M4A1: Midterm Exam Assignment - Emile Durkheim Theory

Midterm exams
Student:
Professor:
Institution:
Course title:
Date:
Societal solidarity
As part of Emile Durkheim theory that explained on the development of societies, The Division of Labour in Society categorized two societal solidarity that include:
1 Organic solidarity
2 Mechanical solidarity
A society that exhibits mechanical solidarity has its cohesion and integration coming from the individual`s homogeneity. It is rooted in the feeling of likeness, where everyone feels and does the same thing. People will feel connected through having similar jobs, education, religious training and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity is based in a traditional and small scale societies and it is also based on the familial network`s kinship ties (Radiohogan, 2008).
Whereas, organic solidarities is a social cohesion in which each individual is interdependent with each other and they therefore form cooperative associations. This kind of solidarity is based upon individuals` dependence of each other in a more advanced society due to their independencies from work specializations, and complementary between people which occurs in a modern society. Individuals perform different tasks and they have different values and interests, but the solidarity of the society depends on how the individuals rely on each other to perform their specialized tasks. “Organic” is the independence between component parts, hence social solidarity will be maintained in a complex society through interdependence of component parts. For instance, in a modern society, a farmer will produce farm produce (food) that will feed their factory workers who come up with tractors that the farmers use to produce more food. Therefore this kind of solidarity is maintained from the individuals cultivating their differences and knowing that each person is playing their part for the good of the whole (Hart, 2014; Appelrouth & Edles, 2016)
The fetish of commodity
A commodity according to Karl Marx is something mysterious because it contains the social character of men`s labour which appears as an objective character laid upon the product of that labour. He also explains that the relationship of the producers to the total sum of their labour is seen as a social relation existing between the products of their labour. Therefore, the products of labor is the commodity. Marx aims to find an analogy through focusing on the mist-enveloped religious world regions. In a religious world, human brain productions are independent beings given life, and they enter a relationship with one another and with the human race. Hence, he alludes that it is the world of commodities with the products done by men`s hands. Marx refers to this as the fetishism that sticks itself to the products of labor (Friedman, 1974;Marx, 1997).
Marx uses a materialistic approach to argue that the real social relation of production are concealed by the commodities` presence in a society that is capitalistic. Commodities, other than human labor are the lynch-pin of a capitalist society. This kind of view mystifies the realities in a real society. The value of the products is seen to come from the nature of the product, yet this labor that is used is specifically human labor that gives the product its value. In a capitalistic society, people treat commodities as though the commodity objects contain the intrinsic value, instead of looking at the value of the commodity as a sum of the human labor that was used to produce the commodity object (Marx, 1997). Treating the human labor as valueless and valuing labour time as a secret, defines the relative value of the commodities that are hidden under these apparent fluctuations, and this kind of society is described as one which market exchange is independent of human labor. In analysing commodities, Marx talks about an alienated worker in which during the social process of production, the workers interact and relate in a unified manner. If the worker is alienated and also the labour the worker provides is a miss, then the worker has no control over the product of the work done. If human labor gives value to a product, but the labour becomes void, the workers will be unconcerned to what they produce (Radiohogan, 2008; Appelrouth & Edles, 2016).
Bureaucracy
Weber refers to bureaucracy as an instrument that is indispensable, meaning it is to rationally attain goals of any organization in an industrial or modern society. Bureaucracy is a large scale formal organization of a society with specialized functions. Since bureaucracies are organized as rational principles, rationalization and bureaucracies are incorporated together. Weber gave a sociological account to bureaucracy which have the following characteristics; they have their own fixed jurisdiction; hierarchy of status; clear-cut division of labor; appointment based on seniority and eligibility; fixed allowances, salaries and pensions as per the written rules; political neutrality and guided by past procedures. Weber explains that these characteristics represent ideal types (Radiohogan, 2008).
Bureaucracy provides an opportunity for division of labour and performance of competitive and repetitive tasks like collecting taxes and conducting census. There is also maintenance of law and order and proper mobilization of resources that is associated with bureaucracy. In addition bureaucracy is very efficient, less conflicting, less expensive, more useful, and controls time wastage. However, there are some negatives that arise from bureaucracy like static rules in a dynamic society, and the hierarchical arrangement that leads to wastage of time and red tapism. In addition, there is uncreative among officials due to being guided and following written rules and there is also depersonalization of human relationships due to men being trapped between their jobs and they become unaware of the relationship between their jobs, and the organization as a whole.
Due to the effects of bureaucracy ther...