Contrast Durheims Theory Of Division Of Labour To

1378 Words6 Pages
QUESTION 1: CONTRAST DURHEIMS THEORY OF DIVISION OF LABOUR TO THAT OF MARX Division of labour is the specialization of cooperative labour in specific, circumscribed tasks and like roles. In the law of nature everything was primitive but as the society grew into a more complex capitalist society there was also increased division of labour. Johnson acknowledges that “In his desire to establish an empirically grounded science of society all was coupled with commitment to social and moral reconstruction, Durkheim followed the same path as Comte…but his commitment to the cause of civic morality developed from the same kind of concern for social order and solidarity (1971: 167). To Durkheim division of labour was a way of social order that was going to bring solidarity amongst the people as they will all be interdependent on each other and will be specializing in what they are good at, unlike Karl Marx who saw division of labour as a car driving us to different social classes, anomie and individualism. Durkheim is a functionalist who sees a society as an interdependent organ, it cannot function on its own and division of labour brings about permanent feelings of mutual dependence amongst the people in the society and his perspective’s main aim was to support that division of labour is a pillar for social order (Giddens, 1998: 184), however Marx does not embrace it as much, ti him division of labour is like cancer that gets into a human body and destroys it entirely, with no committed function of the life-host, and whose decoupled appropriation of its nutrients deprives the life-host of what it requires to sustain its vital functions(Kahn, 1981: 132). Marx acknowledges that division of labour came to exploit, enslave workers and that’s a social reality we can find in factory floors and manufacturing industries where workers are dehumanized (Johnson, 1971: 117), but
Open Document