ÉMILE DURKHEIM'S DIVISION OF LABOR AND THE SHADOW OF HERBERT SPENCER

This article assesses Durkheim's theory of the division of labor in advanced societies relative to Spencer's views on the subject. It seeks to correct a key chapter in the history of sociological thought, for it is in his classic 1893 work that Durkheim is presumed to have routed both Spencer's account of the division of labor and his larger theory of man and society. In fact, Spencer and Durkheim differ very little in their conceptions of the causes of an expanding division of labor (both identify population growth and concentration, and its impact, through heightened competition—group and individual—on specialization of function). They do differ, however, in their treatment of its effects, but Durkheim's explanation is not necessarily—as is commonly assumed in textbook narratives—an improvement of Spencer's. Indeed, many of the questions involved (e.g., whether and to what extent exchange presupposes or creates norms, or divided labor produces cohesion beyond that resulting from mutual need, or the division of labor itself is a moral or economic phenomenon) remain moot. Spencer and Durkheim championed explanations that derived from larger and generally competing perspectives, namely, the moral communalist and the "exchangist" (as Durkheim dubbed his opponent's position). One cannot actually banish the other, for each is a perennially serviceable intellectual outlook.     

Social differentiation and organic solidarity: Thedivision of labor revisited

This paper argues for the classicity of Durkheim's first book: the innovative way viewing the compatibility of social order and individual autonomy; his sensitive perception of uneasiness with regards to the crisis of anomie; the lucid sociological account, especially the tripartite explanation of the division of labor in terms of its functioning, emergence, and consequences; and the conceptualization of the problem of order—i.e., the relationship of differentiation and integration. In all of these respects, Durkheim's book is a classic. Yet classical neither means original nor flawless. This is shown with respect to the relationship of division of labor and organic solidarity by looking at the historical debate on the division of labor, by elucidating mechanical and organic solidarity, and by carving out some of the problems inside organic solidarity.     

Durkheim and Pragmatism: An Old Twist on a Contemporary Debate

Durkheim's lectures on pragmatism, given in 1913–14, constitute both a significant critique of pragmatism and a clarification of Durkheim's own position. Unfortunately, these lectures have received little attention, most of it critical. When they have been taken seriously, the analysis tends to focus on their historical context and not on the details of Durkheim's actual argument. This is partly because the tendency to interpret Durkheim's theory of knowledge in idealist terms makes a nonsense of his criticisms of pragmatism. It is also due to a lack of serious appraisal of the lectures as a series of arguments in their own right.     

A Formal Restatement of Durkheim's "Division of Labor" Theory

Despite frequent references in the sociological literature to Durkheim's theory about the division of labor, sociologists have made few attempts to test it. The paucity of attempts and the very debatable outcomes thereof are due largely to Durkheim's use of the traditional discursive mode of theory construction. A discursively stated theory's logical structure is likely to be obscure, and for that reason alone tests of it are difficult and controversial. Rather than perpetuate the exegetical tradition in sociological treatments of the subject, this paper restates Durkheim's theory in accordance with a particular formal mode. That restatement identifies the theory's shortcomings and problems. But the eight premises imply only one testable theorem, and the theorem's predictive accuracy appears minimal unless "population concentration" is substituted for "density" in the first axiom. Nonetheless, the restatement clearly shows how extension of the theory (additional postulates) could further its testability.     

Revisiting sociology's first classic:The division of labor in society and its actuality

Durkheim's doctoral dissertation can justifiably be called sociology's first classic. Rereading it 100 years later enables us to see major domains of the contemporary world where its analysis remains, of actuality, heuristic or yet to be fully appreciated: for example, its themes of anomieas economic deregulation and corporatism as an institutional arrangement to deal with anomie.At the same time, Durkheim's discourse reflects its historical embeddedness, such as his discussion of the sexual division of labor, which needs to be reworked. A second feature of emergent contemporary social solidarity unforeseen by Durkheim (and the great majority of theorists of change) is what may be termed the return of mechanical solidarity.     

DURKHEIM'S EPISTEMOLOGY:

Although it is evident in his work from the beginning, Durkheim's epistemological argument did not appear in its completed form until the 1912 publication of The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life . There Durkheim outlined a theory of enacted social practice as the foundation for an epistemology. Yet neither Durkheim's contribution to a theory of social practice nor his epistemological argument have been recognized as such. The early critics played a pivotal role in creating and perpetuating this misunderstanding. The first highly negative wave of criticism in English, which treated Durkheim's arguments as naive, inadequate philosophy, appeared between 1915 and 1924. Inadequate as these initial criticisms were, citations show that they have been heavily relied upon. On these critics' authority, scholars rejected Durkheim's epistemology altogether, focusing instead on his sociology of knowledge and sociology of religion.     

Durkheim's Dilemma: Toward a Sociology of Emergence

The concept of emergence is a central thread uniting Durkheim's theoretical and empirical work, yet this aspect of Durkheim's work has been neglected. I reinterpret Durkheim in light of theories of emergence developed by contemporary philosophers of mind, and I show that Durkheim's writings prefigure many elements of these contemporary theories. Reading Durkheim as an emergentist helps to clarify several difficult and confusing aspects of his work, and reveals a range of unresolved issues. I identify five such issues, and I show how Durkheim's writings on emergence suggest potential responses.     

The relationship between world system position and the division of labor: A cross‐national analysis

Two perspectives on the division of labor are compared: human ecology and world system theory. It is argued that in addition to the traditional ecological variables, the internal division of labor of nations is influenced by their position in the world‐system division of labor. Using ordinary least‐squares regression with cross‐sectional data, support is found for the hypothesis that the internal division of labor in a country is related to its position in the world system.     

The Double Center of Gravity in Durkheim's Symbol Theory: Bringing the Symbolism of the Body Back In

By studying Durkheim through a Schopenhauerian lens, the one-sidedly cognitivist and functionalist reception of his social theory can be balanced. Durkheim explicitly rejected such monistic interpretations. His dialectical approach was always aimed at an essentially dualistic perception of man and society, wherein the lower pole, the individual, is central. In Durkheim's symbol theory, this position leads to two kinds of symbols: those that are bound to the human body, here called "this and that" symbols, and those people can choose freely, here called "this for that" symbols. This twofold symbol theory can already be found in medieval philosophy (e.g. Dante Alighieri) as well as in the work of Paul Ricoeur. For Durkheim the human person is the symbol par excellence. By implication the rituals in which the person is (re)constructed, that is the rites of passage, should be central. The interpretation here opens up new perspectives for a more psychological interpretation of Durkheim's sociology.     

DURKHEIM'S MACROFOUNDATIONS OF TIME: AN ASSESSMENT AND CRITIQUE

In this article, Durkheim's theory of time will be assessed in reference to his theory of transactions (organic solidarity). Specifically, Durkheim associated time with a metaphorical conception of the transaction that separated: (1) macrofoundations from microstates, and (2) external constraints from subjective states. This separation led to a conception of time as dominated by linear, rigid sequential, and categorical images. Counterposed to this metaphor are more dynamic, interpersonal, and cybernetic conceptions of temporality and transactions, which can be integrated with Durkheim's scheme to suggest another way of bridging the micro-macro distinction—through the use of time and temporality. This integration will be discussed in relation to five conceptions of time that will, in turn, be used to evaluate and critique Durkheim's macrofoundations. These conceptions are: (1) the evolutionary-transformational, (2) the categorical, (3) the iterative, (4) the rigid sequential, and (5) the negotiated sequential. The article concludes by suggesting that Durkheim's emphasis on the rigid sequential conception can inform and be informed by modern-day emphases on iterative and negotiated sequential conceptions.     

EXPLAINING HUSBANDS' PARTICIPATION IN DOMESTIC LABOR

Three hypotheses of husbands participation in domestic labor (i.e., housework and child care) are examined: (1) the relative resources hypothesis states that the more resources (e.g., socioeconomic characteristics) a husband has relative to his wife, the less domestic labor he does; (2) the sex role ideology hypothesis maintains that the more traditional the husband's sex role attitudes, the less domestic labor he performs; and (3) the demand/response capability hypothesis states that the more domestic task demands on a husband and the greater his capacity to respond to them, the greater his participation in domestic labor. OLS regression results from a nationally-representative sample of employed persons overwhelmingly supports the demand/response capability hypothesis. The analysis suggests that neither attitude change nor education will alter the division of domestic labor. Rather, findings indicate that younger men who have children, employed wives, and jobs that do not require long work hours are most likely to be involved in houschold activities.     

The making of the "women's physician" in American obstetrics and gynecology: re-forging an occupational identity and a division of labor

After struggling as a surgical specialty, obstetrics and gynecology initiated its "women physician" program in the 1970s. This program officially defined the mostly male obstetricians and gynecologists at that time as women's primary care physicians. Using archival data, this article explains this development as a response to the specialty's dishonored position within the medical division of labor. Whatever else it was intended to be, the women's physician program, in its most developed form, aimed to galvanize the various interests within obstetrics and gynecology behind a strategy to restructure the medical division of labor serving women so that obstetricians and gynecologists controlled both the upstream positions responsible for their own case referrals and the downstream positions to which they referred their difficult cases. The article illustrates the importance of integrating insights from both macro-institutional and intra-occupational explanatory frameworks in accounting for significant developments in medicine.     

Durkheim's contribution to the sociological analysis of history

Emile Durkheim has long been viewed as one of the founders of the so-called variables-oriented approach to sociological investigation. This view ignores his considerable achievements using the methodology of “case-based” historical analysis, most prominent among them, his lectures on the history of French education (The Evolution of Educational Thought).In this paper I first outline the intimate relationship that Durkheim envisioned between historical and sociological investigation. I then turn to his work on French education for substantive illustrations of his approach. Finally, I explore certain points of intersection between Durkheim's approach to history and present-day concerns, especially in regard to the role of culture in history and the opposition between prospective and retrospective (“teleological”) strategies of historical analysis.     

Review essay — administrative delay at the NLRB: Some modest proposals

V. Conclusion The latest edition of Miller’s Appraisal provides an updated glimpse into the inner workings of the NLRB. Miller’s observations are knowledgeable and understandable, and his book is an important contribution for academics, the labor bar, and the Board itself. We hope it spurs further study of the Board’s administration of the Act and exploration of ways to improve it. Miller’s pessimism about potential reforms, short of his proposed abolition of the five-member Board in favor of a new labor and employment division of the federal district courts, goes too far. We have suggested a few changes that would make the Board more efficient without affecting the Board’s substantive mission. Hopefully, with further efforts like Miller’s in the future, the Board will effect a consistent improvement upon its somewhat spotty record of efficiency and will keep the NLRA vibrant well into this new century. We especially thank former NLRB Regional Director Daniel Silverman for his invaluable contributions to this article.     

The Marshall Lectures and Social-Scientific Practice

The paper seeks to demonstrate the inherently practical intent of the Marshall Lectures. It argues that Parsons' views on the relationship between sociology and economics were presupposed by his broader vision of how the social sciences could contribute to the successful functioning of the social order. This conception of a new division of labor in the social sciences arose from Parsons' concern with the shortcomings of both utilitarian economics and Marxism. Evidence from Parsons' writings of the 1930s and 1940s is provided in support of these claims.     

WORK AND THE DIVISION OF LABOR

The paper is an attempt to conceptualize the division of labor in terms of work. This perspective leads to a necessary distinction between work and workers, and its implications. Among the main considerations discussed are actor, accountability, division of rights versus division of labor, work patterns and interactional styles, rapidly changing organizations and industries in relation to their divisions of labor, and reciprocal macro and micro impacts. Some research implications are also discussed.     

Arbeitsteilung in Stieffamilien

In comparison to other families, families featuring stepchild-relations are more inclined to practise non-traditional forms of intra-familial division of labor. A number of these to account for the differences between families with stepchild-relations and families without stepchild-relations can be deduced from various middle-range-theories concerning intra-familial division of labor. These hypotheses are examined using the German Family Survey (Familiensurvey) 1988 data. It is shown that hypotheses which assume the type of parenthood (natural or non-natural parenthood) as determining ones participation in familial labor cannot be confirmed. It is suggested to regard the tendency towards non-traditional forms of division of labor in stepfamilies as deriving from a lack of socially mediated patterns of behavior for parents in stepfamilies.     

Gender, household labor, and psychological distress: the impact of the amount and division of housework.

Using a national longitudinal survey of a representative sample of 1,256 adults, I assess the impact of the amount of household labor performed and its division within the household on men's and women's depression levels, adjusting for prior mental health status. I test two alternative explanations of the contributions of household labor and the division of household labor to gender differences in depression: differential exposure and differential vulnerability. The results indicate that men's lower contributions to household labor explain part of the gender difference in depression. Inequity in the division of household labor has a greater impact on distress than does the amount of household labor. Employment status moderates the effect of the division of labor on depression. Among those who describe themselves as keeping house, depression was lowest for those who performed 79.8 percent of housework. In contrast, for those employed full-time the minimum level of depression occurs at 45.8 percent of the household labor. Men report performing 42.3 percent of the housework in their homes compared to 68.1 percent reported by women. Thus, on average women are performing household labor beyond the point of maximum psychological benefit, whereas men are not. Social support mediates the effects of the division of household labor. The only gender difference in effects occurred among those who are married, for whom social support was associated with lower levels of depression for women than men.     

Divison of Labor,Perceived Fairness,and Marital Quality: The Effect of Gender Ideology

This study assesses the relations between division of household labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality by comparing three ethnic‐religious groups in Israel that reflect traditional, transitional, and egalitarian ideologies. The findings, based on structural equation modeling (SEM) methodology, show that sense of fairness mediates the relation between division of labor and marital quality and gender ideology moderates these relations for women but not for men. Perceived fairness is related to the division of labor for women in egalitarian and transitional families but not in traditional ones. For egalitarian women, a more segregated division of labor is linked directly with lower marital quality whereas for women in transitional families it is mediated by sense of fairness. The findings are discussed on two overlapping levels—conceptual‐theoretical and sociocultural—with implications for understanding families in cultural transition.     

Cross‐national variations in the division of household labor

Using data from the International Social Justice Project, we describe the division of household labor in married couple households using a sample of 13 nations (N= 10,153). We find significant differences in the division of household labor based upon respondents’ nations of residence. We find support for the time availability approach; households where the wife is employed outside the home for pay are more likely to respond that husbands perform at least half of the household labor. We also find support for the relative resources approach; in households where wives’ education equals or exceeds that of their husbands, husbands are more likely to perform half of the household labor. We find little support for the economic dependence approach. We suggest that future cross‐national research should place individuals in context to determine why there are nation differences in the reported division of household labor.