Comparison of the Theories of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim
| Subject: | 👸🏽 Famous Person |
| Type: | Compare and Contrast Essay |
| Pages: | 4 |
| Word count: | 1199 |
| Topics: | Karl Marx, Marxism, Social Inequality, 💰 Capitalism |
essay ASAP?
Table of Contents
Introduction
There have been many theorists throughout history who presents several concepts for public consumption. Due to the existence of several theories which can be used in explaining the contemporaty issues, it is important that the theorists are compared in order to determine those whose wordks form better interpretations of an issues of interest. While there is a complexity in the nature of the works presented by both theorists, their objectives is easy to fathom. Furthermoe, both personalities have their likenesses and dissimilarities. Thus, the main focus of this study is to perform a thorough analysis of the differences between Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim through the investigation of the application of their concepts in a contemporary issue.
Main Body
Analytic Points of View
The two theorist shad a sdifference of views regarding the issues of capitalism ecspecially on the issue of labor diviin the modern world. Karl Marx, who was also popularly recognized as a conflict philosopher, pointed out that the issue of labor divison was the source of marginalization of communities in the society. The theories presented by him have been considered to be characterized by a uniqueness. Being that he was mostly interested in the dynamics of capitalism, his theory mainly majored on the social differences that was witnessed between the varios communities in the society. He greatly indulged in the study of inequalities affecting the society in general. During his time, a majority of individuals had specializations in different areas which in turn defined their personalities. After the introduction of capitalism, the work of these individuals turned into ordinary jobs without personal meanings to them. On the contrary, Emile Durkheim maintatined that the issues of labor dividuon in the society was an essential component for the advancement of the societal welfare. Durkheim was widely accepted as a therorist who mainly concentrated on functionalism, and his beliefs were in dirdct conflict with those of Marx. As opposed to Marx, who believe that countries in which there was commercial specialization resulted in an overal alienation of inidviudula, Durkheim also pointed outh that the core advantage of the labor division was based on the fact that it promoted the experstes of an individual, hence having a positive impact on the society in general. His reasoningon this point was that there will be a solidarity in the indivuduls who indulge in similar activities. Furthermore, his theories showed that labor division also strikes an equilibrium within the members of the society, which eventually leads to a union in e social arrangements. He was also convinced that the use of social principles is of great significncae in addressing the issues relevant to them. Consequently, this increases the interaction between the social systems, which will eventually increase their efficiencies. The theory was developed a t a time in whie hmost inidiviudals were convidces that the social arrangements was threatenened as a result of the societal greed.
Despite the fact that the theories presented by the two analysts were mostly used to explain the societal interactions based on the period marking the industrial revolution, the theories may still find application in providing explanations of the situation in the modern day wolrd.
While the Marxist theories strongy support the concept of alienation in the society as having been csaused by the labor division, the Durkheimian theories strongly differ withthem. He claims that there are only a few situations with respect to labor differences during which the member of the society are actually alienated.
In the modern day world, a supporte of the Durkheimian theories may assert that the individuals s who are employed in a shop. For instance, the individuals is constantly relating to the other parties present in the workpaces. Furthrmeoe, this will entails not ony the peronell employed at the site but also the custormeer s who frequent the place. In spite tof the fact that heir fucntions in the buninesss would be to sell the products, they will acknowledge the fact hat y they are a part of a much grater organization. While their tasks twithin the company may be limited in comparison to the dueite of the company, they will have a unity in the purpose that they may be trying to achieve. As a result, the individuals will remain mindful of the welfares of the others both within and outside the organization. According to Durkheim, a worker under such circumstances will be able to view himself as a unit in a system, and will be concious of the fact that the actions performed by him have a purpose.
From the two theories, it can be said that there is a sense in either of the rationalte presented. For instance, there have been many cases in the modern society where the woeksrs have cieted disasaproval of their positions in the companies, which awsys stems from being alienated. The issue may also be lijened to cases in which the workder are simply viewed as machines used to facilitate the completion of work. The situation normally entails the use of individuals to achieve certain tasks while not adhering to their rights as human beings, wher the managements only focus on achiebing the organizationsl aims and ojeccties.
In the modern society, there have been cases where the working oncidtions of laborers has is alsoways compromised. For instance, the workers ar often maed to work for long periods awith little pay. Such has been the case in some of the developing nations. However, the US is also affected since many companies, while seeking cheap labor, have move thir production operations to the developing nations.
In view of the Marxist theory, the workders arefothen compelled to work simply because it is a rquriemnet that they gave ti oerfirn, Hence, wit thime, the se individuals increasingly become wary othe their sutuations and roles in the companies.
Despite the existence of dire situations in some companies, alienation may not explicitly represent the situation that occurs. For instance, while many indifiduals may b forced to perform some duites under undesirable conditions, not all of them are characterized with isolation related effects. Hence, the Markcixt argument over the fact that workers are often necessistated to performa their duties is relevant in most work enviornments. However, a majority of them gradually develop in their areas of expertise, hence the issues of alientation would not be representative of all tof them. On the contrary, the Durkheim’s theory over the specialization of individuals in their respective fields is more relevant due to the fact that a continuous indulgementent in an activity over a considerable time will not only invrease the success of the individual, but also improve on the relationship with the other members of the organization.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that the theories on labor as presented by Marx and Durkheim are relevant to the modern day work environment. However, the theory by Durkheim is arguably better suited in addressing the issue of labor division as compared to the Marx’s theories. However, due to the importance of each of them in addressing the diverse situations that exist, they would more accurately describe the current conditions when used together.
Offered for reference purposes only.