Durkheim: What makes society progressive is the growth of a nation towards the better. What makes a nation powerful and grow is the division of labor. It has been apparent over the centuries of technological growth that within a society the more societal advancements there are, the more division of labor there is within the nation. Durkheim considered the division of labor has a natural law, one that not only was in humans but all organisms. Durkheim felt that although everything should be divided into his or her own labor, it was all for the greater good, the social solidarity. The social solidarity meant that everyone worked separately for the same outcome at the end. He brings in different types of laws to characterize the different types of social solidarities they bring with it. Mechanical and organic solidarity are what he mentions and each one is completely different from one another. Criminal laws and their respective punishments promoted mechanical solidarity, which was a sense of unity that results in individuals engaging in similar work who come from the same backgrounds. Civil laws promote organic solidarity; it is a society that individuals engage in different kinds of works that benefit society as a whole. He explains that nations with a more mechanical viewpoint have less developed societies because the diversity and division of labor is much less, so individuals share similar views of life and so do not bring different thoughts into society. However nations in organic view points have more diverse occupations therefore people rely on each other more, which results in greater benefits to the society. KARL MARX: Marx viewed the increase in specialization leads workers to be less enthusiastic for their work and l... ... middle of paper ... ...bundance of the society. This means that the standard of living is raised even for the most poor. Like Durkheim, Smith felt that it led to an interconnectedness of the laborers and society overall. However unlike Durkheim that saw the division of labor to be a great thing that is needed in order for a nation to grow, prosper, and be merry. Adam Smith viewed the division more as a negative thing. He understood that with the separation it meant that time was spent more productively but he felt that it lead to a “mental mutilation” of the workers because all the did was the same thing. Because they kept doing the same piece of labor multiple times he sensed that over time the worker would grow tired of it and falter in doing the one job they were placed with. He understood that a person who does well in one task should use their best qualities and stay with that task.
Adam Smith begins his analysis of the market society with a look at the division of labor. He elaborates on the idea that the division of labor is essential for the growth of a civilization. Smith explains how for example, the production of pins can be done more efficiently with the breaking down and deconstruction of
Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land, more tools, etc) which will allow for even more increased efficiency and production. Both thought that this increased production was great. But Marx said that capitalism was only one stage... that every country must go through capitalism, to get that increased production, but that capitalism is unstable. It requires expanding markets and will end up creating a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, with more and more people becoming poor. Because of this instability, he thought that it would eventually collapse.
Sociologist Karl Marx (who worked mostly with macro theories) was always credited with the creation of communism, but the fact is that it was being practiced in many countries such as the Soviet Union with little influence from him. He did have promoting theories about the concept, but none of which were used the way in which he predicted they would be. All the while, many seem to ignore the work and studies he did on capitalism as well. A very important theory he devised on capitalism is one that has been built on by many while others have built theories in opposition. This theory is defining capitalism as a system of economy that is supported by capitalist owning the necessities for the proletariats, or workers, to work with in order to earn the
Smith’s epistemology divides into four categories: assumptions, categories, relationships, and procedures. His assumptions underlie his argument and include: humans are homo economicus, minimal state presence within the economy, and fair competition across economies. Homo economicus describes human thought process as rational, including when making decisions within the economy. Smith believed the rationality came from the pursuance of the greatest accumulation of wealth. The increases in wealth develop from increases in productivity (and not inefficiency) and is what makes a society civilized instead of savage. Smith theorizes that productivity comes from the division of labor, which facilities the “increase[s] of dexterity in every particular workman”, the “saving of time which is commonly lost in passing from of species of work to another”, and “the invention of a great number of machines which facilitate and abridge labour”. Smith’s least optimal work is unskilled, lazy, and with little creativeness. An example Smith uses is pin-making, where before the division of labor one uneducated worker could make no more than twenty pins. With the division, the 18 distinct operations were divided between 10 workmen and together they could make 48,000 pins in a day. However, Smith is not without his critics. David Graeber writes
Marx believed that society was beginning to break away from nature as a source of economical support. In the past, humans had relied heavily on agriculture to support themselves but with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new technology began to replace old farming techniques and created new factory jobs in cities. Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor.[1] He commented that, “ Even the objects of the simplest “ sensuous certainty” are only given him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse.”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process.”[3]
Durkheim was concerned with studying and observing the ways in which society functioned. His work began with the idea of the collective conscious, which are the general emotions and opinions that are shared by a society and which shape likeminded ideas as to how the society will operate (Desfor Edles and Appelrouth 2010:100-01). Durkheim thus suggested that the collective ideas shared by a community are what keeps injustices from continuing or what allows them to remain.
This economic determinism is reflected in Marx’s theory of law. Marx’s theory of law, which has greatly influenced social and jurisprudential thinking throughout the world, may be summarized in three principal assumptions: (1) Law is a product of evolving economic forces; (2) law...
Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim are considered the founding fathers of sociology and both had profound influence on the development of sociology. However, some may say that they differ dearly in their views about society. Although there are differences in outlooks between the two, one thing noticeable is Marx and Durkheim shared the same concern over society and its development. They were both, in particular concerned with the rise of the modern system of division of labour and the evolution of market society taking place in the domain of modern capitalism. Both approached these developments by introducing a theory of their own to shed light on the effects that modern capitalism had on solidarity and on society’s ability to reproduce itself. More so, to understand and solve the problems arose as the societies in which they lived moved from a pre-industrial to an industrial state. For Marx, one of the serious problems arose in this was what he termed alienation. On the other, for Durkheim it was what he called anomie. The purpose of this essay is to examine the underlying differences of these two notions and in hope that it may help us to better understand the different visions of society developed by these two great social thinkers. Firstly, we start off with Marx’s idea of alienation. Secondly, what anomie means to Durkheim. Then a comparison will be done on the two concepts, evaluating the similarities and differences between the two. Lastly, we will finally come to conclude how the concept of alienation differs from the concept of anomie.
Accordingly, Durkheim theorized about two different types of societies, based upon two different types of solidarity. . The first being a “Mechanical Solidarity” (Palumbo et al, 2005) a society based upon collective consciousness, sharing common beliefs, norms and values. Within Mechanical Solidarity, referred to as “traditional” and “small scale” (Sociology Index) individuals experienced a solidarity based upon a strong sense of belonging to their community,
Moving a society forward requires a goal for all to work towards. Philosophers like Smith and Hegel believe that progress in society comes from conflict. While the conflict is not necessarily the primary goal, progress comes from an invisible hand. However, Marx will argue that class conflict should be eliminated to allow for the free development of all. All three try to explain societal progress, the only difference is in execution. So, it must be asked; Is conflict beneficial for progress? Is progress known from experience? Does experience prove that a radical rupture of ideas is needed? Do members of the society need to be aware of the goal, or is an invisible hand present? Each with their own strengths and weakness all three philosophers attempt to answer these questions.
Durkheim sees the role of law and punishment to be important for the solidarity of society as a whole. (Ibid., p81) Here, society has a...
Comparing Marx, Durkhiem, and Weber's Perceptions of the Development of Society from Pre-Modern to Modernity
Of the many well-known theorists of modern political time Adam Smiths writings in The Wealth of Nations had contributed to the Scottish Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. This phase of European history was the rise of science, orientation of problem solving and the concept of the invisible hand and notion of the pin factor by Adam Smith. Adam Smith (1723-1790) had a similar view of human nature as others did, self-interested beings, but that was not his only view. He believed humans became extensions of machines in his most well known theory of Division of labor. In this work, Smith’s view of the state and economic life shapes his ideas of man.
“This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another”
...ch each person is independent with others, forming a complex web of cooperative associations” (Appelrouth A. S.; Edles D. L 2012). In simpler terms, organic solidarity can also be seen as sort of like a basketball team. Each individual on the team differs from one another talent wise, but they all come and form together to play a part and get that win for the good of the whole team. Now, the type of city where organic solidarity would be most prevalent is the modern industrial societies. Durkheim believed that organic solidarity, based on the specialization of tasks, is a characteristic of a large industrial society like New York, or Chicago. The reason being is because within a larger city the division of labor is more spontaneous and free, where in a smaller city people are more likely to engage in all the same work or share some of the same beliefs and ideas.