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
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