Durkheim vs. Spencer: Division of Labor and Social Order
This paper compares the evolutionary sociological theories of Émile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer, focusing on their respective treatments of the division of labor, social solidarity, and increasing societal complexity. Both thinkers drew on Darwinian biology and economic frameworks to explain how societies grow more complex and maintain order without relying on formal institutions. While they agreed that division of labor is a natural feature of complex societies and a source of social cohesion, they diverged sharply on the underlying mechanism. Spencer adopted a utilitarian view, portraying society as an aggregation of self-interested individuals cooperating out of mutual need. Durkheim, by contrast, saw society as an organic entity sustained by functional interdependence, rejecting purely transactional accounts of solidarity.
- Introduction: Situates both theorists in evolutionary social science
- On the Division of Labor: Shared and divergent views on labor specialization
- On Social Solidarity: Mechanical vs. organic solidarity compared
- Spencer's Utilitarianism: Spencer's self-interest model versus Durkheim's organicism
- On Increasing Complexity: How each theorist explains societal evolution and complexity
- Conclusion: Synthesis of agreements and divergences between theorists
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a consistent comparative structure throughout, always returning to both theorists rather than treating them in isolation, which keeps the argument focused and balanced.
- It grounds abstract theoretical claims in specific textual evidence, using direct quotations and page citations to support distinctions between Spencer's utilitarianism and Durkheim's organicism.
- The abstract functions as a genuine roadmap, accurately previewing the paper's core tension — shared evolutionary premises leading to divergent conclusions about solidarity — so readers know what to expect.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies sustained theoretical comparison: rather than summarizing each thinker separately, it identifies shared concepts (division of labor, social complexity, evolutionary mechanism) and uses them as lenses through which the differences become visible. This approach — find the common ground, then isolate the divergence — is a reliable and persuasive structure for any comparative theory paper in the social sciences.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction situating both thinkers in the nineteenth-century evolutionary tradition. Three analytical sections then work through specific points of comparison: division of labor, social solidarity, and Spencer's utilitarianism as a standalone theme. A fourth section addresses increasing complexity, where the authors' shared premises and differing interpretations converge most clearly. The conclusion synthesizes the comparison without introducing new material, appropriately reaffirming both agreement and divergence.
Introduction
Concurrent with the social science zeitgeist of the nineteenth century, Émile Durkheim and Herbert Spencer studied the evolution of human societies from an evolutionary standpoint. While both occasionally referred to the biological underpinnings of human nature — and thus of society as collective human nature — both also shifted attention towards overarching social structures. Yet neither Durkheim nor Spencer was primarily concerned with formal social structures or institutions such as government, organized religion, or even kinship. Rather, both looked towards the burgeoning field of economics to describe the ways societies evolve from being simple, relatively small, and kinship-based towards being more grounded in the economic expediency of exchange and the production of material goods.
As technologies evolve and societies become more economically productive, the role of institutions like government or religion becomes far less important or necessary. Having lost their function in promoting social order, political and social institutions give way to the overarching institutions that enable social stability and order. It is within this shared evolutionary framework that Durkheim and Spencer agree — and, as this paper will show, also diverge significantly.
On the Division of Labor
Both Durkheim and Spencer viewed the division of labor as a natural outgrowth of increasingly complex societies. Both also approached the division of labor from an evolutionary perspective: as societies grow larger, more industrialized, and more complex, division of labor becomes "the supreme law of human societies and the condition of their progress" (Jones, 1986, p. 1). Spencer likewise viewed "the history of social evolution as a process of increasing size, division of labor, differentiation, and mutual cooperation" (LaPorte, 2015, p. 312). Division of labor is necessary in complex societies for the same reason it is necessary for the production of complex goods or technologies: individuals who specialize can contribute to the production of a whole, whether that whole is a product or society at large.
Durkheim was more optimistic than Spencer in his assessment of human nature and the role division of labor plays in society. For Durkheim, "the division of labor does produce a kind of solidarity, and that the division of labor is highly developed in advanced societies" (Jones, 1986, p. 1). Spencer did not necessarily view division of labor as enhancing solidarity in any direct way. If solidarity results from division of labor, it is because division of labor has utility: it functions as a means to make society run more efficiently (LaPorte, 2015). Durkheim also understood that division of labor may enhance the predisposition of human beings toward individualism, which can become excessive — as with the development of anomie (Lizardo, 2009). Nevertheless, Durkheim remained an optimist, claiming that despite the dualistic nature of human beings, individuality and solidarity have grown stronger together (Pope & Johnson, 1983).
References
Corning, P. A. (1982). Durkheim and Spencer. The British Journal of Sociology, 33(3), 359.
Hossain, D. M., & Mustari, S. (2012). A critical analysis of Herbert Spencer's theory of evolution. Postmodern Openings, 3(2), 55–66.
Jones, R. A. (1986). The division of labor in society. In Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works (pp. 24–59). Sage Publications.
LaPorte, T. R. (2015). Organized Social Complexity. Princeton University Press.
Lizardo, O. (2009). Taking cognitive dualism seriously. Sociological Perspectives, 52(4), 533–555.
Pope, W., & Johnson, B. D. (1983). Inside organic solidarity. American Sociological Review, 48(5), 681–692.
Shortell, T. (n.d.). Division of labor and social integration. http://www.brooklynsoc.org/courses/43.1/durkheim.html
"Sociology of Emile Durkheim." (2003). http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/250j1503.htm
Turner, J. H., & Abrutyn, S. (2016). Returning the 'social' to evolutionary sociology. Sociological Perspectives, 60(3), 529–556.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.