Most of the theories of Durkheim argue that harmony fosters efficiency in work by minimizing conflicts. The occupational practices of Durkheim include the procedures adopted in the hope of realizing division of labor while creating harmony in the workplace. Durkheim was optimistic that these practices are attainable; however, he challenged people to show commitment in attaining their full level. In his preface to the second edition, Durkheim highlighted that legal division of labor was desirable due to the unique existence of the groups that came from it (Durkheim 2). Durkheim developed the hopeful theory, which assumes that division of labor at the workplace is attainable. The theory noted that this is essential on reducing occupational burdening among employees, which fosters productivity (Durkheim 19). The paper analyzes the concept of occupational practices in Durkheim with the view of evaluating how the idea of constitutive rule character helps in the creation of social and scientific coordination.
Durkheim argues that self-organizing constitutive practices would help in knitting the groups together and ensuring that all the tasks are effectively divided among individual of an occupational group (Durkheim 28). Unlike other sociologists like Max Weber, Durkheim believed that the state would not solve the problems that came with division of labor. He believed that these problems could be solved through creating occupational groups that can divide tasks effectively and avoid task accumulation. However, he believed that a third party was not imperative in the creation of the groups (Rawls, Jeffery and Mann 4). He was also convinced that groups would be self-composing and self-existent, which would boost the understanding among the group members for the better allocation of tasks. Durkheim assumed that if groups had some natural way of existence, they would have sufficient values to help them sustain their lives and self-govern in the end.
As a sociological structure, Durkheim suggested that social solidarity was important if the occupational groups and practices were to render the anticipated results to the groups. He expected that the grouped would undertake their division of tasks seriously. He also felt that every member in the team would have social power to command the social unity and cohesion in the group. High levels of social cohesion would result to good relations social cohesion (Durkheim 15). In this context, he suggested that the groups would undertake measures to ensure that they were socially strong. This could be possible without necessarily imposing the social gaps as constraints to the group’s existence. He explained that in enhancing social sharing of duties, groups would thrive well in the modern society.
Durkheim insisted that the occupational groups would also function as social organizations in the normal setup. Durkheim believed that with occupation groups, individuals have subordination of certain interests, which act as the source of moral activity (Durkheim 14). As part of the occupational practices, understanding roles in the groups would heavily boost the groups’ existence. Most of the group members would know their roles in groups and they would interact freely, but professionally. In his view, this would limit conflicts in groups while enhancing coherence and effective sharing of responsibilities in the groups. He also highlighted that functional division of tasks in the groups would facilitate efficiency in handling deviations, as the leadership for the groups would easily trace the sources of the deviations (Rawls, Jeffery and Mann 3). Occupational ethics were also imperative in the development of the occupational groups. However, the theories highlighted that division of labor did not guarantee the cohesion in groups and functioning of the groups mainly lied upon the constitutive rule of the groups. This is because some individuals may often fail to cooperate (Rawls, Jeffery and Mann 15).
The constitutive rule character helps in the advancement of the occupational practices in many ways. A constituted society maintains a high equilibrium in terms of moral and ethical standards, which implies that the rule helps in the moral character of the team. Durkheim (2) notes, “An ethic so imprecise and inconsistent cannot constitute a discipline” unless the ethics are built in a constituted group. This helps in the development of the desired social and scientific facts because it brings moral order in the teams, a fact that helps the teams to maintain high standards in terms of morality and ethical levels. A constituted society is more likely to be ethical that an un-constituted one. The wave of unity in the group in terms of uniformity of activities is what Durkheim desired in the division of labor. Durkheim believed that although roles are devolved among members of the occupation group, the term members work together because similar interests bind them (Durkheim 14).
Durkheim advanced the practice of occupational groups with the view that the groups would provide an alternative to the state associations that were hard to get (Durkheim 3). Durkheim felt that the idea of fostering the establishment of occupation groups would provide an ultimate solution to the intricate challenges experience in the modern corporate world (Rawls, Jeffery and Mann 10). In his developments, he focused on the constitutive rule of the groups, which he believed would ensure the long-term existence of the occupational groups. Through constitution, the groups would develop high moral and ethical values and generate scientific and social uniformity. He thought that the groups would ease division of labor, which he considered essential in improving activities in the corporate world.
Works Cited
Durkheim, E. Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press. 1997. Print.
Rawls, Anne W, Jeffery, Adam and Mann, David. Locating the Modern Sacred: Moral/Social Facts and Constitutive Practices. Published online 18 November 2013 Journal of Classical Sociology.
