100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
798 tayangan7 halaman
Durkheim analyzed the effects of the "forced division of labor" in industrializing societies. He argued that rigid social norms were assigning workers to specialized roles that limited their freedom and mobility. This caused workers to feel disconnected from others and society. Durkheim believed societies needed to evolve from traditional "mechanical solidarity" based on shared norms, to a new "organic solidarity" that accommodated greater diversity and specialization through fair contracts and equitable treatment of workers. Otherwise, growing dissent within the workforce could lead to spontaneous and dangerous unrest, as norms and social controls weakened. He saw class conflicts under the forced division of labor as a catalyst for social disorder and "anomie," unless workers' aspirations were fulfilled through just
Deskripsi Asli:
Durkheim lived in a time with rapid social and industrial change, living through the early years of modernisation. When it would appear industry was over flowing with riches, to bring in a new utopic era for all, and a shift from traditional paradigms to modern and enlightened thoughts. This paper aims to identify Durkheim’s arguments presented to outline the effects to solidarity caused by ‘The Forced Division of Labour’. Analysing parts of the paper, from solidarity to social mobility, and equilibriums to emancipations. Following from Durkheim’s arguments, there is a need to organise workers spontaneous action, and to ensure they are treated equitably.
Judul Asli
Critique of Emile Durkheim Forced Divisional of Labour
Durkheim analyzed the effects of the "forced division of labor" in industrializing societies. He argued that rigid social norms were assigning workers to specialized roles that limited their freedom and mobility. This caused workers to feel disconnected from others and society. Durkheim believed societies needed to evolve from traditional "mechanical solidarity" based on shared norms, to a new "organic solidarity" that accommodated greater diversity and specialization through fair contracts and equitable treatment of workers. Otherwise, growing dissent within the workforce could lead to spontaneous and dangerous unrest, as norms and social controls weakened. He saw class conflicts under the forced division of labor as a catalyst for social disorder and "anomie," unless workers' aspirations were fulfilled through just
Durkheim analyzed the effects of the "forced division of labor" in industrializing societies. He argued that rigid social norms were assigning workers to specialized roles that limited their freedom and mobility. This caused workers to feel disconnected from others and society. Durkheim believed societies needed to evolve from traditional "mechanical solidarity" based on shared norms, to a new "organic solidarity" that accommodated greater diversity and specialization through fair contracts and equitable treatment of workers. Otherwise, growing dissent within the workforce could lead to spontaneous and dangerous unrest, as norms and social controls weakened. He saw class conflicts under the forced division of labor as a catalyst for social disorder and "anomie," unless workers' aspirations were fulfilled through just
Critique of Emile Durkheim Forced Divisional of Labour
AstorKittyChan WordCount:1783 Abstract Durkheimlivedinatimewithrapidsocialandindustrialchange,livingthroughthe early years of modernisation. When it would appear industry was over flowing with riches, to bring in a new utopic era for all, and a shift from traditional paradigms to modern and enlightened thoughts. This paper aims to identify Durkheims arguments presentedto outlinetheeffectstosolidaritycaused byTheForcedDivisionof Labour. Analysing parts of the paper, from solidarity to social mobility, and equilibriums to emancipations. Following from Durkheims arguments, there is a need to organise workersspontaneousaction,andtoensuretheyaretreatedequitably. Introduction BornthesonofaRabbi,withafamilyhistoryofRabbisinhisfamily,hewasthe first person in his family to break this tradition. He was in a sense, one of many pioneering socialist to break free from their Forced Division of Labour, and seek emancipationtoseekwhatevertastesorvocationtheyliked. Immediately Durkheim challenges the social norms status quo by stating the socialparodyofhowthesocialstructuresusedtomaintainsocialnorms,arethesame rulescausingtheanomieforthesocialactors? Thetoneandlanguageisveryalarmist,moralisticandvalueriddentosetthetone of the paper. In the first paragraph, he sets an explosive prelude, invoking a sense of fear anomic actors and dissonance in the paper for the reader. Durkheim draws a lawless world begotten from a visceral reaction from social anomie. Using words such as rules to exist, cause of evil, classes or castes, division of labour, source of DurkheimDialecticDivisionalDiscourse dissention,disposethosewhoexercisethem,andcivilwartocomposehisdialectic diatribe.Givingawarningtosocietyofwhatistofollowifanomieisallowedtooccur, withoutsocialnormsandregulation. Palumbo and Scott (2005, p59) state Durkheim presents social theory as the moraleducator.Writingwithamoralisticstyleladenwithvaluestatements,invokinga moral righteousness in the reader, however why are rich and poor people polarised into a just and unjust contract dichotomy? Have poor people always only ever given unjustcontracts,cantheybegivenajustcontract,similarlyargumentwouldapplyfor richpeople.Itisonlyjustforasetpointintime,andasDurkheimstates,astheygrow ortheirneedschange,sowouldthevaluestatementposition. In the first half of the paper, Durkheim identifies causality effects of solidarity, howtraditionalMechanicalSolidarityeffectspeople.Withthelatterhalfdiscussingthe necessity for equality to ensuring the just reward for ones labour, arguing unjust contractscreatetherichandpoordichotomy. Durkheimconsideredsocialandnaturalsciencerealmsdifferent,butnolessreal. Stating sociology has rules that govern our lives as facts, similarly to rules governing facts of nature. Believing human society comprises of more than just social facts, requiring institutions for a smooth operation of society, otherwise known as functionalism. This argument would suggest that for a functional society, all parts of society has to work positively and are interdependent. Seeing sociology as providing irrefutable evidence and universally valid knowledge of the social world, he sought investigationandmethodologyappropriateforthetask,writteninhisearlyworkRules ofSociologicalMethod(Durkheim,1895).ForcedDivisionofLabourassertsandbuilds an argument to continue his desire to validate sociology as a respected academic discipline by drawing analogies from the natural science. Providing an analogy of how eachorganwithinanorganismonlyclaimsthefoodconsistentwithitspredetermined DurkheimDialecticDivisionalDiscourse andunchangeablerole,afunctionofMechanicalSolidarity,settingthescopeandusing societyasafoil.Durkheimarguesthegapbetweentendenciesofanindividualandthe social role they have, the flexibility giving the organism and almost infinite number of possibleemploymentchances,withtastelimitingtheirchoices. Division of Labour was defined by Harrington (Durkheim, 1984, p319) to mean specialisation of economic and functionally interdependent trades, as well as specialisation and coordination of tasks with each trade. Adam Smith suggested that divisionsoflabourwereanunintendedconsequencesofmultipleindividualactions drivenbyselfseeking naturaldrives(Smith,1776). Marxviewwasasameansofclass exploitationwhileDurkheimbelievedDivisionsofLabourwasaformofsolidarity. WhatDurkheimcallsForceddivisionoflabourismorespecificallycomparableto Marxs conception of alienated labour (Harrington, 47, 55). Marx makes the assertion thatalienationfromlabourisnotvoluntary,butforced.DurkheimfeltForcedDivision of Labour was more related to how people are born into roles that limits their vocationalopportunitiesandliberty.Workingclassdontlikewhattheyhavetodo,and areforcedtodospecificrolesforvariousreasons. Becauseoftheirforceddivisionsoflabour,workersdonthavethesocialmobility to pursue their taste. As their work becomes regimented and separated from others, transforming the worker to a lifeless cog and cause a social disconnect suggested by Durkheim (1895). Anomic suicide and too little regulation, Durkheim suggested this occurs when individuals feel isolated and cut off from the social group. These words resonate with relevance in todays neopostmodern industrialisation, with abnormal formsorsocialanomieinChina(Johnson2011). Durkheim suggests most normal people exist happily in their roles, in this equilibrium(Durkheim,1984,p318),withtheirneedsbeingproportionaltotheirmeans (i.b.i.d., p312), living in a status quo plane of existence. Following from Durkheims DurkheimDialecticDivisionalDiscourse suggestion of the equilibrium, a dissonance occurs as their attribute increase and grows,sowilltheirexpectationsforremuneration.AcontemporaryexampleisChinas growingMiddleClass,ormorerecently,makersofAppleproductsFoxconn,increased thepayratesandconditionsfortheirworkerstopreventaanomicactions(MailOnline, 2011). At the time Durkheim wrote The Division of Labour, he drew a distinction between traditional and modern society, common for evolutionist. Durkheim stressed evolution away from traditional Mechanical Solidarity which represented simpler static societies, towards complex and sophisticated Organic Solidarity. Mechanical Solidarity expressing the rigid control of social norms. With increasing specialisation and diversity, Mechanical Solidarity must evolve weakening the collective consciousness.Astechnologyandsocietyevolved,sodidtherequirementsforOrganic Solidarity,todealandcopewiththesechanges. Durkheim saw the Forced Division of Labour and class conflicts as a catalyst for anomie.Withorganismstrappedwithinavocation,eveniftheysoughtgrowthandto riseabovetheclassandvocation,fromthesocialstructuresthatbindsthemdown. When works are unable to bear their suffrage, and are bound an able to even fight,Durkheimwarmsofspontaneousaction,youhaveemancipation.Durkheimtalks about the organisms anomic action, caused when the bond that holds someone to a group is weakened and they feel isolated, a pathogen of organics solidarity. In DurkheimspaperaboutSuicide,heexaminesreasonsforwhathelabelsthefourbasic reasons for suicide. To mitigate group flash points that can erupt to a violent and dangerous anomic event, social controls are need to act as floodgates. But as dissent withinthelabourforcegrows,thestrengthofthefloodgatesweakens. Durkheim discusses the normalisation of how aspirations are thwarted and inequity becomes tolerated, caused from frustrations founded from professions with DurkheimDialecticDivisionalDiscourse littledevelopment.Thisisverycommonwithlower socioeconomicandsociopolitical groups with little power caused from the forced divisions of labour. They cannot fight the power, nor can they become the power to make appropriate social and civil change. Durkheim makes a bold statement questioning how if contracts are forced, this would cause the contractual solidarity to be in question. Taking a moralistic stance, stating contracts should be freely agreed and there should be no constraints and challenges the validity of such social contracts if they are obtained when the person with the social collateral profits unfairly from such a situation. He is almost preaching the immorality of usury costs (Durkheim, 1984, p319) of something when it bears no relationship to efforts to produce it. A practice that Marx would argue is typical of a greedy capitalist, profiting from their means of production. Durkheim does acknowledge (i.b.i.d. p320) that contracts of usury are commonly refused in civilised society. Durkheim did not consider divisions of labour as class exploitations as Marx did, but saw class divisions and conflict as side effects of social change, an illness begat from modern society (Palumbo & Scott, 2005, p59). As injustices become more intolerable, labour becomes weaker and so will the social solidarity, a danger and weakness of Organic Solidarity as individuals are isolated, creating a loss to the collectiveconsciousness. He states how economists have separated man from society, requiring social action to regulate the liberties of everyone (Durkheim, 1984, p320), and ensuring equity for all. Regulating liberties creates an oxymoron that reinforces the forced divisionoflaboursandlimitinggrowandopportunitiesforpeople. The hereditary transmission of wealth will always create a forced Division of Labour, with caste, class and other social structures reinforcing this prejudice, DurkheimDialecticDivisionalDiscourse distributing goods unequally. Although progressive steps help reduce this effect, society still works towards reducing the disparity and breaking generational poverty andForcedDivisionsofLabour.AlthoughDurkheimsuggestsequalitybetweencitizens isbecominggreater,thiswouldbemorelikeseeingsocietythroughtherosecoloured glassesofindustrialmodernisation.Inthecontemporaryeraofthe21stCentury,these socialwoesstillexist(Johnson2011). Discussion In conclusion to the paper, one sees how Durkheim even though he rejects his ForcedDivisionofLabour,stilltasksamoralisticstyletohiswriting.Durkheimsawthe moralneedsforsocialintegration,andwantedthescienceofsociologytoprovidesolid foundation of knowledge to underpin social integration. This would mitigate social anomie,tobringinaneraofutopicharmoniousstatehealth. Writeabouttheimportanceofstateinterventionasmeanstoavoidanomiethat could be caused by the Forced Division of Labour, form government vocations to provide more opportunities for lower classes, or having contractual agreements that ensure equitability and no usury practices. Durkheim building on the Utilitarian idea by Jeremy Bentham stated one of the governments role was to ensure the greatest happinessofthegreatestnumberandLiberalismbeliefthatthiswouldbearesultof development of parliamentary democracy and constitutional law (txtbk p25). Durkheims ideas of The Forced Division of Labour reinforce Utilitarian and Liberalism secularideas. When Durkheim argument is analysed, it can be seen that he warms of the dangersofForcedDivisionsofLabour.Progressshouldbetowardssocialorder,rather than towards the emancipation of the individual human being. (Bilton et. al., 2002, p, 470). DurkheimDialecticDivisionalDiscourse References Ambler,S.(2012,March,29).iPhoneworkersgoonstrikeinChina.Retrievedfrom http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/iphoneworkersgostrikechina Bilton,T.,Bonnett,K.,Jones,P.,Lawson,T.,Skinner,D.,Stanworth,M.,&Webster,A., (2002).IntroductorySociology.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan. Durkheim,E.(1893),TheDivisionofLabour,repr.London:Macmillan,1984(originally inFrench) Durkheim,E.(1895),TheRulesofSociologicalMethod,repr.London:Macmillan,82 (originallyinFrench) Durkheim,E.(1896),Suicide:AStudyinSociology,repr.London:Routledge,1952 (originallyinFrench) MailOnline,(2011,May1).YouareNOTallowedtocommitsuicide:WorkersinChinese iPadfactoriesforcedtosignpledges.Retrievedfrom http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1382396/WorkersChineseApplefactories forcedsignpledgescommitsuicide.html( Johnson,J.(2011,February28).1MillionWorkers.90MillioniPhones.17Suicides. WhostoBlame?Retrievedfrom http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/all/1 Palumbo,A.,&Scott,A(2005).ClassicalSocialTheory,II.InA.Harrington(Eds.), ModernSocialTheory(Durkheim,1984,pp4062).Oxford,England:OxfordUniversity Press. Perrons,S.(2004).GlobalizationandSocialChange:PeopleandPlacesinaDivided World.London:Routledge. Smith,A.(1776),TheWealthofNations,repr.London:Penguin,1970.