The Division of Labour in Society (French: De la division du travail social) is the doctoral dissertation of

French sociologist mile Durkheim, published in 1893. It was influential in

advancing sociological theories and thought, with ideas which in turn were influenced by Auguste Comte.
Durkheim described how social order was maintained in societies based on two very different forms of
solidarity (mechanical and organic), and the transition from more "primitive" societies to
advanced industrial societies.
Durkheim suggested that in a "primitive" society, mechanical solidarity, with people acting and thinking
alike and with a collective or common conscience, is what allows social order to be maintained. In such a
society, Durkheim viewed crime as an act that "offends strong and defined states of the collective
conscience" though he viewed crime as a normal social fact.[1] Because social ties were relatively
homogeneous and weak throughout society, the law had to be repressive and penal, to respond to offences
of the common conscience.
In an advanced, industrial, capitalist society, the complex division of labor means that people are
allocated in society according to merit and rewarded accordingly: social inequality reflects natural
inequality, assuming that there is complete equity in the society. Durkheim argued that moral regulation
was needed, as well as economic regulation, to maintain order (or organic solidarity) in society with
people able to "compose their differences peaceably".[2] In this type of society, law would be more
restitutive than penal, seeking to restore rather than punish excessively.
He thought that transition of a society from "primitive" to advanced may bring about
major disorder, crisis, and anomie. However, once society has reached the "advanced" stage, it becomes
much stronger and is done developing. Unlike Karl Marx, Durkheim did not foresee any different society
arising out of the industrial capitalist division of labour. He regards conflict, chaos, and disorder as
pathological phenomena to modern society, whereas Marx highlights class conflict.

In sociology, "mechanical solidarity" and "organic solidarity"[1] refer to the concepts of solidarity as
developed by mile Durkheim. They are used in the context of differentiating between mechanical and
organic societies.
According to Durkheim, the types of social solidarity correlate with types of society. Durkheim
introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of the development of
societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893). In a society exhibiting mechanical solidarity, its
cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of individualspeople feel connected through
similar work, educational and religious training, and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity normally operates in
"traditional" and small scale societies.[2] In simpler societies (e.g., tribal), solidarity is usually based
on kinship ties of familial networks. Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from
specialization of work and the complementarities between peoplea development which occurs in
modern and industrial societies.[2] Definition: it is social cohesion based upon the dependence individuals
have on each other in more advanced societies. Although individuals perform different tasks and often
have different values and interests, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their reliance on
each other to perform their specified tasks. Organic here is referring to the interdependence of the
component parts. Thus, social solidarity is maintained in more complex societies through the
interdependence of its component parts (e.g., farmers produce the food to feed the factory workers who
produce the tractors that allow the farmer to produce the food).
The two types of solidarity can be distinguished by morphological and demographic features, type
of norms in existence, and the intensity and content of the conscience collective.[2]
 Mechanical vs. organic solidarity[3]

Feature Mechanical solidarity Organic solidarity

Morphological Based on resemblances (predominant Based on division of labor

(structural) in less advanced societies)
basis Segmental type (first clan-based, later
territorial)
Little interdependence (social bonds
relatively weak)
Relatively low volume of population
Relatively low material and moral
density
(predominately in more advanced
societies)
Organized type (fusion of markets and
growth of cities)
Much interdependency (social bonds
relatively strong)
Relatively high volume of population
Relatively high material and moral
density

Types of Rules with repressive sanctions Rules with restitutive sanctions

norms Prevalence of penal law Prevalence of cooperative law (civil,
(typified by commercial, procedural, administrative
law) and constitutional law)

Formal High volume Low volume

features of High intensity Low intensity
conscience High determinateness Low determinateness
collective Collective authority absolute More room for individual initiative and
reflection

Content of Highly religious Increasingly secular

conscience Transcendental (superior to human
collective interests and beyond discussion)
Attaching supreme value to society
and interests of society as a whole
Concrete and specific
Human-orientated (concerned with
human interests and open to
discussion)
Attaching supreme value to individual
dignity, equality of opportunity, work
ethic and social justice
Abstract and general