'Karl Marx's concept of alienation
'Karl Marx's concept of alienation
The theory of separation was used by Karl Marx to explain the concept of alienation because of capitalism. Alienation refers to the process of separating things that belong together. In this context, Marx referred to social alienation where people were separated from aspects of their human nature. In capitalist mode of production, workers were coerced to lose the aspect of determination in their lives. This came because of being denied the right to see visualize themselves as directors of their activities. Workers who are supposed to be self-realized and autonomous were denied to own or use the value of what they produce were instead absorbed into activities dictated by those who owned the means of production, the bourgeoisie (Dahms, 2011).
In describing how capitalism had developed and proved to be irresistible, Marx identified ways in which alienation had prevailed. He described them as-
The product of labour: In the society, a uses his or her creativity and other abilities to produce products which he or she will use or pass it over to others to be used. This is however not the case in capitalist society. In a capitalist society, a worker is alienated from what he produces as it belongs to those to those who own the means of production (Dahms, 2011). Workers would not have any authority to own or lay hands on what they had produced since ownership of what they produced belonged to others. This was evidenced in areas such as cash crops production where workers could engage in production processes while at the same time become malnourished (Dahms, 2011). They produced shoes but could not afford to and build houses, which they could never lie in.
In his philosophical argument, Marx described how products of labour had begun to dominate the same labourer. The amounts given to labourer after their hard efforts were of low value compared to the value they had created, the bigger portion going to the boss. In exchange of his effort and creativity, the worker would be remunerated in terms of salary or wage. The money was later used to purchase the products of his labour but he could never use it to be given creative labour. This explains exploitation and the workers creativity is lost forever leaving him feeling exhausted with no spirit of stimulation.
The labour process: Only those who owned the means of production could control the production process. Workers had to abide with the working conditions and how work was assigned to them irrespective how the conditions affected them either mentally or physically. The working process was in the control of very hostile forces, which meant it was beyond workers (Devorah, 2006). This made workers work faster, harder and even for longer periods. The factory work exhausted workers and the employer could break down the process of labour into smaller, rigid and repetitive process, which killed workers individual talents and skills.
In the modern society, there is increased organisation in the production process. Although the assembly line method is still used, the production process has been broken down into component part, which has eliminated monopoly of control on the process of production. There has been improvement of working conditions both in the length of working hours and scope (Dahms, 2011). There is increased mechanisation and entire work operation is broken down into smallest motion, which is conceptualised by the engineering and management staff.
Our fellow human beings: Class structure present in the society breeds up antagonism and the result is alienation where human beings become alienated from fellow human beings. Marx explains this by showing how workers are alienated from the owners of means of production who apparently control workers produce. The only point of connection comes when workers go to buy what they have produced. This paints a picture of non-equality in rights as those who sell are considered superiors and holders of large units of power (Devorah, 2006). The relationship presented by this is of representatives of different sections of production, owners of labour or owners of capital. Individual’s needs and abilities are transformed into moneymaking means and people see others through eyes of making profits or loss. Fellow human beings are considered as competitors, superiors or inferiors.
Our human nature: Marx considered this as alienation from our species being. He further explains that what usually makes us human is the ability present in us to shape the world around us (Paolucci, 2008). Under capitalism, labour is forced making work to have no relationship with our collective interests. The aspect of labour division increases the capability to produce more but apparently, those who are engaged in the wealth creation are denied the benefits. Labour replaced machine but it turns others to inhuman form of labour while turning others to machines too. To the rich, labour produces marvels but to the worker, it is a privation ((Paolucci, 2008)).
As social beings, human beings have the capacity to collectively act in furthering their interest. This is however not the case in capitalist society because this ability is submerged under the hands of private ownership (Devorah, 2006). The ability to plan production and to match what is produced with developing need is reversed by individual drive of profit making. Thus worker cannot control and forecast consequences of their actions
Employee commitment is usually a key objective in any human resource management. (Schweitzer, 2007) sees it is a psychological form of ensuring commitment and compliance. Policies and practices surrounding the human resource are however generating opposite effects. Job security bring the goal of achieving higher work performance, this comes through in quest of improving relationship in work process and harmonious climate and cooperation. However, other imperatives seem to override these values. Drive for short term goals has ruled the working system and in response to enhancing improved performance it has placed emphasis on commitment by employees. (Devorah, 2006) for example, explain that the consequence of this is that employee’s experience isolation, meaningless and powerlessness, which are symptoms associated with alienation.
(O`Brien 2007) approximates that one-third of labour force in many jobs work as unskilled or semi-skilled in that area of specialization. The workers also work on intermittent basis and this bring a spirit of disillusionment and bitterness among the workers. (Walter, 2008) describes how workers become estranged from themselves, from each other and from the world around them. Despite the advances in science and technology, the society has continuously found itself under the mercies of external forces beyond its control. Private ownership means denying workers control over own activities which are within the labour process. According to (O`Brien 2007), everyone operating under the hands of employment is alienated because the whole system of work in geared and oriented towards maximising profits.
References
Dahms, F., 2011. Critiques of Traditional Marxism as Arguments for Basic Income, the
Vitality of Critical Theory (Current Perspectives in Social Theory) 14(5) 45-78
Devorah, K., 2006. Studying alienation, toward a better society 35(3), 522 – 530
Neharika, V., 2012. The concept of alienation: towards conceptual clarity, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 20(1), 25 – 50
O'Brien, J., 2007. The Instauration of the New Man of Marxism: A Critique, International
Journal of Social Economics, 14(3), 22 – 53.
Paolucci, P., 2008. Foucault’s encounter with Marxis Diverse Objects, Diverse Subjects -
Current Perspectives in Social Theory 22(3). 3-58
Schweitzer, D., 2007. Marxist theories of alienation and reification, International Journal
of Sociology and Social Policy 11(6), 27 – 52
Walter, R., 2008. Changes in the methodology of alienation research, International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 11(7), 213 - 221
