Durkheim on page 294 begins to explain some of the consequences of the Division of Labor, citing bank crises and hostility between labor and capitol. He says that, "What makes these facts serious is that sometimes they have been seen to be a necessary consequence of the division of labor, as soon as it has passed a certain state in its development. In that case, it has been said, the individual, ben low over his task, will isolate himself in his own special activity. He will no longer be aware of the collaborators who work at his side on the same task, he has even no longer any idea at all of what the common task consists. The division of labor cannot therefore be pushed too far without being a source of disintegration." There will always be good and bad consequences, do you think disintegration is necessarily a bad thing? And, when is that certain state in development?
On pages 338 and 339, Durkheim concludes the Division of Labor in Society. He mentions how the existence of rules is not sufficient and that they should be just. That they are "...more human, and consequently more rational about it...We seek to understand them and are less afraid to change them." What is it about morals, rules and societies that make these things transcendent to us as human beings. Durkheim also mentions that morality is "in the throes of an appalling crisis. What we have expounded on can help us to understand the causes and nature of this sickness." What is the sickness Durkheim is referring to, the Division of Labor or morality?
No comments:
Post a Comment