Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 9
 The classical social theorists were the best May 26, 2009
not a natural (huntington, west virginia United States)
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
Durkheim is sometimes characterized as "the sociologist of constraint," meaning that, as he saw it, an unregulated life is devoid of meaning and a source of misery. In a very limited way, one might argue that Durkheim, in contrast to Marx, held that man does have a rudimentary nature, at least in terms of social and cultural needs. People need norms, standards, and social ties to provide them with direction, purpose, knowledge of realistic limits, and a sense of belonging. This is one reason for Durkheim's life-long interest in religion as a social phenomenon. His emphasis on constraint and stability also helps explain why he is commonly regarded as a conservative.
Durkheim was less optimistic than Marx with regard to prospects for the variegated development of human potential. While Marx envisioned opportunities for people to develop a broad range of talents in a self-actualizing way, Durkheim was more cautious. His emphasis on an evermore complex division of labor characterized by increasingly narrow specialization held his expectations in check.
At the same time, however, Durkheim was convinced that a more complex division of labor and the organic solidarity it occasioned enabled individuals to become more independent and self-determining. As with Marx, however, Durkheim was aware that increasing specialization did not serve all interests equally well.
While Durkheim and Marx have more in common than is typically acknowledged, Durkheim did not view the antagonistic character of the capital-labor relationship as inevitable or basic to the structure of capitalist society. In Durkheim's judgment, increasing social and cultural complexity, along with the rise of modern industry and an attendant ethos of reciprocity and complementarity, were more important than the emergence of mature capitalism and the capital-labor dichotomy.
In my view, Durkhiem was wrong. Nevertheless, his struggle to find a basis for social solidarity for modern industrial society prompted him to develop the powerful concepts anomie (or cultural de-regulation) and egoism (or social deracination). These, in turn, led to this brilliant work on the social sources of suicide. Perhaps it's a mark of genius that failures lead to new discoveries which give important areas of intellectual endeavor an entirely new and unexpected conceptual direction.
An Outstanding Book November 19, 2008
C. Shaw
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
A unique thesis: the division of labor is morally cohesive, and inheritance of capital is the flaw of capitalism. It is a great counter-argument to Marx and communism. I read this book at the University of Chicago, and I can only hope other institutions also assign it; it is a must read for anybody interested in human interaction.
Although some people may not think this is important, I must also commend The Free Press for producing such a durable book. Many of my books wouldn't survive my travels and annotations as well as this one has.
Classic... January 11, 2007
Seth Brian Abrutyn (Riverside, CA)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
If you are a) an undergrad. in sociology, economy, or political science, you must have this for grad. school; b) a grad. student in sociology and unsure of its application, what theory is, or what the masters talked about, you must have it; and c) a theory freak like myself, a must for your collection (but you already knew that!). This book is a classic in sociology, and while Durkheim recanted much of what he said later in his career, his ecological model for the evolution of society is still relevant today. Furthermore, his discussion of the integrative effects of the Division of Labor are unmatched, and while this mechanism is probably not the only one of its kind, it is still important especially in a postindustrial society that is increasingly compartementalized...
A founding block of Sociological Theory May 25, 2000
8 out of 12 found this review helpful
... The Halls translation is quite a good one. If we examine the Halls text and compare it to the "revisions" that the reviewer has posed, we find that the differences are not merely aesthetic, they are substantive. They change the meaning of the sentence, and therefore the nature and meaning of Durkheim's argument.I think that this Durkheim's best work. As a warning, it is not easy; perhaps this is where the difficulty with the translation lies. But for anyone interested in sociological theory, this book is essential reading. The translation is the best out there.
The starting point November 9, 2002
Ellis Godard (Moorpark, CA United States)
6 out of 9 found this review helpful
A classic in many ways, the Division of Labor is a great starting point for sociology - not because it's terribly sexy or interesting or even correct, but because it begins to lay out what sociology can do.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 9
|
