Importance Of Social Integration And Integration In Society

The era of pre-industrialization focused mainly on agricultural production which was carried out by men, allowing family households to become self-sustained and more relegated to domestic life in the home. The pre-industrial ways of life led to a type of familiar division of labor that left separate and independent spheres of control for both women and men. In the pre-industrial family life, the husband and wife had separate plots of lands, and separate crafts and trading enterprises whereby each spouse retained control over their own profits.

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.

Work and its role in society has become the subject of considerable public commentary and debate in recent years. Work, for many Americans, has changed significantly over the past 25 years. Some people believe that the world of work is changing so thoroughly and quickly that we should consider ourselves pioneers of a new historical era. Some say that the idea of a job has become antiquated.

1. Peter Berger described using the sociological perspective as seeing the ______ in the _______.

| * guilds were developed * it promoted trade among different societies * labor increased with growth of cities

What’s more, the author explained the transformation of the meaning in the term “workaholism” and poses the different working attitude between Americans and Europeans again (Clausen 121). The word “workaholism” seems like

To explain, in both the pre-industrial and urban industrial periods men were pushed into and dominant in public life, whereas women were pushed into and expected to be in the private sphere, commonly the household. In both periods, the gender roles of men expected them to be the “money-earners” as well as the heads and decision-makers of families. On the other hand, gender roles of women expected them to stay home to raise and nurture children as well as do the household work as the domestic servants of the families. Though there were comparisons between both historical periods, there was a significant difference for women in the urban industrial period as some women, specifically widows began to work, though their gender roles reckoned them to be in the private sphere. Additionally, in the urban industrial period when the men went off to war, women replaced their roles and would also work in the public sphere to provide financial support to their families. Not to mention, there were contrasts between both historical periods when viewing family size and form. In pre-industrial times, monogamous marriages and living with extended families were the norm as religion viewed marriage as sacred and private, as well as assistance was required in establishing cottage industries

Life as we know it today in the modern world, is significantly different to the lives that our predecessors lived during the period 1500-1800. The changes across the centuries are the result of a process of advancements over time. This essay will examine life in the period 1500-1800 as highlighted in the work of George Blainey (2000) and will compare key differences of life in this early period, against life in the modern world today. Throughout this essay, the main focus will be based on three areas which have seen significant change over this period of time: the production of food, work practices and the standard of living. The advancements in these three areas, has led to societies living very

farmers who lived on it and grew crops. Labour was minimal and only when something needed to be done. Money was never of much importance because it did not grow crops, live stock or water. These commodifications began to add value to all types of materials, which in fact devalued things. Although it is quite odd to put prices or value on such items, the market grew stronger in society because of them. As the market had progressed it began to take a hold of peoples minds. The intangible values became less valuableSociety had no choice but to follow the market as other solutions to the economic problem were overturned. The market society developed as people began searching for work outside of what families had been doing for centuries.

     In mid-eighteenth-century England the industrial revolution was in full swing. However, workers lived near the level of physical subsistence, and their condition worsened in latter half of the eighteenth century. Monotony and repetition characterized factory work; the tyranny of the factory clock and the pace of the assembly line were beyond the control of all workers. The division of labor, praised by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations as the means to productivity growth and rising living standards, made work so routine that women and children could perform jobs just as easily as men. Business owners logically preferred such workers because they could be hired for less.

With modernization and industrialization, labour became increasingly specialized. Before this in the pre- modern societies, all workers did almost the same work in order to sustain themselves. These workers shared social cohesion base on similarity and commonality among themselves. This ‘mechanical solidarity’ was soon replaced by ‘organic solidarity’. With organic solidarity social cohesion was based on each individual’s dependence on every other in the society for survival. (The Emile Durkheim Archive, Solidarity)

Preindustrial labor often gave a strong sense of individualism, independence, and satisfaction. To many the old system of labor seemed luxurious compared to the new type of work the Industrial Revolution brought.

In was during medieval Britain that feudalism ruled the land. The social hierarchy was labelled as estates and it was the private ownership of the land that differentiated the estates from one another. Those in the higher estates who controlled ownership of the land had more legal rights and luxuries than those from the lower estate. Those from the lower estates had a legal obligation by law to fulfil duties to those whom were above them. Any ownership of private land was ascribed at birth and there was very little social upward mobility. It was then that society went through a drastic and fast transformation. The introduction of new machinery created a prominent industrial society which created a capitalist society. It was then for the first time that most of the work took place amongst factories. The work was then divided into specialised areas and overlooked by managers. Throughout this capitalist era societies were referred to as modern societies (Cohen & Kennedy: 2007).

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.

A society 's progressively evolution has based a process of collective conditions and consensus, reversal parties which had obsolete ideologies. Besides, a society 's changing in which individually participates, then a society is prepared to innovate until a cooperative opinion is fulfilled. That a process of society growth causes two different definitions: tradition and modernity. There are numerous viewpoints and conversations between traditional and modern society. For example, in traditional society, in the words of Thompson, "the child labour was an intrinsic part of the agricultural and industrial economy before 1780, and remained so until rescued by the school" (Thompson, 1991, p. 121). However, within modern society, Conlin mentioned the argument of Karl Polanyi "the economy has a life of its own" (Conlin, 2015). The questions arise, whether the tradition is more brutal to people or community than modernity? Is modernity drifting apart from tradition as a heretic? Therefore, to compare two societies this essay will provide the main view of modern society 's traits and conducts more conform the human beings, to compare two societies, and this essay will only elaborate an opinion is more sympathetic to the modernity.