Sociological Views Of The Division Of Labor In Nineteenth Century Industrial Capitalism Essay

Marx/Durkheim/Simmel At the time of the Industrial Revolution, philosophy had already dealt substantially with the notion of "division of labour" although the terminology was slightly different. Our modern sense of the division of labour is, of course, largely derived from nineteenth century industrial capitalism, and it was based on this paradigm that sociological thinkers like Marx, Durkheim, and Simmel would analyze the phenomenon. But we might note by way of introduction that they were inheriting an earlier tradition that emerged from earlier pre-industrial forms of capitalism, what began to emerge in England in the Elizabethan period and thereafter. Thus the Elizabethan idea of a "great chain of being" -- which posited an order and hierarchy to social relationships -- would gradually come to be altered by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Mandeville. By the early eighteenth century, Mandeville would lay down the basic principles of an idea of division of labor -- as the source of harmony and rational social relationships -- that would be accepted by Adam Smith and form the dominant ideology of which Marx, Durkheim, and Simmel would all offer critiques. A closer examination of Marx, Durkheim and Simmel must, however, rest on the assumption that what they are analyzing is new in the nineteenth century, because it derives specifically from urbanized and industrialized forms of capitalism.

For Marx, the division of labor in society is easily observable but it is fundamentally the basis of a far more important concept in Marx's weltanschauung: the idea of class conflict. Coser summarizes Marx's own mythography of the emergence of social relationships from a more primitive state of being in this way: "In the effort to satisfy primary and secondary needs, men engage in antagonistic cooperation as soon as they leave the primitive, communal stage of development. As soon as a division of labor emerges in human society, that division leads to the formation of antagonistic classes, the prime actors in the historical drama." (Coser 43). We can see in this basic sketch of historical processes that Marx has offered, though, that the fundamental basis...

...

The cooperation of pre-industrial humans is "antagonistic" -- i.e., humans are naturally in conflict and engaged in competition over scarce resources. The notion that the organization of society into different specialized sectors is therefore part of an overall strategy of mutual co-operation and harmony (in keeping with the earlier pre-capitalist notions of a divinely-sanctioned great chain of being) is considered by Marx to be a sham: Marx's definition of ideology is basically the system of thought and culture that persuades humans to subscribe to the ruling class's own self-justification for the fundamentally exploitative nature of the division of labor. The class division that results from division of labor is identified by Marx as the ruling class (who set the terms for the ideology), the bourgeoisie (the great engine of capitalist activity who keep a constant intervention in the means of production, and perpetuate what later economists would term "creative destruction") and finally the proletariat (the exploited industrial working class, who provide the majority of labor while receiving a minimum of reward). This fundamentally unbalanced system maintains its stranglehold on human society, in Marx's view, by means of ideology (those systems of thought which reflect the ruling class's own view of itself and its role) and alienation. Workers experience alienation by no longer having an organic connection to what they produce, to the work that they do, to their own selves and to their interactions with each other. Thus the division of labor in Marx's view ultimately results in the replacement of exchange-value (i.e., cash transactions) with more meaningful human interaction. The class structure that bases itself on such division of labor is the source of all social conflict and ultimately, Marx hopes, the powder keg that will be sparked off by revolution.
Durkheim views division of labor somewhat differently from Marx: indeed Durkheim's earliest sociological work was an 1893 "French doctoral thesis" on the subject of…

Sources Used in Documents:

Works Cited.

Coser, Lewis. Masters of Sociological Thought. Second Edition. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2003. Print.


Cite this Document:

"Sociological Views Of The Division Of Labor In Nineteenth Century Industrial Capitalism" (2014, March 18) Retrieved April 20, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/sociological-views-of-the-division-of-labor-185389

"Sociological Views Of The Division Of Labor In Nineteenth Century Industrial Capitalism" 18 March 2014. Web.20 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/sociological-views-of-the-division-of-labor-185389>

"Sociological Views Of The Division Of Labor In Nineteenth Century Industrial Capitalism", 18 March 2014, Accessed.20 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/sociological-views-of-the-division-of-labor-185389

Related Documents

Many different views abound on the origins of modern capitalism, causalities that range from economic to political, from religious to cultural, or for some, an amalgamation of societies need to expand and the resources necessary to fuel that expansion. Max Weber's the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is a study of the relationship between the ethics of ascetic Protestantism and the emergence of the spirit of modern capitalism.

The pioneering spirit of colonialism and of man's ability to make advances in stages of life primarily assigned to nature -- such as the aforementioned innovations in electricity and magnetism -- were all championed by the Enlightenment and carried over to the field of industry. Additionally, the Enlightenment helped provide some of the political context which helped to create environments in which the scientific and cultural achievements of the Industrial

For the aboriginal population of British Columbia, industrialization and capitalism threatened and later undermined traditional ways of life. Trading was soon replaced by wage labour systems. Shifting from barter to a labour market unraveled the essential social institutions of traditional aboriginal society. Potlatches once served as a "bulwark which enabled the aboriginal people to resist acculturation," (p. 252). Lutz, unlike Kealey or DeLottinville, examines the effects of colonialism on

Theoretical Approach to Generational Poverty Poverty is one of the most pressing social problems and the generational nature of poverty remains one of the reasons it is so difficult to eradicate poverty. While there are several different theories suggesting why poverty is transmitted from generation to generation and theorists sometimes strongly disagree on those reasons, there is almost universal acceptance of the idea that poverty is transmitted from one generation to

" (Dafler, 2005) Dafler relates that for more than thirty years children who were 'half-caste' "were forcibly removed from their families, often grabbed straight from their mother's arms, and transported directly to government and church missions." (Dafler, 2005) This process was termed to be one of assimilation' or 'absorption' towards the end of breeding out of Aboriginal blood in the population. At the time all of this was occurring Dafler

The subjects were 613 injured Army personnel Military Deployment Services TF Report 13 admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from March 2003 to September 2004 who were capable of completing the screening battery. Soldiers were assessed at approximately one month after injury and were reassessed at four and seven months either by telephone interview or upon return to the hospital for outpatient treatment. Two hundred and forty-three soldiers