Division of labor refers to the separation or fragmentation of tasks, duties or, roles distributed among different individuals or groups within a social system. The assignment of task may range from an individual having a specialized function to a group performing the same job. In sociology, division of labor is regarded as a vital part of social order. That is, division of tasks enables the social to exist and act coherently and organically. Hence, it promotes both order and social solidarity. There are numerous, and oftentimes opposing, perspectives about this concept; and three of the main theories that surrounds the idea of division of labor includes that of Emilie Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith.

Adam Smith’s conception of division of labor involves mainly its benefit for the industrial capitalist market. More particularly, he sees this process of dividing task as a positive source of productiveness, which results to numerous economic advantages. In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes Wealth of Nations, Smith (2008) notes that “the greatest improvements in the productive powers of labor, and the greatest part of the skill, dexterity, and judgement… seem to have been the effects of the division of labor” (3). Such passage shows how Smith associates division of labor with increased productivity and, ultimately economic reward. For him, division of labor involves the process of breaking down a large task into various tiny components. Under this process, each worker is assigned to perform a specific job, which in turn, allows him to become an expert in one area of production. The fact that a laborer do not have to switch responsibilities during the day saves time, money, and effort. And as a result, it increases the probability of efficiency, productivity, and of course, greater profit. Smith explains this concept further by giving an example of a single worker who has a limited capacity to produce pins. On the other hand, he asserts that the same product can be produced with much greater number if the task is taken apart to various components and performed by numerous workers.

Surprisingly, Smith also recognizes the potential problem of this set-up. He pointed out that forcing individuals to perform the same mundane routine everyday would cause the workers to become not only ignorant but dissatisfied as well. For this very reason, Smith proposed a revolutionary belief that it is the government’s responsibility to provide education to the work force. He maintains that education could counteract the negative effects of a factory set-up. Instead, education will help an individual recognize a job that suits him best.

While division of labor is crucial to the economic growth of a society. Smith insists that such process was not the effect of any human foresight or knowledge. Instead, he asserts that it is developed out of necessity and the human’s natural propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for the other” (Smith 13). Smith argues that this propensity, in particular, is trait that could be found in humans alone. And it has subsequently enabled him to realize the idea of self-interest.

Much like Smith, Karl Marx agrees to the notion that division of labor is a vital part of capitalism. However, he disagrees on the positive benefits that this process brings. Marx explains that in order for the process of division of labor to become effective, it is necessary to have numerous worker under the control of one capitalist who will then assign a specific task them. Marx argues that division of labor results to alienation which refers to work no longer being a product of an individual’s own labor. He believes that the laborer is transformed by the manufacturing process primarily because he has no choice but to lose his identity in order for him to fit into his job. Hence, he states that “the worker is brought face to face with the intellectual potentialities of the material process of production as the property of another and as a power which rules over him” (Harvey 186).

Accordingly, Marx maintain that the effect of a growing division of labor is that people becomes less skilled as they are only able to perform one specific task. This in turn, prevents them from being autonomous and ultimately more dependent on the capitalist who has more leverage. Ultimately, Marx sees division of labor as a means of social control. While the process brings about efficiency and productivity, he asserts that division of labor specifically and exclusively benefits the capitalist. Marx further explains that such process creates a surplus value, but at the expense of the laborers. In the same way, he acknowledges that while it is a necessary part of social progress, it is also an avenue to exploit workers.

Emilie Durkheim similarly views division of labor in the lens of Smith. That is, he believes that such process is also a trait of an industrial capitalist society. But unlike Smith who believes that division of labor is a result of necessity, Durkheim asserts that it is a natural law that governs all biological organisms in general. Under this conception, the French sociologist explains the manner in which individuals cooperated ultimately determines how the process of division of labor runs smoothly.

It is in here that he coins the idea of mechanical and organic solidarity. Durkheim explains that mechanical solidarity refers to small societies with minimal division of labor and is based on similarity and collective conscience. Durkheim explains that under this type of solidarity, people operated based on ties, kinship, and familial networks. On the other hand, organic solidarity involves larger societies and is the exact opposite of the former. Under this concept, people become interdependent with one another, and at the same time also increasingly different. According to him, such differences and interdependence comes from the specialization of work as well as how each task is reliant on another. This, Durkheim argues, results into their inability to share the same world view as well as practice solidarity. Based on this context, Durkheim is particularly concerned with how the process of division of labor changes how people feel and how they view society as a whole. She explains that while division of labor, when practiced in small group, is meaningful, its effects weaken as the group becomes larger. In other words, organic solidarity weakens a society’s collective conscience.

In contemporary society, division of labor is very much apparent on the factory system that many industrial countries practice. Similar to Smith’s perspective, this process enables greater economic benefits in a sense that it results to efficiency and greater productivity. However, similar to what Marx and Durkheim point out, division of labor also has its evils. More particularly, such process has promoted inequality in the society. Rather than being a process that fosters solidarity, division of labor has become a form of social control used by the capitalists over the workers. Coming from the point of view of Marx, the identity of the workers become lost all for the sake of minimal profit. What is even interesting to point out is that many of these workers do not realize that they are being exploited and that their identities are being eradicated by the routine exerted by such process. The routine, therefore, suppresses one’s imagination, which makes the person comparable to a machine. In the same way, Durkheim makes an excellent point about the detrimental effects of this process. In fact, he points that that while such process may yield economic advantages, this benefits, “are insignificant compared with the moral effects that it produces” (17).

To sum, division of labor is a sociological concept which has a variety of meaning and effects. At one point, sociologists such as Smith, Marx, and Durkheim believe that this process is a vital part of social growth and progress. Along with these progresses however, are the detrimental effects of this process. That is, it may bring about discontentment among workers, become a tool of control and exploitation, and at the same time, it weakens a society’s collective conscience.

Works Cited

Durkheim, Emilie. Division of Labor in Society. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997

Harvey, David. A Companion to Marx’s Capital. New York: Verso Books, 2010

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. New York:

BiblioBazaar, 2008