Durkheim and Marx lived in an age in which Europe was experiencing the ‘Industrial Revolution’, urbanizations, poverty, crime and other social problems. Social stability and order were under threat. The social context in which Durkheim and Marx lived was such that they had to work out explanations for what they saw in the society around them.

Although different but both examined causes and consequences of division of labour. They have suggested Solutions to the problems related to division of labour. Durkheim’s ‘Functional’ model of society and Marx’s ‘Conflict’ model highly influenced their respective understanding of division of labour.

Causes of Division of Labour

Both, Durkheim and Marx make a very clear distinction between division of labour in simple societies and complex industrial societies. Division of labour is an inevitable and necessary aspect of the socio-economic life of any society. But they are more concerned and interested in the division of labour that takes place in industrial societies.

Durkheim explains division of labour in industrial societies as a consequence of increased material and moral density. As we have studied earlier, he looks at specialisation or division of labour as a means through which competition or the struggle for existence can be eased. Specialisation is what makes it possible for large numbers of people to live and work together without fighting, because each has a distinct part to play in society. It makes team-work and coexistence possible.

Marx too considers division of labour in manufacture a feature of industrial society. But unlike Durkheim, he does not see it as a means of cooperation and coexistence. Rather, he views it as a process forced upon workers in order that the capitalist might extract profit. He sees it as a process closely linked with the existence of private property. The means of production are concentrated in the hands of the capitalist. Therefore, the capitalist has to design a production process that will result in maximum profit. Hence, division of labour is imposed on workers. Workers are reduced to doing monotonous, boring and unimaginative activities so that productivity increases and the capitalist’s profits increase.

Consequences of Division of Labour

Durkheim sees division of labour as a process that would help individuals coexist and cooperate. He views division of labour as being a force of social integration promoting organic solidarity. In a “normal” situation, division of labour contributes to social integration by giving each individual a specialized activity to perform. Each can develop his/her powers of creativity and innovation in his or her specialized task. At the same time, each would depend more and more on others doing complementary activities. Thus social bonds would become more firm, more enduring. Anomic division of labour based on inequality and inadequate organisation are pathological or abnormal forms, according to Durkheim. They are not caused by division of labour as such. They are the result of society being in a state of flux.

Marx on the other hand sees division of labour as a process imposed on workers by capitalists. Its consequences are that it leads to dehumanization of the work force, alienation results. Workers are reduced to things. Their creativity, their control over their creation is taken away. Their labour becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold at the market place. Thus they become mere parts of the production process rather than the producers themselves. Their personalities, their problems mean nothing to their employers.

Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of Labour

According to Durkheim, the pathological or abnormal forms of division of labour that prevail in society have to be solved in order that division of labour might perform its integrative functions. Anomie according to Durkheim can be handled by making workers conscious of their role in society. By making them feel organically linked and involved with the life of society. By making them feel organically linked and involved with the life of society, the frustration of doing “meaningless’ work can be eased. Meaninglessness will then be changed into an awareness of the significance of their productive roles.

According to Marx, capitalism itself is the problem. Division of labour brings about dehumanization, alienation and loss of control. They way out is through a total change in the mode of production; through which workers gain control over the means of production. They will then organise and operate the production process in such a manner that dehumanization and alienation will become things of the past. But Marx points out that the final solution to the division of labour lies in the emergence of communist mode of production, which will lead to establishment of society free from all forms of exploitation.

Durkheim’s ‘Functional Model’ of Society and Marx’s Conflict Model’

Durkheim’s study of division of labour brings out his functional model of society. Social institutions and process are viewed by him in terms of the contributions they make to keeping a society alive. Marx responds quite differently to the challenges thrown up by industrialisation. He does not share Durkheim’s view human history of class struggle, or a series of struggles between the oppressors and the opposed. Capitalism is a phase in human history marked by the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The system of production that exists under capitalism is designed to exploit to workers. The interests of the workers conflict with those of the capitalists. The revolution of the proletariat, Marx believes will overthrow the old system and bring in the new. Contradictions, conflict and change are the key-words in Marx’s understanding of society