Division of Labor

Émile Durkheim[edit]
In his seminal work, The Division of Labor in Society, Émile Durkheim[14] observes that the division of labor appears in all societies and positively correlates with societal advancement because it increases as a society progresses. Durkheim arrived at the same conclusion regarding the positive effects of the division of labor as his theoretical predecessor, Adam Smith. In The Wealth of the Nations, Smith observes the division of labor results in "a proportionable [sic] increase of the productive powers of labor." [15] While they shared this belief, Durkheim believed the division of labor applied to all "biological organisms generally" while Smith believed this law applied "only to human societies." [16] This difference may result from the influence of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species on Durkheim’s writings.[16] For example, Durkheim observed an apparent relationship between "the functional specialization of the parts of an organism" and "the extent of that organism's evolutionary development," which he believed "extended the scope of the division of labor so as to make its origins contemporaneous with the origins of life itself…implying that its conditions must be found in the essential properties of all organized matter." [16]
Since Durkheim’s division of labour applied to all organisms, he considered it a "natural law" [16] and worked to determine whether it should be embraced or resisted by first analyzing its functions. Durkheim hypothesized that the division of labor fosters social solidarity, yielding "a wholly moral phenomenon" that ensures "mutual relationships" among individuals.[17]
As social solidarity cannot be directly quantified, Durkheim indirectly studies solidarity by "classify[ing] the different types of law to find...the different types of social solidarity which correspond to it." [17] Durkheim categorizes: criminal laws and their respective punishments as promoting mechanical solidarity, a sense of unity resulting from individuals engaging in similar work who hold shared backgrounds, traditions, and values;[18] and civil laws as promoting organic solidarity, a society in which individuals engage in different kinds of work that benefit society and other individuals.[18] Durkheim believes that organic solidarity prevails in more advanced societies, while mechanical solidarity typifies less developed societies.[19] He explains that, in societies with more mechanical solidarity, the diversity and division of labor is much less, so individuals have a similar worldview.[20] Similarly, Durkheim opines that in societies with more organic solidary, the diversity of occupations is greater, and individuals depend on each other more, resulting in greater benefits to society as a whole.[20]
Durkheim’s work enabled social science to progress more efficiently "in … the understanding of human social behavior." [2

The Division of Labour in Society (French: De La Division Du Travail Social) is the dissertation of French sociologist Émile Durkheim, written in 1893. It was influential in advancing sociological theories and thought, with ideas which in turn were influenced byAuguste Comte. Durkheim described how social order was maintained in societies based on two very different forms of solidarity (mechanical and organic), and the transition from more "primitive" societies to advanced industrial societies.
Durkheim suggested that in a "primitive" society, mechanical solidarity, with people acting and thinking alike and with a collective or common conscience, is what allows social order to be maintained. In such a society, Durkheim viewed crime as an act that "offends strong and defined states of the collective conscience."[1] Because social ties were relatively homogeneous and weak throughout society, the law had to be repressive and penal, to respond to offences of the common conscience.
In an advanced, industrial, capitalist society, the complex division of labor means that people are allocated in society according to merit and rewarded accordingly: social inequality reflects natural inequality. Durkheim argued that moral regulation was needed, as well aseconomic regulation, to maintain order (or organic solidarity) in society with people able to "compose their differences peaceably".[2] In this type of society, law would be more restitorythan penal, seeking to restore rather than punish excessively.
He thought that transition of a society from "primitive" to advanced may bring about majordisorder, crisis, and anomie. However, once society has reached the "advanced" stage, it becomes much stronger and is done developing. Unlike Karl Marx, Durkheim did not foresee any different society arising out of the industrial capitalist division of labour. He regards conflict, chaos, and disorder as pathological phenomena to modern society, whereas Marx highlights class conflict.