Emile Durkheim's View on the Division of Labor in Society - Essay Example

Critical assessment of the work of Emile Durkheim sociological Theorist Introduction Born in Epinal, France, Durkheim is considered to be the father of sociology (Barnard, 2000). He established a social theory in which sociology is visualized as a natural subject that can be studied empirically (Maryanski, 1998). Durkheim asserted that individuals and the society are two separate entities. He considered a society to be a distinct entity which results from reactions, associations and a combination of psychic realities and behaviors of individuals. Among the several works of Durkheim, four are considered to be the major ones (Barnard, 2000). They include division of labor in society done in 1893, rules of sociological method performed in 1895, suicide conducted in 1897 and elementary forms of the religious life carried out in 1912. This paper will critically assess these four major works of Durkheim. The division of labor in society Durkheim observed that economists valued division of labor both as a necessity and a supreme law that govern human societies in addition to being a determinant of human progress (Maryanski, 1998). Durkheim also observed that this division of labor was not only restricted to economic world, but also applied to other human activities such as politics, administration, scientific activities and judicial activities (Barnard, 2000). Durkheim theorized that this division of labor law applied to both human beings and other living organisms. He theorized that there existed are relationship between functional specialization of different parts of an organism and their evolution. Thus he noted that division of labor has its roots in the origin of life itself. Durkheim argued that function of division of labor was not merely meant to make civilization possible but rather to satisfy needs which are not satisfied by division of labor. He thus argued that people tend to associate with people who are different but have characteristics which complement theirs rather than excluding them (Maryanski, 1998). Thus relationships are formed between people who are different but have characteristics which complement one another. From this perspective Durkheim was able to show that in societies which are advanced division of labor produces social solidarity. Durkheim dismissed the fact that division of labor was a result of individualistic and psychologistic causes. He suggested that dynamic density increases with progression of division of labor. He suggested that dynamic density is produced by two causes. The first cause was reduction of material distance between society members both technologically and spatially to enable this dynamic density to multiply intra societal relations. The second cause was the effect enhanced by social volume of the society. Therefore, Durkheim’s argument was that division of labor is directly proportional to dynamic density of the said society which is an influence of social volume and material density (Barnard, 2000). He further argued that material density and social volume increase acutely render the struggle for existence which brings about division of labor as opposed to increasing exposure to external environment (Lemert, 2006). Thus Durkheim used Darwin theory of survival for the fittest to provide explanation for division of labor amongst human populations. In line with this thought, Durkheim argued that division of labor was a result of increased conflict and competition among social volume and density. Thus according to Durkheim, division of labor was caused by changes in the density and volume of societies rather than individualistic and psychological reasons (Lemert, 2006). Even though Durkheim’s work on division of labor was a seminal contribution to the law of sociology and morality in addition to remaining a sociological classic in whatever standards, these standards have some limitations which have made their applicability among modern sociologists to be limited. The insistence by Durkheim that social solidarity is only a moral phenomenon ignores several conflicts that are common in certain moral principles with others, morality and legality and some laws and other laws. In defense of these conflicts Durkheim argued that they occur as a result of pathological functioning instead of normal functioning. In addition, Durkheim overstated the function of repressive law in relation to reciprocity and interdependence among primitive societies. Some authors have provided substantial evidence of the complexity and significance of exchange of relations among some primitive communities such as the Trobriand Islanders (Lemert, 2006). Durkheim seems to have been wrong in dismissing literature concerning primitive societies based on Hebrew Torah, laws of early Christian Europe and the twelve tables of ancient Romans. Furthermore it is not easy to share the confidence of Durkheim concerning the self regulating quality of social solidarity emanating from division of labor (Tekiner, 2002). The account of anomic division of labor by Durkheim exposed the dark side of unregulated capitalism. However, his analysis concerning these evils was not critical since evolution of organic solidarity has been very slow in comparison to mechanical evolution. The rules of sociological method The rules of sociological method were written in order to guide the study the social facts. This was because these facts were neither psychological nor biological hence Durkheim considered them to be in existence outside the conscience of individuals (Pickering, 2009). In his rules Durkheim sought to differentiate between state of collective mind and manifestation of these states among private and individual minds (Barnard, 2000). According to Durkheim, division of labor was a result of both the ways of functioning and ways of being. The primary rule of all sociological method as suggested by Durkheim is that all social facts ought to be treated as things. the second rule was that all preconceptions ought to be discarded (Lemert, 2006). Another rule was that only a group of phenomena which is defined beforehand by some common characteristics and those which correspond to the definition should be included in the subject matter of research. Finally, a sociologist should strive to consider order of social facts from a separate viewpoint that is different from their individual manifestation when carrying out an investigation of these orders. To distinguish normal and pathological forms of social facts, Durkheim came up with some rules (Nolan & Gerhard, 2004). His first rule concerning this was that a social fact was only normal for a certain social type observed at a certain phase of its development when it happens in the average society of that particular species being considered at the given phase of its evolution (Barnard, 2000). His second rule that guided the distinction between normal and pathological social facts stated that: The results of the preceding method can be verified by demonstrating that the general character of the phenomenon is related to the general conditions of collective life in the social type under consideration (Barnard, 2000). Durkheim also came up with a rule that was to aid in classifying social types in accordance to similar principles that had guided the same activity in the division of labor (Barnard, 2000). In this rule he said that classification of societies ought to be based on the degree of organization manifested by that society. He stated that distinction of these societies can be done in accordance with whether a complete coalescence of the initial segments takes place (Lenski, 2005). In order to explain social facts, Durkheim proposed that the efficient cause which produces a phenomena and the function fulfilled by this phenomena ought to be investigated separately when trying to explain a social phenomenon. He also came up with another rule that stated that: “The determining cause of a social fact must he sought among the antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual consciousness”. This rule was complemented with another rule which stated that the function of a social fact is found within the relationship that it poses to some social end (Lenski, 2005). He also proposed another rule in which he stated that the constitution of the inner social environment should be used as the basis seeking the origin of any important social process. Durkheim also came up with rules that demonstrate sociological proof. One of his rules under this was that each effect has a corresponding cause (Nolan & Gerhard, 2004). Durkheim’s rules of sociological method are criticized for having departed form pragmatic utterances. His concept of social fact was downright indiscriminate which incorporated the full range of explanatory social phenomenon forms both infrastructural and super structural levels and Durkheim focused more on structural levels. The rules proposed by Durkheim straddle an equivocal intermediate stage (Lenski, 2005). Even with his explanation that social facts differ from biological and psychological facts, these ambiguities still persists. In addition, Durkheim’s point of view that social facts are external to all individuals has limited justification since this can only be seen where they have a prior temporal existence. Durkheim’s rules for explaining social phenomenon brings about several meaning of psychology. All these rules can only apply where several assumptions are made about the thoughts of individuals (Lenski, 2005). As found out by some sociologists, sociology produces few laws but it consumes them. Thus the insistence by Durkheim that explanation of social facts can only be achieved by other social facts was thus naïve and excessive (Turner & Jan, 2005). In trying to distinguish normal and pathological social facts, Durkheim tended to idealize future societies and at the same time diminished the current realities and therefore his arguments seems to have been oblivious to historical contingency of social arrangements. Suicide Durkheim’s definition of suicide was based on its common usage as any death resulting from a positive or negative act done by the victim himself. Thus, accordingly suicide occurs intentionally. Durkheim suggested that suicide might be caused by psychological constitution of an individual or by external physical environment (Nolan & Gerhard, 2004). Durkheim argued that insanity was not a probable cause of suicide since he considered suicide itself to be a form of insanity. He also argued that suicide is not caused by psychopathic conditions which fall short of insanity such as alcoholism and neurasthenia but these conditions may predispose an individual to commit suicide (Turner & Jan, 2005). According to Durkheim, egoistic and anomic suicide results from individuals’ insufficient or excessive integration into the society that he belongs to. In trying to explain suicide Durkheim uses argument by elimination which is both distortive and inappropriate language. This line argument both persuades and misleads people by rejecting alternative definitions or explanation of social facts about suicide (Nolan & Gerhard, 2004). This is intended to create credibility to remaining definitions and explanations that are proposed by Durkheim himself. This presents some shortcomings in that his definitions and explanations may not be exhaustive and mutually exclusive (Lemert, 2006). The classification of causes of the different types of suicides by Durkheim presupposes the validity of causal explanation that he eventually proposes for them. This makes it difficult to consider alternative causes and typologies of suicide hence making evaluation of Durkheim’s claims to be difficult (Lenski, 2005). The believe by Durkheim that sociology is a science which can be studied independently made it difficult for him to state how individuals perceive, interpret and respond social conditions relating to suicide due to his employment of metaphorical and systematic language. The hypothesis by Durkheim that failure to attain social goals leads to suicide raises several questions which remain unanswered by Durkheim. The elementary forms of the religious life Durkheim’s work on this topic also has some problems like the one associated with his other works. Of striking interest in this work, Durkheim ignored the role of religious leaders in addition to the functioning of religion in social conflict and its asymmetrical relationship with power (Lenski, 2005). The way Durkheim presents how religious assemblies generate totemic symbols is a matter of controversy. His use of elimination methods to provide definition for religion is also misleading. In addition the ethnographic evidence provided by Durkheim using a single case of central Australia is disturbing feature of this work (Turner & Jan, 2005). Durkheim does not seem to appreciate any relationship that exist between simplicity of a society and that associated with religious beliefs and practices. He also negates any relationship between totemic and religion while describing elementary forms of the religious life. Conclusion Even though Durkheim is considered to be the father of sociology, his major works have encountered major criticisms from fellow sociologists. Of major concern is his style of argument which mainly is elimination arguments which try to validate his definitions and explanation of social facts. This line of thought has been found to be misleading and tends to limit one not to consider other possible causes and definition of social facts. In spite these shortcomings, most of his works have laid the foundation of sociology. Reference Barnard, A. (2000). History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge: CUP. Lemert, C. (2006). Durkheim's Ghosts: Cultural Logics and Social Things. Cambridge University Press Lenski, G. (2005). Evolutionary-Ecological Theory. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Maryanski, A. (1998). Evolutionary Sociology. Advances in Human Ecology, 7:1-56. Nolan, P. & Gerhard, L. (2004). Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Pickering, W. S. F. (2009). Durkheim's Sociology of Religion: Themes and Theories. The James Clarke & Co Tekiner, D. (2002). German Idealist Foundations of Durkheim's Sociology and Teleology of Knowledge. Theory and Science, III, 1, Turner, J. & Jan, S. (2005). The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Read More