Division of the labor

The division of the labor is a fundamental characteristic of the human society. It translates the fact that the human beings different from/to each other by their Aptitude S, innate or acquired, and by the Environnement in which they live, and by the fact that them Raison their made it possible to discover that they could better satisfy their requirements while specializing, while joining and while exchanging that in Producing each one what it wishes Consommer way Autarcique.

The City at Plato

By analyzing in the Republic the formation of the Quoted, Plato describes the voluntary regrouping individuals having needs to satisfy, but not being able all to satisfy them themselves, such as nourishing itself, to dress itself, to place itself, which require different To know S to plow, weave clothing, or to build the buildings. Thus Plato analyzes a " involuntarily; division of the travail" , even if the term is not used. It is need for satisfying its needs that the man alone cannot satisfy, that was born the Cité; City which is thus characterized above all by this Organization of work.

The modern division of work

The importance of the division of the work was stressed by a classical economist, Adam Smith in 1776. Taking as a starting point the one of the chapters of the Encyclopedia, Smith describes a Manufacture pins within which the tasks were parcellisées and specialized between the Ouvrier S, Source of larger Productivité: it is the “technical division of work”.

This practice will be taken again by a American Engineer, Frederick Winslow Taylor, at the beginning of the 20th century (horizontal division of work between Atelier S, vertical between Ouvrier S, Engineer S and direction). Nowadays, one studies moreover the “international division of work” with the process of productive Globalisation.

In the Capital (1867), Karl Marx studies, him also, technical division of work, but for better analyzing of them the effects Sociologique S and Politique S (like the exploitation of the “surtravail” of the Prolétaire S, “the alienation of work”).

Sociological analysis

At Emile Durkheim, the “division of social work” ( Of the division of social work , 1893) is an economic phenomenon Social more than . In short, Durkheim distinguishes the traditional companies (companies first, Communauté S villagers) from the modern societies (in way of Urbanisation and Industrialization at its time).

In the first, solidarity is known as “mechanics” because founded on the resemblance, the similarity between the Membre S; the collective conscience there is the strong and tradition produced the Norme S and determines the Culture group; the social activities (Productive S, Artistic S, Political S etc) are diversified little and thus little specialized (put aside Shamans, for example).

In the seconds, the Urbanization, the Industrialization and the extension of the Salariat supported the multiplication of the social activities and the trade S: “social work” is thus strongly divided. The individuals released themselves from the pressure of the group (less collective conscience, assembled of a positive Individualisme) and it is from now on the Loi which governs the life in society. The solidarity remains however, but it concerns from now on more the Interdépendance S between social individuals and groups (who develop with the division of social work): Durkheim speaks then about “organic solidarity”.

Even if it raised several forms of Pathologie of the division of social work in this end of the 19th century, Durkheim tried to show how the human Communauté S could create new rules and new forms of solidarity, vis-a-vis the great changes caused by the Industrial revolution. Well there one finds one of the great concerns of the Sociologue: the “social Harmony”.

See too

Random links: