Blog Three

Emile Durkheim discusses the division of labor in the 1890s. In 1893, he highlights mechanical and organic solidarity. In mechanical solidarity, Durkheim connects the individual to society without this such, intermediary. Society is organized collectively; all members share same beliefs, basically a collective conscious. This is seen in more primitive societies. There is low differentiation with an emphasis on the common good. Conformity is seen abundantly. In organic solidarity, individualism and specialization are highlighted. Society is a system of different functions; individuals have a distinct job and personality. There is a high differentiation in this society, emphasizing the individual. This system is seen in civilized societies.

Durkheim viewed this division of labor as more productive, being that it created worker solidarity. He was interested in the differences between traditional and modern societies. He witnessed the division of labor changing from mechanical to organic solidarity. He even discusses how the division of labor is beneficial to society because it ‘increases reproductive capacity, the skill of the workman, and it creates a feeling of solidarity between people.’ On the other hand, Marx viewed the division of labor as a way to alienate the worker under capitalism. He also believed it was inevitable because technology kept advancing. Marx was concerned with changing social relations due to capitalism, while Durkheim’s focus was on the individual and society and the relationship between the two.

If the goal of the division of labor is to create solidarity among people in a society, can there be social conflict? People in a society have to mutually accept norms/institutions, but that’s not possible in an industrialized capitalist society, at least at this time in the 1890s it hadn’t been achieved. Due to this, anomic division of labor surfaces. This Marxist terms implies a lack of regulation and integration; a lack of social norms. This term also suggests that individuals become isolated by their specific role in organic solidarity. If people lose a sense of being essential in the whole of society, then wouldn’t they feel alienated? I’m starting to make small connections here and there between Marx and Durkheim, although my brain has a hard time adjusting to think sociologically.

Drawing off a familiar name, Durkheim saw Tocqueville’s study of democracy in America and believed that civil associations could result in social solidity. These associations could replace the roles of certain institutions. These would function as social organizations, among have other functions. People in the groups share a collective identity.

I think the inner sociological nerd is beginning to come out of me. “Hey Hey Durkheim” is a song on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgA41FMY0oQ) which sings out some of Durkheim’s contributions to sociology along with appropriate pictures. I think it’s a very cool and if I had the ability to rhyme and sing even remotely well, I would probably attempt it. 

Blog Two

Karl Marx critiques society in the late 19^th century. He comes up with the idea of alienation of the species being. All human beings want to reach their fullest amount of life, but as always, there are numerous obstacles. There are a few components of his alienation idea. An individual has alienation from:

-          Productive activity

-          Product

-          Fellow workers

-          Human potential

With this said, Marx believed that alienation is an indication of the industrial age and capitalism. A worker in a production line sees only the item he/she produces and has no control over the final product. This individual has no relationship with the product and works purely for the pay check. The worker has no satisfaction in the work he/she does.

There are many social behaviors that result from alienation. Suicide is the ultimate result of alienation, but also school shootings, drug and alcohol abuse, and also addictions such as gambling or shopping can occur from feeling so alienated from society. Work, in today’s society, is still depersonalized and alienation is well witnessed in today’s work places.

I’ve been thinking lately where I will end up working when I’m out of college…….most likely a cubicle, a small area divided off from everyone else’s tiny office. Do I look forward to this? Absolutely not. When I think about this, I become very sad. Then, I looked up a song I haven’t heard in a while, The Cubicle Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4NpBZ2jiH8). This song follows the theme of James Blunt’s song “You’re Beautiful,” except with much better lyrics. This song just makes me laugh and demonstrates how someone who works in a cubicle is severed from a lot of human contact, just a person and their computer, in their 6x6 board room. I’d love to end this blog on a brighter note, but Marx is right. Plus, even without alienation in the workplace, would individuals reach their fullest human potential without this obstacle? 

Blog One

Let’s talk about materialism. I’d like to say that I’m not materialistic, but to some degree everyone is. I like to have the newest things and follow certain modern trends. I may not be able to afford some of the things that I want, but I aspire and try hard to achieve getting these luxuries. For some people these materialistic items are like a Gucci handbag or an Ipad, but mine is more like a Segway.

Tocqueville discusses in his writing that materialism is different in Democracy versus an Aristocracy. In a democratic nation, materialism is high and there is a high drive to have materialistic goods. In an Aristocracy, materialism sort of depends on the class that you fall into. For goodness sake, we have a day, Black Friday, that is all about shopping for materialistic items and spending lots of money, which sadly, I participate in every year. I’d say Tocqueville’s theory still holds true today about materialism in the United States. 

On that note, I don’t feel so bad if I’m materialistic because it seems like we all are, according to Tocqueville.

While trying to wrap my mind around materialism, I was messing around on Youtube and I happened to come across this video, a very sarcastic sense of the term materialism called “SMOOTH E, ‘Materialism.’”. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AvkgrXb-dU) This video is selling a bubble free scrub to solve ‘all teen problems’ of buying materialistic items. This video is sort of spot on about materialism in our country, although it seems a little sexist, but it demonstrates that material items are sometimes chosen over necessities, like food…FOOD! (For those of you who don’t know me, food is my ultimate weakness).

There’s the old saying that money can’t buy you happiness. I wonder why our culture is so wrapped around materialistic items if they won’t even give us concrete happiness in the long run. I think our splurge of materialistic items is a temporary fix for our happiness, but I’d say my materialistic items tend to make me content, but my unhappiness comes when I look at my credit card bill.