John Marcial
Professor Prager
Sociology 101
26 February 2016
Conflict theorist v Functional Theorist
Unlike his predecessors, who were mainly concerned with social conflict, Emilie Durkheim was consistently interested in what keeps society together. Durkheim noted, as did Marx and Weber, that as society progresses the division of labor also increases. According to Durkheim, simple traditional societies were based on shared beliefs, values, and experiences. In contrast, modern industrial societies base their social cohesiveness upon the division of labor and increasing interdependence. For Karl Marx, the division of labor created class antagonisms that would inevitably lead to the destruction of capitalism. Durkheim, on the other hand, believed that the division of labor actually produced social solidarity, only alongside the elimination of external inequalities and a spontaneous division of labor.
According to Durkheim, the normal function of the division of labor is to produce and maintain social solidarity. However, as Durkheim pointed out, there may be certain instances in which abnormal forms of the division of labor yield different and sometimes contrary results. He argues that “the division of labor only produces solidarity if it is spontaneous, and to the degree that it is spontaneous… [and] labor only divides up spontaneously if society is constituted in such a way that social inequalities express precisely natural inequalities. (Durkheim 296).” In other words, solidarity is only produced in a society that is constituted by free and spontaneous work, in accordance with an individual’s own capacities and aptitude. Durkheim noted that each individual has their own capacities and talents, which are unequally distributed throughout human kind. He claims that this internal or natural inequality is a fixed, ineradicable feature of society. Social inequalities, on the other hand, represent external conditions (i.e. hereditary transmission of wealth) outside of the individual which interfere or block an individual’s attempt in obtaining a position in the division of labor consistent with their capacities and talents.
Organic solidarity, according to Durkheim, is derived from the division of labor. Social solidarity is only maintained and produced by spontaneous actors. Social inequality compromises the division of labor by blocking spontaneous order, and thus produces a “forced division of labor (Durkheim 310).” So, in order for society to achieve greater organic solidarity there must exist “absolute equality in the external conditions of the conflict (Durkheim 297).” Now, Durkheim was primarily interested in one version of inequality, social inequality. He believed that natural inequalities are fixed features of society, given the diversity of capacities and aptitudes among the general population. Social inequality has to be balanced against natural inequalities in order for the organic/spontaneous division of labor to fully develop and serve it’s natural function.
The problem of inequality is addressed by both Karl Marx and Emilie Durkheim in distinct and divergent approaches. Karl Marx stated that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle… in a word oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another… (Marx 473).” The oppressor class is comprised of the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production. The oppressed class is composed of the proletariat, who by their lack of control of the means of production and capital must sell their labor to the bourgeoisie in order to survive. Thus, the disparity or inequality resulting from an existing economic structure creates class antagonisms, which will inevitably drive the proletariat to destroy the class system by abolishing private property.
Emilie Durkheim was consistently interested in what held society together. In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim posited that society was held together by two types of social solidarity: mechanical and organic solidarity. Modern industrial societies are characterized by organic solidarity, in which social solidarity is derived from the division of labor. However, social solidarity among individuals is only established by the spontaneous organization of the division of labor. Further, the division of labor is only organized spontaneously when there is “absolute equality in external conditions (Durkheim 297).” By external conditions, Durkheim, was referring to social inequalities, which blocked the individuals’ pursuit of a position within the division of labor that would suit their capacities and needs.