Sociology I · 25 marks

Emile Durkheim had argued that the function of division of labour in society is that of the promotion of social solidarity. Discuss the statement and critically analyze Durkheim's Division of Labour theory, with reference to contemporary trends.

Answered by 4 toppers · CSE 2016–2017

Syllabus: Sociological Thinkers: (a) Karl Marx- Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class struggle. (b) Emile Durkheim- Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society. (c) Max Weber- Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (d) Talcolt Parsons- Social system, pattern variables. (e) Robert K. Merton- Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance, reference groups. (f) Mead - Self and identity.

How toppers approached it

From 2 of the 4 answers · about 520 words.

Opening

  • No separate opening2 of 2

Body

  • Points and prose2 of 2

Close

  • A summary2 of 2

The toppers’ answers

BensonAIR 90 · CSE 2017 · 360 wordsTheir whole copy

Opening

Durkheim studied societies and was seeking to explain how order is maintained in society.

Body · points and prose

He studied preliterate societies as being low on technology, simple division of labour, strong collective conscience, similarity of occupation and so mechanically linked. The violations were severely condemned by repressive laws. The similarity was hence cause of solidarity, as each produced and worked for group.

Similarly in modern industrial society, it was based on high technology, complex division of labour as society was further

differentiated, specialisation of occupation and hence organically linked. The differences and specialisation made each person dependent on other to fulfill their needs. As a result a new solidarity developed due to value consensus and interdependence, which held society together.

The collective conscience was not so strong as religion was overtaken by education in promoting generalized values. Hence deviation was met with restitutive law, as collective conscience was not hurt.

Durkheim however fails to account for how values are generated. It could be ruling class ideology.

Also industrial society has seen many conflicts between workers, owners etc showing the value consensus does not exist.

Moreover social change has been projected as orderly but we see from French Revolution it wasn't.

Contemporary trend in labour (Post Industrial Society- Daniel Bell) show growth of services in India and neglect of agriculture. As a result there is rural, urban labourer conflict and stress (farmer suicides).

Moreover lack of skill has made workers unemployable creating poverty and social strife.

There is no value consensus on labour issues as seen in recent Brexit and Sons of Soil Movement in Assam, Maharashtra, negating organic solidarity.

Gender as a dimension has also been ignored in Durkheim's theory. This becomes more relevant as democracies ensure women's equal rights.

Women are entering the workforce in large numbers and many view it as threat to family and male jobs (Margaret Benson).

Apart from class divide, race and caste are categories that prevent solidarity. e.g. Black Lives Matter and Dalit massacre at Khairlanji.

Increasing differentiation has led to social conflict rather than disintegration as seen by OBC status demand by Jats, Marathas etc.

Close · a summary

However Durkheim's insight is valuable in understanding cohesion in industrial society.

More on Emile Durkheim

Division of labour, social fact, suicide, and religion and society.

All Sociology I questions on Emile Durkheim