Theories of Division of Labour, Class Struggle, and Alienation - Essay Example

Karl Marxs and Emile Durkheim Theories of Division of Labour, Struggle, and Alienation/Anomie Karl Marxs and Emile Durkheim Theories of Division of Labour, Class Struggle, and Alienation/Anomie Introduction Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim are some of the renowned founders of sociology. This recognition resulted from their theories developed in an effort to promote communism and socialism. More specifically, Marx receives recognition for founding economic history and sociology. This was after he studied philosophy and law from the University of Berlin. After finishing school, Marx engaged in developing his theories that highlighted the significance of communism and developed a critique against capitalism. On the other hand, Durkheim focused on describing the collective conscience of the society as well as the emergence of the modern society. He also gave special attention to reasons that motivated people to commit suicide. He is famous for works such as the rules of sociological method, the division of labour in society, and the elemental source of religious life. Both Marx and Durkheim described different aspects of the society that they perceived. They touched on aspects such as division of labour, class struggles, and alienation/ anomie. This paper will compare their views concerning these three aspects. Comparison of Marx and Durkheim Views on Division of Labour Karl Marx was against the capitalist ideology. During his time, this ideology was gaining popularity and many capitalists were exploiting labourers in different regions of the world. Marx opined that communism was a better ideology, which promoted the welfare e of the society. He had the conviction that capitalism would divide the society into two groups (Ryan, 2014). One group would comprise of the capitalist, who had the means and capital to control production. On the other hand, the lower class, which he called the proletarians, would provide the required labour during production (Alexander & Smith, 2005). Karl Marx highlighted that the workers would develop different skills in an effort to complete different tasks within the production unit. In an effort to perfect production, specialization would result (Gibbs, 2003). This means that workers would focus on developing core competencies in the production process. This means that the workers would tackle different tasks depending on their core competencies. According to him, division of labour would result from either technical or social reasons (Llorente, 2006). Evidently, some technical jobs proved to be highly unpleasant for the people. However, for production to be successful, such technical tasks needed to be completed. Therefore, it was an inevitable part of the production process. Since the technical task needed completion, it emerged that a group of the workers had to handle the unpleasant jobs (Rawls, 2003). In some situations, an even and periodical rotation of tasks ensured that all the workers had an opportunity to work on both the pleasant and the unpleasant jobs (Llorente, 2006). However, there were times when social factors determine the specific individuals who would work on the unpleasant jobs. In his view, this aspect was the social division of labour. Therefore, Marx highlighted that either technical necessity or social control prompted the division of labour (Gibbs, 2003). In relation to social control, the issues of class and status contributed to the final decision of the workers designated to work on the unpleasant jobs (Llorente, 2006). A combination of this view highlights that division of labour proved technically inevitable and not, necessarily, a social construction brought about by power relationships. In the production process, it was evident that some technical skills were important and that not all the tasks were pleasant for the workers (Liu, 2013). Division of labour emerged in an effort to designate certain individuals to work on each individual task (Sun, 2005). However, Marx opined that division of labour only served to depress the workers, equated to machines. Concerning the communist society, Marx opined that division of labour would result from a balanced human development. This means that individuals would exhibit a variety of competencies and skills in an effort to express themselves. Different individuals in the society would exhibit expertise in handling different tasks. If it occurred naturally as an expression of creativity in the work that people focus on, then division of labour in communism was a positive aspect (Sun, 2005). However, the division of labour brought about by capitalism did not result from the expression of creativity, but rather from the compulsion to work on a certain task. Capitalists introduced the division of labour in an effort to ensure that they gained an advantage. This happened when workers only performed a specific task, which did not result to whole products (Liu, 2013). Developing a core competency on a task that did not result in a specific product meant that the worker had to continue depending on the employer (Sun, 2005). Different workers developed expertise in different tasks in the production process, but were unable to produce completed products on their own. This ensured a social mechanism of control. On the other hand, Durkheim authored a book titled Division of Labour in Society. Unlike the views of Marx, Durkheim opined that division of labour had the potential to bring about social interdependence. Consequently, social interdependence would bring forth solidarity in the society (Alexander & Smith, 2005). In his view, each individual in a society having a certain skill and contributing to the production of specific products would feel a sense of belongingness concerning the society. Therefore, when people engage in various tasks, they promoted social interdependence. It was a way of showing that none of the members of the society was capable of self-sustainability (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). However, it made each person to realize that there was a level of interdependence between him and the other members of the society (Liu, 2013). Whereas Durkheim believes that the division of labour could be a positive aspect of the society, which promoted interdependence and eventually solidarity, Marx did not express such views (Gibbs, 2003). Durkheim then focused on explaining how division of labour evolved over time and in different societies. The changes in the division of labour as well as in the society were determining factors in the level of solidarity experienced by the people in threat society (Liu, 2013). Notably, in small societies, with a minimal level of division of labour, with individuals engaging in the same activities, solidarity was higher (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). The type of solidarity existing in such societies qualified as mechanic solidarity as defined by Durkheim. Some societies, for example the modern society exhibited higher levels of labour division. Therefore, they lacked the mechanic solidarity and exhibited the organic solidarity (Alexander & Smith, 2005). Worth noting is the fact that mechanistic solidarity exhibited stronger bonds between the people and was a higher form of solidarity. On the other hand, organic solidarity was subject to weakening effects (Gibbs, 2003). Therefore, the modern society faced the risk of losing the collective conscience. In each of these societies, different laws promoted the division of labour. In mechanical solidarity, repressive laws ensured the sustenance of the system (Sun, 2005). Restitutive sanctions were of critical importance in society with high level of labour division and they were responsible for maintaining the organic solidarity (Liu, 2013). One common aspect emerges from the views of Durkheim and Karl Marx regarding the division of labour in the modern society. Evidently, Durkheim highlighted that the modern society exhibited a higher level of division of labour (Rawls, 2003). In such a society, interdependence and connectivity would slowly fade away. Human beings would no longer consider themselves as counterparts, but rather as functions (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). This is because the modern society would transform individuals into functions in an effort to achieve effective production. Marx exhibited similar views when he highlighted that capitalism in the modern society views workers as machines under the exploitation in the production process (Sun, 2005). Without doubt, both Durkheim and Marx do not support the effects of labour division evident in the modern society. Comparison of Marx and Durkheim views on Class Struggles According to Carl Marx, capitalism triggers class struggles. As highlighted above, Marx’s theory of class struggle on the fact that the society is comprised of two specific classes. One of the classes comprises of the capitalists who form the ruling class. On the other extreme is the oppressed class of individuals made up of workers (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). Although Karl Marx opined that a ruling class oppressing other people exists in a capitalist society, these two classes exist in societies that have not embraced capitalism (Liu, 2013). Marx highlighted that the ruling class, which owned all their issues in the society resulted to oppressing the proletarians. The ruling class had privileges economically, socially, and politically (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). The proletarians lacked any of these privileges. Marx developed a dialectical model, which highlights the presence of thesis in society. He highlighted that the oppression of the lower class by the ruling class triggered class conflict (Rawls, 2003). The class conflict brought forth a struggle in the society between the two classes. In his opinion, such struggles resulting from class conflicts would continue for an undefined period depending on the society. However, these struggles would give yield to changes in the society. Marx defined the struggle as an antithesis defined by the opposition of the existing thesis (Gibbs, 2003). When a change occurred in the society after the class struggle, a new status quo emerged. The status quo in this case would be a synthesis (Rawls, 2003). The synthesis was the result of an opposition and a class struggle (Liu, 2013). It could replace the original thesis prior to the struggle. In other cases, the class struggle would define a new thesis for the society (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). The new thesis could be either an entirely new ideology or a combination of the ideologies expressed by both classes. The purpose of the class struggle is to trigger processes of progress in the society. In the view of Marx’s dialectical model, the two classes referred are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Marx believed that these two classes exhibited a relationship that defied modern capitalism (Liu, 2013). In his view, capitalism was an undesirable system that could only shatter the society. Therefore, he predicted that the upper class comprising of the capitalists would exploit the workers to a point whereby they would not take it anymore (Gibbs, 2003). This would prompt a class conflict, which would result to a full-blown class struggle. Evidently, the ruling class would never be willing to surrender the means of production of their privileges (Ryan, 2014). Therefore, the labourers would be compelled to participate in a revolution. The revolution would take quite some time. After the revolution, a classless society would result (Rawls, 2003). Although Marx had not witnessed the class struggles, that would result between the ruling class and the labourers, he highlighted that the proletariat would eventually become class conscious (Liu, 2013). Class-consciousness would prompt the workers to form unions in an effort to defend their rights. The existence of unions would create a conflict between the owners of production and the workers. Extreme polarization defines the conflict, which would eventually result to a revolution. As highlighted above, a revolution would be a sure way to introduce a classless society (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). Marx had the conviction that internal threats existing in the capitalist society would be responsible for the class struggles. Evidently, Carl Marx was right about the fact that the economics of a society had the potential to exert control on both the cultural and the political systems (Liu, 2013). Without doubt, Marx viewed the division of labour as the basis of the class conflicts that would result eventually. This is because the labourers would become conscious of their class and realize that they were constant oppression (Rawls, 2003). This would prompt them to act, initiating a struggle. On the other hand, Durkheim viewed the division of labour as a productive mode for any society because it promoted interdependence and cohesion (Gibbs, 2003). Durkheim did not describe class differences in his theory. He only opined that the destruction of the modern society would result from external factors. If the society did not have the strength to resist the external factors, then changes would result (Liu, 2013). This view is different from Karl Marx’s conviction that internal factors would eventually trigger the destruction of the society. Durkheim did not give attention to the effects of race and class when he was developing his theory and describing his approach to the division of labour (Ziyanak & Williams, 2014). His views indicate that he described the ideal society. However, the reality of the society is that class struggles exist. This makes Karl Marx’s approach and the struggles between workers and employees more realistic in the modern society (Rawls, 2003). In the views of Durkheim, class conflicts only emerged as consequences of the fast transition from the old society to the modern society (Rawls, 2003). Notably, the modern society triggered a higher level of struggle for survival because of a measurably increased density in the society. If the transition occurred rapidly, class conflicts would emerge (Gibbs, 2003). However, Durkheim does not support the proletarian revolution defined by Marx. On the contrary, he opined that moral discipline and societal norms had the potential of creating a better society. Although both Marx and Durkheim agree on the fact that class division presented adverse effects to both the society and individuals, they disagree on the issue of the revolution as well as the causes of the class struggles (Ryan, 2014). Durkheim opined that social classes did not promote individual consciousness. On the contrary, class division was one of the adverse effects brought about by modernity. The fact that he views the division of labour as a source of social solidarity indicates that he does not support the Carl Marx’s views that the purpose of introducing division of labour was to exploit the lower class (Rawls, 2003). Comparison of Karl Marx and Durkheim Views on Alienation/ Anomie Marx highlighted that alienation resulted from the division of labour. In his work titled “Estranged Labour”, he highlighted that workers, who formed the proletariat class did experience a measure of isolation because of the state of powerlessness that they were. Capitalism had unique structures, which triggered alienation as Marx viewed it. Marx made two central ideas that formed the basic tenets of his theory on alienation (Gibbs, 2003). He made it clear that the society consisted of human beings. Moreover, the society was a representation of both the nature and the being of the people. The second idea was that the modern society brought in capitalism, which altered the society (Rawls, 2003). Therefore, people lost the connection to the society and no longer appreciated it as a representation of their nature and being. Eventually, this triggered alienation. Labour was one of the key means that people viewed as a reflection of their nature and history. They used the aspect of labour to define their self-identity (Rawls, 2003). However, alienation destroyed this connection of people to labour. Marx identified four different components of alienation. According to him, workers experienced product alienation because the products did not belong to them (Alexander & Smith, 2005). Evidently, all the products in a capitalist society belong to the owners of the product. The capitalist sold the products for profits. The fact that each worker only performed a single task in an entire process of production it meant that none of him or her was responsible for producing the final product (Rawls, 2003). Only the individuals working in the final tasks experienced minimal connection to the product. For the other workers, experience no connection to the product (Ryan, 2014). In addition, workers experienced alienation from the productive activity. Capitalism uses workers to provide labour required in the production process (Rawls, 2003). Therefore, their labour did not serve to satisfy any of the individual needs. On the contrary, their efforts only produced benefits to the capitalists. Meagre wages were the only thing they had to show for their labour (Gibbs, 2003). The productive activity belonged solely to the ruling class who owned the means of production. Therefore, the entire productive activity proved to be a boring process for the workers. It failed to give them any form of contentment because all they earned was poor wages in the desperation of sustenance. Marx highlighted that capitalism triggered alienation from the human species (Rawls, 2003). This is because the capitalist’s system regards workers as machineries for production. This serves to degrade human beings prompting the workers lose the existing connection with their individual consciousness. This eventually destroyed human relations between the workers. The divine purpose of human existence turned into physical existence to satisfy the needs of the capitalists (Gibbs, 2003). Finally, many workers faced alienation from the social community as well as from other humans. Capitalism brought an end to corporations and interdependence. In its place, capitalism introduced unhealthy competition between the workers (Ryan, 2014). This unhealthy competition eventually advanced to hostility. Marx had the conviction that this hostility would eventually alienate them from other workers. On the other hand, Durkheim highlighted that division of labour triggered the development of anomie. In his definition, anomie denoted a deteriorated state of moral restraints. Durkheim opined that the society played a critical role in establishing a moral framework that ensured a measure of restraint (Gibbs, 2003). If a society was no longer able to control the morality of individuals, then unacceptable behaviours resulted. Durkheim expressed his conviction that the emergence of the modern society, which was highly industrialized, was one of the potential reasons why the society lost its potential to regulate the morality of individuals (Rawls, 2003). In addition, he blamed the dominance of the economy as a trigger of the deregulation process. These two factors were responsible for the decline in moral discipline (Ryan, 2014). The dominance of economic activities served to disrupt the functionality of other institutions in the society. One of the institutions disrupted by the economic dominance is religion. The decline in religious adherence promoted unacceptable moral behaviour. Durkheim expressed his views concerning the emergence of free desires in the capitalist system because moral regulation had faded. He blamed the economic dominance and the emergence of markets for the failed oral regulation (Alexander & Smith, 2005). From his studies on suicide, Durkheim indicated that economic dominance in a society promoted crises, which prompted people to commit suicide. Evidently, Durkheim highlighted that anomie resulted from social fragmentation and the failure of authoritative social institutions that had ensured moral discipline in the society (Rawls, 2003). He highlighted that anomie had the potential to disorient the people triggering social fragmentation. Moral discipline played a critical role in structuring solidarity because it ensured proper regulation of individual action (Alexander & Smith, 2005). Whereas Marx believes in alienation resulting from division of labour, Durkheim highlighted that division of labour and economic dominance resulted to social fragmentation and lack of moral discipline, a situation he described as anomie (Rawls, 2003). Conclusion Both Marx and Durkheim focused on describing their perception of the modern society. They dealt with issues such as division of labour, class struggles, and their effects. Karl Marx had the conviction that capitalism gave rise to the division of labour, which triggered different types of alienation. Moreover, Marx described how the ruling class in capitalism exploited the workers, a factor that triggered class struggles. On the other hand, Durkheim described division of labour as a concept that promote social solidarity. He believed that class conflicts were external threats to the society. In his view, economic dominance resulted in a state of anomie. Both of them agree that the division of labour presented negative effects to the individuals and the society. References Alexander, J. C., & Smith, P. D. (2005). The Cambridge companion to Durkheim. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gibbs, J. P. (2003). A Formal Restatement of Durkheims Division of Labor Theory. Sociological Theory, (2). 103. Liu, Y. (2013). Morality, Politics, and Abstract Cosmopolitanism: An Analysis on The Division of Labor in Societs and Durkheims other Writings. Society: Chinese Journal Of Sociology / Shehui, 33(1), 75. Llorente, R. (2006). Analytical Marxism and the Division of Labor. Science & Society, 70(2), 232-251. Rawls, A. (2003). Conflict as a Foundation for Consensus: Contradictions of Industrial Capitalism in Book III of Durkheims Division of Labor. Critical Sociology (Brill Academic Publishers), 29(3), 295. Ryan, M. T. (2014). Division of Labor. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sun, G. (2005). Readings in the Economics of the Division of Labor. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific. Ziyanak, S., & Williams, J. L. (2014). Functionalist perspective on deviance. International Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2), 1-9. doi:10.14687/ijhs.v11i1.2791. Read More