Assembly Line Olympics of History

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

Division of labour is also credited with the rise of trade between different areas, the rise of capitalism, and increasingly complex manufacturing and industrialization. For Karl Marx, the production portion of Capitalism signalled great trouble. He believed production in Capitalist society worked in a way that the rich factory owner benefited and the poor factory workers lost. In his manner of reasoning, the Capitalist system was inherently meant to benefit the rich and exploit the poor: “All the bourgeois economists are aware of is that production can be carried on better under the modern police than on the principle of might makes right. They forget only that this principle is also a legal relation, and that the right of the stronger prevails in their ‘constitutional republics’ as well, only in another form.”[ii] Marx’s view of society and the world lead him to believe that humans create change in their lives and in their environment through practical activity in the practical world.

Social classes and hierarchies, especially patriarchy, is another common pattern in ancient civilizations. Social classes first began in Mesopotamia and Egypt when farmers who had surpluses got wealthier and more powerful then other people. As cities developed into a more urban society, social hierarchies began to appear. Mesopotamia and Egypt both had similar hierarchies. The ruling class was at the top, this consisted of royal families and wealthy landowners. Below the ruling class were merchants and craftsmen, and below them were slaves and day laborers. Patriarchy is another common pattern in these two civilizations. As societies became more urban, men became more dominant over women in all areas of society. The patriarchy in Mesopotamia and Egypt was mild at first compared to other societies, but still drastically affected a woman’s life. In Mesopotamia, females held high positions in the ruling class as priestesses, queen consorts, and even queens. A woman could only become queen though through family extensions. In Egypt, women in the ruling class also held high positions in society and were considered equal to their male counterparts. This patriarchal society is best seen in the Code of Hammurabi, law 142 states “If a women hates her husband so much that she says “You may not

In addition to sharing their monarchy form of government, they also shared a similar social hierarchy. The social classes began with the king, his nobles, his generals, and the scribes. Followed by merchants, artisans, poets, philosophers, and musicians. Lastly, the farmers and the slaves were at the bottom of the social totem

As the famous rap group Mobb Deep once said, “Cash rules everything around me cream, get the money. Dollar dollar bill yalllll”, they weren’t lying. If one that gets things done is money, and in order to get money these corporation use the strategic ideology of division of labor to get their products going. Division of labor is a practice that every corporation does with its workers. It narrows specialization of tasks within a production process so that each worker can become a specialist in doing one thing. Especially on an assembly line. In traditional industries, division of labor is a major motive force for economic-growth. With this practice products get finished quicker and sold quicker as well, which brings in the money flowing hence why it’s an important practice and its everywhere. At restaurants, we have waiters/servers, host, cooks, managers, food runners, and busser, this gets people seated faster, attended to quicker, and food cooked in a timely manner (most times). I believe without this a lot of places would in fact be a mess without, just like Emile Durkheim. She believes that division of labor is beneficial to our society and I mostly agree with her statement. Karl Marx also finds Division of Labor necessary to have multiple number of workers under one capitalist. As for Adam Smith, his main focus is growth. Smith believes that growth is rooted in the practice of division of labor. Each of these people agree that division of labor is a necessity in our

It is evident that there are many subjects and controversies that one could choose to discuss, but the conversation of who actually put forth more work than the other is pretty significant. Many people believe that it was the Robber Barons that did all of the work in the businesses that made them what they were, but this essay is here for your sake to hopefully help those who believe this that not only was is the laborer that did all the work, but they created the very essence of what business and working conditioner should look like. The business laborers of the 19th century were put through hell to try to please the man that controlled the entire company; there were many unfair working conditions that workers faced, and many children whose school education was put

Rome was a highly hierarchical and class-conscious society; yet, since its power extended for centuries, the distinction between different classes varied in time. In the Roman kingdom and the early Roman Republic, the most important division in Roman society was between the Patricians and the Plebeians. The struggle for power between these two classes resulted in the development of the Roman system of government (McManus, 1997).

In Rome, the Patricians, the wealthy elite, sat at the top of the pyramid. They are followed by the Senators, as mentioned before had political power, but under the supervision of the consuls. The Equestrian class or equites were determined on a man could maintain a steady income. The freeborn Roman citizens or the Plebians sat below the equites. The last tier on the pyramid were slaves and soldiers. The Romans practiced both Judaism and Christianity. The women of both countries had no power of any kind nor were they considered citizens, so they were not allowed to run for office or serve in the military. Instead, they carried out the traditional family lifestyle of cooking, cleaning, and caring for the children (Cartwright, 2016).

Society is and ranking were and still are all over the world. Some examples of these ranking system are The Western Roman Empire, The Persians, and even the Mayans. The Romans had Hierarchies, and different ranks of people. The four groups include ancestors, census rank, attainment of honor, and citizen ship. That fundamentally says that a person can be born into a rank, or earn their way up and or becoming a citizen. The Persians differed from this. To have an excellent society, they thought a monarchy would be the correct choice.

In comparing and contrasting the societies of Periclean Athens and ancient Egypt, we must first mention some of the characteristics of an actual society: a society has a stable food supply, social levels and classes, specialization of labor, a system of government, and a highly developed culture. Both the societies of ancient Athens and Egypt fit into these parameters. In this essay we will explore social classes, gender relations, social inequality, and hierarchy as they apply to these societies.

Rome and Persia had a “warrior status” based class system during their rise. However, they had a very different system during their fall. A military leader was held very high up in society in Persia, however the priest were held even higher. The ways that a soldier or a noble would move up the social ladder would be if they achieved outstanding military service. An example of this would be if a general

Ancient Egypt was a classified as a hierarchy. In ancient Egypt a hierarchy meant that people and groups were ranked according to status. Pharaoh’s and the royal family were first class. The second class was the aristocrats

The Olympic Games have been going on for centuries. In the past, they had fewer sports than they do today. In the early years of the Olympics only men were able to participate. One important game was the horse races. In the article " A Day at the Races in the Old Olympic Way", explains that horse races were held on a wide, open, flat space. The Chariot races were 12 laps, which is the same distance as nine miles. the Hippodrome horse races lasted six laps, which is about 4.5 miles. Horse races were the most common back then. Women who were married weren't able to attend the games. Just like today, many things were not cheap. People who attended in the games and Olympic horse races, were very wealthy people. They would have to pay expenses

The Patricians, Plebeians, Consuls, Quaestors, Praetors, and Tribunes are a few of the social classes that make up Rome. The Roman division of social classes primarily dealt with those of social power; and of others with lack of political power. Among all of the social classes, that were a part of Rome, the Patricians and the Plebeians had the most differences. The patricians were a part of “The Roman hereditary aristocracy, who held the most political power in the republic” (McKay et al., 2014, p.130). The Patricians were at the top of the hierocracy.

What are the reasons that hierarchies emerge in organizations? What about the roles and the nature of this emergence? Does this aid in structuring these organizations/work areas? In this essay, I will be relating the description of activities that take place in an early industrial pin factory from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations to the organizing and structuring of work. The relation will be described done by examining the division and specialization of labour, requirements that lead to the need for coordination, Horizontal and Vertical Differentiation required for coordination and how structure/hierarchy arises and if it is in fact needed.