Division of Labor * since the DOL increases both the reproductive capacity and skill of the workman, it is the

necessary condition for the intellectual and material development in societies *However, the DOL also has a moral character which is more important. It can create a feeling of solidarity between two or more people *DOL was something other than a purely economic phenomenon

*Not just a natural law, but a moral rule. That is, he argued that the division of labor created greater social cohesion or solidarity. *The function, then, of the division of labor is primarily moral, not economic (though there are, of course, economic results as well); it's the feeling of solidarity created in 2 or more persons which it creates.
*The division of labor is understood to characterize changes in social solidarity. (i..e a progression from mechanical to organic). * The division of labor is simply the separation and specialization of work among people In short, since the division of labor becomes the chief source of social solidarity, it becomes, at the same time, the foundation of the moral order."

2 consciousnesses *Two consciousnessesexist within humans:one which represents individual personalities and the other which represents the collectivity *The collective conscience is the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society that forms a determinate system with a life of its own (39). Durkheim defines an act as criminal when it offends the collective conscience The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or common consciousness

*the collective conscience was a term coined by Durkheim which meant that individuals shared common beliefs and sentiments.
*The common consciousness is something totally different from the consciousness of individuals, although it is realized in individuals

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

As we move from primitive to advanced industrial society it is just normal for the collective consciousness to weaken because individual consciousness emerges.

Solidarity *Solidarity- unity (as of a group or class) that produces or is based on community of

interests, objectives, and standards *Can only moderate competition but not totally abolish it
*ED does not give us a clear, one sentence def. of 'solidarity'. HE does say, [Solidarity] attracts men strongly to one another, ensures frequent contacts between them, and multiples the opportunities available to enter into mutual relationships." [159] * Dictionary : solidarity: unity

or agreement of feeling or action, esp. among individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group
*The first kind, mechanical solidarity, links the individual to society without any intermediary (mediator). Society is organized collectively and is composed of beliefs common to all members of the group The solidarity that corresponds with criminal law is mechanical solidarity: solidarity that rests on sameness * Durkheim didn't see the division of labor as the downfall of social order, however. He recognized that, in reality, the division of labor gave rise to a distinct type of social order, or solidarity: organic solidarity. Organic solidarity is social order built on the interdependence of people in society pre-industrial societies. This mechanical solidarity as he called it (see definition above), occurred when all members of a society performed the same or nearly the same tasks as all others in a society. If one person were to die and not be replaced, the society would not change, because all other members did exactly the same thing as the member that died. The collective conscience of a mechanical society is identical among all members, and the bond derives not from dependence on other individuals, but from the dependence on the total social system. * Durkheim's primary interest was what happened as societies begin to modernize, when they begin to industrialize and labor becomes increasingly specialized. Durkheim calls the new form of solidarity resulting from modernization organic solidarity
traditional societies were 'mechanical' and were held together by the fact that everyone was more or less the same, and hence had things in common

Inmodern societies, he argued, the highly complex division of labor resulted in 'organic' solidarity.

* Mechanical solidarity: characteristic of earlier, simpler societies in which there is little division of labor and everyone's life experience is similar to everyone else's. Individuals feel moral obligation to others because others are like themselves. In such societies thought and morality are dominated by the "collective conscience," i.e., by beliefs and sentiments that everyone shares. * Organic solidarity: characteristic of modern societies with a high division of labor. Individuals feel moral obligation to others who are not like themselves, based on a sense of reciprocity, interdependence, and respect for the unique contributions of diverse individuals. In such societies the collective conscience becomes less dominant, allowing for the development of a multitude of individual expressions of belief and ethicalsentiments.

*Changes in structural features of societies:

*The horde/ segmental type: This structure was seen in mechanical societies and is characterized by a homogeneous mass of indistinguishable parts. This structure was never seen in reality, but the clan had been. This was when the horde became a part of a more extensive group - basically, a number of hordes interacting with each other. The clan also was internally homogeneous and based on resemblances, not differences. * Organized type: This structure was seen in organic societies. It was coordinated around a central organ [regulative action. Individuals place in this structure was determined by occupation instead of kin-group. This structure also was not anywhere observable in its true form.
*

* As the segmental society decreased it help brought about the division of labor.

LAWS * The most visible symbol of social solidarity is law (24). Law is the organization of social life in its most stable and precise form

Laws, Durkheim argued, can be categorized by type of sanction:

a) repressive sanctions (penal laws): with these laws, some loss or suffering is inflicted on the agent b) restitutive sanctions (civil, commercial, administrative law): these sanctions just seek to return things to the way they were before the infraction.
* Two types of law exist.The first type is repressive (covers penal law), which imposes some type of 'damage' on the perpetrator. The second type is restitutive, which does not necessarily imply any suffering on the part of the perpetrator but consists of restoring the previous relationships which have been disturbed from their normal form (covers civil, communal, procedural law).
* restitutory law which corresponds to the organic state of society, DH contrasts it to repressive law. Whereas repressive law corresponds to the 'center of common consciousness,' restitutory sanctions either constitute no part at all of the collective consciousness, or subsist in it weakly. Second, whereas repressive law tends to stay diffused throughout society, restitutory law works through more specialized bodies:ie, courts, magistrates, and lawyers

* Law plays a part in society analogous to the nervous system in an organisms. The system regulates the various body functions so they work together in harmony
* Part of restitutory law, the corpus of real rights (the right to property and mortgage), corresponds to negative solidarity. Negative solidarity can consist of links between persons and things. However, relationships between people, though in no way 'real,' can also express negative solidarity. This occurs when the relationships are created to prevent or repair damage. * Repressive law, typically involving sanctions for crimes against the whole community is common in lower, mechanical societies. law is simply an expression of morals. Where acts of violence are frequent, they are tolerated. their criminal character is in inverse proportion to their frequency Negative solidarity is actually only possible where positive solidarity is present. for a man to recognize that others have rights, he must limit his own

two types of law: 1. (1) An injury/fine imposed on the perpetrator. These are called repressive laws. 2. (2) Those that restore thing to the way they were before the crime was committed, called restitutory laws.

* He found that in societies with mechanical solidarity the law is generally repressive: the agent of a crime or deviant behavior would suffer a punishment, which in fact would compensate collective conscience neglected by the crime; the punishment acts more to preserve the unity of consciences. On the other

hand, in societies with organic solidarity the law is generally restitutive: it aims not to punish, but instead to restitute normal activity of a complex society.
societies with mechanical solidarity the law is generally repressive: the agent of a crime or deviant behaviour would suffer a punishment, that in fact would compensate collective conscienceneglected by the crime-the punishment acts more to preserve the unity of consciences. On the other hand, in societies with organic solidarity the law is generally restitutive: it aims not to punish, but instead to restitute normal activity of a complex societ

Legal sanctions provide Durkheim with an empirical index of changing forms of solidarity. Repressive sanctions correspond to mechanical solidarity. Durkheim argues that the purpose of repressive (criminal) sanctions is not deterrence but the reaffirmation of the collective conscience. A crime is whatever offends the collective conscience. Restitutive sanctions (in which individuals who have been treated wrongly by others can receive compensation) corresponds to organic solidarity. Durkheim argues that the shift from repressive to restitutive law is evidence of the changing nature of social solidarity.

Durkheim argues that 'private law,' typically contractual, is really quite public. For instance, marriage and adoption, although private matters, were formerly endorsed by the church and are now endorsed by civil authority (155). As domestic obligations become more numerous, they tend to take on a private character. . Within restitutory law, he identifies two types: 1. Negative Laws 2. Positive Laws Negative Laws ?? Laws that link people to things, but not people to people directly. ?? 'Real' (called real by jurists) and concern the relational of people to things. ("real" here the same root as 'real-estate') o Positive Laws: o Positive laws connect people to each other directly, and thus can be a way of uniting the body social, and they spring essentially from the division of labor. o We can see this clearly in domestic law which defines the duties and roles of each person in the family. Laws that say WHAT can happen (i.e. must be 16 and no closer than 2nd cousin to be married), Laws that say what the NORMAL type of FUNCTION should be: I.e. the roles of father, husband, wife, legitimate heir, etc. (most readily seen in divorce, the courts then need to keep the FUNCTION (i.e. child support) even when the actual marriage is gone) o Positive law is at its clearest when focusing on CONTRACTS.

[negative control = regulations which make a person refrain from acting e.g., do not help a farmer with his crop, simply prevent him from stealing his neighbor's.] [positive control = regulations which make a person act eg,impose a certain method of farming upon a farmer]

Restitutory laws put the world back together -- they restore what was before
CRIME It is actually public opinion and opposition which constitutes the crime. A crime is a crime because we condemn it An act offends the common consciousness not because it is criminal, but it is criminal because it offends that consciousness.

One theory says

crimes are simply acts that hurt society. E.D. rejects this because too many acts that are considered crime in no way hurt the society The only feature common to all crimes across all societies is that they comprise acts universally condemned by the members of that society Everyone already knows? -- intuitively, instinctively, and as a function of having grown in the society --? what is criminal. Thus, ignorance of the law is no excuse? --? every functioning member of the society must, on some basic level, know what is right and punish what is wrong rules are inscribed upon everyone's consciousness

Given the common consciousness, we can re-state the definition of crime: ?????????an act is criminal when it offends the strong, well-defined states of the collective consciousness. we should not say that an act offends the common consciousness because it is criminal, but that it is criminal because it offend that consciousness Punishment DH argues that in antiquity, people punished for the sake of punishment. However, nowadays society punishes in order to instill fear in potential criminals Punishing crime sustains the common consciousness
, punishment is an emotional reaction. This characteristic is all the more apparent the less cultured societies are. Indeed, primitive peoples punish for the sake of punishing, causing the guilty person to suffer solely for the sake of suffering and without expecting any advantage for themselves from the suffering they inflict upon him. (p.44)

E.D. Says this emotional response is at the root of all punishment, it has only been recently that moderation to some degree is more common.

Because it is modified in modern society, punishment consists of? a passionate reaction graduated in intensity." (p.48) A final definition of punishment: "Punishment constitutes essentially a reaction of passionate feeling, graduated in intensity, which society exerts through the mediation of an organized body over those of its members who have violated certain rules of conduct Punishments] real function is to maintain inviolate the cohesion of society by sustaining the common consciousness in all its vigor. (p.63). [166]

Without punishment, we -- as a collective -- would not be able to see the borders of acceptable behavior. Each punishment tells us what types of things are allowed and not allowed. Thus, punishment has the result of reinforcing what we already know Punishment is, above all, intended to have its effect upon honest people." [166] because it helps to describe the moral boundaries of the societies people live in.

In order to prevent society from disintegrating Durkheim believed that punishment was necessary. Punishment is 'a passionate reaction of graduated intensity to offences against the collective conscience' Unlike conservatives who believed that the harshest possible punishment should be enforced to make men moral and preserve the status quo, Durkheim believed that only the necessary relevant amount of punishment was needed to threaten men to remain moral. Therefore, he believed that punishment was necessary in order to promote social cohesion and bind individuals together.
Causes of DOL and engage in active exchanges (moral or dynamic density) (201). The DOL is in direct proportion to the moral density of society. (Moral density also increases with the growth of physical density). the increase of social density can occur in three ways: 1: the increasing spatial concentration of a people 2: the growth of towns (towns do no exist in segmentary societies) (the development of urban centers is not pathological, but is representative of higher society) 3: increase in number and efficacy of means of communication (201-2).

- not the desire for happiness like the other economists say

Note that he discusses a 'segmentary' society. This is the social organization that goes with mechanical solidarity -- isolated, local groups that are all-encompassing. Key to the rise of a DOL is a decrease in this segmentary society. Increases in dynamic density come through three primary developments: 1. Population concentration - the move from randomly dispersed hunters/gatheres to agricultural based, geographically concentrated social organization 2. The transformational and development of towns, which includes an increase in the social needs evident for the population. ? Secondly, the increase in simple VOLUME of people matters, though only when there is also an increase in density OK, so we have a general argument about how dynamic density increases DOL. But WHY does this happen? He sets up an ultimate cause in concentration and dynamic density, but really we want a mechanism. The mechanism he provides is one of Darwinian Competition. That as concentration increases, people have to diversify to survive, else they are competing for the same resources. 1. "If labour becomes increasingly divided as societies become more voluminous and concentrated, it is not because the external circumstance are more varied, it is because the struggle for existence becomes more strenuous" (p.208) 2. After reviewing Darwinian selection, he says that "Men are subject to the same law. In the same town different occupations can coexist without being forced into a position where they harm one another, for they are pursuing different objectives." (209-210) 3. "This having been said, it is easy to understand that any concentration in the social mass, particularly if accompanied by a growth in population, necessarily determines the progress of the division of labor" "The division of labor is therefore one result of the struggle for existence: but it is a gentle denouement. Thanks to it, rivals are not obliged to eliminate one another completely, but can coexist side by side. Moreover, as it develops, it provides a greater number of individuals, who in more homogeneous societies would be condemned to extinction, with the means of sustaining themselves and surviving." Labor Labor becomes increasingly divided as societies grow in density not because of external circumstances, but because the struggle for existence becomes more strenuous (208). Men differentiate their specialties in order to decrease competition and to coexist In short, since the division of labor becomes the chief source of social solidarity, it becomes, at the same time, the foundation of the moral order."

Specialization Humans specialize and increase the DOL in order to survive in new conditions of existence.Greater economic productivity is merely a consequence of the DOL, and not a cause or motivation each segment has its own organs that are kept at a distance from similar organs by social partitions. but as these partitions disappear with the advancement of society, the segments begin to struggle to substitute each other. This struggle eventually diminishes, resulting in specialization. He points out that people specialize in different occupations in a society, and this tends to bind them all together, as they depend on each other, but at the same time creates a sense of helplessness, or anomie, because no one person is responsible for the whole job. That is the reason that often the division of labor is not carried as far as it should be. As specialization increases, Durkheim argued, people are increasingly separated, values and interests become different, norms are varied, and subcultures (both work-related and socialrelated) are formed Durkheim saw that without one another in a highly specialized society, no one can survive. This interdependence is why the division of labor does not destroy social order.

Society and social life Every society is a moral society, because men cannot cohabitate without agreeing and cooperating . Civilization is but an after-effect (not a cause) of the DOL
Civilization It can explain neither the existence nor the progress of the division of labor, since it has, of itself, no intrinsic or absolute value, but, on the contrary, has a reason for existing only in so far as the division of labor is itself found necessary

In effect, man does not shape society. According to DH, 'it is because society changes that we must change' (282). DH labels this concept a mechanistic theory of progress.' Because the ideal of civilization depends upon the ever changing social environment, we will never be without our goals for society (282). According to DH, man is more or less entirely guided by social life He claims that man develops his psychological life in response to his level of sociability

Social life is derived from a dual source, the similarity of individual consciousnesses and the social division of labor. In the first case the individual is socialized because, lacking any individuality of his own, he is mixed up with his fellows in the same collective type. In the second case [i.e. organic] it is because, whilst his physiognomy and his activities are personal to him, distinguishing him from others, he depends upon them to the very extent that he is distinguished from them, and consequently upon the society that is the result of their combining together.

DOL blamed/ Individualism

DH recognizes that the DOL has been blamed for turning workers into 'lifeless cogs' (306). But, he argues that the DOL does not produce these circumstances as a result of its nature. Under normal conditions, the DOL requires that the individual worker interact with his coworkers the DOL is a source of solidarity For the DOL to create social solidarity, it is not enough that everyone have a task -- the task must be agreeable to him.

He makes a specific point about the role of DOL in alienation:

"THe foregoing removes all grounds for one of the gravest reproaches that have been made against the DOL. It has often been accused of diminishing the individual by reducing him to the role of a machine.

Durkheim argues that individualism is a modern social phenomenon; it is not as pronounced in earlier societies; it is the result of social differentiation associated with the development of the social division of labor. Does individualism lead to social disintegration? Durkheim rejects the classical liberal argument that the market is sufficient to guarantee that the free reign of individual egoism will lead to the greater good for society as a whole. He also rejects the conservative claim that the repression of individual choice is needed to prevent social disintegration. What is needed, Durkheim argues, is a new and higher form of social solidarity that will reconcile individualism with a sense of respect for and obligation toward others. Durkheim refers to this as "organic solidarity," which he distinguishes from the more traditional form of "mechanical solidarity."

But Durkheim quickly points out that this does not cause a society to fail or disintegrate.

individuals perform certain specific functions, but rely on the well-being and successful performance of other individuals. If one organ fails, the rest of them fail as well. A body--or in this case a society--cannot function at all if one part crumbles This is what gives moral value to the division of labor. Through it, the individual becomes cognizant of his dependence upon society . Because people are forced to perform distinct, separate, and specialized tasks, they come to rely on others for their very survivial.

E.D. claims that as individuality goes up, the social whole 'develops' more and increases solidarity In the second kind of solidarity, organic solidarity, the society is a system of different functions united by definite relationships (83). This brings about the DOL. Here each individual must have a sphere of action and a personality which is his own. Individuality grows at the same time as the parts of society.

ANOMIC DOL

As labor becomes increasingly divided up, these phenomena become more frequent .(eg: bankruptcies, commercial crises, hostility between labor and capital). The DOL, if pushed too far, can become a source of disintegration, The individual may isolate himself in his own special activity, forget his fellow workers, and no longer have any idea of what the common task consists If solidarity does not arise from the DOL, it is because the relationships between the organs in the system are not well regulated -- they are in a state of anomie For the DOL to create social solidarity, it is not enough that everyone have a task -- the task must be agreeable to him . Constraint binds people to their functions, and only a troubled form of solidarity can exist (311).

ED recognize that there are many problems with the DOL, but his claim is that these are not systemic with the division of labor, but a result of "abnormal forms" problems with the implementation if you will, of the DOL

1. Industrial failure: a rise in bankruptcy. "A first case of this nature is provided for us by industrial or commercial crises, and by the bankruptcies that are so many partial breaks in organic solidarity. They demonstrate in fact that at certain points of the organism certain social functions are not adjusted to one another." (p.292) 2. Class conflict. "Hostility between labour and capital is another example, a more striking one, of the same phenomenon. As industrial functions specialise more the struggle becomes more fierce, fare from solidarity increasing. [he then gives a nice thumbnail of the history of relations, starting w. serfs and ending w. free labor] 3. The ever-widening gulf in science, that no one can understand it all, and thus that science is not progressing as a whole/ science dispersion. "Up to very recent times, science, not being very much divided, could be studied almost in its entirety by one and the same person. ... But as specialization was introduced into scientific work each scientist shut himself off increasingly, not only within a particular science, but within a particular kind of problem" Quoting Schaeffle, he says that "this division of intellectual labor gives serious grounds for fearing that this return to ... the ruination of all science" (p293-4) 4. if the division of labor does not produce solidarity it is because the relationships between the organs are not regulated; it is because they are in a state of anomi

Anomie thus refers to a breakdown of social norms and it is a condition where norms no longer control the activities of members in society. Individuals cannot find their place in society without clear rules to help guide them. Changing conditions as well as adjustment of life leads to dissatisfaction, conflict, and deviance. Durkheim felt that sudden change caused a state of anomie. The system breaks down, either during a great prosperity or a great depression, anomie is the same result.
Anomie: This is Durkheim's term for a lack of sufficient moral regulation in which individuals are left to their own egotistical pursuits without a sufficient sense of moral obligation to others. Anomie is viewed as a source of both individual unhappiness and social disorganization

Difference of Marx

Transitional problems associated with the division of labor: (1) "anomic division of labor" in which individuals lack sufficient moral regulation; (2) "forced division of labor" in which excessively rigid institutions force individuals into occupational positions that are not suited to their talents and aptitudes. Durkheim argues that neither of these demonstrate that social conflict and individual discontent are endemic to the division of labor. These problems can be solved with reforms such as: (1) the development of new institutions of moral regulation (schools and professional associations); (2) a system of

more meritocratic occupational placement to be achieved with equal educational opportunity and the elimination of privileges based on inheritance. Some ways that Durkheim differs from Marx: (1) The division of labor is conceived as horizontal differentiation, not vertical (class) inequality. (2) Social change is conceived as evolutionary process, not revolutionary leaps. (3) Contradictions of modern society are moral (anomie) rather than material (alienation). (4) State, law, and dominant belief system are viewed from the standpoint of their functionality for society as a whole, not as the instruments of the ruling class.