SOCIOLOGY MAINS MENTORSHIP PROGRAM

Ritzer
Karl Marx: Historical Materialism, Mode of Production, Alienation, Class Struggle.
● Karl Marx was influenced by ideas of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Smith was an
exponent of Industrial capitalism. Ideas of Equality & Fraternity emerging from French
Revolution influenced Marx. German Philosophy in the form of G. W.F Hegelʼs
ʻdialectical Idealismʼ influenced Marx.
● Matured Marx was followed by Orthodox Marxists- Lenin, Mao and Stalin and he wrote
ʻDas Kapital ʻand ʻCommunist Manifestoʼ in which he proposed his Theory of Revolution

© EdSarrthi
1
Historical Materialism- Marxist theory of social change
French Revolution brought changes in the ʻPhilosophy of historyʼ, history became dynamic.
Hegel gave the concept of ʻDialectical idealismʼ. Young Hegelian, Marx, changed his thoughts
a er reading Ludwig Feuerbach, he became critical of Hegel, proposed his material
conception of history, he did not use concepts of DM, HM rather used ʻmaterial conception of
historyʼ
● Clearest exposition of the theory of historical materialism is contained in Marxʼs
ʻPrefaceʼ to "A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy". Marx never used the
term. :-> He used the term materialistic interpretation of history :-> HM Term coined by
Georgi Plekhanov.
● Definition: Engels's definition of historical materialism from "Socialism: Utopian or
Scientific": “HM designates that course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and
the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development
of society and in the changes in the modes of production and exchange, and in the
consequent division of society into distinct classes and in the struggle of these classes
against one another.”
● Based on the definition :-> Characteristics: (1) Causes of change in the economic
development of society. (2) How change occurs? When society gets divided into two.
Marx was the first to discover this nexus. HM:->Represents Marxʼs perspective. It
contains the blueprint of his methodology. HM is the scientific core of Marx's
sociological thought. Basic premises: 1. Society as an interrelated whole 2. Changing
nature of society.

© EdSarrthi
2
 History: History begins when men actually produce their means of subsistence, when
they begin to control nature- "The first historical act is, therefore, the production of
material life". From the social relationships involved in production develops a 'mode of life'.
"As individuals express their life so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their
production, with what they produce and how they produce it. “Thus the nature of man and
nature of society as a whole derive primarily from the production of material life.”It is not
the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social
being determines their consciousness".
HM best understood as Marxʼs sociological theory of human progress. Material
conditions or economic factors affect the structure & development of society. His theory is
that material conditions essentially comprise technological means of production and
human society is formed by the forces and relations of production. It is historical because
Marx has traced the evolution of human societies from one stage to another. Materialism
simply means that it is matter or material reality, which is the basis for any change.

© EdSarrthi
3
 Society progresses from one historical stage to another with the change in Mode of
P.- Show Marxʼs view of nature of society- relation between forces and relations.
FOP-capacity of a society to produce. This is a function of tools, technology, raw material
worked upon and organization of labour. All these are responsible for efficiency of
production. Relations of production- Two Classes-kind of relation man shares with Means of
production. Owners of property and property less workers- two classes are in antagonistic
relationship. They interests are in perpetual conflict. Means of P:-> Land in feudal society,
capital, Labour. For Marx, labor creates value in a commodity, capital does not. This view is
inspired by Adam Smith.
“At a certain stage of development, the material FOP is society come into conflict
with the existing ROP…(FOP change, but ) ROP turn into fetters. Then comes the period of

© EdSarrthi
4
social revolution. With the change of the eco.foundation the entire superstructure is more or
less rapidly transformed”. Worker wants wages, capitalist wants profit.
Class struggle :-> Is the application of HM-> struggle between Barons and Bourgeiosie
(old minority, emerging minority- this struggle would bring change), Barons and Serfs
(minority and majority- however, this dimension of class struggle cannot bring change). New
FOP-emerging dominant class- old dominant class tends to retain old ROP- new dominant
class wants to have new ROP. New FOP (new source of energy, tech.) come in conflict
(internal contradiction) with existing relations of production (labour- enclosure Acts).
Bourgeoisie try to develop new ROP (conflict between Barons and Bourgeiosie)-class
struggle

🡪5 MOP

New Mode of prod. emerges from the womb of old

order of society (Dialectical Materialism). As society progresses, new minority increases in
number (feudalism would become inefficient and would get replaced by capitalism which is
© EdSarrthi
5
efficient)- quantitative changes (more and more people become capitalists) becomes
qualitative change (in economy) --(as new FOP develop, a new class of people come- in the
case of conflict, progressive class wins).
Two mechanisms of social change- internal contradiction (DM), class struggle
(conflict): minority vs. minority (brings changes till capitalism), minority vs. majority
(capitalism would transform with this struggle to socialism and eventually communism).
Change : Marxʼs theory of historical materialism states that all objects, whether living
or inanimate, are subject to continuous change. The rate of this change is determined by the
laws of dialectics. In other words, there are forces which bring about the change. You can call
it the stage of antithesis. The actual nature of change, i.e., the stage of synthesis, will be,
according to Marx, determined by the interaction of these two types of forces.
Revolution>Socialism-private property is abolished but superstructure remains, there
is inertia and time gap for these functions to go away. Alienation is still there because human
labour is still treated as a commodity-each acc.to need, from each acc.to ability (labour-
alienation) 🡪 communism- these institutions go away too-withering away of the state-
equitable distri.-each acc.to need- man will do what he likes- END OF HISTORY.
Social Change in Terms of Social Classes: Marx elaborates the significance of the
infrastructure of society by tracing the formation of the principal social classes. He develops
the idea of social change resulting from internal conflicts in a theory of class struggles.

Dialectical Materialism
The idea of Dialectical change was developed by the German philosopher Hegel. His
theory was known as Dialectical idealism.

© EdSarrthi
6
 On the other hand, acc.to Marx- Each Stage of History: contradiction between forces
and relations of production: In revolutionary periods, one class is attached to the old
relations of production. These relations hinder the development of the forces of production.
Another class, on the other hand, is forward looking. It strives for new relations of
production. The new relations of production do not create obstacles in the way of the
development of the forces of production. They encourage the maximum growth of those
forces. This is the abstract formulation of Marxʼs ideas of class struggle.
The three most important dialectical laws are: 1) The law of the transformation of
quantity into quality and vice versa. 2) The law of the interpenetration of opposites. 3)
The law of the negation of the negation. The course of human history involves a
progressive development of the forces of production, a steady increase in man's control
over nature.
History changes with change in Mode of Production- idea of infrastructure and
superstructure: Relations of production constitute 'the real foundation on which rise legal
and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social
consciousness. The MOP in material life determines the general character of the social,
political and spiritual processes of life'. Superstructure- ideology, family, religion,
education. Rationality of these institutions is to protect the rights of the propertied class.
These institutions legitimize propertied class, they are designed to manipulate workers
mindset so as to provide their right over property.

© EdSarrthi
7
Stages-
Primitive communism
> Ancient society (surplus and private property)
>Feudal society
>Capitalism
>Communism

HM is not Economic Determinism: Class is a category that describes people in relationships

over time, and the ways in which they become conscious of these relationships. It
also describes the ways in which they separate, unite, enter into struggle, form institutions
and transmit values in class ways. Class is an ʻeconomicʼ and also a ʻculturalʼ formation. It is
impossible to reduce class into a pure economic category.
Application:->AR Desai uses it to explain character of Indian nationalism.
Conclusion- Historical materialism introduced into sociology a new method of inquiry, new
concepts, and a number of bold hypotheses to explain the rise, development, and decline of
particular forms of society. Also, originality of historical materialism was in its immense effort
to synthesize in a critical way, the entire legacy of social knowledge since Aristotle. Marxʼs
purpose was to achieve a better understanding of the conditions of human development.

Mode of production
Karl Marx= Structuralist = Base and Super Structure Model. Historical Materialism —> Mode
of analysis- Econ str = Basic Str = Mode of production of society .Other institutions like state,
church,media edu,family => Superstructure. Superstructure - not independent or
© EdSarrthi
8
autonomous existence => reflection of the base => roots in basic structure .When econ str
changes (MOP) ==> superstructure changes automatically.
A mode of production is the relationship between the relations of production and
the forces of production. Definition: “In the social production which men carry on, they
enter into relationships which are indispensable and independent of their will. These
relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of material powers of
production. The sum total of these relations of product constitute the economic structure of
society. The real foundation on which rises legal and political superstructures and which
corresponds to definite forms of social consciousness. The modes of production in material
life determines the general character of social, political and spiritual processes of life. At
a certain stage of their development, these material forces of production come into
conflict with the existing relations of production, - or what is but a legal expression of the
same thing, i.e. with the property relations, within which they had been at work earlier. From
forms of development of forces of development, these relations turn into their fetters.
Then comes the period of social revolution.”
“The first historical act is…the production of material life. Forces and Relations of
Production: The forces of production, according to Marx, appear to be the capacity of a
society to produce. This capacity to produce is essentially a function of scientific and
technical knowledge, technological equipment, and the organisation of labour. The relations
of production arise out of the production process but essentially overlap with the relations in
ownership of means of production. Relations of production should not be entirely identified
with relations of property.

© EdSarrthi
9
The crucial element in defining mode of production is ʻthe way in which the surplus is
produced and its use controlled”. In Marxʼs writing, stages of social history are
differentiated not by what human beings produce but by how, or by what means, they
produce the material goods for subsistence.
Influenced by Hegelʼs dialectics (but disagrees too). Marx says the distinct character of
human is to produce, to satisfy his needs. :-> Labour is the creative interchange between
man and his environment. :->Through labour, man transforms the environment. But in the
process, gets transformed himself too. :-> Marx called this the idea of social praxis. :-> As man
gets transformed, this gives rise to newer needs. :->So, change is a fundamental character of
human life. :-> Marx says this change is dialectic in nature.
How does this dialectic unfold?- Need for production leads to humans entering into
social relations. -> How M.O.P determine the superstructure, etc. MoP is restrictive and not
prescriptive. FoP are dynamic :-> But RoP resists change. Repeat the pts in class struggle
about development of two resultant classes, etc.
With the phases of historical development coincides the development of the different
modes of economy. This description, given by Marx, of the historical development of
societies and the consecutive changes in the mode of production is called historical and
dialectical materialism. Each stage follows logically from the previous one. This is because
each stage contains certain inner contradictions or tensions. These contradictions eventually
break the system down and a new stage emerges from the womb of the old.

© EdSarrthi
10
Four modes of production:
1. Primitive Communal system- was the first and the lowest form of organisation of people
and it existed for thousands of years. In this system of very low level of forces of production,
the relations of production were based on common ownership of the means of production.
In such a situation, exploitation of humans by humans did not exist because of two reasons.
Firstly, the tools used (namely, means of production) were so simple that they could be
reproduced by anyone. These were implements like spear, stick, bow and arrow etc. Hence
no person or group of people had the monopoly of ownership over the tools. Secondly,
production was at a low-scale. The people existed more or less on a subsistence level.
Undeveloped FOP-subsistence economy-absence of private property-classlessness.
-New FOP in conflict with Old ROP- called as internal contradiction.

2.Ancient Mode of Production: surplus production-private property-master and slaves 2

classes-master are in minority- owner masters have high bargaining power- become
oppressor/ dominant class. Master has the right of ownership over the slave and
appropriates the products of the slaveʼs labour. The masterʼs profit is constituted by the
difference between what the slaves produce and what they consume. The possibility of
accumulation comes about through the multiplication of slaves independently of growth in
the productivity of labour.

3.Feudal Mode of Production: Baron and serf, Land owned by landowner. Decision about
what to cultivate, the fate of product is taken by serf. Whole household works in the land.
Just as capitalists exploited the workers or the ʻproletariatʼ, so did the feudal lords exploit

© EdSarrthi
11
their tenants or ʻserfsʼ. Feudal rent whether in the form of services or taxes was an important
component of the feudal mode of production.

4.Capitalism- The term ʻcapitalʼ means private property-Industrial capitalism- social order
or economic order is called capitalism.
Types-
(A)traditional capitalism: Pariah (trafficking, exhorbitant rates-Parsis and Jews)
Booty, Adventure), Industrial capitalism/ modern capitalism- factory, mass production,
market sale, profit.
(B)Modern-Industrial capitalism- Karl Marx calls it irrational pursuit of profit.
Capitalists accrue profit by exploiting workers. Max Weber- rational pursuit of profit.
Profit accumulation of wealth is outcome of disciplined obligatory work. Production is
for exchange and profit. Operates in a free market situation. Constant pursuit of profit
(Weber- PE&SC)
(C) (Post-industrial capitalism- Service capitalism.
(D) 1990s- Susan Strange ʻCasino Capitalismʼ- speculative accumulation of wealth.
E.g. share investor Jhunjhunwala amassed wealth.)-Post-modern capitalism.

A stage in human history: The process, what to produce, fate of product, tools- all
belong to the capitalist. The stage of capitalism, according to the Marxist interpretation of
history, is a natural outcome of the contradictions within the feudal system. The feudal order
was marked by the oppression of ʻserfsʼ by the feudal lords. The tensions within the system
lead to the breakdown of feudalism freeing large numbers of tenants from the feudal lands.
The growing towns absorbed these people. A labour force thus became available for product
© EdSarrthi
12
manufacture. The development of new machines, the birth of the factory system and the
mass production of goods consolidated the new economic system called ʻcapitalismʼ. It is a
stage that will generate its own contradictions too. As a mode of production, capitalism is
characterised by the following features: Production for sale rather than for self-use, The
existence of a market where labour-power is bought and sold, Exchange takes place through
money, The capitalist controls the production process, The capitalist controls financial
decisions, Competition.
Use value, exchange value-average labour power crystallized (necessary labour time-value
goes to worker and surplus labour time) in the production of a commodity. Is equal to price
when demand and supply is in balanced condition. Surplus value is appropriated by
capitalist as profit. Capitalism is an exploitative economic and social order. Variable capital,
i.e. labour is the only source of profit.
Capitalists are in competition with each other. There is tendency to lower the margin of
profit-falling tendency of rate of profit is feature of capitalism. 4 classes in early capitalism-
1.bourgeiosie 2.petit bourgeoisie 3.proletariats 4.rentiers. Rentier go away, decline in rate of
profit petit b.find it difficult to sustain- Proletariatisation –property is sold>concentration of
capital> two classes. Relative gap increases- Pauperisation (poor and poorer in comparison
to capitalists)- to increase efficiency to cope up with reduced profit margins- ʻcentralisation
of capitalʼ.
🡪Class-in-itself- ʻfalse consciousnessʼ- attribute their misery to fate (religion-divine curse),
divided along class lines, not mutually aware of each otherʼs conditions. Lack consciousness
of similar situation- lack unity.

© EdSarrthi
13
🡪Class-for itself- as capi.progresses- unity, true consciousness, aware of exploitative
tendency of C.MOP- ʻclass consciousnessʼ

Socialism: short and transitory phase-dictatorship of proletariat- alienation is reduced.

Private property is abolished but institutions of superstructure remain, however, they have
lost their function. Gradually they will wither away.
Communism (EPM book)-: End of history- In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts
(1844) he wrote that ʻCommunism is the positive abolition of private property, of human self-
alienation, and thus the real appropriation of human nature, through and for manʼ. He
concluded that a transitory stage of Proletarian democracy must normally and inevitably
culminate in communism.
In communist society where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can
become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and
thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the
morning, fish in the a ernoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize a er dinner, just as I have a
mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. "From each according
to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Marxist analysis is based on historical conditions of Europe. He argued that other societies
would also move as Europe has moved. Tribalism/Primitive communism/ hunting gathering-
In Europe-private society emerged.

🡪 5 stages. Asiatic Mode of Production: Oriental society- India, China- absence of private
property, slavery (ancient society did not develop)- Due to geographical factors- irrigation

© EdSarrthi
14
channels, centralized despotic system of governance developed. This society is highly
resistant to change-static image of Indian society-Indian villages. Even king was not the
owner of land, but merely a custodian or possessor of land. Land was available in plenty. A
characteristic of primitive communities in which ownership of land is communal. With British
rule establishment, concept of private property and hence capitalism emerged. He argued
that capitalism introduced by British would help India comes out of static nature.
These communities are still partly organised on the basis of kinship relations. State power,
which expresses the real or imaginary unity of these communities, controls the use of
essential economic resources, and directly appropriates part of the labour and production of
the community. This mode of production constitutes one of the possible forms of transition
from classless to class societies. India- Semi-feudalism, British rule- concept of private
property capitalism emerged.

🡪Criticism:->(1) Mono-causal economic determinism. (2) Lenin used ideology during the
Russian revolution. Hence, super-structure can also influence base. (3) As per David Mclenna,
in Grundrisse -> Max accepted that Superstructure can influence Base.

Alienation
🡪The English word is derived from an original Latin noun 'Alienato'- which in turn is derived
from Latin verb 'Alienaire' meaning to take away or remove. the Latin usage of the term
resulted in two meanings- transfer of ownership of property, a stage of separation or
dissociation between two elements. The meaning transfer of ownership was largely used by
Social Contract theorists- Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Concept of alienation occupies

© EdSarrthi
15
central role in Marxian understanding of exploitation 🡪Young Marx also known as
Philosopher Marx who was followed by Neo-Marxists gave the concept of ʻAlienationʼ in
Economic and Philosophical manuscripts. Human beings are 'subjective beings'- they possess
consciousness- Focus of HUMANIST MARX- earlier work. Marx describes human beings as
possessing 'subjective consciousness' -individual has certain purpose-freedom to do what
man likes to do.
🡪Creation of Structure in society: Social-psychological condition in which man becomes
estranged from himself. In 19th C. Philosopher Hegel 'Philosophy of Rights'- used the term
alienation in the sense of transfer of property. While in 'Phenomenology of Mind'- used in the
sense of 'state of separation'. For him, former was desirable whereas latter was undesirable.
🡪Hegel treated alienation as an individual phenomenon. He did not link it with history, i.e.
his approach to alienation was non-historical -> alienation is inherent in the nature of all
spiritual creation. It is an internal feeling. He did not see it in association with any material
conditions -> Marx –separate from self, self- estrangement. Material alienation, rooted in the
concept of private property. Rejects alienation to be natural says alienation is man-made. He
disagreed and criticized Hegel for having non-historical, non-material and individualistic
approach of explaining the feeling of alienation. He linked alienation with the prevailing
material conditions of society. This way Marx took out alienation from spiritual domain and
put it in economic and historical domain.
🡪Alienation is a feeling of separation from self or simply self-estrangement. According to
Marx, root of all alienation is economic alienation which is further rooted in the concept of
private property. Alienation not absent in earlier stages of society but reaches zenith during
capitalist mode of production.

© EdSarrthi
16
🡪Earliest stage of human existence- 97% of human history- hunting and gathering-1.
'Primitive communism' is characterized by absence of concept of private property- due to
undeveloped forces of production (tools, technology, raw material, organisational ability of
labour).-primitive technology-completely undeveloped. Increase in population, discovery of
new source of energy and corresponding development of FOP and technology. Efficiency
increases. Movement from subsistence economy to 'Surplus production'- this 'surplus
production' is appropriated as private and personal property. Birth of private property. Few
people invent technology, they use it to increase their efficiency. Reduction in hearing own
subjective choice is known as 'loss of subjectivity'- alienation. Man goes for property
accumulation-both property less and owners.
2. Ancient society- master slave relationship, humans were owned by some humans.
Exchanged as commodities.
3. Feudal society
4. Capitalist society
The history from Ancient society to capitalism is example of mere "quantitative
change"-strengthening of the concept of private property- the extent and degree of
alienation changed. Compares pre-industrial society with industrial society. The feeling of
alienation existed in pre-I. society but it was low (progressive increase in alienation) He
introduces the notion of 'division of labour'- two types-Social DOL-a feature of feudal
agrarian society, Purpose of production was consumption. The unit of production was
household. was involved in production of whole commodity. Feeling of self-fulfillment and
identification with the product. Production process is not repetitive and monotonous.
Human beings have different needs which they cannot produce on their own. Different

© EdSarrthi
17
people make different commodities and exchange. The fate of product is in control of
producer. Exchange of product is without mediation of money-some sort of barter
exchange-no price fixation. Producer felt separated from product due to process of
exchange.
🡪Economic DOL-feature of industrial society. Purpose of production was profit. Unit of
production is factory. Household becomes a unit of consumption and re-creation.
Fragmentation of work. The producer is not able to identify the creation of his labour.
Alienation is along 4 dimensions- product, process, human being, species being/ social
being. (PPHS) Earlier alienation was from product (it exchanged).
🡪 Alienation of Proletariat-- Alienation from product-not able to locate/identify, fate decided
by capitalist, "the object that labour produces, its product, confronts it as an alien being, as a
power independent of the producer". Worker lacks control over product, since what is
produced is appropriated by others-> lacks control over fate of his produce. Producer is
divorced from the means of production and in which “dead labour” (capital) dominates
“living labour” (the worker). Giddens calls it 'market alienation'. It leads to “formal
subsumption of labour under capital”. The producer is not able to identify himself with the
product as his contribution is very small in the whole process and is identifiable. Alienation
from process-> work is highly repetitive, mechanical and monotonous in nature. work is not
satisfying-> work becomes an end in itself, rather a means to an end. Giddens calls it
'technological alienation'. Alienation from human beings-> Worker becomes a commodity of
exchange-> Instead of creating objects, it becomes an object. Wage is an attempt to quantify
subjective aspect of human being/human labour which is known as 'commodification of
labour'. Value can be attached to commodity not to human labour. Alienation from Species

© EdSarrthi
18
being->working condition in Germany in his period. Average working hour during his time
was from 14 to 16 hours. Low wages merely sufficient for fulfilling their fundamental basic
needs- just enough for 'reproduction of labour'. No leisure period- to pursue the activity of
their choice. Alienated labour reduces the human productive activity to the level of
adaptation to, rather than active mastery of nature-> this detached human being from his
species being-from what makes the life of human being distinct from that of animals. At the
workplace, labourers didnot feel satisfied as the work was not of their subjective choice. No
interaction with fellow workers and sharing feeling. Man is a social being and inability to
interact with fellow being alienated the worker from his social being. Long working hours,
absence of leisure period, low wages had reduced man to perform three functions- eating,
sleeping and procreating-animal functions.
🡪Alienation of the bourgeoisie-> Bourgeoisie is also alienated due to the anarchy of market
forces-> He does not produce what he wants to, but what the market wants him to produce->
His enjoyment is mere satisfaction of capital accumulation. But they have sufficient leisure
period
🡪“we live in an age in which the dehumanisation of man, that is to say the alienation
between him and his own works, is growing to a climax which must end in a revolutionary
upheaval; this will originate from the particular interest of the class which has suffered the
most from dehumanisation, but its effect would be to restore humanity to all mankind”.
Revolution/ communism: “the re-integration of oneʼs return to oneself, the supersession of
oneʼs self-alienation”.
🡪Marx says the root of all alienation is Economic Alienation. History of mankind has dual
aspect- ʻIt was a history of increasing control of man over nature, at same time it was history of

© EdSarrthi
19
increasing alienation of manʼ. Primitive man felt alienated from nature as nature was too
overpowering devised means of production and FOP to overpower natureà alienation is
transferred from natural sphere to social sphere. An individual is essentially creative and his
true consciousness is defined by his being, however, man in a mode of production is
identified by his social being, which is based on his work. Man uses his creativity to shape his
material world. But his creativity is objectified as he loses control over what he produces.
🡪Religion provides an example of man's alienation. In Marx's view "Man makes religion,
religion does not make man." But when an independent power is ascribed to God, man
becomes alienated. Marx attributes economic alienation in Bourgeoisie society to (1) Private
ownership (2) Anarchy of market forces Marx explain alienation in capitalistic mode of
production in chapter ʻFetishism of Commoditiesʼ in his Das Capital, 1867- Fetishism means
a thing that we ourselves make and then worship as if it were a god or spirit. Commodity
fetishism is a condition in which social relations become expressed as relations between
things and things assume more importance than the man who produces them. Fetishism of
commodities prevents workers from seeing the actual reality behind it. Workers start to treat
commodities as if value is inherent in them at the expense of their own labour, which is the
real force that produces the commodities
🡪Commodity is a product of human labour. Earlier commodities had use value as they were
produced to satisfy needs and personal use of man. But in modern capitalist industries, they
have exchange value as worker is not entitled to fruits of his labour. It is difficult to compare
use value of different commodities. Like- Bread for hunger and shoes for protecting feet. But
in capitalistic mode of production, commodities come in market and are exchanged for
money and they are now only quantitatively different. Commodities become separated

© EdSarrthi
20
from the needs and purposes of their creators and seem to exist in a realm, separate from
human use. Commodities in capitalism seem to have an independent existence and thus
appear like fetishes to those who produce them.
🡪Even human labour becomes a commodity that is bought and sold in market- it acquires
an exchange value that is separate from us. De-Humanisation of Labour: in process of
production: Theory of surplus value. exchange-value. The exchange-value or simply the
value, as distinguished from the use-value, consists of the "abstract human labour"
incorporated in the commodity. The measure is not the time which the individual labourer
may have spent which may be above or below average, but the average time needed on a
given level of productivity, what Marx calls the “socially necessary labour-time”.
🡪Concept takes us from the level of an individual actor to the level of large-scale social
structures like religious, political, and organisational structures and people reify whole range
of social relationships and social structures as they reify commodities and other economic
phenomena.
🡪Solution- within capitalist framework- partial solution-reduce working hours, making the
working conditions humane. Complete solution is in establishment of communism-in
communist MOP workers' subjectivity.

-Max Weber- Marx- solved in communism. Modern Industrial society consists of large scale
production. Needs greater coordination and command-> gives way to bureacuratic
organization. Rationalisation-man would be increasingly confined to 'iron cage' -pessimistic
view-Strict adherence to formal rules leads to Formalistic Impersonality-> feeling alienation.
No solution.

© EdSarrthi
21
🡪Social action approach- 3 types-Rational action (predictability, calculability and profit)- of
art, music etc.also. Manifestation in insti.form- rational legal authority/ bureaucracy.
🡪Marxian and Mostly Weberian analysis based on MANUFACTURING.SECTOR.
-Ritzer- Mcdonalisation
-C Wright Mills - non-manual American Middle class study- 'White collars'- as manual
workers became like commodities by selling their services as things, similarly, non-manual
persons sell their skills in the market. Expansion of tertiary/service sector of the economy
has led to shi from skills with things to skills with persons-> 'PERSONALITY MARKET'-a
market value is attached to the personality characteristics. Personality is sold like any other
commodity-> People become alienated from their true selves. 'In the sales room, in the
board room, staff room, in the conference room men and women prostitute their
personalities in pursuit of personal gain'. Ex-> Sales girl-because her personality becomes an
instrument for an alien purpose.
-Andre Gorz and Herbert Marcuse- Marcuse: One Dimensional Man- Just as capitalism
shapes the working day of a man, it also shaped his leisure activities. Generating false needs-
advertising industry has played a major role. Begins to find satisfaction in consuming the
products of advertising and entertainment industries. In capitalist economy, man is
alienated from both his work and leisure. According to them, the self-fulfillment during
leisure period is mainly based on and directed by false needs. Feeling of satisfaction in the
consumption of products of capitalist economy is poor substitute for self-directed, creative
leisure.
🡪Daniel Bell, Allan Turan- Post-industrial society

© EdSarrthi
22
Critique of Marxian theory of Alienation
Marxʼs theory of alienation has been criticized at three accounts- Marxian theory is partly
based on the image of a man as framed by Marx and Marxist. Secondly, Marx ignore the
meaning provided by actor and term them ʻfalse consciousnessʼ. In LEutenʼs study, Lockwood
et al described that for workers work is merely a means for the fulfillment of material needs
but Marx described it as ʻfalse consciousnessʼ of lower class.
🡪 Robert Blauner- Marxian perspective is very general as he lumps together diverse
occupations and leisure activities into a unified identity and creates a simple model of man
in industrial society. Blauner finds that there are different dimensions of alienation and
different sectors of industries do no impart alienation along all the dimensions with uniform
degree. Alienation and Technology- Does not agree that all workers in capitalist society are
uniformly alienated. Blauner associates alienation with the type of technology rather than
relations of production. Looks at workers from (PTAC) Printing, textile, chemical and
automobile industries and argues that printing industry workers were least alienated, while
those in automobile industry were most alienated

🡪M Seeman looked at Psychological facet of Alienation. Powerlessness- Cannot influence

social surrounding, Meaninglessness-Illegitimate means are required to achieve valued
© EdSarrthi
23
goal, Isolation- estranged from norms and values of society, Self-estrangement- Inability to
find activities psychologically rewarding, Normlessness- Conditions which perceive absence
of norm.
🡪Karl Popper: Alienation can be breeding ground for creative ideas also.w
🡪Merton states that people may rebel and innovate if they feel alienated.
🡪Worker mobilization, capitalists and state took measure to alleviate workersʼ condition.
Fixed working hours, got leisure period, social security measures, participation in
management.

Class Struggle
🡪Comm. Manifesto:“History of hitherto all existing societies has been a history of class
struggles”. Class has been used as a conceptual tool by Marx to account for conflict and
change in society. What is class? According to Marx, class is a group of people who share
common relations to FoP. :->As a result: There are two class: (a) Ownership class: Those who
own and control the FoP. (b) Non-ownership class: Those who do not own the FoP. ';.,
🡪Marx has used class in two senses: Descriptive sense (ʻRevolution and Counter Revolution
in Germanyʼ – Marx identifies 7 different classes; Similarly, in ʻClass Struggle in Franceʼ – Marx
identifies 6 different classes) – Aware of the complexity of the class system. And in
Sociological sense: Here he is using class as a conceptual tool to account for conflict and
change in society. Hence, identifies two classes: Ownership and Non-ownership. series of
struggles between the ʻhavesʼ and ʻhave-notsʼ.
🡪Class-in-itself: It is a mere category. :->In early capitalism, Non-owners are unaware of true
nature of capitalism- that they belong to a common category and have common interests-

© EdSarrthi
24
divided along ethnic lines-not mutually aware of each otherʼs condition :->Has the potential
of being an agent of conflict and change. But it remains dormant. Attribute their condition to
divine curse.
🡪proletarianisation, concentration of capital, pauperization, centralization of capital,
homogenization, polarization (into two homogenous classes).
🡪Class-for-itself as capitalism progresses-unity among workers: When members of the class
develop subjective awareness of their objective reality-ʻclass consciousnessʼ would
emerge:->
🡪How? –social production method- in factor system of production- more and more people
work in small space- gradually, scope for and frequency of interaction between workers
increase-Mutual awareness emerges-true nature of capitalism reveals-breakdown in
pluralistic ignorance.
🡪-Mechanization- homogenization of proletariat class- everybody is handling the machine.
Then they transform from class-in-itself to class-for-itself.
🡪Rate of profit approaches low levels, subjective consciousness of proletariats,
homogenous classes, class consciousness among workers, they are united and have high
bargaining power- these become mature conditions for proletariat revolution. The revolution
is caused by maturity of objective or material conditions. Occurring on its own/inevitable-
Marx does not recognize the role of humans. Will weed out the concept of private property.
Can be either violent or non-violent. If capitalists realize the inevitability of the situation and
give up their control over private property voluntary, the transition would be non-violent.
Otherwise, the private property would be violently uprooted. 🡪Dictatorship of proletariat
would be established in socialism. (Praxis- collective action to change the situation)- attacks

© EdSarrthi
25
the root cause of the problem, i.e. private property. Ancient Society transforms into Feudal
Society. Marx does not explain how this change occurs without class struggle.
o The Feudal Society is divided into Masters (Ownership) and Serfs (Non-ownership)à
Marx says Serfs did not get into conflict with Lords because they lacked subjective
awareness of their objective reality and were a C-I-IàThen Industrial capitalism
gradually began to develop within the framework of the feudal society. à In order to
develop fully, it required ʻfree wage labourer who sells his labour-power to capitalʼ. à
This provides a mobile labour force that can be hired and fired at will à However, the
feudal relations of production – which involved ʻlanded property with serf labour
chained to itʼ – tended to prevent development of wage labourers. àEventually the FoP
of capitalism developed sufficient strength and impetus to lead to the destruction of
the feudal system. à The bourgeoisie became C-F-I and overthrew the feudal RoP.
o But the resolution of old contradictions does not mean an end to
contradictions in society :-> The transition from feudalism to capitalism merely
means the replacing of old set of contradictions by new set.
o Marx says in capitalism we will not have to wait for new forces of production
for class conflict to emerge. Instead, because of the contradictions in capitalism, a
subjective awareness of objective reality will emerge among the proletariats.
o What are these contradictions:
(1) Socialisation of production and privatisation of control: This leads to alienation> Surplus
value
(2) Monopoly capitalism: More efficient firms will drive out less efficient.
(3) Pauperisation thesis:-> Pay less + Retrench works :-> Inequality increases.

© EdSarrthi
26
(4) Polarisation :-> Middle classes + Petty bourgeoisie will join proletariat. Only 2 classes will
remain.
(5) Homogenisation thesis:-> As the proletariat will become more homogenised, they will be
subject to similar conditions at work. Hence, their class position will be alike and they will
behave they have common interests. :-> The proletariat will develop subjective awareness
and will transform into CFI. :-> This will lead to development of conflict.
(6) Dictatorship of the proletariat . Conflict between minority and majority unlike earlier
stages in history. As per Marx, this conflict does not have to be violent in democratic
countries. :-> But in other countries, bourgeoisie will use state violence against the
proletariat to suppress them. In that case, proletariat will have to use violence too. :->
Eventually, the proletariat will win. They will overthrow the capitalist system and will destroy
the institution of private property. :-> All FOP will be owned and controlled by the society as a
whole. :-> And there will be no class divisions. :-> State will be dominated by one-party. (In
democracy: Party represents class interests). :-> There will be dictatorship of the proletariat.
:-> Eventually, it will be a state-less society,

© EdSarrthi
27
Jonathan Turner's Model of Marx's
Social organisation based on institution of private property> Relations of domination and
subjugation>objective opposition of interests (Pauperisation, homogenisation)> subjective
awareness> polarisation into two groups>Class conflict>Redistribution of property.

Critical evaluation of class and class-conflict

● Max Weber- Disagrees with Marxʼs definition of class:-> He says class consists of a
group of people who share a common market situation. :->Therefore, class divisions
emerge only when there is a market system of exchange. :-> Market economy exists only
in a capitalist economy. Thus, as per Weber, in earlier society there was no class division
as there were status groups.
● Disagrees on number of classes:->Weber says in contemporary society there are not
two, but four classes. And number of classes will increase, unlike what Marx says in his
homogenisation thesis. The four classes identified by Weber are: Propertied upper-class,
White-collar workers (will grow with the growth of capitalism. They are non-owners but
market situation is favourable for them), Petty bourgeoisie (this might get educated and
become part of WCW. Disagrees with M that they will become part of P), and Manual
working class (Contrary to Marx, he says this class will decline as machines will substitute
workers. :-> This class will get further fragmented in terms of skilled, semi-skilled, etc.
Hence, will become heterogeneous than homogenous).
🡪Weber says economic inequality will generate conflict but it is not necessary that this
conflict will lead to revolution. Only under a rare condition will there will be a chance of
revolution.
© EdSarrthi
28
🡪Clarck Kerr and Jessi Bernard :-> In advanced industrial society, as white-collar workers
are increasing there is an embourgeoisiment of working class.
🡪Gold Thorpe and Lockwood:->Found embourgeoisement to be partially true as: (a)
Workers have accepted inequality as normal feature. (b) Workers have become
home-centred than TU-centred.
🡪Crain Brinton:->Says there is no inevitability of revolution, they just occur in certain
situations: (1) Inefficiency of existing authorities. (2) Dissertation of the intelligentsia of the
ruling elite. (3) Political bankruptcy. (4) Emergence of charismatic leadership.
🡪Ralf Dahrendorf :->Marx theory correct for the conditions of 19th century. Argues that
capitalism is destroying itself not into socialism, but into post-capitalism. Why? (1)
Decomposition of capital (2) Decomposition of labour (3) Rise of the welfare state. (4)
Increasing social mobility (5) Expansion of white-collar middle class. (6) Institutionalisation
and Insulation of conflict.

🡪Some recent events that seem to suggest that marxʼs ideal may still have something
to offer:
1) Karl Marx view that capitalism was inherently unstable and that it would be prone to crisis
seem to be supported by the global financial and economic crisis of 2008.
2) Economists have shown that since 1970 wealth has been concentrated in the hands of
few.
3) David Harvey argues that the world current currently has many characteristics
that suggest that capitalism is running out of steam and its long-term future is under threat.
He says that there is widespread poverty in the world, environmental problems are out

© EdSarrthi
29
of control and the rich are getting rich and the livers of are so closely controlled by then it
is difficult to introduce changes which might help to save them.
4)Frankfurt School: Marxism+Pschoanalysis- 'One Dimensional Man'- Herbert Marcuse.
5)Neo-Marxists- Gramsci 'hegemony', Althusser 'ideological state apparatus'.
6)Sen- Marx 2.0

MARX and Division of Labour

🡪Marx pin-points two types of division of labour: Social division of labour: This exists in all
societies. It is a process that is bound to exist in order that members of a society may
successfully undertake the tasks that are necessary to maintain social and economic life. It is
a complex system of dividing all the useful forms of labour in a society. For instance, some
individuals produce food, some produce handicra s, weapons and so on. Such exchanges
spur on or provide an impetus to specialisation.
🡪Division of labour in industry or manufacture: This is a process, which is prevalent in
industrial societies where capitalism and the factory system exist. In this process,
manufacture of a commodity is broken into a number of processes. Each worker is limited to
performing or engaging in a small process like work in an assembly line.
Implications of Division of Labour in Manufacture:
1. Profits accrue to the capitalist
2. Workers lose control over what they produce
3. Dehumanisation of the Working Class: The workerʼs individual personality needs
and desires mean nothing to the capitalist. It is only the workerʼs labour-power which is
sold to the capitalist in exchange for wages that concerns the capitalist.

© EdSarrthi
30
 4. Alienation

Difference between Marxʼs DOL and Durkheimʼs DOL:

1. Causes of Division of Labour:
Durkheim explains division of labour in industrial societies as a consequence of increased
material and moral density.Durkheim says the causes of division of labour lie in the fact that
individuals need to cooperate and do a variety of tasks in order that industrial society may
survive. According to Marx, division of labour is imposed on workers so that the capitalists
may benefit. Durkheim stresses cooperation, whilst Marx stresses exploitation and conflict.
2. Consequences of Division of Labour:
Durkheim sees division of labour as a process that can be the basis of integration. Marx sees
it as a process bringing about dehumanisation and alienation, separating the creators from
their creation. The workers become slaves of the system of which they should have been the
masters.
3. Solutions to the Problems Related to Division of Labour:
Anomie according to Durkheim can be handled by making workers conscious of their role in
society. By making them feel organically linked and involved with the life of society.
Meaninglessness will then be changed into an awareness of the significance of their
productive roles. According to Marx, capitalism itself is the problem. The way out is through
revolution, through which workers gain control over the means of production.
4. Durkheimʼs ʻFunctional Modelʼ of Society and Marxʼs ʻConflict Modelʼ:
Durkheimʼs study of division of labour brings out his functional model of society. Durkheim
sees society as a system held together by the integrative contributions of its various

© EdSarrthi
31
institutions. Marx sees history as a series of struggles between the ʻhavesʼ and ʻhave-notsʼ.
This leads to conflict and change. This is the main difference in their approaches.

Marx and his Criticism:

While making a critical review of the Marxian approach, we must keep in view the following
two aspects of Marxism:
● Marxism as a theory,
● Marxism as a practice.
1. Over-emphasis on historical materialism and conflict:As regards the first aspect,
Marxian approach has over emphasised the role of material forces and conflict. It has
over-simplified the class structure of the capitalist society–ignoring the importance of new
occupation, professions, and the middle class.
2. Communism- a figment of imagination: In practice, the Marxist utopia could not be
achieved by the Communist Statesin the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe. The
social inequality and exploitation remained in communist States also. The Communist States
were characterised by dictatorship, police state, inefficiency and corruption. As a result not
only the Communist States collapsed but even the dream of Marxism was shattered in the
Soviet Union and the Eastern Europe.
3. Growing middle class: Marx predicted that finally the intermediate strata, i.e., the middle
class would disappear and there would be only two classes, i.e., capitalist and the working
class. But a reverse process is visible whereby increasing numbers of affluent manual
workers were entering the middle stratum and becoming middle-class. Hence, polarization
of classes is not happening in the way Marx had envisaged. A middle mass society is

© EdSarrthi
32
emerging where the mass of the population is middle rather than the working class. This
process is visible in both capitalist and communist societies.Goldthorpe and Lockwood,
studied class mobility and inferred that in all capitalist societies upward mobility is higher
than downward mobility and people tend to be satisfied with their positions. Thus,
polarisation and revolution seem a very dim probability even centuries a er industrial
revolution.
4. One-cause explanation: With an increasing emphasis upon multi-casual explanation of
social problems, it has become difficult to provide an analysis by one cause alone, the
economic, as Marx propounded in his economic determinism.
5. Common denominator: He assumes that all the complex, combined and variably skilled
labour tasks that characterize work under capitalism can be calculated in terms of their
`common denominator', simple average labour time. The counter-argument is that this
equation just cannot be computed, and that there is no independent reason for its
plausibility.
6. Teleological inevitabilism: Commentators can be found on all sides, from the
interpretation of Marx as a `teleological' inevitabilist propounding a God's-eye view of
history's inner meaning, to his imaging as someone who believed, to the contrary, that
history has no logic in itself, but is rather constructed and reconstructed according to present
political needs and struggles.
7. Socialism, qualitatively similar to capitalism: Raymond Aaron in his work ʼEighteen
lectures on Industrial societyʼ has argued that there is not much difference between
socialism and capitalism as both are industrial societies founded on mass production. Both,
export goods, thus both are surplus societies. Hence, there is no qualitative difference

© EdSarrthi
33
between the two, but only quantitative difference, where in capitalist state there are many
bourgeois, whereas in socialist state, thereʼs just one bourgeois i.e. the state.
8. Classes are present in every society: Ossowski argues that if class means having
identical control over means of production, it is present in socialist countries too in the form
of ruling class. Ruling class here comprises of Bureaucracy, Army and members of politburo.
Similar argument has been put forward by Rosa Luxemburg and Elitist theorists like
Schmpeter. Louis Althusser, in his book ʻFor Marxʼsays that ruling class dominates every
society, first by ʻideological state apparatusʼ and then by ʻrepressive state apparatusʼ.
9. Conflict in every society: Ralf Dahrendorf, in his book ʻclass and class conflict in industrial
societiesʼ argues that power in socialism, stifles the choices of people, hence conflict is
visible in socialist countries too.
10. Inter class conflict: Pierre Bourdieu, argues that capital is not with industrial capitalists
but is also possessed by intellectuals and politicians in form of cultural and symbolic
capitals respectively. Since, different kinds of capitalists are present, inter bourgeois conflict
is also a possibility which Marx failed to recognize.
11. Different forms of protest: Different scholars have argued that protests need not just me
violent as Marx had propounded, but, different societies and groups manifest protests in
different ways. For example, hip hop music was born as a protest against oppression.
Similarly, Gandhiʼs satyagrah was a form of protest.
12. Multiple inequalities: Critical theorists, Post modernists and feminists (Shulasmith
Firestone) have also added their angles to critique of Marx for missing many aspects which
were ignored by him, exaggerating the role of mode of production as a basis for inequalities
present in society.Conclusion: Marx is back, and for good reason. But Marx is not `back' in

© EdSarrthi
34
any straightforward way. For one thing, it is Marx rather than Marxism whose strengths are
being appreciated anew inhis diagnosis of ceaseless capitalist dynamism and instability
and his prescient sketches of globalization and colonialism;

Relevance
Why questioned-China-capitalist economy, fall of Berlin wall in 1993, Collapse of USSR and
its disintegration- Russia adopted a capitalist economy, E.European countries- communism
failed.
🡪Today, we are talking relevance of Marxism due to some international events that have
occurred in the last 50 years mainly 1970 onwards. The first event was capitalist adaptation
of communist economy by China. But the most important event was the collapse of erstwhile
USSR and its disintegration into a number of nation-states. The biggest state, Russia too went
for Prestroika and Glasnost- transforming into capitalism economy and democratic state.
Consequently, its East European affiliates, Yugo., Czech- became capitalist. With the fall of
Berlin wall the process was said to be more or less complete. All these events were described
as the victory of free market over the very idea of communism. Francis Fukuyama went so far
as to proclaim ʻThe End of Historyʼ- end of class war and communism.
In order to fully analyze the failure of Marxism, we need to see whether erstwhile communist
regimes were truly Marxist or not. Opinion of capitalists vs. Marxists. Leon Trotsky- the
collapse of Soviet Union was inevitable was it was not truly socialist, rather polar opposite of
that. Acc. To him, Stalinism and socialism are far from being identical. The regimes in USSR
and East European satellites were in opposition to socialist ideas- planned economy needs
democratic control. The description provided by Trotsky leaves us to conclusion that in
© EdSarrthi
35
reality in true sense socialism was never established. A new political class emerged in USSR
who became more exploitative than the capitalists.
The relevance of Marxist theory is said to be maintained by the work of Mark Glick
ʻThe Current Crisisʼ in 1987. In this book he has evaluated the trend of long term rate of
profit in USA. In 1899, the average rate of profit of corporates in USA was 22%, in 1983-10%.
In USA, 9/10th of its economy is in the hands of top 500 companies and 80% of that is in the
hands of the 100. The recent Oxfam reports supports this in context of India- 1% Indians
control 73% resources.
Swelling of reserve army- while millions of unemployed languish in the condition of
enforced leisure, other millions find themselves subjected to ever increasing pressures to
work long hours with lower pay and worst conditions.
Contemporary Europe- mass uprising, in USA and European countries against
unemployment level. Greece, Portugal, Britain, Italy, Spain witnessed big working class
movement. The indebtedness of working class is also increasing. In USA, for every dollar
earned, a dollar and two cents are owed.
Increasing span of recession in capitalist cycle and the period of boom is decreasing.
Economic boom and recession are cyclical features of capitalism. An empirical investigation
finds that in early 20th C. the period of recession was low in comparison to boom period.
Since 2008, we are facing these cycles.
Above discussions supports all the parameters analyzed by Marx- declining rates of
interest, swelling reserve army, pauperization of the working class, concentration of capital.
Even the ardent supporter of capitalism agree that in the long run capitalism leads to
concentration of capital. It sharpens the economic inequality which in turn breeds conflict

© EdSarrthi
36
and violence. Marx generated awareness among the proletariat class of their true condition
that led to working class mobilization- ideology is an important component of social
movements. This put pressure on capitalists to address the workersʼ concerns. The capitalist
state went for enactment of laws protecting rights of labour.

-Concepts –theory -Marcuse, Adorno-Frankfurt -Capital in 21st C. –Thomas Piketty.

🡪Since 1991 - expansion of neoliberalism - Hegemonic ideology
🡪Scholars - Dustbin of History - wrong to say so
🡪2008 Economic crisis — question mark on neoliberal globalization. Renewed interest in
Marx
🡪Thomas Piketty - Capital in the 21st Century — relevance of marxist ideas
🡪Anti-capitalsit movements being witnessed around the world
🡪Communism <=> Anti-thesis <=> Capitalism — Critique of capitalism - Keep it
humanitarian
🡪Utopian - Not utopian as it has never been implemented - Even if Utopian - does not
undermine its relevance — Source of motivation for the exploited class
🡪Karl Popper - Enemy of open society — enemy of freedom - Communism is Perfect
Freedom -Criticises due to Determinism, Not open to falsification

© EdSarrthi
37
 ● Weber- PESC- Superstructure (Religion) gv rise to capitalism- Marx
gave Monocausal analysis
● Gramsci- Prison Notebooks- role of cultural & Ideological factors
shaping history
● Althusser (Ideology and Ideological State apparatus) -Law of
Overdeterminism- Multistructural approach (Russian Revolution
from Pol St)

● Karl Popper (Open Societies and its enemies)

● Gandhi
o Theory of Trusteeship (Appeal to Conscience). Warren Buffet,
Bill Gates, Azim Premji, Tata's donating their wealth for social
causes- shows symbiosis of business with society/ethics is
possible. Entrepreneurs offering free so wares like Linux &
Google docs in spirit of "collaborative commons".Gandhi- No
doubt capital is lifeless. But not the capitalists who are
amenable to conversion

● B R Ambedkar (Buddha or Marx)

© EdSarrthi
38
🡪Thomas Piketty --Capital in the 21st Century + Capital and Ideology
(2020)--Inequality is rooted in Ideology--Participatory Socialism

© EdSarrthi
39
 Emile Durkheim, a prominent sociologist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
made significant contributions to the field of sociology. One of his key concepts was the
division of labor, which he explored in his seminal work "The Division of Labour in Society"
(1893).

Conceptualizing the Division of Labor:

● Durkheim argued that the division of labor is a fundamental feature of society, shaping
its structure and functioning. He defined the division of labor as the specialization and
differentiation of tasks within society, where individuals perform distinct roles based
on their skills and abilities. According to Durkheim, this division is not a random
occurrence but a necessary social phenomenon that contributes to social order and
solidarity.

Mechanical and Organic Solidarity:

● Durkheim distinguished between two types of solidarity that arise from different forms
of the division of labour. In traditional, pre-industrial societies, he observed
mechanical solidarity, characterized by a strong collective consciousness and a sense
of shared values and beliefs. Here, individuals have similar roles and responsibilities,
leading to a high degree of social cohesion. In contrast, modern industrial societies
exhibit organic solidarity, based on a complex division of labour where individuals
are interdependent, relying on one another for the smooth functioning of society.

© EdSarrthi 40
Social Cohesion and Individualism:
● Durkheim argued that the division of labour promotes social cohesion by fostering a
sense of interdependence among individuals. As people specialize in specific tasks,
they become reliant on others for goods and services, creating social bonds. Through
this interdependence, a collective consciousness emerges, reinforcing social norms
and values. Durkheim believed that the division of labour helps maintain social order
and prevents anomie, a state of normlessness and social disintegration.

Economic Efficiency and Productivity:

● Durkheim recognized the economic benefits of the division of labour. Specialization
allows individuals to focus on specific tasks, honing their skills and increasing
productivity. By dividing labour, societies can achieve greater efficiency in production
and allocation of resources. This leads to economic growth and higher standards of
living. Durkheim's perspective aligns with classical economic theories that emphasize
the advantages of specialization in promoting economic development.

Criticisms of Durkheim's Theory:

● While Durkheim's theory of the division of labour has been influential, it has also
faced criticism. Some scholars argue that Durkheim's perspective oversimplifies the
complexities of the modern division of labour, particularly in the context of
contemporary globalized economies. They contend that Durkheim's analysis does
not adequately address issues of inequality, exploitation, and power dynamics that
can arise within the division of labour.

© EdSarrthi 41
 ● Furthermore, Durkheim's theory has been accused of neglecting the influence of
gender and intersectionality on the division of labour. Feminist sociologists argue
that the division of labour is not solely based on skill and ability but is also shaped
by social constructs and biases related to gender, race, and class. Durkheim's
theory fails to fully account for these dynamics.

Conclusion:
● Emile Durkheim's theory of the division of labour provides valuable insights into the
functioning of society, the development of social cohesion, and the economic
advantages of specialization. His distinction between mechanical and organic
solidarity offers a framework for understanding social order in different types of
societies. However, criticisms have been raised regarding the oversimplification of the
modern division of labour and its implications for inequality and power dynamics.

Mechanical and Organic Solidarity

Mechanical and organic solidarity are two forms of social cohesion that emerge from
different types of division of labour within societies.
● Mechanical solidarity is characteristic of traditional, pre-industrial societies.
○ Concept: It is based on a collective consciousness and a sense of shared
values and beliefs.
○ Features: Individuals have similar roles and responsibilities, and social cohesion
is maintained through a strong sense of community and conformity to collective
norms.

© EdSarrthi 42
 ○ Durkheim's view: Durkheim argues that mechanical solidarity is primarily
found in small, homogenous societies where individuals are bound together by
strong social ties.
○ Example: Small agricultural communities where everyone engages in similar
tasks and shares similar values.
● Organic Solidarity:
○ Definition: Organic solidarity is prevalent in modern, industrial societies.
○ Concept: It arises from the interdependence of individuals within a complex
division of labour.
○ Features: Individuals have specialized roles and tasks, and social cohesion is
based on mutual reliance and the need for cooperation.
○ Durkheim's view: Durkheim suggests that organic solidarity emerges as a result
of increased specialization and differentiation of labor in industrialized
societies.
○ Example: Modern urban societies where individuals perform diverse
occupations and rely on others for goods and services.

Criticisms and Further Development:

● Critics argue that Durkheim's distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity
oversimplifies the complexities of modern societies, particularly in the era of
globalization.

© EdSarrthi 43
 ● Some scholars, such as Talcott Parsons and Robert K. Merton, have built upon
Durkheim's ideas and expanded the understanding of social solidarity to include
other dimensions, such as functional interdependence and shared values.
● Contemporary sociologists, influenced by feminist perspectives and
intersectionality, emphasize the need to consider power dynamics, inequalities, and
the role of gender, race, and class in shaping social cohesion.
● Parsons further developed Durkheim's ideas on social solidarity, emphasizing
functional interdependence and the role of shared values in maintaining social
order.
● Merton expanded upon Durkheim's concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity,
exploring the consequences of social structure and division of labour for individual
behaviour and social integration.

Criticism of Durkheim's Division of Labour Theory by Other Scholars

Karl Marx:
● Critique: Karl Marx argued that Durkheim's theory of division of labour failed to
address the inherent inequalities and exploitation that arise from capitalist modes of
production.
● Marx's view: Marx believed that division of labour under capitalism leads to the
alienation of workers from their labour and the concentration of power and wealth in
the hands of the capitalist class.
● Example: According to Marx, the capitalist system exploits workers by extracting
surplus value from their labour, resulting in class conflict and social inequality.

© EdSarrthi 44
Max Weber:
● Critique: Max Weber criticized Durkheim's theory for neglecting the role of individual
agency and the influence of cultural and religious factors on the division of labour.
● Weber's view: Weber argued that religious beliefs, values, and cultural norms shape
the organization of labor and contribute to the formation of social order.
● Example: Weber highlighted how Protestant ethics, particularly the Protestant work
ethic, influenced the development of capitalism and the division of labor in Western
societies.

Feminist Scholars:
● Critique: Feminist scholars have criticized Durkheim's theory for its neglect of gender
dynamics and the impact of gendered divisions of labor on social solidarity.
● Feminist view: They argue that Durkheim's theory fails to consider the unequal
distribution of labour and power between men and women, perpetuating gender
inequalities within societies.
● Example: Feminist perspectives emphasize the need to analyze the gendered nature
of work and the social and economic disparities that result from gender-based
divisions of labour.

Postmodernists:
● Critique: Postmodernist scholars criticize Durkheim's theory for its focus on social
order and stability, overlooking the complexities, contradictions, and fluidity of
contemporary societies.

© EdSarrthi 45
 ● Postmodernist view: They argue that the division of labour is no longer the primary
organizing principle of societies, as globalization, flexible labour arrangements, and
new forms of technology have disrupted traditional divisions.

● Example: Postmodernist perspectives highlight the fragmented and diverse nature

of work and social relations in post-industrial societies.

It is important to note that while these scholars criticize certain aspects of Durkheim's
theory, they also recognize the valuable contributions he made to the field of sociology and
the understanding of social order and cohesion. Criticism and debate among scholars
contribute to the development and refinement of sociological theories.

Social Fact by Emile Durkheim: An Explanation

● Emile Durkheim, one of the founding figures of sociology, introduced the concept of
"social fact" as a fundamental building block for understanding society. Social facts,
according to Durkheim, are external to individuals, yet exert a powerful influence over
their thoughts, actions, and behaviours. In this detailed explanation, we will delve into
the key aspects of social facts as proposed by Durkheim.

Definition of Social Fact:

● Social facts, as defined by Durkheim, are collective ways of thinking, feeling, and
acting that exist outside of individuals and are capable of exerting social control. They
are the norms, values, customs, traditions, and social structures that shape and guide
human behavior within a society.

© EdSarrthi 46
Characteristics of Social Fact:
● External and Coercive: Social facts are external to individuals and exist
independently of their will. They are imposed upon individuals by society and carry a
sense of coercion. Social facts exert control over individuals by shaping their
behaviour and regulating their actions.
● Constraining and Collective: Social facts limit individual choices and actions by
establishing boundaries and expectations. They represent collective phenomena that
transcend the individual and are shared by members of a social group or society as a
whole.
● Objective and Observable: Social facts are observable and measurable. They can be
studied and analysed as distinct phenomena in society, separate from individual
subjective experiences. Durkheim emphasized the need for sociologists to study social
facts as objective realities rather than subjective interpretations.

Examples of Social Facts:

● Language: Language is a social fact that exists independently of individuals. It is a
shared system of symbols, rules, and meanings that enables communication and
interaction within a society. Language shapes our thoughts, influences our behaviour,
and reinforces social bonds.
● Laws: Legal systems and codes of law represent social facts. They are external to
individuals and are enforced by societal institutions. Laws establish norms, regulate
behaviour, and maintain social order within a society.

© EdSarrthi 47
 ● Religious Beliefs: Religious beliefs and practices are social facts that provide a shared
system of meaning and values. They shape moral frameworks, rituals, and social
cohesion within religious communities.
● Social Institutions: Institutions such as family, education, and government are social
facts that structure social life. They embody established patterns of behaviour, roles,
and relationships that guide individuals' interactions and contribute to the functioning
of society.

Significance of Social Facts:

● Social Order and Cohesion: Social facts play a crucial role in maintaining social order
and cohesion within a society. They provide a shared framework of norms and values
that regulate individual behaviour and foster cooperation among members of a
society.
● Collective Consciousness: Social facts contribute to the development of collective
consciousness, a shared understanding of beliefs, values, and cultural practices.
This collective consciousness binds individuals together, creates a sense of belonging,
and reinforces social solidarity.
● Objectivity in Sociology: Durkheim emphasized the importance of studying social
facts objectively in sociology. By examining social facts as external phenomena,
sociologists can analyse their influence on individuals and society, uncover patterns
and trends, and gain insights into the functioning of social systems.

© EdSarrthi 48
Criticism of Social Fact:
● Durkheim's concept of social fact has faced criticism from various scholars. Some
argue that it neglects the agency and subjective experiences of individuals,
emphasizing the power of social forces over individual autonomy. Others question
the objectivity of social facts, highlighting the role of interpretation and subjective
perspectives in understanding social phenomena.

Criticism of the concept of Social Fact by Emile Durkheim has been put forth by
various scholars. Although Durkheim's theory has been influential in the field of sociology, it
has also faced scrutiny for its limitations and assumptions. Let's explore some of the
criticisms provided by scholars.

Max Weber:
● Max Weber, a prominent sociologist and contemporary of Durkheim, criticized the
concept of social fact for its neglect of the subjective meanings and interpretations
that individuals attach to their actions. Weber argued that social action cannot be
reduced to external forces but should be understood in terms of the meanings
individuals attribute to their behaviour.
● Weber stated, "Action is 'social' insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the
behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course" (Weber, 1922). According to
Weber, the subjective meanings individuals assign to their actions are crucial for
understanding social phenomena, and these meanings cannot be ignored in favour of
external social facts.

© EdSarrthi 49
Alfred Schutz:
● Alfred Schutz, a phenomenologist and social theorist, criticized Durkheim's concept of
social fact for its objectivist stance and the neglect of the subjective experiences of
individuals. Schutz argued that social reality is constructed through individual
interpretations and subjective experiences, rather than being determined solely by
external social facts.
● Schutz stated, "Social phenomena are phenomena of consciousness and can only be
understood from the point of view of the experiencing individual" (Schutz, 1967).
He emphasized the importance of incorporating the perspective of the individual actor
in sociological analysis and understanding the subjective meanings that individuals
attribute to their social interactions.

Harold Garfinkel:
● Harold Garfinkel, a prominent figure in the field of ethnomethodology, criticized the
concept of social fact for its reification of social phenomena. Garfinkel argued that
social facts are not fixed entities but are actively produced and negotiated through
everyday social interactions.
● Garfinkel stated, "Social facts are accomplishments of situated activities" (Garfinkel,
2002). He emphasized the importance of studying the ways in which individuals
actively construct and interpret social reality in their everyday lives, rather than
treating social facts as external entities that determine individual behaviour.

© EdSarrthi 50
George Herbert Mead:
● George Herbert Mead, a symbolic interactionist, criticized the concept of social fact
for its neglect of the role of individual agency in social interactions. Mead argued that
individuals actively participate in the construction of social reality through their
interpretations and responses to others' actions.
● Mead stated, "The act is a social process because it is the emergent product of social
interactions, and social interactions are social because they are the emergent products
of acts" (Mead, 1934). He emphasized the reciprocal nature of social interactions and
the active role of individuals in shaping social reality.

In conclusion, the concept of Social Fact by Emile Durkheim has faced criticism from
scholars who argue that it neglects the subjective meanings individuals attribute to their
actions, reifies social phenomena, and overlooks the active role of individuals in
constructing social reality. These criticisms highlight the need to incorporate subjective
interpretations and individual agency into sociological analysis and understanding of social
phenomena.

Religion and Society

Sacred and Profane:
● Durkheim proposed that religion is rooted in the distinction between the sacred and
the profane. According to Durkheim, the sacred refers to things and symbols that are
set apart and regarded as extraordinary, transcendent, and imbued with collective
meaning and power. On the other hand, the profane refers to the ordinary, mundane,
and everyday aspects of life.

© EdSarrthi 51
 ● For Durkheim, the sacred and the profane are not inherent qualities of objects or
places but are socially constructed through collective beliefs and rituals. Religion
serves as a system of symbols and practices that elevate certain aspects of life to the
realm of the sacred, creating a sense of awe, reverence, and social cohesion.

Social Cohesion:
● Durkheim argued that religion plays a crucial role in maintaining social cohesion and
solidarity in societies. He viewed religion as a collective representation of society's
moral and social values, which helps individuals transcend their individual interests
and connect with a broader collective identity.
● Religious beliefs and rituals provide a shared framework of meanings, norms, and
values that unite individuals and create a sense of belongingness. Through religious
practices, individuals express their commitment to the collective conscience,
reinforcing social norms and reinforcing social integration.

Rituals and Social Order:

● Durkheim emphasized the significance of rituals in maintaining social order and
reinforcing the collective consciousness of society. Rituals, according to Durkheim, are
collective practices that symbolically represent and reinforce social values and beliefs.
● Rituals provide a structured framework for individuals to come together and engage in
shared activities, such as prayers, ceremonies, and festivals. Through these rituals,
individuals reaffirm their commitment to the moral and social order of society,
reinforcing the collective bonds and maintaining social cohesion.

© EdSarrthi 52
 ● Durkheim argued that rituals serve as a form of collective effervescence, a heightened
state of collective emotion and solidarity, which strengthens social bonds and
reinforces the collective conscience. By participating in rituals, individuals experience
a sense of belonging and connection to the larger social group.

Collective Representations:
● Durkheim also explored the concept of collective representations in religion. Collective
representations refer to shared beliefs, symbols, and ideas that are constructed and
maintained by society. Religious beliefs and symbols serve as collective
representations that embody the shared values, norms, and aspirations of a society.
● Through collective representations, individuals internalize social norms and values,
which guide their behaviour with ciand shape their worldview. Religious symbols and
rituals act as a medium through which collective representations are transmitted and
reinforced, contributing to the cohesion and stability of society.
● In summary, Durkheim's view on religion emphasizes its role in social cohesion, the
distinction between the sacred and the profane, the function of rituals in maintaining
social order, and the importance of collective representations. His work laid the
foundation for the sociological understanding of religion as a social phenomenon that
plays a crucial role in shaping and maintaining societal structures and collective
identities.
● While Durkheim’s contributions have been significant, there are several points of
critique that have been raised. Here are some criticisms along with citations from
scholars:

© EdSarrthi 53
Reductionist Approach:
● One criticism of Durkheim is his reductionist approach to religion, wherein he sees it
primarily as a reflection of social structures and collective consciousness. Some argue
that this perspective overlooks the personal and individual dimensions of religious
experience. As sociologist Peter Berger states, "Durkheim's approach to religion...
ignores its personal and existential dimensions, as well as the dynamic and
transformative role of religious experience" (Berger, 1990).

Neglecting Diversity and Conflict:

● Durkheim's focus on social cohesion and solidarity through religion has been criticized
for neglecting the diversity of religious beliefs, practices, and conflicts. Scholars argue
that his perspective fails to adequately address the tensions and conflicts that arise
within and between religious groups. As sociologist David Martin suggests,
"Durkheim's understanding of religion as a force for integration obscures the fact that
religious beliefs and practices can also be a source of division and conflict" (Martin,
2005).

Ignoring Individual Agency:

● Another criticism is that Durkheim's emphasis on the collective and societal aspects of
religion overlooks the agency and individual motivations that shape religious
behavior. Critics argue that individuals may engage in religious practices for personal
reasons and not solely due to social integration. Sociologist Bryan Wilson criticizes
Durkheim's approach, stating, "Durkheim's perspective neglects the individual
motivations, personal experiences, and subjective meanings that underlie religious

© EdSarrthi 54
 beliefs and practices" (Wilson, 1975).

Lack of Attention to Historical Context:

● Durkheim's analysis of religion is often criticized for neglecting the historical and
cultural context in which religious beliefs and practices emerge. Critics argue that his
approach tends to universalize the function of religion without considering the specific
cultural, historical, and socio-political factors that shape religious phenomena. As
anthropologist Talal Asad argues, "Durkheim's analysis does not adequately account
for the diversity of religious forms and practices across different societies and
historical periods" (Asad, 1993).

Neglecting the Role of Power:

● Some scholars argue that Durkheim's perspective overlooks the power dynamics
within religious institutions and their influence on social order. They suggest that
religion can be used as a means of social control and maintaining existing power
structures. Sociologist Max Weber criticizes Durkheim's view, stating, "Durkheim fails
to adequately account for the role of power and authority in shaping religious beliefs
and practices" (Weber, 1958).
● These criticisms highlight the limitations of Durkheim's perspective on religion and
society, particularly in terms of neglecting individual agency, diversity, power
dynamics, and historical context. While his contributions have laid the groundwork for
understanding the social aspects of religion, subsequent scholars have built upon and
critiqued his work to provide a more nuanced understanding of the complex
relationship between religion and society.

© EdSarrthi 55
© EdSarrthi 56