Theory of Division of Labour
The second part of Durkheim’s book De la division du trivial social deals with his theory of division of labour, and provides us with the analysis of the nature and causes of division of labour.
The earliest division of labour was essentially on the basis of sex. In the hunting and the fruit gathering stage, the male members of the family used to go out for hunting, hetmans of subsistence, where the females were left behind to look after the family, and for rearing and caring for the children But, with the cultural development of human society, and with the advent of newer economics, and hence, occupational, fields, labour became repeatedly farther and sub-divided. And our modern societies are not only characterised by increasing division of labour but also specialization of labour. Increasing division of labour, and specialization, have a direct co-relation with the increasing density of population. In a simple society. With comparatively lesser number of people, the necessity of division of labour or specialization is less felt because of the self-sufficient nature of the group and the family. But as the groups grow in size and become more and more complex, the services of the ‘experts’ are required and division of labour in large scale operations becomes imperative. In accordance with the division of labour, a variety of interest groups originates, which ultimately breeds the causes of social conflicts, particularly, the industrial conflicts. Consequently, unanimity of public opinion, mental and moral, homogeneity of individuals, or, in short, mechanical unity, solidarity, and like-mindedness no more characterise social life. Society, then, gives increasing importance to personality and proceeds towards a contractual and liberal stage. There is, so to say, a drift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, caused by division of labour.
Societies whose solidarity is mechanical are based on common roots of identity, similarity, undifferentiated social structure and little or no division of labour. In these societies, the individual is directly linked to society through various points of attachment which act to bind all the members of the group together equally. The force of these social links is such as to discourage individual autonomy, and the social whole envelops the individual so completely that there is no distinction between the individual conscience and the collective conscience.
In brief, organic solidarity is characterised by an increase in the density of society due to expansion of population, the growth of cities, and the development of means of transportation and communication. The main characteristics of organic solidarity are:
(1) larger populations spread over broader geographic areas;
(2) an increased complexity of division of labour leading to specialised economic functions in which individuals are more reliant on others to perform economic functions which they cannot perform themselves;
(3) system of social relations in which individuals are linked to each other by contract rather than by sentiment and obligation;
(4) a system in which individuals obtain their place in society (iv) by occupation rather than by kinship affiliations;
(5) an increased individual autonomy based on a system of (v) laws recognising rights and freedoms of individuals;
(6) the development of contract law predicated on restitutive sanctions in which judicial rules redress social wrongs by restoring things to their original state.
Broadly speaking, Durkheim identified two different types of society which correspond to mechanical and organic forms of solidarity. These are segmental societies, which resemble mechanical solidarity; and advanced societies, which correspond to organic solidarity. Durkheim used the term segmental to describe a type of society which is made up of small groups linked together in a defined social territory. Morrison explained the characteristics of Durkheim’s segmental societies in the following way:
(1) they are made up of small groups or segments separated into tribes;
(2) they have close proximity to each other;
(3) they have a division of labour which patterns their activity so that links of cooperation develop between the segments along domestic and political lines; and
(4) they produce strong social bonds between the segments which are formed by social relations based on common beliefs and social practices that have their roots in religious laws.
Durkheim tried to explain three primary causes of the division of labour. Firstly, the change in the geographical proximity of individuals, that populations begin to concentrate themselves ignore confined areas instead of being spread over larger territories. This “presupposes a certain tightening” in the social fabric as its human element come closer together and more geographically proximate.
Second is the “formation of cities”, which occurs as the social density is increased. This creates an intensification of interaction between individuals leading to an increase in the overall social mass. As the social mass is increased, it tends to accelerate the mixing of segments into consolidated social organs.
Third is the increase in social volume. This results when the growing social produces more transportation. This new form of interchange acts to “suppress gaps” between segments, thus leading to an increase in moral density, intra-social relations, and frequency of contact between individuals.
Abdominal of Division of Labour
In the last and concluding section of the Division of Labour, Durkheim focuses on the question of abnormal or pathological forms of division of labour. The term pathology derives from the biological sciences and is primarily used to indicate the occurrence of disease in an organism. Durkheim believed that the “social body”, like the human body, to this state as a form of social pathology or, more commonly abnormal forms.”
In third volume of Division of Labour, Durkheim categorised three abnormal forms of division of labour which are found in advanced societies. These are:
(1) the anomic division of Labour;
(2) the forced division of labour; and
(3) the poor coordination of functions resulting from the division of labour itself.
The first abnormal forms of division of labour is the anomic division of labour. Durkheim believed that this type of division of labour arises because of industrial and commercial crises. These occur, wrote Durkheim, when “social functions are not adjusted to each other” In this context, individual does not feel integrated to the society. Social norms and values seem unclear and uninterested and the individual does not feel morally involved with the affairs of society. In modern industrial societies, where functions and operations are specialised, individuals no longer feel that their common work unites them. Anomic division of labour, it seems, is the incomplete development from mechanical to organic solidarity through the development of industrial society. A second form of social pathology is the process Durkheim referred to as the forced division of labour. This type of division of labour arises of external inequality that fails to produce the natural demands of society. Thus “people might be allocated to positions in the division of labour to which they talents or their abilities”.” Such an abnormal form results in individuals becoming frustrated and unhappy with their society Asia consequence, the division of labour no longer meets the social needs of cohesion, but rather serves the interest of certain social groups.” Indian caste system is one of the examples of forced division of labour.
The third abnormal form of division of labour arises of the poor coordination of functions in society. “It is a managerial deficiency, where the enterprise is not organised to get the best and most out of its members-the more continuous and coordinated the various functions, the more solidarity grows and the more skilled the workers becomes”
In brief, Durkheim’s study of division of labour brings out his functional model of society. Durkheim sees division of labour as a process that would help individuals coexist and cooperate to each other. In a ‘normal’ situation, division of labour contributes to social integration by giving each individual a specialised activity to perform. Division of labour arises as a result of the competition for survival brought about by growing material and moral density. Specialisation offers a way whereby various individuals may coexist and cooperate. Durkheim does not merely look at the economic aspect of division of labour but rather its social aspect, its contribution to social integration.