Early societies, with very little division of labour is what Durkheim calls mechanical solidarity. In this type of society people are very similar to each other and this is mainly due to the fact that each person comes carries out similar types of tasks. In other words, people share the type of work they carry out (Cuff et al: 1990). These societies share the same sentiments and beliefs based on common tasks and common life situations. Durkheim describes the extreme of mechanical solidarity in the following way:
The solidarity that derives from similarities is at it’s maximum when the collective conscience completely envelopes out total consciousness, coinciding with it at every point. At that moment our individuality is zero. That individuality cannot arise until the community fills us less completely (Durkheim, 1944: p84).
In contrast to mechanical solidarity stands organic solidarity. These modern industrial societies have a more developed division of labour. Where as mechanical solidarity presumes identity between individuals organic solidarity presupposes not identity but differences between individuals in their beliefs and actions (Durkheim: 1984). In other words, with the development of the division of labour the collective conscience begins to decline. Therefore, individuals carry out very different tasks and different experiences, which creates a more personal consciousness. The common life situations which created the collective conscience is disturbed because of the expansion of the division of labour and individuals no longer share the same life experiences, but have very different settings which leads towards an individual consciousness (Grabb: 1990). So this new form of solidarity brings with it individualism – differences between individuals in their beliefs and actions. However, Durkheim believes (in Cuff et al, 1990: p31):
The differences are accepted and indeed become expected. For example, modern man comes to expect to depend on the unseen coalminer, the power worker, the Christmas card maker and the farmer. 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 commonly shared daily experiences. Instead of specifying the details of action, common values tend to be a more general underpinning for actual social practices. It is in this sense that the division of labour can be seen as a moral phenomenon.
Durkheim argues that a much more developed division of labour brings with it individual and group differences, thus creating a new form of social solidarity (O’Donnell: 1993). For Durkheim states that within organic solidarity each and every one of us consists of two consciences: one which is common to our group, where society is living and acting within us; the other represents a personal and distinct conscience, which makes us an individual (O’Donnell : 1993). Durkheim also argues that in an individuated society the inter-dependence between individuals is more exaggerated. This is because we are no longer self-sufficient; we depend on others to for-fill our specialized tasks such as food, education and so on (Holborn et al: 1990).
Durkheim believed that the collective conscience is responsible for producing social cohesion by sustaining moral consensus within mechanical solidarity (Durkheim: 1984). However, when the division of labour increased there became differences between individuals as they are no longer self sufficient, so the social cohesion was moved out of the realm of restitutive law. In the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity social conduct becomes controlled less by moral consensus promoted through the collective conscience and falls under the influence of the restitutive law and it’s regulating effect (Durkheim: 1984). Durkheim believes that within organic solidarity, the collective conscience continues to have an effect on behaviour through the persistence of moral codes which were necessary for the fulfilment of contracts within the division of labour (Durkheim: 1984). In other words, the collective conscience is weakened through the development of the division of labour, leaving room for the reflective thought of individuals, whilst at the same time they recognize that the influences of mechanical solidarity have left behind them an effect which survives and is always present. Despite individualism and a complex division of labour, a kind of collective conscience still rests in shared principles and expectations, embodied, for instance in law and the market – so social morality, according to Durkheim is necessary for solidarity between people to occur, because without this societies cannot exist (Durkhein: 1984). So Dukheim believes, that organic solidarity through the division of labour, brings individualism; which in turn brings about more freedom as they no longer work together as a collectivity, since they carry out different tasks each of which has a special role (Durkheim: 1974).
The transformation from mechanical to organic organisations is characterised by the division of labour. So this moral social change provides the grounds for the possibility of the division of labour. This occurs when parts of mechanical organisations start to break down. For Durkheim stated in his book the division of labour in society (1984: p 256, cited in Morgan’s lecture notes) that:
The growth of the division of labour is brought about by the social segments losing their individuality, the divisions become more permeable. In short, a coalescence takes place which makes new combinations possible in social substance.
Thus 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 (Morgan’s lecture notes: 2004). However, it is these developments which create the division of labour. This moral relationship can only produce it’s effect if the real distance between individuals has itself diminished in some way. Durkheim refers to this as increasing density. Moral density cannot grow unless material density grows at the same time, the two are simple inseparable. There are three ways in which this happens. The first is the concentration of people. People begin to concentrate together, the second is the formation of cities and the third is transportation and communication. All these act to transform society where it transcends the mechanical into the organic. For Durkheim states in his book the division of labour in society (1984: p 262, cited in Morgan’s lecture notes: 2004) that:
The division of labour varies in direct ratio within 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.
So the transformation of society is wholly a matter of the infrastructure; ‘that the changes which occur in the character of moral conduct are simply the effects of these causes’ (Morgans, lecture notes: 2004). In other words, Durkheim believes that there are some form of determinism in the way changes occur, which means that every individual is fixed with a certain liberty. This fixed liberty means that individuals act and behave in particular ways, which is achieved through social facts and must be directed to be a social end. In other words, social facts continue in existence because they contribute in some way to the maintenance to society, because they serve some social end (Holborn et al: 2004). So the change that occurs from mechanical to organic solidarity, which is categorized through the division of labour is determined.
In conclusion, we can see that Durkheim’s argument is that there are two types of social solidarity – Mechanical and organic solidarity. Within each type of society Durkheim saw that the collective conscience operates in a different fashion, and it was the distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity that reveals how Durkheim saw the collective conscience as a social fact. This is because in organic solidarity - despite individualism and a complex division of labour, a kind of collective conscience still rests in shared principles and expectations, embodied, for instance in law and the market – so social morality (collective conscience, the shared values and moral beliefs), according to Durkheim is necessary for solidarity between people to occur, because without this societies cannot exist. In their absence there would be no fundamental moral issues, social order or social solidarity. In other words, there would be no society, since it is the collective conscience that forms social solidarity, which is the very existence of society. So social facts continue in existence because they contribute in some way to the maintenance to society, because they serve some social end. So the change that occurs from mechanical to organic solidarity, which is categorized through the division of labour is determined. However, Durkheim argues that it is the division of labour itself which creates organic solidarity, because of mutual needs of individuals in modern soceity. In both types of societies, individuals for the most part interact in accordance with their obligations to others and to society as a whole. In doing so, each person also receives some recognition of his or her own rights and contributions within the collectivity. So the division of labour performs the basis for change (i.e. mechanical to organic solidarity).
Bibliography
Cuff, E, C Sharrock, W, W and Francis, D, W (1990) Prespectives in sociology 3rd edition, Routledge: New York.
Durkheim (1984) The division of labour in society, Macmillan publishers LTD: London.
Grabb, E, G (1990) Theories of social inequality: Classic and contemporary perspectives 2nd edition, Rinehart and Winston: Toronto .
Haralambos and Holborn (2004) Sociology themes and perspectives 6th edition, Haper Collins: London.
David Morgans (2004) Classical and contemporary social theory
O Donell, M (1993) New introductory, Reader in sociology 3rd edition, Thomas Nelson and sons LTD: Canada.