The Division Of Labor Is An Important Public Process

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

Books one and two mainly focus on the evolution of the division of labor idea and

Changes in the 19th century caused different views and perspectives on the work and organisation. This essay pretends to discuss and compare theories of Durkheim and Weber. These two great sociologists born in the time of dramatic social changes. Before the industrial revolution work was based on agricultural and craft work, where workers usually knew all aspects of their production. (Giddens, Sutton, 2013, p. 264-265). People start to be involved in labour for wages, business was based upon making a profit, but the most significant that all these changes caused division of labour. (Haralambos, Holborn, 2004, p. 2) From that time work became more specialised and rationalised. What makes sociologists think about the influence of division of labour.

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

Both authors mentioned “specialization of production,” regarding it as a division of labor that makes us weaker and unable to fend for ourselves. I had never previously thought of our society in those terms, but can

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.

there is potential for a wider variety of labour to be evenly distributed among all

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

Social division of labour and detail division of labour are both unique as they have their differences. Detail division of labour is primarily focused on high class workers and occupations. Social division of labour is focused on individuals and communities within the society. In society capitalist play a major role because they are focused on division of labour and means of production. The position that Harry Braverman takes is that both social and detail division of labour have their positives and negatives, sometimes it is about the results at the end that matter and other times it’s about focusing on individuals. I claim that there is a major difference between social and detail division of labour as both are significant. There are issues

As civilization forms, there is a desperate call for a new idea called "division of labor." It was a

One of the main reasons why the division of labor works is because market prices direct what is produced and how much of it. Leonard also talks about how there is no master

Despite the many benefits of the division of labor stated by Smith, Marx claims that the division of labor diminishes the laborers share in production and skill, leading to a lower standard of living for the working class. Marx believes that humans should not be limited to a

The division of labor dictates the degree to which responsibilities are subdivided into separate units. It is communicated through job descriptions, and ensures each employee has specific duties to perform based on their work experience, education, and capability.

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.