Individualism In The 18th Century

During “the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution triggered a series of radical changes national cultural fabric of state societies, the pressures of modernization were also transforming the way of life in traditional communities of peasant and other rural folk” (Haviland et al. 349). One of these transformations brought about by the Industrial Revolution is the invention of the factory. The factory, like capitalism, originated in England, but eventually made its way to America, specifically the region of New England. The factory caused artisans to lose autonomy, now forced to work

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.

This pre-Gilded Age framing of the appropriate use of property exists outside the modern capitalist/socialist or libertarian/statist binarism (and, indeed, outside the traditional laissez-faire conceptual paradigm altogether). Indeed, the Lincoln-era Republican Party “succeeded in part because it was able to revitalize older republican ideals of autonomy and ethical citizenship by linking them with appeals to the property rights of free men and to biblical injunctions against injustice.” In such a framing, there need be no opposition between free exchange, on the one hand, and a broad social—if not legal-institutional—consensus stressing a more Weberian view of community responsibility, on the other hand. In keeping with this more traditionalist vision of the general good, Christian economist Richard T. Ely, who criticized the economic theology of the Gilded Age, argued for the view that “[p]rivate property is established and maintained for social purposes” and

The Industrial Revolution occurred in Britain and America around the late 1700’s to 1900. This revolution improved the production of goods using new mechanisms and machines. Human labor was in high demand in order for the highest production rates. Factories employed low to middle-class people that were as young as three years old (Document 9). These workers were benefited with money, shelter, and clothes, but the working and living conditions were not satisfying. The average industrial worker experienced a variety of factors that can be classified as good or bad, including the positive effects of labor, like the shelter, money, and food they were given; and the negative effects of the factory,

There are many turning points in history that can be examined with none exceeding in importance that which took place during the 18th century. For much of the 17th century, and into the early 18th century the primary economic system was the domestic method, utilizing merchants and skilled craftsmen. However, as the 18th century progressed the world began to undergo a revolution that is now known as the Industrial Revolution. Because of its resources, geography, and beneficial governmental policy, England led the way in this new age where the factory replaced rural work. While this was a time of great technological advancement, not everything was a positive result of the Industrial Revolution. Nonetheless, the Industrial Revolution brought a

This onslaught of capitalism directly revolutionized modern industrialism as well as the industrial city. Machines morphed the predominately agricultural nation to a herd of factory and corporate workers. Swarms of people, both native and immigrant, flocked to major cities. “The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes and labor saving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of labor.”(George, p.20) The major problem with this newfound industrialism was the way in which the workforce was treated. Capitalism was supposed to provide a way out, a way ascend the financial and social staircase, if you worked hard enough. This however was not the case, if you were a loyal, hardworking employee you simply got to keep your job, and if you were in any way injured or incompetent you were fired.

As Ewen begins by describing the two contrasting perspectives of social reality. “It described factory industrialism as producing the accoutrements of a democracy, one which invites every man to enhance his own comfort and status. Equating democracy with consumption” (Ewen 187). Ewen recognizes that “Mass production, according to this outlook was investing individuals with tools of identity, marks of their personhood” (Ewen 187). One side of the perception of social reality is production.

In a nut shell, Price claimed the Industrial Revolution created the division of labor (2004). The Division of Labor is perfectly encapsulated by the Henry Ford model of the assembly line (Price, 2004). Each worker on the assembly line only needs to know how to attach or inspect the operation of their assigned part on to the object as a whole, and not how to assemble the entire product. This allows for any unskilled person to be taught how to attach their doodad onto the doohickey without knowing what the doohickey does or operates. This is capitalism in the basic form of the ideal. Capitalism desires economic efficiency, thus the assembly line is a perfect example of the rise of unskilled factory workers and the decline of skilled craftsmen during the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism.

The first book, “Of the causes of improvement…,” talks about the division of labor and the wage of labors. According to Smith, there are three advantage of division of labor. First, it increases the employees’ dexterity; second it decreases the amount of time it consumes to make the product; and third reason is that because of the many inventions of machine, each employee can perform the work of many. Smith thought division of labor is important because labors can be more efficient if they are specialized in specific work.

The Great Depression was coined as the Great Depression for a reason. When the stock market crashed in 1929, many factory workers lost their jobs, the economy suffered severe inflation of prices, and the usual commodities, such as food and shelter, became harder to obtain. Hunger, poverty, and unemployment ravaged the broken economy and forced many out of their homes and into slums and on the streets. People struggled just to survive even to the next day. In addition to the already difficult proletarian life of the working class, the ever expanding realm of factories and machines forced skilled workers to become obsolete. Fordism and the Industrial Age caused the average working man to be highly replaceable. For example, if a worker sustained an injury on the job, and was no longer able to work, he would be sacked and a new man would be hired on the same day. These conditions created a cycle of poverty, which was nearly impossible to escape. Another side effect of the growing technological advances was the dehumanizing effects of the machine on man. As the Great Depression drew on, millions of Americans were sent into poverty and left unemployed and hungry. Many actors and filmmakers took it upon themselves to address these conditions. Charlie Chaplin was one such icon whose silent film, Modern Times set during the Great Depression Era, criticize and the effect of machine on man and individualism during the Industrial Revolution, and the rampant poverty in the

     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)

During the shift from the middle ages into the Renaissance period new conceptions of the individual and the human mind quickly came to light. Although art in the Middle Ages was centered predominantly on religion and faith, the incoming art of the Renaissance underwent a drastic change. A vast amount of these changes mainly focused on individualism, secularism, and humanism. Following the collapse of the feudal system, thoughts of individualism quickly rose when people realized that they didn’t have to adhere to a specific group.Throughout the beginning of the Renaissance, religious figures and the Catholic Church began to lose authority which conducted in new ideas of secularism. Comparably, humanistic art and notions became preeminent when individuals focused on glorifying the human body, learning more about it and inclined more towards realistic art.

Smith’s encouragement of dividing labor in domestic economies is highly logical. Using the example of the pin-factory, Smith claims that the uneducated pin-maker can only produce one pin each day. The team of ten specialized manufacturers, however, can apparently produce upwards of 48,000 pins in a