Discuss the Statement ‘the Division of Labour Creates Solidarity in the Workplace’ with Reference to Ideas from Durkheim and Marx. Illustrate Your Answer with Contemporary or Historical Examples

Discuss the statement ‘The Division of labour creates solidarity in the workplace’ with reference to ideas from Durkheim and Marx. Illustrate your answer with contemporary or historical examples. (1502125201)

Division of labour can be defined as the specialization of tasks within a process of production whereby each worker can focus on producing a particular thing they are good at. (What is division of labour? Definition and meaning, 2016). According to Merriam, Solidarity is ‘a feeling of unity between people who have the same interests, goals etc.’ (Merriam-Webster, 2016). This essay will highlight Marx and Durkheim’s different views on whether division of labour creates solidarity in the workplace as shown through their beliefs.

Marx was said to be concerned with social fragmentation, conflict, inequality as well as disintegration where he believed that capitalism was the domineering factor in the economy. He believed that the rich people in the economy were the ones who owned the means of production. Workers have to sell their labour power for wages in order for production process to take place although as a result of capitalism workers started feeling alienated in their workplace as they no longer felt part of the production process instead they felt the objects they were producing had control over them.

On the other hand, Durkheim was said to believe that work is organized the way it is due to industrial change i.e. technology and was more concerned with order, morality, regulation as well as integration. He was the one that came up with the key term ‘solidarity’ believing in equal opportunities and that through division of labour people in a workplace depend on one another to achieve their goals and believed that the society has been able to evolve from a mechanic to an organic type of solidarity. (Grint, 2005).

As seen from above, It is highly evident that these two theorists have different views on how work is organized where Marx believes that it is only through capitalism, production process can be achieved although exploitation is very high. Durkheim on the other hand believes that division of labour is what encourages production process and stands with order and believes in morals which is contrary to Marx that believes in exploitation.

Unlike Weber, one of the main distinctions between Marx and Durkheim is Marx’s rejection of industrialization. Though he supported Durkheim in believing that an industrial society is more progressive than an agrarian society but argued that a society was built based on capitalism and not industrial process. (Grint, 2005).

Marx argued that capitalism leads to alienation and broke it down into four stating that one of the forms of alienation is from the increased division of labour. He believes that this labour is forced and that the production process here is broken down into meaningless and unrelated tasks which is in contrast to Durkheim’s view that division of labour does not create alienation in the workplace and does not consider division to be meaningless. (Grint, 2005:88).

In contrast to Durkheim’s view that division of labour in the labour process causes individuals to depend on one another, Marx contrasted this by stating that workers become alienated from themselves and are in an instrumental relationship to one another that is, they do not exactly depend on one another but due to the fact that they have a product to produce, they are forced to be in co-operation to achieve that goal. (Rhodes and Fincham, 2005).

Marx’s view of society is dependent on the differentiation of division of labour. He stated in the 1844 manuscript that the expansion of division of labour is in line with the growth of alienation and private property hence division of labour and alienation go hand in hand. The formation of class society is dependent upon specialization in division of labour. (Giddens, 1971).

He believes that division of labour which groups people into their particular occupational specialization for example wage labourers reduces their range of capacities and prevents them from being universal producers. He also argued that it is based on the level that you are in that determines one’s relation to another in regards to the material, instrument and product of labour. (Giddens, 1971).

As mentioned earlier, Emile Durkheim (1893) was the one who believed in solidarity in the workplace through division of labour. Durkheim believes that the industrial society has forced us to classify moral rules and to review their types. He classified them into two namely: Mechanical solidarity where he believed that rules here have repressive sanctions, it is usually a characteristic of penal law for example, crimes which can be diffused. On the other hand, moral rules can also be divided into organic solidarity which have restitutive sanctions. Both are however said to promote solidarity relationship among individuals. (Lemert, 2013).

Durkheim who also believes in morality stated that the characteristics of moral rules is that it expresses the conditions of social solidarity. To him, morality is what binds us to the society and keeps us united unlike Marx who believes that it is through class that that we are bound to the society. (Lemert, 2013).

Individual morality is another concept Durkheim stands with which states that the duties an individual performs for himself are also in reality duties for the society. For example, there is respect for human dignity which we are to follow and adhere to even in our relation with ourselves as in our relation to others and this to a large extent contributes to individual morality. (Lemert, 2013: 54).

Back to the question which states that ‘Division of labour creates solidarity in the workplace’. Durkheim has been able to prove this. According to Lemert (1971), he stated that division of labour does not only define morality instead it has become a necessary condition for social solidarity. Durkheim said that due to industrial change and the society evolution, the ties that binds man to his family and tradition disintegrates as he leaves home to live an autonomous life and form his connection with others and this connection makes him become aware of his dependence on the society which keeps him in check. This move from mechanic to organic solidarity highlights the fact that division of labour is the principal source of social solidarity and through it, it creates solidarity in the workplace. (Lemert, 2013).

To him, in higher societies an individual is meant to choose a specialized task and get engaged in it completely. In Lemert’s book, it was quoted “We do not cling to very much when we have no very determined objective. On the contrary, he who gives himself to a definite task is struck by the sentiment of common solidarity in occupational morality” (Lemert, 2013:59) meaning that Durkheim highly agrees with the statement that division of labour creates solidarity in the workplace as it is through morals and harmony with others that social solidarity seems to exist.