How do Marx and Durkheim work out the twin problems of order and motivation? Make sure to compare their respective positions in your paper. In your essay use all of the works of Durkheim you have read for this course and Marxâ??s The Communist Manifesto, Capital, and Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844all reading will be uploaded, quotation needs to be precise down to page numbers. following page numbers are required readings that will be used in the paper. other pages in the book are not required. Plz do not quote any of those pages that are not required. Emile DurkheimThe Division of Labor
in Society, tr. by W.D. Halls, Chapter 7: Organic Solidarity and Contractual Solidarity, 149-175,
Conclusion, pp. 329-341.Suicide:
A Study in Sociology, Book Two: Chapter 1: How to Determine Social Causes
and Social Types, 145-151, Chapters 2 & 3: Egoistic Suicide 152-216, Chapter
5: Anomic Suicide, pp. 241-276.The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life, The reading will be found here. ,http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41360/41360-h/41360… If you have any difficulty accessing this reading plz let me know asap Chapter 1: Definition of Religious
Phenomena and Religion, section III, pp.
33-44, Chapter 7: Origins of these Beliefs: Origin of the Notion of Totemic Principle, or
Mana: sections I-V: pp. 207-236, Conclusion: sections I II: 418-433.KARL MARXâ??Theses
on Feuerbachâ? (numbers III, IV, XI), pp.143-5.Economic
and Philosophical Manuscripts, â??Estranged (or Alienated) Labor,â? pp.70-81 &
â??Private Property and Communism,â? pp.81-89.The
Communist Manifesto, pp.469-500. The
Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, pp.594-617.Capital,
Part I, Chapter I, Section 1: â??The Two Factors of a Commodity,â? pp.302-308; Section
4: â??The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof,â? 319-329; you may search on google to understand the concept and gather ideas, but outer sources are not allowed.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
The Division of Labour in Society
This page intentionally left blank
The Division of Labour in Society
Edited and with a new introduction by Steven Lukes
Translation by W. D. Halls
Introduction to the 1984 edition Â© Lewis Coser 1984
Introduction to this edition, editorial matter and corrections to translation
Â© Steven Lukes 2013
Translation Â© Palgrave Macmillan 1984
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6â??10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this
work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First edition published 1984
Second edition published 2013 by
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
PalgraveÂ® and MacmillanÂ® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries
ISBN 978â??1â??137â??34713â??8 hardback
ISBN 978â??1â??137â??03182â??2 paperback
This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully
managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing
processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the
country of origin.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Preface to this Edition, by Steven Lukes
Introduction to the 1984 Edition, by Lewis Coser
Introduction to this Edition, by Steven Lukes
Emile Durkheimâ??s Life and Works: Timeline 1858â??1917
Suggestions for Further Reading
Translatorâ??s Note by W. D. Halls
THE DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY by Emile Durkheim
Preface to the First Edition (1893)
Preface to the Second Edition (1902)
Book I The Function of the Division of Labour
Chapter I: The Method of Determining This Function
Chapter II: Mechanical Solidarity, or Solidarity by Similarities
Chapter III: Solidarity Arising from the Division of Labour,
or Organic Solidarity
Chapter IV: Another Proof of the Preceding Theory
Chapter V: The Increasing Preponderance of Organic Solidarity
and its Consequences
Chapter VI: The Increasing Preponderance of Organic Solidarity
and its Consequences (cont.)
Chapter VII: Organic Solidarity and Contractual Solidarity
Book II The Causes and Conditions
Chapter I: The Progress of the Division of Labour and of Happiness 183
Chapter II: The Causes
Chapter III: Secondary Factors
Chapter IV: Secondary Factors (cont.)
Chapter V: Consequences of the Foregoing
Book III The Abnormal Forms
Chapter I: The Anomic Division of Labour
Chapter II: The Forced Division of Labour
Chapter III: Another Abnormal Form
Original Annotated Table of Contents
Preface to this Edition
The story of English translations of Durkheimâ??s major works has not been
an especially happy one. The earliest translations â?? of Elementary Forms
of Religious Life (Durkheim 1915), The Division of Labour in Society
(Durkheim 1933) and The Rules of Sociological Method (Durkheim 1938)
â?? were defective, sometimes seriously so.1 Of course there is always room
for dispute over what constitutes success in translation, but these translations contained just too many straightforward errors, slips and misunderstandings to be counted as reliable (which did not prevent their being
influential upon, and sometimes misleading, generations of Anglophone
students and scholars). The situation in all three cases has much improved,
with Karen Fieldsâ??s excellent rendering of Elementary Forms in 1995,
together with a wonderfully insightful and reflective introduction to that
great work, and with the publication, in 1982 and 1984 respectively, of W.
D. Hallsâ??s translations of The Rules and The Division. But perfection in
translation is an inherently elusive goal, in part because of the need for
innumerable contestable decisions2 (should one, for instance, respect the
authorâ??s unclarities and ambiguities or help the reader by plumping for
precision?) and in part because the barriers separating a past author from
present readers tend to rise up with time and generational change (so
should the translator try to lower them?).
The present edition of The Division of Labour, which includes a
chronology of Durkheimâ??s life and works and suggestions for further reading, offers the reader a revised translation of that published in 1984. The
original French volume of De la division du travail social (second edition),
published in 1902, of which this is a translation, contained, according to
the convention of the time, an extended table of contents. This is included
here, following the text of the book, in order further to aid readers in navigating the text. That translation has been carefully revised throughout. I
want here to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Raphaelle Thery,
who meticulously checked the entire translation. One merely verbal
change is to reverse Dr. Hallsâ??s decision to render â??sanctions restitutivesâ?? as
â??restitutoryâ?? rather than â??restitutiveâ?? sanctions, in view of the universal
usage of the latter in the ever more voluminous literature on Durkheim.
Minor inaccuracies and mistakes have been corrected in what is, overall, a
fine, reliable, readable translation. Among other adjustments, where the
French text is precise, ambiguity in the English has been disambiguated;
The Division of Labour in Society
where the French is ambiguous, the English has retained the ambiguity.
The overall goal has been to capture subtleties and nuances that eluded the
1984 edition. The original French volume of De la division du travail
social (second edition), published in 1902, of which this is a translation,
contained, according to the convention of the time, an extended table of
contents. This is included here, following the text of the book, in order
further to aid readers in navigating the text.
Lewis Coserâ??s introduction to that edition has been retained. Its success
is due to the authorâ??s characteristic gifts for deftly placing this, Durkheimâ??s
first major book and sociologyâ??s first classic, within the history of ideas,
relating it to relevant intellectual traditions and thinkers, for lucidly outlining its central claims and sociological insights, and for suggesting where its
main strengths and weaknesses lie. The uninitiated reader will doubtless
find it worthwhile to read it alongside Coserâ??s fine chapter on Durkheim
in his Masters of Sociological Thought (Coser 2003).
The new introduction to this edition takes a different tack, focusing on the
ways in which this work is of present-day sociological interest. It notes the
manner in which it deploys Durkheimâ??s still controversial methodological
rules, subsequently set out in his The Rules of Sociological Method published
two years later. It examines the continuing significance of Durkheimâ??s theory,
as expressed here and modified later, concerning the nature of and conditions for social solidarity in ever more complex and differentiated societies.
It outlines the central role its arguments have played in the sociology of
crime and punishment,3 and it offers a discussion of the distinctive approach
Durkheim adopts here to the practice of social critique and the limitations,
which he himself later began to discern, under the influence, it seems, of his
nephew Marcel Mauss, of its â??methodological nationalismâ??.
The edition here translated is the second edition of De la division du
travail social, which was published in 1902. It differed from the first
edition of 1893 in two respects. It included a new Preface entitled
â??Quelques remarques sur les groupements professionelsâ??, which is translated and included here. It also excluded a section of the Introduction to
the first edition. Durkheim decided to discard this, as he explains in two
footnotes to this edition. The first, in the Preface, reads: â??We have confined
ourselves to eliminating from the original Introduction some thirty pages,
which now appear to us to be of no value. We also explain the reasons for
the omission at the place where it occurs.â?? And later in the Introduction
there is a second footnote, which reads: â??In the first edition of this book,
we developed at length the reasons which, in our view, prove the sterility
of this method [i.e. of the moral philosophers]. Today we believe that we
can be more brief. There are arguments that should not be indefinitely
prolonged.â?? There speaks the new Professor at the Sorbonne, confident
that sociology had made sufficient headway to cease to be defensive vis-Ã vis the philosophers. Yet, despite Durkheimâ??s negative view of these pages,
Preface to this Edition
they should in my view be made available in English to anyone interested
in Durkheimâ??s (developing) views of the science of morality, of which they
contain his first systematic statement, soon to be modified and improved
in The Rules and later essays. This was, after all, his central preoccupation,
the â??centre and endâ??, as his collaborator George Davy wrote, of his work
(Davy 1920: 71). We have therefore made them available online translated
by Karen Fields at http://www.durkheim-division-of-labour-in-society.com
The worst example is the omission from the Solovay and Mueller translation
of The Rules (Durkheim 1938) of an entire paragraph, about structural or
â??morphologicalâ?? facts forming â??the substratum of collective lifeâ??, that is essential to the argument of the first chapter of The Rules and indeed to understanding the development of Durkheimâ??s thought. For a list of the more
egregious mistranslations in The Rules and The Division, see appendix to
Lukes 1968. For discussions of Swainâ??s translation of Elementary Forms see
Fieldsâ??s introduction to Durkheim 1995 and Fields 2005. For a general
discussion of these issues see Lukes 2012.
The situation regarding Durkheimâ??s Suicide differs from that of the other
three works cited. Here the earlier translation (Durkheim 1951) is adequate
and serviceable, whereas the new translation, though generally accurate and
easy to read, makes bad decisions, translating Ã©goisme throughout as
â??egotismâ??, which suggests selfishness, whereas Durkheim intended isolation
and detachment, which â??egoismâ?? (used in the earlier translation) allows. It
also specifies the meaning of Durkheimâ??s sociÃ©tÃ© â?? a term he notoriously left
undefined â?? in different ways at different points, thereby masking
Durkheimâ??s uncertainty and unclarity as to the meaning of this crucial word.
For a fuller discussion, see the editorsâ?? introduction to Lukes and Scull 2013.
Coser, Lewis A. 2003. Masters of Sociological Thought. Long Grove, IL: Waveland
Press. Second edition (First edition 1971).
Davy, Georges 1920. â??Emile Durkheim: lâ??oeuvreâ?? Revue de mÃ©taphysique et de
morale 27: 71â??112.
Durkheim, Emile 1915. Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in
Religious Sociology. Translated by J. W. Swain. London: Allen and Unwin; New
Durkheim, Emile 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by G.
Simpson. New York: Macmillan.
Durkheim, Emile 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method. Translated by S. A.
Solovay and J. H. Mueller and edited with an introduction by G. E. G. Caitlin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, republished 1950 by Glencoe, IL: Free
Press of Glencoe.
The Division of Labour in Society
Durkheim, Emile 1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Translated by J. A.
Spaulding and G. Simpson. Glencoe, IL: Free Press of Glencoe and London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, Emile 1995. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated with an
Introduction by Karen Fields. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile 2006. On Suicide. Translated by Robin Buss (with an
Introduction by Richard Sennett and Notes by Alexander Riley). London and
New York: Penguin Books.
Fields, Karen E. 2005. â??What difference does translation make? Les Formes
Ã©lÃ©mentaires de la vie religieuse in French and Englishâ?? in Jeffrey C. Alexander
and Philip Smith (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press: 160â??180.
Lukes, Steven 1968. Emile Durkheim: An Intellectual Biography. Thesis presented
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy deposited at the Bodleian Library,
Oxford, 2 vols.
Lukes, Steven 2012. â??On Translating Durkheimâ?? in Martin J. Burke and Melvin
Richter (eds), Why Concepts Matter: Translating Social and Political Thought.
Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Lukes, Steven and Scull, Andrew (eds) 2013. Durkheim and the Law. Basingstoke:
Introduction to the
By Lewis Coser
Emile Durkheimâ??s The Division of Labour in Society, his doctoral dissertation and his first major work, was published in 1893. Though a previous translation into English appeared in 1933, the present volume is the
first exact, adequate and satisfying translation of this key work.
The Division of Labour is a highly original treatment of the subject, yet
it should be read within the context of earlier attempts to come to grips
with the complex division of labour that emerged with the industrial revolution, first in England and then on the Continent. What is novel in
Durkheimâ??s thought can best be understood if one refers, even if only
sketchily, to previous attempts to define and come to grips with the emergence of an unprecedented system of production and the allocation of both
productive and other societal tasks in the late eighteenth century.
Some forms of the division of labour, be it only along sexual lines, have
characterized all known types of society from the â??primitiveâ?? to the
modern. In all of them, certain types of labour, but also of other functions,
were allocated to specific groups of people. Even in the smallest known
human societies there are some forms of human differentiation in the allocation of tasks and roles.
Mediaeval society and its characteristic thinkers were well aware of the
diversity of work activities in their midst, and writings on the differences
among such â??callingsâ?? took prominent place among the Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century and after. But the pre-modern division of
labour involved, by and large, either divisions between urban artisans and
rural folk who were involved in specific trades and occupations or rough
class divisions between the members of the various estates that together
* In the following pages I am deeply in debt to the writings of Anthony Giddens on Durkheim,
in particular his Capitalism and Modern Social Theory (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
1971) and his Durkheim (London, Fontana/Collins, 1978). I also owe a great deal to Steven
Lukesâ??s Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work (London, Allen Lane, 1973). Other, less extensive,
debts are acknowledged in textual notes. Philippe Besnard and Anthony Giddens read an earlier
version of this introduction and made many helpful suggestions for which I am grateful.
The Division of Labour in Society
made up pre-modern society. Butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers
fashioned products of a different nature and were socially visible in the
pursuit of these different occupational ways of life. On the other hand,
there were sharp divisions between those devoted to military affairs,
people who were following a religious calling, and those, the great majority, who laboured in the fields or in urban occupations.
A qualitative sea change in the character of the division of labour â?? a
change from relative simplicity to rapidly advancing complexity â?? occurred,
though adumbrations can be found much earlier, only with the beginning
of the industrial revolution, first in the latter part of the eighteenth century
in England and soon after in the rest of Europe and in America.
The emerging industrial form of production involved the gradual
replacement of an artisanal mode of production, that is, a division of
labour in which a particular producer, sometimes with the assistance of a
few others, fashioned a whole product, by a mode of production based on
a much finer differentiation of tasks and activities than previously. The
products of the new industrial system were no longer created by individual craftsmen or by the collaboration of a few, but emerged instead from
the co-ordinated activities of a large number of persons who had been
assigned specialized tasks. The final product was the result of the integration of the work of a great number of workers who were submitted to
overall discipline and co-ordination â?? be it by the tyranny of the clock, by
the constraints of supervisors, or by mechanical rhythms. Moreover, the
diversification of economic tasks was paralleled in the modern era by
differentiation in many other spheres, in government as well as in the law,
in the sciences as well as in legal institutions.
Adam Smithâ??s The Wealth of Nations was the first major work that
attempted to come to grips with this revolutionary development not only
in the productive system but in the general character of social living. What
characterized the dawning world of modern industry, so Smith argued, was
above all the enormous increase in productivity that the new industrial
division of labour brought in its wake. The combined labours of a number
of specialized workers could now produce many more products in a specified number of hours than any single worker could have produced under
the older system of production. The new division of labour, so Smith
argued, could become an enormous boon to humanity by raising living
standards to a degree simply unimaginable in previous days. Moreover, if
previous barriers to commerce and exchange, both within given countries
and in international trade, were removed so that goods could be produced
in the economically most favoured locations, the new national and international division of labour would add further gains of productivity to
those already achieved in the workplace.
It would be unduly simplifying Smithâ??s thought were one to overlook
the fact that although he concentrated attention on the beneficial effects of
Introduction to the 1984 Edition
the new division of labour, he was also concerned about some of its deleterious consequences. What would become of people, Smith asked, who
would throughout their lives perform the same number of simple tasks
over and over again? Would this not lead to the deterioration of their
mental faculties? How could one expect over-specialized workers to
develop a sense of citizenship and a devotion to the common weal? Yet, in
contrast to many radical as well as conservative thinkers who followed in
his wake, Smith remained basically optimistic about the benefits that the
new mode of production would bring. Surely the great majority of readers
carried from their reading of The Wealth of Nations an exhilarating sense
of the bounties of the world to come. Vastly increased productive capacities would raise the level of human happiness to previously …
Purchase answer to see full
Why Work with Us
Top Quality and Well-Researched Papers
We always make sure that writers follow all your instructions precisely. You can choose your academic level: high school, college/university or professional, and we will assign a writer who has a respective degree.
Professional and Experienced Academic Writers
We have a team of professional writers with experience in academic and business writing. Many are native speakers and able to perform any task for which you need help.
Free Unlimited Revisions
If you think we missed something, send your order for a free revision. You have 10 days to submit the order for review after you have received the final document. You can do this yourself after logging into your personal account or by contacting our support.
Prompt Delivery and 100% Money-Back-Guarantee
All papers are always delivered on time. In case we need more time to master your paper, we may contact you regarding the deadline extension. In case you cannot provide us with more time, a 100% refund is guaranteed.
Original & Confidential
We use several writing tools checks to ensure that all documents you receive are free from plagiarism. Our editors carefully review all quotations in the text. We also promise maximum confidentiality in all of our services.
24/7 Customer Support
Our support agents are available 24 hours a day 7 days a week and committed to providing you with the best customer experience. Get in touch whenever you need any assistance.
Try it now!
How it works?
Follow these simple steps to get your paper done
Place your order
Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.
Proceed with the payment
Choose the payment system that suits you most.
Receive the final file
Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.
No need to work on your paper at night. Sleep tight, we will cover your back. We offer all kinds of writing services.
No matter what kind of academic paper you need and how urgent you need it, you are welcome to choose your academic level and the type of your paper at an affordable price. We take care of all your paper needs and give a 24/7 customer care support system.
Admission Essays & Business Writing Help
An admission essay is an essay or other written statement by a candidate, often a potential student enrolling in a college, university, or graduate school. You can be rest assurred that through our service we will write the best admission essay for you.
Our academic writers and editors make the necessary changes to your paper so that it is polished. We also format your document by correctly quoting the sources and creating reference lists in the formats APA, Harvard, MLA, Chicago / Turabian.
If you think your paper could be improved, you can request a review. In this case, your paper will be checked by the writer or assigned to an editor. You can use this option as many times as you see fit. This is free because we want you to be completely satisfied with the service offered.