Structural functionalism is a concept that essentially believes that every part of society harmoniously works together with the rest to form equilibrium. Structural functionalists, Talcott Parsons, Herber Spencer and Emile Durkheim all utilise organic analogy, in which they liken the structures of modern society to the workings of a living organism. (B. (2016, May 26). It is also used to explain the idea of division of labour. Division of labour is the notion where tasks are divided among individuals to maximise efficiency. This essay will discuss why structural functionalists believe that division of labour promotes both mechanical and social solidarity. It will also evaluate the validity of the statement that Durkheim is too much of a positivist.
…show more content…
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
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