With What Is the Modern Division of Labor Associated - Coursework Example

Is the modern division of labor associated with class exploitation and division, as Karl Marx claims, or with a new form of social solidarity as Durkheim claims? Introduction The Social World is taken to be a string of macro and micro entities all tied up to present a distinct harmony. This idea of the Social World emanated from everyday observations made by social scientists on a generalized sphere. Concerning the above thought of the Social paradigm the common person also finds that a society is a blend of both macro level thoughts like capitalist and socialistic societal models and of their own personal views and activities at the micro level. Between the Macro and Micro level Social paradigms the concepts of social class, organizations, social groups and collective activities gain ground. The blend of micro and macro thoughts and activities that make a social structure is referred to as the Micro-Macro Continuum. The Micro-Macro Continuum over which the formation of a society depends upon can further be fragmented into Subjective and Objective components. The subjective components in both the Micro and Macro levels depend on the thought process of individuals and institutions respectively. It may consist of doctrines, ideas, norms and values. However, the objective part is concerned with activities, which form groups, organizations and political bodies. (Ritzer & Goodman, 2004: A-13). In regards to the idea of the Social System discussed above the paper tries to judge if the current division of labour associated with class exploitation and division, as Karl Marx claims, or with a new form of social solidarity as Durkheim claims. Social Changes and its effects on Social Thinking The inception of the French Revolution in 1789 gave birth to the doctrine of Social thinking as separate from the traditional philosophical ideologies. The French Revolution marked the beginning of an era of social thinking which gave due importance to the concept of individual freedom. The doctrine of personal freedom and rights challenged the traditional social and political views on individual liberty. Further, the cause of the revolution disturbed the economic and political base of the ongoing feudal system. Similar changes in the social patterns can be observed based on the emergence of capitalist principles in Europe and Britain, which shifted the social base from agrarian to industrial patterns. The shift from agriculture to industrial economy caused the need for the development of scientific and commercial activities on a wider plane. The shift to industrial economy caused the farmers to turn into industrial laborers. Agricultural land was extensively used for industrial purposes and a new class of industrial laborers emerged on this plane. These huge amounts of Social changes led to the emergence of social thinkers like Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim who propounded new doctrines based on the division of industrial labor. It is found that Karl Marx’s observation to the social changes was based on Economic concepts. Emile Durkheim’s theory of the Social changes in contrast to the philosophical ideas of Karl Marx was based on observation of objective changes on the social platform. Durkheim’s study of the social changes was confined to making scientific analysis rather than depending on philosophical discussions. (Morrison, 1995: 1-4). Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim on the Division of Labor The industrial revolution caused in Europe and England caused sea change in the pattern of industrial production. Observation made reveals that the system of industrial production in the previous period depended on sole manufacturers who manufactured goods and commodities with sometimes the joint collaboration of other artisans. The modern period spelt an era of specialization owing to the increased demand for quality goods. Thus, the industrial system also started hiring specialized forms of labor that would produce better goods and services. Thereby, the mode of industrial production was made decentralized by dividing the entire task among different specialized units. These specialized units operated in a collaborative sphere to produce the required products in a much lesser time and of better qualities. This diversified practice of industrial production was observed to have been prevalent in other social institutions of scientific and legal character. Reasons attributed to the mass division of labor in the system of industrial production were the huge increase in demand for industrial goods, which in turn raised the production volumes. It was further observed that the practice of division of labor paved the way to economic prosperity of the labor force and in turn developed the nation. With the commercial and trade barriers being loosened the division of labor practice was expected to boost further dynamism to industrial production of the country. (Durkheim, 1997). However, the doctrine of division of labor invited criticism from social thinkers like Karl Marx who argued on the same based on communist ideologies. In regards to the practice of division of labor, Karl Marx argued that such practice would mean isolating the individuals from the fruits of their own labor. Marx also viewed that such practice of division of labor not only isolated the individuals from their own creations but also from their working atmosphere and to the maximum extent from their own selves. Marx agreed on the terms that owing to the practice of division labor the industrial production would increase both on the qualitative and as well as on the quantitative sphere. However, he stated that such industrial and economic development would only be possible depending on huge human costs. Karl Marx observed that the practice of division of labor though helped in achieving huge economic and industrial prosperity it also brought about untold human misery for being subjected to inhuman treatment. (Durkheim, 1997). Karl Marx stated that the need for social welfare must be given importance in the light of economic and industrial development. He emphasized on the term of ‘true democracy’ wherein he stated that the political system must have a social approach in order to arrive at common betterment of both the state and society. (Giddens, 1971: 6). Karl Marx emphasized on the betterment of labor practices in the industries for he viewed labor as a valued commodity. He stated that this valued commodity is used by the industries to arrive at significant outputs. Marx views that in a modern capitalist society the industry only runs after the profit motive rather than caring about individual development of the labor force. Thus, the labor force a valued social product becomes the center of exploitative industrial practices. (Mandel, N.D.). Marx observes that the doctrines of industrial production, which were born from the capitalist minds, would fail to cater to the needs of the labor force for it would be busy in increasing the profit of the industries. (Tucker, 1978:5). Emile Durkheim in contrast to his predecessors in arguing on the efficacy of the division of labor shifted the stress from understanding the industrial and economic gains, which emerged due to the practice of division of labor. He also did not render due importance on Karl Marx’s observation of social exploitation of the labor force in meeting due industrial standards. However, it is observed that Durkheim felt considerate about the inhuman conditions to which the labor force had been subjected owing to the division of labor practices in industries. Durkheim, in above to the given arguments tried to focus on the effect of such practices of division of labor in bringing about solidarity in the social relations. He further tried to infer about the probability of reconciliation of individual freedom to the regulatory policies of the state in bringing about social harmony. Durkheim is observed to lay stress on the principle of personal freedom in an atmosphere of social cohesion wherein individuals become bind to each other for achieving a desired objective. He extensively felt that without an environment of social bonding personal freedom being given to individuals would lead to social erosion. The question of social cohesion was increasingly felt for specialization has made individuals compete against each other, which created a threat to the social fabric. Durkheim further observes that the concept of the workers to feel isolated from their work atmosphere as hinted by Karl Marx stands true for the workers in modern times feel difficult to engage themselves in a collaborative environment. To this end, Durkheim envisaged that strengthening of social bonds would help reduce workers feeling of isolation to their work and would help in gaining social solidarity rather than the practice of coercive methods at the workplace. (Durkheim, 1997) The Changing Societies The claims made by the sociologists in arriving at social theories need to become contested. It is because the sociologists themselves are active members of the society, which they tend to analyze. It is observed that the statements made by the social scientists excite social agitation, which in turn disturbs the social balance. Again it is observed that the doctrines presented by the sociologists can turn redundant or misused with the passage of time. (Lee & Newby, 1983: 5). The theory propounded by the social scientists becomes objects of academic interests if not dealt with in the light of contemporary issues. Thus, what is important is not only the historical significance of the theories but of their relevance to the contemporary world. The society has developed a lot from the times of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Thus, their theories to become effective must stand the test of times. (Craib, 1997: 2-3). Today’s world is observed to have become the center of capitalist practices and increased consumerism as evident in the American society. These practices have been earning vehement protests from several spheres that view the capitalist practices in the corporate context as disturbing the social and economic base of the state. Families and religious leaders are also protesting the capitalist practices of the corporate hubs for fear of the social and cultural structure in getting damaged and bruised. The erosion of communal cohesion and increased capitalist practices would, as the above groups fear would make money as the sole measure of social understanding. (Cohen & Kennedy, 2000: 5). The American market being scanned reflects the drowning of social and cultural values for making way to practice of increased consumerism. Vulgar advertisements and videos are on the rise eating up the social and cultural fabric of the country. Thus, Emile Durkheim’s fear of the society being eroded of its moral values in the light of weak cohesive forces is gradually becoming evident. The present society stands on market-driven forces, which have little or no regard for human and cultural values. These in turn lead to erosion of social bonds, which were present in previous days. The weakening of social bonds also disturbs the moral standpoint of the society making it amenable to be destroyed. America’s present cultural system only focuses on stimulating human desires at the cost of the moral values. In modern days the corporate houses to achieve more sales by stimulating consumer desires have increased the use of advertisement. Thus, it reflects on the enhancement of market capitalism. Durkheim, further stated that without social and cultural solidarity individuals rising to become specialized workers would eventually start feeling isolated which would culminate to fatal incidents like suicides. Tom this end, American psychologists viewed that though America have become the center of ‘consumer capitalism’ with increased flow of material commodities in the societies hands to satisfy the desires yet there has been no signs of the society to be satisfied. Thus, it culminates to the growth of insatiable desires at the cost of social and cultural values. (Novak, 2004: 1-12). The plight of the workers in the modern industries proves Karl Marx’s criticism to become true for being subjected to inhuman conditions at the workplace. They justly feel isolated from their work and the working environment for the terrible working conditions. (Erikson, 1986: 1). Conclusion The division of labor is observed to be one of the scientific practices in regards to promoting an efficient production system. Decentralization of the labor force helps in attaining work specialization that in turn produces goods and services on qualitative and quantitative grounds. However, the practices of division of the labor force should be free from coercion and must be dealt on social angles. It is only then that the doctrine of Karl Marx based on socialist practices would be fulfilled. Further, as Durkheim views the production and sales motives of the corporate should be such as not to alienate the individual from social and cultural values, which produces moral solidarity of the society. The weakening of social cohesion would lead to social degradation and annihilation of the moral structure. Reference Ritzer, G. & D. Goodman. (2004). Sociological Theory. McGraw Hill. Morrison, K. (1995). Formations of Modern Social Thought. Sage Publications. Durkheim, E. (1997). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press. Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge University Press. Mandel, E. (N.D.). Marx’s Labour Theory of Value. Retrieved on October 27, 2010 from: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article284 Tucker, R. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: The Free Press. Lee, D. & H. Newby. (1983). The Problem of Sociology. London and New York: Routledge. Craib, I. (1997). Classical Social Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen, R. & P. Kennedy. (2007). Global Sociology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Novak, T. (2004). The American Paradox: Applying Durkheim's Critique of Modern Society to the Current "Moral Values" Debate, Retrieved on October 27, 2010 from: http://timnovak.org/uploads/American_Paradox_proofed.pdf Erikson, K. (1986). On Work and Alienation. American Sociological Review. Vol. 51, no. 1, pp.1-8 Read More