compare and contrast of durkheim and marx

COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM

INTRODUCTION

Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim are two of the founding fathers of sociology. They have both

had a profound influence on the development of sociology. Examples of their theories are

Marx’s theory of alienation and Durkheim’s theory of anomie in which this discuss will be

mainly take in consideration.

Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim differ profoundly in their views about society. Despite these

profound differences of outlook, however, Marx and Durkheim were both centrally concerned

with the emergence of modern capitalism, and in particular with the rise of the modern system of

the division of labour and with the evolution of a market society. Both approach these

developments by focusing on the effects that the spread of market relations had on solidarity and

on society's ability to reproduce itself. Both therefore had to engage with the causes and

implications of key developments of the Industrial Revolution in particular and as well as key

events such as the French Revolution. Where they differ most strikingly is in the conclusions and

the lessons that they draw from their intellectual engagement with modernity.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Karl Marx was a socialist theoretician and organizer, a major figure in the history of economic

and philosophical thought, and a great social prophet. While Marx remained a relatively

unknown figure in his own lifetime, his ideas and the ideology of Marxism began to exert a

major influence on socialist movements shortly after his death. Marx has been described as one

of the most influential figures in human history, and in a 1999 BBC poll was voted the "thinker

of the millennium" by people from around the world.

Marx's theories about society, economics and politics, which are collectively known as Marxism,

argue that all society progresses through the class struggle. He was heavily critical of the current

socio-economic form of society, capitalism, which he called the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

believing it to be run by the wealthy middle and upper classes purely for their own benefit, and

predicted that it would inevitably produce internal tensions which would lead to its self-

destruction and replacement by a new system of socialism. Under socialism, he argued that

society would be governed by the working class in what he called the "dictatorship of the


proletariat." He believed that socialism would eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless

society called pure communism.

His major Intellectual Contributions:

Elaboration of the conflict model of society, specifically the theory of social change

based upon antagonisms between social classes.

The insight that power originates primarily in economic production;

His concern with the social origins of alienation.

CAPITALISM & ALIENATION

VALUE AND EXPLOITATIONMarx argues that every commodity has at least two different kinds of value: use-value and

exchange-value. Use-value refers to the actual function that a product contains. This function

gets used up as the product is used. Take a bottle of beer, for example. The use-value of a bottle

of beer is its taste and alcoholic effect. As someone drinks the bottle, those functions are

expended. Beer also has exchange-value that is distinct from use-value. Exchange-value refers

to the rate of exchange one commodity bears when compared to other commodities.

Adam Smith and Marx both argue that the substance of all value is human labour: “Labour,

therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities”.

Capitalists pay less for the labour than its actual worth. A worker may receive $75 per day to

work which is determined by the cost of the basic necessity of the worker plus any social

amenities deemed necessary, but he will produce $200 worth of goods or services. The necessary

labour in this case is $75 as it’s necessary because it provides a living for the worker. The

amount of labour left over is what Marx calls surplus labour in this particular case $125. The

difference between necessary labour and surplus labour is the level of exploitation. Different

societies can have different levels of exploitation. For example, if we compare the situation of

automobile workers in the United States with those in Mexico, we will see that the level of

exploitation is higher in Mexico which is why U.S. companies are moving so many jobs out of

this country as labour is cheaper elsewhere. Surplus labour and exploitation are the places from


which profit comes: “The rate of surplus-value is . . . an exact expression for the degree of

exploitation . . . of the work by the capitalist”.

Exploitation also takes place due to completion. In a capitalist society, people enter into social

relationship where they have to compete with each other. Competition takes place between:

Labourer and capitalist

Wages of works do not reflect the fall value of their work. Some of the value are usurped

by the employer in the form of profits.

Labourer v/s labourer

When the workers are paid on the basis of piece rate, the worker has to compete against

each other. There is completion between skill and unskilled workers.

Capitalist v/s capitalist

To achieve competitive advantage upon each other and to be able to make more profit.

ALIENATIONIn characterizing the nature of capitalist production, Marx follows David Ricardo in

distinguishing between an object's ‘use value’ and its ‘exchange value.’ In contrast to political

economists like Ricardo, Marx proposed a ‘labour theory of value’ according to which human

labour is the sole source of all value. Human labour has the unique capacity to generate more

value than it uses up in reproducing itself. In early works, he describes this double process of

commodification like exploitation of labour as a process of ‘alienation’. It arises because we are

forced to relate to each other through competition. Alienation is a result of exploitation

Marx believed that labouring was the primary means by which human beings realised themselves

in nature and history. Alienation, according to Marx, breaks this fundamental connection humans

have to the self-defining aspect of labouring activity. He went on to identify four components of

alienation:

(i) Alienation from the product of labour;

(ii) Alienation from productive activity;

(iii) Alienation from the human species; and,

(iv) Alienation from fellow human beings.


1. The first type of alienation, product alienation, occurs when workers become estranged

from the objects they produce. The product of their labour does not belong to the

workers, but instead belongs to the capitalists, who may use it in any they wish, usually

selling the product for profit. Also, workers often lack detailed knowledge of the aspects

of production they are not involved in, and have little sense of their role in the total

production process.

For example, in automobile assembly the line workers who tighten a few bolts on an engine may

have little feel for their role in the production of the whole car. Playing such small roles in the

process often makes workers feel that the assembly line is responsible for the final product rather

than the individual who work on it.

2. The second type of alienation, alienation from productive activity means that workers do

not work for themselves in order to satisfy their own needs but capitalism converts the

workers activity into nothing more than a means of satisfying their material needs. They

receive a poor wage in exchange for giving the capitalists the right to use the workers in

any way they see fit. Productive activity belongs to the capitalists, who decide what to do

with it. This turns productive activity into an often boring and stultifying process, the

only fulfilment being the only end that really matters in capitalism that is earning enough

money to survive.

3. The third type of alienation is alienation from the human species. Individuals perform

less and less like humans as they are reduced to working like animals, or inhuman

machines. Species alienation breaks the connection humans have with their

consciousness, as it is numbed and ultimately destroyed as relations with other humans

and with nature are progressively severed. Life begins to appear not as affirmation and

power but only as a means. Marx said this is evident in capitalism, which reverses the

species advantage by transforming human conscious life into a mere physical existence.

The result is a mass of people who are unable to express their essential human qualities, a

mass of alienated workers.

4. The final type of alienation is alienation from fellow humans, and from the human social

community. Marx’s assumption was that people basically need and want to work

cooperatively, to acquire what they need to survive. Capitalism disrupts this cooperation.

People, often strangers, are forced to work side by side for the capitalist, often in direct


competition to produce more, or to work more quickly. Hostility is generated among the

workers towards their peers. As universal competition becomes the norm, isolation and

interpersonal hostility tend to make workers in capitalism alienated from fellow workers.

Emilie Durkheim (1858-1917)


Emile Durkheim is probably France’s most influential sociologist. According to the introduction

in Stephen Lukes’ study of his work, Durkheim was one of the founders of social anthropology

who believed that society forms our minds and controls our behavior. This earned him the

hostility of those who resented his apparent denigration of the individual. Yet Durkheim felt that

‘individualism’ was modern society’s morality, its secular religion, with the schoolteacher taking

the place of the priest. His work encompassed themes such as the theory of education, social

solidarity and the division of labour, the family and kinship, suicide, the sociology of religion

and the sociology of knowledge.

Durkheim's work was a systematic study of collective representations. ‘Conscience collectives’

are the way in which the group conceives itself in its relations with the objects that affect it. In

France during this time there was a growing social division between the classes: the bourgeoisie

were composed of the wealthy middle class and the proletariat comprised the lower class. This

economic division of class emerged as the exploitation and the oppression of the lower class by

the bourgeoisie, Durkheim's study 'The Division of Labour in Society' looked back to what this

had done to French society.

In comparison to his contemporaries, Durkheim’s work was logically more exact and

demanding, his adaptation of the scientific method more accurate and severe and in specific

studies more vigorously empirical. Its theoretical perspective is more properly limited in scope

that is it has a scientific precision and correctly delimited by the accurate definition of its subject

matter. In its statements of theories Durkheim was free from the error of ethical evaluation and in

general his work is much less rooted in any cloudy speculative philosophy and metaphysics.

Durkheim’s work on social facts differs society wholly form psychology and philosophy. Social

facts include the way the society is constructed, customs and norms that are applicable on the

individuals and eventually abide by the latter. However social facts are not binding on the

individual. Therefore, social facts can be observed according to Durkheim. As per Durkheim,

there are 2 types of social facts: material and immaterial. Durkheim was keener to study

immaterial in depth notably: morality, collective conscience, collective representation, and social

currents.


Durkheim’s work is characterised by two parallel scientific projects. The first is that of turning

sociology into an independent and well-defined scientific discipline. This entailed two massive

undertakings:

(i) Identifying a peculiar set of phenomena that call for a genuinely sociological

investigation.

(ii) Defining a methodology apt to this sort of inquiry.

Durkheim’s second concern was to work out a theory of social change that could supply a sound

scientific analysis of specific features of modern, industrial societies, and suggest adequate

solutions to the problems posed by the so-called ‘social question.’ (social conflict and

inequality). This latter concern is at the root of his first major work, the Division of Labour. In

developing his analysis of the modern division of labour, Durkheim grew increasingly

dissatisfied with the individualist account and methodology of utilitarian like J.S. Mill and social

Darwinians like Herbert Spencer.

THE DIVISION OF LABOUR The division of labour, according to Durkheim, produces solidarity because “it creates among

men an entire system of rights and duties which link them together in a durable way.” However,

the division of labour, he points out, may not always produce social solidarity-it may at times

have “different, even contrary results”. As societies are transforming from mechanical solidarity,

there is a period of time-a transition period in which the impact of the collective conscience is

weakened and the organic solidarity has not yet become fully established. The probability for

anomie is greater at this time since labour is divided the role of the collective conscience

diminishes. The manner in which labour is distributed is very important in the development of

social solidarity. Durkheim believed anomie could result from an “abnormal” division of labour,

which involves one or more of the following conditions: inequality, class conflict, inadequate

social relationships, and the lack of meaningful roles.


Labor needs to be more than just divided, it needs to be divided spontaneously so that

(Durkheim, 1933:377), “. . . no obstacle, of whatever nature, prevents individuals from

occupying the place in the social framework which is compatible with their faculties.’’ A

“spontaneous” division of labor is then possible “. . . only if society is constituted in such a way

that social inequalities exactly express natural inequalities” (1933:377)?

In his discussion of “forced” division of labor, Durkheim included a dimension of social

solidarity that has often been overlooked. Organic solidarity requires more than normative rules.

Rather, it is aided if functions are “spontaneously” allocated. Neither rules alone nor force can

produce solidarity, since injustices are potentially inherent in both of them. In this regard

Durkheim wrote (Giddens, 1972:174): “It is not enough for there to be rules, but sometimes the

rules themselves are what are at fault. That is what occurs in class-wars.” Many individuals are

forced to accept social positions below their level of talents and abilities. Class-wars result from

the efforts of these individuals (e.g., the lower classes) to violently attain social positions that

have been closed to them.

Procedural rules of conduct develop naturally from interactions among individuals in certain

social functions. That is to say, rules emerge spontaneously if the division of labor allows for

frequent, regular, and close social relations. In a coercive setting, however, the rules and moral

norms for social relationships are imposed and are not the result of consensus. The abnormal

division of labor also hinders the formation of cohesive social relationships by increasing the

social distance across the different segments of society.

Finally, the social functions allocated must not be meaningless, routinised and degrading. Social

relations not only need to exist and exist regularly, but they also need to provide the individual

with a sense that he/she is not a machine-like functionary that is “who repeats his movements

without knowing their meaning . . .” as Durkheim stated. The individual must know that he/she is

“serving something,” that his/her “actions have an aim beyond themselves”.


THE MODERN DIVISION OF LABOUR AND EFFECTS ON

SOCIAL SOLIDARITYHowever unlike Marx, Durkheim does not see social classes as the main determinants of

individual consciousness. But he characterises class division as a pathological product of

modernity. Moreover, he views the division of labour not so much as a means to class

exploitation, but as a source of social solidarity. For him, the difference between old and modern

pluralistic societies lies in the kinds of solidarity through which social cohesion is maintained.

Traditional societies are characterised by ‘mechanical solidarity’ and a strong senses of

commonality (conscience collective). Lacking strong internal differentiation or a developed

division of labour the members of pre-modern societies have a weak sense of personal identity or

self, but a correspondingly strong sense of community. In contrast, modern societies which are

characterised by diversity, there is a noticeable stronger sense of individual uniqueness and a

correspondingly weaker identification with the community in its entirety.

For Durkheim these differences can be seen in the ways in which these two societal forms punish

rule breakers. For example, in pre-modern society the entire community takes revenge on the

individual who violated its rules whereas modern societies seek to restore the ‘deviant’ to a

normal way of life; to return him/her to a functioning role within the division of labour. The

former way Durkheim refers it as ‘retributive’ and the latter one as ‘resititutive’ law. If solidarity

is to be maintained at all in the modern case, it can only be on the basis of the new mutual

dependencies that a complex division of labour creates. This kind of solidarity Durkheim calls

‘organic’ because a modern society, like a complex living organism, consists of ‘organs’ with

distinct functions within a system in which the function of each organ is dependent upon the

functioning of all the others.


ANOMIE AND SUICIDE

Durkheim first used the concept of anomie in Division of Labour but later he began to use the

term in a more narrow sense to describe the overall deterioration of moral restraint in society. He

believed that the primary function of society was to set limits to social wants by providing a

moral framework of restraint. Anomie refers to the state which results in society when there is a

decline of the social regulatory mechanisms and individuals do not have a clear concept of what

is not proper and acceptable behaviour.

Durkheim believed that the causes of deregulation can to traced to two basic sources:

(i) The development of industrial society, and

(ii) The dominance of the economy over other institutions.

He believed economic progress can only be made at the expense of social regulation and moral

discipline. This happens because the dominance of economic life displaces the regulatory

functions of other social institutions, for example, religion. Religion creates a framework of

restraint, and exerts a moral influence. Religion teaches that worldly economic success is not the

primary goal in life.

But with the development of advanced economies, technologies, and world markets, the social

thresholds become redirected. The economic focus of society freed desires from previous moral

limits and replaced moral restraints. Eventually, the extension and activity of markets acted to

extend and expand desire. When the primary focus in society is economic, there is increased risk

of and greater possibility for crisis. According to Durkheim, it is the economically related

functions which create the largest category of suicide. In Durkheim’s view, society sets desires at

a level that only a few could achieve.

The main differences between the concepts of alienation and anomie rest upon the views of man

in a ‘state of nature’. Marx’s concept of alienation is founded upon the belief that man is

‘naturally’ good, but has been corrupted by society. Durkheim’s theory of anomie, by contrast,

stop from the assumption that man is ‘naturally’ a uncontrolled being, who must be rigidly

restrained by society. He makes it clear that egoism is a product of society. However, the

impulse to economic self-advancement is as much a creation of modern society for Durkheim as

it is for Marx.


Another difference in the views of Marx and Durkheim is that Durkheim strongly believes that

an individual’s personality is overwhelming influenced by the characteristics of the society in

which he lives and is socialised into, but that in every man there is a struggle between egoistic

impulses and those with a ‘moral’ leaning. Marx does not adopt such a psychological model; he

believed there is no asocial basis for such conflict between the individual and society. For Marx,

‘the individual is the social being’.

There is quite a close similarity between the ’constants’ lying behind the concepts of alienation

and anomie. Both Marx and Durkheim have emphases the fact that human qualities, needs and

motives are in large part the product of social development. Both perceive a flaw in the theory of

political economy, which treats egoism as the foundation of a theory of social order.

Alienation then, is the structurally imposed breakdown of the interconnectedness that is, to Marx,

an essential part of life, at least in an ideal sense. Anomie can be defined as the state which

society brought about by unchecked economic progress.

In Suicide, Durkheim expanded his discussion of anomie to show that the nature of the structure

has an impact on the suicide rate of society. By giving less attention to gradual change and

concentrates more on the consequences of sudden changes, especially to economic and domestic

crises. These crises disturb the collective order such that the scale is upset. A social change

delays or disrupts the development of the collective order. The result of a change in the social

structure is frequently an increase in the occurrence of an apparently psychological phenomenon

as suicide.


CONCLUSION: COMPARING MARX AND DURKHEIMWhen we compare Marx's thought to that of Durkheim, the former appears to underestimate the

significance of social and cultural practices beyond the economic sphere. He retained the key

prejudice of political economy: the primacy of the economic over the social. As the analytical

Marxist philosopher G.A. Cohen has acknowledged, the Marxist tradition has paid insufficient

attention to the question 'who are we?’A question frequently answered in terms of nationality or

religion, rather than economic class stated Cohen. It also becomes evident that while Marx binds

social theory to economics, Durkheim draws it in the direction of cultural anthropology.

Although their critical engagement with modernity has more in common than is frequently

recognized, especially by those who identify Durkheim with conservatism, Marx and Durkheim

arrive at radically different conclusions. While Marx views the division of labour as the means of

enforcing subtle and pervasive class exploitation whereas Durkheim perceives it as a novel and

effective source of solidarity. Hence Durkheim maintains that to seek to abolish the division of

labour would be to escape from reality into either an pleasant past or a distant utopian future.

Likewise, the two thinkers arrive at very different assessment of revolution as a means for social

change. While appreciating the force of ‘social currents’ and ‘collective representations, ’

Durkheim did not share either Marx’s trust in emancipatory powers of revolutionary action or his

view of the Paris Commune as a model for a future communist organization of society. On the

contrary he perceives any revolutionary project the objective of which is a classless communist

society as a self-defeating attempt to promote a form of solidarity apt for a type of society other

than the modern one. Whereas Marx thinks that the problems of capitalism are inherent within it,

and can thus only be resolved within a post-capitalism order, Durkheim identifies inherent

tendencies both to self destruction and self-regeneration within modern capitalism. This is

because Marx systematically connects the capitalist division of labour to a specific system of

ownership and extraction of surplus value, while Durkheim views it as a social rather than

technical fact that are only loosely related to the issue of ownership and of wider significance

that the capitalist-worker relation.


Both Marx's and Durkheim's social theories possess a special urgency today, in different respects

and for different reasons. It would be self-deception to deny that the collapse of communism has

derailed Marxist social thought. But subsequent developments, including growing inequality in

both between the richer and poorer nations or within both and the recommodification of labour

power resulting on privatisation and the partial withdrawal of the state from welfare functions,

have created conditions in which at least some aspects of Marx's analysis have acquired renewed

relevance and validity. At the same time, Durkheim's concern with the growing gap between the

state and the individual with the remoteness of decision-making from those affected and his fear

of the self-hollowing out of community by under-regulated markets has lost little of its

relevance.


REFERENCES

Antonino Palumbo and Alan Scott (2005), Classical Social Theory I: Marx and

Durkheim (Oxford University Press)

Cecil L. Willis (2007), Durkheim's Concept of Anomie: Some Observations (sociological

inquiry)

Scott J. Simon, Economy and Society in Marx, Durkheim, and Weber

Erin Olson, Marx vs. Durkheim: Religion

Leisure and social intervention -

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic234872.files/Week%203/Rojek_Ch2.pdf

The Comparative Strategies of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber-

http://poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/durkheim.html

Class Inequality - https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/47771_ch_3.pdf

The communist manifesto - karl marx and friedrich engels

-http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/communist/section2.rhtml

http://www.marxists.org/

compare and contrast of durkheim and marx

Documents

Transcript of compare and contrast of durkheim and marx