Durkheim’s major concern as a sociologist is the theme of social order and integration. Auguste Comte suggests that it is social and moral consensus that holds society together. Common ideas, values, norms and mores bind individuals and society together[1]. Herbert Spencer puts across a different view. According to Spencer, it is an interplay of individual interests that holds society together. It serves the selfish interests of individuals to strive for integration[2], thus social life is possible. Durkheim was at variance with these views. If, a Comte suggests, it is moral consensus that holds society together, then would not modern industrial society crumble? After all, modern society is characterised by heterogeneity, mobility, diversity in activities and values. It is a society where individualism is valued. Spencer’s suggestion that selfish interests hold society together was also found to be faulty by Durkheim. If indeed, individual interests hold sway, the resulting competition and antagonism would break the backbone of society. Each would struggle for his own profit even at the expense of the other. Conflict and tension would bring about social disintegration.

By the phrase of ‘division of labour’ we mean the splitting up of an activity into a number of parts or smaller processes. These smaller processes are undertaken by different persons or groups of persons, thereby speeding up the performance of the activity. Division of labour implies specialisation, (i.e., each person becoming an expert in his or her task) saving time and saving costs and at the same time increasing productivity.

The concept of division of labour was systematically discussed by the Scottish economist Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith felt that the division of labour was the primary source of economic progress. It was vehicle through which economic development would advance.

It is the social aspect of this phenomenon that Emile Durkheim examines in The Division of Labour in Society.

The Division of Labor in Society his first important work, Like Comte, Spencer, and many others, Durkheim observed that societies develop from simple, undifferentiated “mechanical” societies to complex, highly differentiated “organic” societies to complex, highly differentiated “organic” societies. Simple societies are based upon the likeness of their parts, complex ones on differences. In simple societies a common system of values, beliefs, and norms-what Durkheim termed “the collective conscience-regulates social affairs. In more complex societies, however, differences in system parts “require” additional mechanisms of integration. It becomes increasingly difficult. Durkheim asked two basic questions in The Division of Labor:  What caused the movement from mechanical to organic societies? What are the functions of the proliferating division of labor?

According to Giddens, the main substantive problem for Durkheim stems from "an apparent moral ambiguity concerning the relationship between the individual and society in the contemporary world." On the one hand, with specialization and the highly developed division of labour, individuals develop their own consciousness, and are encouraged in this specialization. On the other hand, there are also moral ideas encouraging people to be well rounded, of service to society as a whole. These two seem contradictory, and Durkheim is concerned with finding the historical and sociological roots of each of these, along with how these two seemingly contradictory moral guidelines are reconciled in modern society.

 Durkheim begins to build a proof of the division of labour as the basis for the different forms of solidarity. He then attempts to show the nature of society, how it changes over time, and how this results in the shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity.

Society with Mechanical solidarity is divided into quite small compartments, which envelop the individual completely. Originally, the segmental society was based on clans which were frequently found in less developed societies. But in the process of evolution, the segmental characteristics could not be confined to this one characteristic and started expanding on the bases of territories. This type of solidarity has arisen out of a number of common experiences of like members in a given society. Mechanical solidarity can be characterised by segmental system in which every segment is homogeneous and involved in the social structure. Mechanical solidarity is sui generis i.e. born in the natural course of events based on resemblances of individuals. It directly links them with the society. The segmental social structure is characterised by a low degree of interdependence. The segmental social structure has relatively low volume of moral and material density. This means that interactions take place among limited people (volume). It also means that the number of times people interact is also limited (density). People do the same type of work.  The social life is blended with religion and economic institutions of such a society are nearer to primitive communism as differentiations are few. The nature of laws is collective, Penal or repressive law is an indicator of mechanical solidarity.

In the case of society with organic solidarity, the differences among the individuals are visible to the extent that everybody has his specific field of activities and confines him or herself to that area only. Hence, the individual’s conscience is distinct from the collective conscience. It is characterised by high degree of interdependence. Organized social structure has relatively high volume (material and moral density). Societies become more and more voluminous and population becomes even more concentrated. Restitutive Law, with sanctions of restitutive or cooperative nature, works as an index of organic solidarity; this index consists of civil, commercial, procedural, administrative and constitutional laws, which had been abstracted from the penal rules, found in the less-advanced societies.  Durkheim argues about the forms of collective conscience where volume remains constant or probably diminishes, while its intensity and determinate character decline. Advancement of society through progressive development in the division of labour leads to a decline in the intensity and determinateness of collective states. The collective conscience seems to have less strength to carry the individuals in collective directions. Organic solidarity involves human oriented, secular and rational ideas.  Durkheim has seen the features of collective conscience in the system of beliefs. In advanced societies the supreme values not only bring dignity to an individual but also equality of opportunity. This has been explained in his work Ethic and social justice.

According to him, the basis or focus of social integration differs in pre-industrial and post-industrial societies. He demonstrates how the process of occupational specialisation or division of labour helps to integrate societies where heterogeneity, differentiation and complexity are to be found. These societies are those based on organic solidarity.

Durkheim’s causal analysis is rooted in various evolutionary processes going on in Societies. Migration and population growth coupled with new technologies such as transportation and communication systems; increase the number of potential relations in the society.  Population growth and the resulting increase in social relations escalates the level of “dynamic density”- that is the number and variety of contacts among people Such a situation typically leads to conflict over limited resources, with the result that occupational specialization occurs among those with varying levels of ability. The result is the division of labor, which makes people interdependent upon each other, and along with broad cultural values and beliefs, provides a new basis for social integration.

As can be seen, much of Durkheim’s argument is borrowed from Spencer. Population increases escalate the levels of competition, with the abilities of those in the competition determining their social niche in the division of labor. The causal imagery is also as vague as that attributed by Durkheim to Spencer. How and why does competition lead to a division of labor? One answer is a functional one: The division of labor is created because it is needed. Social systems must be integrated and thus the “need” for a new basis of integration “causes” the “struggle for existence” to be transformed into a division of labor.

Functional Explanation

 Societies based on organic solidarity are transformed by the growth of industrialisation. Thus, division of labour is very important aspect of such societies. A society based on organic solidarity is thus one where heterogeneity, differentiation and variety exist. The growing complexity of societies reflects in personality  

types, relationships and problems. In such a societies, the strength of the collective conscience lessens as individual conscience become more and more distinct, more easily distinguished from the collective conscience. Individual become increasingly valued. The kind of grip that social norms have on individuals in mechanical solidarity loosens. Individual autonomy and personal freedom become as important in organic solidarity as social solidarity and integration in societies characterised by mechanical solidarity.

Division of labour, says Durkheim, is the process that will help keep society integrated. Division of labour implies working together at certain tasks, in other words, it implies cooperation. As work becomes more and more divided, two consequences can be seen. On the one hand, each individual becomes specialized in his field. He can exercise his initiative and creativity in his special field. On the other hand, each individual grows to depend more intimately on society. Cooperation and complementarities are the watchwords of such a society. The kind of solidarity produced, namely, organic solidarity, is of a higher order than mechanical solidarity. It allows individuals to exercise their freedom and initiative even while binding them to each other and to society. Thus, the process which helps the growth of both, individualism and social integration is division of labour.

Thus, “Individual while becoming autonomous comes to depend more heavily on society”.

Durkheim also observed that European society of that time was in a chaotic state? Then he sets to find an explanation. Was division of labour creating problems? According to Durkheim, the kind of division of labour that was taking place was not the ‘normal’ type that he wrote about. Abnormal types or deviations from the normal were being observed is society. These included:

According to Durkheim, under a state of normlessness i.e. Anomie, material life changes rapidly, but rules norms and values do not keep pace with it. In the work sphere, this reflects in conflicts between labour and management, degrading and meaningless work and growing class conflict. To put it simply, individuals are working and producing but fail to see any meaning in what they are doing. Norms and rules governing work in a factory have not changed to the extent that they can make the worker’s activities more meaningful or show the workers that society needs and values them.

Division of labour based on inequality of opportunity, according to Durkheim, fails to produce long-lasting solidarity. Such an abnormal form results in individuals becoming frustrated with their society. Thus, tensions, rivalries and antagonism result. In the case of the Indian caste system as an example of division of labour based on inequality people have to do certain kinds of work not because of their capacity but because of their birth. This can be very frustrating to those who want to do more satisfying or rewarding jobs, but cannot have access to proper opportunities.

Further, in the case of inadequate organisation, the very purpose of division of labour is destroyed. Work is not well organised and coordinated. Workers are often engaged in doing meaningless tasks. There is no unity of action. Thus solidarity breaks down and disorder results. Collective action becomes difficult when most people are not very suited of what they have to do.

So far we have seen how Durkheim views division of labour not just as an economic process but a social one. Its primary role, according to him, is to help modern industrial societies become integrated. It would perform the same function for organic solidarity that the collective conscience performed in mechanical solidarity. 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. But in the European society of the time, division of labour seemed to be producing entirely different and negative results. Social order seemed to be under serious threat.

Durkheim however describes this as deviations from the normal type. He terms these as

•  anomie, wherein new rules and norms governing division of labour do not arise,
•  inequality, which results in discontent, tension and conflict
•   inadequate organisation, which make division of labour meaningless, producing disunity and disintegration.

Critical analysis

Durkheimian understanding of division of labour has helped in better understanding of society. It is with the help of this concept that it become easy to find out whether society is progressing towards unity or diversity. One can find out if the society is progressive and dynamic or sick and static. Individual’s sense of security can best be judged in the back-drop of social solidarity.

The first and most important criticism, which has been levied against Durkheim, is that in his theory he has taken only population and nothing else into consideration. In his way he has least cared for other social factors.

According to Barnes Durkheim’s theory is obviously biological rather than sociological and gives biological rather than sociological explanation or need of division of labor. But inspite of these drawbacks it can’t be denied that his theory is really useful, because it discusses the relationship of population with social progress and advancement.

Durkheim has undone his carefully drawn distinction between causal and functional analysis. The “need for” a division of labor, or the “functions” it is to fulfill, are involved in ways that go unspecified in the causes of the division of labor. Here, we can see in concrete terms the problem of illegitimate teleology-of a situation where an end state like the division of labor causes the events leading to that end, without any specification of how this is so. Durkheim’s analysis of the division of labor is a classic illustration of this problem, and if Durkheim failed to keep cause and function distinct, then it is not surprising that others who followed him have fallen in to the same intellectual trap.