Karl Marx And Marx's View On The Division Of Labor

1653 Words4 Pages

Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim all offered differing perspectives on the division of labor. Marx claims that the division of labor is motivated by the market. Weber claims that it developed through the industrious essence of the Protestant ethic. Durkheim claims it developed due to an increase in dynamic density. Each theorist argues that the division of labor impacts society using differing methods. The challenge is the management of attaching different values without causation of detriment to the system. All of the theorists explain how differing values inherently offer intrinsic values to individuals within the division of labor. The division of labor is the cause of evolving societies because it influences individualism and perpetuates …show more content…

Durkheim was desperate to understand what kept the world together and how people socialize within this realm. Durkheim expressed that social facts, “consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him” (pg. 205). These social facts work as a set of beliefs, values, or practices that work to constrain individuals. However, the division of labor keeps those values in check. Similar to a moral rule. For Durkheim, the division of labor was no just economic. The division of labor is detailed in every aspect of life as it is universally …show more content…

He explains that civilization does not inherently exist. Instead, it is exists because of human involvement. Durkheim explains that social solidarity cannot be measured because of its morality per say, therefore it is measured through law. He uses two different types of law to determine solidarity. The first, punitive law, Durkheim explains, “…are said to be preside sanctions, such as those laid down in the penal code” (pg. 224). The primary function of this law is to uphold the law of the ruler. For example, the perpetrator may lose liberty, civil rights, fiscal power, or even their life if determined necessary. The consequences work to hope ensure that the perpetrator won’t diffuse solidarity going forward due to the suffering that they have experienced. The second, restorative law, Durkheim explains, “…merely consist in restoring the previous state of affairs, re-establishing relationships that have been disturbed from their normal form” (pg. 224). Restorative law looks to restore the status quo as opposed to harming the perpetrator

Open Document