Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim: Diametrically Opposed Concepts of Social Solidarity

Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim are brilliant scholars that lay the foundation of their unique philosophical work in the field of sociology. While there are some beliefs that both theorists relate to one another, social solidarity is one concept they have drastic opinions on. Durkheim views the source of social solidarity comes from the reinforcement of social structure and division of labor whilst Marx has a radically different perspective and argues abolishing our capitalist society alongside the private property is key to bringing social solidarity to all citizens. It is important to be aware of these differences to understand how these two theorists shaped modern society.

To first comprehend the different beliefs between Marx and Durkheim about social solidarity in modern society, it is crucial to first break down the core definition of this concept. According to Professor Simmon's lecture notes, Durkheim expresses how “social solidarity focuses on communities socializing and bonding with one another based on the unit’s severity and whether it is organic or mechanical”. Yet, Durkheim’s philosophy illuminates how organic solidarity heavily impacts modern society since every individual follows their own unique pathway, in life and work experiences, but relies on each other through the division of labor. To illustrate, a doctor and a baker have two completely different professions and beliefs yet the baker visits the clinic and relies on their expertise to check on his or her health. Essentially, Durkheim informs how organic solidarity brings forth less collective consciousness, which is shared beliefs amongst a group since each individual has their own unique beliefs, values, and experiences in their job profession and their personal life in modern society. An example of organic solidarity is through the enforcement of restitutive laws, where all citizens share equal rights yet they live completely different lives so they are not heavily impacted since it is not affecting their personal lives. To illustrate, Sigmon highlights how Durkheim’s organic solidarity in modern society involves, “... a weak common morality, most people do not react emotionally to a breach of the law. Instead of being severely punished for every offense against the collective morality, offenders in an organic society are likely to be asked to make restitution to those who have been harmed by their actions”. Since modern society incorporates division of labor, people are so busy working in specific job fields that they do not have time to be emotionally invested in criminal actions if it does not involve in them. Therefore, Durkheim expresses how it is the productivity and efficiency of the division of labor that maintains modern society on a daily basis. Meanwhile, Marx has an entirely radical and negative view of how modern society functions.

Unlike Durkheim’s bright outlook of society and the division of labor, Marx presents a negative perspective of this concept in modern culture. First, Marx focuses on historical materialism where the theorist illuminates an unequal capitalist hierarchy that promotes one ruling class dominating and controlling another class. More specifically, the ruling class called the bourgeoisie control the means of production, such as excessive amounts of land, factories, and money, and use these resources to manipulate their control in modern society through exploiting laborers in unreasonable working conditions to increase their own profit. Author Robert Tucker of the novel The Marx- Engels Reader describes how, “the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry… conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”. Unlike Durkheim’s view of organic solidarity where people are happy with the diversity of job occupations in modern society and feel a sense of unity under an equal system, Marx expresses how the ruling class created an unethical and biased social system aiming to benefit the wealthy instead of all social classes. This is why Durkheim’s social solidarity cannot exist currently in Marx’s world since our capitalist society prioritizes the bourgeoisie’s capital, which is money invested to purchase cheap resources and labor to increase more profit, by exploiting the vulnerable labor force. On the other hand, the working class called the proletariat are limited in work opportunities due to their low social rank and therefore have no choice but to work in unsanitary and dangerous work conditions for long hours and little pay as a form of survival. While Durkheim argues the social system was built to equally support one another through the division of labor, Marx conveys our capitalist society was built to favor and feed the egotistical bourgeoisie power through the general law of capitalist accumulation, increasing capital to possess it, while the other class, the diligent and kind proletariat, have no choice but to work in these unethical conditions to financially support their family. As a result, Marx views Durkheim’s social solidarity cannot exist unless the capitalist society and private property are overthrown, where every citizen can achieve true equality in equal resources and distributed power and not feel alienated anymore. This leads to the second difference between Marx and Durkheim’s philosophies, where one theorist seeks to destroy the social structure of modern society to bring forth unity amongst the people while another theorist wishes to preserve this system to maintain the peaceful bond between citizens through the promotion of the division of labor.

Durkheim would disagree with Marx’s view of overthrowing modern society for multiple factors. First, Marx highlights how our capitalist society and division of labor itself limits people from achieving high-paying work fields, thus segregating them into lifeless work conditions where they serve only to bring forth capitalist profit and authority. Durkheim would disagree with Marx’s outlook since he expresses how it is these unique job occupations within the division of labor that establish a functioning social order that supports one another, expressing how modern societies possess, “... a collective consciousness, albeit in a weaker form that allows for more individual differences”. Through analyzing this text, Durkheim views this division of labor in modern society, such as differences in job professions and social classes, as necessary to maintain and hold order within the social system and promote social solidarity. Marx interprets this concept as negative in modern society since the ruling class dominates and manipulates the system for themselves and leaves the inferior class vulnerable to be exploited and helpless, thus establishing a barrier between social classes where there is no equality or support between the two groups.

Another contrast between these two theorists is how Marx expresses how exploitation itself causes laborers to experience a wave of alienation where they lose a sense of their identity within the work field, the colleagues they interact with, and their own individual desires. To emphasize, author Tucker expresses how the laborer, “in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely in his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself ... His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor”. Tucker’s quote about alienation highlights how the bourgeoisie will complain the working class has a choice to work in these fields when they do not since they never had options to choose their line of work from the beginning. If the proletariat possessed the ruling class's financial connections, they would not remain imprisoned and forced into gruesome labor in unethical fields to provide basic human necessities every day. This turns into a constant cycle of exploitation, where the bourgeoisie will continue taking advantage of poor people to boost their own business profit until social conflict arises where the proletariat is fed up with this abuse and revolt to create a classless society where everyone is equal and united. On the other hand, Emile Durkheim of the novel The Division of Labor In Society expresses how modern society is affected by restitutive laws aiming to, “express a positive contribution, a cooperation deriving essentially from the division of labor”. While Durkheim never focuses on Marx’s issue of alienation within the workforce, he does emphasize how every citizen lives in an equal society where their unique job profession and division of labor positively impact each other. Instead of Marx’s fierce beliefs that overthrowing capitalist society alongside private property will bring forth unity amongst the people and establish Durkheim’s vision of social solidarity, Durkheim illuminates it is the division of labor itself that brings forth unity amongst the people of society and social solidarity to prosper.

Marx and Durkheim are incredible philosophers that shaped the concept of how we perceive modern society and overall sociology. While both theorists have their own drastic beliefs of how to attain social solidarity, it is undeniable that they have influenced modern mindsets and shaped how citizens interact with the world every day. Whether one agrees with Marx’s negative outlook of the division of labor or Durkheim’s positive perspective of social classes in the same field, it is important to educate ourselves about these theories to take action and push for equality for workers of all backgrounds if they experience discrimination in today’s society.