9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
1
Division of labour is
seen as the
separation and
specialization of
work among
people.
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
2
As defined by Durkheim, mechanical solidarity refers to
‘‘Social solidarity based upon homogeneity of values and
behavior, strong social constraint, and loyalty to tradition and kinship. The
term applied to small, non-literate societies characterized by a simple
division of labour, very little specialization of function, only a few social
roles and very little tolerance of individuality.’’
(W.P.Scott in ‘‘Dictionary of Sociology’’ Page -407)
MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
3
According to Durkheim, organic solidarity refers to
“a type of social solidarity typical of modern industrial society, in which unity is
based on the interdependence of a very large number of highly specialized roles
in a system involving a complex division of labour that requires the co-operation
of almost all the groups and individuals of the society. This type of solidarity is
called organic because it is similar to the unity of a biological organism in which
highly specialized parts or organs, must work in coordination if the organism [or
any one of its parts] is to survive”
(Durkheim, E. (1982, first published 1893),
The Division of Labour in Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 200)
ORGANIC SOLIDARITY
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
4
In determining the principal cause of
the division of labor, Durkheim
distinguishes it first from civilization.
DIVISION OF LABOUR AND CIVILISATION
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
5
DIVISION OF LABOUR AND
THE ‘HAPPINESS HYPOTHESIS’
“If the cause of the division of labor
were the desire for happiness,
therefore, social evolution would
surely have come to a stop long ago;
for the maximum happiness of which
men are capable would have been
achieved through a relatively
moderate development of social
differentiation and its resulting
stimuli.”
(Robert Alun Jones. Emile
Durkheim: An Introduction to Four
Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 29. 15)
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
6
One is the anomic
division of labour
and the other is
the forced division
of labour
THE ABNORMAL FORMS
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
7
ANOMIC
DIVISION OF
LABOUR
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
8
FORCED DIVISION OF
LABOUR
These children in Niger
have been assigned by a
local religious leader to
work at a farm.
Photo courtesy of the
International Labour
Organization
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
9
CONCLUSION
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
10
1. Durkheim, E. (1982, first published 1893), The Division of Labour
in Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 200.
2. W.P.Scott in ‘‘Dictionary of Sociology’’ Page -407.
3. Robert Alun Jones. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four
Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 28.
4. http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s16f02.htm
5. Cfr. Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, third edition, New York,
McGraw-Hill, 1992. P 85.
REFERENCES
9/11/2022
Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral
School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2)
11

Emile Durkheim's Division of Labour in Society.pptx

  • 1.
    9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha,PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 1
  • 2.
    Division of labouris seen as the separation and specialization of work among people. 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 2
  • 3.
    As defined byDurkheim, mechanical solidarity refers to ‘‘Social solidarity based upon homogeneity of values and behavior, strong social constraint, and loyalty to tradition and kinship. The term applied to small, non-literate societies characterized by a simple division of labour, very little specialization of function, only a few social roles and very little tolerance of individuality.’’ (W.P.Scott in ‘‘Dictionary of Sociology’’ Page -407) MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 3
  • 4.
    According to Durkheim,organic solidarity refers to “a type of social solidarity typical of modern industrial society, in which unity is based on the interdependence of a very large number of highly specialized roles in a system involving a complex division of labour that requires the co-operation of almost all the groups and individuals of the society. This type of solidarity is called organic because it is similar to the unity of a biological organism in which highly specialized parts or organs, must work in coordination if the organism [or any one of its parts] is to survive” (Durkheim, E. (1982, first published 1893), The Division of Labour in Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 200) ORGANIC SOLIDARITY 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 4
  • 5.
    In determining theprincipal cause of the division of labor, Durkheim distinguishes it first from civilization. DIVISION OF LABOUR AND CIVILISATION 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 5
  • 6.
    DIVISION OF LABOURAND THE ‘HAPPINESS HYPOTHESIS’ “If the cause of the division of labor were the desire for happiness, therefore, social evolution would surely have come to a stop long ago; for the maximum happiness of which men are capable would have been achieved through a relatively moderate development of social differentiation and its resulting stimuli.” (Robert Alun Jones. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 29. 15) 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 6
  • 7.
    One is theanomic division of labour and the other is the forced division of labour THE ABNORMAL FORMS 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 7
  • 8.
    ANOMIC DIVISION OF LABOUR 9/11/2022 Shidratul MoontahaSuha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 8
  • 9.
    FORCED DIVISION OF LABOUR Thesechildren in Niger have been assigned by a local religious leader to work at a farm. Photo courtesy of the International Labour Organization 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 9
  • 10.
    CONCLUSION 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha,PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 10
  • 11.
    1. Durkheim, E.(1982, first published 1893), The Division of Labour in Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 200. 2. W.P.Scott in ‘‘Dictionary of Sociology’’ Page -407. 3. Robert Alun Jones. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 28. 4. http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s16f02.htm 5. Cfr. Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory, third edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1992. P 85. REFERENCES 9/11/2022 Shidratul Moontaha Suha, PhD Research Fellow,ELTE, Doctoral School of Sociology, PPT for History of Sociology (ENPHDSocT2) 11