The Division of Labor in Society Paperback – January 1, 2013

Durkheim is sometimes characterized as "the sociologist of constraint," meaning that, as he saw it, an unregulated life is devoid of meaning and a source of misery. In a very limited way, one might argue that Durkheim, in contrast to Marx, held that man does have a rudimentary nature, at least in terms of social and cultural needs. People need norms, standards, and social ties to provide them with direction, purpose, knowledge of realistic limits, and a sense of belonging. This is one reason for Durkheim's life-long interest in religion as a social phenomenon. His emphasis on constraint and stability also helps explain why he is commonly regarded as a conservative.Durkheim was less optimistic than Marx with regard to prospects for the variegated development of human potential. While Marx envisioned opportunities for people to develop a broad range of talents in a self-actualizing way, Durkheim was more cautious. His emphasis on an evermore complex division of labor characterized by increasingly narrow specialization held his expectations in check.At the same time, however, Durkheim was convinced that a more complex division of labor and the organic solidarity it occasioned enabled individuals to become more independent and self-determining. As with Marx, however, Durkheim was aware that increasing specialization did not serve all interests equally well.While Durkheim and Marx have more in common than is typically acknowledged, Durkheim did not view the antagonistic character of the capital-labor relationship as inevitable or basic to the structure of capitalist society. In Durkheim's judgment, increasing social and cultural complexity, along with the rise of modern industry and an attendant ethos of reciprocity and complementarity, were more important than the emergence of mature capitalism and the capital-labor dichotomy.In my view, Durkhiem was wrong. Nevertheless, his struggle to find a basis for social solidarity for modern industrial society prompted him to develop the powerful concepts anomie (or cultural de-regulation) and egoism (or social deracination). These, in turn, led to his brilliant work on the social sources of suicide. Perhaps it's a mark of genius that failures lead to new discoveries which give important areas of intellectual endeavor an entirely new and unexpected conceptual direction.As an addendum, Steven Lukes, who wrote the recent all-caps review, edited the revision of The Division of Labor in Society to which he refers. As such, he has a vested interest in its success. Since he gives us absolutely no information as to why he judges the reviews based on an earlier edition misleading, I suggest that his admonition be ignored. I've read a lot of and about Durkheim, including the recent biography by Forunier which I reviewed on Amazon, and I see no reason to judge my review misleading.

If you’re looking for something that explains how to live in capitalism but also revolutionize the systems of oppression and cast away the evil that is keeping progress from success in our societies, Durkheim is your new friend. Just, uh, skip over his weird misogynistic remarks and a few other weird things and it’ll all be good my friend.

The Division Of Labor in Society seeks to answer a very fundamental question. That is, with increasing division of labor in society, are we losing our solidarity? Is increasing specialization good or bad for human society? To put it in few words, Durkheim shows that organic solidarity (i.e. one of mutual dependence) grows in an increasingly specializing society. This is a classic statement for sociology. The question remains ever relevant.Happy reading.Regards,Abdullah ShahidCornell University

Organic solidarity pops off the page and this seminal text in political sociology proves its relevance for our contemporary challenges in a post-collective bargaining world.

Hard to read but it is a good book.

Book was in great condition!

Nice

Had to buy this for class

This book is one of the fundamentally important early works that provide a base for modern sociology. The version I bought is second hand but in excellent condition, exactly as described by the seller. It arrived as promised and was well packed so it is in very good alrouand condition as well as being very useful for my studies.

Used in education degree for referencing and guidance

the translation by George simpson is worse than I had expected. For those looking to read this, please get the translation by W. D. Halls, worth the price for the nuanced reader

Informative and helped with the essay I was writing on Durkheim, however difficult to read.Very academic language and confusing to understand.Would not recommend to anyone who does not already have knowledge of Durkheim

Legible; unlikely to pass it on after death therefore condition not very important.