I've always found Durkheim fascinating and slightly controversial, not so linear and conservative as many present him. In fact, at times I feel he is a Marxist in the very core, or, at least, there is something Veblenesque inside of him.

The typical discussion of Durkheim in relation to social class is based on his Division of Labor (DOL) idea. So, as it goes, the way societies divide their labor conditions their entire way of life. Durkheim operates with two types of societies: pre-industrial and industrial, or, in his words, mechanical and organic solidarity. First of all, solidarity is a wonderful term to use, literally it comes from Latin solidus, which means solid. The dictionary definition is a bit more elaborate - "unity that produces or is based on community of interests, objectives, and standards". To grasp the meaning of this term is very much the key to getting the entire idea of social difference according to Durkheim.

So, to Durkheim, social unity comes in two distinct ways.

Mechanical solidarity exists in pre-industrial societies. Durkheim labels is "politico-familial" and describes it in the following way: "this organization, just like the horde, of which it is only an extension, evidently carries with it no other solidarity than that derived from resemblance, since the society is formed of similar segments and these in their turn enclose only homogeneous elements". It is based on a fairly simple division of labor - mostly by gender and then by age. That presumes that mechanical societies attribute a great importance to traditional roles. Thus, men do the heavy duty of working in the fields, building facilities and such, while women stay home, tend to children and the household issues. Every member of such society contributes their share, children and the elderly are given smaller chores that they can successfully complete.

It is also important to understand the nature of the work performed by people in mechanical solidarity: there is virtually no differentiation. All tasks are performed together within each gender - everybody works in the field, everybody builds a house, everybody cooks dinner. Therefore, since the scope of work is broad, there is a lot of redundancy in the system. One person's demise, although tragic, is inconsequential for the overall workings of the system, since everyone knows how to perform the necessary function.

Now, as technology advances and industrial development skyrockets, the society changes and moves into the realm of organic solidarity, meaning, the relationships and connections gain more complexity. "That social type rests on principles so different from the preceding that it can develop only in proportion to the effacement of that type. In this type, individuals are no longer grouped according to their relations of lineage, but according to the particular nature of the social activity to which they devote themselves" (p. 143).

With the new means of production there are new opportunities for work, those that did not exist before. With these opportunities comes relocation, new training and, as well, a new understanding of oneself as an individual entity, not necessarily bound by conscience collective - the collective mind based in the years of homogeneous living and tradition. Specialized activities become more prominent and foster individualization: instead of pursuing the common routine, each individual now has a chance to develop their own skill sets that fits better with their individual interests and callings. So, within organic solidarity, labor is divided not on the basis of one's gender or age, but on the basis of one's skill. Specialization is the key.

The outcome of the new order of labor division is such that interdependence between people increases supersonically: while before everybody knew how to do their neighbor's work, now - no one does. Just think, our society is so complex that we need other people to do things for us, because we, personally, have neither skill, nor time, nor otherwise - an accountant files our taxes, a plumber fixes our sink, a grocery store sells us our food (which we don't even know who produced) and so on. So, in a system like this, a failure of one element could have more severe consequences than in the mechanical solidarity setting. Nothing to say that there is still redundancy, however, it is not as widely and deeply penetrated into the society as before.

Finally, the point of this all? Durkheim has an interesting view of the entire purpose of the DOL in society, especially in an organic type with its overpopulated, dense and complex living that assumes more mutual difference (if not in-difference) than mutual connectedness. "Men obey the same law," - he says, - "In the same city, different occupations can co-exist without being obliges mutually to detsroy one another, for they pursue different objectives. The soldier seeks military glory, the priest moral authority, the statesman power, the businessmen riches, and the scholar scientific renown. each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from attaining theirs. It is still the same even when functions are less separated from one another.... Since they perform different services, they can perform them together." (154)

So, to Durkheim, Division of Labor is an essential social means to peacekeeping: the more jobs there are in a densely populated and diverse environment, the less there is an opportunity for conflict, since nobody take food out of another's mouth. No small potatoes, if you ask me. However, the opposite is also true as "similar occupations located at different points are as competitive as they are alike, provided the difficulty of communication and transport does not restrict the circle of their action." So, bottom line is that we are only as safe from the conflict as we have enough distinct occupations for all. Once this changes - welcome social tension. In fact, look around...


Durkheim, E. (1972) Selected writings. Cambridge University Press