Where Marx’s theory of alienation in the workforce ends is right where Durkheim’s
theory begins and ties it in with anomie. It is also important to note that
Durkheim within his theoretical work also attempted to link fatalism into his
sociological outlook. Although Durkheim never blatantly professed his work to
complete Marx’s theory of alienation, it is suggested to do so by Gabriel A.
Acevedo in the author’s article, “Turning Anomie on its Head: Fatalism as
Durkheim’s Concealed and Multidimensional Alienation Theory.”
The article after all is the source of which I have pulled most of my
information on anomie and Durkheim from. In Acevedo’s article, it pointed out a
very interesting perspective. It implied that Marx’s alienation theory was only
a small peek into the institutional abuse of workers. Acevedo makes a bold
statement referring to Marx’s theory as merely a “one-sided depiction of the
alienated worker who is lost and adrift in an increasingly mechanized society
(Acevedo, 2005).” Durkheim’s theory does illuminate the issues where Marx left
much in the dark with Durkheim’s interpretation of fatalism.
However Durkheim’s view of fatalism has been subject to a bit of criticism by Acevedo in
his article among other sociologists. They are among those whom connote that his
concept of fatalism is where it seems Durkheim was either experienced a grand
sense of ignorant bliss of the world or confused by the infrastructure of the
hierarchical society in from of him. But Durkheim’s ideas on fatalism were not
the conventional known but it is relevant to mention it did mirror Marx’s
ideology of alienation.
As a refresher, Marx’s concept of alienation focused on a commodity-based system
that workers impetuously accepted, never questioning the morality of the
business owners or the labor system. Which in doing so, by not fighting for
worker rights and wages, they self-appointed the business owners to be the
wardens of their commodity producing labor prisons by returning to exhaustive
work shifts day after day. Which inevitably turned the worker into a object that
could be placed with a value. I would imagine many of workers during Marx’s era
never saw their work becoming a commodity but it would become so “ The
relationship of the worker to the product of labor as an alien object which
dominated him (Acevedo, 2005).”
Marx’s view of alienation also expanded to the relationship with the workers and their
relationships with one another which would be tested, strained, or non-existent
because of the constant strive to produce as much as possible in order to earn
the wage. Which caused workers to avoid many personal relationships with one
another, in reality had they done so that would have lead to unionization
centuries and it would have been done long before the turn of the Twentieth
Century. Instead the anti-social lives lead by labor workers of an intangible
commodity-driven fatalistic prison where escape was futile.
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper where Marx’s alienation perspective
ends is exactly where Durkheim fills in the dots, colors in the semi-blank
canvas of Marx’s alienation , with Durkheim’s concepts of anomie and fatalism.
Durkheim’s notions on anomie can be interpreted as the structure of the labor
industry never belong to the individual workers, it was something new and
wealthy bourgeoisie and business owners knew that so they dictated the terms of
employment from the very beginning.
In Marx’s era which also rings true fatalism and the anomie of the business
industry, if a individual does not conform to the inevitable means to survive,
to make a living or support a family is to conform to the institutional norms
you succumb due to homelessness and / or starvation.
theory begins and ties it in with anomie. It is also important to note that
Durkheim within his theoretical work also attempted to link fatalism into his
sociological outlook. Although Durkheim never blatantly professed his work to
complete Marx’s theory of alienation, it is suggested to do so by Gabriel A.
Acevedo in the author’s article, “Turning Anomie on its Head: Fatalism as
Durkheim’s Concealed and Multidimensional Alienation Theory.”
The article after all is the source of which I have pulled most of my
information on anomie and Durkheim from. In Acevedo’s article, it pointed out a
very interesting perspective. It implied that Marx’s alienation theory was only
a small peek into the institutional abuse of workers. Acevedo makes a bold
statement referring to Marx’s theory as merely a “one-sided depiction of the
alienated worker who is lost and adrift in an increasingly mechanized society
(Acevedo, 2005).” Durkheim’s theory does illuminate the issues where Marx left
much in the dark with Durkheim’s interpretation of fatalism.
However Durkheim’s view of fatalism has been subject to a bit of criticism by Acevedo in
his article among other sociologists. They are among those whom connote that his
concept of fatalism is where it seems Durkheim was either experienced a grand
sense of ignorant bliss of the world or confused by the infrastructure of the
hierarchical society in from of him. But Durkheim’s ideas on fatalism were not
the conventional known but it is relevant to mention it did mirror Marx’s
ideology of alienation.
As a refresher, Marx’s concept of alienation focused on a commodity-based system
that workers impetuously accepted, never questioning the morality of the
business owners or the labor system. Which in doing so, by not fighting for
worker rights and wages, they self-appointed the business owners to be the
wardens of their commodity producing labor prisons by returning to exhaustive
work shifts day after day. Which inevitably turned the worker into a object that
could be placed with a value. I would imagine many of workers during Marx’s era
never saw their work becoming a commodity but it would become so “ The
relationship of the worker to the product of labor as an alien object which
dominated him (Acevedo, 2005).”
Marx’s view of alienation also expanded to the relationship with the workers and their
relationships with one another which would be tested, strained, or non-existent
because of the constant strive to produce as much as possible in order to earn
the wage. Which caused workers to avoid many personal relationships with one
another, in reality had they done so that would have lead to unionization
centuries and it would have been done long before the turn of the Twentieth
Century. Instead the anti-social lives lead by labor workers of an intangible
commodity-driven fatalistic prison where escape was futile.
As mentioned at the beginning of this paper where Marx’s alienation perspective
ends is exactly where Durkheim fills in the dots, colors in the semi-blank
canvas of Marx’s alienation , with Durkheim’s concepts of anomie and fatalism.
Durkheim’s notions on anomie can be interpreted as the structure of the labor
industry never belong to the individual workers, it was something new and
wealthy bourgeoisie and business owners knew that so they dictated the terms of
employment from the very beginning.
In Marx’s era which also rings true fatalism and the anomie of the business
industry, if a individual does not conform to the inevitable means to survive,
to make a living or support a family is to conform to the institutional norms
you succumb due to homelessness and / or starvation.