Definition Of Division Of Labor By 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.

Smith writes in his “Wealth of Nations” that the division of labour betters society. Things can be produced more quickly by a greater number of labourers specializing in a single skill than by a single worker attempting various tasks. This one worker may not be completely apt at all the components to complete the entire desired product. A larger number of workers that can each be well adapted for a certain part of the whole product would be much more

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was a French sociologist who strongly influenced the discipline of sociology. It was apparent to Durkheim that since the French Revolution, the nation had been wracked by conflict and moral crisis (Stones, 2008). At the individual level, rising suicide rates reflected a growing sense of malaise. Durkheim’s goal was to develop a sociology that would help France overcome this continuing moral crisis. By tracing the influences on Durkheim to his predecessor August Comte and the German scholars of experimental psychology, it is possible to understand how Durkheim came to the conclusion that society is greater than the individual, and how his idea of a collective

Emile Durkheim, was a French sociologist. His theories and writings helped establish the foundations of modern sociology. Durkheim disagreed with most social theorists of the late 1800 's because they thought that individual psychology was the basis of sociology. Durkheim regarded sociology as the study of the society that surrounds and influences the individual. Durkheim explained his theories in his book The Rules of Sociological Method (1895). He says there is relationship between moral values and religious beliefs, which establishes unity in society.Emile Durkheim has long been viewed as one of the founders of the so called variables oriented approach to sociological investigation. Durkheim developed the theory that societies are bound together by two sources of unity. He called these sources mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity refers to similarities that many people in the society share, such as values and religious beliefs. Organic solidarity results from the division of labor into specialized jobs. Durkheim believed that the division of labor makes people depend on one another and thus helps create unity in a society. Durkheim studied thousands of cases of suicide to demonstrate his theory that a person commits suicide because of the

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

For Durkheim, the problem concerning modernity emerged from the move to an industrial society wherein the division of labour (increasing specialisation of occupations) led to a decrease in mechanical solidarity (social cohesion based on similarities between members of pre-industrial societies); resulting in the breakdown of the influence of social norms on individuals within a

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

2. Durkheim: What term does Durkheim associate with social solidarity? How do societies achieve it organically and mechanically? What did he think threatened social solidarity?

As organic solidarity is typical of complex, industrialised societies, Durkheim’s theory is very applicable to modern life and the first world in particular. Individuality is a major feature of people living in the western world today e.g. the USA, UK, and Ireland. This is evident in our political and social thinking. Much emphasis is placed on personal rights and the belief that nothing is more important than us. (Hughes et al, 1995) Meanwhile we are not self-sufficient; we rely heavily on the expertise of thousands globally to live our daily lives e.g. the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive etc. (Macionis and Plummer, 2005)

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

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.

According to French sociologist Emile Durkheim in “The Division of Labor in Society” (1893), social cohesion is challenging to define or measure. Nonetheless, he came up with two significant factors to social cohesion, which are shared loyalties and solidarity (Fenger, 2012). He deduced that solidarity in society comes in two forms – mechanical solidarity which is the traditional regularity of combined values and beliefs and organic solidarity which is the outcome of relationships between individuals who can work together while developing an independent and even critical character with respect to tradition. Bollen and Hoyle (1990) states that the concept of perceived cohesion is essential to the theoretical understanding of social cohesion.

Smith’s perspective of division of labor signifies that in order to raise productivity one should specialize in one specific area; it results in one mastering it and saves time in making goods. For example, if an employee produces a good from start to finish, it is not cost-effective and time-consuming. Dividing the work into different parts for a group of individual’s results in a gain in wealth and productivity. By increasing productivity, the division of labor also increases the opulence of a certain society. The division of labor is not a result of mistake or order by an authority, but by human nature.

The Wealth of Nations written by Adam Smith, father of the economics, stated that the division of labor, different tasks assigned to each individual in order to improve proficiency, has resulted in the greatest improvement in the industry. Although division of labor can be seen in most industries, the system are more noticeable and often work better in larger corporations. For example, “One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head… (pg.11). In this excerpt, each individual might be able to make one pin by themselves, however, if ten individual divide up the labor, they can produce up to thousand pins per day. Another excerpt, “In every improved society, the farmer is generally a farer; the manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer...” (pg.12), however, display a disadvantage view on division of labor. While the division of labor are good for industries like the pin industry, the farmers whose tasks of plowing the field and reaping the harvest can not be divided because they are seasonal in nature. Also, the agricultural labor can not be more productive with the division of labor. For example, corn in the undeveloped countries is similar in price as the ones in the developed countries, although manufactured goods are much cheaper in the latter. In addition, there are three main factors contributing to the success of the division of labor. One, each individual spend considerable amount

Both Marx and Durkheim share the idea that the division of labour is what caused societal change. The division of labour is when individuals specialise in specific roles. It creates societal roles - the capitalists, who hire workers and buy their labour, and the labourers, who sell their labour as a commodity. Labourers sell their labour as a commodity “in order to secure the necessary means of subsistence.” (Marx, 1978, p. 204) He is required to spend his wages in order for him to live. This concept of labour as a commodity is crucial in order for the working class men to survive. An increase of the working class would result in an increase in capitalists who employ, and exploit, workers, leading to rapid economic growth.