Learning is cool

Emilie Durkheim’s Concern with a Shift from Mechanical to Organic Solidarity
Compared with the Concerns of Karl Marx and Max Weber
Kat Shuttleworth
SOC 3320 – 001
Dr. Piancenti

Sociologists Emilie Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber all thrived in the modern classical age. Each of the three were essentially concerned with the base of social solidarity, along with the division of labor, and social order. Coming from different theoretical traditions, these three sociologists have both several similarities as well as differences in their sociological approaches. Durkheim was a contemporary of Weber, yet Durkheim begins with a very different premise called functionalism. Both Marx and Weber are usually referred to as conflict theorists. They understood that any social order involved the regulation of opposing interests, and, as a result, that conflict between individuals and among groups was an essential part of every society. Emilie Durkheim focused on the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity, touching on aspects such as division of labor and the collective conscience. Similarly, Karl Marx focused on a division of labor and how it effects the society and its members, or more specifically how in benefits the bourgeoisie at the cost of exploiting the proletariat. Max Weber was concerned primarily with legitimacy of domination, along with the idea of not just class, but also status groups and parties and the effects of what he considered to be specialization. Each of the concerns of these three theorists relate back to each other in a one way or another, most often through the common interests related to a changing social structure and other changes seen in society over time.
Emilie Durkheim was concerned with the transition to modern society and with it the birth of a new form of social order. In his works, Durkheim focused on the relationship between labor and the collective conscience. He noticed that as jobs began to become more specialized, the values and ideas that tied communities together began to dwindle. Durkheim claimed that “in reality, [the] human conscience we must integrally realize is nothing else than the collective conscience of the group of which we are most attached…] (74). Durkheim explained the birth of a new modern society as the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity.
According to Emilie Durkheim, mechanical solidarity is seen in a society where social cohesion is based on resemblances, such as shared experiences and knowledge. The primary institution in a society with mechanical solidarity is family, the rest of the five aspects, education, economy, healthcare, government and religion/morality, connect back to family. This type of society operates essentially like a machine, with each member representing a cog in the wheel. Due to the fact that deviation from the norm poses a threat to the social solidarity, there is little room for individuality. Very little changes over time and as a result the shared experiences in the workplace translate into similar values and ideals and strong social solidarity. Durkheim, however, understood and saw that mechanical solidarity would eventually give way to the changes that came with the enlightenment and industrialization; As a result of changes in societies, there would come a new form of social order which he referred to as organic solidarity.
Division of labor is the increasing specialization of labor, as industrialization occurs and societies modernize, the division of labor grows. Durkheim believed that the division of labor increases as society shifts from mechanical to organic solidarity and as a result a change happens in the structure of the community. The five pillars attached the primary institution of family begin to separate and become their own institutions. Prior functions of the familial institution now become state-regulated public and private institutions, such as education and healthcare. Due to the industrialization or the rural areas, parents begin to leave their homes for work, forcing them to send their children away. Rather than learning from family tradition, children go to schools for their educations. Now that there is no longer a focus on family as the primary institution, we as people begin to organically develop into our place in the world. For example, a person may go to law school to one day become a lawyer, or medical school to become a doctor.
The shift from mechanical to organic solidarity can be seen as a shift from a rural to urban society. As mentioned previously, in a society with a strong organic solidarity, each institution has its own ground to stand on, allowing members of the said society to find their best fit in the workplace. Rather than learning one task to do as their parents had done, members in a society characterized by mechanical solidarity are trained to find their calling in life in order to best succeed in a society in which each institution is interwoven. Durkheim also claimed that in societies characterized by organic solidarity, the weakened collective conscience tends to lead to a certain degree of what he called anomie, or rather a sense of not knowing what to do.
Karl Marx, similarly to Durkheim, was concerned with the division of labor in society and the lasting effects further increases may carry. Marx had a fixation with capitalism and its growing influence in urbanized and industrialized areas. Marx believed ultimately that the division of labor could be boiled down to two classes, the oppressed and oppressor, prevalent throughout history; He defined those of his time as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie, or otherwise referred to as capitalists, were the elite class of business-owners who owned the means of production. The proletariat were then the working class struggling to survive by selling their labor for low wages and extremely rough working conditions. Similar to Durkheim’s belief that we are all pieces of a machine in an organic solidarity, Marx proclaimed that, “the work of the proletariats has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine,” (43).
Marx believed that inequality in a society derives from social organization and a division of labor. It begins with an increase of production, and as capital increases it promotes a level of differentiation in a society. That level of differentiation will then in turn increase as productivity increases, and vice versa. As the two effect each other, the population rate increases and as a result of population increase, there is an increase in level of differentiation. It is a cyclical pattern and the effect of this is ultimately that control of the means of production becomes concentrated in the hands of a select, elite few. The few are then able to exploit the many and as the power becomes more concentrated and thus inequality grows further. Durkheim’s theory of social anomie and the modern division of labor is in support of this belief. Durkheim stated that, “the strongest succeed in completely demolishing the weakest, or in subordinating them. But if the conquered, for a time, must suffer subordination under compulsion, they do not consent to it, and consequently this cannot substitute a stable equilibrium,” (77). Marx and Durkheim both saw the inequality in society and the obvious concentration of power translated into exploitation and disparity.
Marx’s obsession with capitalism led him to define multiple forms of alienation and estrangement. This is compatible with Durkheim’s theory of anomie and the feeling of being unhuman, or just a part of the machine. Marx believed that “the alien being, to whom labour and the produce of labour belongs, in whose service labour is done and for whose benefit the produce of labour is provided can only be man himself…If the product of labour does not belong o the worker, if it confronts him as an alien power, this can only be because it belongs to some other man than the worker… only man can be this alien power over man,” (37). Furthermore, Marx was fixed on the subject of estrangement and the different forms that arose as a result of the division of labor. The estrangement of man from man arose from that fact that man is estranged from the product of his labor. Both Durkheim and Marx saw a disconnect between man and the workforce, Max Weber on the other hand felt slightly different.
Max Weber believed that we must slot people into the right job and that culture could create economy. This is opposite of Marx who believed that economy creates culture. Weber believed that if you love what you do you will be happy and more productive. He critiqued Marx’s claim that economy creates culture and from that come ideas and values. Weber turned this on its head and said it is the other way around. The religious culture of Protestants work ethic, working in the name of God, actually created the work ethic we see, not the other way around as Marx believed.
Straying away a bit from Marx’s obsession with capitalism and his idea of only one means of coming into power, class, Weber focuses on defining types of legitimate authority, along with the concept of coming into power through social status and furthermore the classification system as it relates to distribution of power. Essentially, Weber believed that social resources obtain power by the willingness of a person in society to obey another person, depending on their legitimacy of their right to rule. In Types of Legitimate Domination, Max Weber identifies three types of authority; rational, traditional and charismatic. Rational authority rests on a belief “in the legality of enacted rules of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands (legal authority),” (118). Rational authority would most likely be what was seen in Durkheim’s ideas of a society with organic solidarity, as well as Marx’s view of the labor divided world. As one person, or group of peoples come into power due to their level of authority obtained and their ability to enforce rules over their workers. Weber believed that, “the mode of legitimation of this relation between chief and his staff may vary widely according to the type of basis of the relation of the authority between them…this variation is highly significant for the structure of domination,” (118). This is different from Marx and Durkheim, in that Weber believes in multiple forms of authority, rather than Marx’s concept of essentially the oppressor and the oppressed.
In his piece Class, Status, Party, Weber discusses how class is determined and the consequences that arise with a division of class. Weber makes clear the differences between classes, status groups and parties, he mentions that the three are “phenomena od the distribution of power within a community,” (119). First, he considers a class to consist of people whom have specific common interests related to economic interests and the division of goods along with opportunity for more income. Weber calls this a “class situation” (120). He then explains that from a class situation flows social action along with forms of class struggle. Status honor, according to Weber, is determined primarily by “social estimation of honor” (123). By looking into the variations among classes and social statuses, Weber sees the discrimination and ethnic segregation, along with status privileges which Marx and Durkheim failed to mention. The other two sociologists were too preoccupied with the division of labor to see the division in society that it creates, along with a serious rising tension. While Marx and Weber apply the concept of specialization in very different ways, the implementation and consequences have much in common. Marx saw that the individual is not important; instead his labor gives him value. One could say that capitalism, as a system, values the labor of the individual more than it values the individual himself. In neither Weber nor Marx’s point of view is man valued for his self –worth, but instead for his value is contingent on what his labor produces. Durkheim understood specialization more similarly to Marx than Weber. Durkheim understood specialization as an underlying cause of the uprising of organic solidarity in a community. As the division of labor becomes more specialized, an organic solidarity becomes increasingly prevalent.
As society continues to evolve, social thought evolves along with it. However, classic modern theorists such as Emilie Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber will always hold a strong influence over the sociological world. The early influences on thought regarding the foundations and structure of societies can be looked back on and compared to a number of new theorists. It is most interesting however to compare the three and pull out the striking similarities each saw throughout the evolution of societies. Durkheim focused on the shift from mechanical to organic solidarity in a society, and with tat the effects of specialization in the division of labor. Furthermore, Durkheim explained that as a society becomes more specialized, societies traditional ties began to weaken and transform into new ties based on economic interests and labor. Similar to Durkheim’s belief in the concept of two forms of social solidarity and the influence industrialization and urbanism had on societies was similar to the concepts created by Karl Marx. Marx focused on the extreme division in labor, more specifically the creation of two separate classes, the oppressor and the oppressed, or what he called bourgeoisie and proletariat. Lastly, Max Weber was concerned more or less with social order and the legitimacy of domination. Each of these three theorists are both different and similar in certain aspects. Although their theories may not always be compatible with one another’s, Durkheim, Marx and Weber all saw the extreme situations occurring in social structure, social order and social solidarity.

References
Lemert, C. C. (2010). Social theory: the multicultural and classic readings (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

References: Lemert, C. C. (2010). Social theory: the multicultural and classic readings (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.