100%(4)4 out of 4 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 8 pages.
engaged in different activities, people living under organic solidarity would cooperate more. He thought that peaceful co-existence was more likely in a society characterized by organic solidarity.Abnormal Adaptations to the Division of LaborLet’s begin by stating that the normal function of the division of labor is to produce a form of social solidarity, either mechanical or organic solidarity. However, not everyone adapts well to the division of labor and that is where we will find our abnormal or pathological forms of adaptation: anomic, forced, and poorly coordinated (p.197).The anomic division of labor results when individuals become increasingly isolated by their more specialized job tasks, thus losing their sense of belonging in society. Anomie implies a lack of regulation and integration into society and can be damaging for both society and the individual. The forced division of labor results when individuals are put into job for whichthey are not suited by their natural talents or their abilities. For example, a very talented individual may be assigned to a basic job because they are of alower class background, and therefore did not have the opportunity to pursuehigher education. Since we know that Durkheim is a functionalist, we can surmise that misplacing people within the division of labor is a no-no because it would interfere with the smooth operation of the entire societal system. And this is indeed what he claims. The poorly coordinated division of labor very simply states that all the specialized forms of labor within a complex modern society marked by organic solidarity can become poorly coordinated. This poor coordination
within the division of labor results in the further breaking down of communitysolidarity, thus increasing individual isolation. Durkheim focused on these three types of abnormal adaptations for two main reasons. First, if it could not be proved that these forms of adaptation were deviant and exceptional, the division of labor might be accused of "logically implying" them, thus breaking apart the central notion of functionalism: all parts operate for the benefit of the whole. Second, the study of these deviant forms of adaptation to modern society might help us better understand the conditions that support a more normal or natural stateof living. As for comparisons to Marx, we can easily surmise his agreement with the anomic division of labor and the forced division of labor. Certainly the terms anomie (Durkheim) and alienation (Marx) are different, but they spring from basically the same place: a feeling of separation from others in society. Indeed, Marx only saw dysfunction coming out of the capitalistic division of labor – he has said it isolating and dehumanizing. Marx would argue with Durkheim concerning the positive functions of a highly specialized division oflabor because, frankly, Marx saw human misery within specialized spheres ofwork; he did not see every piece working for the good of the whole. Instead, he saw the pieces as well as the whole working for the benefit of the rich.