SOCIOLOGY OF WORK (SEMESTER-5) CLASSICAL APPROACHES TO WORK

Classical approaches to work provide us insights into various theories and views of different scholars such as Marx, Durkheim and Weber, which help in understanding the sociology of work in an efficient way. Though contemporaries, their views are different in many aspects, ranging from class conception to the future possibilities, and accommodating different views can be fruitful for understanding contemporary work structures also and its future prospects.  While Marx establishes capitalism as antagonistic, and suggests revolution in future to overthrow it, confining himself to 2 classes - bourgeoisie and proletariat; Durkheim on the other hand is a positivist and emphasises on the importance of division of labour to maintain integrity and solidarity in society. Weber takes a very different approach from Marx and Durkheim and focuses on different types of classes (by giving Trinitarian model) and rejects the idea of stateless society.

 

KARL MARX:-

Marx’s contribution to Sociology is immense, from class formation to historical materialism but keeping our trajectories fixed to sociology of work, he has also expounded theories such as alienation, exploitation and class struggle which can help in sociology of work. Marx is revolutionary and always criticizes capitalism. Marx considered Industrial society to be both progressive in comparison to agrarian society and the necessary stage for the victory of human freedom, but he is of the view that capitalism, which is its by-product, is destructive as it promotes conflict and suggests that best alternative is communism. 

 

ALIENATION:- 

 

According to Marx, capitalist societies are characterized by alienation, from the product and from the self. He explains how in a capitalist society, man is detached and separated from the product which has come into existence by him only. In the process to maximize profit, man gets involved in redundant work and loses its creativity. There is feeling of estrangement and disenchantment. 

 

According to Marx, “In Bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality. While the living person is dependent and has no individuality”. He uses the concept of alienation in order to deconstruct the exploitative productive processes in the society. According to Marx human being is fundamentally a social animal and human nature changes with the structure of society but apart from this dynamic aspect, a part of human nature is constant and that is creativity. But in capitalism the productive forces sometimes hinder the alienation of Creative potential and when a person fails to find objects in nature which he can consider as the expression of his creativity he becomes alienated.

 

Marx explains how alienation takes place by breaking down the process into 4 parts:-

1.    Producer loses control over the product

2.    Increasing division of labour which doesn't allow the producer to work according to his creativity but it focuses on forced labour.

(Here he is seen different from Durkheim because Durkheim says that division of labour in a society promotes its integration)

3.    The productive groups get turned into competitors, because economy, market and commodity exchange is supreme.

4.    Destruction of creativity by doing repeated redundant work. (And so, he presents communism as the best possible alternative, where man can be creative and follow what he aspires irrespective of production and market forces.)

 

 

EXPLOITATION:-

 

Marx again attacks capitalism from exploitation point of view. He is of the view that work in capitalist society is characterized by conflicts.  He is critical of the view that exchange value of a product is determined by the quantity of labour necessary to produce it. Hence, he suggests that in a capitalist society profit is equal to labour exploitation (profit = exchange value of commodity - wage given to labour). And so, what is exchanged is not labour but labour power, the capacity to work. The workers are exploited by not giving the wages they deserve, according to their labour. 

 

Marx in his work historical materialism shows how in past also, in feudal society, surplus produced by peasants was appropriated by ruling class, and we can see its evolved form in present society, surplus produced by proletariat is appropriated by Bourgeois. This leads him to conclude that, in a capitalist society the surplus produced by the lower class or "haves not" is always appropriated by the ruling class or "haves".

 

According to Marx any capitalist society is characterized by three types of production

1.    Cooperation 

2.    Manufacture 

3.    Machinofacture.

 

He also suggests that, with the advent of machines and technology there has been an increasing subordination in workers condition. This switch to machine has –

 

1.    Led to deskilling of labour (focussing more on repeated work)

2.    Developed a wage hierarchy 

3.    Decreased importance to labour (their strikes and protests are continuously losing its relevance over time as machines work as alternative and owners don’t have to rely completely on these workers).

 

 

DUAL THEORY OF CLASS:- 

 

Marx classifies society according to the ownership of means of production (includes forces of production and relations of production) into 2 parts -

1.    Bourgeoisie who own means of production. 

2.    Proletariat who only own their labour.

 

These 2 positions result in 2 classes capitalist & workers. This is known as class in itself and is defined on the basis of objective criteria.  According to Marx this class is not the end, gradually members of this class develop a consciousness of belonging to the same class.

With this class for itself emerges. Marx also terms this class as social class.

 

In every society Marx talks of 2 broad classes, haves & have not. And he believes that, All intermediate classes will eventually get absorbed into 2 poles – haves & have not’s through the “Process of class polarization”, i.e., BOURGEOISATION & PROLETARIANIZATION.

 

With time the Proletariat will keep on becoming poorer through the process of pauperization. But as Marx suggests, eventually, the proletariat will rebel against the bourgeoisie and will overthrow capitalism, replacing it with communism. In that sense, Marx is considered revolutionary and sometimes utopian. His views are contradictory to that of Durkheim as while Durkheim sees division of labour as means to promote solidarity in society, Marx opposes it, citing that it would deteriorate one's creativity. But Marx s study is helpful- 

(Analysis)

 

DURKHEIM:- 

 

Durkheim is one of the founding fathers of sociology. Concerning his contributions to Sociology of work, his theories on division of labour and anomie prove very helpful.  

 

DIVISION OF LABOUR:-

 

Durkheim is of the view that in post Industrial society, because of the increasing division of labour, there is more integration (which stands in opposition to Marx view on division of labour that it is derogatory in nature). Durkheim takes stand in opposition to Tonis and Simmel, who also believe that because of division of labour, in urban society individuals would be forced to Retreat into their own private worlds. Durkheim sees the advantage of “Division of Labour”, because he is of the view that it increases interdependence and so need to maintain harmony, solidarity and integration.

 

ANOMIE:-

 

Durkheim explains the term "anomie" a situation characterized by meaninglessness or normlessness, and Anarchy of selfishness rather than a pluralism of difference. He describes it as a transition period to industrialism or the situation when industrialisation was taking place and when there were no norms. For example, the transition from pre industrial to post industrial, there is the process of industrialisation. And when it was taking place, many suicides also took place because of the situation of no norm and a sense of no meaning of life.

 

SOLIDARITY:-

 

Durkheim describes that in pre industrial society there was mechanical solidarity and after industrialisation that is in post industrialisation society organic solidarity took over.

 

In mechanical solidarity individuals were integrated into society through the collective conscience, there was no individuality. Whereas inorganic solidarity that is post industrial society e there is increasing division of labour and so individual was also given freedom. 

In a nutshell Durkheim is of the view that division of labour is imperative for the proper functioning of society.

 

He further explains that still there are abnormal form of division of labour-

 

1.    Anomic division of labour - it refers to the meaninglessness of work; it is generated between the collapse of mechanical solidarity and the creation of organic solidarity that is when industrialisation takes place. In this kind of division of labour there is no norm behaviour, workers have to abide by. But the situation normalises when the transition completes.

 

2.    Forced division of labour- in this division of labour man is not free to choose the work he aspires to do. He is compelled by the society to do the work according to ascribed status. It can be linked with the inequality present in society.

 

Durkheim believes that in free market economy this abnormal division of labour are not that prevalent because there are norms and people have liberal notions of individual freedom. In this way, Durkheim's views are contradictory to that of Marx.

 

WEBER:-

 

WEBER ON STRATIFICATION AND CLASS:-

 

Unlike Marx, Weber believed that classes in society could be divided into more than just two. He argued that classes were divided on the basis of two similarities among people.  He used class, status and party to represent three orders namely economic, social and political (the Trinitarian model). He differentiates status groups from class. For ex a thief might be rich but has low Status, similarly Brahmin might be poor but has high status (Example -Nouveau riche). And hence he uses 3 ways. 

 

He believes that people are grouped together according to –

 

1.    Their market situation: - where is a person located in the economy of a society.

 

2.    Their life chances: - chances of a person to achieve certain materialistic and non materialistic goals which are highly valued in society.

 

Instead of getting polarised into two extreme opposites of the have and the have not, Weber argues that the rise of the middle class takes place as a result of dissatisfaction with the economic structure. According to him classes in society can be roughly classified into:-

 

1.    The propertied upper class

2.    The property-less white collar workers

3.    The petty bourgeoisie

4.    The manual worker class.

 

He says that these classes are distributed based on their market situation in a particular economy. This stratification does not necessarily entail their identification with each other leading to class consciousness and eventually a revolution. He sees class, as Marx, an economic interest group and as a function of market place but defying Marx, he sees class as a group lacking in self-consciousness. It is hard for a class to develop a consciousness but when it does it becomes community. And according to him, inequality will persist and “revolution a distant possibility “along with polarization. He suggests that Stratification will remain and even widen (as bureaucracy expands) and Class will not erode away.

 

So, while Marx is a proponent of revolutionary ideas and stateless society (mainly attacking capitalism), Weber takes a very different approach. Weber rejects the idea of stateless society, calling revolution and abolition of class a distant reality and expounds how polarization is utopian, as he is of the view that society will have many classes.  Marx and Weber have very different and contradictory approaches but studying these opens vistas for sociology of work- in both fathoming the realty and to foresee future possibilities.

 

Durkheim, to conclude, also differs from the two. He favours division of Labour and considers it responsible for integration in post industrial world. He stands in opposition to Marx, who considers division of Labour derogatory, as it reduces creativity and make alienated. Marx calls for revolution and suggests Communism as the best possible alternative. All the approaches are very different in nature but its understanding can bring wonders in the understanding of sociology of work.