Division Of Labour, By Theorist Emile Durkheim

Decent Essays
Division of labour is assigning different tasks and jobs to various people, in effort to complete one big task more efficiently. Theorist Emile Durkheim argues that division of labour is beneficial to society. In his defence, he claims that division of labour is favourable in a society because it raises the skill of each worker, and creates a union between workers within the division. Durkheim also argues that division of labour helps create order within society. On the other hand, theorist Karl Marx heavily argues that division of labour is non beneficial to society because it creates differences within social classes and takes away from the unity of society. Contrary to Durkheim, Marx believes there would be conflict rather than cohesion …show more content…
Marx believed that a man defines himself in the work he produces, and the division of labour puts man in competition with his fellow man, causing issues within the society. Marx argues that in a communist regime, all members work for the state, and the state takes care of its members equally. In essence, Marx argues that all men are equal and should be given equal opportunity. With that being said, Marx is strongly against division of labour. Marx challenges that division of labour strips people from their lives and could cause a potential breakdown in society. “The division of labor pits man against his fellow man; it creates class differences; it destroys the unity of the human race. Marx had an almost theolog­ical concern with the unity of mankind, and his hostility to the division of labor was therefore total” (North, Gary. "Marx 's View of the Division of Labor." FEE Freeman Article.). Marx claimed that division of labour would cause too many issues within a society and further alienate people from their work, and other individuals. In addition to workers being stripped of their individual self and becoming alienated from the world, Marx argues that division of labour formes less skilled workers and unhappier workers. Since the workers continue to do the same work, they become alienated from production, they live repetitive lives, and become unhappy. Also, …show more content…
Durkheim says that since each does their part, they have a sense of fulfilment, they find societal solidarity, and they avoid alienation because each member depends on another to be efficient. “The concept of solidarity explains social differentiation or the division of labour in society. It makes individuals interdependent and effects social integration among them” (Sociological Significance of the Durkheim’s Division of Labour). In essence, Marx argues that through division of labour, people become alienated, unfulfilled, and unhappy. Marx discusses how division of labour created competition between man, further alienating them away from fellow man. The division of labour caused a big split rather than creating a unification of the workers in the divisions. Whereas Durkheim argues that individuals find social solidarity, social integration of each member, and balance. The workers each do their part, and each part together helps the organization reach their ultimate goal. Since the workers have been divided into their respectful divisions, they create solidarity within their division and find fulfillment upon the completion of their task. Marx and Durkheim don’t seem to see eye to eye, and rather find the exact opposite conclusions within the division of

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Labourers are alienated from craftsmanship through factory work, and thus lack in pure self-sufficiency. This alienation means the need to understand and indulge in their own humanity will advance a revolution. The material and corrupt world…

    • 1148 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rather than increasing the freedom of workers, he believes that machines merely present opportunity for further exploitation of labor, first by distancing workers from the means of production, and second by increasing the amount of surplus value that can be extracted from labor. He explains that “the division of labour in the workshop implies concentration of the means of production in the hands of one capitalist.” (Marx 395) that this division of labor “implies the undisputed authority of the capitalist over men, that are but parts of a mechanism that belongs to him.” (Marx 395) Whenever there is division of labor, it is impossible for a worker to work independently, he becomes reliant on the capitalist. It is now impossible for him to own his labor, and therefore impossible for him to have ownership over himself. Machinery intensifies the dependence of workers on capitalists. Only a capitalist can afford the necessary machinery, and therefore the workers are completely dependent on that…

    • 2003 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    To Marx, alienation, the estrangement or separation of people from their essence as human beings, was a sin of capitalism. In fact, it was the central concept in his analysis of capitalism and it’s faults. And according to Marx, it was a product of a stratified class system. But more than that, Marx thought that the idea of the individual itself was unimportant. He argued that production forces people to exchange good and services, not individuals.…

    • 1095 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The worker in our current economy is not indispensable; they can be without a serious thought laid-off or fired from a company without any reason why in most states in the United States. This system ultimately favors the capitalist and extremely disregards the workers. Marx states, “If the worker’s activity is a torment to him, to another it must give satisfaction and pleasure. Not the gods, not nature, but only man himself can be this alien power over man” (Marx, 7). Marx states that man is coerced into labor, later in his discourse he adds that his labor activities are done in a service under the power and force of another man (Marx, 7).…

    • 1064 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    By Marx’s definition all jobs are alienating. He talks about both the alienation of the proletariat and briefly goes into the alienation of the bourgeoisie. He does say though that both are alienated and I believe that in some respect all jobs are alienated. As Marx explains really in depth, there is an alienation of a factory worker, as I explained there is alienation to the retail worker and these aspects can relate to all jobs. With the bourgeoisie whether they deal with guilt for the matter in which they alienate this people or not, it must continue in order to achieve their goal of maximum profit and ultimately leading to their alienation as…

    • 1064 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    And all the economic systems have produced social classes, which are divided from top to bottom. Karl Marx believed that such this change is resulted from struggles between dialectical opponents. And those struggles appeared as many different types of form such as war, revolution and democratic reform. Those struggles, in fact, are derived from workers and capitalists; capitalists usually have problems, dealing with workers because the workers tend to be not interested in their jobs. Globalization, a social transformation that provides cheapest labor and resources for capitalists in order to minimize their costs, seemed emerging as a good strategy for capitalists.…

    • 736 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The division of labor has been a main way to organize society due to the the economic dependency that society has forced onto people in order to justify the status of the elite class. The foundation of economic structures functions to secure and maintain the structure of domination, because of it’s ability to subject a certain population, in this case poor people of color, in order to develop the country through forced cheap labor. Smith idolizes the breakup of labor, because it relates to the notion of people not having the potential to full power, and therefore become reliant on economic structures for their survival. Smith highlights the division of labor as a way to get workers to perfect their one task, in order to increase and expedite mechanisms of production in order to achieve “universal opulence” ( Smith 1776: 2012:59), which enforces the objectification of workers, whereas humans are no longer viewed as a necessity to the functions of society. Rather, workers are solely recognized for their labor as it is valued and exploited for the economic structures to thrive.…

    • 1112 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Durkheim suggests that the education system and professional associations can help to reinforce social solidarity amongst people in industrial societies. In Marx's early work he saw Alienation act as a moral criticism of capitalism. Marx believed that the solution to this problem was to abolish the notion of capitalism and replace it with socialism. Whilst Durkheim believed that capitalism challenges the ethical structure necessary for human life, and threatens to isolate individuals…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Marx wrote that private property is greed, a division of labor, and land ownership in a capitalist society that created competition among men and alienates working class people because the laborer works hard to dehumanize him as the landowner gains everything and the laborer gains nothing (Marx, Karl (1994-03-15). Marx: Selected Writings (Hackett Classics) Alienated Labor, pg.59). The price of the commodity of labor was equal to the cost of production as the hours of work increased, the wages decreased (Marx, Karl (1994-03-15). Marx: Selected Writings (Hackett Classics) Private Property, and Communism, pg164) Private property grasp forms of possessions as a means for living the life it serves for is the life of private property, labor, and capitalization…

    • 1870 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What this means is that the capitalist mode of production may have empowered the individual because the capitalists had isolated them to produce their commodities, however the contradiction is that it resulted in chaos among the producers thus society failed to obtain any anarchy of production (299). As Engels argues, the driving force of the social anarchy of production transformed many men into proletarians and this driving force gave rise to the individual capitalist’s goal of perfection of large-scale industry (299). However it is this pursue of perfection that would render the individual labourer unnecessary in the capitalist mode of production. Thus here lies the link to the fundamental contradiction in capitalism. Furthermore, another contradiction that arises from the fundamental contradiction is that the chaos created in social structures is due to the rebellion of the mode of production on the mode of exchange.…

    • 1201 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics