Essay, 33 pages (8000 words)

Durkheim and division of labour

Durkheim’s Division of Labour in Society Author(s): J. A. Barnes Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 1966), pp. 158-175 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/2796343 . Accessed: 06/05/2013 07: 42 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www. jstor. org/page/info/about/policies/terms. jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. org. . Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man. http://www. jstor. org This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM’S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY J. A. BARNES TheAustralian National University Introduction The first edition EmileDurkheim’sThedivision labour society: study of of in a of theorganizationthehigher of societies publishedin I893 while the authorwas was professor socialscience theUniversity Bordeaux. constituted majorof of at of It the the two theses whichhe presented the University Parisforhis doctorate. at of Durkheim had previously published several reviews and articles, thiswas his but first book. He gainedhisdoctorate hisbook madea significant and for impact, it so annoyedthe orthodoxeconomists thatforsome timehe could not obtaina teaching inParis(Mauss I958: 2). The book wentto fiveFrench post the editions, onlyworkby Durkheim do so, and was first to in translation published an English in I933. It has been described its translator Durkheim’sgreatest work by as (SimpsonI933: 4). Yet despite theseindications importance, of some critics have seen littlevalue in the book. Thus, in his History ethnological of where theory, he devotes fifteen pagesto Durkheim, Lowie has absolutely to nothing sayabout theDivision labour. translation English of Its into was greeted thepagesof the in American journal sociology thecomment: of with Published whentheauthor thirty-five old, theworkaccepts accurate was years as the crude misconceptions i88o’sconcerning life primitive asset ofthe the of man forth the in books those were more of who no competentdescribe than botanist to them a would to be a in write treatise hisfield without having a plant…. ever seen Nottobesevere awriter forty-one ago, accepted isnowknown be with who, to years what it untenable, wouldat leastseemthatextended discussion an argument of basedon abandoned premises might considered unnecessary be an expenditure energy of (Faris I934: 376). The English translationpoor. The development socialconditions, well as is of as thefindings scientific of research, during seventy the yearsthathave elapsedsince theworkwas first published havecumulatively demonstrated falsity manyof the of its substantive propositions. thenwe are to understand what contextthe If in Division labour still interest, haveto look elsewhere is of of we thanat introductory courses occupational on specialisation, socialevolution, thechanging or or patterns of legal organisation, any otherof thevariousthemes or discussed thebook. in We need, however, onlytothevery go first in sentence thebooktofind answer: the ‘This book is pre-eminently attempt treat facts themorallifeaccording an to the of to themethod thepositive of sciences’ (DOLl 32). Here we have a clear statement Durkheim’sprogramme, programme of a worked in subsequent out publications whichremained far and not from centre the of his intellectual goal throughout life. In thisbook we can easilysee the his fromwhichhis laterstudies suicide, education, on beginnings law and religion This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I59 In to developed. order understand Durkheim what meant ‘collective by represenor tations’ by’anomie’ have study only Elementaryforms we to not his of religious the and but of Division labour where these life hisSuicide, alsothose sections the of conare cepts first discussed length religion, DOL 288-9; forsuicide, at (for see see DOL 246). Therules sociological of method, publishedyearlater, Durkheim a was, in said, implied theDivision labour of (Rules lx). Durkheim proclaims he intends study that to moral facts themethods by of science. havecometo realise, We perhaps moreexplicitly didDurkheim, than that of thedistinguishing ofscience that is cumulative, that one marks is it and each generationinvestigators of incorporates discoveriesitspredecessors the of into itsestablished corpus organised of understanding. thehumanities, In things are Sartre Audenin no sense and and different; supersede Shakespeare Homer. In Euclid and Plato out But philosophy, andAristotle never ofprint. in science, are Hippocrates either are incorporated ordiscarded have and become ofhistorical only a value; thecartographer notgo backto Axanimander drawingmap. does before if Likewise, sociology scientific, is asDurkheim stated should we donotneed it be, togo back Durkheim, certainly tohis major to how and not first to work, discover to tackle newanalysis social a of is it phenomena. ifwhat hadtosay true, For, he should longago havebecome ofthecorpus sociological part of propositions and theorems utilised subsequent in work. by sociologistseven Durkheim’s later or own It is an indication Durkheim’s of clarity a writer it is, alas, still of lack as that his to necessary return theDivision labour guidance howto interpret to of for on later writings forclarificationthevalidity themany and on of diverse criticisms that have been levelled against Durkheim a sociologist. more as But importantly, it is also an indication forone reason another, to that, or Durkheim’s efforts makesociology scientific notbeenwholly have successful that can still and we readhimfor helpin interpreting results current the of enquiries. organised The of science remains unfulfilled corpus positive still an programme. According Mauss, Durkheim to intended, whilestillat theAcole normale, to write account therelationshipindividualism socialism later but an of of and recast planofhisthesis dealwith relation the to the between individual the and in in near society. bookwasoutlined I884 while wasteaching a lyce’e Paris, The he andwas first in written i886 after hadreturned hisyearin Germany. he from It waspresenteda doctoral as thesis seven years later (Mauss I958: i). Thisthesis wasnotmerely academic an in exercise, itarose least part ofDurkheim’s for at out concern therevival French in for of society following defeat France the the of Franco-Prussian andhisbookstresses necessity political war the of action, evenif thedetails left are unspecified. says: He weshouldjudgeresearches noworthall they tohave a speculaour tohave at if were only tive is to of health alone interestthere a state moral … which science isable determine .., science, furnishing lawofvariations competently in us the through moral which the health already has usto into which new passed, permits anticipate coming being, those of order things Ifwe in demands. know what the of sense law property associeties evolves become and and some growthsize density new new in and make modificalarger denser, if tions weshall to beforenecessary, beable foresee and them, foreseeing will them, them hand. scientific Finally, comparingnormal with the type itself-a strictly operation-we shall able finditisnot be to if inagreement itself, contains it with if entirely contradictions, is which tosay, and them. seek them imperfections, toeliminate ortocorrect (DOL33-4) This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i6o J. A BARNES Likewise, in the second editionof Divisionof labour, issuedin 1902, he added aimedat specific political proposals, ‘Some noteson occupational entitled groups’, restoring country a better the to stateof socialhealth. These were followedby practical suggestions social changes a variety fields, for in of advocatedin many publications. Perhaps becausethiswas Durkheim’s climate first majorwork, theintellectual in whichhe had been trained, and againstwhichhe was now rebelling, a had influence theformof his argument. on decisive Durkheim never Unfortunately succeeded freeing presentation sociological in his from intellectual the of argument in he heritage soughtto repudiate, muchof the difficulty experienced and now in what Durkheimmeansor, to an even greater understanding extent, understanding whyhe wrote thewayhe did, stems in of from ignorance themenand our positions thatDurkheim was attacking. Durkheim’s Simpson, translator, go may too farin trying reduceSpencerto Durkheim’s to Diihringwhen he says, in of to justification his editorial policyof not givingreferences Spencer’s original works: Where of Durkheim to him as in quotes Spencer order criticize adversely, inthe majority cases, there wouldseemto be no reason being for interested Spencer’s in ideasafter Durkheim finished them. has with (DOL x) in Durkheim called action the for in world learning, part a necessary as of preliminto ary political action the in nation. wasdirectly He concerned theestablishwith in ment sociology anacademic as and of at discipline recognised France, although, least thefirst in edition hisbook, hisnational of political comments mainly are for negative, arguments immediate his have implications theacademic politics of his the time this In he out for on issue. hislater detail pleas writings sets in greater a the separationsociology philosophy its of from and developmentinsome as, sense, special kindofpsychology (DOL 359-62; cf. Benoit-Smullyan 50i, n. 7). I948: Yet it is Durkheim’s attack Herbert on Spencer-who had beentranslated into French Espinas Ribot-and on theutilitarian by and tradition goingbackto Adam Smith, led to Durkheim’s that beingidentified an anti-individualist therefore as and a socialrealist (Parsons I960: II9; PeyreI960: 24; Alpert I939: Iso). In the later of in chapters theDivision labour of a individualism Durkheim advocates political whichsocialharmony, specifically or is organicsolidarity, achieved onlyby each individual beingfree exercise talents fulfil natural to his and his ambitions. this But stance was overshadowed hisattack utilitarianism by hisuse of political on and by many of the same metaphors the social realists. the modernreader, as For his intellectual position further is complicated whatseems be hisfrequent of by to use and biological organic analogies that seemat first glanceto puthimin thecampof themanhe is attacking: Spencer. commentators His arguethat Durkheim fought the against useof analogies drawnfrombiology(PeyreI960: 24), but by present standards didnotfight he hardenough(e. g. DOL 2I7-8). Similarly, attention the givenby Durkheimto Comte has to be seenin thelightof Comte’spersisting in influence Frenchthinking providingthe stereotype sociology-overas of ambitious, imprecise heretical. and Durkheim beganhisprofessional career whenevolutionary doctrines anthropoin logy were at theirheight, and the notionof a broadtransition fromsavageto This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM ‘S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY i6i was an opponent unilinear of evolution (Parsons 7: 3 72); yetDurkheim I93 expects hisreaders knowwhatis meant socialevolution brings to by and forward evidence kind that conforms latenineteenth to century canons support theparticular of in of as evolutionary process was seeking establish. he to evolution a Formally, treats he process, but in facthe arguesmost of the timein merelydichotomous terms, primitive versuscivilised, and does littletowardsdemonstrating thereare that societies intermediate at points thescale. The nearest getsto doingthisis in on he comparison thelegalcodesoffive of the societies, ancient the Hebrews, Romansof thefifth century, Franks the and underSalic law, theBurgundians theVisigoths. Yet, even here, Durkheimis interested merely demonstrating thereare in that quantitative differences betweenone code and another, he neither and correlates thesewithotherfeatures the societies worksout how thesefivesocieties of nor might regarded be in that relative one another. merely to He asserts a footnote ‘if the genealogical tablesof social typescould be completely drawnup, it would resemble tufted a tree, with a singletrunk, be sure’ (DOL I4I, n. 2I; Cf to Alpert I939: I96-8). It hasbeensaidthat subtitle theDivision labour the of of should beAgainst dilletantism, Durkheim’s but efforts establish to sociology a professional as specialism have givenan appearance amateurism much of his own work. of to His arguments remain, however, despite inadequate the he evidence was ableat the timeto muster their in support. Some commentators betweenDurkhave drawnattention the similarities to heim’stypology, whenseenas dichotomous, theviewsofTonnieson Gemeinand schaft Gesellschaft. and Earlier, Maine had made a distinction betweensocieties basedon status those into and of basedon contract, Spencer’s and division societies industrial military along similar and was lines. Redfield’s continuum folk-urban may be viewed as a modernessayin the same tradition (BohannanI960: 88; Freeman & Winch I957: 46I), and even Robert Park’s sacred and secular AlbionSmall’scultures civilisation, Riesman’s societies, and and tradition-oriented The fact and other-directed personalities have been fitted into the same pattern. thatthissimpleanalytical showshow far procedure yieldsinteresting still results we stillarefroma satisfactory calculus societies. of Concepts In thecourseofhisworkDurkheim introduces number concepts a of whichhe links by several propositions. Concepts and propositions are intermingled in his presentation, it is oftennot clear whether conceptis deliberately and a introduced an analytical as tool or as the name of some phenomenon already in existing therealor metaphysical world. For ourpurposes maybe convenient it to tryto unravel mixture. us takefirst battery concepts. this Let his of Durkheim dealswitha plurality discrete of societies, eachcontaining number a ofhumanbeings, individuals who belongto thesociety. Each individual some has qualities aremerely that human, common all humanity, he hasother to and distinctive qualitiesthatderivefromheredity, presumably own physical his ancestry seenas distinct from ancestry anyoneelse. The individual aptitudes the of has and civilised taken granted his workwithout is of for in specific discussion the assumptions have be made. that to Someofhiscommentators that note Durkheim This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I62 J. A. BARNES ambitions holds and he the ideas beliefs; hasfeelings, most and relevant feeling in thecontext the of Division labour of being offeeling that Within single a coerced. society, individuals grouped are either segments, into sub-units society of largely similar oneanother, into to or organs, sub-units arecharacteristically that different from another. one By examining societies observer the discovers aboutthem. theRules facts In Durkheim that says social facts to be treated things this are as and slogan been has widely misunderstood. Benolt-Smullyan soi) has notedthat (I948: Durkheim the employs name for different and hence methodohis ‘thing’ four concepts that in The logical premise beread four may ways. interpretationDurkheim that claims owninthe ashis Rules is deals with (xliii), that sociology only externally observable In but is facts, this notalways borne in hiswritings. theDivision labour out of he distinguishes kinds facts. of and several Internal theevents phenomenona facts, in occur theminds individuals, that of us. these necessarily escape We canstudy internal only facts through external that anexpression andwhich the facts are of, in some sense the facts. of ofbeing symbolise, internal Thenotion exteriority, external, Durkheim applies twoways. in Some facts external the are to observer; belong they to theintractable and he to the records which seeks understand; reality observer he cannot theexternal to fit theories, histheories be fitted alter his but must facts But to them. Durkheim designates facts external some as because also are they or to experienced perceived theactor external him. as by One sub-class external contains are of social These characterised facts facts. not but that exert bytheir and onlybytheir exteriority, alsoby theconstraint they are The discusses lawsandcustoms, generality. mainsocial facts Durkheim that for these clearly are In Division labour isnotmuch he external observable. the and of concerned that with which other kindofsocial fact, social to statistics, waslater form basis his the of enquiry suicide. iseasy agree a lawconstrains to that those into It towhom applies, again find Durkheim the it uses notion constraint of but we that in a variety ways. Sometimes of constraint means needto conform social the to standards, atother but times constraint for isused pressure from stemming persons with or orelse mere mechanical prestige authority, for necessity (Lacombe I926: 40seven of 8). In the viewofBenoit-Smullyan, distinguishes different who meanings in constraint Durkheim’s between collective he writings, failsto distinguish inthe constraint, the asin enforcement law; cultural ofa determination, acceptance of theambient ofvalues adolescents scale by growing in a culture; up physical facts and where material limit determination, geographical other and possibilities; in in psychological compulsion, whenindividuals a crowdact in unison a as fromone kindof distinctive (Benoit-Smullyan 529). By shifting way I948: in constraint another, to is Durkheim able to set out his propositions forms difficult to verify to disprove. either or Laws and customs then in a are general that they applywidely throughout us external enable toinfer facts society, they and exert constraint. andother They of thepresence internal themost internal being fact that social of relevant facts, In social facts be solidarity. view the of insistence social must explained other that by it has and which sociologist to operate, is the these thefacts are facts, that with is a social to important stress byDurkheim’s that, definition, solidaritynotitself social fact. says: He This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I63 by does Butsocial solidarity completely phenomenon is a moral which, taken itself, not lend itself exact to observation indeed measurement. nor to To proceed this to classification for internal which fact us escapes anexternal andthis comparison, must we substitute this in light thelatter of which it the index symbolizesandstudy former the (DOL 64). between Despitethis, Durkheim’s book is arranged aroundthedistinction two in of kindsof solidarity. are therefore the unsatisfactory We position havingto of between whichis not itself defined two sub-types a phenomenon distinguish or observable. haveto takesolidarity granted. We for Durkheim divides solidarity solidarity intotwo types, positive negative, thenfurther and and divides positive are intotwo types, mechanical organic. All three and kindsof solidarity present in everyrealsociety, in varying to but proportions, it is possible distinguish and themanalytically. without any Mechanical solidarity bindstheindividual directly the society to to intermediary (DOL I29) and is predominant thosesocieties in belonging the in and of are collective type, whichthebeliefs sentiments eachmember thesame, not merely becauseof theircommonhumanity becauseof theircommon but or membership a specific in society. Organicsolidarity arises whenthemembers and sub-units a society of differ from one another dependon one another are but specialised controlled constrained regulated one another by somesingle or or by or sub-unit. Durkheim justifies use of terms saying: his by and Theterm [mechanical solidarity] notsignify itis produced mechanical does that by the artificial means. callitthat byanalogy the We only to cohesion which unites elements ofaninanimate as opposed that an of body to which makes unity oftheelements a out dependent living body…. Theindividual conscience, consideredthis in light, a simple is object uponthe collective andfollows ofitsmovements, possessed follows type all as the of owner those its (DOL 130). On theotherhand, organicsolidarity produced thedivision labourin is of by so society, thateach memberhas his own specific activity which makessome contribution thelivesof othermembers. member live alone, foreach to No can on of for He depends theactivities others hisown well-being. says: is In effect, the hand, onedepends much on one as each as more strictly society labour on of as more divided; onthe and, other, activity each asmuch the is more personal itismore This solidarity that amongthe higher specialized…. resembles whichwe observe animals. organ, effect, its Each in has special itsautonomy. moreover, And, physiognomy, theunity theorganism as great theindividuationtheparts more of of is is as marked. of analogy, propose callthesolidarity is dueto thedivision of Because this we to which labour, organic’ (DOL I3I). of the Organicand mechanical solidarity together constitute two forms positive in makes little of use solidarity, contradistinction to negative solidarity. Durkheim theconcept negative of He any solidarity. saysthatitdoesnotproduce integration classof legalrules; butin to by itself (DOL I29), and thatit corresponds a certain he fact usesthetermas a synonym therules for themselves, thoserulesthatdefine betweenreal rights realproperty. faras I can tell, he makesno distinction to As property and chattels and hence speaksof ‘the solidarity things’, another of for synonym negative solidarity ‘real solidarity’ or (DOL i i6). He saysthatthese to rules’do not cause the people whom theyput in contact with one another or restore maintain, concur; they notdemand co-operation; they do any but simply This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I64 J. A. BARNES thelaw punishes’ (DOL 30I). ‘Normally’, hesays, ‘customis notopposedtolaw, but is, on the contrary, basis’. ‘If, then, thereare typesof social solidarity, its whichcustomalone manifests, are assuredly they secondary; produces law those whichareessential they theonlyoneswe needto know’ (DOL 65-66). and are The individuals who together makeup a society thought as eachhaving are of a conscience consciousness, we might a valuesystem, this or what call and conscience can be analysed intoitsparts. ‘Therearein eachofus … two consciences: which common ourgroup one is to initsentirety, which, consequently, notourself, society is but living acting and within us; the other, on the contrary, represents in us whichis personaland that that distinct, whichmakesus an individual…. However, thesetwo consciences are not in regions geographically distinct fromus, but penetrate fromall sides’ (DOL I29-30). The socialcomponent theconscience, commonor collective of the is elements contract notcontractual’ (DOL 2iI), anditis in thenon-contractual of that can find truesources organic we the solidarity Parsons (cf. 1937: 319, where says he Durkheim mistaken). was in to Indeed, hiseagerness overthrow the Hobbesian view of society, to reject randomness individual and the of goals, Durkheim almost as overlooks similarity the between solidarity there such may in beinspontaneous relations hisownorganic contractual and solidarity. Indeed, a later he varieties of passage, reinstates contractual as solidarityoneofthe important organic solidarity (DOL 38I). Durkheim makes distinction a a between andcustoms. law, he means laws By law as written a codeoflaws. There twosub-categories in are oflaw, repressive and restitutive, classified to to of attached them. according thekinds sanctions Somesanctions, Durkheim, ‘consist in or at a says essentiallysuffering, least loss, inflicted the on agent. or They make on or demands hisfortune, onhishonour, on hislife, on hisliberty, deprive ofsomething enjoys. callthem or and him he We repressive. constitute law’. ‘As for other itdoesnot They penal the type necessarily for agent, consists ofthe imply suffering the but returnthings they as only of were, in there-establishment of troubled relations their to normal state'(DOL 69). Restitutive arefurther laws divided twotypes, into those dealing real with rights, i. e. rights things, mentioned over as above, andthose dealing with interpersonal rights, itisthese Durkheim and that makes ofasthe use external ofthe sign inward organic solidarity. concept custom notdivided in thesameway, The is of up andDurkheim little sayinthis has to bookabout custom other totreat as a than it feeble version thelaw. He says: of ‘Theacts which custom alone must repress notdifferent are innature those from regulating enforcing and contracts (Parsons I960: whose are this inthe newconditions which produced, negative solidarity circumits stances troubled functioning’ ii8). have (DOL kind industrial contractual He mentions another ofsolidarity, yet or solidarity to to Durkheim refers itprincipallyshow to (DOL xviii, 200) attributed Spencer. of that is spurious. wouldbe thesolidarity a society which it It in individuals, his were linked bya vast of each with owngoals values, and only system particular refutes principally entered Durkheim contracts 203) spontaneously into. (DOL this, on known by reference thelimitations to of placed every by society thekinds of contracts are validand by theexistence elaborate that for legalmachinery I I9-20). inthe ‘Foreverything This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY i65 conscience DOL 79), is itself (cf. dividedinto two parts. There is an affective element consisting sentiments ‘phenomenaof sensibility’, thereis a of and and representative elementconsisting ideas and doctrines of (DOL I70). As with solidarity laws, theproportions whichthese and in different varieties conscience of are foundin different in individuals any society, and in different societies, vary. It is withthe manner whichtheseproportions in vary, relative one another, to thatDurkheim principally is concerned. Solidarity, andconscience three Durkheim’s law are of variables, onlyone of and these readily is accessible scientific to Thereis, therefore, likelihood the observation. of thewhole system analysis of becoming tautologous self-fulfilling, it and were notforthefourth variable, division labour, aspect socialmorphology. the of an of Itis this variable givesthebookitstitle, which that and perhaps provided newest the in element Durkheim’s thesis. concept division labourseems The of of nowhere to be defined explicitly as we shallsee, there no cleardistinction and, is between what we would call specialisation fragmentation activities. Durkheimmerely and of says: … co-operation. does come .. not of To about without division labour. co-operate, the in short, to participate a common is in task. it is divided If intotasks qualitatively similar, mutually but indispensable, isa simple there division labour the degree. of of first Ifthey ofa different are character, is compound there division labour, of specialization properly (DOL 124) called. The division labour, of however, onlywhatwe wouldcallan intervening is variable for, in Durkheim’s terms, is ‘a derivedand secondary it phenomenon’which ‘passeson the surface social life’. He therefore of warnsus againstmistaking a of for superficial division labour, acquiredby imitation diffusion, thegenuine or article (DOL 282, n. 30). The division labouris likewisenot to be confused of in withmutualism, hostile whereby two mutually societies ‘exchangeproducts a more or less regularmanner'(DOL 28I-2), nor with differentiation and ‘pure in simple’, whencertain as persons specialise crime, this the’verynegation for is of solidarity’ (DOL 353). Thus, to this extent, Durkheimadmitsas divisionof labouronlythose kinds occupational of specialisation whichsatisfy relationship the between division labourand socialsolidarity he is seeking demonstrate. to of that As befits scientist, a Durkheim and recognises value of measurement uses the several is quantitative concepts. Yet, in manycasesno attempt made to provide rulesfordetermining thesequantities operationally, we are givenonlystateand ments about’larger’and ‘smaller’and thelike. Durkheim refers thevolumeof to sociallife(DOL I98), thevolumeofa legalcode (DOL 205), thesizeand intensity of variousphenomena. to Indeed, he gives considerable attention the way in whicha givencomponent, thelaw or in theconscience, varyin size both in can and relatively the othercomponents. Most of his commentators to absolutely to have overlooked thisaspectof Durkheim’s but methodology, it is interesting notethattheanalytical of concomitant tool variation, whichDurkheim develops in in is in form theDivision labour. considerably Suicide, present embryonic of ‘Vivacity’ (DOL 237) is anotherapparently quantitative concept, but the notionof quantity and measurement most developedin Durkheim’suse of is ‘density’. He deals with ‘materialdensity’which we would call population between and of whichis therelation density, ‘moralor dynamic density society’, This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i66 J. A. BARNES ‘individuals in contact be ableto actandreact sufficiently to upononeanother’ and ‘theactive commerce resulting it’ (DOL 257). The ‘condensation from of society’ ‘socialdensity’ and (DOL 260) seemto be synonyms population for density. There two other are analytical concepts which by Durkheim to linkhis tries of four the variables: ‘function’ ‘type’. He says:’To askwhat function the and division labour is to seek theneedwhich supplies’ of it for is, (DOL 49). Endless confusion followed has Durkheim’s popularisation thisterm, I cannot of and unravel confusion Itmust sufficient this in here. be tonotethat Merton’s terminologyDurkheim concerned ‘latent is with or function’ rather with than manifest the mathematical function (Merton I949: 22, 62). In theDivision labour term of ‘function’restricted is tobeneficial function. inoneofhis Thus numerous biological analogies Durkheim with says, referencecrime: to and oforganic without … cancer tuberculosis the increase diversity tissues bringing forth a newspecialization of ofbiologic functions. these Inall cases, is no partitiona there or common of function, in themidst theorganism, but, whether individual social, another isformed seeks live the of first. there even which to at expensethe Inreality, isnot a function, way acting this for in a of merits name if joins othersmaintaining only it with life general (DOL 353-4). inhis to Frequently bookDurkheim tothe refers ‘collective asopposed the type’ ‘individual type’ (DOL I06-3 3). The English-speaking at leastasks reader is that ‘type what?’ theanswer notimmediately Sometimesseems of it and clear. the collective individual aretypes consciencewhich orthe and of in other types one at these are corresponding component predominates; other times seems it that in of types society which consciencesthese of kinds tobe found. either In are case, Durkheim histypes what wouldcallpolar idealtypes. uses as we or Durkheim usesa batch evaluative also of concepts, usually adjectival in form. He describes phenomena ‘abnormal’ as (DOL I90), ‘decadent’ (DOL I96), ‘pathological’ (DOL I96, 27I) or ‘morbid’ (DOL 2I9). These words seem be to interchangeable, arecontrasted another ‘normal’ and with set: (DOL 375), what ‘ought be’ (DOL I90), ‘healthy’, to ‘spontaneous’ (DOL 377) andthelike. This useofterms from springs Durkheim’s conviction scientific that enquiry provides theonlyreliable basisforpolitical action, it involves in considerable but him inhis difficulties effortsfind scientific for good. to a basis the Finally, introduces he a useful typology sanctions. is fairly of This straightforward I need discuss for hasbecome ofthegeneral and not it, it part stock-in-trade ofsocial enquiry (DOL 69; cf. Radcliffe-Brown 205-I9). I952: Propositions Using conceptual this scheme, Durkheim makes several substantive propositions. Many these made passant, twocentral of are en but theses emerge from book. the Firstly, asserted societies inbroad itis that may, terms, placed a morphological be on andatleast partly historical continuum. oneendofthe At continuum primitive are societies; these characterisedinternal are by differentiationsimilar into segments with negligible division labour, codes aremainly of legal that repressive, a collective conscience predominates individual that ineach member’s over individual mind the low component, moral density, small population mechanical and solidarity. At This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM ‘S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I67 theother arethe end higher societies characterisedinternal by differentiation into many distinct organs, great a division labour, legal of a codethat predominantly is concerned restitutive with regulation inter-personal a collective of rights, conscience constitutes a modest that only portion themindof eachindividual, of highmoral density, population organic large and solidarity. we haveseen, As solidarity conscience internal so that and are facts, essentially first the proposition amounts no morethan to saying (though Durkheim might protest this)that at the extent thedivision labour a society correlated of of in is positively moral with and density with predominance the ofrestitutive concerned inter-personal laws with rights itslegal in code, correlated and negatively the with predominance ofrepressivelaws. Thesecond propositionthat society’s is a movement from primitive away the andtowards higher ofthecontinuumdueto a causal the end as is chain running A follows. society begins increase population tohave higher to a in and population density. Consequently, struggle existence the for becomes moreacuteand, in order survive, to members thesociety of develop division labour. a of Durkheim says: Thanks [the to divisionlabour] of opponentsnot are obliged fight a finish, can to to but exist beside other. inproportion development, of one the Also, the toits itfurnishes means maintenance and survivala greater to numberindividuals inmore of who, homogeneous societies, becondemned would toextinction 270). (DOL Theincreasing division labour leads a higher of a decline then to moral density, in thecollective component theconscience, in a shift thestructurethelaw, in of andthegrowth organic of solidaritytheexpense mechanical at of solidarity. in Thisproposition beendescribed theonlyserious has as attempt anywhere Durkheim’s writings provide explanationsocial to an of change (Benolt-Smullyan I948: 5i8), but there little is evidence support (cf. to it Schnore i958: 627). Durkdevotes of heim almost much as space attacking argumentshisopponents to the as hedoes putting to the forward for He evidence hisownassertions. doesnotdiscuss many possible alternative responses increased to competition Alpert (cf. I939: 94). He relies he forward quite heavily theargument elimination, on inwhich puts by an array alternatives advances is of and argumentseliminate butone, which to all then declared be proved to I that correct. However, think one reason whythe is evidence advanced Durkheim by appears ustobesoinadequatethat, to although the whole of bookisproclaimed beananalysis to to manner science, according the infact are Durkheim continually to showthat somesense conclusions tries his in inherent hisdefinitions, do notrequire support fresh in and data. the of empirical Itis significant inthis first there comparatively appeal the to little that his book is facts more and he in later ofhistory ethnography, whereas his writingsismuch closely ‘Durkheim concerned theanalysis specific AsLevi-Strauss with of remarks: facts. social him struggled between methodological his which attitude, made consider facts as as ” things andhis “, philosophical formation uses which those ” things” a ground onwhich fundamental he the can seated. Kantian ideals befirmly Hence, oscillates between dullempiricism an aprioristic a and frenzy’ (Levi-Strauss S28). I945: and In theDivision labour arestill therealm thephilosophy history in of of of we In it havenotyetentered fresh the of fields sociological enquiry. fact, wouldbe 2-M. This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i68 J. A. BARNES the (AlpertI939: 96). Heredity influenced divisionof labour (DOL 305), has societies. The physical environment particularly amongthemoreprimitive may of to its causea segment society specialise activities becomean organwitha and function becomeswider, recognised (DOL 263). As thescaleof socialinteraction therealentities becomemorenumsymbolised thecollective by representations becomesmore abstract erous, and hence the common conscience (DOL 287), anditscharacteristic is thecultoftheindividual dogma (DOL I07, I72). Under of the and conditions socialchange wisdomoftheagedis lessrevered thebondsof tradition loosened, as, likewise, are theyare in citieswherethe aged are comless numerousthantheyare in the country. Hence individuals paratively feel to followtheir is freer own inclinations there greater in and diversity occupations (DOL 294-6). It is thena multiple chainof causation thatDurkheimis putting or forward, it is difficult either and to verify disprove it. Partof thefirst thatthedivision labouris positively of mainthesis, correlated laws withinter-personal and withthepredominance restitutive concerned of rights withthepredominance repressive of to and negatively laws, is easier tackle, indeed in to disprove, and its disproof turnthrowsdoubt on the secondproposition. Durkheimsupports arguments his with some comparative evidenceon legal is but codeswhichI havealready to mentioned, theevidence confined onepart only of thecorrelation. showsthatvariouslegal codes do differ He from another, one in butonlytakes granted corresponding for the differences thedivision labour. of in general of Durkheim terms thelevelof thedivision labourin speaks only of and some of his critics have not been verysuccessful too specified societies, in to givingprecision thisterm. Thus, for example, one attempt disprove to the ‘primitive communism i. e. of in theory’, thatthedivision labouris non-existent theprimitive material thekindavailable Durkheim, of world, using to to managed that of assert amongtheAranda central Australia there weresevendistinct domestic functions performed women and threeby men, and thatin the whole of by therewere ten different for Aranda activities occupations men and threefor of of is women. The unreliability thismethod analysis shownby thefactthatthis sameinvestigator found onlyone recognised domestic for activity womenamong theWarramunga noneformen(WatsonI929). Yet, in fact, and these two tribes of arequitecloseto oneanother in thedivision labourthey almost and are identical. But themainweakness thefirst is of thesis that ethnographic the evidence shows in are that, general, primitive societies not characterised repressive by laws. Durkheimtook his evidence legal codesfromclassical on and antiquity earlyEurope, and somehistorical of progression thekindhe had in mindmayhave taken place evenin thisareaMerton there, though holdshe was mistaken (MertonI934: 326). But this cannot extended theprimitive be to progression world, wherelegalcodes do not existin writing, at all. In stateless if societies almostalljural rulesare, in theseterms, restitutive rather thanrepressive. that Indeed, it is interesting in an basedon evidence fromforty-eight and inquiry societies, aimed to testwhether toprove second this to facts, even since quite difficult proposition referencethe by is is conclusive thedivision labour hardto quantify there little of evidence and In for level moral the of at time Durkheim density any anywhere. any case, hedges hisassertion introducing he several by secondary factors, though doesnotdiscuss a causeanda secondary what difference is between primary there factor logical This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I69 or not Tonnies, Durkheim, Park, Small, Maine, Redfieldand Riesmanare all termsabout the same dimensionof societalcomplexity, talkingin different whatDurkheim to had theauthors have, perhaps unconsciously, overlooked quite in of of variables terms greater sayaboutthedevelopment law. Theyexamine eight and or lesssocietal as complexity, suggested these by theorists, equatepunishment and actionwithgreater by government complexity, punishment the person by & wrongedwith less complexity (Freeman Winch I957: 46I, 463). Yet, the is showsthat is governmental it action that typically record ethnographic repressive, and redress self-help is restitutive. Nisbet(i965: 30) notes, is perhaps that As it by Durkheim doesnotrefer allto socialsolidarity at significant inhislater that writings generated repressive by laws. of Durkheim on firmer is groundwhenhe correlates division labourwith the thisis hardto statequantitatively. theDivisionoflabour In moraldensity, though his moraland material Durkheim weakens own casesomewhat treating by density this as interchangeable, in theRuleshe corrects fault. Herskovits citesDurkand heim’sproposition: of of in and Thedivision labour varies direct with volume density societies, if ratio the and, it progressesa continuous in of it is in manner thecourse social development, because and more societies become denser generally voluminous regularly (DOL 262). this comments: is notpossible document statement, ‘It to Herskovits especially in its dynamic it aspects. Yet if the quantitative precision impliesis not insisted mainassertions this in Thusthedifficulty testing of Durkheim’s book liespartly in the absenceof data with historical depthfroman adequately wide rangeof terms involve on societies, partly and from fact the that propositions his which, his own definitions, not accessible observation. are to Mechanical and organic solidand collective individual and arity typesof conscience may be handynamesfor of concerned withlegalsystems, recognised constellations observable facts occupasize. But theycannotbe tionalspecialisation, and population density population criteria introduced whichtheir morethanmerenamesunless are independent by ThisDurkheim to existence be provedor disproved. can failed do. The singularly in term’solidarity’ come to have a clearmeaning did of later, thewritings Leon the but his book, La solidarite, published was after Division labour Bourgeois, of I960: I). (Alpert I939: I78; I94I; Richter Despitethis lackofoperational definition, notionofsocialsolidarity the remains central Durkheim’s to of Formsof thedivision labourare assessed argument. as normalor pathological to according thekindof socialsolidarity theyengender. We havenotedearlier thatDurkheim the crime as rejected notionofprofessional an exampleof thedivision labour. Nevertheless does admitthree of he kindsof of as or thedivision labourthathe classes exceptional pathological (DOL 353-4). First is there thedivision labourcharacterised chronic of by conflict between capital Thisanomic form is andlabour. arises because there inadequate contact between the variousorgansof society, and thisin turnis due in partto thelack ofjuridical of of determination the rights capitaland labour(DOL 367), and in partto the as fact cannot the for the that, organised society develops, producer appraise market his productat a glance. Hence production becomesunregulated thereare and carriesconsiderable a upontheposition validity’ (i952: I42). This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I70 J. A. BARNES periodic crises (DOL 370). This is pathological, under for normalconditions, the his workeris ‘not a machinewho repeats movements without knowing their ‘ he of meaning, … he feels is serving but something’ . . . thisessential character of (DOL 372-3). thedivision labour… is above all a sourceof solidarity’ Yet, if under-regulation insufficient and contact lead to an anomicdivision of labour, too muchregulation may lead to another pathological form, forced the of if division labour. Thereis no spontaneity peopleare linkedto their functions only by constraint, we have only an imperfect and and troubledsolidarity. Durkheim herehas in mindcastesocieties, he goes on to distinguish and between inequality incomeand status, of whichis not necessarily bad, and inequality in of whathe callstheexternal conditions conflict (DOL 379), whichis bad. Overor regulation, occupational specialisation prescription by rather thanby achievein stateof affairs whichsocial inequalities thatdesirable ment, prevents exactly and This express natural inequalities labouris dividedspontaneously. is achieved intoand adhered (DOL 377). to entered by contracts spontaneously Finally, some societies, functional in the activity each worker insufficient of is Durkheim of doesnotgiveanymodern to produce required the degree solidarity. but thatas societies examplesof thispathological condition, notesapprovingly advancethereis less leisure.’In societies whichare exclusively and agricultural labouris almostentirely pastoral, suspended duringthe seasonof bad weather’. But as we advance, work becomesa ‘permanent occupation’and ‘if sufficiently ‘not only of strengthened, a need’. The division labourmakesindividuals solidary of becauseit limits activity each, butalso becauseit increases (DOL 394-5). the it’ Developments someassessment theDivision labour, maybe convenient Beforemaking of of it to notesomeofthedevelopments havesprung that from In a sense, greatest it. the of these theworkof Durkheim is himself as already the for, mentioned, seedsof muchof hissubsequent writings, Rules, Suicide Elementary are to be the and forms in In found theDivision labour. theRuleshe stresses autonomy socialfacts the of of to a greater extent thanin theDivision labour, thatthephysical so environment of in andfactors heredity becomelessadmissable links thechain socialcausation. as of of is The collective in an conscience conceived theDivision labour containing of as but or element is mainly that affective component, itis thecognitive representative in dealtwith. In laterwork, particularly theElementary these forms, representative on elements an of coercive force theinbeginto acquire autonomy their own, their is comes at exdividual stressed, hence affective and the element alsoto bestressed the in of In penseof sentiments arising theindividual component theconscience. the is Division labour collective the withthefactthatthe of conscience linkedclosely to members a society of themselves be, similar one another; to are, and perceive Durkheimis concerned with culturally homogeneous, not plural, societies. and But in Suicide collective the is the conscience seenas merely system moralbeliefs of commonto members a society of and sentiments (Parsons I937: 337; cf DOL I29) or whether not theyhave the same occupations socialstatuses. and Durkheim’s nextstepis to concentrate these on ideasand beliefs rather thanon thelegalcodes so of of and occupational comesto be thestudy systems groupings, that sociology thansystems action(ParsonsI937: 446). Thistrend now in full of is ideasrather This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I7I on of floodin French anthropology under leadership Levi-Strauss, whom the the mantle Mausshas descended who maybe regarded Durkheim’s of as heir. and conscience the existWe can distinguish, leastanalytically, at between collective ing as an entity itsown, independent anyindividual on of manifestation, any and is individual’s imperfect comprehension it. But Durkheim neverclearon this of and it himto thecharge advocating of distinction hisfumbling towards exposes a groupmind. Some modern writers assert thatthe distinction be understood can constrain speech the of withthelawsofgrammar, whichunconsciously byanalogy of even the ignorant unschooled peasant. Durkheimacceptedthe existence the unconscious mindin an articlehe published I898 (DurkheimI953: 2I-3; Cf in NeyerI960: 6I-2). Yet Levi-Strauss comments: Thesolution Durkheim’s of factitious antinomy intheawareness these lies that objectistructures underlie vated systems ideas unconscious that of are or unconscious psychical them make and them possible. Hence their as and time the character” things” atthesame dialectic-I mean ofthis un-mechanical-character explanation. (Levi-Strauss 528) 1945: WhileMoliereallowsMonsieurJourdain discover to that merely he hasbeentalkingproseall hislifewithout knowing Levi-Strauss it, makes himobeytherules of grammar well. as A no lessfruitful consequence Durkheim’s of book hasbeenthedevelopment of thenotion organic of solidarity through Mauss’study exchange an integrating of as mechanism, seenin his book Thegift. as in Durkheim theDivision labour of still regards socialsolidarity derivedin partfromsuchnon-social as factors ‘The as affinities thecommunity blood brings that of about’ (DOL I75), butin later work hisfollowers haveexpanded socialcausesof solidarity. exchange goods the of The and services of through division labouris seento be only one sourceof the the multiplex diverse and socialtiesthat bindtogether members a differentiated the of society. I have already referred theworkof Radcliffe-Brown theclassification to on of as on of sanctions, where, in hiswritings law andin hisuseoftheconcept function, hefollows Durkheim Yet to influence closely. itis curious notehow little Durkheim seems havehadon anthropology America, leastuntil at to in quiterecently. Lowie, in despite devoting chapter Durkheim hisHistory a to ofethnological managed theory, to writehis threemajor books on social organisation Social (Primitive society, organization The origin thestate) and without singlereference Durkheim. a to of Evenmoresurprisingthat theweighty is in Anthropology with966 pagesand today, to there references Durkheim, ofthese two fifty bibliographies, areonlyfour being in This is the more remarkable thatit was an anthropologist, by Levi-Strauss. for who Durkheim’s Radcliffe-Brown, was partly responsible introducing work to sociologists America, as Nisbet (I964: 4) stresses. in Durkheim’swritings on religion were closerto American interests anthropological priorto I950 than he and anything hadto sayaboutsocialorganisation, theformer havebecome may so mucha partof anthropological that citation was unnecessary. thinking direct Yet theapparent for of of irrelevance theDivision labour studies social organisaof tionis strange. there SinceDurkheim, havebeenonlytwoserious to attempts study thedivision labouron a world-wide of was scale. The first in 1915 by Hobhouse, Wheelerand Ginsberg, the secondin i9s5 by Udy in a book whose title and This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I72 J. A. BARNES mirrors analysis of of work: a comparative exactly Durkheim’s-Organization to book is there reference any production non-industrial In neither among peoples. part Durkheim. seems hisbookis already ofprehistory. It that Assessment of Either can see it as a we Therearetwo waysoflookingat theDivision labour. towardsthe defeatof the social nominalists, of Spencerin and contribution professional of as particular, towards establishment sociology a recognised and the in to academic discipline France; or elsewe can view it as a contribution presentaboutsocialcohesion, legal development, occupational specialisation day thinking if would takeus too farforour present and so on. The latter, fullydeveloped, yield rather meagreresults. purposeand would, as I have alreadysuggested, would require muchgreater a knowledge Durkheim’s of To exploretheformer and adversaries I have. All I can do is to offer few than a philosophical sociological of on method he comments points Durkheim’s that, evenseventy years after wrote, stillseemrelevant. In the first place, Durkheimseemsto have been verypoorlyservedby his He in an terminology. wrote, so Alpertclaims, as mechanical idiom as possible that and henceit is not surprising some (AlpertI939: 85) forpolemicalreasons He was misunderstood Malinowski, who said by people took him literally. was ‘slavish, thatDurkheimclaimedthatthere fascinated, passiveobedience’to socialcodes(Malinowski syndicalism I939: 208). He didnotsupport I926: 4; Alpert I960: corporate state (Richter (Parsons I937: 339), nor did he advocatethefascist both theseaccusations were broughtagainsthim. He has been I96), although his accusedofbreaking own canonsof explanation saying that causeof the the by is fact, the growthof growthof organicsolidarity to be foundin a non-social and on thisscore his latestdefender (SchnoreI958: 624) gives the population, list Parsonsand Sorokinas all having impressive of Alpert, Benoit-Smullyan, All Durkheim. of these points substance he can scarcely of and misunderstood ire thathe could not be expected writeclearly to about be excusedon thegrounds is he abouttheaverage, northe everything had to say. More serious hisconfusion mal, thehealhy and theideal. In Rules, Durkheimsaysthatthenormaltypeis is withthe averagetypeand thateverydeviation fromthisstandard a identical I948: 504), but he never pathological phenomenon (Rules: 64; Benoit-Smullyan even Halbwachspoints statement. followedconsistently thisclear, if surprising, whichDurkheim the as outthat rising suicide should, regarded so undesirable, rate, be by Durkheim’sown criteria, judged to be quite normal(Benoit-Smullyan for Divisionof labour thereis greater confusion, I948: 529, n. 2I). In the earlier thatsickness not ‘partof thenormaltypeof old age. On the is writes Durkheim of the just as thoseof the adult’ contrary, illnesses old age are abnormalfacts the for (DOL 433, n. 22). He seeksto identify ‘normalmoralfact a givensocial diffuse sanction to attaching it (DOL 435), but whilethis type’ by therepressive like crimerates. may work forrulesof conductit cannotapplyto phenomena of to Peristiany (1953: viii-xx)devotesmostof his introduction the translation and but Durkheim’s to on Sociology philosophy commenting thesepoints, Durkfor that the heim’s usages stillremainconfused me. It is perhapssignificant This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I73 Herbert seventeenth century poembyGeorge (194I: in occurs that in of of longest discussion these concepts theDivision labour of portion thepreface thefirst to edition whichwas omitted from secondand subsequent the Therewould seemto me to be a fundamental conflict betweenDurkeditions. in in heim’sattempt look at valuesrelativistically, the context the society of to that certain socialconditions are and at whichthey held, hisinsistence thesametime This conflict obscured lack of clarity is areintrinsically pathological. by aboutthe status the norm, whichis equatedat one momentwith the averageand at of withthehealthy, this another withwhat oughtto be. Unfortunately particular still at confusion persists, leastterminologically. AlpertclaimsthatDurkheimrecognised integrative the value of conflict in there little the is in Division I960: I94) but social (Alpert life 1941: 173; cfRichter of to this dismissal whatDurkoflabour support view. Indeed, thecontemptuous and heimcallsmutualism, between of limited co-operation enemies, hisrestriction theconcept function beneficial of to function, suggest he lookeduponinternal that of conflict essentially as unhealthy and destructive solidarity. Solidarity and integration seenas good in themselves, themorethebetter. concept are and The of is in altruism useda little the Division labour of (DOL I96, I97, 228) butit is not of linkedto suicide, whichby the criteria Suicide whilethosesuicides would be classed as altruistic to are here referred as not ‘true suicide’ (DOL 246-7). is Hencethere no needto discuss dangers excessive the of integration. Instead, we as haveseen, thatthedivision labourproduces of Durkheim argues solidarity if only it is spontaneous, forced not (DOL 376-7). Theremust external be equality that so cannot to be realised, fail between natures socialfunctions and ‘harmony individual at least in the averagecase. For, if nothingimpedesor undulyfavours those it who aremostaptat eachkindof disputing tasks, is inevitable onlythose over that activity indulge it’. ‘It will be said thatit is not alwayssufficient make will in to men content, thatthereare some men whose desires beyondtheirfaculties. go cases'(DOL 376). Thisis true, these exceptional but are and, one maysay, morbid can The freedom findtheright to nichein society be secured onlyby conscious based on actionon the partof the state, and only by thisactioncan a society conscience. organicsolidarity survive, sinceit cannotrelyon itsweak collective Far is to Hence ‘liberty itself theproduct regulation. frombeingantagonistic of socialaction, results it from socialaction'(DOL 386). of It is true of that thepolitically in mostcontroversial section theDivision labour Durkheimprotests thatthisidyllicstateof affairs farfrombeing realised is in to contemporary France. He might have been surprised findthatit was to be in between SovietRussiabetween warsthat notions theconnexion of the his organic in on mostexplicit solidarity thedivision labourfound and of expression, thestress workers thesocialvalue of thehumblest tasks performed factory by (Friedmann by StephenSpender I955: 49). This view is foundin the poem ‘The funeral’ in (1955: 53), published the early1930S. on Deathis another milestone their way. round them winds With on laughter their andwith lips blowing They record simply in belts. 2 all How this exceeded others making one driving in are sentiments to be found a that However, it shouldbe remembered similar I85). This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 174 J. A. BARNES A servant this with clause Makes drudgerie divine: Whosweeps room, for laws, a as thy Makes andth’action that fine. Divine determinism dialectical and materialism providethe solidarity both Durkheim reserved applied for positive science. in But Durkheim’s recipe harmony twentieth for century industrial society in neither thechanges industrial with tallies organisation hisday, brought since nor about increased the of by mechanisation, with findings industrial psychology. of Georges Friedmann his ends discussion’Durkheim’s andthe thesis contemporary of of forms thedivision labour’ saying: by the which the of report, forms During half-century hasfollowed publicationthis the taken inindustrial have the the consebyspecialisation society only enlarged gapbetween ideal of of as quences thedivision labour Durkheim them that expounded andthe effects real in we observe oursocieties. (Friedmann 58) I955: Inmuch same the spirit, Richter writes Durkheim investigated that never political with like care institutions anything the hegavetohiswork suicide religion. on and He says: limitations of Durkheim’s thought nowhere clear when in The are more than put political the oftwentieth totalitarianism. i960: I99, 204) perspective century (Richter of The virtues theDivision labour must found it be elsewhere. of Negatively, provided arguments against utilitarianism. Positively, was thefirst it substantial of statement theview thatvalues, beliefs aspirations not randomly and were the distributed nor from throughout population, diffused independently one to nor derived from common a society another, directly humanity. Rather, they wereto a significant shared members a society reason their of of degree by by The and content thesecommon of membership. form valueswerelikewise of connected withtheforms organisation thesociety, thata change of in so was or sooner later, a change values, viceversa. in and organisation followed, by all so for We take this much granted we tend forget that to where came it from. NOTES References Durkheim’s to own writings indicated shown: are as in of G. DOL Thedivision labor society. Ill.: Simpson, (trans.). Glencoe, The Free Press, I947. Rules Therules sociological of method. Solovay, S. A., & J. H. Mueller(trans.). Chicago: ChicagoU. P., I938 I953 Sociology andphilosophy. Pocock, D. F. (trans.). London: Cohen& West. 2Quoted withacknowledgments theauthor to and thepublishers, Messrs Faber& Faber. I REFERENCES Alpert, Harry I939. EmileDurkheim hissociology. J. and (Studies history, in and economics publiclaw 445) New York: ColumbiaU. P. — I94I. EmileDurkheim andthetheory socialintegration. soc. Philos. I72-84. of J. 6, Emile I948. The sociologism Emile Durkheim Benoit-Smullyan, of and his school. In An introduction historysociology Barnes, tothe of (ed.) Harry Elmer. Chicago: ChicagoU. P. Bohannan, Paul I960. Conscience collective culture. Wolff, H. (ed.) I960. and In K. Faris, Ellsworth I934. EmileDurkheim thedivision laborin society. on of Review in Am. J. Sociol. 376-7. 40, Freeman, Linton & Winch, C. RobertFrancis I957. Societal complexity: empirical of an test a typology societies. of Am. J. Sociol. 46I-6. 62, This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DURKHEIM S DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY I75 Friedmann, Georges I955. La these Durkheim lesformes de contemporainesla division de du et travail. Cah. intern. Sociol. 45-58. 19, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Herbert, George1941. Theworks George of Herbert. Herskovits, J. I952. Economic M. anthropology: incomparative a study economics. York: Knopf. New M. culture social and Hobhouse, T., Wheeler, C. & Ginsberg, I9I 5. Thematerial L. G. institutions an & ofthe simple peoples: essay correlation. in London: Chapman Hall. de e’tude Lacombe, Roger E. I926. La me’thode sociologiqueDurkheim: critique. Paris: Alcan. In Levi-Strauss, Claude I945. French sociology. Twentieth century sociology (eds.) Gurvitch, G., & W. E. Moore, New York: Philosophical Library. Lowie, R. H. I937. Thehistoryethnological London: Harrap. of theory. in London: KeganPaul, Trench, B. and Malinowski, I926. Crime customsavage society. Trubner. In to edition. Socialism Saint-Simon, and Mauss, MarcelI958. Introduction thefirst Durkheimn, Ohio: Antioch Press. Emile. Yellow Spring, R. Divisionoflaborin society. AmJ. Sociol. 3I6-28. Merton, K. I934. Durkheim’s 40, and the I949. Social theory socialstructure: towards codificationtheory research. of and Ill.: Glencoe, The FreePress. and in In K. Neyer, Joseph I960. Individualism socialism Durkheim. Wolff, H. (ed.), I960. selected … R. Durkheim with Nisbett, A. I965. Emile essays. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.: Prentice Hall. social action. Ill.: Parsons, Talcott I937. Thestructure of Glencoe, The FreePress (2nded., I949.) contribution thetlheory integration socialsystems. Wolff, to of of In I960. Durkheim’s K. H. (ed.) I960. In and Peristiany, G. I953. Introduction. Sociology philosophy, J. Durkheim, Emile. London: Cohen& West. and hisintellectual Peyre, HenriI960. Durkheim: man, histime, the background. Wolff, In K. H. (ed.) I960. Radcliffe-Brown, R. I952. Structure function primitive A. and in society: essays addresses. and London: Cohen& West. In Richter, MelvinI960. Durkheim’s politics political and theory. Wolf, K. H. (ed.) I960. Schnore, F. I958. Socialmorphology human Leo and ecology. 63, Am. J. Sociol. 620-34. Simpson, GeorgeI933. EmileDurkheim’s socialrealism. Sociol. Res. i8, 3-II. soc. Spender, Stephen I955. Collectedpoems 1928-1953. London: Faber & Faber. Udy, Stanley Hart, jr. I959. Organization work: comparative of a analysis production of among non-industrial New Haven: H. R. A. F. Press. peoples. T. Walter I929. A new census an old theory: and division laborin thepreliterate of Watson, world. 34, Am. J. Sociol. 632-52. Kurt I960 (ed.). Emile H. a Wolff, Durkheim, 1858-1917: collection ofessays translations a with and bibliography. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio StateU. P. This content downloaded from 158. 143. 192. 135 on Mon, 6 May 2013 07: 42: 11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Thank's for Your Vote!
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 1
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 2
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 3
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 4
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 5
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 6
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 7
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 8
Durkheim and division of labour. Page 9

This work, titled "Durkheim and division of labour" was written and willingly shared by a fellow student. This sample can be utilized as a research and reference resource to aid in the writing of your own work. Any use of the work that does not include an appropriate citation is banned.

If you are the owner of this work and don’t want it to be published on AssignBuster, request its removal.

Request Removal
Cite this Essay


AssignBuster. (2022) 'Durkheim and division of labour'. 31 July.


AssignBuster. (2022, July 31). Durkheim and division of labour. Retrieved from https://assignbuster.com/durkheim-and-division-of-labour/


AssignBuster. 2022. "Durkheim and division of labour." July 31, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/durkheim-and-division-of-labour/.

1. AssignBuster. "Durkheim and division of labour." July 31, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/durkheim-and-division-of-labour/.


AssignBuster. "Durkheim and division of labour." July 31, 2022. https://assignbuster.com/durkheim-and-division-of-labour/.

Work Cited

"Durkheim and division of labour." AssignBuster, 31 July 2022, assignbuster.com/durkheim-and-division-of-labour/.

Get in Touch

Please, let us know if you have any ideas on improving Durkheim and division of labour, or our service. We will be happy to hear what you think: [email protected]