Division Of Labour During The Industrial Revolution

Many children did not have a chance to learn. Instead of learning at a school they were working hard in the mills and mines with the men and boys. Some were beaten in the mills. They really did not have much freedom at all. The only school they knew was Sunday school. Some were taught how to pray. Some of the children did not enjoy working in the mills and mines because the work was very hard. They often spoke about their experiences working in the Mills and the mines.

When the French Third Estate stormed the Bastille in 1789, they envisioned a country in which they were no longer trodden upon by the First and Second Estates. They envisioned a nation where they had a major voice in politics and had a prominent role in the economy. By successfully overthrowing the French government and installing their own, they succeeded; albeit for only a short time. Little did they know that within a few decades, the same social hierarchy would be reinstalled during the Industrial Revolution, except the lower classes would be fighting for sanitation instead of bread. Over the course of the nineteenth century, various arguments emerged of how to improve the lives of European workers during the Industrial Revolution. Arguments

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.

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

The Industrial Revolution was a revolution in every sense of the word, as it altered almost every aspect of live in the nineteenth century including technology, government, communication, environment and eventually society as a whole.1 Although industrialisation created many positives for modern society, for people in Britain up to the end of the nineteenth century it had many significantly negative consequences. With the long term advances made for society came the then current development of overcrowding cities abundant with pollution, health problems and poor living conditions for the working class. These poor conditions continued into the work place with young children exploited as workers as young as the age of four or five.2 There were consequences of the Industrial Revolution for people outside of the core of Britain. India, being the periphery in the model were exploited for their raw materials which were exported to Britain.

The Industrial revolution started in Britain around 1750 and by 1850 it will make Great Britain the wealthiest country in the world. The revolution also spread to other European countries and the New World. Both Germany and United States will surpass Britain in the next fifty years. What was the effect of The Industrial Revolution on the working class?

As a cause and as a symptom of social hierarchies, division of labor is an integral part of the structuring of society. Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim both give very different interpretations to the effects causing, evolving, and caused by this division of labor. On one hand, Marx typically vilifies the process, finding it in large part responsible for the oppression of one group by another. On the other hand, Durkheim treats it as a unifying social force, one necessarily maintained for the betterment of all. With such contrasting viewpoints, it is difficult to decide whether this process is necessarily good or bad. In effect, the argument is how far must individual needs be sacrificed for the benefit of society, or how much society must be

The Labor Movement was necessary to protect the common interest of workers. The state of working environments during the Industrial Revolution produced a mandate for this movement. The Industrial Revolution served as a turning point for all western nations because of the influx of businesses and factories. America generally benefited from the revolution; however, it was at the expense of the workers. Industries were only interested in profit so workers were generally underpaid, worked long hours, and in unsafe conditions. Working conditions during the revolution were generally dreadful. And since there were copious amounts of people willing to work for any compensation, employers could set wages as low as they wanted. Labor unions arose because there were many who disagreed with how big businesses ran. A prime objective of labor unions is to make sure its members are paid fairly. Labor activists believe that employees and the company share its successes and that they should be rewarded for its productivity. Labor unions want to improve working conditions for their members. They demand reasonable working days along with safe working environments. Also, labor unions provide more than just job security and safety services. These services include provision of education and training to inform union members of their employment rights and to improve their basic skills. Labor unions are a group of employees who organize to provide a balance in negotiations between management and the

Where Marx saw the modern industrial world as a necessary step to freedom, Durkheim saw it as a development with specific social phenomenon which he refers to as “social facts” that needed to be studied scientifically as explained in The Division of Labor in Society. These social facts were outside the individual and were capable of exercising power over the individual and influencing behaviour.

Capitalism started up as a system of investing and sharing money in order to increase the value of resources in the future. Capitalism was just an economic system, but then soon turned into a complex system of ethical practices. Harari defines capitalism as, “a set of teachings about how people should behave, educate their children and even think” (Harari 314). This economic system evolved along with the people that were endorsing it. Capitalism enables the rich to get richer, while the poor continue to get poorer. There are many benefits to capitalism, but there are downfalls as well, and these downfalls tend to be masked because of the rapid speed capitalists grow at. Harari first presents a definition for capitalism, and soon goes into great detail on why capitalism, while fast paced and unforgiving, is able to stand unwavered while other productions fail.

The essay will begin by providing a brief introduction into the two perspectives of Functionalism and Marxism, focusing on the theories of the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim and the German philosopher Karl Marx. Then it will give a brief discussion showing the transformation that took place from feudalism to capitalism, providing the reader with an insight into the dramatic change that took place during a time of revolution and revolt. Finally the essay will compare and contrast Marx’s idea of class and class conflict with Durkheim’s theory on the Division of labour.

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.

Tremendous economic and technological growth marked by the industrial revolution that was beginning to take shape at in the 19th century. With this change also brought a process of greater specialization in the workforce, also known as the division of labor. Both Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, under this context of burgeoning market economy, sought to understand modern society and the underlying relations that lead to their formation and progress. In this essay, I will argue that while both Marx and Durkheim acknowledge the role of economic growth as a main driver of human society in their theories, they differ on the type of social relations that developed in tandem, relations that formed the basis of the division of labor. Marx (1978, p. 212) views the division of labor as a result of the capitalism driven by profit, while Durkheim (1984, p. 1) sees it as a necessary condition for social progress. Next, I will also explore differences both writers posit as the consequences for this process, relating to both Marx’s theory of labor alienation and Durkheim’s idea of organic solidarity.

Karl Marx believes that division of labour means a way in which workers of an organization were given a job at which they were good at or at which they had their specialty in. Max Weber viewed division of labour as an important element or characteristic of any bureaucratic organization that is functioning in the modern society. Emile Durkheim believed that division of labour was the outcome of a societal procedure that takes place within the structure of the society than the result of choices that have been made by individuals.