QUESTION 1
ABSTRACT
The division of labor is one of the most important elements of social theory, and the perspectives of Karl Marx, Fredrich Engels and Emile Durkheim on the DOL heavily determine their visions for the future. For Marx and Engels, the division of labor is an inherently harmful mechanism by which the proletariat is exposed to class struggle; through a process of social revolution and class consciousness, the people would rise up and create an egalitarian, communist society out of the ashes of Communism. Durkheim, meanwhile, believes in the idealized form of the division of labor as a consequence of a society’s collective solidarity, in which everyone naturally works together to fill roles that allow the greater machine of society to function. The following paper explores the contrasting perspectives of Marx/Engels and Durkheim on the division of labor, as well as the processes by which societies would achieve these goals.
When viewing the visions of the future of some of the most well-known social theorists in history, some fascinating similarities and differences appear. Many of these visions involve dramatic changes in the ‘division of labor,’ the specialization of citizens within a population into specific roles and responsibilities, and the power dynamics of that division. Frederich Engels and Karl Marx, for instance, believed there was an inherent power imbalance within the division of labor of a capitalist society, and that society was best when it abolished this type of specialization and forged ahead with a communist society. Their vision of the future heavily involves breaking down the division of labor through social revolution, establishing a system in which the division of labor is abolished and the proletariat holds the power within society.
Emile Durkheim, on the other hand, treated the division of labor in a very different way. Instead of treating it as an obstacle to progress and equality, Durkheim believed it could be perfected to achieve said equality. Central to this idea is the notion of mechanical solidarity, in which everybody carries forth a type of social solidarity related to a collective understanding of what is right and what is wrong. This kind of tacit understanding of rules and norms is known as the common consciousness, in which “the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own” (Durkheim 39). This common consciousness would facilitate a spontaneous form of the division of labor that would be less forced, and thus less prone to dissatisfaction among its members. To that end, unlike Marx and Engels, Durkheim’s DOL would be tacitly approved by everyone within society.
When examining the historical processes for these two visions, Marx and Engels advocate for more violent, revolutionary tactics. Their vision of the future is borne of class struggle and the rise of revolutionary consciousness, wherein the proletariat recognize that the working class is being exploited and that they need to fight back. Marx and Engels’ future would come as a release of the class tension in place through an involuntary division of labor, which would increase and increase until enough workers were conscious enough to successfully revolt. At this point, the DOL would be abolished, and a communist society would be instituted that would work for the people regardless of class.
Durkheim, on the other hand, believes the historical process of the division of labor to be much more organic. To Durkheim, social solidarity can happen either organically or mechanically – in the latter, this “is only possible if each one of us has a sphere of action that is peculiarly our won, and consequently a personality” (Durkheim 85). In the former, however, mechanical solidarity is collective, and requires the individual to hold almost entirely the ideas of the collective whole. The historical process for this is slower and less active, as people would simply progress through the collective consciousness to understand their place within the division of labor, accept it, and helpfully work toward the common goals of all of society.
If the two sets of sociologists were to critique each other’s theories on the division of labor, they would likely disagree on the necessity of the DOL in the first place, as well as the means by which their vision of the future would be realized. Marx and Engels, for instance, would likely criticize Durkheim’s theory for being unrealistic and naïve: for Marx and Engels, there is no ideal division of labor that would collectively be understood and worked toward. Instead, their perspective is that the people need to abolish the DOL to achieve a more egalitarian society. Durkheim, meanwhile, would equally criticize Marx/Engels’ visions as too violent and ineffective; as he believes in the common consciousness, the members of society would achieve a consensus on their own as to how their society would be structured, which naturally falls along some kind of division of labor. These two perspectives on the division of labor have diametrically opposed ideas of what is good for a society: while Marx and Engels would push for communism and the elimination of DOL, Durkheim believes social bonds and functions require a universally-understood division of labor.
QUESTION 2
ABSTRACT
Looking at Bernie Sanders’ address to Georgetown University on November 19, 2015, he outlines his principles of democratic socialism. Given his much more leftist, progressive principles than most traditional American politicians, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim would have vastly different perspectives on his approach to politics and society. The following is a pair of theoretical editorials on Sanders’ address from the perspective of each of these social theorists, examining how the two would react to the candidate’s principles and perspective on the division of labor. For Marx, Sanders’ dedication to providing more resources and freedom through democratic socialism is admirable, but does not go far enough to achieving a fully communist society; Durkheim, however, would receive his principles much less favorably, as Sanders’ platform for addressing inequality contrasts wildly with his perspective that inequality is natural.
-
Marx: Judging from the statement Bernie Sanders made at Georgetown University, there are many things I admire about his approach. Right from the start, he advocates for an FDR-style set of social programs meant to provide for the proletariat, including expanding healthcare to a universal level, providing free college education, and more. Sanders, more than anyone, understands the dangers of class struggle, which I firmly believe is the largest issue facing a civilized society. One of his most common refrains is the inequality between the top one-tenth of 1 percent of society and the remaining 90 percent, which follows my idea of the divide between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Sanders notes, as I have, the tension inherent within the proletariat as the division of labor becomes too much to bear; his statistics about the death of the middle class and the lower wages showcase clear alienation from the fruits of a worker’s labor. Sanders’ approach of democratic socialism is a step in the right direction for addressing these issues, for which I am extremely gratified.
However, there are a couple of things that I would strongly object to in Sanders’ approach, if only for the fact that his social revolution does not go as far as I would like. For all of Sanders’ democratic socialism, it still provides a measure of capitalist free-market enterprise; the division of labor would not be abolished, just strictly regulated. Sanders’ goals specify an FDR-like push toward democratic socialism, with higher regulation of large private organizations and more wide-reaching social services. While a step in the right direction, it is my firm belief that capitalist societies are doomed to fall in this endless cycle of social change, and that the creation of a communist society is inevitable, the ideal we should be working towards. Sanders’ ideology is not pure enough to totally eliminate the evils of capitalistic individuality, which is antithetical to my Communist ideals.
Durkheim: Judging from Bernie Sanders’ address, he has a decidedly different (and dimmer) view of the division of labor than I do. From my perspective, the inequality inherent to most societies is a natural offshoot of our social solidarity, borne of a common consciousness in which we accept our role and work our hardest to facilitate common societal goals. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, views the division of labor as something that inherent brings about unwanted inequality, pointing to the death of the middle class and the allegedly unjust shifting of the wealth to the top 1 percent of Americans. I am steadfast in my belief that people are rightfully unequal as based on their natural inequality, and only through transitioning from a primitive society to an advanced one will we be able to truly achieve equilibrium.
Sanders’ approach seeks to undermine the natural social solidarity present within society, in favor of a democratic socialist platform that offers a way out of the disorder and conflict that I believe are necessary for a naturally equal society. By redistributing wealth through higher tax rates, sweeping social safety nets, and the like, the inequality I believe is natural in society would be undermined. I do not believe that another, better kind of society could be created by abolishing the division of labor, which is what Sanders plans to address with his policies. At the same time, I understand that the current division of labor is less than idea, creating anomie through structural limitations for people to achieve their own life goals. According to Sanders, people cannot truly exercise their individual will because of the unfair and unequal system of wealth present within American society, which he hopes to change. In this respect, I agree that things should change; however, I believe his approaches would work in the wrong direction. The goal should be to create an idealized capitalist world, not to borrow elements from socialism to put a Band-Aid over the major structural problems present in modern American society.
Works Cited
Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. Simon and Schuster, 1893.
Marx, Karl and Frederich Engels. The Marx-Engels Reader.
Sanders, Bernie. “Bernie Sanders’ Address to Georgetown University.” November 19, 2015.
