Marx and Durkheim Comparison with the Division of Labor in Society (Essay Sample)

Marx and Durkheim Comparison with the Division of Labor in Society
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
When comparing the theories on the division of labor in society by Marx and Durkheim, there are many aspects that they agree, but also some aspects in which they disagree. The comparisons between the two theorists mainly focus on the conflict and dysfunction that come along with the division of labor within a capitalist society. This is where most of the comparison is located because the two theorists tend to disagree on whether the conflict and dysfunction is positive or negative to the outcome of a society. Marx argues that conflict is present in the division of labor through material forces and the existing relations within society, class stratification, and dysfunction is located within alienation of the worker.
Durkheim locates conflict within the division of labor through individual interest and social interest, social solidarity, and dysfunction through his theory of anomie. Each of these provides very similar examples as to how Marx and Durkheim’s theory compare to one another. Through conflict and dysfunction resulting from the division of labor can Marx and Durkheim’s theories compare, leaving their disagreements at the point where conflict and dysfunction becomes positive or negative to a societies development. This is displayed through conflict present in the division of labor, social solidarity and class stratification, alienation and anomie, and where there disagreements are introduced. Correspondingly, Marx and Durkheim have few similarities when it comes to their theories on the division of labor in society, but the similarities they do possess begin with the conflict that is present within the division of labor. Beginning with Marx, conflict arises within the division of labor from the mode of production of material life conditions such as social, political and intellectual (Lecture 7, 2021). These already existing productions come into conflict when they are brought to interact with the material forces. When looking at this through the perspective of Marx, identifying that the already existing productions are often the workers or laborers of a community, it only makes sense that the material forces are the ruling and owning class. Marx’s theory draws from the higher relations of this production which do not appear before any material conditions, indicating that material conditions, or owning class, comes before any form of production or the working class people. The ruling or owning class often express their beliefs and ideas through the material relations they develop, which causes the conflict to arise from the contradictions of material life. Marx’s theory argues, “This consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production” (Munch) Finally this explanation of conflict most often always exists wherever there is social or material life in relation to its production. By the same token, Durkheim’s explanation on how conflict is present in the division of labor stems from the conflict of individual interest with that of societies interest.
Like Marx, Durkheim argues that the individual becomes conflicted when brought into the realm of society’s interest because it is necessary to enforce any sort of production. It would only make sense that the division of labor was “united for some few moments to exchange personal services, it could not give rise to any regulative action” (Lecture 2, 2021). As this indicates, without conflict enforcing any sort of production from the working class, any action would be irrelevant and not necessary because it does not possess any regulatory action. Durkheim’s arguments expand on the use of rules and laws in a society in order to function, as these rules come from a ruling class it would create conflict if the working class do not agree with these rules. In this sense, this is what Durkheim would argue enforces a well regulated and functioning society.
Furthermore, Marx and Durkheim can also be noted for agreeing on stratification and solidarity within the division of labor in society. As mentioned before, Marx often focused on the division between the ruling class and the working class, or the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie. This divide is known as class stratification, which can relate to what Durkheim calls social solidarity. Class stratification and social solidarity can be compared in the sense that they both provide a system of functions that unite a society. Durkheim argued that solidarity is made up of two kinds, which can relate to class stratification because “the first binds the individual directly to society without any intermediary. In the second, he depends upon society because he depends upon the parts of which it is composed” (Lecture 2, 2021).
This indicates that social solidarity and class stratification can be compared to one another on the terms that the Bourgeoisie are linked to society similarly to the first aspect of social solidarity and the Proletariat are linked to the aspect of social solidarity that depends upon society. This is because the bourgeoisie are the ruling class and can work independently of the working class, but the proletariat depends on the bourgeoisie to provide them with work, which provides them with the money they need to survive. For Marx, he argues that the need for this class divide will be the cause for many issues to arise because “the class relation between citizens and slaves is now completely developed” (Lecture 6, 2021). It is within the divide of the class stratification and social solidarity that Marx and Durkheim’s theories can be compared.