E. Durkheim’s critique of the eudemonistic and hedonistic causality of the division of labor in the perspective of contemporary consumerism

The article aims at revising Durkheim’s pejorative assessment of utilitarianhedonistic impulses as the reasons for the differentiation of labor in the consumerism perspective. The author considers Durkheim’s criticism of economism and utilitarianism through his theory of social solidarity as having moral rather than utilitarian foundations and shows the transformation of Durkheim’s concept of solidarism and the idea of division of labor based on it in social practices of the contemporary consumer society. Thus, the concentration of morality in the rules (according to Durkheim) that regulate social behavior proves that the rules and morality of the consumer society are determined by consumerist values and make every individual play the consumer role. The inconsistency of solidarism under consumerism is expressed in the fact that, despite the high degree of social integration which demands that as an organic part of the social we have to ‘sacrifice’ ourselves to this whole, in the consumer society, there is a reverse trend - the dominance of consumer values, attitudes and stereotypes which determine models of social behavior based on selfishness. In the second part of the article, the author considers utilitarian-hedonistic needs multiplied by consumerism as one of the key reasons for the progress and differentiation of labor. Hedonistic intentions manifested in consumer practices should be considered not as mental or psychological (according to Durkheim) but as social facts. The author argues that Durkheim’s concept of social solidarity, which seeks to overcome economism and utilitarianism in the interpretation of the progress of labor, may be of scientific interest as an alternative (moral) approach. However, it ignores the potential of the permanent desire for pleasure in the social-cultural environment of consumerism; therefore, in the consumer society with appropriate morality, this approach loses to the utilitarianeconomic interpretation of the progress of labor. One of Durkheim’s main arguments in the critique of the hedonistic and eudemonistic causality of the progress of labor is that if the differentiation of labor aimed at increasing happiness and pleasure, then this progress would have reached its limits long ago, but the contemporary consumer society proves the opposite.