“Durkheim and Post-Durkheimians” section in the Social Stratification reader (ed. Grusky)
Sections include:
Durkheim, Emile. “The Division of Labor in Society”
Grusky, David and Jesper B. Sorensen. “Are There Big Social Classes?”
Summary by Brian Asner
ABSTRACT
In the preface to The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim argues that the only way to counter the anomic, unregulated relations between employers and the workers is the creation of “professional groups” composed of participants in the particular industry. Durkheim predicts that such local groups may become the dominant unit of social organization as industry continues to expand. Grusky and Sorensen use this prediction to criticize flailing neo-Marxists who are unable to cleanly apply “class” to heterogeneous populations, as well as to respond to a number of theorists who advocate abandoning the concept of class altogether (including our own Terry Clark). Grusky and Sorensen advocate “disaggregation” instead of “destructuration” – in other words, applying “class” distinctions to smaller groups instead of completely abandoning the concept of class.
SUMMARY OUTLINE
Durkheim:
1)The absence of rules regulating conduct between employers and laborers has created a condition of anomie and conflict
a)Effective regulation can only come from those who work in the particular industry[1] coming together to form a “professional group” or “corporation”
i)The professional group/corporation was common in antiquity, but the modern absence of sustained interactions between participants in an industry has largely disabled the emergence of these groups in the present
ii)The professional group should (and did) serve a moral role, both in creating worker solidarity and preventing excessive exploitation in industry (179)
2)When a group shares common sentiments or situations, a “mechanical” solidarity emerges[i] out of these similarities, “… and this attachment to something that transcends the individual… is the very well-spring of all moral activity” (180).
3)As industry expands and becomes more complex, the professional group also expands
a)Therefore, Durkheim predicts that these localized professional groups may become the elementary unit of political organization in the future
Grusky and Sorensen (G&S):
4)Following Durkheim (esp. point 3a above), the authors are responding to two groups:
a)Critics of class analysis who advocate completely abandoning the concept of class
b)Marxists who nominally apply class to large groups, with little empirical validity
5)G&S advocate “disaggregation”: maintaining class analysis, but shifting the unit of analysis to much smaller “occupational associations” which actually exist in society
a)Workers do not typically identify with conventional, aggregated Marxist classes
i)But there is empirical evidence that workers do identify with occupational groupings formed around the “functional niches in the division of labor” (184)
b)Disaggregation could improve the Social Closure models (such as Parkin – see the summary for the “Weber and Post-Weberians” section)
i)Social Closure models typically deal with aggregate social classes and thus have difficulty with empirical proofs
ii)Actual credentialing and exclusionary practices occur within smaller-scale professional associations and craft-unions (185)
c)Collective action typically takes place between occupational associations, not aggregate classes.
i)In reality, local associations pursue smaller, occupation-specific benefits rather than large-scale Marxist objectives
ii)Disaggregated class action takes one of three forms
(1)Downward: restricting other groups from access to benefits
(2)Lateral: competition between equal occupational groups
(3)Upward: attempting to secure occupation-specific benefits from the state
d)Even status-based structuration has proceeded at the wrong level
i)Training and credentialing processes vary within aggregate classes
ii)Instead, socialization processes are consistent within occupational groups
6)Following Piore and Sabel [from Social Change!], G&S argue that rising post-Fordist artisanal production is evidence of local solidarity, not the absence of structuration
7)G&S claim that unions have not lost their influence over workers, but are simply more localized and with more occupation-specific goals.
RELEVANCE / CONNECTIONS
G&S are responding to any theorists who use aggregated units of class, especially Marx (but also Weber). However, they are also responding to those who are trying to dismiss the importance of class altogether (including our own Terry Nichols Clark). Therefore, they claim to be operating from a post-Durkheimian standpoint that considers structuration at a disaggregated level.
Grusky Reader: “Durkheim and Post-Durkheimians” Section 1
[1] Warning: In the “anomie” section of DoLiS, Durkheim states pretty explicitly that the state’s role is to step in and regulate the conflicts between management and labor, so this claim is a bit confusing. Grusky and Sorensen describe this excerpt as part of Durkheim’s “celebrated” preface, and Grusky uses this point to effectively launch his entire theoretical perspective, so this reading of Durkheim should probably be used for the purposes of the Strat section. When it comes to the theory section, though, we should probably resolve this issue as either a misreading or as yet another contradiction by Durkheim.
[i] This conception of mechanical solidarity resembles Marx in the assumption that a class composed of similarly situated people will become an associated, unified group.