The Division of Labor in Society [Paperback]

Emile Durkheim (Author), Lewis A. Coser (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Language Notes

Text: English, French (translation) --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product Details

• Paperback: 416 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (September 1, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0684836386
• ISBN-13: 978-0684836386
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #20,722 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #8 in Books > History > Historical Study > History of Ideas

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The classical social theorists were the best, May 26, 2009

By 

not a natural "Bob Bickel" (huntington, west virginia United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: The Division of Labor in Society (Paperback)

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 this 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.

49 of 66 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars An important work, marred by an inept translation., February 8, 1999

By A Customer

This review is from: The Division of Labor in Society (Paperback)

Durkheim's book must not be a big seller. This would explain why a new, better translation hasn't appeared. This present translation is, to put it bluntly, horrible. This is really a shame, as Durkheim's thesis is quite compelling (if not flawed).

On average, each page of text is missing about two dozen commas.

One example:

"Without the necessary act of satisfaction[,] what is called the moral consciousness could not be preserved."

Then there are the pedantic (and barely readable) constructions such as the following.

Halls's version:

"By this is explained why some acts have so frequently been held to be criminal..."

Revised:

"This explains why some acts have so frequently been held to be criminal..."?

Halls's version:

"Undoubtedly most of these are not harmful, for if they were, in such conditions the individual could not live."

Revised:

"Undoubtedly, most of these are not harmful; if they were, the individual could not live."

Finally, there are sentences that are so obfuscatory, I don't know how to fix them:

"In both cases the force shocked by the crime and that rejects it is thus the same." (I'm not kidding, this is one of Halls's actual sentences.)

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars An Outstanding Book, November 18, 2008

By 

C. Shaw - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: The Division of Labor in Society (Paperback)

A unique thesis: the division of labor is morally cohesive, and inheritance of capital is the flaw of capitalism. It is a great counter-argument to Marx and communism. I read this book at the University of Chicago, and I can only hope other institutions also assign it; it is a must read for anybody interested in human interaction.

Although some people may not think this is important, I must also commend The Free Press for producing such a durable book. Many of my books wouldn't survive my travels and annotations as well as this one has.