In “The Division of Labor in Society,” Durkheim argues that there are two kinds of solidarity: mechanical solidarity between similar individuals and organic solidarity based on difference. The type of social solidarity people have has shifted towards organic solidarity because of the effects of the social and economic conditions that led to an increase in the division of labor. Mechanical solidarity describes pre-modern society, a society that according to Durkheim, was based on sameness. Organic solidarity, on the other hand, refers to modern society which is made up of different complimentary parts. Durkheim believed that society would function better if individuals work on different and complementary tasks with the same goal in mind. Not all is fine with this type of society though. The constant change and the fragmentation of concerns, and forced division of labor can lead to anomie. This is what happens in an unregulated capitalist society. The breakdown of norms means that the individual will suddenly find him/herself not knowing how to think or act. Anomie leads to negative outcomes like deviance, depression, and even suicide.
What is civilization according to Durkheim?
Civilization is the effect of the coping mechanism that man has employed in order to cope with their condition. Science, art, and economic activity develop in order to help man meet new needs. It is like that old saying, “necessity is the mother of invention.”
According to Durkheim, as the volume and density of population in a given society grows, the struggle for survival becomes more intense. In order to cope and have some peace, it is best when individuals work on different things so as to not compete with each other over limited resources, but instead complement each other. As the division of labor grows, so does the solidarity between individuals, and the solidarity of individuals to society as a whole.
Durkheim states:
The division of labour is therefore one result of its struggle for existence: but is a gentle denouement. Thanks to it, rivals are not obliged to eliminate one another completely, but can coexist side by side. Moreover, as it develops, it provides a greater number of individuals, who in more homogeneous societies would be condemned to extinction. (Division)
The racist ideology of the 19th century
In the 19th century, one of the main theories in cultural anthropology was sociocultural evolutionism. The prevailing idea was that societies evolve from a kind of Hobbesian state of nature (this idea only applied to “indigenous people”) towards civilization (think industrial Europe or America). The racist reasoning goes as such: these people living in a way that I refuse to recognize as civilized are savages. I know they are primitive/savages because, I mean, look at the way they live! If they were as smart, strong, righteous, etc. as us, then they would have had a civilization by now.
Why I think Durkheim’s theory on the origin of civilization is awesome (ok at least, a bit better)
Why do I think this is better than the prevailing theories of civilization at the time? Durkheim doesn’t equate the unequal development of societies to natural inequalities. According to Durkheim, the cause of the unequal development of societies is not due to the natural inequalities of man, nor how long the society has existed. The only cause of the unequal development of societies is the number of people in a given society and the society’s density. The more people there are and the closer they are, the more they react to each other, thereby intensifying social life. The intensifying of social life makes up a civilization.
Then, Durkheim makes it clear that civilization is not a point that people must work towards in order to achieve happiness or to be better, because morality and happiness does not necessarily increase with the intensity of life.
He does say later on that while civilization is an effect of necessary causes, it can also be an end goal, the goal being the perfection of society. We don’t have to be passive; we can direct how we go about the goal of perfecting civilization.
Is Durkheim’s claim about civilization and happiness true?
In New York City, where life is super-intense, the people are neither nicer nor happier. I can understand why Durkheim says that civilization only helps in repairing that which it has destroyed. According to Durkheim, because this “super activity” of life makes us tired and stresses us out, we need more wide-ranging and complex things to compensate for it. Is this why New York City is so full of culture and hedonistic excesses? Is the vibrant cultural life in the city just a way for us to compensate for the stress and the intensity of life and work? And what would be left with, if we were to slow down and scale back?