Classical approaches to work and the division of labour

meaning and purpose by sociologists and others concerned with work’s role in society. Here, by discussing in broad terms the impact of the division of labour on societies, and its associated creation of occupational identities, the classical approaches to work predominantly developed by what Grint terms the ‘gang of three’ (2005:85); Marx, Weber and Durkheim are discussed. Later in this thesis, I use aspects of their work in the analysis of the findings.

The work of these three prominent thinkers have provided the foundations for the way that work is analysed in sociology (Strangleman and Warren, 2008), with each of their contributions offering a different perspective. They all were concerned to some degree with the division of labour: that is the way that a society allocates and organises work for its members (ibid., 2008). The division of labour is important for this thesis because it by this fundamental action, that

118

the creation of distinct occupations and their associated identities was made possible, and through the process of social closure (Parkin, 2001), shaped the social relationships encountered at the workplace and influenced identity formation in apprentices.

Marx’s interest in work arose from the social fragmentation, disintegration and conflict caused by the capitalist industrial society as it developed around him. Durkheim concentrated on the social solidarity, control and integration aspects of work. Whereas Weber concerned himself with developing a theory of

rationality and bureaucracy caused by industrial society’s version of work (Grint, 2005).

Marx’s ideas (1970; Marx and Engels, 2002) had their origins in French socialist theory, the German philosophy of Hegel, and British political economy including the work of Adam Smith (Strangleman & Warren, 2008), in particular Smith’s ideas on the division of labour. For Marx, work had a fundamental function in human society, both essential and relational. Therefore, any understanding of society had to include an understanding of the meaning of work within it. He suggested that work was fundamental to the human condition as it distinguishes the human species from animals. Humans alone he argued, have the capacity to produce their own means of subsistence by acting on the world in order to live, whereas animals merely live off of the world. Work and the sphere of production, provided humanity with the medium through which its self-

realisation may be achieved and so in essence for Marx, it contained the secret of humanity (Grint, 2005, Strangleman and Warren, 2008).

For Marx, modern industrialised capitalist societies were just a stage in the evolutionary process, from primitive societies through feudalism, to eventually

119

form a socialist model (Strangleman & Warren, 2008). During its capitalist phase, society had produced a polarisation within itself between the owners of the means of production, and those reliant upon work for cash wages, as a consequence of a conflict of interests (Marx, 1970). Such a divergence arose Marx argued, because work would become increasingly specialised through the division of labour, in order to meet the growing demands of the industrialised capitalist society. In turn, this would produce a de-humanising effect which he termed alienation, which he expressed as having four forms: product; activity; species and social (ibid., 1970).

Through the process of alienation, the worker first loses control of the

production and ownership of their produce. Through increased specialisation they also become detached from the act of working, and work becomes an instrumental activity-a means to an end, which is to earn wages to support the worker’s lifestyle (Noon & Blyton, 2007). Next as an outcome of the previous processes, they become alienated from humanity as it is work that separates humans from animals (Marx, 1970). Lastly, the worker having lost their sense of identity and humanity, becomes estranged from society.

Durkheim’s interest also lay in society’s transition from feudalism to capitalism and the impact which it had on the people within it, and he analysed traditional and modern societies to contrast their organisation. Like Marx (1970), he was interested in the effect that the division of labour had on society, but instead Durkheim argued that the division of labour, far from having a negative impact on society, provided it with a foundation on which individual freedom could be established (Grint, 2005). Indeed, with reference to the aims of this thesis, Durkheim contends that the individual’s identity was a consequence of

120

that defined the division of labour, and the subsequent changes that industrialisation has brought about (Casey, 1995).

Durkheim reasoned that through the increasing division of labour, communities would become more interdependent and that their differences, rather than their similarities, would unite them (Casey, 1995, Edgell, 2012). Durkheim’s ideal society was essentially a meritocracy, where individuals’ abilities and

qualifications would ensure that they found appropriate work. In this society, occupation would be key to locating and identifying individuals within it (Casey, 1995). However, he conceded that as contemporary society was unable to sustain that meritocratic aspiration, people could be forced by social inequality and what he termed an abnormal division of labour, into unsuitable positions. This Durkheim argued, would cause a lack of moral authority through loss of attachment to work, or a meaningless of work he called anomie (Grint, 2005). It was a lack of cohesion, he argued, that was the cause of tensions and conflicts in society (Edgell, 2012), rather than alienation as argued by Marx.

Another consequence of the imperfect division of labour within society would be that people would become to feel socially isolated and that a greater gap

between individuals, their families and the state would be created. Durkheim anticipated that this detachment would be overcome by the creation of occupational and professional groups, perhaps in the image of a dynamic version of the trade guilds (Edgell, 2012), to intercede between the needs of the state and individual, which suggests that without such mediation, he thought that anomie would triumph (Grint, 2005).

As the last of the ‘gang of three’ (Grint, 2005: 85), Max Weber’s views can now be considered. Like Marx and Durkheim, Weber was interested in the impact of

121

the division of labour on society, but also in its relationship to the rationalism that capitalist industrial societies produced in the West. He contended that as industrialised societies developed, they became increasingly rationalised, which produces specialisations and classes, and these actions were a consequence of calculated behaviours within those societies (ibid: 2005). Weber saw the increasing specialisation and stratification that the mass production of goods produced in society, as a sign of society’s efficiency (Casey, 1995, Strangleman and Warren, 2008). The creation of a bureaucratic class was a logical outcome of this process and was necessary to oversee the complex processes that were involved in the mass production of consumer goods.

The creation of different classes within society Weber believed, was achieved whenever a number of individuals had a sizeable portion of their life chances determined by their economic power within society and so in theory, there could exist as many classes as there are occupations (Grint, 2005). Weber suggests that these classes are a product of the economic situation and are closely related to market forces, and as previously discussed, that they identify themselves through the process of social closure (Parkin, 2001). The theories of the ‘gang of three’ (Grint, 2005: 85) contain different

perspectives on the effects of the allocation of work within a society and the identities and class structures that are thus formed. For Marx, the class

structure of society was a direct consequence of the tensions within it, caused by the division of labour polarising the interests of society’s members. Durkheim considered the division of labour to be a unifying opportunity for a meritocratic society, with increasing levels of work specialisation leading to a greater degree of interdependence, but he conceded that this could only happen under the auspices of professional groups to prevent social isolation. Crucially, he saw the

122

creation of individual identities to be a consequence of industrialisation and its creation of occupational identities. Lastly, Weber saw the increasing

specialisation of work creating a stratified society as an outcome of a rationalised, calculated, efficient economic system. For him, classes were created as products of the economic system and directly linked to market forces. But for ‘the gang of three’, the division of labour and its implied occupational identities, was the catalyst for change within societies.

In this subsection, the theories of Marx, Durkheim and Weber have been very briefly outlined to present the division of labour as an important development in the construction of individual identity, and of how individuals that were similarly effected by life chances, formed social classes. These ideas will be returned to later in this thesis, to help to explain how the research participants formed their own identities. How societies and their relationship to work changed over time, will be addressed next in this section.

4.2.3 Work’s changing relationship to society and the formation of