TAKE HOME EXAM 2

Durkheim (II) The Division of Labor and Organic Solidarity: Causes and Conditions© Meyer Kestnbaum, University of Maryland -- Sociology 203

Overview

I. From last time II. How does Durkheim refine Mechanical vs. Organic solidarity?

III. How does D engage economic exchange and the emergence of the division of labor in terms of moral regulation?

IV. How does D understand the relationship between society and the person? V. How can organic solidarity not work as expected? So what?

VI. What does Liberty look like for D?

Terms and Concepts

Segmented vs. functionally interdependent

Collective representations (synonym for c.c.)

Cooperation vs. competition

Contract

Moral subtract

Human nature as dual

Anomic division of labor

Forced division of labor

Free development of socially useful forces

I. From last time

1. Durkheim sees society as a moral universe --society morally regulates its members, and without such regulation “society” does not exist

2. Being morally regulated is captured in the notion of solidarity, which highlights how people are bound together in a way that regulates them

3. Durkheim distinguishes between mechanical and organic solidarity, two different forms of solidarity or ways societies may be morally regulated

4. The division of labor undermines the first, and creates the basis for the second

II. Revisiting Mechanical vs. Organic Mechanical solidarity

a. Based on resemblance (similarity) b. Produces sympathy c. Social rels segmented, people mv as block d. Corresponds to less well dev. D of L e. Law -- repressive/penal/punishment to

reinforce specific moral regulation f. C.C.: clearly defined, strongly held states

of shared belief dominate individual g. → basis of solidarity= shared beliefs

/understandings, & only strong when individual personality is relatively weak (so similarity is in terms of shared beliefs)

Organic solidarity

a. Based on difference (distinctiveness) b. Produces mutual interdependence c. Soc rels tightly knit, elements funct’ly interdep d. Corresponds to well developed D of L e. Law -- restitutive/civil & admin/to re-establish

harmonious relations f. C.C.: diffuse, less strongly held states of c.c.

shared widely; space for individuality + is nec! g. → basis of solidarity=functly interdep rel from

D of L, but shared beliefs/understandings still imp, specific to place/role in d of l; organic solidarity strong only if individuality is great

II. Revisiting Mechanical vs. Organic Solidarity I. Important to highlight issues regarding the shifting place of the CC and what he

later calls collective representations, and their relationship to individuality A. Under organic solidarity, the CC becomes increasingly indeterminate and abstract B. Includes not just sentiments and beliefs but also “big ideas” and even formal doctrines C. CC contents shrink in number (think of what D says about the decline in # proverbs) but often take on

the quality of general principles (e.g., the primacy of equal treatment, universalism, equality itself) D. → Leaves open a “sphere of action peculiar to” the person, AND requires the person to develop shared

representations specific to their place/role in the d of l (shared among those connected by rel) 1. As D says, “the individuality of each person grows as well as that of society”

E. There is one place where the CC is increasingly strong, though: THE INDIVIDUAL becomes the object of a sort of religion -- “turns all wills to the same end, but it is an end that is not social but individual, and as such, cannot be the basis of solidarity”

F. -->D reproaches those who try to make individuality a moral doctrine; what does provide this?

II. (For reference--from last time)Restate I. Mechanical vs. Organic solidarity and individualism: what individuality means

for D (see p. 131ff.) A. Mechanical solidarity is strong only when the individual personality is reduced

1. Social molecules that act together do so only as they have no actions of their own, so in this sense, its mechanical

B. Organic solidarity presumes difference--which is only possible if each individual personality has a sphere of action peculiar to him or her 1. Collective conscience necessarily leaves open a part in order to establish special functions

there--and the more this region is extended, the stronger the cohesion among different parts 2. Individuality of all grows at the same time as that of its parts; capable of coll mvmt 3. Resembles the solidarity see among higher animals, as an organism, with each organ

playing its distinctive part (think brain, heart, lungs, hands, eyes, etc.)

Questions to ask ourselves 1. We can distinguish Mechanical from Organic solidarity on many different

dimensions. But in the end, what is the basis of the ‘glue’ that binds people together in Mechanical solidarity? In Organic solidarity?

2. We can think of this another way. What is the role of shared beliefs and understandings (taken together, collective representations) is providing the glue that binds people together under Mechanical solidarity? Under Organic solidarity? Are shared beliefs and understandings still important under Organic solidarity, and how?

3. What role does the C.C. play in determining resemblance/similarity? How does difference require some commonality with at least some others (to whom a person is tied by relations of interdependence)? Think about this….

III. Economic life and solidarity I. Based on this vision, D asks: In modern society, = under organic solidarity, how do

cooperation and harmony exist? A. D says: Start by picturing economic exchange stripped of all moral regulation, and imagine it

resulting from free initiative exercised by people and the play of self-interest alone 1. What is he asking us to picture here? Who is he engaging? 2. D contends this is a poor source of stability, and it conceals latent conflict (who else made a

similar claim?) B. To understand exchange, D argues we need to focus on contracts and the critical role they play

1. When we unite in contract, it is because we need each other 2. But to cooperate, it is not enough that we enter into a relationship or even feel mutual

interdependence--we need to fix the conditions of cooperation for a particular duration 3. The law of contracts is vital, specifying rights and duties and thus inducing people to use

certain procedures to attain particular ends

III. Economic life and solidarity I. Vital as they are, however, contracts (and the fixity they provide) are still not enough

to explain cooperative exchange A. D argues that contract law itself -- which specifies a person’s rights and duties in any exchange --

depends on an underlying moral subtract shared by all parties to an exchange B. This moral subtract works through custom and defines our mutual obligations and

responsibilities--and those obligations are taken as obligations for all C. The moral subtract forces individuals to act in view of ends not strictly their own, to consent to

compromises, to take into account interests higher than his or her own--and includes what D calls “permanent duties” from which people cannot free themselves (incl. sticking to your agreements…)

D. Importantly, for D, this moral subtract (or components of it) can be specific to particular occupational groups or sectors→ so that there is a sense of individual moral obligation that fits any set of social relations

E. This moral subtract forms a key part of the c.c. in Org Solidarity, but not all elements are shared society-wide

III. Economic life and solidarity

I. D then continues his engagement with Smith and asks, what are the conditions for the division of labor to emerge in the first place? A. (Building on the logic of the prior case) In order to have the division of labor, there must

first be working solidarity already in place: 1. Social solidarity must come FIRST before the D of L can possibly proceed

B. And only this way will the division of labor produce cooperation rather than conflict C. Without functioning solidarity, the division of labor sets people at odds, divides

them--pitting them against one another through an unmediated kind of competition (277) 1. Strictly speaking, the role of solidarity is not to suppress competition, but to

moderate it (365) D. → Q: So what does this say about competition and conflict? About the historical process

by which we see the emergence of organic solidarity?

IV. Society and the person

I. We’ve built enough of D’s arguments (eg, the role of the cc in moral regulation, his take on individuality, the role of the moral subtract) to get a sense of how Durkheim views human nature A. In fundamental ways, for D, human nature is dual (he calls this the duality of human nature) B. Individual nature comes from and is always secondary to social nature, which comes from society C. Society invests and inhabits the person, putting the bases on which it rests in the consciousness of

people (the collective consciousness, or what he also calls shared representations) D. It leaves room for individuals to develop in distinctive ways insofar as the emerging division of labor

demands it E. In this view, society is a force outside of and above individuals, powerfully dictating to individuals

1. → Key Implication: society-- not numbers of people sharing a view as in Tocqueville-- is the source of moral authority

Questions to ask ourselves

1. Why does Durkheim turn to economic exchange, and how does argue that Smith doesn’t quite see all that’s going on?

2. What role do contracts play, and why are they important? 3. Why are contracts not enough, and what role does the underlying moral

subtract play in regulating exchange? 4. What has to come before we ever might see the division of labor unfold,

historically? What does this mean for the historical movement between types of solidarity?

5. What is the dualism of human nature for Durkheim, and what does it mean in terms of the relationship between society and the person?

V. Problems within organic solidarity I. Explaining deviations from “normal”, well-functioning organic solidarity

A. Fully functioning organic solidarity requires that persons have a clear sense of mutual obligation that predetermines how the parts of the division of labor come together -- a sense of rights and duties established in custom and which become an obligation for the individual, and together create a condition of authentic mutual dependence 1. This is a model of fit, between a particular structure of the division of labor (that is, a particular

pattern of social relationships) and the shared representations or cc that suit those relations and regulate those relations as well as the people involved appropriately

B. D. argues that the State is able to provide an important measure of unity for the complex parts of an advanced division of labor

C. However, D identifies two critical ways in which organic solidarity may break down 1. Anomic division of labor 2. Forced division of labor

V. Problems with organic solidarity

I. Anomic division of labor A. D defines this as the situation when there is inadequate or insufficient regulation of social relations

1. That is, when the existing rules of conduct are inadequate or those rules (shared representations as well as laws) are out of step with the degree or form of the division of labor

B. What is he thinking about here, specifically? D highlights two kinds of economic relations for which the formal rules and informal sense of obligation do not work well to regulate relations and where he observes people seeking better regulation 1. In terms of numbers of business enterprises in given fields, and in each field, the regulation of

production in line with consumption are lacking: this is a matter for professional associations to tackle, he contends

2. In relations between capital and labor, where the need to reestablish harmony after disturbances caused by shifts in prices requires more regulation of how firms contract for hiring services (and which he notes the French state began to address after 1893, publ of his book)

V. Problems with organic solidarity

I. Forced division of labor A. This is the situation where the laws (and thus institutions) themselves are the problem B. Why? Because of how they maintain certain inequalities that D sees as problematic C. How? Obstacles created in law that prevent people from occupying their place in the division

of labor compatible with their faculties and talents--forms of inequality external to/prior to the working out of the D of L itself that, for ex., force people into certain jobs, or close off others

D. This is a form of violence against people, a form of the use force E. The result of this is injustice, exploitation and ultimately, class war F. To eliminate this

1. Requires equality in the external conditions of conflict or competition, so that nothing indirectly shackles the free unfolding of the person (individuality)

2. This means there will be important inequalities--those arising from the self--which are to be judged in terms of their social values (or how they contribute to society) (377)

VI. Liberty in organic solidarity

I. Liberty is a complex question on Durkheim’s account--set up by the 2 problems A. For D, it is always an issue of moral regulation exercised by society over the person B. → His underlying image: of persons being enfolded and supported by society--where the moral

constraints imposed on people by society are what makes them free C. Specifically, D argues that naturally there arise a host of differences and inequalities, and liberty

consists in subordinating those naturally arising forces to social forces D. Liberty happens only if humanity raises itself above such things and makes a law for them--creates

a world of moral regulation, where people are united under one state (see 277, 358) E. Since natural order (and even some laws made by man) → troubling inequalities that persist, to

attain liberty we need to make a law that binds us and renders those critical relations more equitable F. This assures, then, the free development of socially useful forces (387) by the individual G. → Liberty, then, is an issue of moral regulation and constraints, involves the fashioning of laws that

create a certain kind of equality, and thereby fosters the development of the individual

Questions we can ask ourselves

1. Durkheim recognizes there is a distinction between fully-functioning solidarity, and when it might break down. In this connection, he makes explicit that he’s specifying a model of fit. What does that mean? What can be ‘out of fit’?

2. What is the anomic division of labor, and what’s the resolution? 3. What’s the forced division of labor, and what’s the resolution? 4. How does D. understand liberty, and how is it related to equality and

individuality?

One-Minute Paper

I. Identify and briefly lay out 2 or 3 major claims Durkheim makes in the readings for today. By lay out, I mean explain the logic or talk about why the claim is important, in a sentence or two.

II. Identify 1 or 2 sources of confusion that remain for you -- what we’ve called “muddiest points.” You may include something as a major claim and a muddy point. But if you do, make sure to lay out what you see as important, and then to speak to the source of confusion that remains.