The Division of Labor in Society

by Émile Durkheim, Lewis A. Coser

Originally published in 1893 and never out of print, Emile Durkheim’s groundbreaking work remains one of the cornerstone texts of the sociological canon—now updated and re-translated in this new edition.As the Industrial Revolution was changing the landscape of society, Durkheim presented a new vision of the social structures at the root of capitalism, and the issues he grappled with still resound today. If pre-industrial societies were held together by common values, sentiments, and norms, equally shared by all, what holds modern societies, with their complex division of labor and non-cohesive social structure, together? What did this new social order mean for the autonomy of the individual? Durkheim argued that class conflict is not inherent in a capitalist society, as Marx contended, but that the unfettered growth of state power would lead to the extinction of individuality. Only in a free society that promotes voluntary bonds between its members, Durkheim suggested, can individuality prosper.

In this new edition, the first since 1984, world-renowned Durkheim scholar Steven Lukes revisits and revises the original translation to enhance clarity, accuracy, and fluency for the contemporary reader. Lukes also highlights Durkheim’s arguments by putting them into historical context with a timeline of important information. For students and scholars, this edition of The Division of Labor is essential reading and key to understanding the relevance of Durkheim’s ideas today.

Genres: Sociology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Economics, Politics, Anthropology, Classics

416 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1893

About the author

Much of Durkheim's work was concerned with how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in modernity; an era in which traditional social and religious ties are no longer assumed, and in which new social institutions have come into being. His first major sociological work was The Division of Labor in Society (1893). In 1895, he published his Rules of the Sociological Method and set up the first European department of sociology, becoming France's first professor of sociology.

In 1896, he established the journal L'Année Sociologique. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a study of suicide rates amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, pioneered modern social research and served to distinguish social science from psychology and political philosophy. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), presented a theory of religion, comparing the social and cultural lives of aboriginal and modern societies.

Durkheim was also deeply preoccupied with the acceptance of sociology as a legitimate science. He refined the positivism originally set forth by Auguste Comte, promoting what could be considered as a form of epistemological realism, as well as the use of the hypothetico-deductive model in social science. For him, sociology was the science of institutions,[citation needed] its aim being to discover structural social facts. Durkheim was a major proponent of structural functionalism, a foundational perspective in both sociology and anthropology. In his view, social science should be purely holistic; that is, sociology should study phenomena attributed to society at large, rather than being limited to the specific actions of individuals.

He remained a dominant force in French intellectual life until his death in 1917, presenting numerous lectures and published works on a variety of topics, including the sociology of knowledge, morality, social stratification, religion, law, education, and deviance. Durkheimian terms such as "collective consciousness" have since entered the popular lexicon.

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 2 out of 5]

دوستان گرانقدر، این کتاب از 400 صفحه تشکیل شده است.. کتاب به سه بخش اصلی و فصلهای گوناگون تقسیم شده است و «امیل دورکیم»، موضوعِ تقسیم کار و همبستگیِ اجتماعی را از جهاتِ مختلف مورد بررسی قرار داده و صد البته توضیح در موردِ اخلاق در هر شاخه را پی در پی واردِ نوشته های مربوط به آن کرده است.. بخش نخست، به نقشِ تقسیم کار- بخشِ دوم، به علل و شرایطِ تقسیمِ کار- بخشِ سوم نیز با عنوانِ صورِ نابهنجار، به تقسیمِ کارِ اجباری و نابهنجار پرداخته است... دوستانِ عزیزم، موضوع، موضوعی نبود که تا این اندازه در موردِ آن موشکافی شود.. و همین دلیل باعث شده تا خوانشِ آن خسته کننده و جملات و موضوعاتِ بخشها، تکراری شود.. گویی دورکیم، به دورِ خویش سرگردان چرخیده و از هر دری سخن گفته و به تقسیمِ کار اجتماعی ارتباط داده است... مهمتر از همه، مترجمِ گرامی، به اصلاح جوگیر شده و تصور کرده اگر از واژگانِ عربی و واژگانِ فلسفیِ عربی و یا کلماتِ منسوخ شده استفاده کند و جملات را سخت و نامفهموم جلوه دهد، آنگاه همه میگویند، عجب متنی ترجمه کرده است و شبیه به نوشته هایِ هگل و کانت است... مترجمِ گرامی، انتخابِ واژگانِ ساده و جمله بندیِ زیبا و شیوا، فکر نمیکنم آنقدرها کارِ دشواری باشد.. چه کسی به شما گفته هرچه کلماتِ قلمبه سلبمه استفاده کنید، متنتان فلسفی تر و پُربارتر میشود؟؟ هر بیشعوری این را به شما سفارش کرده، دشمنِ شما بوده است... آقایِ مترجم، اگر دورکیم را از گور در بیاورند و ترجمۀ شما را دوباره برایِ دورکیم ترجمه کنند، شک میکند که این نوشته های اوست یا شخصِ دیگری!! و آرزو میکند که اِی کاش این کتاب را نمینوشت.. شما متن و محتوایِ کتاب را نابود کردید.. به نوعی که یک خوانندۀ معمولی نمیتواند این کتاب را بخواند
عزیزانم، میدانم که این ریویو نمیتواند برایِ شما دلچسب باشد.. ولی برایِ آن دسته از دانشجوهایی که ممکن است این کتاب را به عنوانِ یک کتابِ تخصصی به آنها معرفی کنند، مطالبی را انتخاب کردم، تا حداقل بدانند با چه کتابی طرف هستند
---------------------------------------------
قواعدِ اخلاقی به دو نوع تقسیم میشوند: قواعدِ دارایِ جزاهایِ تنبیهی، اعم از پراکنده یا سازمان یافته.. و قواعدِ دارایِ جزاهایِ ترمیمی
قواعدِ نوعِ نخست، بیانگرِ شرایطِ لازم برایِ همبستگیِ خودزائی محسوب میشوند که از همانندی ها برمیخیزند و ما نامِ این نوع همبستگی را همبستگیِ خودبه خودی مینامیم ... قواعدِ نوع دوم، بیانگرِ شرایطِ لازم برایِ همبستگی سلبی و آنی هستند.. به طورِ کلی در بیانِ ویژگی هایِ ذاتیِ قواعدِ اخلاقی، میتوانیم بگوییم که این گونه قواعد، بیانگرِ شرایطِ بنیادیِ هبستگیِ اجتماعی هستند
***************
اخلاق، عبارت است از آگاهی به حالتِ وابستگی.. اخلاق برایِ رهایی شخص نیست.. بلکه وظیفۀ اساسی اش این است که شخص را جزوی از کل کند و در نتیجه بخشی از آزادی حرکاتش را از وی بگیرد
***************
در تقسیمِ کار، بحث بر سرِ اشخاص نیست.. بحث بر سرِ وظایف و نقش هایِ اجتماعی است... جامعه به چگونگیِ کارِ نقش های اجتماعی علاقمند است... سلامتِ جامعه بستگی به این دارد که نقش هایِ اجتماعی با هم هماهنگ باشند.. پس، هستیِ جامعه، وابستۀ این امر است و هر قدر نقشها بیشتر تقسیم شده باشند، این وابستگی هم بیشتر خواهد بود
***************
آرمان هرچقدر ماورائی تر باشد، دلیل ندارد به همان میزان بلند مرتبه باشد.. شایستگی و بلندمرتبگیِ آرمان، برای این است که بتواند دورنماهایِ وسیع تری در برابرمان بگشاید.. مهم این نیست که آرمانِ اخلاقی چنان برفرازِ سرِ ما قرار داشته باشد که ما با آن احساسِ بیگانگی کنیم، بلکه مهم این است که آرمانِ اخلاقی، راهِ درازی پیش پایِ فعالیت ما بگشاید، راهی که پایانِ آن به این زودی ها معلوم نباشد
***************
اخلاق نباید در حدی باشد که دست و پای ما را ببندد، به نوعی که دیگر قادر به هیچگونه حرکتی نباشیم
***************
جامعه، شرطِ ضروری اخلاق است.. جامعه فقط کنارِ هم قرار گرفتن نیست که هرکدام اصولِ اخلاقیِ درونیِ خویش را با خود به جامعه می آورند. بلکه، برعکس، انسان از آن رو موجودی اخلاقی است که در جامعه زندگی میکند.. کافیست زندگیِ اجتماعی را حذف کنید، زندگیِ اخلاقی خودبه خود از میان میرود
***************
تقسیم کار نه تنها دارایِ خصلتی است که در امرِ اخلاقی وجود دارد، بلکه بیش از پیش به شرطِ اساسیِ همبستگی اجتماعی تبدیل میشود.. به موازاتِ پیشرفت در تکامل، پیوندهایِ شخص با خانواده، با سرزمینِ پدری، با سننِ بازمانده از گذشته و با عاداتِ جمعیِ گروه، سست تر میشوند.. شخص که تحرکِ بیشتری یافته است، آسان تر میتواند محیطِ خود را تغییر دهد، بستگانِ خویش را ترک گوید و زندگیِ مستقلی در پیش گیرد و در شکل دادن به اندیشه ها و احساساتِ خویش، سهمِ بیشتری داشته باشد
***************
شخص از طریقِ تقسیم کار، نسبت به وابستگی اش در برابرِ جامعه آگاهی میابد.. نیرویِ مهارکننده و دربرگیرندۀ شخص از همینجا بر میخیزد.. از آنجایی که تقسیمِ کار سرچشمۀ عالیِ همبستگیِ اجتماعی است، بنابراین پایۀ نظمِ اخلاقی را نیز تشکیل میدهد
***************
ماهیتِ تخصص و تقسیمِ کار با ماهیتِ وجدانِ جمعی فرقی ندارد و هر دو امری اخلاقی اند.. وظیفۀ ما در پیشبردِ تخصص و تقسیمِ کار همواره مهمتر و مبرم تر میشود، زیرا کیفیاتِ عام، حاصل از تکاملِ بشری، خود به خود برایِ اجتماعی کردنِ شخص، کافی نیستند
***************
هنگامی که انسان هدفِ معینی بیرون از وجودِ خویش نداشته باشد، علاقه ای به چیزی نشان نخواهد داد و نمیتواند از قیدِ خودپرستی کم و بیش تلطیف شدۀ خویش رهایی یابد.. اما، آنکس که همۀ هستی خود را به وظیفه ای معین اختصاص میدهد، برعکس، با هزاران رشته پیوند که ناشی از وظایفِ اخلاقِ حرفه ای اوست، هر لحظه نگرانِ احساسِ همبستگیِ خویش با دیگران است
--------------------------------------------
امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ آشنایی با این کتاب، کافی و مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Joan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Putting aside for a second the super annoying "human body is a microcosm of society" examples, his blatant racism and sexism, and his borderline anti-semitism, there is something really interesting going on here.

Is this the Manifesto of the American Democratic Party circa 2010 (now)?

Because we've made our religions less rigid, and we've left our families for towns, and we've moved closer to one another, we can, we must, differentiate ourselves into different professions, to express our individualities, which makes us all rely on each other more, and therefore we have social cohesion. Where our abilities do not match our roles, where unfair inequalities persist, we must remedy them, not just for fairness, but for the preservation of the society as a whole. It is government's role to pull us all together, to remind us of our shared interests in one another. Change will happen, but ever so slowly. . . .

[Marie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a required text for one of my senior sociology classes. While it is very educational, I could not bring myself to rate it higher than a two simply because it is so dry. I managed to make it through, but only by dragging myself along with the dregs of my strength ... it sounds terribly juvenile to complain about a text that is supposed to be educational and enlightening as "dry," but I believe the best-written books will teach you everything necessary and expound upon the author's heartfelt beliefs with great clarity while still being interesting enough to captivate you and, I don't know, convince you that the author is correct?

Durkheim failed to do that for me, and while I know I went away from the book with more knowledge, said knowledge was definitely not gained happily or with great interest. Unfortunate as it is, it is true.

[May Ling · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this along with several reviews. First off, it's super relevant, even today and pretty bad a$$ given this was just a dissertation. Second, for all the reviewers who could only see through the eyes of the Marx vs. everyone else argument, FOR SHAME!!!!! Marx is mentioned no where in the piece. So all these people that go there. You missed the point entirely (see below).

Durkheim has a very specific question he's addressing in this piece: Namely, Division of Labor is a thing. Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

His argument, while slightly disorganized is laid out as follows:
Point 1) What do I mean by it's a thing? Let's define it. First, "is it universal?" Kinda seems like it's happening everywhere.
Point 2) There are 2 forms of what seems to make it universal. First, it seems to happen mechanically. Second, it seems to happen organically. The former relates to something that was created by man (this word means something a bit different now, but I can see why that might be a descent description). Organically refers to something that just happens spontaneously without some sort of driven forethought. It is for this reason that he talks about the market. At that time that is the way that people spoke of invisible forces. And while this might touch on Smith or Marx. IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT THESE TWO because you do not need to enter a conversation related to capitalism to understand this point!!

Indeed, a conversation on capitalism is slightly off topic, because he's not talking about the moral being good or bad, he's talking about Division of Labor as a functional good or bad. You go too far once you move to Marx.

If you were to relate it to today, organizations like Anonymous - a famous group of hackers - also fit this description. Trust me, that particular organization would be very unhappy to be thought of in terms of Marx. It's just unnecessary to even talk about Marx in understanding or applying the relevance of Durkheim's piece to sociology or the current day. But you know..... you can't help it if your teacher presents it that way, so I get it. And also, Anonymous wasn't around in the late 1800's when this came out, where as Marx was just getting his jollys on with the Manifesto.

Point 2) Good or bad? He defines this thing called social solidarity. It sounds to me like what he's saying is that Social Solidarity is neither good nor bad, but it's the thing that we are using to create a relativism that allows for Good or bad. (this is super different from Marx, btw). Solidarity when mechanically created is the linkage that is forced among actors in society so we all play nice. Its mechanical b/c we create laws and rules around what a governing majority are calling good and bad. But in the organic form it can be whatever actually makes sense for the emerging structure. So while sometimes those things agree, sometimes they do not.

So for example, if everyone thinks is morally incorrect to be gay, then yeah, there will be reinforcing structures that don't allow you to be gay. That's not necessarily right (obviously) so much as it's just the way it is. But organically, over time, people will shift toward the change that relates to social consciousness. And that shift is less binding.

Point 4) His point is that society is moving and transforming. It's not static. And the way in which it is shifting is an increase in the types and variety of division of labor. People are becoming more specialized. Now, I personally don't think he goes enough into this point. so that's worth criticism. We know now a lot more about this (education, shift in demand, interests, norms, etc). But you know, still... pretty good for a man of his time. And again... nothing to do with Marx here, who would say the opposite.

So then, Point 5) As this stuff shifts, mechanic rubs up against the the organic, and no matter how mechanic fights it, organic will win. His point is that you can't fight it. The mechanic forced thing can only be preserved to a point. And that all has to do with the change in social solidarity.

Now last kind of implied, but not directly said point relates to this idea that the bonds of Social Solidarity is eroding or alternatively loosening. Most interesting thing in the book! Would have to read his other stuff to appreciate which stance he's taking. But the point is this. In the past, we needed everyone to be male or female. No gays, no transgender, b/c we needed everyone to think alike. Now we don't. I mean... that's pretty insightful for 1900 IMO, right?

[Vik · Rating 3 out of 5]

No wonder why sociology borrows from political science, otherwise this is what happens when you don't :p

[Livia · Rating 3 out of 5]

At least the writing was clear (Unlike you KARL MARX)

[Savannah Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars because much better than Marx and Smith in my opinion. Good, clear (are you listening, Marx?) writing. Interesting, thoughtful ideas and arguments. I particularly enjoyed how Durkheim applied the idea of the Division of Labor to systems and aspects of life other than the economy.

But don't get me wrong. This book wasn't exactly as pleasure to read either.

[Xander · Rating 2 out of 5]

Emíle Durkheim, widely seen as the first sociologist, is an interesting intellectual. He wrote extensively on all aspects of society – from religion to education and from the division of labour to suicide. The common theme in all of his works is Durkheim’s perspective on these social facts: for Durkheim modern day societies are characterized by a dynamic between the ‘religion of the individual’ and the need for ‘social solidarity’. In that sense, Durkheim is a structuralist: the individual only exists in a modern day society, the individual ‘emerges’ so to speak from the societal structure.

Of course, there is much to criticize about this claim. For example, this thesis would mean that more primitive societies would lack notions of individuality. To a certain extent, I believe this is true. In contemporary western society we see cultural clashes between immigrants from tribal/agrarian communities and western liberal communities. Westerners perceive the world egoistically, while many immigrants perceive the world through the lens of the collective. Group/family honour, strong in-group/out-group hostility and cocooning are all phenomena that can be explained by Durkheim’s dualism.

Yet, as Steven Lukes in the introduction to Durkheim’s book remarks: it is much more fruitful to perceive Durkheim’s thesis not as a dichotomy but as a gradual concept. Cultures can be placed somewhere along the line of individualist-collective. Still, the fact that Durkheim’s idea is incorporated in a new framework says something about the originality and strength of his ideas.

And in The Division of Labour in Society (1893) Durkheim offers many such insights. The book itself is long-winded, abstract, dry, long and un-interesting – not surprising, considering it was Durkheim’s doctoral thesis. It makes it hard to read for a modern day reader. Luckily, the contents of the book can be summarized fairly well. Also, about half of the book is dedicated to summarizing outdated facts in support of the main theses. Skipping this material doesn’t harm the reader. (For example, Durkheim mentions the then-accepted theory of skull measurements as gender and racial distinctions.)

So, then, what is The Division about?

The main question Durkheim tries to explore and answer is the following: in an ever further industrializing society, characterized by more and more specialization of labour and a growing self-awareness of the individual, where does social solidarity consist in? In other words: each society has to be founded on commonly accepted norms and expectations. If industrialization forces us to be ever more individualistic, where does that leave ‘society’?

Of course, social solidarity (which Durkheim really doesn’t define – I guess he means something like ‘the feelings of sympathy and reciprocity between members of a given society’), cannot directly be measured and observed. This is a problem – at least from a scientific standpoint. Durkheim recognizes this and to turn the study of social phenomena in a science he starts to use proximal phenomena, meaning he looks for indirect clues that say something about social solidarity.

And here we have the blueprint for the entire book: according to Durkheim, there are two types of solidarity: mechanic and organic. Mechanic solidarity consists of the enforcement of the collective consciousness. These are societies that are directed by gods, taboos, rituals and harsh punishments for transgressors – group conformity reigns supreme. Organic solidarity is something rather recent, it is an offspring of the Industrial Revolution, so to speak. As Adam Smith already noted in 1776, the division of labour emphasizes mutual cooperation, between individuals, and preferably between nations as well. In these societies cooperation replaces enforcement and the individual starts to originate. People and companies and governments based their conduct on mutual contracts and voluntary cooperation – leading to an ever-increasing emphasis on protection of rights as the foundation of society.

In short: mechanic solidarity relies on penal law (punishing criminal offenses) while organic solidarity relies on civil, commercial and administrative law (restitution of transgressions).
Durkheim sees the type of law as characteristic for the type of solidarity in society. And since organic solidarity is the future (industrialization was here to stay), he decides that you can characterize societies by the relative amount of non-penal law to the total body of laws. The smaller the number (although he doesn’t quantify – this is impossible, as he mentions in the introduction), the more modern the society.

The rest of the book contains, basically, a criticism of contemporary political economy – which has many parallels to modern day capitalism. In this sense, Durkheim resembles Marx as a criticizer of political economy. The economists of the day (just as today) tend to measure everything on the macro-level and in terms of material data. This approach leaves out the individual feelings of the workers involved. Durkheim recognizes the inherent inequalities in capitalist societies, which lead to inherent inequalities in power and domination. In short: the group who owns property, owns the masses. This is totally un-meritocratic and can be classed in the same group as societies based on castes (such as Hinduism).

For Durkheim, the division of labour can be a foundation for social solidarity, but this requires that (1) natural qualities should lead to differences in rewards, and (2) redistribution of wealth to those who are worth less (from a societal point of view) is necessary. While Durkheim saw himself as a liberal, he sounds more like a social-democrat to me.

Another problem Durkheim recognizes in the modern day capitalist societies is a product of the ‘religion of the individual’ and the nature of the specialized work. Again, Adam Smith already foresaw the problem in his Wealth of Nations (1776), when he described how one pin maker is outdone in economic output by 10 specialists. From an economic point of view, this increased output means growth of productivity and thus growth of wealth. But for the 10 individuals involved, this means that the rest of their lives they have to act – day in, day out – as a machine, constantly repeating the same movements while at the same time feeling no connection to the output anymore. Marx called this alienation, but Smith was more on point in warning that the nature of this work atrophies the human intellect. Industrialization breeds masses of dumbed down people lacking any purpose or means in life. (It is, by the way, interesting to note that most liberals tend to focus on Smith’s explanation of division of labour as generator of wealth, while completely leaving out the dehumanization theme.)

Anyway, back to Durkheim.

Durkheim mentions the fact that economics and economists should focus more on individual happiness instead of the economic superstructure. The division of labour can go too far and created rigidity and frozen parts – throughout the book he likes to draw analogies between societies and organism. When this happens, the individual dissolves in society, which brings us back to the original question. How can individualism and social solidarity coexist, especially within a capitalist society?

The inherent tension created social problems (such as increased suicide rates), but Durkheim was an optimist – one of the few optimists; most of the fin de siècle intellectuals were pessimists and doom thinkers – and saw the historical necessity of progress. He had high hopes for a future in which sociology could explain to us which moral system was the best and offer us a blueprint for such a just and equal society. The problems with thinking along such lines are evident: (1) it is highly utopian; (2) it confuses ethics and science; (3) it is extremely technocratic (almost on a Brave New World-level); and (4) it is inherently flawed.

(1) and (2) are self-evident. (3) is more interesting to elaborate on: in our current society we see an elite who think it can fix anything with science and technology. Information is the key to a better life. If we just tell people that smoking has a high chance of causing lung cancer, people will stop smoking. And if they won’t listen to reason, we will force them to do as we want, by increasing taxation on cigarettes ever more. The word ‘reason’ here is extremely important: the current intellectual elites like to enforce their own lifestyle and norms on society as a whole. Their own guilt is projected on the masses, who are the ones that have to pay for the fads of the elites.

You can already see this line of thinking (optimism) in the Enlightenment: people like William Godwin and Condorcet foresaw a future in which humanity was happy and would suffer no longer, because science and reason would lead us to understand the world fully. And this understanding would usher in a new age of peace and quiet and happiness. While it is easy to laugh at such ideas, I beg the reader of this review to look around him/her and honestly declare that this mindset isn’t all-pervading around us. Human, all too human problems are chopped up into pieces, the pieces are scientifically studied, consultants are then paid to draw conclusions and offer institutions policy recommendations. Problem solved!

There is constant pushback on this secular religion. One can see it, for example, in the medical world, where technology is deemed to be a god, and everything that is possible should be done. This way of thinking, prevalent among medical practitioners, leaves out the human side. Many diseases are products of lifestyle, perhaps we ought to live more disciplined lives and/or change our environment to increase health? And what about the social costs of ever-increasing technological breakthroughs in medicine? Someone should pay for it – who? And what about simply dealing with the finitude of human life? Shouldn’t we just accept that life isn’t all happiness, and that some people die?

Another important phenomenon, that of ever-increasing specialization, adds to our problems. It is almost impossible for an average person to understand the world around him/her. With much schooling it is possible to understand one domain – for example, one can acquire a deep understanding of artificial intelligence and IT – but this leaves out all the rest. For most people, the world becomes harder and harder to understand, especially when changes occur ever more rapidly and these changes themselves are ever more impactful on our daily lives.

In short: the capitalist-technological outlook on life leaves out ethical and political questions, while the increasing specialization and subsequent compartmentalisation of society leave many people feeling empty and uneasy. We seem to be lost: making sense of the world around us seems like a mission impossible. When one adds globalization in the mix and realizes that this problem is becoming a global, humanitarian, problem, one sees an important factor for the unrest in many societies and the reactionary trends (back to the nation-state, isolationism, opposition to the elites, etc.). All over the world, people feel more and more uncomfortable, while materially the world is doing better than ever.

In this modern day problem, there is much we can learn from Durkheim. Measuring material wellbeing is something entirely different than measuring psychological (Durkheim’s ‘moral’) wellbeing. Specialization and division of labour tend to increase the first, at the cost of the latter. Social problems (like suicide rates) are still with us. And social solidarity isn’t self-evident – rather, it tends to be on the retreat in many industrialized nations.

The only thing we cannot take from Durkheim’s The Division of Labour in Society is his optimism for the future. Current trends seem to be rather in the other direction: considering globalization and the multipolar world of 2019, it is rather much more plausible that inequality will increase, psychological wellbeing will decline and individual freedoms will be lost.

[Mauricio Martínez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un análisis apasionante acerca de las funciones y causas de la división social del trabajo, aquello que explica la increíble variabilidad productiva en todas las áreas de las sociedades industriales del S XIX (y si Durkheim conociera las sociedades del S XXI, le daba algo seguramente, also esto aplica perfecto para la actualidad sib mucho esfuerzo). Es muy abarcativo en su análisis el amigo, lo cual hace que el libro no sea la literatura académica mas fluida, pero la verdad es que no me jode, no usa un lenguaje confuso ni referencias obscuras, con eso yo ya no me quejo, me gusta que sea minucioso en el análisis, aparte de muy claro, al abordar los temas desde diferentes perspectivas constantemente. De esos libros que te ayudan a darle un sentido y explicación a fenómenos que son fáciles de observar pero complicados de poner en discusión sin una perspectiva histórica muy firme.
Me encantó.

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, if redundant, look at the ever increasing specialization of individuals in our society which still rings true today. Parts of it were extremely sexist however, but that is largely a product of the period in which it was written.

[Neil · Rating 3 out of 5]

One hell of a dissertation. At the same time I didn't appreciate in the slightest Durkheim's tendency to create prescriptions based only on the normative characters in a particular society. Normative, etymologically, concerns some type of adherence to a majority, and therein is a rather secure stance to take. I feel like for all the effort spent understanding the safest parts of society, Durkheim did little to incorporate the more subjugated members into that norm. Rather, he told Parisian women that because they were patronized, they had smaller brains, and drew moral conclusions from that "reality." way to go, Durkheim: help the majority improve, but cement the minority into their graves.

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

people drive people

[Simon-Pierre Thibeault · Rating 5 out of 5]

Cette œuvre est perçue en sociologie comme un classique de la discipline, et avec raison. Elle jette les bases d’une sociologie holistique, où la notion de société est considérée comme une réalité supérieure aux individus qui la composent. En cela, Durkheim rompt avec les approches individualistes et démontre que les phénomènes sociaux obéissent à des lois propres, indépendantes des volontés individuelles. Il renforce cette idée en mobilisant des analogies biologiques, qui, bien que parfois dépassées en raison des avancées scientifiques, contribuent à asseoir la sociologie comme une véritable science. Son ambition est d’objectiver les faits sociaux et d’établir des méthodes rigoureuses pour les analyser, ce qui reste fondamental pour la sociologie contemporaine.

Dans cet ouvrage, il introduit des concepts majeurs tels que l’anomie et la densité morale, qui sont devenus des notions incontournables pour tout sociologue. Son analyse de la solidarité mécanique et organique permet de mieux comprendre les dynamiques qui sous-tendent l’évolution des sociétés et la transition vers la modernité. De plus, il fait preuve d’une remarquable imagination sociologique, notamment lorsqu’il explique que la division du travail est à l’origine du développement des personnalités individuelles. Il ne se contente pas de décrire les structures sociales, mais propose une réflexion sur la manière dont elles façonnent les individus, ce qui confère à son œuvre une profondeur analytique impressionnante.

Ce qui frappe également, c’est la justesse de sa vision de la modernité. Bien que son ouvrage ait été écrit au XIXᵉ siècle, nombre de ses observations restent d’une grande actualité. Les débats sur l’hypermodernité et la fragmentation sociale font souvent écho aux constats de Durkheim. Il avait déjà perçu les risques liés à une spécialisation excessive et au relâchement des normes collectives, anticipant ainsi des problématiques qui marquent encore les sociétés contemporaines. Cette capacité à saisir les tendances profondes du changement social confère à son œuvre un caractère visionnaire.

Cependant, certaines limites de son analyse méritent d’être soulignées. Les causes qu’il attribue à la division du travail paraissent parfois floues et semblent se confondre avec ses conséquences. Il établit que la division du travail émerge naturellement avec l’augmentation de la densité sociale, mais il peine à en expliquer précisément les moteurs historiques et économiques.

Par ailleurs, Durkheim reste un homme de son époque, ce qui transparaît dans certains de ses propos, notamment sur les femmes. Son analyse de la division du travail sexuel, qui insiste sur la complémentarité des rôles entre hommes et femmes, peut aujourd’hui sembler datée et réductrice. Ses remarques sur la place des femmes dans la société peuvent heurter une lecture contemporaine, même si elles doivent être replacées dans le contexte intellectuel de la fin du XIXᵉ siècle.

Enfin, le style de Durkheim constitue un défi pour les lecteurs modernes. Son vocabulaire est riche et précis, mais sa prose est parfois dense et exigeante. Il adopte un raisonnement rigoureux, qui repose sur de longues démonstrations, ce qui peut rendre la lecture ardue pour un public non initié. Cette difficulté est néanmoins compensée par la force et la profondeur de son argumentation, qui font de cet ouvrage une référence incontournable pour comprendre la sociologie et les dynamiques de la modernité.

En somme, De la division du travail social est un pilier de la sociologie, à la fois pour sa contribution théorique et pour sa pertinence dans l’analyse des sociétés contemporaines. Malgré certaines limites et un style parfois complexe, il demeure une lecture essentielle pour quiconque s’intéresse aux transformations sociales et aux fondements de la discipline sociologique.

[Jen · Rating 2 out of 5]

The two star rating is a reflection of the book's readability (it was written in the late 19th century, so not much of a surprise there). The ideas, on the other hand, were mostly very interesting, and the thesis in general was able to account for a large variety of societal phenomena. Some very progressive ideas for its time, particularly with regard to the nature of external constraints on human equity.

[Mars]

University made me do it

[Mars]

Émile amore, podrías haber dicho lo mismo en 200 páginas.

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me quedaron dudas que respuestas.
(Fue para una tarea)

[Akshay · Rating 3 out of 5]

he knows this book could be an essay, but chose to write a book on it. I love him for that. I don't think I understood all of what he's saying, but I better try to. My uni assignment depends on it.

[Jon Norimann · Rating 3 out of 5]

Occasionally brilliant but much too long PhD thesis by the founder of sociology. Lines are drawn from ordinary economic division of labour into crime and punshiment, class differences, the basis of morals etc.

[نورالهدى · Rating 3 out of 5]

يبني دوركايم بحثه على أساس مسلّمة أن تقسيم العمل ينتج نوعاً من أنواع التضامن الاجتماعي الذي سمّاه التضامن العضوي, الذي بني على أنقاض التضامن الآلي, لدى المجتمعات القديمة. ويؤسس بحثه على أخلاقيّة تقسيم العمل, فضلاً عن أنه يزيد الإنتاجية والإتقان في الصناعة.
ثم يقسّم بحثه إلى بابين لبحث هذه النظرية والاستدلال عليها, وباب أخير لقراءة الأشكال الشاذّة التي تشوّش على التضامن النموذجي العضوي..
وفي كلا البابين يستدعي نموذج القانون الجزائيّ, كرمزية خارجيّة دالّة على أخلاقيّة تقسيم العمل الداخلية غير القابلة للقياس ..
ويعتمد على ما يسمّيه الوجدان الجمعي, وتجلّيات تقسيم العمل عليه..
فينحو إلى أن الوجدان الجمعي قديماً كان ذا طابع صلب وواضح ومتماسك, لذا فإن أي جريمة تحدث, تجرح ذلك الوجدان الجمعي, تقابل بعقاب مؤذ على الجاني ..
أما في العصر الحديث, فإن الوجدان الجمعي أصبح أكثر تفككاً وأكثر غموضاً, وأصبح شكل العقوبات لا يزيد على أن يردّ الأمور إلى نصابها, بدون إلحاق الأذى بالمعتدي ..
وبناء على شكل الوجدان الجمعي إنما تمّ تقسيم التضامن الاجتماعي إلى آلي وعضويّ ..
ففي المجتمعات المعاصرة, أصبح التضامن آلياً وتكاملياً, والاعتداء إن تمّ, يتمّ على وجدان فرديّ قد يتمّ التغاضي عن جزء من الثأر له في سبيل تحقيق سلام الجماعة ..
ثم يشرع في أسباب تطوّر تقسيم العمل وانتشاره .. محللاً عاملي الكثافة والحجم الاجتماعي, باعتبارها أسباباً ينتج عنها التقسيم الاجتماعيّ بشكل حتميّ , ويكون التقسيم الاجتماعيّ وليداً طبيعياً لها ..
أما الحالات الشاذة, فهي حين يؤدي تقسيم العمل إلى ازدياد التفتت الاجتماعي, وإلى إكراهات في التقسيم, وإلى عدم تكافؤ في توزيع النشاط الماديّ لكل فرد..
..
انتقاداتي :
1. ينحو دوركايم منحى تقدّمياً بشكل ضمنيّ, وهو أمر غير متّفق على صحّته.
2. أكثر ما أثار حفيظتي هو التسامح مع تفكك الوجدان الجمعي في العصر الحديث, هو موجود, لكنّه غير أخلاقيّ ولا مبرر بحال, ولا ينسجم مع منظومة قيمي ولا رؤيتي التي أحملها للوجود.
3. التحليل والاستنتاج واتباع الرأي بالآخر والربط بينها كان متماسكاً إلى حدّ كبير برأيي, مما ينبئ عن عقل تحليليّ شديد الدقّة.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find Durkheim incredibly frustrating. The idea of social facts is, perhaps, an interesting concept for the time. However, his treatment of the division of labor really forces the social concept and often strides over the development of interesting perspectives from other disciplines. This is especially evident in his constant argument by negation. Another classic in Sociology, though, and another perspective to consider when viewing the economic realities of our society.

[Vern Glaser · Rating 4 out of 5]

very interesting discussion and a good counterpoint to Marx...key concepts include mechanical vs organic solidarity, repressive vs restitutive law, and the idea that humanity becomes more individualized over time due to the division of labor.

[Brittany McLaughlin]

My Valentine's Day Blizzard Weekend 2015 accomplishment. Knocked off one of the first requirements in my long generals prep reading list. Read everything but the abnormalities stuff at the end which does not seem to be in use these days.

[Mr Shahabi · Rating 2 out of 5]

شوي تفلسف في أمور بعض الشي بديهي بس يمكن ما كانت بديهية في أيام القواطي الطبقية اللي عاشوا فيها و الحمدالله انه كلهم ماتوا الحين

المهم، الولد، دوركهايم، يقول انه كل واحد لازم يجابل شغله، مالسوشغل باللي يمك، لا تدور واسطة علشان ينقلونك قسم ثاني، شو شغلك و سكر بوزك لو سمحت

و شكرا

[Lauren Sailor · Rating 2 out of 5]

durkie baby, can't we talk about beliefs some more? this DOLIS stuff was not up my alley.

[Rodrigo · Rating 5 out of 5]

A pungent analysis of current modernity, specially considering book III and the theory of democracy that figures in the last pages of book I.

[Muhammad Shemyal Nisar · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was ok-sih i guess.... or maybe I was expecting a lot more from it....

[mohab samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

يحاول دوركهايم فى هذا الكتاب ان يوضح نشأة تقسيم العمل وضرورته ومساره من التمهيد الى النشوء والتطور . معتمدا فى ذلك على ابراز أوجه التشابه بين التطور الإجتماعى والتطور الطبيعى من ناحية وعلى العمليات النفسية الفردية والاجتماعية فى تفاعلها من جانب اخر .
فجميعا يمكننا ان نرى انه كما ينشأ الكائن من تجمع الخلايا وتعاونها لتحقيق أهداف عامة كذلك ينشأ المجتمع من تعاون أفراده . وكما تكون الكائنات ذات الخلايا المتماثلة هى الأقدم ظهورا والأكثر بدائية ، فكذلك المجتمعات الأولى حيث الجميع متشابهون فى الرغبات والوظائف والعقائد المحدودة .
وكما تتطور هذه الكائنات تدريجيا الى كائنات متنوعة الخلايا والوظائف ، تتطور المجتمعات كذلك الى تعاون افراد ذوى طبائع ووظائف ورغبات مختلفة عن بعضها بحيث يزداد الاختلاف كما وكيفا بمرور الزمن ، ولكن بحكم التطور تصير هذه الاختلافات والصراعات الى تكامل واحتياج ضرورى لهذا الاختلاف مما يؤدى الى وحدة هذه الاختلافات وتكاملها على مستوى أوسع وأعمق .
ولكن على حين تعتمد الطبيعة غير الحية على الآلية بشكل كامل وتعتمد الكائنات غير العاقلة على الوراثة وهى صورة للآلية أكثر تحررا وتوليدا للإختلاف كما فى تثبيت خصائص الأنواع المتطورة وتثبيت تنوعها المتزايد الذى يؤكد محدوديتها . أما المجتمعات البشرية فتعتمد على التطور الحضارى الذى يعمل على إزالة الحدود بين الجماعات لزيادة التعاون مما يعجل بتغير النظم الإجتماعية بصورة متواترة لا تسمح لأى صفة ان تتثبت بشكل وراثى مما يفسر نقص التنوع العرقى لا زيادته بداية من التاريخ المكتوب .
وتتطور طبيعة التعاون البشرى مع تطور النظم الاجتماعية من التعاون الآلى السائد فى المجتمعات البدائية الى التعاون العضوى الذى يعتمد على تقسيم العمل وتنوعه . ويؤكد دوركهايم على ان التعاون عموما هو علة الحضارة لا العكس وإن كانت طبيعة كل منهما تؤثر فى الأخرى بشكل جدلى بمجرد أن يظهرا الا انه يظل التغير فى طبيعة تقسيم العمل وتنظيم المنافسة هى المحدِدة لتغير النظم الإجتماعية وإرتقاؤها .
ويحلل دوركهايم طبيعة تطور التعاون العضوى وتقسيم العمل فى المجتمعات الحديثة محاولا تفسير الخط الذى تتبعه بما ينتج من رخاء ومن شقاء ويرى ان الحالة التى نجد عليها الفقراء فى زمننا لا تقارن بشقاء الأزمان الغابرة بما فيها من مجاعات وعبودية وسخرة كما ان الرخاء الذى يتمتعون به حديثا من سرعة النقل والاتصال وزيادة فى نسبة الاشياء الضرورية والترفيهية . وحيث ان الشقاء فى تناقص مستمر والرخاء فى نمو فان مساوئ تطور تقسيم العمل الحديث ليست الا عوارض لسوء الخبرة والتخطيط المصاحب لهذا التطور المستمر والذى سرعان ما يتم ضبطه وتعديله حتى نصل الى حالة جديدة من حالات الاتزان والاستقرارالتى تنشأ بعد تفاعلات وصراعات تختلف حدتها تبعا لمدى القفزة التطورية العلمية والتى يصحبها تطور فى تقسيم العمل وطريقة الانتاج وتوزيعه . وبالتالى تطور فى طبيعة المجتمعات بما تتضمنه من قوانين جزائية وتعاقدية .
وقد لاحظ دوركايم غلبة القوانين ذات الطابع القمعى لدى المجتمعات البدائية القائمة على التعاون الآلى او تكاد تكون كلها من ذلك النوع ، بينما تزداد غلبة القوانين ذات الطابع التعويضى فى المجتمعات الأكثر تمدنا وكيف أن هذا الانتقال يكون إراديا لدى المجتمع الذى يكون طابع تقسيم العمل العضوى الأكثر تكاملا قد ترسخ فى نفوس الأفراد مما يؤدى الى ضرورة إتساع الحريات الفردية وتخفيف العقوبات التى تبدو ذات طابع بربرى والسماح للمدانين بفرصة أكبر للوصول الى العدالة الحقيقية ، ويتوصل المجتمع تدريجيا الى إدراك ضرورة التنوع والتميز والإختلاف والتخصص فى كافة مناحى الحياة ، وإدراك ما فى كل فرد من قيمة يمكن انماؤها مهما كانت طبيعته .
وبالتالى يستنتج الكاتب ضرورة وجود كيانات مختصة بتأهيل الأفراد والمساعدة على تقسيم العمل الإجتماعى بشكل أكثر تكاملا وتحررا على المستوى الإجتماعى والفردى وبالتالى أقل مخاطرة . 
ويؤكد دوركهايم أن كل أشكال تقسيم العمل الاكراهى وسواها من مساوئ تقسيم العمل المستمر التى ما زلنا نعانيها ولكن بأشكال مختلفة ليست الا نموا لخبرات نكتسبها مع التطور المتسارع ستئول الى نمو قدرتنا على هدم هذه الأشكال القاصرة من النظم الاجتماعية وستئول معها كل أشكال اللامساواة الإجتماعية الناشئة عن ظروف خارجية الى زوال .

[Liu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ok so this is a helluva PhD dissertation and mine will never be this good. It’s full of interesting observations and I appreciate that he explicates a form of social cohesion that is based on difference, thus rejecting the usual formula of social cohesion and individual heterogeneity as inversely related tendencies.

Despite this, The Division of Labor in Society is still a pretty poor piece of sociology. What makes it weak is the deeply flawed empiricism that stems from Durkheim’s undertheorized epistemology. Durkheim begins by declaring his object of study as “social solidarity,” thus inaugurating social solidarity as a discrete ontological entity. Durkheim goes on further to say that we can only understand social solidarity through its “effects.” Although social solidarity has no definitive empirical existence, it does have “effects” that exist in the empirical world. For Durkheim, the only way to understand social solidarity is an inductive investigation of these empirical effects. Thus, we see that Durkheim has two objects: the empirical object (the “effect”), which is a means for getting to the real goal, the metaphysical object (social solidarity). Durkheim, in the space of less than a page, declares that the law is clearly the best empirical object for understanding social solidarity and goes off from there.

This is where Durkheim goes wrong. When Durkheim uses an inductive method with the goal of understanding a metaphysical object, the most important and most difficult methodological step is to establish the relationship between the empirical object and the metaphysical object. Included with this are two problems. First, Durkheim has to justify why law is an empirical effect of social solidarity. Second, even if the law truly is an empirical effect of social solidarity, the relationship between the two needs to be clearly articulated. The nature of the connection between the law and social solidarity defines the inductive method through which social solidarity is derived. Therefore, even proving that the law is an expression of social solidarity is insufficient. Durkheim also has to demonstrate the modality of that expression itself. Without understanding the articulation of the relationship between the law and social solidarity, Durkheim cannot establish the procedure of his inductive method. Durkheim works out this relationship much better in his later work where he explicitly embraces his neo-Kantianism. There are some very good empirical observations here, but his inability to explicate and justify his empirical inductive method is why this text remains an immature theoretical work.

[Michael Hauge · Rating 3 out of 5]

To get this out of the way: as a sociology treatise of the 19th century, this text would fill multiple bingo cards of racist and sexist tropes and ideas: phrenology, continual reference to "the savage," hierarchical and evolutionary thinking about the development of the mind and society as culminating in white European thought, etc. Part of the "division of labor in society" Durkheim cites as an obvious example is how women have "specialized" to operate solely in the domain of the home, with their sensitive natures and delicate sensibilities, while men have "specialized" to do everything else (science, politics, war, "the economy," etc.). Meanwhile, he cites as examples of "less developed," "lower" societies as those among indigenous populations in which the roles of men and women are not firmly separated. In addition to basing much of his argument on 19th century anthropological study of "the savage," Durkheim also makes persistent analogies to the human body and the development of organisms in ways that do not hold up given modern understandings of evolution and genetics. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin of Durkheim's argument is his exceedingly rosy view of society; he explains the social problems of his age as merely "abnormal" expressions of the division of labor, as opposed to his own view, which would work perfectly.

All these points aside, there are two extremely valuable points that Durkheim contributes in this text. First, the idea that society is not composed of atomic individuals who bring to it their own independent, rational minds, but that our thoughts, desires, and morality are a product of the society in which we live, and the cumulative effect that we perceive as society is the combination of this action and the reaction of the parts of society (i.e., individuals) back on the whole. In this way he refutes primarily economic, "rational" explanations of social interaction. And second, a further refutation of the utilitarian idea that society and "civilization" has "progressed" for the increase of the happiness or wealth of its members, and that rather "civilization" is the necessary result of people coming together in larger groups with correspondingly greater frequency of interaction. That is, civilization is not an end that is achieved via the collective desire of individuals to "heighten" their existence or have more surplus, but rather the means by which conglomerations of people, with their groups and sub-groups, can exist bound together in solidarity.