Durkheim introduces two types of solidarity, mechanical and organic solidarity, in his book “Division of Labour” published 1984. Mechanical solidarity is one that is birthed in smaller and more conservative societies where the people feel a sort of kinship through religion and doing similar work. However, organic solidarity is one that is more applicable to modern societies we live in today. Organic solidarity is interdependence that the different industries have with each other. This is usually seen in bigger societies where individuals are highly specialised and rely on one another to complement them. Under the functionalist perspective, Durkheim believes that the division of labour serves as a catalyst to encourage social solidarity. There are many reasons as to why Durkheim had such an argument. He uses an example of marital relationships to explain his reasoning. (Durkheim, E. (1984). Division of labour in society.) He views marital relationships and the passion it ignites as an example of conjutal solidarity for the innate differences that the sexes possess, make them seek each other out as complements to …show more content…
He uses the example of marital relationships to explain solidarity without considering the primitive need of humans. It is not necessarily due to the sexes complementing each other in terms of their strengths or weaknesses, but more of a social basis of human behaviour which involves sex. (Taflinger, R.F (n,d). Although Durkheim’s argument is valid, I cannot fully concur with this view for I find it hypocritical. It is hard to conclude that division of labour does indeed breed a sense of solidarity for it also has “divisive influences”. ( Peter. A. Corning, 2001). The very same entities like religion which Durkheim claims to bond people indeed divide them. It does not prevent racial conflicts and conflicts between varying economic interests between the population. Therefore, from the functionalist perspective, division of labour and the plethora of social benefits it brings – like solidarity, is one that is only possible in theory. Durkheim theorises this with valid examples however, falls short in considering other external factors. His argument is limited for he overlooks the fact that solidarity can be caused by many other societal factors and the divisive side of division of