Durkheim's Analysis of the Division of Labor (2)

Psychological Isolation.
Durkheim went on to show how the growth of the division of labor increases the dependence of each specialized person on the rest, but this does not mean that such increasing heterogeneity leads to consensus of thought. On the contrary:"Each individual is more and more aquiring his own way of thinking and acting, and submits less completely to the common corporate union." Thus, while in one sense highly specialized persons are locked into a web of functiona dependency upon others, they are at the same time isolated in a psychological sense as soeciaizations lead them to develop greater and greater individuality.
Durkheim also noted that the evolution of society to a more complex form leads to an increase in social relationships of much the same type that Tonnies called Gesellschaft:"It is quite true that contractual reations, which were originally rare or conpletely absent, multiply as social labor becomes divided." Thus, an increase in the division of labor has the result not only of increasing individual heterogeneity, but of introducing an increasing number of more formal and segmental relationships between people.
Anomie
Finally, Durkheim saw that under some circumstances, the division of labor could result in what he called "pathological forms." "Though normally," he said, "the division of labor produces social solidarity, it sometimes happens that ithas different, and even contrary results." If social function, that is, parts of the organic solodarity can break down. Commercial crises, depressions, strife between labor and management, civil upheavles, riots, demonstrations, and protests by subgroups offer various examples.
Thus, the very division of labor that produces harmony up to a point contains the seeds of social disharmony if pushed beyond a certain point. This, of course, was the thesis of Auguste Comte. Such a state of disharmony Durkheim called anomie. This is a pathology of the social organism that results when the division of labor becomes elaborated to a point where individuals are not capable of effectively relating themselves to others.
In short, as society becomes more and more complex-as the memebrs of the society become more and more preoccupied with their own individual pursuits and development-they lose ability to identify with and feel themselves in community with others. Eventually they become a collectivity of psychologically isolated individuals, interacting with one another but oriented inward, and bound together primarily through contractual ties.

------Chapter "Mass Society and The Magic Bullet Theory" from "The Effect of Mass Communication"

Durkheim's Analysis of the Division of Labor (1)

Mechanical versus Organic Solidarity. The overall purpose of Durkheim's extended analysis was to show how the division of labor of a society was the principal source of social solidarity in that society, and that as the division of labor was altered (as, for example, through social evolution), the unifying forces of the society underwent corresponding change. Solidarity refers to the kinds of social psychological bongd that unite the members, and although Durkeim used a very different terminology, he was addressing himself roughly to the same general problem as did Tonnies. By division of labor Durkheim meant more than simply the degree of specialization in the economic institution.

To show the social implications of the division of labor, Durkheim contrasted mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechenical solidarity is that which unites a people who are essentially alike. Through their common life, and in the presence only a rudimentary division of labot, the members of a given population work out a set of beliefs, values and other orientations to which they are deeply , commonly, and uniformly committed. To the extent that these orientations are truly characteristic of every member, there is little basis for the development of extensive individuality. Where there is little or no division of labor, people not only act in like ways, Durkheim suggested, but also think and feel in like ways. In this kind of society, "solidarity can grow only in inverse ratio to personality," because personality is what distinguishes one person from another. "If we have a strong and lively desire to think and act as others do." I n the extreme case, all individuality would be submerged, and the members of the society would be completely homogeneous in their personal psychic organization. In such an admittedly theoretical case, the members of the society would be completely uniform in their action.

It is perfectly obvious that no society was ever characterized completely by this kind of social organization. The idea of mechanical solidarity as a basis for binding members of a colllectivity to the whole is posted in this way as an abstract construct rather than a description that is supposed to portray reality with complete accuracy. The same can be said of Durkheim's second major concept, organic solidarity. The two taken together, however, offer a third useful interpretive framework in understanding the mergence of modern society.

If mechanical solidarity is based upon homogeneity, then organic solidarity is based on heterogentity. In a society with a well-develped division of labor, all persons performing specialized tasks are dependent on others whose activities are coordinated with theirs. Spencer had elaborated in extraordinary detail the parallels between organisms and society as unified systems of reciprocally functioning parts. Durkheim saw the mutual dependency that specialization produced, and he recognized this as a kind of social force that bound the members of a society together to form a more or less harmonious of functioning whole. But the important factor is that the division of labor, which produces organic solidarity, also greatly increases the degree of individuality and social differentiation within the society.


------Chapter "Mass Society and The Magic Bullet Theory" from "The Effect of Mass Communication"

Social Power

Social power is the basic element in politics, economics, and all other social relationships. Social power is possessed by all individuals and social groups and arises out of their connections to each other.

In Capital, Marx explained social power in a materialistic way. Human labor can impart ‘vital energy’ to nature in creating use-values. Marx said ‘each individual holds social power in his pocket in the form of a thing’ (Marx, 1963, p. 986ff). The specific social character of each producer’s labor can only show itself when producers conduct the act of exchange. And money, a thing acquires social properties and social power. Marx describes this "transcendental" quality of a thing as fetishism. Such fetishism is not merely a delusion, or a sort of "false consciousness." In bourgeois society, money actually does possess the greatest power. However, it only possesses such power due to a specific social relationship which underlies it: atomized commodity owners who can constitute their social relationship to one another only by means of a thing, money. Money only has power because all social actors relate to money as money, that is, as an independent embodiment of Value. But insofar as individuals act as commodity owners exchanging products, they have no other choice but to stand in such a relationship to money. Having said that, fetishism does contain a delusional aspect in that money seems to possess an inherent social power. The fact that this power is the result of an automatically executed social process evades the grasp of everyday cognition. The process vanishes in its own result.

Alienance

Frankly speaking, this is my first time to know about Marx's theory of alienation. Even though Marxist Philosophy and Marx's Political Economics are two required courses for all undergraduate students, there is no alienation theory. Of course, for students who major in philosophy and sociology, they have different textbooks.

As a layman, to understand the alienation theory literally, I think it is the state of feeling estranged or separated from one's milieu or self. At an experiential level, I just have felt that the overconsumption of media and overuse of new communication technologies nowadays lead to the phenomenon of interpersonal divide, in other words, isolation and displacement. I guess this is one example of alienation in our daily life. Everyday communication technologies, from cell phone to the Internet, have cumulative impact on the society and ourselves. They blur and blend the real with the virtually real, and then result in a graying of the physical world. Many of us have lost our sense of timing from overexposure to virtual reality. We are used to understanding the reality according to the television reality. Some of us also lost a sense of occasion-when and where to confront an issue or a person-and to end up complicating situations. We are used to deal with problems by email, telephone, even google. In short, I understand alienation from a technological perspective.

According to Marx, alienation is a systematic result of capitalism. This point intrigues me. Marx's alienation theory was based on his observation that with the industrial production emerging, workers inevitably lost control of their lives, work and themselves. Marx depicted four types of alienation in labor under capitalism. Capitalism turned single worker into a machine rather than a human being, turned the relationship between workers into competitive commodities rather than a social relationship, turned the products into being appropriated by capitalist class rather than being controlled by the workers, turned the act of production into a meaningless activity rather than offering intrinsic satisfactions.

This is my first time reading the original work of Marx, and also the first time reading books about Marx in English. And I was taught before Marx's theory is the truth rather than just a theory. Thus, everything has strong and significant impact on me, as well as makes me feel kind of puzzled. I am sorry about that. And this is also part of the reasons why I choose this class. There are a lot of things in this area I need learn.