Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

Durkheim and Marx - Lecture notes 2

Durkheim and Marx
Course

Sociological Theory (SOC 482)

21 Documents
Students shared 21 documents in this course
Academic year: 2019/2020
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Miami University

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

Durkheim and Marx

Emile Durkheim y Karl Marx

To understand Durkheim's sociology, it is necessary to study its relationship with the socialist thought and movements of its time, that is, from the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. His work "the division of social labor" began in 1883 and from this and other studies on suicide, family or religion began to focus more on social problems rather than Socialism. He always opposed socialism. Durkheim was the themost issue for him was the <solidarity>, which was linked to the social and political conflicts of the time.

The strength and importance of the socialist movement led him to seek an intermediate point between two theoretical systems: Conte and Marx. He did this through the study of his ancestor Saint-Simon.

The main difference between Marx and Durkheim, the two followers of Saint-Simon's theory, was that Marx accentuated and developed the elements of Saint-Simon's thought from the Revolution and Durkheim otherwise developed the conservative tendency of Saint-Simon and I equal the stance taken by Marx, the radical. Durkheim's theory has a conservative trait. It only occasionally reacts to a problem in a similar way to Marx. Durkheim capitulates to Marx by adopting one of the main theoretical propositions of this: <Social existence determines social consciousness>.

The fundamental premise of Durkheim is that the <society> is not a simple addition of individuals but a sui generis reality. For both Durkheim and Saint-Simon, social laws dominate men in absolute need and all they can do is submit. The greatest aspiration of individuals is to discover the course of the laws and to conform to them with the minimum of suffering.

Durkheim develops in his work "The Division of Social Work" ideas that had already appeared with Saint-Simon as Durkheim says in this work, so that the division of the work of origin to a solidarity industrial society, it is necessary <that the vast majority of the nation , individuals join in industrial associations, more or less numerous and linked (...) to allow their integration into a generalized system by oriented towards a large common industrial purpose>. According to Durkheim, the growing division of labour led to a solidarity of interests among all classes of society.

A discoherence that Durkheim has when talking about the division of labor is seen as soon as the introduction of this work begins: "Although the division of labor does not come from yesterday, only at the end of the last century did societies begin to become aware of this law that until then, suffered almost without knowledge." Another of the inconsistencies in dealing with the issue of the division of work is seen in the following excerpt: " ... it is managed to follow and reflect, with all its nuances, the infinite diversity of industrial enterprises and while this evolution is consumed with an unthinking spontaneity... ". If this diversity of industrial enterprises is evolutionary it is difficult to conceive of the idea of spontaneity in the same context, since spontaneity, it is not an anonymity, but it could be in certain areas if it relates to the word evolution.

Durkheim wanted the social order to be based on capacity, who is best able to carry out the activities. Selfishness would be a problem for society, as it could lead to a dissolution of it.

Already focusing more on the differences that Durkheim and Marx have, we have to comment on several points on which they disagree.

In Marx's conception, the <division of labor> was not a distribution of coordinated functions, on the contrary, it was a system of inequalities in its structure. Men with defined functions constituted the so-called hierarchy of positions, with varying degrees of wealth, power, and social honor. The concept of hierarchy was inappropriate to discover the conditions of existence of men in the modern capitalist system. Economic and social reality, for Marx, consisted of socioeconomic classes with antagonistic interests. For Marx the term <division of labor> was misleading.

Durkheim's intention was, therefore, to offer a convincing rebuttal to the Marxan position and also to the Contian position, which he opposes in the same way.

An example of this is that Conte argued against him, that the division of labour does not necessarily lead to dispersion and conflict of interest. He said there were other "non-moral" conditions that were at least equally important to the issue of solidarity. Durkheim certainly recognizes the need for certain reforms without which there can be no true justice or true solidarity, but this recognition puts him on a secondary level.

Durkheim's "From the Division of Social Labor" is a reformulation of Saint-Simonian thought, as we have already seen for Durkheim his true intellectual master was Saint-Simon, from which he follows his conservative trajectory. Inspired by Saint-Simon, Durkheim sought to demonstrate that the division of labour must be completed in a new perspective. He says the economic services he provides are few and insignificant compared to the moral effect it produces. For the objective to be achieved in the division of labour, according to Durkheim, is to obtain a feeling of solidarity in people, to create cohesion between people. At the time of Durkheim's life, he says that society was supportive because it was homogeneous, that is, that they were all equal and therefore there was no reason not to be supportive since they were all in the same situation. But this original solidarity declined when the differentiation of functions began to grow, which produced heterogeneity between people and therefore for society and greater complexity in society, since it was no longer everyone the same, they did not perform the same functions and were therefore no longer equal to relating to one another, little solidarity. This thesis developed Durkheim based on what they called <mechanical solidarity>, or solidarity by likeness.

Durkheim after much work begins to develop his thesis on the positive consequences of the division of labour: it gives rise to the exchange of services, the reciprocity of obligations, interdependence, etc., but later will place reservations these theses. Durkheim enconceives the complex social system as a multiplicity of different functions that must be coordinated, that is, it considers that these <functions> have a coordinated and harmonious relationship with each other, such as the different organs of a being Living. The concept of <division of work> allows Durkheim to accentuate the aspect of cooperation in society, the only drawback is that he forgets the other aspects such as: relationship of domination, of class conflict. It says in this work that the division of labour engenders cooperation and solidarity as a general rule.

One drawback seen in the growing division of labor is that it reinforces the individuality of man. This is another inconsistency in the subject of Durkheim since in mechanical solidarity men are so similar that common consciousness envelops the consciousness of the individual, and therefore individuality is nil. But organic solidarity resulting from the division of labour results in individual differences.

Durkheim when he points out that individuality increases at the same time as it departs us (those of society), it refers only to the professions, since this is not the case for workers.

If Durkheim used to say that the growing division of labor reinforces individuality, this claim must now be restricted, pathological forms diminish and ruin the individual. To overcome this rebate, the worker, for example, must enter into solidarity relationships with other workers and their employer, and understand that their actions have an objective that is beyond themselves. The lower classes, not living, or no longer being satisfied with the role assigned to them by custom or law, aspire to functions that are prohibited from them and seek to dispossess those who exercise them. This is how civil wars erupt, which obey the way the work is distributed. In this way, Durkheim introduces a second important pathological form: the forced division of labor.

According to Durkheim, pain and suffering resulted from the fact that the division of labour was forcibly imposed on individuals, without taking into account their hereditary provisions. There is only one solution to this problem, modify the set order and create a new one.

For Marx, the <division of labour> constituted a situation in which the individual was not free; a situation in which the mental and physical deformation of the individual occurred, precisely because it was chained to a particular function. He dreamed of a time when, as a result of increased production capacity and change in social relations, men could be fully freed from the need to fulfil a particular function and could instead be free to fish , hunt, write poetry and discuss philosophy. He never wanted to determine men's natural abilities. Durkheim, however, conceives a system in which some men have a natural penchant for functions that are humanly degrading. Their good society, therefore, becomes a society in which some are still more equal than others, but now, it is to presume, inequalities are based on natural capacities.

Good society is one in which social inequalities accurately express natural inequalities. Durkheim recognizes that this implies a <absolute equality in the external conditions of the conflict> and that the <hereditary transmission of wealth is sufficient to make the external conditions in which the conflict occurs very unequal, because it gives to some advantages that do not necessarily correspond to the personal value of them>.

Durkheim's work could therefore have taken two different directions: the treatment of the problems and the implications posed by the social conditions he himself observed and which he drew attention to in The Division of Social Labour and <As long as there is rich and poor by birth cannot be a fair contract or fair distribution of social goods.;. Had he chosen the first path, it would inevitably have led him to an approach similar to that of Marx and other socialist currents. Durkheim paid attention only to a conservative point of view. Justice was important, but social unity was even more important.

Durkheim realized that his thesis on the effects of the <division of labour> leading to solidarity was incomplete, if not totally unsustainable. The forms he defines as pathological were normal at the time and those he defined as abnormal almost did not exist. Its original conception stated that separate and diverse functions, <when they achieve sufficient contact with each other, tend to stabilize and regulate.>.

Social order is very important in Durkheim's work.

DURKHEIM

" The division of social labor "

Was this document helpful?

Durkheim and Marx - Lecture notes 2

Course: Sociological Theory (SOC 482)

21 Documents
Students shared 21 documents in this course

University: Miami University

Was this document helpful?
Durkheim and Marx
Emile Durkheim y Karl Marx.kkk
To understand Durkheim's sociology, it is necessary to study its relationship with the socialist
thought and movements of its time, that is, from the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. His
work "the division of social labor" began in 1883 and from this and other studies on suicide,
family or religion began to focus more on social problems rather than Socialism. He always
opposed socialism. Durkheim was the themost issue for him was the <solidarity>, which was
linked to the social and political conflicts of the time.
The strength and importance of the socialist movement led him to seek an intermediate point
between two theoretical systems: Conte and Marx. He did this through the study of his
ancestor Saint-Simon.
The main difference between Marx and Durkheim, the two followers of Saint-Simon's theory,
was that Marx accentuated and developed the elements of Saint-Simon's thought from the
Revolution and Durkheim otherwise developed the conservative tendency of Saint-Simon and I
equal the stance taken by Marx, the radical. Durkheim's theory has a conservative trait. It only
occasionally reacts to a problem in a similar way to Marx. Durkheim capitulates to Marx by
adopting one of the main theoretical propositions of this: <Social existence determines social
consciousness>.
The fundamental premise of Durkheim is that the <society> is not a simple addition of
individuals but a sui generis reality. For both Durkheim and Saint-Simon, social laws dominate
men in absolute need and all they can do is submit. The greatest aspiration of individuals is to
discover the course of the laws and to conform to them with the minimum of suffering.
Durkheim develops in his work "The Division of Social Work" ideas that had already appeared
with Saint-Simon as Durkheim says in this work, so that the division of the work of origin to a
solidarity industrial society, it is necessary <that the vast majority of the nation , individuals join
in industrial associations, more or less numerous and linked (...) to allow their integration into a
generalized system by oriented towards a large common industrial purpose>. According to
Durkheim, the growing division of labour led to a solidarity of interests among all classes of
society.
A discoherence that Durkheim has when talking about the division of labor is seen as soon as
the introduction of this work begins: "Although the division of labor does not come from
yesterday, only at the end of the last century did societies begin to become aware of this law
that until then, suffered almost without knowledge." Another of the inconsistencies in dealing
with the issue of the division of work is seen in the following excerpt: " ... it is managed to
follow and reflect, with all its nuances, the infinite diversity of industrial enterprises and while
this evolution is consumed with an unthinking spontaneity... ". If this diversity of industrial
enterprises is evolutionary it is difficult to conceive of the idea of spontaneity in the same
context, since spontaneity, it is not an anonymity, but it could be in certain areas if it relates to
the word evolution.
Durkheim wanted the social order to be based on capacity, who is best able to carry out the
activities. Selfishness would be a problem for society, as it could lead to a dissolution of it.
Already focusing more on the differences that Durkheim and Marx have, we have to comment
on several points on which they disagree.

Students also viewed

Related documents