Is cooperation always voluntary or is it enforced ? If enforced, is it...
(1) No cooperation is not always voluntary. Sometime it is enforced. For example we can take the example or issue of women's right to property in their natal family. A study was conducted among different sections of society to understand the attitude towards taking natal property. A significant number of women (41.7 per cent) evoked the theme of daughter's love and love for a daughter when speaking about their rights to property. But they emphasised apprehension rather than affection by saying they would not claim full or any share of natal property because they are afraid this would some relations with their brothers or cause their brother's wives (Bhabhi ji’s) to hate them, and that as a result they would no longer be welcome in their natal homes. This attitude represents one of the dominant metaphors mediating women's refusal to property.
(2) A woman demanding her share in the greedy shrew or ‘Lak lene Wali’ (who is claimant of her right). There was also a close connection between these feelings and the apparently observes ones of the desire to continue to be part of the natal family be actively contributing to its prosperity or being available to deal with its crises.
(3) Cooperative behaviour can also be seen as a product of deep conflicts in society. But when these conflicts are not expressed openly or challenged, the impression remains that there is no conflict, but only cooperation.
A functionalist view generally uses the term accommodation to explain situations such as the one described above, where women would prefer not to claim property rights in their natal home. It would be seen as an effort to compromise and co-exist despite conflict.
(4) The idea of cooperation rests on certain assumptions about human behaviour. It is said that without human cooperation it would be difficult for human life to survive.
Further it is argued that even in the animal world we witness cooperation, whether they be ants or bees or mammals. Sociology for the most part did not agree with the assumption that human nature is necessarily nasty and bruitish. For Emile Durkheim solidarity, the moral force of society is fundamental for our understanding of cooperation and thereby the functioning of society.
(5) The role of division of labour — which imples cooperation—is precisely to fulfill certain needs of society. The divisoin of labour is at the same time a law of nature and also a moral rule of human conduct.
(6) Emile Durkheim disintiguished between mechanical and organised solidarity that characterised pre-industrial and complex industrial societies respectively. Both are forms of cooperation in society. Mechanical solidaity is the form of cohesion that is based fundamentally on sameness. Most of the members of such societies live very similar lives, with little specialisation or division of labour beyond that associated with age and sex. Members feel bonded together essentially by their shared beliefs and sentiments their common conscience and consciousness.
(7) Organic solidarity is that form of social cohesion that is based on division of labour and the resulting interdependence of members of society. As people become more specially, they also become more dependent upon each other. A family engaged in subsistence farming may survive with little or no help from similar homesteaders. But specialised workers in a garment or a car manufacturing factory cannot survive without a host of other specialised workers supplying their basic needs.
(8) Karl Marx distinguishes human life from animal life. He said that cooperation in human life is different from cooperation in animal life. For humans not only adjust and accommodate to cooperate but also alter society in that process. For example, men and women over the ages had to adjust to natural constraints. Various technological innovations over time not only transformed human life but in some sense natura too. Humans in cooperating thus do not passively adjust and accomodate but also change the natural or social world to which they adjust.
(9) While both Durkheim from a functionalist view and Marx from a conflict perspective emphasise cooperation is not voluntary in a society where class exists. He argues, “The social power i.e., the multiplied productive force, which arises through the cooperation of different individuals as it is caused by the division of labour, appears to these individuals, since their cooperation is not voluntary but has come about naturally, not as their own united power, but as an alien force existing outside them... Marx used the term alienation to refer to the loss of control on the part of workers over the concrete content of labour, and over the products of their labour. In other words, workers lose control over how to organise their own work; and they lose control over the fruits of their labour. Contrast, for example, the feeling of fulfilment and creativity of a weaver or potter or ironsmith with that of a worker involved in a factory whose sole task may be to pull a lever or press a button throughout the day. Cooperation in such a situation would be enforced.