Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society (pages 1-30, 68-87, 179-225, 269-288, 291-328)
Aron, Main Currents of Sociological Thought, Volume 2 (pages 11-24)
Ortner, "Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?" in Woman, Culture, and Society

A few words of advice for this week's reading:

First, do the Aron reading before the Durkheim. This will give you some background about Durkheim's goals in writing Division of Labor and his overall contribution to the social sciences.

Second, some general guidance about Durkheim: Durkheim's discussion of divisions of labor, along with Marx's (which we'll read later in the semester), has set the agenda for all those who follow. He describes the ways in which labor shapes personal identity. Rather than being just a personal activity, however, labor in Durkheim's view is fundamentally shaped by the specific context of a given society's social structure. In short, labor is what links individuals to their broader society, and the nature of this link varies according to the type of society. This insight leads Durkheim to distinguish sociology -- the study of the social organism -- from psychology -- the study of the individual. For this reason, he is credited with being one of the founders of modern sociology. I'll talk more about Durkheim's contribution when we meet.

Finally, some hints about reading Durkheim: He can be dry. He is attempting to argue for sociology as a type of science, and this leads to a hyper-logical writing style which can be frustrating to read at first. As you read the selections, pay most attention to his examples; these often provide the easiest entry point into his overall logic. Pay less attention to the details of his classification schemes than to why he finds them to be significant or what ideas underlie them.

--------------------------------------------------------

Theoretical essay #1

Write a 2 page essay in response to the following question:

According to Raymond Aron, a central idea underlies Durkheim's sociology: "The individual is born of society, and not society of individuals" (16). With specific reference to the division of labor, explain Durkheim's conception of the roles of society, on the one hand, and individual psychology, on the other, in shaping the individual. What strengths and weaknesses do you see in his argument? (Hint: you may want to begin by identifying a key strength or weakness and using that as the thesis statement that organizes your essay.)

 

The following questions are intended to guide your reading and will form the basis for our class discussion:

1. What does Durkheim mean by "division of labor"? How does the division of labor emerge? What is its function?

2. What are the characteristics of mechanical and organic solidarity? As you read through Durkheim's descriptions of these two forms, think about a society -- real or fictional -- with which you are familiar. (Examples might include contemporary America, pre-colonial Africa, 19th century Japan, the society in Orville's 1984, or even the Borg from Star Trek.) How does your chosen society fit into Durkheim's model? Are there tensions or unexpected aspects which make you question his logic or the usefulness of his distinctions?

3. How does Durkheim depict sexual divisions of labor? What roles do biological and socio-cultural factors play in shaping roles within the family?

4. Why does Durkheim characterize some social forms as normal and others as pathological? What kinds of examples does he use to support his claims, and what role does this distinction play in his argument?

5. What solutions does Durkheim propose for what he sees as the pathology of the modern industrial division of labor? Since his time, have such solutions been explored? With what results? (While Durkheim focuses on Western Europe and America, feel free to use specific examples from any society in formulating your answer.)

6. As you read Ortner, note the logical steps she takes in constructing her argument. Why does she reject biology as the basis for the universal secondary status of woman? Why does she use the term "woman" instead of "women," and how do these assumptions structure her argument? How does she perceive woman to have collaborated in her own subordination? What implications does Ortner's argument have for her goal of improving woman's status?

7. How does Ortner define nature and culture? What assumptions underlie her arguments that this opposition occurs universally? How do these terms function as analytic categories within her analysis?

 

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu