Industrial Revolution in England provided the base for the development and use of science effectively in the arena of production and this development was carried out in consonance and contradictions with different forms of social changes and social roles of labour in European societies. The face of production started getting changed and a new form of roles were given and taken by people of these societies. The dominant system of that time 'feudal mode of production' started declining and finally decimated after the development of industries. The dependency of the population on land for the livelihood i.e. mostly agricultural activities was taken over by industrial mode of production. The changes in the mode of production was not an isolated phenomenon; it was supplemented by other conditions that provided impetus to the growth of industrialisation and a new 'market' which worked on the improvement of purchasing power of the people and changing consumption behaviour. These initial developments in capitalism were mainly influenced using increasing efficiency in the production through skills and division of works into segments so that one can easily master the art of doing and establishes a scientific and programmed way of doing things.
The development in the intellectual scholarship of that period reinforces the pre-eminence of rationality and reason that influenced the thinkers of modernity in coming days. The arrangements of different institutions by logic and scientific methods paved the way for modern societies in Europe. But this modernity was not isolated phenomena; it was contested by different theories and different thinkers who called for the inherent contradiction in the functioning of economic and political systems. However, some were very optimistic about the future but some showed negation of any possibility of socio-cultural transformation in an emerging mechanised world where capital became omnipotent. Sociology as a discipline postulated an analysis that was different from the economic and philosophical analysis of these conditions. Adam Smith, who in his work Wealth of Nation postulated specialised division of labour as an efficient and effective system for productivity, was celebrated by economists but Marx very poignantly showed how Smith also talked about the crippled state of workers in the era of a specialised division of labour. So, counter-currents to the effective rationalisation thesis was also a very modern phenomena of this period.
The classical sociology of Karl Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber see the development of industrialisation and specialisation in differents ways and present different kinds of future. However, the blueprints for the future society is not present in the work of any of these theorists but their analysis presents an effective framework for studying modern society. The concept of division of labour is present in most of the work of Marx like Economical and Philosophical Manuscript, The German Ideology, Capital, etc. Durkheim dedicated his first work in this domain with the same name. Marx distinguishes between 'Social division of labour' and 'division of labour in manufacture' (Tucker,393). The social division of labour is coming from the different works that the individuals in a society is doing to maintain its social and economic life and the main cause for this is the mode of exchange between different groups of the society. Division of labour in manufacturing was related to breaking down of single work in different parts and workers had to specialise one part of the work and it increased the productivity of industries and appropriation of surplus value became more easy and routine.
Both Marx and Durkheim say that the modern division of labour was possible because of the decimation of old social order. Durkheim says that “the division of labour varies in direct proportion to the volume and densities of societies and if it progresses in a continuous manner over the course of social development it is because societies become regularly denser and more voluminous.”(Durkheim 1986;205). So, for him, an increase in social density is the cause for the specialisation and subsequent development of the division of labour in societies. Further, he says that growth and development of societies necessitate a greater division of labour. So, it is not the instrument whereby that division is brought about; but it is its determining cause(Durkheim 1986;205). The determining cause of the increase in the “moral and social density” is not demography rather it is due to increase in the interactions among the social groups on a permanent basis. So, he agrees with Marx that the locus of specialisation in cities where people from different strata come and converge to go for differentiation of work. Marx gives the example of Northern America and says that Northern states of American Union are more denser than India due to the development of the division of labour despite India having a higher population(Tucker 1978; 393).
Durkheim's work mainly rely on “individual consciousness” and “collective consciousness” and these two things determine the intensity of division of labour in the society. Marx sees individual consciousness being shaped by social strata to which an individual is belonging but Durkheim finds social stratification as the pathological character of society in a phase of transition to modernity that he calls 'anomie'. He views it not as the instrument of exploitation rather a determinant of social solidarity. Durkheim provides a functional analysis of society and he tries to find out the functionality of 'normal', and 'pathological' characters of society. He finds pathological reinforces morality in society and for him, presence of pathology is not a problem as societies collective consciousness through several mechanism will reinforce normal conditions as when any deviant is being punished by law then the 'collective representation' of society in the ritual of execution of punishment forces individuals to submit to the morality of society. Therefore, somehow he is trying to counter the pessimistic views provided by Marx and Ferdinand Tonnies of modern society.
Therefore, he differentiates between pre-modern society and modern society by social solidarity. He says that pre-modern societies were based on a weak sense of personal identity and a strong sense of commonality i.e. collective consciousness and he defines this type of solidarity among the individual as “mechanical solidarity” and the lack of division of labour. But, modern society in contrast is based on a strong sense of personal identity, maintained through the specialised division of labour. So, there is a weaker sense of identification with the community. The specialised division of labour make people dependent on each other and the solidarity in the society is called 'organic solidarity'. The type of punishment changes in the society with the change of social solidarity. Durkheim sees the change in society through the legal lens and says how 'retributive law' of pre-modern society is being replaced by 'restitutive law' in modern societies. In earlier times, repressive sanctions were used because the division of labour was very simple and individuals were similars in their role and status. So, any crime against the individual offended the entire society and also the transcendent so the law were so rigid but with the advent in the complex form of division of labour, the difference between people increased and law became the way to coordinate between differentiating parts of the society and integrating diverse needs and aspirations.
He uses 'co-variance analysis' in the work Division of Labour to find the true cause and effect relation and also to reject those causes that are not related with effects. So, in the chapter The Anomic Division of Labour, he finds two abnormal type of Division of labour. He tries to find out the 'partial breaking of organic solidarity' in the case of commercial crisis and bankruptcies and says that with increasing specialisation of the division of labour, the labour got organised and conflicts between employer and worker increased (Durkheim 1986;292-293). The workers do not like the status is given to them and they do not find any way to identify another status and he defines it forced division of labour. So, the status goes with two other processes of regimentation of worker and the physical separation of the worker from the social environment with the standardisation of working practices which has transformed workers into 'a life less cog'. Marx finds the specialisation of the division of labour alienating and calls for the revolution that will bring “organised division of labour”. The other abnormal form of division of labour is 'anomic division of labour'. If the division of labour does not produce solidarity, then it is because the inter-relationships of organs are not regulated and then it is in the state of anomie. Durkheim finds that the structure of individual consciousness is shaped by roles, norms and morality. These things produce healthy personality of an individual in the society. Therefore, he does not see the division of labour not so much as a means to class exploitation rather a cause of social solidarity in a societal setting.
Marx and Durkheim see the consequences of the division of labour differently. Marx says that division of labour increases the efficiency of production and productive activities but the surplus accrued through this specialised division of labour is appropriated by those who have control over means of production. So, it increases or intensifies the exploitation of workers by the bourgeois. Also, the differentiation of work between different people destroys the oneness of human being and it alienates individual from the social environment. However, Marx in his work The Holy Family: A Critique of Critical Criticism writes that those who have control over means of production and have accumulated private property also have self-alienation but they feel satisfied and affirmed in this self-alienation because they experience it as the sign of power and “possess in it the-the appearance of a human existence”(Tucker 1978; 133). Therefore, he writes, “Private property represents the conservative side and the proletariat the destructive side”(Tucker 1978; 134). So, the generation of antagonism starts between these two classes who have conflicting interests and when this worker class will transform itself from “class-in-itself” to “class-for-itself” then the revolution will become pertinent and social change will happen. He, further, tells that division of labour 'dehumanises the working class' as the workers stop being independent goods producers and he becomes the supplier of the labour power. So, the commodification of labour power stripped it of humanness.
However, Durkheim finds all these things product of anomie and says that these are temporary conditions and when the transformation from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity is completed then these conditions will disappear. Therefore, he presents a very optimistic picture of future society. He says that in modern society the specialised division of labour will create individuality but due to differentiation of skills, people will be dependent on each other which will reinforce solidarity in the society. He is visualising division of labour not only as an economic process but also a social process whereas Marx views division of labour based on the economy and he does not see the cultural and other dimensions as the main cause for the development of the division of labour. While Durkheim says that division of labour brings society in equilibrium; Marx finds the human history as the history of class struggles. Contradictions, change and conflicts are the main words in Marx's writing. He finds capitalism as the struggle between capitalists and proletarians. So, only the revolution of the proletariat has the potential to change the society.
Max Weber in his theory of Bureaucracy talks about the specific role attached to the specific posts through the specification of jurisdictional areas and these areas cannot be changed by the whim of the superiors. He says that increasing rationalisation of society leads to the development of the strict division of labour. This kind of division of labour is manifested through the bureaucratic organisations of the society. His concept of bureaucracy is based on a hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules, achievement based growth, a specialised division of labour, efficiency, etc. The increasing rationalisation of the social world is building greater control of human over nature. Rationalisation, which is the most important element of Weber's theory is identified with the division of labour, bureaucracy and mechanisation. He in the work “Science as Vocation” talks about the notion of progress and says how it is giving rise to 'disenchantment'(Gerth and Mills 1946; 140). Weber's views about the inescapable rationalisation and bureaucratisation have certain similarities with the Marxian notion of alienation. Marx and Durkheim agree that the process of rationalisation has increased the efficiency and effectiveness of production but this has started dehumanising the human itself. But, unlike Marx and Durkheim, he is pessimistic about the future and does not see it a transition period that will transform for better.
In the work of Max Weber, the division of labour in the society came from the inescapable rationalisation. This process of rationalisation changed the face of different domains and created specific kind of knowledge to satiate the need of society. In his work, The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, he talks about the rationalisation of Protestant through the doctrines of Calvinism, which changed the rational means of gaining economic prosperity to deal with salvation anxiety. The Protestants took technical education which helped them to become specialised in their field. They also followed the spirit of rationality in their work to cultivate 'spirit of capitalism' in them. So, the division of labour through a specific process of rationalisation created a differentiation in the society that gave them the feeling of 'disenchantment'. So, Weberian notion of division of labour is different from the work of Durkheim and Weber.
The question of 'reason' and 'rationality' were made central in the phase of modernisation in the 19th and 20th century. Marx and Weber both finds the process of rationalisation is alienating the workers. Weber in Science as Vocation tells that even in the United States, education institutes are run as 'state Capitalist' enterprise where 'the separation of worker is done from the means of production'(Gerth and Mills 1946; 131). Therefore, the employees of a university is as dependent upon the head of the institution as the workers are in case of the factory. So, the life of assistants in these universities become like that of 'quasi-proletarians'. The bureaucratisation of work is dehumanising the workers. But, Weber is very 'deontological' in his analysis of society as he is talking about means and not the ends that differentiate him from Marx, who talks about synchronised means and ends. Therefore, Marx talks about 'communist society' that will be build through 'revolution of working class'.
Further, Weber also talks about the contradictions in a society having a democratic political system and being administered by bureaucratic system. Democratisation does not involve increasing participation of governed but the 'levelling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated group that in its turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form”(Gerth and Mills 1946; 226). He does not see a further democratisation of society rather he sees different kind of socialisation which entails further bureaucratisation. So, the distance between governed and the government is increasing and the sovereign power of the state is becoming illusionary. Here also, he agrees with Marx.Weber says that the term democracy is misleading as the party and every advance of election systems needs more bureaucratisation even at the local level. Therefore, bureaucracy represents precisely what Marx said about 'Hegelian State', 'an artificial embodiment of reason and an illusionary universal interest, blocking a genuinely rationality, commonality and universality' (Marx CHDS 1975, 60).
Therefore, Weber, Marx and Durkheim give a different kind of analysis of the division of labour. Their thoughts sometimes converge and other times diverge from each other's theory. However, all three thinkers find specialisation of the division of labour problematic for modern society but everyone has a different take on this. Marx says that only revolution can change the pathological character of society while Durkheim says that when the transformation of society from “mechanical solidarity” to “organic solidarity” will complete then these anomic conditions will disappear from the society. However, Weber does not see any light at the end of the tunnel as he finds that there is no way out of this “iron cage” of bureaucracy. So, while Marx transforms the study of the division of labour and gives a call for revolution but he does not give any blueprint for the future societies, which makes it vulnerable to be manipulated by people in power. Immanuel Wallerstein, therefore, says that communist state of USSR did not bring any socio-cultural transformation so it was not a 'revolution' as per se. However, Weber also criticises the Marxian concept of alienation by stating that there is no emancipation from this and the overarching process of rationalisation produces a split between public domain consists of state and capital and individuals separated from means of production. Durkheim's evolutionary analysis postulates that the anomic conditions have to end to maintain the equilibrium of society. This will be possible when individual consciousness will submit to the morality of society and that society will be more stable than previous societies because the connectedness of individuals through very specialised kind of division of labour will not allow to break the rules, norms and customs of the society. Further, he shows changes through the change in the character of law. However, the experience of modern society suggests that Durkheimian analysis is very idealistic in a sense as the reproduction of inequality in the society has become more common in the advanced phases of capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment