Classical Approaches to Work

Classical approaches to work Marx, Weber and Durkheim

Introduction The ideas of “gang of three” – Marx, Weber and Durkheim Situated at three corners of a triangle. Durkheim focused on – social solidarity, integration and control. Marx concerned – social fragmentation, disintegration and conflict. Weber deelo!ed" theory of rationality and bureaucracy

Introduction The ideas of “gang of three” – Marx, Weber and Durkheim Situated at three corners of a triangle. Durkheim focused on – social solidarity, integration and control. Marx concerned – social fragmentation, disintegration and conflict. Weber deelo!ed" theory of rationality and bureaucracy

Marx#s argument – $uman s!ecies is different from all other animal s!ecies not because of its consciousness but because it alone !roduces its o%n means of subsistence. &or exam!le' Take ra% resources like cotton, %ool and turning them into %oen cloth. This uni(ue human attribute – !roides a medium %here indiidual can reali)e their true !otential as humans. $o%eer – ca!italism deny human it  *s!ecies being#. be ing#. bein g#.

Marx and capitalism Marx distinguish bet%een *ob+ectificatio *ob+ectification# n# and *alienation#. Objectification – roduct of human labour on ra% materials – -mbodies the !roducers creatiity and yet remain se!arate from the !roducer – Some form of !roduction is essential to humanity both in !roiding the material structure of social life and in facilitating self reali)ation of indiidual !otential.

The !roblem is %hen the system of !roduction is ca!italist – minority o%ns means of !roduction. The ma+ority o%n only their labour !o%er and %here the !roduction is made for !rofit therefore it causes alienation not ob+ectification/. The uni(ue (uality of human beings – their ability to !roduce their o%n means of existence, actuali)e and reali)e their o%n !otential , creatie ca!acity thru labor – is inerted thru ca!italism. 0n modern industrial !roduction under ca!italist – %orkers %ill ineitably lose control of their lies by losing control oer their %ork.

1efore ca!italist – shoemaker %ould o%n his o%n sho!, set his o%n hours, determine his %orking condition, sha!e his o%n !roduct, has say in ho% his !roduct is sold and has relationshi! %ith !eo!le %hom he %orked and dealt. 2nder the modern factory !roduction – by contrast the %orkers hae to %ork under monotonous and closely su!erised task, lost control oer the !rocess of !roduction, oer the !roducts they !roduce and the relationshi! %ith each other. They become estranged from their human nature.

$uman beings cannot be human under these conditions. Marx – ca!italism has to be abolished as much as any !olitical o!!ression if a society#s emanci!ation !embebasan/ is to be com!lete. 3a!italism limits !eo!le#s autonomy – controlling their %ork!laces and economic life. 4 society of truly free citi)ens according to Marx – must be a !olitical, economic and social democracy. Single alternatie to Marx " 3ommunism

3ommunism is a socioeconomic structure and !olitical !olitical ideology ideology that !romotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common o%nershi! and control of the means of !roduction and !ro!erty in general. 0n 5arl Marx6s o%n %ords """"""""""" 70n communist society, %here nobody has one exclusie s!here of actiity but each can become accom!lished in any branch he %ishes, society regulates the general !roduction and thus makes it !ossible for me to do one thing today and another tomorro%, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the eening, critici)e after dinner, +ust as 0 hae a mind, %ithout eer becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.7

0n !olitical science, the term 7communism7 is sometimes used to refer to communist states, a form of goernment in %hich the state o!erates under a one"!arty one"!arty system and and declares declares allegiance allegiance to Marxism"8eninism Marxism"8eninism or a deriatie thereof, een if the !arty does not actually claim that it has already deelo!ed communism. Marxism holds that a !rocess of class conflict and reolutionary struggle %ill result in ictory for the !roletariat and the establishment of a communist society in %hich !riate o%nershi! is abolished oer time and the means of !roduction and subsistence become the !ro!erty of society.

 Alienation Systematic result of liing in a socially stratified society, because being a mechanistic !art of a social class alienates a !erson from his and her humanity. 4lienation – means se!eration from that %hich is desired9desirable. Theoretic basis of alienation – the %orker inariably loses the ability to determine his or her life and destiny. They are de!ried the right to think of himself as the director of his action, to determine the character of

of said actions: to define his relationshi! %ith other !eo!le: and to o%n the things and use the alue of the goods and serices, !roduced %ith his labor. " 4lthough the %orker is an autonomous, self"reali)ed human being – as an economic entity – he is directed to goals and dictated to actiities – dictated by the bourgeoisie %ho o%n the means of !roduction/.

Four aspects of alienation roduct alienation – The !roduct is o%ned by the em!loyer – 4bsence of control of !roducer oer the !roduct – roducts are not for self reali)ation reali)ation – roducts are to maximi)e !rofit – Thus, the %orker !roduce cash cro!s for the market %hen they are malnourished, build houses in %hich they neer lie, make cars they can neer buy, !roduce shoes they cannot afford to %ear;and so on.

 Activity alienation Diision of labor – The second as!ect of alienation stems from the eer increasing diision of labor – fragments !roductie !rocess. – Managers diide com!lex %ork !rocess into sim!le, re!etitie re!etitie tasks %hich %orkers can !erform in machine"like fashion. – The %orkers had to s!eciali)e in !articular task, %hich reali)ed only one or t%o as!ects of their human !o%ers at the ex!ense of others. – Meaningless tasks – Work is inoluntary and doesn#t deelo! creatie !otential

Social alienation Turn eery !roductie grou! into com!etitor, setting indiiduals against indiidual . 4lienated from fello% human beings. ?@'A@/

Species alienation The mindless re!etition blurs the distinction bet%een humanity and animality. roducts become commodity %hich dominate humans. Bb+ects designed for use by human are transformed ia the ca!italist mode of !roduction into commodities that dominate human.

Exploitation and capitalist labor process roduction should distinguishes bet%een man and animals medium for self reali)ation 3a!italism distorts that This creates social conflict %hich in turn %ill destroy ca!italism and moe to%ards a communist society

0n the ca!italist system of !roduction, the manual labour of the em!loyed car!enter yields him %ages, not !rofits.

0n the ca!italist system of !roduction, the intellectual labour of the em!loyed engineer yields him a salary, not !rofits.

Strikers confronted by soldiers during the =>=C textile factory strike in 8a%rence, Massachusetts, 2.S.4., called %hen o%ners reduced %ages, after a state la% reduced the %ork %eek from ? to E hours.

Durkheim and industrial society

"

Durkheim formally established the academic disci!line and, %ith 5arl Marx and Max Weber, is commonly cited as the !rinci!al architect of modern social science and father of sociology.

Durkheim and industrial society

Durkheim discussed social solidarity""the bond bet%een all indiiduals %ithin a society 0n his first ma+or %ork, The Division of Labor in Society , first !ublished in =@>A 4ssum!tion " that modern industrial society %as disintegrating due to increasing diision of labor and urbani)ation of life. Durkheim retorted that – rather being dismantled"

solidarity %as reconstructed in a different form. Durkheim" argued that modern industrial society – actiely freed !eo!le from isolation – by inducing mutual de!endence through an increasing diision of labor. " Solidarity – “cohesion of human grou!s into a social unity”. " T%o ty!es ' =/ Mechanical solidarity , C/ Brganic solidarity

Mechanical Solidarity Social cohesion based u!on the likeness and similarities among indiiduals in a society, and largely de!endent on common rituals and routines. 3ommon among !rehistoric and !re" agricultural societies %hen all members of a society !erformed the same or nearly the same tasks as all others in a society. 0f one !erson %ere to die and not be re!laced, the society %ould not change, because all other members did the same thing The bond deries not from de!endence on other indiiduals, but from the de!endence on the total social system.

Organic Solidarity Social cohesion based u!on the de!endence indiiduals in more adanced society hae on each other. 3ommon among industrial societies as the diision of labor increases. Though indiiduals !erform different tasks and often hae different alues and interests, the order and ery surial of society de!ends on their reliance on each other to !erform their s!ecific task.

8ike the organs %ithin an animal, indiiduals !erform certain s!ecific functions, but rely on the %ell"being and successful !erformance of other indiiduals. 0f one organ fails, the rest of them fail as %ell. 4 body""or in this case a society""cannot function at all if one !art crumbles. This reliance u!on each other for social and een !hysical/ surial is the source of organic solidarity, according to Durkheim. There is no necessary correlation bet%een increased s!eciali)ation and decreasing solidarity.

4t the end of his %ork %ork – – “The “The Diision Diision of labour” labour” – ho%eer, Durkheim note – that there can be !roblems in society. The diision of labour itself does not al%ays function as %ell as it could in modern society. Durkheim maintained that *abnormal# forms of the diision of labor still !ersisted and brought %ith them !roblems for the !roduction and re!roduction of the necessary degrees of social solidarity. There are t%o ty!es of abnormal forms of the diision of labour' “anomic” and “forced” diision of labour

 Abnormal forms of division of labor  4nomic – Meaninglessness of %ork' a transient form generated bet%een the colla!se of mechanical solidarity and the creation of organic solidarity – During this !hase – ne% norms of behaiour had yet to be diffused throughout society – %orsen by the a!!arent deskilling of %ork manifest in factory system

Workers %ere constrained didesak/ to meaningless o!erations of !roducts for consumers they didn#t kno% 4s the norms of behaiour s!read and anarchy kacau"bilau/ of the free market d%indled menyusut/ under social regulation – the anomic diision of labour %ould disa!!ear.

&orced diision of labor – The force di of labour – is %here the diision of labour is not allo%ed to deelo! s!ontaneously. – 4ny factors that !reent indiiduals from achieing !ositions %hich %ould be consistent %ith their natural abilities indicates a force diision of labour. – This could be ine(ualities in the structure of %ork or inade(uate organi)ation, %ith the %rong !eo!le in !articular !ositions or incoherent organi)ational structures.

4ny interference %ith the o!eration of the diision of labour that results in the !osition being filled by those %ho are not most a!t te!at9sesuai/ for the !osition could be forced diision of labour. &orced diision of labour – focused on structural ine(ualities . 1ecause of different social class – !eo!le %ho are in the lo%er class %ill not receie the same ty!e of o!!ortunities.

Max eber

$is contribution to sociology of %ork are in three fields – Social stratification 3lass, status, !arty/ – 0nter!retatie methodology – bureaucracy

Class and stratification Weber deelo!ed a different a!!roach to the study of social grou! and classes than did Marx. &or Marx – C !rimary grou! in society and there %ere classes the bourgeoisie and the !roletariat/ %hose contradictory relationshi! is the motie force for change in ca!italism. Marx – considers these classes to be defined and determined by %hether they o%n the means of !roduction bourgeoisie/ or %hether they do not o%n the means of !roduction and sell labor to those %ho do !roletariat/. &or Weber – 0t is not !ossible to reduce the organi)ation organi)ation of of all these !eo!le !eo!le to a single dimension such as o%nershi! or non"o%nershi! of the means of !roduction.

There is a !luralism associated %ith the class structure. 3reate a grou!ing such as a class, status grou! or !arty. &or Weber – %hat %e call social stratification9 social class is in the s!here of !o%er and can be analy)ed by examining economic situation, status honor and !arties organi)ations formed by !eo!le to achiee certain ends/. 4 !erson#s !o%er can be sho%n in the social order through his9her status, in the economic order through class and in the !olitical order through his9her !arty. 3lass, status and !arty – are each as!ects of the distribution distribution of !o%er %ithin a community.

=/ 3lasses " 4nalysis of class – rooted in the economic s!here, in the domain of markets " Weber#s a!!roach more dierse than Marx. " &or Weber – there are many more !ossible classes than +ust ca!italist and %orkers.

Does not consider o%nershi! or non"o%nershi! of the means of !roduction to be the ma+or source of class formation formation in ca!italism. 3lasses may be distinguished in seeral %ays Since there are many markets, interests and class situations – there are multi!licity of classes in any society. A ty!es of class – ro!erty9o%nershi! class – 3ommercial9ac(uisition class – Social

a/ Ownership/property class " Who o%n mines, cattle, slaes, ca!ital goods, stocks, money, land, real estate and in today#s %orld ne% forms of !ro!erty such as forest, %ater, technology !atents/, communications media sells audiences/, franchises and intellectual !ro!erty. b/ Commercial /acquisition class " 0ndiiduals %ho hae no tangible, marketable !ro!erty but hae certain skills or abilities %hich can be offered on the market " Determined by the skills and occu!ational characteristics members bring into the market. " S!ecialists or those %ho hae unusual talents such as entertainers, s!orts !rofessionals, may be able to be %ell situated %ith res!ect to some market.

c/ Social class Bccu!ationally based and distinguishes bet%een the %orking class of labor sellers: the lo%er middle class of sho!kee!ers. &or exam!les' the intelligentsia %ith little !ro!erty but technical (ualification technicians, ciil serants, arious kinds of %hite"collar %hite"collar em!loyees/.

Status 0ndiiduals can be ranked on the basis of honor or !restige. Was not determined by class een though it correlates %ith class. 0ndiiduals %ho are lo% in class !osition can be high in !restige and ice ersa. Determined Determined by life style, formal education, occu!ational !restige, hereditary !restige.

!arties &inal as!ect of Weber#s trilogy of !o%er %as the !arty. 3lass fought oer economic issues, status grou! contested the distribution of social honor and !arties %ere oriented to%ards the ac(uisition of social !o%er. arties – are organi)ations, rather than communities or grou!s – and they inole striing for a goal in a !lanned manner. 4ssociations that aim at securing !o%er %ithin an organi)ation. They are associations of !eo!le that attem!t to influence social action.

0f status grou!s or classes become %ell organi)ed – they may form !arties Trade unions, rofessional 4ssociations/. arties tend to be a feature of modern society – %here !o%er is exercised in a more formal, rational rational and !lanned manner than in traditional society. arties – means of organi)ations to achiee s!ecific end in modern society and once organi)ations are deelo!ed as !arties – they become more rational, that is systematic and !ermanent.

Interpretative Methodolo"y Bther main contributions of Weber is his %ork on methodology. Denied structural a!!roach of both Marx and Durkheim. Weber – use inter!retatie methodology to study social action. 1ased on understanding the !ur!ose and meaning that indiidual attach to their o%n actions.

Social !henomena caused by indiidual actions actions and thoughts. This inter!retatie method Ferstehen/ %as different from the obserational methods used by natural scientists . Ferstehen – refers to understanding the meaning of actions from the actor#s !oint of ie%. -xam!le' =/ %andering around to%n as a !leasurable ex!erience during acation C/ an ex!ression of boredom through unem!loyment The difference is difficult to ex!lain by obsering and re(uires inter!retatie understandings.

Capitalism and rationali#ation

Weber coninced that contem!orary society %as grounded in the symbolic and material adance of rationality. rationality. The !rinci!al !hysical manifestation took A related form' ca!italism, rational  +uris!rudence and bureaucracy Weber#s ie% – modern society es! the %estern %orld is gro%ing increasingly rationali)ed.