Classical Sociological Theorist Past

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.

Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have.

Along with his study on social facts, he also focused some on the Division of Labor. Many people during this time believed that the social order of things was in danger due to the selfishness of society as a whole. While Marx believed that capitalism was a bad thing and was bringing down society, Durkheim believed that it was a good thing and it pulled society together. As times progressed, so did society. Durkheim began to look at the solidarity of society. He categorized them into two different types mechanical and organic solidarity. . (Ritzer 2004) I believe that Durkheim thought

Adam Smith and Karl Marx are both famous for their philosophies on economics, more specifically the division of labor. For each of them the division of labor is rather similar in its definition, but the outcome of the division of labor differs drastically from Smith to Marx. For Smith the division of labor leads to mass production and allows large amounts of people to get things that were once available only to the rich. Smith believes that small specialized tasks leads to the invention of new technologies, and that individuals working selfishly to better themselves in the capitalistic world is beneficial to everyone. For Marx the division of labor is more about the relationship between the employee and the employer. He believes that

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

Choose any one concept or argument developed within classical sociology. Critically evaluate the use made of this concept or argument by contemporary sociology in trying to understand a current social issue

Sociological theory creates ways to understand the social world by having different theories to explain understand social life. It aids to make sense of this social world. It draws together a wide range of perspectives to help provide the fullest picture. (Macionis & Plummer p.36) It shows that one theory can explain something that another cannot. My aim is to answer this question with reference to both functionalism and conflict theory. This will be done by comparing and contrasting both theories in relation to their perspectives on both suicide and gender discrimination as social issues relevant to this day and age. Functionalism and conflict perspectives are both macro theories. This means that they focus on the big picture, for

illustrate the plight of labour under a system of increasing specialization. That is to say, it

Power-obsessed police called “time keepers", bankers and other elites are oppressing the 99% of people living in poverty to protect the rich and privileged in their extremely content lifestyles. In Time is a movie written and directed by Andrew Niccol. This film is timed in the future, where people have been genetically engineered to stop once they reach twenty-five years old, unless they work to make more time. To live longer in the lower class, they must work and survive, living day to day. The upper class, who don’t live day to day, have centuries to live because of the time zone, or district, they are born in.

After determining what resulted from modernization, Durkheim unlike Marx was interested in reforming not eliminating modern society. In analyzing Durkheim’s theory of modern society, I will begin with the focal point of it, namely solidarity.

The rapid advancement of technology provided the need of a vast array of experts to navigate the new challenges of the digitally linked world; and just like this advancement the enlightenment gave way for the need of early social theorist to navigate the quickly changing and developing aspects of our modern life. The enlightenment set the foundation for ideas which lead to a plethora of revolutions. Early social theorist preoccupied their time attempting to derive new social laws based on this evolving reality as well as have this information be critical and useful. Social theorist were busy mainly critiquing and pursuing solutions for the new issues of political revolutions, Industrialization and urbanization, the rise of capitalism and socialism,

The division of labour ensures that each worker only does one job, and the labour market decides which job any particular worker will do. During labour, the worker uses capital not under his own control. The capital available determines the nature of the work. On top of all this, the worker has no choice but to work, as wages are needed to provide the worker's means to life. Work is seen to be 'not voluntary, but forced' (3). This shows that in a capitalist society, the worker is separated from the decisions of whether or not to work, what the work will be, and what form the work will take. This alienation of labour is the separation of man from his life-activity.

“Neither the life of an Individual nor the history of a Society can be understood without understanding both” (mills, 2017), this is how C. wright mills describes sociology. Every human live in a society, Sociology is the systemic study of human society and relationships on a group level. And also it allows looking on the big picture on a group level. The talks about sociology started when industrial revolution began during late 1700s and 1800s. This essay will give you some information about the founders of Sociology and their theories. August Comte known as the Father of sociology and Herbert Spencer is called the ‘the second father’ of sociology. The third founder is Karl Marx and the last one is Emile Durkheim. These four people found different

The overall argument that Durkheim is making in his book is that the division of labor is a moral good. In order for him to truly answer this would be to prove that the division of labor relates to something good. Durkheim believes that the society leads to the division of labor which will lead to solidarity. If solidarity is achieved then the division of labor is good. Solidarity is the normal state of society and is achieved when everyone works and gets along in unison. There are two types of solidarity, mechanical and organic. Although social solidarity can't be measured directly, according to Durkheim social solidarity can be measured by its different types of laws. Laws are the visible symbol of solidarity, they regulate relationships. Durkheim also saw laws as being an important component of the organism. He stated the laws symbolized the nervous system. The nervous system regulates all the different body functions and laws regulate all of society to ensure that everything works and performs properly.