The Division of Labor in Society by sociologist Émile Durkheim is a widely accepted and discussed theory on the inner most workings of society and individuality within such society. According to Durkheim, the so-called ‘division of labor’ is the base of morality and social solidarity that an individual must come to terms with in their life. This concept of what it takes to be yourself amongst numerous obstacles and oppositions isn’t far beyond the average person today. Over a century has passed since Durkheim’s words were first published, yet the issue still remains relevant for even the youngest of generations today. Moreover, it is ideally important for adolescents and young adults in this day and age to familiarize themselves and be aware…show more content… These are the questions that arose to a young adult having just read Durkheim’s thoughts on the division of labor within our society; and these are the questions that young adults, as well as adolescent youth, throughout society should be asking themselves regardless of whether or not they have read Durkheim’s material. The issue that many young people have to face is that of their own identity and what it truly means to be individual or just another person in the crowd. This is a similar issue that Durkheim sheds light on when he conceptualizes and defines the division of labor. According to the reading, the division of labor takes place when certain parts of a whole are “infinitely separated and specialized...[and each part] is itself a specialty dependent upon others” (Durkheim, 95). This is a broader example of how, when broken down, pieces of a puzzle still unite and act as a whole picture; an analogy of which…show more content… Among these types is positive solidarity in which an individual is either directly bound to its society and without the assistance of a third party or they are simply dependent upon their society and each of its components. In other words, an individual can be a product of their society and think in accordance with the common conscience despite their rivaling personal conscience or an individual can succumb to the collective and allow for their solidarity to the group to take its effect on their individual personality. Durkheim goes as far as to distinguish between each scenario’s uses of the word ‘society’. According to the reading, the first scenario views society as “a more or less organized totality of beliefs and sentiments common to all members of the group [i.e. the collective type]” (Durkheim, 96). Whereas the second scenario in which everyone is solitary features society as a “system of different, special functions which definite relations unite” (Durkheim, 96). Using Durkheim’s words to distinguish between these two instances is crucial to understanding how ultimately, despite their variances, these two societies make up one singular reality. One reality in which two separate roles take place for an individual: the tendency to think and act as the majority