Comparison Between Karl Marx And Emile Durkheim

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.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) were sociologists who both existed throughout similar time periods of the 19th and early 20th centuries, resulting in both Marx, and Durkheim to be concerned about similar effects and impacts among society (Appelrouth and Edles: 20, 77). Marx’s main focus was on class distinctions among the bourgeoisie and proletariat, forces and relations of production, capital, surplus value, alienation, labour theory of value, exploitation and class consciousness (Appelrouth and Edles: 20). Whereas Durkheim’s main focus was on social facts, social solidarity – mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, anomie, collective conscience, ritual, symbol, and collective representations

For Marx inequality is derived from the unfair exploitation of one group by another, in this instance the bourgeois class exploiting the proletariat. The workers are subject to the terms of the employer to earn a wage to upkeep their subsistence because they do not own their own means of production. (_)The employers use this to their advantage to earn extra labour.(_) Structural imbalance is inherent to a capitalist system as the bourgeoisie are poised in a position of power whilst the proletariat at weak and subject to unfair condition (GI192) is unjust and unfair. The conflicting interest between these groups create a class antagonism. Marx warns that societal inequality will create further create conflict between classes, potentially leading to social change or revolution(GI p.184). For Durkheim inequality isn't necessarily a problem. Unlike Marx, who believes that problems arise by internal contradictions, Durkheim thinks that problems are caused by internal dysfunction within the system and that they can be resolved. Inequality is a natural within the functions of an advanced capitalist society. The division of labour separates people in society according to their merit and through merit individuals can be rewarded for their work.(_)Moral regulation and economic regulation are both crucial in maintaining organic solidarity so that people can understand that there is a justifiable and moral reason for their differences within

I, Charlotte Perkins-Gilman come to illuminate you all and show you the other side of Marx and Durkheim’s gender based theories. First off, I’m pretty sure those two men did not explain to you their differences among each other. Men are always thinking of themselves and forget the task at hand; anyways I will tell you about their comparisons.

In their respective great writings, both Karl Marx and Frederic Nietzsche present views of ideal individuals who will bring society to a great progress. However, this is where their similarities of ideas end.

With the philosopher’s we have learned about – many of them are repetitious with what they want done and how they go about doing it. The two that I’m concentrating on have many things in common and some things that are different. Marx and Durkheim are two different people with almost the same mindset.

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

First, Durkheim believes that society is already there rather than us creating it. In “The Giver” we see how the elders’ go against the ideology since they are the ones who try to control and regulate their society, in other words they are creating it. Second, Durkheim also believes the crime is a part of society and plays a significant role since it forms solidarity amongst people in the society.etc. In the film, we see that the elders’ do everything possible in order to prevent any crime from occurring. Durkheim also is on the non-rational spectrum where he is concerned about feelings instead of goal-orientation. In the film, the elders’ are unconcerned about feelings, and even take emotions away, in order to maintain their social order which is their main goal. On the other hand, Marx believes that there are two types of people in the world; the owners and the worker, whom are hostile towards each other. In the beginning of the film, they mention how they took away certain divisions such as fame, popularity, etc. so that people will not become envious. This shows that they understand the division of groups can cause conflict which correlates with Marx

Due to the rise of capitalism, people’s working lives have changed drastically in the developed world. Two theorists, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx both have views and theories that can describe people in the working world today. Durkheim is pro capitalism, believing that social solidarity is necessary to maintain social order, while Karl Marx is very structural and believes that capitalism will lead to a revolution among society. Durkheim’s anomie theory and Marx’s concept of alienation both have developed with modernity, however differ greatly. Emile Durkheim believes that each person holds a place in this world that is based on society’s moral values, however certain social forces (like capitalism for example) disintegrate the morality of society as a whole.

Marx, Durkheim, and Weber lived during an era now more than a century in the past. The modern western world of today—“late” (or “post-”) modernity as it is sometimes called—is significantly different from the modern western world they wrote about. The times have changed, certainly. But they haven’t changed completely, and in some fundamental ways they haven’t changed much at all. While we might be tempted to dismiss Marx, Durkheim, and Weber as dead white European males, many of the problems they grappled with are still with us today, and their ideas as well continue to possess a great deal of

Durkheim found himself to be fairly similar to Marx because “he also was active in politics, oftentimes finding himself in the minority as a socialist sympathizer(Social theory rewired,2016) As like Marx, you can see Durkeims teachings now unfold in present day. An example of this would be “in the rules of sociological Method,Durkeim shows how crime is actually normal in society because without it, we would have no sense of what is morally acceptable.” (Social theory rewired,2016)Even though Marx and Durkeim were eerily alike There was one part where they weren’t alike. Marx always had his sails set for commotion and conflict while Durkheim would ask us to “think of social solidarity and stability as something special to be explained, not as a default or taken-for-granted experience.” (Social theory rewired,2016) Durkeim talked about how “society is more than the sum of the individuals that comprise it; it includes social relationships, social patterns, and forms of social government.”(Dillon,2010, pg.81) This means that Durkeim was trying to state that, society has its own

Durkheim did not fetishize the economy in the way that Marx seemed to, who theorized it as a fundamental foundation of society, instead believing it to have no privileged position in the social system. Rather, he looked at the economy as being just one of many forces exerting its influence upon individuals and society. The economy is not the only structure exerting those influences; ideological factors also come into play such as religion, education, and culture which can also be highly determinant of social conditions.

Everyone sees the world in diverse ways. Sociological theorists, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Webber, and Georg Simmel all had their own had viewing society and breaking down what made societies whole. Durkheim linked the external needs of a person and pleasing the needs and wants of society. Marx’s research pointed that societal differences between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or the difference between the workers and the capitalists. Each theorist played a part in the building of sociology and the way we all see societies now.

Durkheim and Marx ideas of law are completely different. For one, I understand as a citizen of this country that law is comprise with all aspects of our social life. The legal system is intertwined with the ideas, aims, purposes, and actions of society. It’s all about social control and social change, by setting out rules for society whether is positive or negative. The law has been in our nation developments for centuries, for the fear social chaos. That is the general thinking of law for any country but Durkheim and Marx go more in depth of who control laws and what is really comprise of.

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber both appealed to me in the reading of chapter 1. They both have similarities and differences on their approaches to sociology. While reading the background of Emile, I found it fascinating how he studied sociology in a way that he put together the individual dimensions and added them together to better understand a society or social group. The case of suicide rates and religion. This one case can be analyzed through other elements, such as careers. For instance, the type of profession can be studied. I am really into statistics and like to break down information. The way he broke down the information to analyze a society or social groups interested me. Max Weber, I chose to write about because I felt he had a