Member-only story
Criticisms of Durkheim’s Theory of Solidarity
In a previous article, we discussed how Durkheim argues that the division of labour is what ties society together. Today we will look at some of the criticisms of his theory.
One criticism of Durkheim’s theory of solidarity is that it is too focused on the positive effects of interdependence. Durkheim was interested in the benefits that could be wrought from a transition out of mechanical and into organic solidarity, arguing that a shift towards interdependence would necessitate prosperity for society and remove occupational strain from individuals by allowing them to specialise without having to worry about feeding their family.
However, one could argue the inverse — that the division of labour has broken down the average family’s ability to be completely self-sufficient if they so chose to. In the modern-day, it is pretty impossible to sustain a family as an individual, removing the choice for engagement from the individual.
Another criticism of Durkheim would be from a Marxist lens: Durkheim’s theory rests on the belief that society is structured in such a way to be beneficial to its members — that, despite there being a clear progression from mechanical to organic solidarity, “both kinds of solidarity lead to a harmonious interplay” (Lenhard, 2011). He also argues that while carrying the potential to damage society through the breakdown of the collective consciousness, the division of labour would eventually bring about social harmony. Marx, however, believed that individuals and their labour are inseparable (North 1969); as such, he argued that his utopian ideal, rather than being defined by the interdependence between specialists due to the division of labour, would instead have no division of labour and no specialisation. Indeed, he explains: “where… each can become accomplished in any branch, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible… to do one thing today and another tomorrow.”
Essentially, Marxists see the division of labour as in fact harmful to the…
