Viewpoints of Durkhiem, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith

659 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Nature vs nurture debate in teaching

Durkheim: What makes society progressive is the growth of a nation towards the better. What makes a nation powerful and grow is the division of labor. It has been apparent over the centuries of technological growth that within a society the more societal advancements there are, the more division of labor there is within the nation. Durkheim considered the division of labor has a natural law, one that not only was in humans but all organisms. Durkheim felt that although everything should be divided into his or her own labor, it was all for the greater good, the social solidarity. The social solidarity meant that everyone worked separately for the same outcome at the end. He brings in different types of laws to characterize the different types of social solidarities they bring with it. Mechanical and organic solidarity are what he mentions and each one is completely different from one another. Criminal laws and their respective punishments promoted mechanical solidarity, which was a sense of unity that results in individuals engaging in similar work who come from the same backgrounds. Civil laws promote organic solidarity; it is a society that individuals engage in different kinds of works that benefit society as a whole. He explains that nations with a more mechanical viewpoint have less developed societies because the diversity and division of labor is much less, so individuals share similar views of life and so do not bring different thoughts into society. However nations in organic view points have more diverse occupations therefore people rely on each other more, which results in greater benefits to the society. KARL MARX: Marx viewed the increase in specialization leads workers to be less enthusiastic for their work and l... ... middle of paper ... ...bundance of the society. This means that the standard of living is raised even for the most poor. Like Durkheim, Smith felt that it led to an interconnectedness of the laborers and society overall. However unlike Durkheim that saw the division of labor to be a great thing that is needed in order for a nation to grow, prosper, and be merry. Adam Smith viewed the division more as a negative thing. He understood that with the separation it meant that time was spent more productively but he felt that it lead to a “mental mutilation” of the workers because all the did was the same thing. Because they kept doing the same piece of labor multiple times he sensed that over time the worker would grow tired of it and falter in doing the one job they were placed with. He understood that a person who does well in one task should use their best qualities and stay with that task.

Show More
Related

  • The Communist Manifesto and The Jungle

    1007 Words  | 3 Pages

    Before the industrialization movement began, there was more of a blend between the classes, and now there is a distinct separation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of the industrialization of the countries, the replacement of manual labor with the use of machinery and the division of labor, the work of the proletarian has become homogeneous. It does not contain the individuality or charm of the laborer as handmade goods do. The worker instead becomes part of the machine and is reduced to performing menial, repetitive tasks. Thus, the workman's pay rate reflects his work, and is reduced to minimum amount needed to barely sustain them. Therefore, as the skill needed to perform the job reduced, so does the amount of the wages. Also, as industrialization increases, so does drudge and toil. The worker become, in the eyes of the bourgeois in control, a part of the machine and as expendable and as easily replaced as any part of the machine. This is in the forms of prolonged work hours, amount of work done in a certain time, or by the increase of the speed of the machinery, which wears down and drains the workers.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Adam Smith And Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation

    230 Words  | 1 Pages

    Adam Smith begins his analysis of the market society with a look at the division of labor. He elaborates on the idea that the division of labor is essential for the growth of a civilization. Smith explains how for example, the production of pins can be done more efficiently with the breaking down and deconstruction of

    Read More

  • Comparing Adam Smith and Karl Marx

    562 Words  | 2 Pages

    Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land, more tools, etc) which will allow for even more increased efficiency and production. Both thought that this increased production was great. But Marx said that capitalism was only one stage... that every country must go through capitalism, to get that increased production, but that capitalism is unstable. It requires expanding markets and will end up creating a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, with more and more people becoming poor. Because of this instability, he thought that it would eventually collapse.

    Read More

  • Poor Work Conditions In The 1850s

    957 Words  | 2 Pages

    Industrial capitalism transformed greatly in a century; however work continued to decline with the advancement of time. Therefore, work was better in 1750 then it was in 1850. " The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself" (134.).

    Read More

  • Adam Smith's Political Philosophies

    88 Words  | 1 Pages

    Adam Smith was a philosopher whose political philosophies was based off of economics. He believed to some extent that there should be a redistribution of wealth, but at the same time there should be a limit to government interference in economy. He wanted the state to end politics that favor industry over agriculture or vice versa, and that business should be left to the business people. He also believed that the government cannot make people virtuous with laws, and that the state should not promote religion or

    Read More

  • Adam Smith Essay

    1020 Words  | 3 Pages

    “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” This is a quote from the book Wealth of Nations, which Adam Smith wrote, addresses well about why and what reason people work for. The butcher, the brewer, or the baker does not cut, stir, or bake because they want to please the customer or to feed the poor, but to earn money and for their own happiness. Adam Smith, who fully understood the concepts of capitalism and free market system, became one of the most well respected economists throughout the world. Smith became famous because of his philosophy of economics. Because of his thoughts on economics, today he is well known as the “father of economics.”

    Read More

  • Marx and Durkheim’s View on the Benefits and Dangers of Modern Capitalism

    1978 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...fitting from modern capitalism as they increase profits through the labour theory of value, while exploiting the proletariats. On the other hand, the proletariats are at danger, as they become alienated through mass production and the labour theory of value does not work in their favour. Durkheim views the specialization of labour to be effective until it is pushed too far, resulting in a state of anomie. The division of labour can be seen as beneficial to society as it allows mass production, increased profits, and creativity and interests to be used among individuals, keeping their human identity. At the same time, the division of labour can be seen as dangerous, as over specialization leads to anomie. Through both Marx and Durkheim, we can conclude that modern capitalism has both its benefits and dangers towards individuals and societies in a capitalist economy.

    Read More

  • Why The Ideas Of Karl Marx Were So Radical To Society

    744 Words  | 2 Pages

    Marx had rather extreme views on the extent to which nature in his time had become humanized as a result of human labor. He commented, “Even the objects of the simplest, “sensuous certainty” are only given to him through social development, industry and commercial intercourse. ”[2] "Throughout their labor, humans shape their own material environment, thereby transforming the very nature of human existence in the process. ”[3] One always seemed to know their role in society.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Weber And Emheim Durkheim

    1215 Words  | 3 Pages

    Durkheim was concerned with what maintained the cohesion of social structures. He was a functionalist, he believed each aspect of society contributes to society 's stability and functioning as a whole. He theorised that society stayed united for two reasons “mechanical solidarity” and “organic solidarity.” Premodern societies were held together by mechanical solidarity, a type of social order maintained through a minimal division of labour and a common collective consciousness. Such societies permitted a low degree of individual autonomy, Social life was fixed and there was no sense of self. They had retributive legal systems so no individual action or deviance from the common conscience was tolerated. In industrialised modern societies Durkheim says Mechanical solidarity is replaced with organic solidarity. In organic solidarity capitalist societies their is a high division of labour which requires the specialisation of jobs people do, this allows for individual autonomy

    Read More

  • Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel: The Relationship between Society and the Individual

    3473 Words  | 7 Pages

    Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the relationship between society and the individual. It is the objective of this paper to critically evaluate the sociological approaches of each theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived such a relationship and what it means for the nature of social reality.

    Read More

  • Karl Marx And Durkheim

    2731 Words  | 6 Pages

    Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim are considered the founding fathers of sociology and both had profound influence on the development of sociology. However, some may say that they differ dearly in their views about society. Although there are differences in outlooks between the two, one thing noticeable is Marx and Durkheim shared the same concern over society and its development. They were both, in particular concerned with the rise of the modern system of division of labour and the evolution of market society taking place in the domain of modern capitalism. Both approached these developments by introducing a theory of their own to shed light on the effects that modern capitalism had on solidarity and on society’s ability to reproduce itself. More so, to understand and solve the problems arose as the societies in which they lived moved from a pre-industrial to an industrial state. For Marx, one of the serious problems arose in this was what he termed alienation. On the other, for Durkheim it was what he called anomie. The purpose of this essay is to examine the underlying differences of these two notions and in hope that it may help us to better understand the different visions of society developed by these two great social thinkers. Firstly, we start off with Marx’s idea of alienation. Secondly, what anomie means to Durkheim. Then a comparison will be done on the two concepts, evaluating the similarities and differences between the two. Lastly, we will finally come to conclude how the concept of alienation differs from the concept of anomie.

    Read More

  • Emile Durkheim and The Science of Sociology

    1278 Words  | 3 Pages

    Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society. (W. Halls, Trans.) New York, New

    Read More

  • A Comparison of Karl Marx and Max Weber

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    considered separately as causes of change in the society. He used the relationship between society and the individual to explain the causes of change in terms of social development.

    Read More

  • Evaluate The Contribution Of The Hawthorne Studies To The Development Of Management Theory And Practice

    1673 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the past, managers considered workers as machinery that could be bought and sold easily. To increase production, workers were subjected to long hours, miserable wages and undesirable working conditions. The welfare of the workers and their need were disregarded. The early twentieth century brought about a change in management and scientific management was introduced. This sort of management, started by Frederick Winslow Taylor, emphasised that the best way to increase the volume of output was to have workers specializing in specific tasks just like how a certain machine would perform a particular function. His implementation of this theory brought about tremendous criticism by the masses arguing that the fundamentals of Scientific Management were to exploit employees rather than to benefit them (Mullins, 2005)

    Read More

  • The Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

    2291 Words  | 5 Pages

    Workers of the World Unite: You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Chains. Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx had very strong viewpoints in regards to capitalism, making him a great candidate for this assignment. People constantly debate over whether his ideology holds any grain of truth to them. I believe that although not everything Marx predicted in his writings has come true (yet), he was definitely right on a lot of issues.

    Read More

More about Viewpoints of Durkhiem, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith

Open Document