrated by
industrial failures, crises, conflicts and crimes. All these are pathological in
nature. “In these forms the division of labour ceases to bring forth solidarity
hence represents an “anomic division of labour” so to say. Division of labour in
society is actually different from occupational division of labour in the factory
as pointed out by Marx.

In his earlier work Durkheim stated that a society with organic solidarity needed
fewer common beliefs to bind members to the society. But later he changed his
view and stressed that even the societies in which organic solidarity has reached
its peak, needed a common faith, a “common conscience collective.” This
would help the men to remain united and not to “disintegrate into a heap of
mutually antagonistic and self-seeking individuals.”

We now present the summary of the unit in a tabular form under three heads.
This will help you recall the major differences between mechanical and organic
types of solidarity. The first basis for this distinction is structural, the second
deals with types of norms, and the third with characteristics of collective
conscience — their form and content.

Bases of distinction Mechanical Organic

1) Structural bases based on likeness based on differences and

(predominant in less division of labour
developed society). (predominant in society
advanced societies)

segmental type (firstly, Organised (firstly,

based on clan then on fusion of markets and
territory) later development of
city)

less volume of high volume of

interdependence interdependence
(relatively, weak social (relatively strong social
bonds) bonds)

relatively, low volume relatively, high volume

of population of moral and material
density

2) Types of norms rules with repressive rules with restitutive

sanctions sanctions

practices of penal law practices of cooperative

law (cooperative,
commercial,
administrative and
constitutional)
 Characteristics of
collective conscience

a. form high volume low volume

high intensity low intensity

high determinants low determinants

absolute collective more chances to

individuals for self
reflection

b. Content highly religious (closed secular, human oriented

for discussion) (open for discussion)

attaching supreme attaching supreme

values to the society values to the individual

concrete and specific abstract and general

Division of Labour and Anomie:

Durkheim developed the concept of anomie later in Suicide, published in 1897.

In it, he explores the differing suicide rates among Protestants and Catholics,
explaining that stronger social control among Catholics results in lower suicide
rates. According to Durkheim, people have a certain level of attachment to their
groups, which he calls social integration. Abnormally high or low levels of
social integration may result in increased suicide rates; low levels have this
effect because low social integration results in disorganized society, causing
people to turn to suicide as a last resort, while high levels cause people to kill
themselves to avoid becoming burdens on society. According to Durkheim,
Catholic society has normal levels of integration while Protestant society has
low levels. This work has influenced proponents of control theory, and is often
mentioned as a classic sociological study. Durkheim is also remembered for his
work on 'primitive' (i.e. non-Western) people in book ‘Elementary Forms of the
Religious Life’ and the essay ‘Primitive Classification’ that he wrote with
Marcel Mauss. These works examine the role that religion and mythology have
in shaping the worldview and personality of people in extremely (to use
Durkheim's phrase) 'mechanical' societies. Durkheim was also very interested in
education. Partially this was because he was professionally employed to train
teachers, and he used his ability to shape curriculum to further his own goals of
having sociology taught as widely possible. More broadly, though, Durkheim
was interested in the way that education could be used to provide French
citizens the sort of shared, secular background that would be necessary to
prevent anomie in modern societies. It was to this end that he also proposed the
formation of professional groups to serve as a source of solidarity for adults.
Durkheim argued that education has many functions:

1. To reinforce social solidarity

 History: Learning about individuals who have done good things for the
many makes an individual feel insignificant.

 Pledging Allegiance: Makes individuals feel part of a group and therefore

less likely to break rules.

2. To maintain social roles

 School is a society in miniature. It has a similar hierarchy, rules,

expectations to the "outside world". It trains young people to fulfill roles.

3. To maintain division of labour.

 Sorts students out into skill groups. Teaches students to go into work
depending on what they're good at.

Division of labour, though an essential element of society can do great harm to

the society if carried to the extreme. Durkheim was quite aware of this and
hence had cautioned against the adverse consequences of unregulated division
of labour. “Anomie” is one such adverse consequence. In fact, Durkheim was
the first to use this concept.

The Greek term “Anomie” literally means “without norms ” or “normlessness.”

“Anomie” is the outcome of clash in one’s own values and those of the society
and one is not clear in what way to go, how to behave and how to come upto the
expectations of the society and also how to mould the environment to suit his
expectations.

“Anomie is the strict counterpart of the idea of social solidarity. Just as

solidarity is a state of collective ideological integration, anomie is a state of
confusion, insecurity, normlessness. The collective representations are in a state
of decay.

State of Anomie Leading to Personal and Social Disorganisation:

The essential problem of modern society, Durkheim argued, is that the division
of labour leads inevitably to feelings of individualism, which can be achieved
only at the cost of shared sentiments or beliefs. The result is anomie – a state of
normlessness in both the society and the individual.

Social norms become confused or break down, and people feel detached from
their fellow beings. Having little commitment to shared norms, people lack
social guidelines for personal conduct and are inclined to pursue their private
interests without regard for the interests of society as a whole. Social control of
individual behaviour becomes ineffective, and as a result the society is
threatened with disorganisation or even disintegration.

Durkheim was probably correct in his view that the division of labour and the
resulting growth of individualism would break down shared commitment to
social norms, and it seems plausible that there is widespread anomie in modern
societies.

Yet these societies do retain some broad consensus on norms and values, as we
can readily see when we compare one society with another, say, the United
States with China.

Although this consensus seems much weaker than that in preindustrial societies,
it is probably still strong enough to guide most individual behaviour and to avert
the social breakdown that Durkheim feared. Durkheim’s analysis remains
valuable, however, for his acute insights into the far-ranging effects that the
division of labour has on social and personal life.