Arif Hayat Nairang M.

A (P)
Tutorial Question: Show how Durkheim differed from Marx in his study of the division of
labour.

The most remarkable effect of the division of labour is not that it increases the output of
functions divided, but that it renders them solidarity.
Emile Durkheim; Division of Labour in Society
If it develops a one-sided speciality into perfection, at the expense of the whole of a mans
working capacity, it also begins to make a speciality of the absence of all development.
Karl Marx; Capital
Durkheim has a totally different approach from Marx with as far as the process of division of
labour is concerned. The essence of his argument, is that division of labour brings solidarity
among the different elements or units of society, whereas, Marx explained it as a
phenomenon leading to class antagonism and exploitation of lower class which he calls
proletariat by the upper class referred to as bourgeoisie in his study. Durkheims problem is a
moral one. He maintains that the function of division of labour is to serve an important need
of the society and this need is maintenance of solidarity which Durkheim explains is a moral
phenomenon (Durkheim, 1933). He doesnt seem to be interested in the political sphere of
action of the society (Giddens, 1971) and perhaps this is what limits him from a deeper
analysis of the material conditions of the society. The two thinkers also differ on a
philosophical level and precisely due to these philosophical differences they take different
approaches to the study of division of labour. Durkheim points out quite clearly that religion
is the original source out of which all other systems of ideas have come into being (which
explains his attempt to give division of labour a moral character), he doesnt give the
economic factor as much importance as given to it by Marx, who believes that the origin of
ideas is an outcome of the economic relationships (Giddens, 1971). Durkheim is a
functionalist who looks at society as an organism with different organs, performing their
particular functions and contributing to the unity of the whole (Durkheim, 1933). Marx is
interested by the relations between the classes which according to him have evolved through
a series of historical changes (Marx, 1954). However, it is not that Durkheim doesnt
recognize societal conflict and classes. His study on anomie is all about conflict. Infact, at
one point in his book on division of labour he goes onto the extent of saying that some of the
most industrial societies have observed very high crime rates. But he considers these
phenomena as exceptions or pathological deviations from the actual purpose and sees them as
on outcome of the fact that society has not yet adapted completely to the sudden change. He
firmly believes that these conflicting situations will be normalised with the progress of
division of labour (Durkheim, 1933). Another important point of difference between the two
thinkers is that Durkheim doesnt analyse division of labour in terms of the power relations
existing in the society, whereas, Marxs theory is all about power shifting from one class to
another. In short, as Giddens has pointed out, while Durkheim avoided being political,
politics at the same time is an essential element, one needs to know about, prior to the quest

Arif Hayat Nairang M.A (P)

of understanding Marx. In analysing and comparing these two thinkers, we must not forget
that Durkheim was trying to establish Sociology as a discipline which was not Marxs
purpose at all. Thus, while borrowing from Darwins theory of survival of fittest and
Spencers organismic analogy Durkheim is constantly trying to make a body of laws which
are as strong as the laws of natural science. A conflict perspective doesnt fit into such
scheme of things because it doesnt unify the subject matter, which is infact Durkheims sole
purpose.
Till now we have pointed out the larger differences between the two thinkers as far as their
theories of division of labour are concerned, now we will narrow down on these differences
and try to elucidate how they differ and in this respect we will try to answer one important
question first. How according to Durkheim division of labour leads to solidarity, whereas, as
per Marx it leads to conflict?
Durkheim talks at length about division of labour in his book titled Division of Labour in
Society. He understands it from the perspective of law because he feels that law is the symbol
of solidarity in society and as there is no direct measurement of solidarity (a moral
phenomenon) so law and its components serve him as the yardstick for measuring and
observing it. He categorises solidarity on the basis of repressive and restitutive law, the
former corresponds to mechanical solidarity and the latter is a feature of organic solidarity.
Mechanical solidarity according to him is an outcome of the resemblances or likeness of the
units of society and is a characteristic feature of primitive societies. The totality of beliefs and
sentiments of this particular society is so strong that it determines the individual
consciousness of its members. He calls this totality as collective consciousness and it is this
consciousness that lends cohesion to this society. By the resemblance of individuals he means
that the actions of the members of society are not determined by their personal conscience
which characterises us but by the common conscience, which leads to same collective
movements and thus the same effect. e.g the commonality in all the acts of crimes is that they
are universally disapproved by members of the society because the common conscience
deriving from society considers it so. Given the extensive sphere of influence of collective
conscience in primitive societies, the punishment in such societies is determined by the
amount of hurt done to the collective conscience or in other words society avenges the
damage done to common conscience leading to repressive sanctions or sanctions which are,
borrowing the term form Durkheim, expiatory in nature. He calls this society mechanical
because in his view the units of society come together like molecules or inanimate parts
without a consciousness of their own and lend solidarity to the system. In direct contrast to
this, the solidarity in case of industrial or modern society is organic in nature, a direct
reference to the organismic analogy, the different parts constituting the society and
contributes to its cohesion. This type of solidarity is born of the differences of the individuals.
He says that differences can be a cause for mutual attraction as is likeness in case of
mechanical solidarity. But he is talking about only certain kinds of differences, those which
complement each other. Due to the differences of individuals the collective consciousness is
weaker and the increase in individual consciousness at the same time leads to the
development of individualism which Durkheim considers is a necessary condition for

Arif Hayat Nairang M.A (P)

solidarity because the greater the freedom of the parts, the greater society becomes capable of
collective movement. Durkheim says that in this type of society, an individual is bound to
society through intermediaries such as courts or law and an individual is held by contracts.
Every part contributes some part of its freedom for the larger freedom of all. The purpose of
punishment or restitutive sanctions is to reinstate equilibrium or in other words to restore
social order which has been disturbed by an act of crime. (Durkheim, 1933)
Marxs main ideas regarding division of labour are highlighted in his book Captial, Vol.I. He
talks about it in terms of cooperation among individuals who are working together
particularly in a factory mode of production under which the work is divided into different
parts and the isolated workers do their part of the work leading to the development of a
social force which is the effect of the combined labour of the workers. It is this cooperation
resulting from the differentiation that results into a systematic division of labour. Marx points
out that this cooperation is not an outcome of the choices of the workers but it is the effect of
the process of producing a commodity. They dont enter into relations with each other rather
they enter into relations with the capitalist who by the power of possessing capital employs
them and this relationship is marked by inequality right from the start because the labourer is
able to sell only his own individual labour power whereas the capitalist buys the combined
labour power of a number of workers. In manufacture, as per Marx, an individual worker
performs the same task time and again and thus perfects himself at this particular task but it
comes at the cost of losing other potentials and abilities (Marx, 1954). Owning to this everincreasing division of labour and the introduction of machinery into production the individual
character of the work is lost as also is the charm of work. (Marx & Engels, Communist
Manifesto). A worker in the factory produces more than what he needs to survive but he is
paid only that much which enables his survival, the outcome of this more labour that he
invests in the process of production is termed by Marx as surplus value and is indeed the
essence of capitalism. The worker has no share in it and the capitalist is always interested in
increasing it. This results in the elongation of the working hours or decreasing wages which
causes resentment among the workers. Another important point to be noted in Marxs analysis
of division of labour is the distinction that he draws between division of labour (in
manufacture) and social division of labour. The people who were earlier carpenters, shoemakers or artisans doing different jobs earlier are now set in factory were they are all
workers. (Marx, Capital, 1954). Thus, division of labour results in the development of a class
of workers who are paid less, dont enjoy their work and most importantly dont own the
means of production and are indeed exploited at the hands of the capitalist, thereby leading to
class antagonism, which as Marx says results later into a revolution.
From the above discussion both the thinkers seem quite convincing in their own way but they
do present differences of opinion which, broadly presented in the beginning, are clearer now.
Durkheim means by division of labour in his analysis as occupational specialisation (Lukes,
1972). Marxs theory seems more complete in this respect because it traces the growth of
division of labour from a physiological base involving the encounter between different
communities resulting into exchanging of goods among them, to the larger social division of
labour in society which involves different spheres of production. (Marx, Capital, 1954). Thus

Arif Hayat Nairang M.A (P)

Durkheims version seems too simplistic when compared with Marxian version. Another
important point of diversion is that Durkheim says that division of labour led to the worker to
know what the final meaning or end product of his work was, in Durkheims words he feels
he is serving something (Lukes, 1972), whereas, Marx felt that work loses its charm for the
worker in a capitalist system. (Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto). The surprising fact
that comes to the mind is that why is Durkheim not able to see the exploitation due to
division of labour as vividly as observed by Marx. His assertion that conflict or exploitation
is a pathological deviation and the consequent return to the basic argument about the moral
role of division of labour raises certain doubts in mind. The development of individual
personality is another bone of contention between them. Durkheim says that the finer the
division of labour in the society greater will be the scope for the development of personality
as collective conscience weakens (Durkheim, 1933) whereas Marx feels the development of
personality is limited by division of labour because the individual is only performing a
specific kind of work and not realizing his full capacities (Marx, Capital, 1954).
In his take on Marxian thought in general Durkheim rejects class structure as the source of
political power due to the varied political organisation of structurally similar societies. He
feels that the economic transformation doesnt necessitate radical re-organisation of societies.
In fact he says that societies marked with political revolutions showcase only superficial
changeability (Giddens, 1971). In short we can say, by returning to the argument set out at
the beginning that Durkheim rejects conflict as the outcome of division of labour because he
wants to hold the society together with morals and it is a real bet that he is playing when he
says that the differentiation of society produces these morals. We must not forget though that
his times demanded a push towards unity in society whereas Marx being the activist that he is
sees the division of labour leading to the exploitation of one class by the dominant class.

Arif Hayat Nairang M.A (P)

References:Durkheim, E. (1933). Division of Labour in Society. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and modern social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lukes, S. (1972). Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work. New York: Harper and Row.
Marx, K. (1954). Capital (Vol. I). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (n.d.). Communist Manifesto.