MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

Durkheim. 1893. The Division of Labor in Society. (pp. 57-84)

Durkheim argues that mechanical solidarity is high when the division of labor is simple. To demonstrate this point, he highlights the heavy emphasis of repressive law (or penal law) under more traditional societies. This leads him to develop a theory of crime, punishment, and the collective consciousness (i.e., our shared system of beliefs, values, and dispositions). A crime is any act that violates the collective consciousness, which is significantly, but not totally or perfectly, embodied by the state. The primary function of punishment is to reaffirm the collective consciousness. But, in order to function correctly, it must be public, passionate, and organized. Punishment must be public because it’s not really for the victims or perpetrators of the crime but is rather for the “honest people” who watch it unfold. Punishment must also be passionate to counter the emotional offense produced by the crime. Finally, it must be organized. Punishment must be ritualized and executed by an authority. In revitalizing the collective consciousness, punitive sanctions celebrate our shared disdain for acts that threaten our commonality. Thus, in demonstrating the prevalence of penal law under more traditional societies, Durkheim offers partial support for his hypothesis regarding solidarity and the division of labor.

ORGANIC SOLIDARITY

Durkheim. 1893. The Division of Labor in Society. (pp. 88-91, 96-103, 171-9, 131-5, 215-20, 201-6)

Durkheim argues that organic solidarity is strong when the division of labor is highly developed. To demonstrate this point, he highlights the heavy emphasis on restitutive law under more advanced societies. Instead of celebrating our commonality, restitutive sanctions celebrate our interdependence. These laws are diffused across the “body social” like a nervous system, assuring that all the specialized organs work together. Consciousness also changes during the ongoing transition from traditional to modern society. Collective consciousness loses its prominence and individual consciousness becomes far more important. However, this doesn’t mean the collective consciousness disappears under an advanced division of labor. It’s relatively weak, vague, and imprecise today, but it still exists. The new collective consciousness is rooted in the cult of the individual, is increasingly localized according to specialized professions, and is concerned with a morality of cooperation. Again, all of these changes in sanction, state, and consciousness are made possible through an advancing division of labor. But what motivates this advancement? Durkheim sees society as something that tends to evolve slowly. We’ll spend some time thinking about the origins of the modern division of labor according to Durkheim. The details are complicated, but above all we should remember that organic solidarity will not emerge unless it develops out of mechanical solidarity.

ABNORMAL DIVISIONS OF LABOR

Durkheim. 1893. The Division of Labor in Society. (pp. 277-80, 285-308, 316-8)

The division of labor can take abnormal forms. Durkheim details three basic pathologies. First, the division of labor can become anomic or unregulated. Under this abnormal form, abrupt social changes (e.g., economic crises and rapid economic progress) intensify conflict and uncertainty. Second, the division of labor can become forced or overregulated. This is less about legal despotism and more about “external inequality” (e.g., inherited wealth and unjust obstacles to employment). Under a forced division of labor, many people are unhappy because their natural talents and abilities are mismatched with their jobs. Third, the division of labor can become discontinuous or incoherent. This “third abnormal form” has low vitality (i.e., wasted productive activity) and is often characterized by a significant number of useless jobs. A discontinuous division of labor emerges through a lack of coordination and this is often rooted in poor leadership. With these three abnormal forms in mind, we have a better sense of what the normal division of labor looks like. It’s regulated (not anomic), spontaneous (not forced), and continuous (not discontinuous). So, what should we, as sociologists, do if we find ourselves under pathological conditions? Durkheim’s answer is complicated and perhaps a bit contradictory. We’ll wrestle with this in seminar.