Emile Durkheim discusses the division of labor in the
1890s. In 1893, he highlights mechanical and organic solidarity. In mechanical
solidarity, Durkheim connects the individual to society without this such,
intermediary. Society is organized collectively; all members share same beliefs,
basically a collective conscious. This is seen in more primitive societies.
There is low differentiation with an emphasis on the common good. Conformity is
seen abundantly. In organic solidarity, individualism and specialization are
highlighted. Society is a system of different functions; individuals have a
distinct job and personality. There is a high differentiation in this society,
emphasizing the individual. This system is seen in civilized societies.
Durkheim viewed this division of labor as more
productive, being that it created worker solidarity. He was interested in the
differences between traditional and modern societies. He witnessed the division
of labor changing from mechanical to organic solidarity. He even discusses how
the division of labor is beneficial to society because it ‘increases
reproductive capacity, the skill of the workman, and it creates a feeling of
solidarity between people.’ On the other hand, Marx viewed the division of
labor as a way to alienate the worker under capitalism. He also believed it was
inevitable because technology kept advancing. Marx was concerned with changing
social relations due to capitalism, while Durkheim’s focus was on the
individual and society and the relationship between the two.
If the goal of the division of labor is to create
solidarity among people in a society, can there be social conflict? People in a
society have to mutually accept norms/institutions, but that’s not possible in
an industrialized capitalist society, at least at this time in the 1890s it
hadn’t been achieved. Due to this, anomic division of labor surfaces. This
Marxist terms implies a lack of regulation and integration; a lack of social
norms. This term also suggests that individuals become isolated by their
specific role in organic solidarity. If people lose a sense of being essential
in the whole of society, then wouldn’t they feel alienated? I’m starting to
make small connections here and there between Marx and Durkheim, although my
brain has a hard time adjusting to think sociologically.
Drawing off a familiar name, Durkheim saw
Tocqueville’s study of democracy in America and believed that civil
associations could result in social solidity. These associations could replace
the roles of certain institutions. These would function as social
organizations, among have other functions. People in the groups share a collective
identity.
I think the inner sociological nerd is beginning to
come out of me. “Hey Hey Durkheim” is a song on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgA41FMY0oQ)
which sings out some of
Durkheim’s contributions to sociology along with appropriate pictures. I think
it’s a very cool and if I had the ability to rhyme and sing even remotely well,
I would probably attempt it.
It is really intersesting to see how there are some connections between all three sociologists (Marx, Tocqueville, and Durkheim), I think if people do lose a sense of being then yes, they would feel a little alienated and out of place, sort of like how its the first day of school (first grade), you feel kind of out of place and don't know where you belong until you meet friends the same age or your parents tell you where you fit in at school, based on your hobbies, school performance, athletics. It's hard to fully comprehend how you should think sociologically, when we have lived through most of the stuff these sociologists are talking about.
ReplyDelete