Encyclopedia of Sociology

DIVISION OF LABOR

their productive roles; labor would not be alienat-
ing because of the common ideology and sense of
community.

Weber (1947) painted a darker picture when
he documented the increasing ‘‘rationalization’’
of society, especially the ascendence of the bureau-
cratic division of labor with its coordinated system
of roles, each highly specialized, with duties speci-
fied in writing and incumbents hired on the basis
of their documented competence at specific tasks.
The ideal-type bureaucracy was in actuality subject
to the negative consequences of excessive speciali-
zation, however. Weber pointed out that the ‘‘iron
cage’’ placed stifling limits on human freedom
within the organization, and that decisions by
bureaucrats often became so rule bound and in-
flexible that the clients were ill served.

Georg Simmel’s ‘‘differentiation and the prin-
ciple of saving energy’’ (1976 [1890]) is a little-
known essay that similarly describes the inevitable
problems that offset the efficiencies gained by the
division of labor; he called these ‘‘friction, indi-
rectness, and superfluous coordination.’’ He also
echoed Marx and Engels when he described the
effects of high levels of differentiation upon the
individual:

... differentiation of the social group is
evidently directly opposed to that of the
individual. The former requires that the
individual must be as specialized as possible,
that some single task must absorb all his
energies and that all his impulses, abilities and
interests must be made compatible with this one
task, because this specialization of the indi-
vidual makes it both possible and necessary to
the highest degree for him to be different from
all other specialized individuals. Thus the
economic setup of society forces the individual
for life into the most monotonous work, the
most extreme specialization, because in this
way he will acquire the skill which makes
possible the desired quality and cheapness of
the product. (Simmel 1976, p. 130)

While the foregoing theorists contributed sub-
stantially to the understanding of the division of
labor, Emile Durkheim’s The Division of Labor in
Society (1893) stands as the classic sociological
statement of the causes and consequences of the
historical shift from ‘‘mechanical solidarity’’ to

‘‘organic solidarity.’’ The former is found in small-

er, less-advanced societies where families and vil-

lages are mostly self-sufficient, independent, and

united by similarities. The latter is found in larger,

urbanized societies where specialization creates

interdependence among social units.

Following Spencer’s lead, Durkheim noted

that the specialization of functions always accom-

panies the growth of a society; he also observed

that increasing population density—the urbaniza-

tion of society that accompanies modernization—

greatly increases the opportunities for further in-

creases in the division of labor.

It should be noted that the shift to a modern

division of labor could not have occurred without

a preexisting solidarity; in his chapter on ‘‘organic

and contractual solidarity’’ he departed from

Spencer’s utilitarian explanation of social cohe-

sion, and noted that the advanced division of labor

can occur only among members of an existing

society, where individuals and groups are united

by preexisting similarities (of language, relig-

ion, etc.).

A sense of trust, obligation, and interdepend-

ence is essential for any large group in which there

are many diverse roles; indirect exchanges occur;

and individuals form smaller subgroupings based

on occupational specialization. All of these changes

create high levels of interdependence, but with

increasing specialization, and different world views

develop, along with different interests, values, and

belief systems. This is the problem Durkheim saw

in the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity;

he feared the ‘‘anomie’’ or lack of cohesion that

might result from a multiplicity of views, languag-

es, and religions within a society (as in the France

of his times, and even more so today). The prob-

lems of inequality in modern industrial society

were not lost on Durkheim, either; he noted how

the ‘‘pathological form of the division of labor’’

posed a threat to the full development of social

solidarity (see Giddens 1971). Although many sim-

plistic analyses of Durkheim’s approach suggest

otherwise, he dealt at length with the problems of

‘‘the class war’’ and the need for justice and

fraternity.

The division of labor is treated as a key ele-

ment in Peter Blau’s book, Inequality and Heteroge-

neity (1977). This important work emphasizes the

primacy of differentiation (division of labor) as an