compare and contrast of durkheim and marx
DESCRIPTION
comparison of Marx and DurkheimTRANSCRIPT
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
Page 1
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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
Page 2
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 3
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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
Page 4
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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)
Page 5
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 6
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 7
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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”.
Page 8
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 9
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 10
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 11
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 12
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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.
Page 13
COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE SOCIOLOGY WORK OF MARX AND DURKHEIM
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/
Page 14