抄録
In this article, I examine and compare Smith, Marx, Spencer, and Durkheim's theories of division of labour, focusing on their analysis of its causes. With my other articles (Kohara 1997, 1998) , which focuses their analysis of its consequences, this is the first attempt of general comparison of Marx, Spencer, and Durkheim's theory of division of labour. Basically based on the results of former studies comparing Spencer and Durkheim or Marx and Durkheim's theories of division of labour, this article casts new light on the ever ignored aspects, such as the change of Durkheim's theory of division of labour, which is ignored by the former studies comparing Spencer and Durkheim, or the dynamic aspect of their theories, which is ignored by the former studies comparing Marx and Durkheim. The most important findings of this article are the shared characteristics of Marx, Spencer and Durkheim's theories of division of labour (comparing with Smith's one) such as 1) finding positive feedback between the causes and results of division of labour or 2) taking trichotomic scheme in understanding the relation of the society and individuals in their analysis of the positive feedback in the development of division of labour. These findings become possible only with the comparison of these four social scientists. Among these findings, the first one, which concerns positive feedback, is especially meaningful. It reconfirms the theoretical basis of Marx and Spencer's theory of social evolution, which is severely attacked by Parsons (1937). This finding demands us to adjust the direction of the development of sociology after Parsons.
