UNIT 20

DIVISION OF LABOUR
DURKHEIM AND MARX

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

Structure
20.0 Objectives
20.1 Introduction
20.2 Socio-Economic Setting and Meaning of Division of Labour
20.2.0 Socio-economic Setting
20.2.1 Meaning of Division of Labour

20.3 Durkheims Views on Division of Labour

20.3.0 Functions of Division of Labour
20.3.1 Causes of Division of Labour
20.3.2 Abnormal Forms of Division of Labour

20.4 Marxs Views on Division of Labour

20.4.0 Social Division of Labour and Division of Labour in
Manufacture
20.4.1 Implications of Division of Labour in Manufacture
20.4.2 Marxs Remedy - Revolution and Change

20.5 A Comparison
20.5.0
20.5.1
20.5.2
20.5.3

Causes of Division of Labour

Consequences of Division of Labour
Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of Labour
Durkheims Functional Model of Society and Marxs
Conflict Model

20.6 Let Us Sum Up

20.7 Key Words
20.8 Further Reading
20.9 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

20.0

OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to:

z

describe Emile Durkheims views on division of labour as expressed

in his work The Division of Labour in Society

outline Karl Marxs views on division of labour

compare the distinct views of Durkheim and Marx on division of

labour.

20.1 INTRODUCTION
In this unit, you are going to study the similarities and differences in the
manner in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx treated the process of
division of labour.

37

Max Weber

To begin with, we will briefly describe the socio-economic setting in which

Durkheim and Marx expressed their views. We will then explain the concept
of division of labour. This will be the first section (20.2).
In the second section (20.3) we will study the views of Emile Durkheim
on division of labour which he put across in his Ph.D. thesis entitled The
Division of Labour in Society (1893).
We will go on to study Karl Marxs analysis of the topic in the third section
(20.4).
Finally in the fourth section (20.5), we will compare and contrast the
positions of these founding fathers.

20.2

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING AND

MEANING OF DIVISION OF LABOUR

In the following sub-sections we shall first describe the socio-economic

setting in which Durkheim and Marx worked. This will help us understand
their views better. We shall then see exactly what is meant by the term
division of labour. What does it involve? Why is it practised? These are
some of the points we will tackle in this section.

20.2.0 Socio-Economic Setting

Durkheim and Marx lived in an age in which Europe was experiencing
the Industrial Revolution. As we have studied earlier in this course, the
Industrial Revolution was characterised by a shift in the technique of
production. Small-scale, domestic production of commodities gave way to
large-scale mass production in factories.
Change took place not just in the economic sphere. Cities and their
populations grew and so did the incidence of poverty, crime and other
social problems. Social stability and order were under threat. The traditional,
feudal society was crumbling and the modern, industrial world was coming
into being.
The social context in which Durkheim and Marx lived was such that they
had to evolve or work out explanations for what they saw in the society
around them. We shall see the very distinct manner in which they
approached the process of division of labour. This was a process, which
was becoming conspicuous with the advance of industrialisation.
Let us now understand what division of labour means.

20.2.1 Meaning of Division of Labour

38

By the phrase of division of labour we mean the splitting up of an activity

into a number of parts or smaller processes. These smaller processes are
undertaken by different persons or groups of persons, thereby speeding up
the performance of the activity. Let us take an example. You want to make
a shirt. It will take you quite some time to do the entire job yourself. If,
however, some friends decide to join you, the job can be simplified. One
person may do the cutting, another may do the machine-stitching, a third

may do the finishing stitches by hand. This will save you a great deal of
time and energy. You and your friends can probably make many more
shirts in the same time it would take you alone to make a single shirt. You
have divided labour and hence saved time and increased productivity.
Division of labour implies specialisation, (i.e., each person becoming an
expert in his or her task) saving time and saving costs and at the same time
increasing productivity.

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

The concept of division of labour was systematically discussed by the

Scottish economist Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations (1776). Smith
felt that the division of labour was the primary source of economic progress.
It was the vehicle through which economic development would advance.
You may read more about Adam Smith in Box 20.1.
Box 20.1 Adam Smith
Adam Smith is regarded as one of the pioneers of modern economics.
He was born in 1723 in Kirkcaldy, a small town near Edinburgh,
Scotland. After his early schooling in Kirkcaldy, Adam Smith went on
to the University of Edinburgh where he was awarded an M.A. in 1740.
He then went to Oxford. In 1751, Smith was appointed a professor of
moral philosophy in the University of Glasgow. During his tenure,
which lasted until 1763, Smith produced his first book, The Theory of
Moral Sentiments (1759).
Smith began work on his, magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations after a
two-year stay in Europe. There, he met a number of philosophers,
notably the great Frenchman Voltaire, all of whom exerted a profound
impact on him. The Wealth of Nations was published in March 1776.
In this book, he tried to study the history, causes and limitations of
economic progress or development. Adam Smith saw the basic source
of development in the individuals desire to improve economic status.
Smith identified division of labour as the process which helped accelerate
economic development. Smith used an impressive collection of
economic data, which he gathered from his wide readings and sharp
observations. Some of this data is referred to by economists even today.
The Wealth of Nations remains one of the most important works in
social science because it was one of the first attempts to study
comprehensively the competitive, individualistic world of industrial
capitalism. This book also contained an evaluation and sharp criticism
of existing society and government. Smith strongly opposed
government intervention in economic matters. In his opinion, human
beings should be free to pursue their economic goals. This would lead
not just to personal gains, but the benefit of society as a whole.
After the publication of this book, Smith settled in Edinburgh. He
died on July 17th, 1790. He is remembered as one of the important
figures in the history of economic thought.
We have so far discussed the meaning of the term in an economic sense
Division of labour has a social side as well. It is the social aspect of this
phenomenon that Emile Durkheim examines in The Division of Labour in
Society. Let us now describe the main points made in this work.

39

Max Weber

Check Your Progress 1

i)

Fill up the blanks in the following sentences.

a)

The
Industrial
Revolution
marked
a
change
from. production of commodities to
..production in factories.

b)

.. was becoming more conspicuous with the

advance of industrialisation.

c)

said that division of labour was the

primary source of economic development

ii)

State whether the following statements are true (T) or false (F)

a)

Division of labour leads to wastage to time.

b)

Durkheim wanted to study the economic aspect of division

of labour

T/F

Division of labour leads to specialisation

T/F

c)

20.3

(T/F)

DURKHEEVTS VIEWS ON DIVISION OF

LABOUR

Durkheims major concern as a sociologist as we have already seen in

Unit 18 of this Block is the theme of social order and integration. What
holds society together? What keeps it in an integrated whole? Let us first
see what Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, Durkheims predecessors
had to say about it.
Auguste Comte suggests that it is social and moral consensus that holds
society together. Common ideas, values, norms and mores bind individuals
and society together.
Herbert Spencer puts across a different view. According to Spencer, it is
an interplay of individual interests that holds society together. It serves the
selfish interests of individuals to strive for integration. Thus social life is
possible.
Durkheim was at variance with these views. If, as Comte suggests, it is
moral consensus that holds society together, then would not modern
industrial society crumble? After all, modern society is characterised by
heterogeneity, mobility, and diversity in activities and values. It is a society
where individualism is valued. Spencers suggestion that selfish interests
hold society together was also found to be faulty by Durkheim. If indeed,
individual interests hold sway, the resulting competition and antagonism
would break the backbone of society. Each would struggle for his own
profit even at the expense of the other. Conflict and tension would bring
about social disintegration.

40

The question that arises is, is individualism the natural enemy of social
integration and solidarity? Would the Industrial Revolution lead to nothing
but the destruction of social bonds? Durkheim thinks otherwise.

According to him, the basis or focus of social integration differs in preindustrial and post-industrial societies. He demonstrates how the process
of occupational specialisation or division of labour helps to integrate
societies where heterogeneity, differentiation and complexity are to be
found. These societies, as you have already studied in Block 3 are those
based on organic solidarity. In the following sub-sections we will see how
Durkheim studies division of labour in terms of
1)

the function of division of labour

2)

the causes underlying division of labour

3)

deviations from the normal type of division of labour, i.e. abnormal

forms.

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

20.3.0 Functions of Division of Labour

As you have already studied, Durkheim classifies human societies into
i)

those based on mechanical solidarity and

ii)

those based on organic solidarity.

i)

Mechanical Solidarity
As you know, mechanical solidarity refers to a solidarity of
resemblance or likeness. There exists a great deal of homogeneity and
tightly-knit social bonds which serve to make the individual members
one with their society. The collective conscience is extremely strong.
By collective conscience we mean the system of beliefs and sentiments
held in common by members of a society which defines what their
mutual relations ought to be. The strength of the collective conscience
integrates such societies, binding together individual members through
strong beliefs and values. Violation of or deviation from these values
is viewed very seriously. Harsh or repressive punishment is given to
offenders. Once again, it must be pointed out that this is a solidarity
or unity of likeness and homogeneity. Individual differences are
extremely limited and division of labour is at a relatively simple level.
Briefly, in such societies, individual conscience is merged with the
collective conscience.

ii)

Organic Solidarity
By organic solidarity, Durkheim means a solidarity based on difference
and complementarity of differences. Take factory, for example. There
is a great deal of difference in the work, social status, income, etc. of
a worker and a manager. Yet, the two complement each other. Being a
manager is meaningless without the cooperation of workers and
workers need to be organised by managers. Thus they are vital for
each others survival.

Societies based on organic solidarity are touched and transformed by the

growth of industrialisation. Thus, division of labour is a very important
aspect of such societies. A society based on organic solidarity is thus one
where heterogeneity, differentiation and variety exist. The growing
complexity of societies reflects in personality types, relationships and

41

Max Weber

problems. In such societies, the strength of the collective conscience lessens,

as individual conscience becomes more and more distinct, more easily
distinguished from the collective conscience. Individualism becomes
increasingly valued. The kind of grip that social norms have on individuals
in mechanical solidarity loosens. Individual autonomy and personal freedom
become as important in organic solidarity as social solidarity and integration
in societies characterised by mechanical solidarity.
Does this mean that modern society has nothing to integrate it? Division
of labour, says Durkheim, is the process that will help keep society
integrated. How? Well, as we have already seen, division of labour implies
working together at certain tasks, in other words, it implies cooperation.
As work becomes more and more divided, two consequences can be seen.
On the one hand, each individual becomes specialised in his field. He can
exercise his initiative and creativity in his special field. On the other hand,
each individual grows to depend more intimately on society. Cooperation
and complementarity are the watchwords of such a society. The kind of
solidarity produced, namely organic solidarity, is of a higher order than
mechanical solidarity. It allows individuals to exercise their freedom and
initiative even while binding them to each other and to society. Thus, the
process, which helps the growth of both, individualism and social
integration, is division of labour. At this point it is an good idea to complete
Activity 1 in order to appreciate the concept of division of labour. We
would then look at Durkheims answer to the question posed above.
Activity 1
How is labour divided in the household? Write a note of about two
pages covering the following points (i) nature and allocation of tasks,
(ii) the extent to which division of labour helps or hinders smooth
functioning of the household.
Let us now examine in this case the causes of division of labour as
described by Durkheim.

20.3.1 Causes of Division of Labour

What leads to the process, of division of labour or, what are the causal
factors? Durkheim provides a sociological answer to this question.
According to him, division of labour arises as a result of increased material
and moral density in society. By material density Durkheim means the sheer
increase in the number of individuals in a society, in other words,
population growth. By moral density he means the increased interaction
that results between individuals as a consequence of growth in numbers.

42

The growth in material and moral density results in a struggle for existence.
If, as in societies characterised by mechanical solidarity, individuals tend
to be very similar, doing the same things, they would also struggle or
compete for the same resources and rewards. Growth of population and
shrinking of natural resources would make competition more bitter. But
division of labour ensures that individuals specialise in different fields and
areas. Thus they can coexist and, in fact complement each other. But does
this ideal state of affairs always prevail? Let us see what Durkheim says.

20.3.2 Abnormal Forms of Division of Labour

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

If division of labour helped societies achieve integration and a newer, higher

form of solidarity, why was European society of that time in such a chaotic
state? Was division of labour creating problems? What had gone wrong?
According to Durkheim, the kind of division of labour that was taking
place was not the normal-type that he wrote about. Abnormal types or
deviations from the normal were being observed in society. Briefly, these
included
1)

Anomie
This term means a state of normlessness. Material life changes rapidly,
but rules norms and values do not keep pace with it. There seems to
be a total breakdown of rules and norms. In the work sphere, this
reflects in conflicts between labour and management, degrading and
meaningless work and growing class conflict.
To put it simply, individuals are working and producing but fail to see
any meaning in what they are doing. For instance, in a factory
assembly-line workers have to spend the whole day doing boring,
routine activities like fixing screws or nails to a piece of machinery.
They fail to see any meaning in what they do. They are not made to
feel that they are doing anything useful, they are not made to feel an
important part of society. Norms and rules governing work in a factory
have not changed to the extent that they can make the workers activities
more meaningful or show the workers that society needs and values
them.

2)

Inequality
Division of labour based on inequality of opportunity, according to
Durkheim, fails to produce long-lasting solidarity. Such an abnormal
form results in individuals becoming frustrated and unhappy with their
society. Thus tensions, rivalries and antagonism result. One may cite
the Indian caste system as an example of division of labour based on
inequality. People have to do certain kinds of work not because of
their capacity but because of their birth. This can be very frustrating
to those who want to do more satisfying or rewarding jobs, but cannot
have access to proper opportunities.

3)

Inadequate organisation
In this abnormal form the very purpose of division of labour is
destroyed. Work is not well organised and coordinated. Workers are
often engaged in doing meaningless tasks. There is no unity of action.
Thus solidarity breaks down and disorder results. You may have
observed that in many offices, a lot of people are sitting around idly
doing little or nothing. Many are unaware of their responsibilities.
Collective action becomes difficult when most people are not very
sure of what they have to do. Division of labour is supposed to increase
productivity and integration. In the example discussed above, the
opposite takes place (see Giddens 1978: 21-33).
43

Max Weber

So far in this unit, we have seen how Durkheim views division of labour
not just as an economic process but a social one. Its primary role, according
to him, is to help modern industrial societies become integrated. It would
perform the same function for organic solidarity that the collective
conscience performed in mechanical solidarity. Division of labour arises
as a result of the competition for survival brought about by growing material
and moral density. Specialisation offers a way whereby various individuals
may coexist and cooperate. But in the European society of the time, division
of labour seemed to be producing entirely different and negative results.
Social order seemed to be under serious threat.
Durkheim however describes this as deviations from the normal type. He
terms these as (1) anomie, wherein new rules and norms governing division
of labour do not arise, (2) inequality, which results in discontent, tension
and conflict and (3) inadequate organisation, which makes division of
labour meaningless, producing disunity and disintegration.
Let us now move on to the next section and study the views of Karl Marx
on division of labour. But before that, do check your progress.
Check Your Progress 2
i)

ii)

State whether the following statements are true or false

a)

Auguste Comte explained social integration in terms of individual

interests.
T/F

b)

Durkheim agreed that moral concensus was what held modern

industrial society together.
T/F

c)

According to Durkheim, individualism and social integration were

natural enemies.
T/F

d)

The collective conscience becomes stronger in organic solidarity

according to Durkheim.
T/F

Answer the following in about five sentences each.

a)

Why is organic solidarity of a higher order than mechanical

solidarity, according to Durkheim?
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

b)

How do material and moral density lead to division of labour?

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

44

.........................................................................................................

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

.........................................................................................................
c)

What did Durkheim mean by anomie?

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

20.4

MARXS VIEWS ON DIVISION OF

LABOUR

In the following sub-sections we shall try to understand

i)

the distinction made by Marx between social division of labour and

division of labour in industry or manufacture.

ii)

the implications of division of labour in manufacture.

iii) Marxs remedy to the problems created by division ofJabour, namely,

revolution and change.

20.4.0 Social Division of Labour and Division of Labour

in Manufacture
Let us first try to understand what Marx means by division of labour. In
this analysis of the topic in the first chapter of Capital, Volume 1, Marx
pin-points two types of division of labour, namely, social division of labour
and division of labour in manufacture.
1)

Social division of labour: This exists in all societies. It is a process

that is bound to exist in order that members of a society may
successfully undertake the tasks that are necessary to maintain social
and economic life. It is a complex system of dividing all the useful
forms of labour in a society. For instance, some individuals produce
food, some produce handicrafts, weapons and so on. Social division
of labour promotes the process of exchange of goods between groups,
e.g., the earthenware pots produced by a potter may be exchanged for
a farmers rice or a weavers cloth (see Figure 20.1: Social Division
of Labour). Such exchanges spur on or provide an impetus to
specialisation.

Figure 20.1 Social Division of Labour

45

Max Weber

2)

Division of labour in industry or manufacture: This is a process,

which is prevalent in industrial societies where capitalism and the
factory system exist. In this process, manufacture of a commodity is
broken into a number of processes. Each worker is limited to
performing or engaging in a small process like work in an assembly
line (see Figure 20.2: Division of Labour in Manufacture). This is
usually boring, monotonous and repetitive work. The purpose of this
division of labour is simple; it is to increase productivity. The greater
the productivity the greater the surplus value generated. It is generation
of surplus value that motivates capitalists to organise manufacture in a
manner that maximises output and minimises costs. It is division of
labour, which makes mass production of goods possible in modern,
industrial societies. Unlike social division of labour where independent
producers create products and exchange them with other independent
producers, division of labour in manufacture completely divorces the
worker from his product. Let us examine this point in more detail by
trying to understand the implications of division of labour in
manufacture.

Figure 20.2 Division of Labour in Manufacture

20.4.1 Implications of Division of Labour in Manufacture

1)

Profits accrue to the capitalist

As earlier described, division of labour in manufacture help to generate
more and more surplus value leading to capital accumulation. Marx
tackles a crucial question, namely, who takes away the profits? Not
the workers, says Marx, but the capitalists. Not those who actually
produce, but those who own the means of production. According to
him, division of labour and the existence of private property together
consolidate the power of the capitalist. Since the capitalist owns the
means of production, the production process is designed and operated
in such a way that the capitalist benefits the most from it.

46

2)

Workers lose control over what they produce

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

According to Marx with division of labour in manufacture workers

tend to lose their status as the real creators of goods. Rather, they
become mere links in a production chain designed and operated by
the capitalists. Workers are separated from the products of their labour;
in fact, they hardly ever see the end result of their work. They have
no control over its sale and purchase. For example, does a worker in
an assembly line in a factory producing washing-machines really get
to see the finished product? He/she might see it in an advertisement or
at a shop window. The worker will not be able to sell it or afford to
buy it, having been merely a small part of the production of that
machine. The actual control over it is exercised by the capitalist. The
worker as an independent producer no longer exists. The worker has
become enslaved by the production process.
3)

Dehumanisation of the Working Class

The capitalist system characterised by division of labour is one where
workers stop being independent producers of goods. They become
suppliers of labour-power, which is needed for production. The
workers individual personality needs and desires mean nothing to the
capitalist. It is only the workers labour-power which is sold to the
capitalist in exchange for wages that concerns the capitalist. The
working class is thus stripped of its humanness and labour-power
becomes a mere commodity purchased by the capitalist, in Marxs view.

4)

Alienation
One of the important concepts developed by Marx in understanding
the realities of the industrial world is that of alienation. You have already
studied this in Block 2.

The process of production and division of labour is one which forces the
worker to do boring, tedious, repetitive work. The worker is robbed of all
control over his/her work. The worker becomes alienated from the products
he/she is creating, from the production process he/she is a part of, from
fellow workers and from society at large (see Kolakowski, 1978: 281-287).
Activity 2
Observe the process of division of labour in a factory or a cottage
industry. Jot down your findings in about two pages and compare them,
if possible with the other students at your Study Centre.

20.4.2 Marxs Remedy - Revolution and Change

Can the problems of loss of control, dehumanisation and alienation be
countered? For Marx it is the abolition of private property, and the
establishment of a classless society is the way out. Are labourers forced to
be enslaved by the production process? Is division of labour forever to be
imposed on them, restricting their creativity and control over their work?
Marx holds that social division of labour has to exist in order that the
material conditions of human life may be met. But it is division of labour

47

Max Weber

in production that has to be reorganised. It is only when private property

is abolished through the revolution of the proletariat that the workers can
gain freedom from the alienative division of labour that has been thrust
upon them.
The establishment of a communist society according to Marx will enable
workers to own and control the means of production. The reorganised
production process will enable each individual to realise his/her potential
and exercise creativity. Marx and Engels describe their vision in the
following words:
In communist society where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity
but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society
regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do
one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the
afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a
mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic
(German Ideology, Vol. I, Sect. IAI).
In the above discussion, we saw how Marx distinguished between social
division of labour and division of labour in manufacture. Social division
of labour is essential for the basis of material life in all societies. Division
of labour in manufacture, however, comes into existence with the
development of industrialisation and capitalism.
The existence of division of labour in manufacture has the following
implications, namely,
1)

Profits accrue to the capitalist.

2)

Workers lose control over what they produce.

3)

Dehumanisation of the working class takes place.

4)

Alienation takes place at all levels.

In order to handle these problems, Marx preaches the revolution of the

proletariat, which will do away with private property and transfer the
ownership of the means of production in the hands of the workers. This
will result in the production process being designed and operated by the
workers themselves, enabling workers to give scope to their creativity, and
excell at a variety of tasks. They will not be forced into a boring exploitative
routine.
Check Your Progress 3
i)

Answer the following questions in three lines each.

a)

What did Marx mean by social division of labour?

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................

48

b)

Workers lose control over their products as a result of division

of labour in manufacture. Explain this statement.

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
ii)

Tick the correct alternative.

a)

According to Marx, the working class becomes dehumanised

because
i)

machines are introduced in factories.

ii)

the working class is regarded only as a supplier of labour

power.

iii) workers cannot buy the goods they produce.

b)

Workers become alienated from production because

i)

they are engaged in monotonous work.

ii)

they do not share the profits and have no control over their
production.

iii) they sell their labour-power for wages.

c)

The communist revolution would result in

i)

complete abolition of division of labour.

ii)

no change in division of labour in manufacture.

iii) a production process designed and operated by the workers

themselves.

20.5

A COMPARISON

We have separately studied the views of Durkheim and Marx on division

of labour. Let us now compare their views. To make this comparison easier,
we shall compare their views on division of labour under the following
headings viz.
i)

Causes of division of labour

ii)

Consequences of division of labour

iii) Solutions to the problems related to division of labour

iv) Durkheims Functional model of society and Marxs Conflict model.

20.5.0 Causes of Division of Labour

Both, Durkheim and Marx make a very clear distinction between division
of labour in simple societies and complex industrial societies. Division of
labour is an inevitable and necessary aspect of the socio-economic life of

49

Max Weber

any society. But they are more concerned and interested in the division of
labour that takes place in industrial societies.
Durkheim explains division of labour in industrial societies as a consequence
of increased material and moral density. As we have studied earlier, he
looks at specialisation or division of labour as a means through which
competition or the struggle for existence can be eased. Specialisation is
what makes it possible for large numbers of people to live and work together
without fighting, because each has a distinct part to play in society. It makes
team-work and coexistence possible.
Marx too considers division of labour in manufacture a feature of industrial
society. But unlike Durkheim, he does not see it as a means of cooperation
and coexistence. Rather, he views it as a process forced upon workers in
order that the capitalist might extract profit. He sees it as a process closely
linked with the existence of private property. The means of production are
concentrated in the hands of the capitalist. Therefore, the capitalist has to
design a production process that will result in maximum profit. Hence,
division of labour is imposed on workers. They sell their labour-power to
the capitalist for wages. They are reduced to doing monotonous, boring
and unimaginative activities so that productivity increases and the capitalists
profits increase.
Briefly, Durkheim says the causes of division of labour lie in the fact that
individuals need to cooperate and do a variety of tasks in order that industrial
society may survive. According to Marx, division of labour is imposed on
workers so that the capitalists may benefit. Durkheim stresses cooperation,
whilst Marx stresses exploitation and conflict.

20.5.1 Consequences of Division of Labour

Following from their differing views on the causes of division of labour in
modern industrial societies, Durkheims and Marxs perceptions on the
consequences of division of labour too are bound to be different. Durkheim,
as earlier mentioned, sees division of labour as a process that would help
individuals coexist and cooperate. We have already studied how he views
division of labour as being a force of social integration promoting organic
solidarity. In a normal situation, division of labour contributes to social
integration by giving each individual a specialised activity to perform. Each
can develop his/her powers of creativity and innovation in his or her
specialised task. At the same time, each would depend more and more on
others doing complementary activities. Thus social bonds would become
more firm, more enduring.
Anomic division of labour based on inequality and inadequate organisation
are pathological or abnormal forms, according to Durkheim. They are not
caused by division of labour as such. They are the result of society being
in a state of flux. Norms, rules and regulations governing new economic
relations have not yet come into being. The economic sphere is changing
rapidly, but new norms regulating it have not yet emerged properly.

50

Marx on the other hand sees division of labour as a process imposed on

workers by capitalists. Its consequences, as we have already studied, are
that it leads to dehumanisation of the work force. Alienation results. Workers

are reduced to things. Their creativity, their control over their creation is
taken away. Their labour becomes a commodity that can be bought and
sold at the market place. Thus they become mere parts of the production
process rather than the producers themselves. Their personalities, their
problems mean nothing to their employers. They are regarded as nothing
more than work-machines. Thus they are literally dehumanised. Being part
of a system they cannot control, they suffer from alienation at all levels;
from their work, their fellow-workers and the social system itself.

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

Briefly, Durkheim sees division of labour as a process that can be the

basis of integration. Marx sees it as a process bringing about
dehumanisation and alienation, separating the creators from their creation.
The workers become slaves of the system of which they should have been
the masters.

20.5.2 Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of

Labour
As we have seen earlier, Durkheim sees division of labour as a process,
which under normal circumstances will bring about social integration. The
pathological or abnormal forms of division of labour that prevail in society
have to be solved in order that division of labour might perform its
integrative functions.
Anomie according to Durkheim can be handled by making workers
conscious of their role in society. By making them feel organically linked
and involved with the life of society, the frustration of doing meaningless
work can be eased. Meaninglessness will then be changed into an awareness
of the significance of their productive roles.
According to Marx, capitalism itself is the problem. Division of labour
brings about dehumanisation, alienation and loss of control. The way out
is through revolution, through which workers gain control over the means
of production. They will then organise and operate the production process
in such a manner that dehumanisation and alienation will become things
of the past.

20.5.3 Durkheims Functional Model of Society and

Marxs Conflict Model
Durkheims study of division of labour brings out his functional model of
society. Social institutions and processes are viewed by him in terms of
the contributions they make to keeping a society alive. You have studied
this in Unit 18 of this Block. Durkheim tries to give an explanation to the
question of order. Remember, he lived at a time when social order seemed
to be under threat. His task therefore was to demonstrate that the changes
that were taking place would not destroy society but contribute to integrating
the new society that was emerging. Durkheim does not merely look at the
economic aspect of division of labour but rather its social aspect, its
contribution to social integration.
Marx responds quite differently to the challenges thrown up by
industrialisation. He does not share Durkheims view that society is basically
in a state of equilibrium and that social institutions and processes exist

51

Max Weber

only because they help to integrate society. Marx views human history as
a history of class struggle, or a series of struggles between the oppressors
and the oppressed. Capitalism is a phase in human history marked by the
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The system of
production that exists under capitalism is designed to exploit the workers.
The interests of the workers conflict with those of the capitalists. The
revolution of the proletariat, Marx believes, will overthrow the old system
and bring in the new. Contradictions, conflict and change are the keywords in Marxs understanding of society.
Briefly, Durkheim sees society as a system held together by the integrative
contributions of its various institutions. Marx sees history as a series of
struggles between the haves and have-nots. This leads to conflict and
change. This is the main difference in their approaches.
Check Your Progress 4
i)

Arrange the serial numbers of the following statements under the

appropriate headings:
DURKHEIMS VIEWS

52

MARXS VIEWS

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

..........................................................

...............................................

a)

Division of labour is exploitative.

b)

Division of labour leads to cooperation.

c)

Division of labour is conducive to social integration.

d)

Division of labour strips the worker of all control.

e)

Division of labour is a feature of the modern capitalist world.

f)

The problems of the industrial world are abnormal forms.

g)

The problem of the industrial world is capitalism itself.

h)

Division of labour based on inequality will create problems in

society.

ii)

Distinguish between Durkheims functionalism and Marx conflict model

in their treatment of the topic division of labour. Answer in eight
lines.

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

20.6

LET US SUM UP

We first studied the meaning of the term division of labour. We then

studied the views of Emile Durkheim on division of labour. These views
were put across in his work Division of Labour in Society. The main points
expressed in this book were organised under the following headings
1)

Functions of division of labour

2)

Causes of division of labour

3)

Abnormal forms.

We then dealt with the views of Karl Marx on division of labour. We saw
the difference he made between social division of labour and division of
labour in manufacture. We studied the implications of division of labour in
manufacture, namely, how
1)

profits accrue to the capitalist.

2)

workers lose control over what they produce.

3)

dehumanisation of the working class takes place.

4)

alienation takes place at all levels.

We then described Marxs remedy for this situation, namely, revolution

which would establish a communist society where each individual could
develop his/her creative powers.
Finally, we compared the views of Durkheim and Marx under the following
headings
1)

Causes of division of labour

2)

Consequences of division of labour

3)

Solutions to the problems related to division of labour

4)

Durkheims functional model of society and Marxs conflict model.

53

Max Weber

54

20.7

KEYWORDS

Assembly line

A feature of the modern factory system

wherein workers assemble or put together
the various parts of a commodity or
perform certain operations on it. Each has
a specific task to do. This speeds up
production.

Anomie

This term is used by Durkheim to convey

a situation in which the individual does not
feel integrated in society. Social norms and
values seem unclear and unintegrated and
the individual does not feel morally
involved with the affairs of society.

Complementary

Something that helps, supports e.g. the role

of a nurse is complementary to that of a
doctor.

Consensus

Agreement amongst the members of

society regarding social norms, values,
allocation of roles and rewards. Consensus
helps to maintain social order.

Conflict model of society

This is a way of looking at society which

stresses on the tensions which mark society,
rather than social order. According to Marx,
the social relations of production are the
basis of tensions and conflict.

Functional model of society

This way of looking a society stresses on

social order and studies how different
social institutions and sub-systems function
or contribute to maintaining social order.

Heterogeneous

Opposite of homogeneous: This means

variety, different types, e.g. India has a
heterogeneous population, i.e. a variety of
races, languages, religions, customs, etc.

Surplus value

When a worker applies his labour power

to raw materials, they are converted into
commodities. A certain value is added by
the worker to the materials. The value
created is greater than what is paid to the
worker as wages. This difference between
the value created and the wage received is
called surplus value. Marx says this
surplus value is appropriated by the
capitalist.

20.8

FURTHER READING

Division of Labour
Durkheim and Marx

Aron, Raymond 1970. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Vols. 1

and 2. Penguin Books: London, (see the sections on Marx and Durkheim)
Bottomore, Tom (Ed.) 1983. Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Blackwell:
Oxford.
Giddens, Anthony 1978. Durkheim. Harvester Press: Hassocks

20.9

SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS

Check Your Progress 1

i)

ii)

a)

Small-scale, domestic large-scale, mass

b)

Division of labour

c)

Adam Smith

a)

b)

c)

Check Your Progress 2

i)

ii)

a)

b)

c)

d)

a)

mechanical solidarity is a solidarity of resemblence. Organic

solidarity is based on differences and complementarity of
differences. Thus individuals can be innovative and at the same
time need to depend on each other and on society. So
individualism and social integration can exist together. Durkheim
therefore feels that organic solidarity is a higher form of solidarity.

b)

Material and moral density help the members of a society come

into close contact with each other. A struggle for existence and
for scarce resources may come about. In order that they may
coexist, individuals specialise in separate fields and division of
labour takes place. Thus material and moral density lead to division
of labour according to Durkheim.

c)

Anomie, according to Durkheim, is pathological or abnormal.

It refers to a situation where norms and rules seem to have broken
down. In the sphere of work, for example, individuals have to
work and produce but there are no new norms governing them.
They fail to see any meaning or purpose in their activity.

55

Max Weber

Check Your Progress 3

i)

ii)

a)

Social division of labour is a complex system of dividing all the

useful forms of labour in society. Some people may produce food,
others handicraft etc. It promotes exchange of goods and is
necessary to maintain social and economic life.

b)

Division of labour in manufacture makes the worker a small part

of the production process. The worker does not have anything to
do with the product. He/she cannot sell it and often cannot buy
it, and thus becomes a slave, not a master of the process of
production of goods.

a)

ii b) i c) iii

Check Your Progress 4

i)
Durkheims Views

Marxs Views

b)

A0

c)

d)

e)

e)

f)

g)

h)
ii)

By Emile Durkheims functional model of society we mean the way

in which he studied the contributions of social institutions and processes
in maintaining social integration. In keeping with this model, he studied
division of labour not just as an economic process but as a social one.
He tried to show how it contributed to social integration.
Karl Marx, on the other hand saw society in terms of contradictions,
conflict and change. Human history is marked by the oppression of
one group by another. Division of labour is one of the processes
through which capitalists oppress workers. This reflects his conflict
model of society.

56