A Critical Account of Durkheims Concept of Organic Solidarity

It is thought that there are numerous ways in which social solidarity may be articulated and hence measured Allik and Realo, ; Kushner and Sterk, One would be manifested through social capital, that is, the depth of the network between individuals that makes social life possible and underpins economic growth Hollaway, Whilst it could be argued that social capital encompasses numerous other things as well, such as cultural, economic and human capital Carpiano and Kelly, , overall we follow the tenor of the debate and suggest that, as an expression of social solidarity, social capital will be higher in civil law states, hence:.

So communitarianism both represents social solidarities that would act as a bulwark against anomie Cladis, An alternative indicator of social solidarity is the existence and coverage of welfare institutions Baldwin, Hence, the welfare state enhances social cohesion and solidarity Plant et al. In other words, rather than relying on chance, the rules and benefits of association are strengthened Baldwin, Hence, the welfare state provides social checks and balances, mediating tensions within and between groups Palumbo and Scott, Durkheim, who held that non-legal societal elements may also impact on social solidarities and, indeed, so might legislation over time Durkheim, Beyond the legal environment, the s and s have seen strong pressures to liberalization, which may have eroded collective solidarities.

Jessop argues that although individual national economies retain distinct institutional features, neoliberalism has attained global ecosystemic dominance, eroding national level ties, relations and solidarities. This is a process that has been underway since the s, but has intensified in the s. The basis for testing the hypotheses outlined above revolves around the cross-country differences between the different measures of social solidarity and the legal origins of the countries within the analysis.

As highlighted in the discussion above, social solidarity is a very complex relationship involving numerous factors, consequently producing a single definitive measure of social solidarity would be very difficult. Since social solidarity equates to sympathy for, and commitment to, fellow citizens, it would be plausible to establish a measure of this via primary data at the individual level, but this would become considerably more challenging when making comparisons at the societal level, as is being undertaken here.

However, as the hypotheses developed in the previous section identify specific areas of activity, as in effect proxies for different aspects of social solidarity, those precise proxies are used in the empirical analysis.

1. David: A Man After the Heart of God;
2. Cause of Organic Solidarity;
3. Is It Cheating?.
4. Antioxidant Polymers: Synthesis, Properties, and Applications;
5. My Kilted Hero.
6. !
7. Gods Little Sparrows!

The measures used for social solidarity are as are discussed below. There are two measures reflecting the strength of the welfare state. First, total social expenditure as a proportion of GDP in , taken from OECD , is used as an absolute measure of the size of the welfare state. Then we need a measure of change, so we assess changes in social expenditure as a proportion of GDP between the years and The starting point was chosen since this resulted in the longest period giving coverage to the majority of the countries included in the analysis.

To test these hypotheses we need to examine countries that provide a basis of comparison not only between common and civil law, but also between the different legal families within the latter: There is much debate around the latter Scandinavian legal traditions. Some writers, such as La Porta et al. However, Siems and Deakin suggest that it is overly simplistic to categorize them as weakened civil law systems. Indeed they argue that Scandinavian legal origin in particular appears to be more effective than classic French legal origin in realizing the solidarity ideals of civil law.

It is potentially plausible that alternative factors at the national level explain differences in social cohesion. Esping-Anderson , with his classification of countries as Liberal, Corporatist-Statist or Social Democratic based on an index of decommodification, offers the closest alternative. In terms of legal origin, a key distinction is whether law is judge-made that is broad brush legislation, fleshed out by case law, that is court decisions , or civil law more explicit legislation, vesting legislatures, and, by extension, interest groupings with more direct say Plucknett, ; Shleifer and Vishny, The latter, in turn, may be divided up into classic French civil law and German and Scandinavian variations.

In order to make the analysis as robust as possible the widest range of countries is included in the study, given the constraints of the measures outlined previously. In simple terms any country that fits into the categorization of legal origin, and where data is available for at least one of the measures, has been included in the analysis. For social capital and individualism-collectivism the measures are largely static, hence the analysis and findings are not sensitive to the time period.

Whereas the strength of the welfare state is likely to display more variation over time and the findings will be more sensitive to the time period considered. Therefore data from are used as indicative of the strength of the welfare state since this is the final year before increased pressure from the ongoing global recession started to really cut into social expenditure. Finally, for the analysis of changes to the relative strength of the welfare state over time, is chosen as the start point as this is when OECD data become available for a large number of countries and enables the largest cross-section of countries to be used in the analysis.

The empirical analysis is then undertaken by highlighting similarities between each of the four measures of social solidarity and the legal origins of the countries included in the study. A total of 27 countries are used in the analysis, with these being countries where data is available for at least one of the four social solidarity measures. The values of each of the four measures of social solidarity for all of the countries are reported in Table 1.

Cluster analysis is applied to present a clearer picture as to the patterns within groups of countries sharing the same legal origins. The basis of cluster analysis is to group observations so that those within the group display greater similarity with each other than those in the other groups. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering is applied using the Euclidean distances between observations. Hierarchical cluster analysis is applied for all four measures of social solidarity and the results are reported in Table 2. In each case the clusters are numbered from the lowest values in that category to the highest, i.

In addition, box plots for each of the measures are reported separately, with the box plot for social capital shown in Figure 1. On an observational level it is clear that higher levels of social capital are typically present in the Scandinavian 1 countries, whilst lower levels are typically displayed within the French origin legal systems in the Mediterranean countries. More specifically, looking at the cluster analysis Table 2 , column 3 , Japan, Spain and the Netherlands are outliers in comparison to the other countries, with the former two forming the lowest cluster and the latter the highest.

This leaves all the remaining countries grouped within the remaining 2 clusters, with the Scandinavian countries exclusively placed within the highest of these. For the French and German origin countries, with the exception of the outliers, they are exclusively placed within the lowest of the remaining clusters. Turning to the formal hypothesis outlined above, Hypothesis 1 predicts that social capital levels will be higher in civil law countries and this cannot be accepted in its entirety.

It is clear that social capital is higher in the Scandinavian countries but that is certainly not the case for French and German origin countries. This distinction is confirmed by the cluster analysis where, almost exclusively, the developed nations are grouped within the more individualist clusters whilst the developing nations are within the more collectivist groups. The only real exception to this is South Korea, which on many measures is no longer classified as a developing country, even though it is clear that this stage of development was achieved much later than any of the other countries included here.

Clearly the implication from this is that Hypothesis 2 cannot be accepted since there is no real evidence that civil law countries are more communitarian than the common law ones. The third hypothesis posits that civil law countries will have a stronger welfare state and, as far as a greater financial commitment equates to a stronger welfare state, we can explore this by examining Figure 3 and Table 2 , column 5. It is noticeable that the lowest social expenditure as a proportion of GDP is amongst the developing countries; hence it may be the case that the strength of the welfare state is more strongly influenced by stage of development rather than legal origin.

Beyond that, for the remaining countries, it is clear from both the box plot and the cluster analysis that the financial commitment to social expenditure is greater in Scandinavian and French origin countries than it is in common law countries. However, this cannot be said to be the case for the German origin countries.

As a result Hypothesis 3 can be partially accepted but only for the French origin and Scandinavian countries. Governments regularly make decisions influencing the extent of welfare support for different groups within the economy; a process heightened in recent times by conflicting pressures from ageing populations combined with the need to reduce public expenditure, leading to a changing balance of welfare support between the young and old. Unfortunately analysis of this process is beyond the scope of this study and will have to be flagged up for future research. Hypothesis 4 implies that social expenditure as a proportion of GDP will have risen at a slower rate in civil law countries than in common law ones, which can then be interpreted as a reduction in the relative strength of the welfare state.

The evidence from both the box plot Figure 4 and the cluster analysis Table 2 , column 6 does not concur with this. With the exception of the French civil law countries there is no clear pattern based around legal origin that can be detected: Hypothesis 4 has to be rejected. Hence, the links between legal origin and social solidarity are somewhat uneven. Equally, factors beyond legal origin may be at least as important in terms of influence upon social solidarity as law. What we have found is in line with the qualifications Durkheim introduced in his later work and, indeed, the contemporary literature on comparative capitalisms Amable, ; Fournier, ; Hall and Soskice, However, it is at odds with writers such as La Porta et al.

This study revealed that whilst legal system appears to be related to a range of societal features, the relationship is a complex one, as suggested by Durkheim in his later works. It also highlights the limitations of currently fashionable legal origins approaches in the economic and finance literatures, which suggest that legal origin has broad and universal explanatory power as to property owner rights, employee and stakeholder countervailing power, and social welfare Djankov et al.

First, social capital was higher in Scandinavia than countries operating under different legal origins. This would suggest that Scandinavian societies have features that cannot simply be ascribed to dilute or allegedly hybrid legal origins La Porta et al. Either the law in Scandinavia has very distinct effects to other legal families, or the law in Scandinavia works in concert with a broader range of institutional features in such a manner as to reinforce higher levels of social capital; as we noted earlier this is a possibility suggested by Durkheim cf. Second, we found no evidence that civil law was an effective mechanism for promoting greater communitarianism.

Rather, relative communitarianism appeared to be a function of relative development, with emerging markets recording higher levels of communitarian values than mature ones. Again, this would suggest that whilst, as we have seen, the law clearly impacts on a number of societal features, relative communitarianism is strongly affected by relative development.

However, communitarianism encompasses both a commitment to the common good which can include the modern welfare state , and traditional norms and values, although there is, in turn, a tension between the two. In other words, communitarianism encompasses both social solidarities and a shared agenda: This may explain why relative communitarianism is not aligned to any single aspect of institutional arrangements in the developed world. Invariably, tensions and contradictions between different realms e. Legal origin does seem to be related to the relative development of welfare institutions, once the relative development of nations is taken into account.

Scandinavian legal origin societies were the strongest in terms of welfare institutions, followed by France. This would again suggest that there is more to the Scandinavian legal system — and the assembly of social institutions around it — than simply a dilution of the French civil law system. In turn, French civil law systems were associated with superior welfare coverage to that provided by common law ones. But, by the same measure, more developed nations provided better welfare provision than emerging ones. This would serve to highlight the extent to which it is not just the design of institutions but their evolution and the changing nature of inter-institutional linkages and support that determines societal outcomes.

Again, this would echo the later work of Durkheim, where more attention was accorded to development and the relative fluidity of societal arrangements. Finally, we found that whilst the relative development of societies did matter, certain societal features were quite durable. For example, we found that there was not a significant decline in the amount of resources devoted to the generally stronger welfare state of civil law countries versus common law ones. In other words, differences between common and civil law systems in this area were not significantly eroding over time.

This would suggest that, pressures to liberalize notwithstanding, the welfare state in civil law systems appears somewhat more durable than is often presumed. In other words, institutional arrangements underpinning a key dimension of social solidarity may be quite durable, in part reflecting the dualist nature between social structures and action Giddens, ; Hall and Soskice, However, it is possible that this may in part reflect further declines in the already more limited welfare provision encountered in common law systems.

We cannot of course say whether the attacks on the welfare state following the global economic crisis that began in might not have changed this pattern. As predicted by Durkheim, legal origin does seem to be associated with a range of societal features ranging from welfare coverage to social capital.

However, the relationship is a complex one, with institutional effects also being bound up with relative development. For example, developing economies were significantly more communitarian than developed ones, possibly reflecting the stronger role of tradition and associated values in underpinning communitarian values in such countries. It could be argued that communitarianism encompasses forward and traditionalist elements, the latter diluting any possible effects of differences brought about through legal systems, especially in the developing world.

We found a relationship between legal system and the strength of welfare institutions, with individuals being more willing to pool risk, the latter a key dimension of social solidarity in Scandinavian and French civil law countries. Whilst institutional arrangements may provide the foundation for different growth trajectories, clearly a particular institutional recipe does not result in uniform societal outcomes regardless of relative state of development; it is not only formal institutional arrangements that matter, but also relative state capabilities and the operation and impact of informal social networks.

We would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and guidance. His research interests include methodologies and epistemologies in organization studies as well as current developments in HRM praxis and organizational forms. He became an academic relatively late in life having for many years taught Economics and Business Studies in a number of secondary schools. His research interests include labour market discrimination, industrial relations and comparative HRM and he has published widely in each of these areas.

His current research interests centre on the interrogation and development of contemporary institutional theory in the light of large-scale survey evidence. He had substantial industrial experience before becoming an academic. He has conducted extensive research in the field of international and comparative HRM; and been in involved in the publication of over two dozen books and over articles. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Published online Feb 1. Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer. Abstract By using the classic works of Durkheim as a theoretical platform, this research explores the relationship between legal systems and social solidarity. Durkheim, institutions, legal origin, neoliberalism, social solidarity, societal development.

Social Solidarity and Legal Systems For Durkheim, social solidarity is about shared commitments to social practices; social regulation is direct and externalized control over such practices is via law and custom Adair, Civil and Common Law There is in the literature a key distinction between civil law and common law contexts cf. The Law and Social Solidarity: Key Concepts and Hypotheses Social solidarity is a complex phenomenon that encompasses many different dimensions, making the testing of the relationship between the law and social solidarity problematic.

Whilst it could be argued that social capital encompasses numerous other things as well, such as cultural, economic and human capital Carpiano and Kelly, , overall we follow the tenor of the debate and suggest that, as an expression of social solidarity, social capital will be higher in civil law states, hence: Civil law countries have higher levels of social capital than common law ones. The relative strength of the welfare state has declined in civil law countries since , and the relative gap with common law countries has narrowed. Methodology Measures The basis for testing the hypotheses outlined above revolves around the cross-country differences between the different measures of social solidarity and the legal origins of the countries within the analysis.

Categorizing Countries To test these hypotheses we need to examine countries that provide a basis of comparison not only between common and civil law, but also between the different legal families within the latter: Analysis The empirical analysis is then undertaken by highlighting similarities between each of the four measures of social solidarity and the legal origins of the countries included in the study.

Measures of social solidarity. Open in a separate window. Findings Hierarchical cluster analysis is applied for all four measures of social solidarity and the results are reported in Table 2. Change in social expenditure as a proportion of GDP box plot. Discussion and Conclusion This study revealed that whilst legal system appears to be related to a range of societal features, the relationship is a complex one, as suggested by Durkheim in his later works.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and guidance. A reformulation of early Durkheimian theory. Sociological Enquiry 78 1: French sociology, in particular, follows Durkheim, and some of Durkheim's books are likely to serve as texts in French sociology. Much American sociology is also heavily influenced by Durkheim. In recent years, there has again been much attention paid to his writings.

Division of Labor in Society. In The Division of Labor in Society Durkheim attempts to determine what is the basis of social solidarity in society and how this has changed over time. This was Durkheim's first major work, so it does not address all the issues that be considered important. But in this work he began his study of how society is sui generis , an entity of its own.

These two forms mechanical solidarity, which characterizes earlier or traditional societies, where the division of labour is relatively limited. The form of social solidarity in modern societies, with a highly developed division of labour, is called organic solidarity. Durkheim argues that the division of labour itself which creates organic solidarity, because of mutual needs of individuals in modern soceity. In doing so, each person also receives some recognition of his or her own rights and contributions within the collectivity.

According to Giddens p. On the other hand, there are also moral ideas encouraging people to be well rounded, of service to society as a whole. These two seem contradictory, and Durkheim is concerned with finding the historical and sociological roots of each of these, along with how these two seemingly contradictory moral guidelines are reconciled in modern society. This book can also be read with a view to illuminating Durkheim's methods. In the first chapter, he outlines his method, and the theory which could be falsified. By looking at morality, he is not pursuing a philosophical course, mainly in the realm of ideas.

That is, Durkheim is attempting to determine the roots of morality by studying society, and changes in society. These forms of morality are social facts, and data from society must be obtained, and these used to discover causes. In this book, Durkheim adopts a non-quantitative approach, but in Suicide his approach is more quantitative. In examining the roots of social solidarity, Durkheim regards the examination of systems of law as an important means of understanding morality. Since law reproduces the principal forms of social solidarity, we have only to classify the different types of law to find therefrom the different types of social solidarity which correspond to it.

That is, since social solidarity is a concept that it not easily observable or measurable, Durkheim attempts to use systems of law as an index of forms and changes in socialsolidarity. From this, Durkheim begins to build a proof of the division of labour as the basis for the different forms of solidarity. He then attempts to show the nature of society, how it changes over time, and how this results in the shift from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. Early societies tended to be small scale, localized in villages or rural areas, with a limited division of labour or only a simple division of labour by age and sex.

These societies are characterized by likeness, in which the members of the society share the same values, based on common tasks and common life situations and experiences. In these early societies, Durkheim argues that legal codes or the system of law tends to be repressive law or penal law. If there is a crime in this society, then this crime stands as an offense to all, because it is an offense to the common morality, the shared system of values that exists.

Most people feel the offense, and regardless of how serious it is, severe punishment is likely to be meted out for it. Anything that offends the common conscience threatens the solidarity — the very existence of society.

Durkheim: Social Solidarity and Legal Systems

An offense left unpunished weakens to that degree the social unity. Punishment therefore serves the important function of restoring and reconstituting social unity. Penal law is concerned with sanctions only, and there is no mention of obligations. Punishment is severe, perhaps death or dismemberment. Moral obligation and duty is not stated in the punishment, because this is generally understood. Rather the punishment is given, and that is the completion of the penalty. Some of the following quotes from The Division of Labor in Society show the nature of Durkheim's argument: In the quotes, note that the act is criminal because the act offends the collective conscience.

For Durkheim, the collective consciousness reaches all parts of society, has a distinct reality and is independent of individual conditions, and is passed on from one generation to the next. In this, it differs from particular or individual consciences. The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a determinate system which has its own life; one may call it the collective or common conscience.

Sociology - Notes on Durkheim

We do not reprove it because it is a crime, but it is a crime because we reprove it. Referring to repressive or penal forms of punishment in early society, Durkheim notes that it may extend to: This is because the passion which is the soul of punishment ceases only when exhausted. If, therefore, after it has destroyed the one who has immediately called it forth, there still remains force within it, it expands in quite mechanical fashion. In contrast, modern legal codes are quite different, with punishment being less important.

Instead, society is concerned with restoration of the original situation, rather than exacting revenge on the offender. This distinction between different types of legal codes and punishment may provide a means of noting what mechanical solidarity means. They must re-enforce themselves by mutual assurances that they are always agreed. The only means for this is action in common.

In short, since it is the common conscience which is attacked, it must be that which resists, and accordingly the resistance must be collective. Thus, the analysis of punishment confirms our definition of crime. We began by establishing inductively that crime consisted essentially in an act contrary to strong and defined states of the common conscience. We have just seen that all the qualities of punishment ultimately derive from this nature of crime. That is because the rules that it sanctions express the most essential social likeness. Thus we see what type of solidarity penal law symbolizes.

They will as they will themselves, hold to it durably and for prosperity, because, without it, a great part of their psychic lives would function poorly. These quotes show how the collective consciousness works in societies without a highly developed division of labour.

The primary function of punishment, therefore, is to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question its sanctity.

In order to carry this out, such societies develop forms of repressive or penal law. While the common values in these societies can change over time, this process of change is generally quite slow, so that these values are generally appropriate for the historical period in question. At other times, the laws may be inappropriate, and might be maintained only through force. However, Durkheim generally considers this to be an exceptional circumstance, and one that is overcome. With the development of the division of labour, the collective consciousness begins to decline. Each individual begins to have a separate set of tasks which he or she is engaged in.

These different situations lead to quite a different set of experiences for each individual.

• ;
• Lacquario in casa (Animali) (Italian Edition).
• !
• .
• Goodbye, Mr. Chips - Introduction.
• Atlanta: A Portrait of the Civil War (Civil War Series).

The common situation which created the common collective consciousness is disturbed, and individuals no longer have common experiences, but have a great variety of different settings, each leading towards its own consciousness. As the developmen of the division of labour erodes the collective consciousness, it also creates a new form of solidarity. This new form is organic solidarity, and is characterized by dependence of individuals on each other within the division of labour, and by a certain form of cooperation. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of the division of labour are hence associated with increasing individualism.

Thus the nature of the moral consensus changes. Commonly shared values still persist because without them there would be no society, but they become generalized, as they are not rooted in the totality of commonly shared daily experiences. Instead of specifying the details of an action, common values tend to be a more general underpinning for social practices. It is in this sense that the division of labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon. Thus Durkheim argues that there are individual, and probably group, differences, at the same time as there is a new form of social solidarity. There are in each of us, Solidarity which comes from likeness is at its maximum when the collective conscience completely envelops our whole conscience and coincides in all points with it.

Durkheim speaks of the centripetal and centrifugal forces, and draws an organic analogy: Individuality is something which the society possesses. It is quite otherwise with the solidarity which the division of labour produces. Whereas the previous type implies that individuals resemble each other, this type presumes their difference. The first is possible only in so far as the individual personality is absorbed into the collective personality; the second is possible only if each one has a sphere of action which is peculiar to him; that is, a personality.

In effect, on the one hand, each one depends as much more strictly on society as labor is more divided; and, on the other, the activity of each is as much more personal as it is more specialized. Society becomes more capable of collective movement, at the same time that each of its elements has more freedom of movement. The solidarity resembles that which we observe among the higher animals. Each organ, in effect, has its special physiognomy, it autonomy. And moreover, the unity of the organism is as great as the individuation of the parts is more marked. Because of this analogy, we propose to call the solidarity which is due to the division of labour, organic.

In the structure of societies with organic solidarity quote 8: They are constituted, not by a repetition of similar, homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts. Not only are social elements not of the same nature, but they are not arranged in the same manner. They are not juxtaposed linearly Restitutive or restorative law.

Modern systems of law tend to be restitutive or restorative, according to Durkheim. While there are elements of penal or repressive law, such as the death penalty for murder, that continue to exist in modern societies, modern systems of law are primarily characterized by judgments that require the offending party to restore the situation to the original state — eg. Modern business and contract law governs the conditions of contracts but says little or nothing about what type of contract parties can enter into. Sufferance proportionate to the misdeed is not inflicted on the one who has violated the law or who disregards it; he is simply sentenced to comply with it.

As the division of labour develops, people do not have the same consciousness, so that the form of law must change. Systematic codes governing exchange and contracts are necessary, but these are the result of the general acceptance of individual rights within the system of a division of labour. Cause of organic solidarity. Durkheim is critical of the economists who regard the development of the division of labour as a result of the coming together of people with different abilities and specialties.

Finally, he was critical of the economists' point of view that merely examined the technical conditions for the division of labour, and the increased efficiency associated with it, without consideration of the broader societal conditions necessary to maintain it. Thus Durkheim did not consider the division of labour as a natural condition. Durkheim considers the development of the division of labour to be associated with the increasing contact among people.

There is a greater density of contact, so that people are led to specialize. The division of labour emerges in different ways in different societies, leading to somewhat different forms of solidarity. Adams and Sydie p. This moral relationship can only produce its effect if the real distance between individuals has itself diminished in some way.

Durkheim refers to this an increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the same time. The two are inseparable though. Three ways in which this happens are: People begin to concentrate together. Agriculture may begin this, and it continues with the growth of cities as well. Formation of cities and their development. They are so many points where the social mass is contracted more strongly than elsewhere. They can multiply and extend only if the moral density is raised. Increased number and rapidity of means of transportation and communication.

The division of labor varies in direct ratio with the volume and density of societies, and, if it progresses in a continuous manner in the course of social development, it is because societies become regularly denser and generally more voluminous. We say, not that the growth and condensation of societies permit , but that they necessitate a greater division of labor. It is not an instrument by which the latter is realized; it is its determining cause. If needs are the same, then there is always a struggle for existence. But where different interests can be pursued, then there may be room for all.

Each of them can attain his end without preventing the others from attaining theirs. The closer functions come to one another, however, the more points of contact they have; the more, consequently, are they exposed to conflict. The judge never is in competition with the business man, but the brewer and the wine-grower As for those who have exactly the same function, they can forge ahead only to the detriment of others.

In proportion to the segmental character of the social constitution, each segment has its own organs, protected and kept apart from like organs by divisions separating the different segments.

But, no matter how this substitution is made, it cannot fail to produce advances in the course of specialization. Instead of entering into or remaining in competition, two similar enterprises establish equilibrium by sharing their common task. Instead of one being subordinate to the other, they co-ordinate. But, in all cases, new specialties appear. For Durkheim the result of the division of labour is positive in that there is no need to compete in the sense of struggling just to survive.

Rather, the division of labour may signify that there are sufficient material resources for all in society, and this division allows a certain form of co-operation. Thanks to it, opponents are not obliged to fight to a finish, but can exist one beside the other.



• .
• An Orkney Murder (A Rose McQuinn Mystery No.3) (Rose McQuinn series);
• Forgot Password?.
• EIREANN: Weaponry (Swords and Plows Book 5).
• Finn and Geos Winter Adventure?
• Durch die Decke denken: Design Thinking in der Praxis (German Edition)?
• Easy Competitor Analysis - How to Find What Your Competitors Are Up To, & How to Benefit From That Valuable Knowledge (Business Building Book 1).

Also, in proportion to its development, it furnishes the means of maintenance and survival to a greater number of individuals who, in more homogeneous societies, would be condemned to extinction. The division of labour cannot be anticipated, in terms of the form of its development. It is the sharing of functions, but not according to a preconceived plan. It must come to pass in a pre-existing society Appendix quote 9.

Work is not divided among independent and already differentiated individuals who by uniting and associating bring together their different aptitudes.

A Critical Account of Durkheim's Concept of Organic Solidarity

For it would be a miracle if differences thus born through chance circumstance could unite so perfectly as to form a coherent whole. Far from preceding collective life, they derive from it. They can be produced only in the midst of a society, and under the pressure of social sentiments and social needs. That is what makes them essentially harmonious.