SHRI SHIKSHAYATAN COLLEGE

NAME: SAMPRITI ROY

PAPER: SOCG (G.E.3)

C.U. ROLL NUMBER: 202034-11-0145

SEMESTER 3

TOPIC: COMPARE AND CONTRAST MARX AND

DURKHEIM’S THEORY
 INTRODUCTION
Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) unconditionally contributed in
shaping the base of sociological knowledge. They lived in that Europe which was then
experiencing the ‘Industrial Revolution’ characterized by technological shifts, and thereby
large-scale mass production in factories. Cities grew and so did the incidence of poverty, crime
and other social problems. Social ordinance were under threat. The traditional, feudal society
was crumbling and the modern, industrial world was coming into being. In this span, the ways
to tackle them came from these influential thinkers who adopted both similar as well as
contrasting grounds for discussing about society, politics, culture and economics in an
interconnected manner.
Marx’s theory is based on social critique and conflict, wherein Durkheim emphasizes on social
factors leading to social integration. Therefore, their responses to the challenges thrown up by
industrialisation are contrasting. Marx underlined the emergence of modern society with the
development of capitalism whereas for Durkheim, it is connected with industrialization and the
new social division of labour.

BASIC CONCEPTS OF THE DUO

Every society is economically conditioned and built on the mode of production and relations.
Karl Marx took the side of tension and struggle for social change in describing the movement
of society by emphasizing on historical class struggle, division of labor and production system.
Marx maintains that the capitalist system symbolizes the most acute form of inequality,
exploitation and class antagonism which paves the way for class struggle and revolution. Thus,
in all periods, there existed a tendency to differentiate the society on the economic dimension
into privileged and dispossessed of meterial production i.e. burgeoise and proletariat. He views
human society as inherently mutable and built upon its system of production where man is
purely material in needs who acts not only on nature but also on themselves.

In Durkheim’s view, individualism is not more important when considering the society’s
interest. He rejects the theories built upon “will” of the individuals and holds that the individual
tendencies derive from the collective nature of a social group of society. This is the reason that
the behaviour of the individuals reflects the societal beliefs, morals, rules, etc. Durkheim also
adds that the psychological factors are the resultant of social working, for instance, the most
individualistic act i.e. suicide. He stresses on collective conscience too which links generations
and forms a strong social solidarity.

KARL MARX AND EMILE DURKHEIM: A COMPARISON

 SIMILAR AND CONTRASTING THOUGHTS ON DIVISION OF

LABOUR

Division of labour, or field specialization, says Durkheim is what allows individuals to develop
their creativity even while binding them to each other and to society, thereby leading to the
growth of both, individualism and collective conscience, and it increases with the increase in
dynamic density. In primitive societies, the social structure is undifferentiated with less
division of labour( mechanical solidarity), whereas in modern societies, people tend to occupy
narrow-ranged specialized positions, thus forming organic solidarity. A society based on
organic solidarity is thus one where heterogeneity and differentiation exist, valuing
individualism more. Marx states that this promotes the process of exchange of goods between
groups, e.g. the earthenware pots of a potter may be exchanged for a farmer’s rice, and it is this
division of labour, which makes mass production of goods possible in modern, industrial
societies. Therefore, division of labour has to exist in order that everyday material conditions
are met.

Both, Durkheim and Marx make a very clear distinction between division of labour in simple
societies and complex industrial societies. According to both Marx and Durkheim, the modern
division of labour was possible because of decimation of old social order in cities where people
from different strata converge and go for differentiation.

Marx and Durkheim see the consequences of division of labour differently. While, Durkheim,
explains division of labour in industrial societies as a consequence of increased material and
moral density by looking at the specialisation as a means through which the struggle for
existence can be eased, thus making coexistence possible, Marx does not see it as a means of
cooperation and coexistence. Rather, he views it as a process linked with private property
which is forced upon workers in order that the capitalist might extract profit from their labour,
thereby leading to exploitation and dehumanisation of the work force. This is the process where
workers stop being independent where their labour is treated solely as sellable commodities.
They are pushed to limited engagements and the control over their production is taken away.
Hence, they suffer from alienation from the prevailing social system.

Durkheim in turn, also pin points some of the abnormal implications of this process. He
observed a state of normlessness which is not used to rapid changes in material life, thereby
results in total breakdown of the order. People, even are specialized, have to engage with the
same things daily, which somehow degrades the true meaning of their work. He also asserts
that the division of labour is inequal in nature, thus sometimes failing to produce long lasting
solidarity. Works aren’t well organized which deteriorates the collective action of individuals
in a society.

However, in remedial thoughts, they are quite different too. Marx says that only revolution can
change the pathological character of society. The establishment of communist society will
enable workers to control their means of production, which would help them realize their
potential. 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.
  A CONTRASTING PERSPECTIVE ON RELIGION

Religion plays a powerful role in influencing a society. In The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life, Durkheim asserts that religion is not a matter of supernaturally devine, but fundamentally
an illusion. It is a reality- a social fact that is experienced emperically. He says society is the
source of religion. He stressed the importance of the communal nature of religious experience
and the active participation, rather than the individual nature, as according to him, these serves
societal relationships better. He also identified the importance of rituals or rites within all
religions. Religious rituals “prepare men for social life by imposing self-discipline and a certain
measure of asceticism.” Well, he classifies religion into two categories i.e. sacred which
characterizes reverence and profane which are daily common elements.

For Marxists, religion was a creation of humanity, an illusion. It is used to justify and preserve
the existing social order and justifies the exploitative class system, as well as ensure the status
quo of the dominant ideology of the ruling class. Due to religion, Marx believed people look
forward to happiness and salvation they will receive in afterlife. Marx emphasized those
perilious social conditions that led individuals to find consolation in a world of their own
religious entities. To him, all social institutions in a capitalist society, including religion, were
marked by alienation and its ends only by cutting yourself off from God, allowing you to be in
contact with reality.

CONCLUSION
While Marx views the division of labour as the means of enforcing a pervasive class
exploitation, Durkheim perceives it as a novel and effective source of solidarity. Marx sees
individual consciousness being shaped by social strata to which an individual is belonging
whereas Durkheim finds for roles, norms and morality. The duo comes to the assessment of
social change differently too. The revolution of the proletariat, Marx believes, will overthrow
the old system and bring in the new post-capitalism scenario, whereas identifies inherent
tendencies both to self-destruction and self-regeneration within modern capitalism. Well, this
comparative analysis doesn’t limit to the sphere of economy, social structure or religion, rather
includes polity or cultural theories as well.
 REFERENCES

 Coser, Lewis A. Masters of Sociological Thought:Ideas in Historical and Social

Context. 2nd ed. Jaipur. Rawar Publication, 1996.
 Durkheim, Emile 1984. Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Alien and Unwin:
London.
 Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGrawHill Publishing
Company, 1998
 Durkheim, Emile 1984. Division of Labour in Society. MacMillan: London.
 Löwy, Michael. The Theory of Revolution in the Young Marx. Chicago, IL: Haymarket
Books, 2005.
 Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work; A Historical and Critical Study. Stanford, CA:
StanfordUniversityPress, 1985