Breaking down the question
The question asks you to assess the contemporary relevance of Durkheim's theory of the division of labour. The word “whether” signals an evaluative task — you must take a position, showing where the theory still illuminates modern society and where it needs qualification.
The examiner is testing both your grasp of the theory — the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity, and the pathological forms of anomic and forced division of labour — and your ability to hold it up against present-day conditions such as globalisation, the gig economy and rising individualism.
At 10 marks, the strongest answers argue that the theory remains substantially relevant, especially its diagnosis of anomie, while noting the limits exposed by a century of social change.
How to approach it
Begin by summarising the core argument of Durkheim's first major work: as societies grow denser and more specialised, solidarity shifts from mechanical, based on likeness, to organic, based on interdependence, with law moving from repressive to restitutive.
Then evaluate relevance on two fronts. On the positive side, show how organic solidarity and especially anomie and the forced division of labour speak directly to modern conditions. On the critical side, note challenges from conflict theory and from changes Durkheim could not foresee. Draw on our notes on Durkheim's social facts and method and the thinker profile of Emile Durkheim.
Conclude with a clear verdict weighted towards enduring relevance.
Model answer
In The Division of Labour in Society, Emile Durkheim argued that the division of labour is not merely economic but a moral phenomenon that binds society together. In small, traditional societies, solidarity is mechanical, resting on the likeness of individuals who share a strong collective consciousness, and law is repressive, punishing deviation. As population grows and “dynamic density” increases, specialisation deepens and solidarity becomes organic, resting on the mutual interdependence of differentiated individuals, with law becoming restitutive, restoring relationships rather than merely punishing. The very differences between people now make them need one another.
Much of this remains strikingly relevant. Contemporary societies are more specialised and interdependent than any Durkheim knew: global supply chains, professional specialisation and complex bureaucracies mean that no individual or nation is self-sufficient, which is organic solidarity on a planetary scale. Restitutive law has expanded through contract, regulation and civil remedies. Above all, Durkheim's account of the abnormal forms of the division of labour has proved prescient. The anomic division of labour, where rapid change outpaces the growth of shared norms and leaves individuals without adequate moral regulation, describes much modern experience — the disorientation of economic crises, precarious “gig” work, and the sense of normlessness accompanying rapid technological change. The forced division of labour, in which people are allocated to positions by inherited advantage rather than natural aptitude, illuminates persistent inequalities of caste, class, race and gender that make solidarity incomplete.
There are, however, limits to the theory's fit. Marxist and conflict theorists argue that Durkheim underplayed exploitation and power, treating specialisation as basically integrative when it can entrench domination and alienation. His optimistic expectation that organic solidarity would ultimately generate moral consensus sits uneasily with the enduring conflict, fragmentation and identity politics of modern societies. Post-industrial developments — automation, the knowledge economy and flexible labour — also complicate his account of interdependence and occupational groupings, on which he pinned his hopes for moral order.
In conclusion, Durkheim's theory of the division of labour remains highly relevant, above all as a diagnostic tool. Its concepts of organic solidarity, anomie and the forced division of labour still capture central features of modern interdependence and its discontents. What it needs is supplementation — an attention to power and conflict it tended to neglect — rather than abandonment, and on that qualified basis it retains real explanatory value today.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner is looking for a genuine evaluation, not a summary of the theory followed by a token line on relevance. A common weakness is to explain mechanical and organic solidarity well but discuss the present day only vaguely.
Higher marks reward answers that connect specific concepts — organic solidarity, anomie, the forced division of labour — to concrete contemporary phenomena such as globalisation, precarious work and structural inequality, while acknowledging the conflict-theory critique. A decisive conclusion, leaning towards continued relevance with qualification, shows the balanced judgement expected within the 10-mark limit.