Emile Durkheim's Division of Labour in Society.pptx
The document discusses Emile Durkheim's theories of the division of labor and social solidarity. It defines mechanical solidarity as social solidarity in small, traditional societies with little division of labor. Organic solidarity refers to solidarity in modern societies with complex division of labor and interdependence. Durkheim argued that the division of labor increased as societies became more populous and complex, not due to desires for happiness. There are two abnormal forms of division of labor: anomic, which lacks regulation; and forced, as seen in child labor.
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
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
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