An Imperfect And Troubled Solidarity

Ð"‰mile Durkheim (1858-1917), originally destined to become a Jewish Rabbi like his father before him has become something greater: the main figure behind the concept of “The Forced Division of Labor” and unequivocally, one of the greatest minds to have ever lived during the 18th and 19th century (Morrow 2005, 158). Durkheim following his precocious career as a graduate student from the famous Ð"‰cole Normale SupÐ"©rieure (ENS) in Paris, France 1882 was baptized immediately into the field of Sociology “…in response to traumatic events in France that led him (and the liberal and socialist reformists of his generation) to question the capacity of the older conservative elites to manage France in the new industrial age” (Morrow 2005, 158). More specifically, his influential reconstruction of French traditional social theory was in response to France’s embarrassing defeat during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 (Morrow 2005, 158). Durkheim attributed this defeat to the inability of mechanical solidarity to effectively account for differentiation stemming from conservative French industrial society, which resulted in a politically and economically disorganized France (Morrow 2005, 162). In this paper, I will discuss Durkheim’s description of mechanical solidarity, more specifically, how Durkheim explained that a shift from mechanical to organic solidarity in French society was needed (reversal of Toennies), and how this shift was accomplished through the use of Durkheim’s “The Forced Division of Labor” (Durkheim, 1893). Finally, I will conclude with the notion that a real-life employment of “The Forced Division of Labor” (organic solidarity) can never truly distinguish itself from the repressive nature of mechanical solidarity, because the fundamental basis of such a theory relies too heavily on assumptions and specific contingencies.

France’s defeat at the hands of Prussia was a tremendous shock for the French people because in terms of political and military comparison, Prussia was considered a mild inconviencing presence for the French powerhouse under the command of Napoleon III (http://en.wikipedia.org/, Screen 3). The resulting loss was soon “…followed by the breakdown of authority and the working class seizure of power in Paris for two months in the so-called Paris Commune” (Morrow 2005, 158). The Paris Commune was a situation that Durkheim would classify as a conflict between different sects of society or in more general terms a “…class-war” (Durkheim 1893, 374). Furthermore, Durkheim would identify that the root cause of the Paris Commune was due to the disagreement between old traditional conservative systems of mechanical solidarity with the new organic solidarity system of “The Forced Division of Labor”. This conflict existed because the static structure of mechanical solidarity (sameness) fails to account for the ever-changing dynamic landscape in France, during a time of modernity and industrial progress. Durkheim, as a result, highlighted the need to replace the existing French system of mechanical solidarity, to a more organic solidarity system. However, this transition wasn’t without consequence, with the reversal of Toennies came the idea of “Abnormal Division of Labor” which had three distinctive components: forced division of labor, lack of coordination, and anomie or normlessness (Morrow 2005, 164). Dr. Raymond Morrow, in his 2005 text, An Invitation to Rethinking the Classical Sociological Imagination explores the notion of abnormal division of labor in detail:

First, a forced division of labor resulted from the fact that there was a potential mis-match between individual abilities and a person’s actual occupational status. These problems were related to a lack of educational opportunity, so a central theme of his sociology of education was efforts and concern with reforming and expanding public education. A second abnormal form derived from the lack of coordination within industrial organizations, a problem that implied the need for better management and a science of organizational analysis. Though it did not pursue this, such concerns were later apparent in the influence of Durkheim upon management studies. A third form of abnormality was the one given the closest attention by Durkheim: the anomic division of labor that arose from anomie or normlessness of workers whose early socialization had not adequately prepared them for the new realities of work, a problem rein enforced by the effects of the other two abnormalities (Morrow 2005, 164).

The above excerpt outlines some potential abnormalities that are associated with organic solidarity (which is a well-equipped arrangement able to handle modernity in contemporary French society). The importances of these abnormalities are crucial, because the first of them holds the foundation on which we base of our main discussion: “The Forced Division of Labor”.

“The Forced Division of Labor” as Durkheim describes is metaphorically a structure that draws its organic tendencies similar to that of a biological system:

In this condition, harmony between individual natures and social functions cannot fail to be realized, at least in the average case. For, if nothing impedes or unduly favors those disputing over tasks, it is inevitable that only those who are most apt at each kind of activity will indulge in it… In the nature of things, the apportioning is made through aptitudes, since there is no reason is doing otherwise… Normally, man finds happiness in realizing his nature; his needs are in relation to his means. Thus, in the organism, each organ demands only as much food as it requires (Durkheim 1893, 376).

Through this passage, Durkheim expresses the notion that man will realize his own functioning nature and as such will contribute to his biological organism to which he has membership. This biological organism can perform a variety of tasks given the sum of its parts, similar to the human body. The assumption here is that with the differentiations brought about by modernity in French society, the demand for different functions and operations will be vast, however people will naturally be categorized into their respective functions given their aptitudes, rather