More handpicked essays just for you.
Discuss the works of Emile Durkheim in society
Impact of industrialization on society
Effects of industrialization on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There was once a time when the societies of the world were nothing more than a ruling class and a class that was ruled. In these feudal societies classes were set. There was little chance for a member of the ruling bourgeoisie class to cross over to the oppressed proletariat class or from the proletariat class to the bourgeoisie class. Every individual within each class had the routine for each day set out for him or her. There was little change in the lives of individuals of these societies. There was monotony in their work and their work did little more for them than keeping them alive. In those societies, in those times, there was scarce chance of bettering oneself. Then there came an era, a time of drastic change. The concept of industrialization …show more content…
Many theorists have tried to explain or simplify the complexities of these societies, among the greatest of them Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. In this short analysis, I will attempt to compare and contrast Marx’s and Durkheim’s theories on the structure of modern society. Firstly, each theorist has a somewhat different view as to what the essential elements of modern society are. For Marx the division of labour and class conflict brought about social stratification, which resulted in alienation. These for Marx were the crucial elements of modern society. With Capitalism and modernity came industrialization and factories and in Capitalism this requires owners and workers. Stratification quickly emerged in this supposed society of equal opportunity. Marx expresses in his writings that class conflict was and is very much alive in every society from before feudal times until present. "...The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms it has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones..." – Social theory, …show more content…
The working class had to sell their services to the Capitalists for feeble wages. With mechanization came mass unemployment, which allowed for much competition among workers for jobs in factories and such. There was also a need for workers to do different types of jobs and to do it as quickly and efficiently as possible. This required specialization. Work was divided by a system in which every man did the job for which he was best suited in order to make a profit for the owners. This Marx termed the division of labour. The division of labour and the specialization that it brought made each individual dependant on the work of every other. It at the same time increased division among the working class as people began to see things in different ways and value different things. This division represents another of Marx’s key elements of modern society namely, alienation. According to Marx competition between workers alienated them for each other. They were also alienated from the means of production because they had no say in it’s running. Workers often remained in this state of oppression, a state in which happiness or even fulfillment was hard to find. After all the inequality in the labour market, (stratification) workers were even alienated from enjoying life or finding personal fulfillment in it! Once again for Marx, the division of labour and conflict between capitalists and workers were crucial problems
Three thinkers form the foundations of modern-day sociological thinking. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Each developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the way societies function, and how we are determined by society. This essay will focus on the contrasts and similarities of Durkheim and Weber’s thought of how we are determined by society. It will then go on to argue that Weber provides us with the best account of modern life.
Division of labor created alienation for the proletarians, this is why Marx suggest abolishing the private property. The lower class stop living for themselves and live to make their owners rich. This is a problem because everyone that does not belong to the upper class suffer economically and mentally. If this pattern does not change then it will continue to be passed generation after generation. “... by the overthrow of the existing state of society by the communist revolution and the abolition of private property which is identical with it, this power, which so baffles the German theoreticians, will be accomplished in the measure in which history becomes transformed into world history” (p.163). Abolishing private property will set the lower class free and bring desire to live once again and thrive. To break this barrier economic power needs to be removed from the hands of privileged
With this in mind, some perspective on the society of that time is vital. During this time the industrial revolution is taking place, a massive movement away from small farms, businesses operated out of homes, small shops on the corner, and so on. Instead, machines are mass-producing products in giant factories, with underpaid workers. No longer do people need to have individual skills. Now, it is only necessary that they can keep the machines going, and do small, repetitive work. The lower working class can no longer live a normal life following their own pursuits, but are lowered to working inhumane hours in these factories. This widens the gap between the upper and lower class-called bourgeois and proletariat-until they are essentially two different worlds. The bourgeois, a tiny portion of the population, has the majority of the wealth while the proletariat, t...
...fitting from modern capitalism as they increase profits through the labour theory of value, while exploiting the proletariats. On the other hand, the proletariats are at danger, as they become alienated through mass production and the labour theory of value does not work in their favour. Durkheim views the specialization of labour to be effective until it is pushed too far, resulting in a state of anomie. The division of labour can be seen as beneficial to society as it allows mass production, increased profits, and creativity and interests to be used among individuals, keeping their human identity. At the same time, the division of labour can be seen as dangerous, as over specialization leads to anomie. Through both Marx and Durkheim, we can conclude that modern capitalism has both its benefits and dangers towards individuals and societies in a capitalist economy.
Much of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto discusses the relationship between how a capitalist society produces its’ goods and how this affects the social structure of the society. Throughout the manifesto, Marx used the term mode of production to refer to how a given society structures its’ economic production, it also refers to how a society produces and with what capital the society produces. Human capital plays a large part in Marx’s communist manifesto, concerning himself with the relations of production, which refers to the relationship between those who own the means of production (bourgeoisie) and those who do not own the fruit of their labor (proletariat). This is where Marx believes that one can find the causes of conflict, asserting history evolves through the mode of production. The constant evolution of the mode of production toward a realization of its’ full potential productivity capacity, creates dissensions between the classes of people, which in capitalism, are defined by the modes of production (owners and workers). Marx believes that one such dissension is that since Capitalism is a mode of production based on private ownership of the means of production, and entities within a capitalistic economy produce property to be exchanged to stay competitive, these entities are forced to drive the wage level for its’ labor as low as possible so as to stay competitive. In turn, the proletariat must create means with which they can keep the interests of the bourgeoisie in check, trying to avoid being exploited to the point of extirpation. Marx holds that this example shows the inherent conflicting nature of the social infrastructure of production, which will in turn give rise to a class struggle culminating in the overthrow ...
Karl Marx lived from 1818-1883 and was alive during the Industrial Revolution which was a time that moved Europeans to cities from rural farming.. Marx observed the economy he lived in and saw the huge flaws with capitalism. Poverty, class conflicts and private property were all flaws of capitalism that Marx thought we could avoid if historical change took place. Capitalism according to Marx is an extremely unsatisfactory government system that gives power to the upper class landowners and keeps the proletariat exploited. The proletariat in a Capitalist society are continually exploited for their labor and don’t receive any of the profits for the item they produced for their firm. Shareholders of the firm end up being the ones who reap the rewards from the company even though they have nothing to do with manufacturing the good expect investing money. Marx insists that society would be better off if working class individuals controlled and owned all of the capital in the economy. In a capitalist society the bourgeoisie make huge amounts of money off the proletariat which is something that can’t last forever. Marx argued that as time passes increasing tensions between classes will surface and end capitalism altogether. Essentially, the lower class will revolt and force the government to abolish the capitalist system by putting in place socialism. Socialism doesn’t support alienated labor or employees as commodities for sale. Alienation of labor occurs in a capitalist society according to Ma...
In Marx’s opinion, the cause of poverty has always been due to the struggle between social classes, with one class keeping its power by suppressing the other classes. He claims the opposing forces of the Industrial Age are the bourgeois and the proletarians. Marx describes the bourgeois as a middle class drunk on power. The bourgeois are the controllers of industrialization, the owners of the factories that abuse their workers and strip all human dignity away from them for pennies. Industry, Marx says, has made the proletariat working class only a tool for increasing the wealth of the bourgeoisie. Because the aim of the bourgeoisie is to increase their trade and wealth, it is necessary to exploit the worker to maximize profit. This, according to Marx, is why the labor of the proletariat continued to steadily increase while the wages of the proletariat continued to steadily decrease.
According to Marx class is determined by property associations not by revenue or status. It is determined by allocation and utilization, which represent the production and power relations of class. Marx’s differentiate one class from another rooted on two criteria: possession of the means of production and control of the labor power of others. The major class groups are the capitalist also known as bourgeoisie and the workers or proletariat. The capitalist own the means of production and purchase the labor power of others. Proletariat is the laboring lower class. They are the ones who sell their own labor power. Class conflict to possess power over the means of production is the powerful force behind social growth.
Marx’s theory of alienation describes the separation of things that naturally belong together. For Marx, alienation is experienced in four forms. These include alienation from ones self, alienation from the work process, alienation from the product and alienation from other people. Workers are alienated from themselves because they are forced to sell their labor for a wage. Workers are alienated from the process because they don’t own the means of production. Workers are alienated from the product because the product of labor belongs to the capitalists. Workers do not own what they produce. Workers are alienated from other people because in a capitalist economy workers see each other as competition for jobs. Thus for Marx, labor is simply a means to an end.
Karl Marx’s article titled Estranged Labor as found in his 1844 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts pays significant attention to the political economic system, which is commonly referred to capitalism. He further delves into nature of the political economy with a keen focus on how it has negatively impacted the worker or laborer. Therefore, the laborer forms the subject of his critical and detailed analysis as tries demonstrates the ill nature of the political economy. To start with Karl Marx portrays how the political economy as presented by its proponents has led to emergence of two distinct classes in society; the class of property owners and on the other hand, the class of property less workers. According to Karl Marx (2004), proponents of the political economy have introduced concepts such as private property and competition indicating without providing any form of analytical explanation but rather just expecting the society to embrace and apply such concepts. In particular, political economists have failed to provide a comprehensive explanation for division that has been established between capital and labor. Estranged Labor clearly depicts Marx’s dissatisfaction as well as disapproval towards the political economy indicating that proponents of such a system want the masses to blindly follow it without any form of intellectual or practical explanation. One area that Karl Marx demonstrates his distaste and disappointment in the article is worker or the laborer and how the worker sinks to not just a commodity but rather a wretched commodity (Marx, 2004). This is critical analysis of Karl Marx concept or phenomenon on the alienation of the worker as predicted in Estranged Labor in several aspects and how these concepts are ...
Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.
Because of the conditions that the wage-workers worked in, Marx described it as exploitation. Marx felt that the wage workers were being exploited. The capitalist, also known as the bourgeoisie, were exploiting the wage workers, the proletariats, because of their cheap labor. They were essentially using them to create and increase their own profit. This in turn brought up alienation. Basically, alienation, also known as estrangement, is when a person is separated from their work, what they produce, themselves, and their environment. Marx’s theory of alienation was used to describe workers laboring under the capitalist society. The workers, also known as wage laborers, were commodities—things that are bought, sold, or exchanged in the market. They were selling their labor which means that they were being alienated from what they were doing.
Marx begins by showing that throughout all of history humans have divided themselves into certain ranks or classes. For example, in the Middle Ages social divisions were “feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, [and] serfs.”[vi] As long as social stratification has existed, one group or groups have been the oppressor while another group or groups have been the oppressed. The fight that exists between the oppressed and the oppressor is destine to end reconstruction of society triggered by revoluti...
The first theorist to consider is Karl Marx. Marx has a uniqueness all of his own. His attention was normally directed towards capitalism in society. He studied the basis of inequality under capitalism. (Ritzer, 2004) When you look into Marx’s work on the dialectical method you can see one of the differences between his studies and Durkheim and Weber. It says, “ The dialectical thinker believes that it is not only impossible to keep values out of the study of the social world but also undesirable because to do so would produce a dispassionate, inhumane sociology that has little to offer to people in search of answers to the problems they confront.” (Ritzer, pg 46) I believe this is showing the depth of Marx because he is basically telling us that without your values when you study sociology you lose the passion of it.
The Sociological Contribution of Karl Marx to an Understanding of Contemporary Society. This essay will discuss how the Karl Marx contributed his knowledge to the understanding of contemporary society. Karl Marx is often referred to. as the ‘intellectual father of modern day Marxist economics’.