Marx and Durkheim Compartive Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Final comparative essay...

Description

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society Classical Sociological Theory 3111H

When comparing the theories on the division of labour in society by Marx and Durkheim, there are many aspects that they agree, but also some aspects in which they

1

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

2

disagree. The comparisons between the two theorists mainly focus on the conflict and dysfunction that come along with the division of labour within a capitalist society. This is where most of the comparison is located because the two theorists tend to disagree on whether the conflict and dysfunction is positive or negative to the outcome of a society. Marx argues that conflict is present in the division of labour through material forces and the existing relations within society, class stratification, and dysfunction is located within alienation of the worker. Durkheim locates conflict within the division of labour through individual interest and social interest, social solidarity, and dysfunction through his theory of anomie. Each of these provides very similar examples as to how Marx and Durkheim’s theory compare to one another. Through conflict and dysfunction resulting from the division of labour can Marx and Durkheim’s theories compare, leaving their disagreements at the point where conflict and dysfunction becomes positive or negative to a societies development. This is displayed through conflict present in the division of labour, social solidarity and class stratification, alienation and anomie, and where there disagreements are introduced.

Correspondingly, Marx and Durkheim have few similarities when it comes to their theories on the division of labour in society, but the similarities they do possess begin with the conflict that is present within the division of labour. Beginning with Marx, conflict arises within the division of labour from the mode of production of material life conditions such as social, political and intellectual (Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: p. 3). These already existing productions come into conflict when they are brought to interact with the material forces. When looking at this through the perspective of Marx, identifying that the already existing productions are often the

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

3

workers or labourers of a community, it only makes sense that the material forces are the ruling and owning class. Marx’s theory draws from the higher relations of this production which do not appear before any material conditions, indicating that material conditions, or owning class, comes before any form of production or the working class people. The ruling or owning class often express their beliefs and ideas through the material relations they develop, which causes the conflict to arise from the contradictions of material life. Marx’s theory argues, “t h i sc o n s c i o u s n e s smu s t b ee x p l a i n e dr a t h e rf r o mt he c o n t r a d i c t i o n so fma t e r i a ll i f e ,f r o mt h ee x i s t i n gc o n fli c tbe t we e nt h es o c i a l p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e sa n dt her e l a t i o n so fp r o d u c t i o n ”( Ma r x ,A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:p. 4 . )Fi na l l yt h i se x p l a n a t i o no fc o n fli c tmo s t o f t e na l wa y se xi s t swh e r e v e r t h e r ei ss o c i a lo rma t e r i a ll i f ei nr e l a t i o nt oi t sp r o d u c t i o n .

Byt h es a met o k e n , Du r kh e i m’ se x p l a n a t i o no nho wc o nfli c ti spr e s e n ti nt he d i v i s i o no fl a b o u rs t e msf r om t h ec on fli c to fi n d i v i d u a li n t e r e s t wi t ht h a tofs o c i e t i e s i n t e r e s t . Li k eMa r x , Du r khe i ma r gu e st h a tt h ei nd i vi d ua lbe c o me sc on fli c t e dwh e n b r o u g h ti n t ot h er e a l mo fs o c i e t i e si nt e r e s t b e c a u s ei ti sn e c e s s a r yt oe n f o r c ea n ys o r to f p r o d u c t i o n . I two u l do n l yma kes e n s et h a tt h ed i v i s i o no fl a b o u rwa s“ u n i t e df o rs o mef e w mo me n t st oe x c ha n g ep e r s o na ls e r v i c e s , i tc o u l dn o tg i v er i s et oa n yr e g u l a t i v ea c t i o n” ( Du r kh e i m,Di v i s i o no fLa b o ur :p . 1 3) . Ast h i si nd i c a t e s ,wi t h o utc o nfli c te n f o r c i n ga n y s or to fp r o d u c t i o nf r o mt h ewo r ki n gc l a s s , a n ya c t i onwo ul db ei r r e l e v a n ta n dno t n e c e s s a r yb e c a u s ei td o e sn otp o s s e s sa n yr e g u l a t o r ya c t i on . Du r kh e i m’ sa r g u me n t s e x pa n do nt h eu s eo fr u l e sa n dl a wsi nas o c i e t yi nor d e rt of u n c t i o n , a st he s er ul e sc o me f r o m ar u l i n gc l a s si two u l dc r e a t ec o n fli c ti ft h ewor ki n gc l a s sd on o ta gr e ewi t ht h e s e

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

4

r u l e s . I nt h i ss e n s e , t h i si swh a tDur khe i m wo ul da r g u ee n f o r c e sawe l l r e g u l a t e da n d f un c t i o n i n gs o c i e t y .

Furthermore, Marx and Durkheim can also be noted for agreeing on stratification and solidarity within the division of labour in society. As mentioned before, Marx often focused on the division between the ruling class and the working class, or the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. This divide is known as class stratification, which can relate to what Durkheim calls social solidarity. Class stratification and social solidarity can be compared in the sense that they both provide a system of functions that unite a society. Durkheim argued that solidarity is made up of two kinds, which can relate to class stratification because “t h efir s tb i n dst h ei n di v i d u a ld i r e c t l yt os o c i e t ywi t h o u ta n yi n t e r me d i a r y . I nt h e s e c o n d , h ed e pe n d su po ns o c i e t yb e c a u s eh ed e p e n d su p ont h ep a r t so fwh i c hi ti s c o mp o s e d ”( Du r kh e i m,Di v i s i o nofLa b o u r :p . 7 ) .Th i si n d i c a t e st ha ts o c i a ls o l i d a r i t ya n d c l a s ss t r a t i fic a t i onc a nb ec o mp a r e dt oo nea no t h e ro nt h et e r mst h a tt h eBou r g e oi s i ea r e l i n k e dt os o c i e t ys i mi l a r l yt ot h efir s ta s p e c to fs o c i a ls ol i da r i t ya n dt h ePr o l e t a r i a ta r e l i n k e dt ot h ea s p e c to fs o c i a ls o l i d a r i t yt h a td e p e n d su p o ns o c i e t y . Th i si sb e c a u s et h e b o u r g e o i s i ea r et h er ul i n gc l a s sa n dc a nwo r ki n de pe n d e n t l yo ft h ewo r ki n gc l a s s ,b u tt h e p r o l e t a r i a tde p e n d so nt h ebo u r g e oi s i et opr o v i d et h e m wi t hwo r k , wh i c hp r o v i d e st h e m wi t ht h emo ne yt h e yn e e dt os u r v i v e . Fo rMa r x, h ea r g ue st ha tt h en e e df o rt h i sc l a s s d i v i dewi l lb et h ec a u s ef o rma n yi s s u e st oa r i s eb e c a u s e“ t h ec l a s sr e l a t i o nb e t we e n c i t i z e n sa n ds l a v e si sn o wc o mp l e t e l yd e v e l o p e d ”( Ma r x , Ge r ma nI d e o l o g y :p . 6) . I ti s wi t h i nt h ed i v i d eo ft hec l a s ss t r a t i fic a t i o na n ds o c i a ls o l i d a r i t yt h a tMa r xa n dDu r kh e i m’ s t h e or i e sc a nb ec o mpa r e d .

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

5

The third aspect that Marx and Durkheim can agree on is the exploitation of labour and the worker. For Marx, the exploitation of the worker is found in what he calls the Alienation of the Worker. Marx explains that this causes a dysfunction amongst the capitalist society because workers are providing labour to the owning class outside of their own lives, which then results in alienation from individual and society. Marx identified this as “external labour, labour in which man alienates himself, is a labour of self-sacrifice, of mortification” (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: p.23). Within the division of labour, the workers labour does not belong to them, but to the people they are working for, so their life is not theirs to own and live but it belongs to the owning class. In this sense, Marx argues that the division of labour produces alienation because “if the product of labour is alienation, production itself must be active alienation, the alienation of activity, the activity of alienation” (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: p. 23). Durkheim introduces anomie to his theory of the division of labour through the inability of it to produce social solidarity. When the division of labour does not produce social solidarity it is for the reason that it is not regulated, so when a worker is participating in the division of labour it would put them in a state of no regulation. This state is present when “the relations of the organs are not regulated, because they are in a state of anomy” (Durkehim, Division of Labour: p.12). Anomie separates the person from reality and causes them to become secluded, this placed within the division of labour could cause a form of dysfunction and alter the way a society functions. In all, Marx and Durkheim can be compared through alienation of the worker and anomie that is present within a worker, each of these causing dysfunction.

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

6

Despite the many comparisons between Marx and Durkheim’s theories of the division of labour come many differences. To start, Marx argued that conflict within a society was not a positive aspect to hold, especially when it comes to the division of labour. Durkheim on the other hand, argued that conflict should be seen as necessary, even good for a society because it helps form the function and structures that a society possesses. When it comes to how each of these theorists argues for the division of labour, Durkheim takes a moral stance whereas Marx considers the mode of production and does not support capitalism. Durkheim focuses on how the division of labour can be seen in terms of moral regulation and how all societies are seen as moral. (Durkheim, Division of Labour: p. 10). To finish off with the differences, the most evident is that Durkheim argued for the use of the division of labour in terms of reforming the capitalist society, whereas Marx wanted to abolish capitalism in all.

When it comes to what theory of the division of labour that I find to be the most convincing, I will argue that Durkheim’s theory is the most convincing. Durkheim’s explanation regarding conflict being necessary in every society, especially a capitalist society is something that I find to be very understandable. As I have not experienced anything other than a capitalist society, it is hard for me to see any other way for a society to function as conflict has aided in obtaining certain roles within our society. Furthermore, I also agree with Durkheim’s theory of anomie, causing dysfunction in society because it identifies where the individual becomes disconnected from the function of society due to a heavy enforcement to conform to the norms and values in which society enforces. Finally, within Durkheim’s explanation for organic solidarity, I find it to be important to explain that organic solidarity is only independent when workers need to

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

7

specialize because of competition. This indicates that in a capitalist society, competition, or in other words conflict, is necessary for a high functioning society.

In conclusion, Marx and Durkheim have agreed on aspects within their own theories of the division of labour within society but those are very few. The positions they do agree on are focused around the conflict and dysfunction that arises from the division of labour and how this conflict is either positive or negative for the society. In all, Marx and Durkheim locate these errors and outcomes of the division through material forces of conflict, conflict of individual interest and societal interest, class stratification, social solidarity, alienation of the worker and anomie causing dysfunction.

Marx and Durkheim Comparison With the Division of Labour in Society

8

References Du r kh e i m,E. ( 1 8 9 3 ) . Di v i s i o no fLa b ou r . Th eEl e me n t a r yFo r msoft h eRe l i g i ou sLi f e ,1 1 5 . Re t r i e v e d2 0 1 6. Ma r x , K. ( 1 8 4 4) .Ec o n omi ca n dPh i l o s o p hi c a lMa n u s c r i p t s .Ma r x i s t . o r g , 2 0 2 9 . Re t r i e v e d2 0 1 6 . Ma r x , K. ( 1 8 4 6) .Ge r ma nI d e o l o g y .Ma r x i s t . o r g ,5 1 5 .Re t r i e v e d2 0 1 6. Ma r x , K. ( 1 8 5 9) .ACo n t r i bu t i o nt ot h eCr i t i q u eo fPo l i t i c a lEc o no my .Mar x i s t s . o r g ,3 4 . Re t r i e v e d2 0 1 6 ....