Emile Durkheim’s Notion of Social Solidarity

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

Durkheim lived at the same time as Weber, but they view on a division of labour and influence of that, differed significantly. Durkheim held a more optimistic view on the division of labour. The division of labour in his opinion is a sign of a developed society because there is a need to exchange results of the activity, perform complementary functions. He thought that division of labour brings diversity, and the more it is, the stronger the people's desire for unity and exchange. He argues that division of labour led from mechanical to organic solidarity. Durkheim believed that pre-industrial societies were based on mechanical solidarity when people feel solidarity because they are similar. When society develops and work

The division of labor is a core concept among many sociologists including Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Adam Smith and Emile Durkheim. Each theorist has their own unique opinion on this concept, however some share ideas. This essay will discuss those similarities and differences, while also proving how each author believes the division of labor will play out in contemporary society, how it connects to other concepts like capitalism and politics, and how it produces and sustains economic and social forms of inequality.

2. Durkheim: What term does Durkheim associate with social solidarity? How do societies achieve it organically and mechanically? What did he think threatened social solidarity?

Organic solidarity arose as a result of the industrial revolution when society became more multifaceted and new ways of working emerged. This saw a decline in the collective conscience regarding shared morals and beliefs as society began to progress and expand. The division of labour that arises as a result of organic solidarity is complex and varied, resulting in people becoming more individualistic and yet also interdependent. Society’s social bonds now centred around the fact that people were dependant on each other for the good and services required in their day-to-day lives. (McDonald, 2009)

Durkheim illustrates social solidarity as social unity and integration, that uses moral phenomenon to help understand the moral degrees in society. Durkheim suggest social solidarity works under two different types which are mechanical and organic solidarity. Durkheim defines mechanical solidarity as common value and beliefs that are shared within society, that creates unity and shared goals. Organic solidarity is the highest interaction between different groups, with diverse ideologies. Durkheim suggest that the Black Lives Matter movement use their social solidarity to achieve collective awareness of the unjust repressive laws that discriminate against African Americans within the judicial and prison system. Durkheim would suggest that the

As a cause and as a symptom of social hierarchies, division of labor is an integral part of the structuring of society. Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim both give very different interpretations to the effects causing, evolving, and caused by this division of labor. On one hand, Marx typically vilifies the process, finding it in large part responsible for the oppression of one group by another. On the other hand, Durkheim treats it as a unifying social force, one necessarily maintained for the betterment of all. With such contrasting viewpoints, it is difficult to decide whether this process is necessarily good or bad. In effect, the argument is how far must individual needs be sacrificed for the benefit of society, or how much society must be

In The Division of Labor in Society, there are four parts: the problem, the function, the causes, and the forms of the divisions of labor. In his work, he critiqued and analyzed these aspects in great detail. Thinking on society Durkheim came to realization that the forces of production and capital were leading the industries, businesses, and agriculture of the time towards a specialization of occupations (Nelson 2013a). He realized that this was not only present in the world of economics but also the judicial, administrative, aesthetic and even his world of philosophy as well which was leading to a state of moral conflict and antagonism. This lead to the second part of his work, the function, in which Durkheim believed, was not a moral rule since it

According to Durkheim, inter-dependence and division of labor creates organic solidarity which holds everybody in modern society together. In modern societies, people usually have different beliefs, goals and jobs, but everybody depends on each other to live. Each of us does a specialized job in order to keep the entire system working. For example, I don’t farm but still have vegetables to eat because somebody farms for the whole society, including me. We are bonded together by the division of labor and the reliance on each other. However, while Durkheim thinks that division of labor is the base of social cohesion, Marx thinks that society is divided by class differences which are created by the division of labor. Marx claims that class difference

Well Barrack, my name is Emile Durkheim and I’m here to talk to you about my views on division of labor. The division of labor is a characteristic of industrial capitalist societies. My definition of division of labor is similar to Marx, as specialization, but for me they don’t solely focus on the economic consequences. We expect better specialized workers. Our division of labor creates a social unity. A collective consciousness, a totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average member in society. We focus on the workers and not only on the work.

Even though division of labor causes rapid changes leaving no common ground for huge societies to connect on, Durkheim argues that this environment motivates social actions targeted towards the good of man’s own kind for “nothing remains which men can love and honor in common if not man-himself” (Durkheim: II, 53). Organic solidarity creates between men “a whole system of rights which bind them together in an enduring way,” promoting for actions that focus on bettering humankind (Durkheim: DL, 47). Thus, even though the individual becomes more autonomous through division of labor, they are still interdependent with one

Two films, Devil's Playground (2001) and the barn raising scene in Witness (1985), will be evaluated using Emile Durkheim's theory of the division of labor as the causal factor of social solidarity. To investigate these films on this basis, it is imperative to understand the Durkheim's theory. In The Division of Labor in Society, Emile Durkheim studies the effects of the division of labor in society apart from economics. He posits that it is the division of labor that determines the social solidarity. He claims, "We are therefore led to consider the division of labour in a new light.

Tremendous economic and technological growth marked by the industrial revolution that was beginning to take shape at in the 19th century. With this change also brought a process of greater specialization in the workforce, also known as the division of labor. Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, under this context of burgeoning market economy, sought to understand modern society and the underlying relations that lead to their formation and progress. In this essay, I will argue that while both Marx and Durkheim acknowledge the role of economic growth as a main driver of human society in their theories, they differ on the type of social relations that developed in tandem, relations that formed the basis of the division of labor. Marx (1978, p. 212) views the division of labor as a result of the capitalism driven by profit, while Durkheim (1984, p. 1) sees it as a necessary condition for social progress. Next, I will also explore differences both writers posit as the consequences for this process, relating to both Marx’s theory of labor alienation and Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity.

The second type of society is modern society. We evolved from the primitive society structure and functionality. A highly differentiated social structure is said how modernity is to be characterized. (Seidman, 1998) There are specialized social institutions that differentiate individuals in the social structure (e.g., the economy, family, education, welfare, military, polity) and regulate the behaviour of the individual. Individualism is the public religion in this culture. The beliefs and morals held in common among individuals are to be highly general and abstract unlike how it is the primitive society. There are two social forces that are powerful in promoting individualism. The first is how advance the division of labor that the individual is required to have more freedom to control their institutional behaviour. The second is the given in a differentiated society the state or the church has any right to impose their social rules to dictate institutions, it is only up to the individual in their social roles in those institutions. This is a clear indication of how society has developed and how Durkheim has explained this transformation in relation to the growth of modernity.

As Durkheim said that “My work had its origins in the question of the relations of the individual to social solidarity. Why does the individual, while becoming more autonomous, depend more upon society? How can he [sic] be at one more individual?”(Durkheim 1976: 37-8) Durkheim is basically saying that as we move from a mechanical form of solidarity which has a simple occupational structure as there where fewer occupations compared to organic solidarity where with the development of society brought about more occupation’s to choose from means that there is now a more