Two of the classical theories of work

Explain and critically discuss TWO of the classical theories of work. In your critical analysis comment on the relevance of the theories to today’s society (1,000 to 1,500 words)

Introduction

Between the mid-19th and early 20th century, Europe was passing through one of the most crucial periods of its time, the transition between the pre-industrial society and the industrial society, also known as the Industrial Revolution. This, together with the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, brought about significant changes to social conditions, hence the development of the classical social theories. These theories were introduced mainly by three prominent sociologists, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber, also known as the ‘central founders of sociology’ (Macionis & Plummer,2008, p.32).
In this essay, I will be giving a brief description of the Industrial Revolution leading to explaining two of the classical theories of work namely that of Émile Durkheim and that of Karl Marx in relation to their views on society, and then concluding by commenting on the relevance both theories still have to today’s society and working life.

The Industrial Revolution
This is the period in which society developed from the Pre-Industrial to the Industrial Society. Whilst during the Pre-Industrial Society, the main feature was what is known as the Cottage Industry where the individual was more into craft, had a sense of community and was self-sufficient, the Industrial Society was more based on mass production and machinery, urbanisation and an affluence in consumer values. The Industrial Revolution brought about a complete change not only in the modes of production and in the world of work, but also in all the spheres of life, thus launching the process of Industrialisation.

Émile Durkheim on the Division of Labour and Anomie
Durkheim’s main influence on our apprehension of working life can be found in his work The Division of Labour in Society, and also in his theory of anomie. The Division of Labour in Society deals with matters such as solidarity among society during an era of social and economic change (Grint 1998, p.95). Durkheim, as opposed to Auguste Comte, who argues that “the division of labour entails fragmentation, and as a consequence, imperils the cohesion of society” (Müller 1994, p.77), states that division of labour brings a sense of collective conscience (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.110) where the task range of each particular job depends on discretion, functional interdependence, and reciprocity, therefore leading to a high level of complementarity of roles and social consensus (Giddens 2001, p.10). According to this equation, the social bonds should be more strengthened, thus contradicting the theory that the division of labour is grounded on economic necessity. Durkheim’s beliefs in the way the division of labour played a major part in social solidarity and helped in the bonding of society, led him to the conclusion that there were two types of solidarity, the mechanical solidarity where people feel “an automatic sense of belonging together” (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.110) since they bonded over doing the same things together; and the organic solidarity, which is the opposite of mechanical solidarity since here people bond over the differences in tasks and responsibilities but that still depend on each other (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.110). However, Durkheim also recognised irregularities in division of labour where social solidarity was not present at all, one of which is anomie. Anomie is “a condition in which society provides little moral guidance to individuals” (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.110). The process of change from the pre-industrial to the industrial society brought about social complications in which the individual found it difficult to establish roots and integrate in society and this kind of unsettling created a hostile environment in which the individual was feeling isolated. This isolation gave rise to disillusion since things now were not as clear as they used to be in the pre-industrial society. Institutions, which were still developing, were not well equipped for this extreme functional differentiation and interdependence, therefore there was also maladaptation in society. This vicious cycle of events gave rise to the debasement of human nature where the lack of morality ruled and which resulted in a vacuum of standards. This change also raised expectations and created a set of dreams and desires, but in this modern society, the gap between expectations and achievements is getting wider and wider and this gives rise to higher disillusion and maladaptation, and therefore creates a more intensive feeling of anomie. (Agnew 1980, pp.53-64) Here the individual is at a loss and is finding it difficult to cope with the complexity of this society such that establishing significant relations with others proves to be challenging. These are the effects of anomie on society.

Karl Marx on Alienation and Exploitation

According to Grint (1998, p.86), Marx argues that “the human species is different from all other animal species, not because of its consciousness but because it alone produces its own means of substance. This uniquely human attribute also provides the medium through which individuals can realise their true potential as humans”.
One of the major differences between Marx and Durkheim is the fact that according to Marx, industrialisation is not the main basis for the formation of society, but rather capitalism is (Grint 1998, p.86). In a capitalist system a two-class system exists, that of the capitalists or rather the people who own the capital as in machines, money, and also labourers’ time, better known as the bourgeois, and the ones that sell their labour power in order to survive, therefore the working class, also known as the proletariat (Haralambos & Holborn 2008, p.869). This disrupts the relationship between labour and human nature, therefore creating a state of alienation (Grint 1998, pp.96-97). Alienation as referred to by Marx is “the loss of control on the part of workers over the nature of the labour task, and over the product of their labour” (Giddens 2001, p.683).
Marx measures alienation with four dimensions. The first type of alienation is Labour Powerlessness –the alienation from the act of working, where the workers do not have control over the job they are doing. They are told what to do and how to do it (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.105).
The second type of alienation is Labour Meaninglessness – the alienation from the products of work – where the workers are not able to identify themselves with the work they are doing since most often they will be doing only part of the finished job, therefore the only value there is, is instrumental and there is no intrinsic satisfaction (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.105).
The third type of alienation is Fellow Isolation – alienation from other workers where self-interest and a sense of competition prevails. Furthermore, interaction between workers is as minimal as possible (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.105).
The fourth and last type of alienation which Marx describes is Self-Estrangement – the alienation from human potential. Here the worker is controlled by the machine rather than controlling the machine himself (Macionis & Plummer 2008, p.110), therefore the individual feels like he has lost his human side and became part of the machine or as Marx puts it “an appendage to a machine” (Jeannot 2010, p.228).
Marx, in his later works, moved from the area of philosophy to that of economics, or rather as Grint (1998, p.89) puts it, from alienation to exploitation. Marx believes that there is an exploitative affiliation between the two classes, although it is shown less in modern capitalist societies (Giddens 2001, p.284). Marx put up with the fact that the bourgeois exploited the proletariat, since there was a difference between what the workers earned in exchange for the work done and the value of the product itself (Grint 1998, p.90). In other words, the proletarians are forced to sell their labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage to be able to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour (Giddens 2001, p.284). Capitalism involves the investment of capital in the production of commodities with the aim of maximising profits in order to accumulate more capital.

Conclusion

The fact that the classical theories of work are still being discussed today, is evidence to how massive their influence has been.
Today we are living in a society whose economy is based on having to create a continuing 'need to need ', so there is constant cultural pressure to dispose of material goods and thus also cultural values to ensure that we keep buying the 'latest ' forms of entertainment. Since we live in a time of constant change, it may be somewhat difficult for some to adapt and is also raising our expectations thereby increasing the gap between our expectations and achievements. So from the Durkheimian point of view, we are at risk of experiencing anomie. Alienation also still plays a huge part in our society, since the four dimensions set out by Marx are still very evident in today’s ever-changing world of work, especially in factories and production lines.
While conditions in this day and age are much better than what is described during the Industrial Revolution, especially with the introduction of trade unions and International Laws, these illnesses unfortunately still exist, and the symptoms can be clearly seen in the growing surge rate of drug abuse and crime, to mention just a few. Therefore, in light of all this, it is clear that both anomie and alienation are still relevant to today’s society.

References
Agnew, R. S. (1980). Success and anomie: A study of the effect of goals on anomie. The Sociological Quarterly, 21(1), 53-64.
Giddens, A. (1993). Sociology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grint, K. (1998). The sociology of work: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (2008). Sociology: Themes and perspectives (7th ed.). London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
Jeannot, T. (2010). The enduring significance of the thought of Karl Marx. Int J of Social Economics, 37(3), 214-238. doi:10.1108/03068291011018776
Macionis, J. J., & Plummer, K. (2008). Sociology A global introduction (4th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Müller, H. (1994). Social differentiation and organic solidarity: The "division of labor" revisited. Sociological Forum, 9(1, Special Issue: The 100th Anniversary of Sociology 's First Classic: Durkheim 's "Division of Labor in Society."), 73-86.

References: Agnew, R. S. (1980). Success and anomie: A study of the effect of goals on anomie. The Sociological Quarterly, 21(1), 53-64. Giddens, A. (1993). Sociology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Grint, K. (1998). The sociology of work: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (2008). Sociology: Themes and perspectives (7th ed.). London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited. Jeannot, T. (2010). The enduring significance of the thought of Karl Marx. Int J of Social Economics, 37(3), 214-238. doi:10.1108/03068291011018776 Macionis, J. J., & Plummer, K. (2008). Sociology A global introduction (4th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited. Müller, H. (1994). Social differentiation and organic solidarity: The "division of labor" revisited. Sociological Forum, 9(1, Special Issue: The 100th Anniversary of Sociology 's First Classic: Durkheim 's "Division of Labor in Society."), 73-86.