Table of contentsMechanical solidarityOrganic solidarityCauses of the division of laborIn this essay, we will begin by examining what “division of labor” means. We will then examine what economic theorists have to say about the usefulness and effect of the division of labor. Subsequently, we will analyze Durkheim's understanding and observe the points where it converges and/or diverges from what classical economists said about the division of labor. In simple terms, division of labor refers to the division of an activity into several smaller parts or processes. Different people are responsible for carrying out these small processes. When everyone does what they are supposed to do, the system runs like a well-oiled machine and this increases the efficiency and productivity of the task as a whole. In his Introduction to the Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim sets out the views of the classical economists. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Classical economists like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill supported the division of labor as essential and necessary. They saw it as the supreme law of human societies and the condition of their progress (Durkheim, 1958). Furthermore, Karl Marx, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, spoke of the dangers of the division of labor. According to Marx, excessive specialization and division of labor leads the worker to perform the same meaningless task over and over again. According to him, this repetitiveness ultimately leads to alienation. (Marx, 1884) According to him, the function of the division of labor is to generate solidarity between the members of society. Although Durkheim never explicitly mentions what he means by "solidarity", we can think of it as the harmony, cohesion, order and integration that can be observed in society as a result of the division of labor . If we examine Durkheim's body of work, we can conclude that he emphasized a positivist research methodology and advocated comparative analysis. It carries out a systematic comparative analysis of the two types of social solidarity corresponding to two different types of societies. However, social solidarity is a purely moral phenomenon and does not lend itself to observation and measurement. Durkheim gets around this problem and uses “law” as an external index of social solidarity. According to Durkheim, every society is organized around certain fundamental laws, which also govern the interaction between members of society. It therefore uses the law as an external index to measure the degree and nature of solidarity in society. All laws come with some sort of punishment. Durkheim classifies these sanctions into two types: repressive sanctions and restitutive sanctions. From the classification of sanctions, he classified solidarity into two types, each corresponding to the type of sanction. The type of solidarity that corresponds to repressive sanctions was called mechanical solidarity and the type of solidarity corresponding to restitutive sanctions was called organic solidarity. Mechanical Solidarity Mechanical solidarity refers to solidarity based on resemblance. It is based on collective consciousness. When speaking of mechanical solidarity and repressive sanction, Durkheim refers to primitive society. In such a society there is a great degree of homogeneity and sameness. The differences between individuals are very limited. In such societies, the division of labor is at a simple level. Individual consciousness merges with consciousnesscollective. He defines collective consciousness as “the set of beliefs and feelings common to the average citizens of society which form a deterministic system which has a life of its own”. The strength of collective consciousness integrates societies, linking individual members together through strong common beliefs and values. This type of solidarity can be best observed when this collective conscience is violated. Violation of the collective conscience is known as crime. According to him, all crimes have a common element: they shock the collective feelings which are part of all healthy consciences of society. Crime is characterized by its capacity to provoke punishment. Punishment is a passionate reaction of graduated intensity that society exercises through a body, acting on members who have violated the rules of conduct. We can therefore conclude that punishment becomes essential in these societies to maintain social order. To appease the offended collective conscience and instill a sense of justice, it is essential that the culprit be punished. Organic solidarity By organic solidarity, Durkheim means solidarity based on difference and the complementarity of differences. Organic solidarity is based on restitutive sanctions. They are not punitive, vengeful and expiatory sanctions like repressive sanctions. They are concerned with returning things to their natural order. When speaking of organic solidarity, Durkheim refers to industrial society where the division of labor had a strong and fundamental impact on people's lives. A society based on organic solidarity is marked by heterogeneity, differentiation and variety. In such societies, the strength and impact of collective consciousness diminishes, as individual consciousness becomes more distinct, easier to distinguish from collective consciousness. Organic solidarity is therefore completely unique. An individual becomes more autonomous and more dependent on society. This is where the division of labor comes into play. The division of labor in society expects a certain degree of cooperation from members of society. Due to the division of labor, levels of specialization increase. As each individual specializes in something special, their dependence on other members of society for the satisfaction of their needs also increases. Cooperation and complementarity are the two pillars of organic solidarity in modern and complex societies. At the end of book 1 of his Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim carries out an evolutionary analysis of the type of solidarity in relation to the evolution of society. As mentioned previously, Durkheim observed a correspondence between mechanical solidarity and primitive societies and organic solidarity and modern industrial societies. He goes on to assert that in this evolution of society from the primitive to the modern, “mechanical solidarity gradually weakens” and it is “the division of labor which fills the role formerly filled by the common conscience”. Durkheim thus clearly stated the function of division of labor- it is about establishing solidarity between members of society. This is very different from what classical economists think is the function of the division of labor. They attribute the economic progress of society to the division of labor. Durkheim establishes the social utility and the goal of the division of labor: to make societies united and to maintain order and harmony. Without division of labor and the resulting solidarity, societies will sink into a state of anomie or absence of norms. According to Durkheim, solidarity, resulting from the division of labor, is a moral fact. While the functions.