Difference Between Durkheim And Spencer

Durkheim and Spencer had different views about what the state's role in society should be. Spencer opposed all state operations and believed the only reason they were needed was to enforce contracts. Spencer was also in opposition to anything that was public, such as public education. Spencer did not believe the state was needed in order for the division of labor to lead to solidarity. Durkheim's critique on Spencer becomes his argument for needing a state.

Durkheim not only believed in having a state but also that the society needed a big state. In Durkheim's view, the state had many important roles in society. The state was needed to regulate noncontractual relationships. Laws needed to be made on how to deal and regulate obligatory relationships. They also were needed to regulate noncontractual elements of contracts. Not all information is written in a contract that must be followed, such as the social norms. There are certain expectations of a person and a shared common knowledge amongst people that shouldn’t necessarily have to be written down in order for people to follow them. Although these common unwritten rules aren't legibly stated in the contract the government is …show more content…
Both Durkheim and Marx believed that history is about the division of labor, however, their perception about the division of labor was different. Durkheim's perception of the division of labor was that it creates specialization and leads to solidarity. His assumption was that the division of labor would bring people closer together and everyone would work in harmony and get along without any disruption. He believed that specialization was a positive thing, that people should be proud of the role they play. Although each person specializes in one thing, all the workers come together and are a part of creating that one product. People shouldn’t belittle their part no matter how small it is. Durkheim saw the division of labor as being beneficial and an important time period for