Durkheim: Anomic Division of Labor

The first pathological form that results from the division of labor, according to Durkheim, is the anomic division of labor. This fairly common, negative aspect of the division of labor occurs when the individuals become isolated by their repetitive, specialized tasks, and forget that they are parts of the whole, i.e. society. Examples of this occur in industries and factories which detach workers from their employers. In order to fix this anomic division of labor, the conditions present in a state of organic solidarity must be determined. This state of interdependency would exist once the specialized workers became directly dependent on one another. This would form a complex division of labor strongly resembling an organism. The groups of people would act as organs engaging in repetitive, definite actions which contribute essential functions to the entire organism. When this state of organic solidarity is formed, problems such as anomie are rectified.

Division of Labor

Durkheim addresses the theory of specialization by relating it to scientific research. When scientists increasingly focused on one small problem within a division of science, they became increasingly isolated and closed-off from other scientific theories. Durkheim quotes Auguste Comte, who states that this division is harmful to science because it limits a person’s knowledge because they cannot consider science as a whole. Durkheim goes on to state that “the division of labor cannot therefore be pushed too far without being a source of disintegration” (294). This brings up a key point we have been examining in class- the theory of the Renaissance Man versus the specialized worker. Is it better to have a man able to complete many tasks, or a specialized worker who can efficiently get his one job done?

Durkheim does bring up that Comte was not calling for the complete destruction of the division of labor. Society does, however, need something to keep the unity that the division of labor has destroyed. According to Comte, this uniting force is government. Durkheim states that “the organ of government develops with the division of labour, not as a counterbalance to it, but by mechanical necessity” (296). We as a class must consider, is government enough to unify the people and have a successful society despite the isolation caused by the division of labor? Is government really only a “mechanical necessity” in a society that promotes the division of labor?

Moral Corporations or Corporate Morals?

When we see corporations, we first and foremost see an entity selling a product (for the most part). These entities may actually have brand names (Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola), but regardless of their characteristics, we look at their product and judge whether or not we should buy it. Because of this, obviously, said corporations are going to try to persuade us using advertising, which more often than not leads to flashy designs, catchy slogans, sex appeal, and...

...morals?

Granted, Durkheim's definition/idea of a corporation may not be exactly like what we see today, but nonetheless, his claim that, "if we deem [a corporation] indispensable it is not because of the services it might render the economy, but on account of the moral influence it could exercise" (xxxix) still rings true...sort of. Starbucks prides itself on its environmentally friendly production methods, social equality for employees, and charity work. Food producers make a point to show how animal-rights friendly they are (or at least claim to be), and even Microsoft, Apple, and Sony are trying to sell products by hyping social interaction and efficiency (in both man & machine). These companies, like almost every other major brand name, are selling us ourselves. Or at least what we want to be, and what we care about.

Are these things actually 'morals', in the strictest sense? Probably not. But when we see Wal Mart negotiating with workers for higher salaries or Starbucks tweeting about how many community service hours their employees worked, are they not trying to appeal to our humanity? Maybe they're not selling us a Mocha while saying it'll create world peace and wipe misogyny and racism off the face of the earth, but giving you a 10 cent discount on your drink when you bring in a reusable cup has got to factor into your sense of moral preservation somehow (granted, this just opens up the controversy if we can be morally aware without a financial stimulus, but let's conveniently avoid that topic for now...).

I might be taking some liberties with Durkheim's theories here, but there is something afoot between corporations and our own sense of moral decency. The exposing of child labor or foreign sweatshops lead to a sales drop in clothing manufactures, and when embezzlement or fraud rears its ugly head within the walls of energy companies or banking institutions, we tend to think twice about doing business with them. Maybe corporations aren't quite the moral leaders that Durkheim makes them out to be (in theory, anyway), but there's some truth in the claim that they are just as susceptible to moral judgement as an individual human being...maybe even more so. But in that case, maybe it's about time we held them a little bit more accountable for their moral decisions, too.

ME & WE

“Two consciousnesses exist within us: the one comprises only states that are personal to each one of us, characteristics of us as individuals whilst the other comprises states that are common to the whole of society.

To me this sounds ALOT like Smith and Marx. The whole independence and interdependence working together for the common good? Yup this is Smith and Marx. I think that this is important because no matter how we may want to progress and how marx wants to get to a state of complete individualism... right now we will always have a mutual connection between all members of society that should not be threatened.

I like this quote because I enjoy the theme of being separate but together. I think it makes the world a little easier to consider when you put yourself into a vast working machine instead of looking at yourself as an individual part. But at the same time we are able to mold ourself into our own unique shapes that fit into society.

I think its interesting that Durkheim says that when the common conscience is disturbed than it is considered a crime. Does that mean if an individual is disturbed then it is not? or does that crime have to be big enough to be noticed by the society? Then isn’t that individual crime considered what we would consider petty crime?

Solidarity / class divisions

Durkheim seems to take an interesting and also different approach to the idea of ‘labor’ than past exposure to the subject. It appears that Durkheim believes labor is not simply a part of politics and economy – it has done much more for (or maybe rather ‘to’ instead of ‘for’) our society as a whole.

When Durkheim begins his introduction, ‘although the division of labor is not a of recent origin, it was only at the end of the last century that societies bean to become unaware of this law, to which up to then they had submitted almost unwittingly.

From this, we cannot gather the tone of Durkheim’s work – is praising our past, present, and future concepts of labor, or is this the root of evil?

Further reading shows us that Durkheim argues that the division of labor has changed our morals entirely and is the cause, at its root, of modern inequality. Additionally, Durkheim speaks of this idea of solidarity. My take on Durkheim is that he believes this may be some order of ‘control’ – what allows social order to be maintained (through people thinking and acting alike – a result of division of labor also).

Interestingly, there is some Marx in Durkheim – but not necessarily in an agreeing sense. I would say Marx attributes more inequality to class, whereas Durkheim thinks the disorder (and divisions) as an issue of modern society.

Social Solidarity?

Social Solidarity?

"...the economic services that it can render are insignificant compared with the moral effect that it produces, and its true function is to create between two or more people a feeling of solidarity." (17) This was the first line of text that really grabbed my attention. After reading through the entire text it has come to my conclusion that this solidarity and division of labor both brings people closer in society, yet also pulls them apart. To me solidarity means being separated and alienated from a society. This brings me to think that maybe it is like Karl Marx and his idea of alienation. I feel like they are similar because of the fact that alienation and solidarity seem as though they should go hand and hand with one another. Yet, it also seems that maybe Durkheim is trying to say that this social solidarity is what makes the social connections. He uses the example of a married couple and that the division of labor is also the division of sexes. To me, if I am not mistaken, he says that without this division of labor between the sexes were to go back to the natural sense, then it would go back to meaningless sexual relationships in order to reproduce. This all seems to resemble what we have been discussing in class over the past few weeks. If this division of labor were to go away completely we would not no how to have personal relationships because through this division of labor that has been created, we have created a dependence on others, which has created a division of labor based on sexes, which creates real relationships, like the marriage example. This all seems like it all connects and this is what I feel like i have taken out of the Durkheim reading. I may be completely wrong but this is what I feel connects these readings to what we have previously read.

Durkheim

Durkheim seems to have no issue claiming that the division of labour is in fact "the source of civilization"- in fact he even attributes it as necessary for intellectual development within society, something I am a little apprehensive to absolutely accept, but intrigued enough to consider. However, what I do appreciate about his introduction to the process of determining the role of civilization is his focus on the morality of our civilization, something that I felt was not addressed to the extent necessary by Marx (at least from the sections that i have been exposed to). While he writes that "the services that it renders in this way are almost entirely divorced from moral life, or at most have with it merely a very indirect and distant relationship", he still attempts to explain it with a measurement of morality on society- something I think is absolutely imperative when trying to analyze any aspect of society- be it its function or its flaws.