1. Pathological Form of Division of Labour

Emile Durkheim, in his classic work The Division of Labour in Society (1893), described the division of labour as a positive force that enhances social solidarity. However, he also warned about its pathological (abnormal) forms, which arise when the division of labour becomes excessive, forced, or unregulated.

🔹 Key Features of Pathological Division of Labour:

1. Anomic Division of Labour:
   • Occurs when rapid economic change or industrialization outpaces the moral and regulatory framework.
   • Leads to normlessness (anomie), where individuals feel disconnected from the collective conscience.
   • Example: Disorientation and dissatisfaction among workers during industrial capitalism.
2. Forced Division of Labour:
   • Arises when individuals are compelled to accept roles they are not suited for due to class, caste, or structural constraints.
   • Lacks meritocracy and leads to inequality and discontent.
   • Seen in traditional societies where hereditary roles override individual aptitude.
3. Poorly Coordinated Division of Labour:
   • Happens when there is a lack of functional integration among specializations.
   • Results in fragmentation, inefficiency, and alienation, especially in large bureaucracies or mass production systems.

🔹 Sociological Significance:

• These pathological forms undermine the organic solidarity Durkheim saw as essential in modern societies.
• They result in social disintegration, loss of moral consensus, and individual discontent, which can eventually lead to social conflict.

---

2. Division of Labour and the Differentiation of Social Structure

The division of labour is a key factor in the differentiation and complexity of social structures. As societies evolve from simple to complex, division of labour increases, leading to the specialization of roles, institutions, and relationships.

🔹 Classical Perspective (Durkheim):

• In mechanical solidarity (traditional societies), people perform similar tasks, and cohesion is based on sameness.
• In organic solidarity (modern societies), division of labour leads to specialized roles (e.g., doctor, engineer, teacher), and social cohesion arises from interdependence.
• This specialization results in the differentiation of institutions (e.g., economic, political, educational) and functional specialization of roles.

🔹 Structural-Functionalist View:

• Division of labour is central to the integration and equilibrium of society.
• Institutions emerge to perform specific social functions (e.g., judiciary for law, family for socialization), making the social structure more differentiated but also more organized.

🔹 Marxist Critique:

• While Durkheim saw division of labour as cohesive, Karl Marx argued that it leads to class division and alienation under capitalism.
• Differentiation here is exploitative, where the ruling class controls the means of production, and the working class is reduced to repetitive, dehumanizing labour.

🔹 Modern Sociological Analysis:

• Division of labour contributes to:
  • Institutional differentiation (e.g., separation of religion and state)
  • Role differentiation (e.g., gender roles, occupational roles)
  • Hierarchical stratification (based on skills, income, education)

🔹 Conclusion:

Division of labour is not just an economic concept; it is a driving force behind social evolution. It transforms social structures from undifferentiated wholes to differentiated systems, where institutions, roles, and norms become more specialized and interdependent. However, this also demands regulation and value consensus to avoid dysfunction and fragmentation.