Lauren Rende Blog 2

1. Although the question asked how Durkheim's perspective of the division of labor differed from Marx's I think it is also important to point of some of the similarities between their theories. Marx's like Durkheim, believed that division of labor sucked all the creativity, and fun out of the production of the product. Both theorists also agree that the division of labor has become extremely specialized, meaning not one man can make the whole product from start to finish, but instead many man take smaller jobs to achieve the final and finished product. Marx's perspective of the division of labor a leader or boss, providing a laborer with a task and paying them for the task they complete. The goods produced then go on to be exchanged for a profit, but the laborer does not see any of that profit, considering they are a cost of manufacture. When Durkheim speaks of division of labor I believe he pertains more to the process of breaking up a job into a sector of smaller, and more tedious jobs. Such as in the film watched in class with Charlie Chapman as he turned bolts for hours on end, and everything that looked remotely close to a bolt he turned. Durkheim's idea of division of labor is more closely related to what we think of division of labor as today. Durkheim's perspective was first used by Gerald Ford, to make the beloved Model-T Ford quickly, easily, affordably, and most importantly profitably. The process in which each worker maintains a particular task is known as specialization. The specialization process takes all the laborers creativity out of the finished product, and causes the laborer to know only how to create his or her designated part, rather than knowing how to make the whole product from start to finish. Which ultimately results in loss of knowledge to the employee, if they are forced to do the same tedious task everyday, instead of making an entire product they will only make a small section of it.
3. The different between solidarities in this chapter pertained mostly to mechanical and organic societies. To begin to answer that question I'd like to describe solidarity itself, which is the integration within a society, and the degree of integration. In a mechanical society integration comes from people who feel connected through similar activities, and usually operates in a traditional small scale societies. In organic societies, solidarities derives from specialization of work and the complementariness between people. Typically organic societies are found in more modern or industrial societies. In my own eyes I feel as a mechanical society would be more like a rural, farm society where neighbors depend on one another for help, goods and most importantly safety. Members of small communities are required to depend on each other, due to the lack of resources and benefits emitted by rural areas. On the other hand, I would feel like an organic society would consist of a more modern, and urban setting. I also feel that members in an organic society do not depend on other individuals, because there is no need, all individuals in the society are self-sufficient.