Durkheim, Marx and Gilman
Durkheim, Marx and Gilman
Durkheim, Marx and Gilman
This paper is divided into two parts, both dealing with the issue of labor. The first part deals with the points of convergence and divergence in both Marx and Durkheim, with regard to the issue of division of labor. Both Marx and Durkheim dealt with the issue of division of labor. However, their approaches to the issue differ. Marx considers that division of labor tends to bring about more out put. Durkheim on the other hand considers that there is a greater function in the division of labor than just improvement of productivity. For him, division of labor has a social function, that of creating the sense of solidarity among persons.
The second part deals with Gilman's understanding of Gilman regarding the issue of equitable distribution of positions in the work places. According to Gilman, women have a lesser representation in the work place, especially in the top positions, relative to their male counterparts. Over the years, women have had more representation in work places, but this has not reached equal levels. This section attempts to establish the best steps towards equality within the labor force.
Division of Labor in Marx and Durkheim
As already indicated, Durkheim and Marx differ in many ways in their approach to the issue of division of labor. The difference is especially seen in their understanding of the core function of division of labor. Durkheim was of the view that the greatest significance in the division of labor was the social function of creating unity (Gianfranco, 2000). Durkheim understood himself as having gone against his contemporary and past economists with regard to their understanding of the issue. They saw the primary role of division of labor as having been the increase of production levels. For Durkheim however, increase in the levels of production does happen with a proper division of labor, but it is not the primary function or reason for division. It comes only as a consequence of the division. Marx on the other hand seems to have concurred with the traditional understanding of the economists, that the main reason for the division of labor was the need for increased productivity (Marx, 1964). For Marx, a comparison between the family structure, where roles were divided within these small units, as well as the individual families, which were divided in the society, thereby creating direct opposition to each other. Here, the greatest point of divergence between Marx and Durkheim is seen. Marx felt that work, which was the most natural to the human person, was used as the greatest form of alienation. This was because of the differences in the labor remunerations, where those who did the hardest work were the least remunerated.
According to Durkheim, there would be greater happiness for humanity if there were more of labor resources. This was because; the need for specialization was motivated by the awareness of the potential for happiness created by doing what persons were best suited to do. This understanding meant that society was considered in Durkheim as a means for the realization of specialization (Gianfranco, 2000). The various individuals who are suited for the particular work come together, and in this way there is no lack of cooperation, which is very vital for happiness. Marx on the other hand sought to separate the forces of production from the laborers (Marx, 1964). Marx saw a tension as having been existing between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. This would have serious ramifications in the way society would end up. In other words, the struggle that existed between the social classes, as well as the labor force was the two major driving forces of societal dynamics. This was according to Marx the way to understand and predict the possible occurrences in economic and social life in the future (Marx, 1964).
For Durkheim, division of labor in society is the sole representative of societal dynamics (Gianfranco, 2000). This was also a point of divergence with Marx.
Both of them agree however, that the focus of the social sciences ought to have a twofold function, namely, analyzing the ways in which production was done in society, as well as the ordering of the social classes. In this respect, both of them could be considered as having been structuralists.
These two understandings of the issue of division of labor, if merged, would provide a richer understanding, because each seems to have been right in their own respect. Division of labor has both a social and an economical function. As Durkheim found, there is great value in persons with similar interests working together. There is also greater joy that comes with doing what one is comfortable with. At the same time, Marxian understanding of the economic function of division of labor is very justifiable. These two theories should therefore not be in conflict with each other; rather, they should be complementary. Division of labor has increased today than at the time when these thinkers wrote. However, there is also a great multitasking going on, where persons are motivated by the need to make money take on more than one task, sometimes even without enough expertise. If the current economic trend is anything to go by, there is a great possibility that the future will be filled with multi tasking, where people do not just what they are best suited to do because of the need to survive.
Clearing & Forwarding Agents: All about Clearing and Freight Forwarding Car launches and upgrades in February Strengthening immunity and How to Boost Immunity The Reebok both physically and mentally Latest Justin Bieber News And Events Bangalore and Beyond! Isabel Marant: The Hip, The Funky, And The Happy Buy Spy Gadgets from Online Spy Shops Payday advance- Endurance funds before the next payday 12 Month Free Line Rental Deals: Convenient and lucrative way to stay connected Mutual Funds Advisory, Advice must for all Simple and Effective Natural Remedy for Gerd Buying Stock On Line: How Can This Make Me Rich?