The rediscovery of the division of labor

International Journal of Education, Culture and Society

The article presents results of the analysis of the conceptions and uses of the social division of labour by the statistical classification schemes and by the social sciences. The general hypothesis pursued is that the social division of labour is used as an explanatory principle and as a basis for legitimation of the social structures. These uses encompass both the current statistical classification schemes and the social sciences involved. In addition to the introduction, a second item discusses the origins and meanings of the social division of labour for the social sciences and its relations with theoretical problems such as the multidimensionality of social structures. Next, the synthesis of the conception and uses of the social division of labour by the main statistical classification schemes in vogue is presented. The high degree of redundancy of statistical classifications is exposed below, particularly with regard to occupations and status in employment. The categories of managers are particularly examined as the main empirical reference. The next item presents the results of the examination of the overlapping of categories linked management with the condition of the employer and the overvaluation of the amount of schooling. Finally, the last item discusses general issues related to the uses of the social division of labour and its limits and relationships with theoretical foundations of the social sciences.

Ton Duc Thang University ISSH Conference, 2021

This paper examines issues related to the analysis of social and gender relationships that surround the reproduction of the workforce and the division of labor. It questions whether reproduction of labor capacity is considered as a job and creates surplus-value, and how capitalist society has separated the labor. Using the documentary analysis method from major research works of scholars such as Marx, Heather A. Brown, Barbagallo, Dunayevskaya, Federici, and Fortunati, these writings make it clear historically that much of this social reproduction and the work necessary to produce and reproduce workers, without the support of others, is mostly done by mothers, teaching their children the ways and conventions of social life. Of course, without being born, brought up, sustained, trained, and educated to certain levels, workers cannot work. Thus, we must examine women's contribution to the reproduction of class society in its entirety. Although the natural division of labor in birth according to biology is not necessarily an opposition, the division of labor according to the sex characteristics of class society is certainly so. The studies mentioned above were innovative because they refuted the stereotype that women's role in reproduction was unimportant and clarified their position in terms of social structure and development of society.

Challenges of the Knowledge Society, 2014

The social division of labor is an objective historical and continuous process that accompanied the evolution of human society from the appearance. Hence the idea that the work is the specific activity of human. However, we should mention that also other species work and they do it even at group level through cooperation. For example, spiders and bees. But what makes the difference exclusively on human work is its human social character. The moral dimension of social division of labor was formed in time, starting with the natural division period of labor which had a purely physiological basis. After the collapse of the primitive commune, the appearance and then the development of productive forces have determined the formation of social character of the division labor. It's the time of the appearance social-economic criteria as a new foundation for the development of society. The division of labor has been gradually achieved by the waves of social change. Thus the first phase of social division of labor took place with the separation of the tribes of shepherds from other tribes that later to achieve separation of agriculture crafts in the second phase. The separation of the dealers from other workers, the exchange of merchandise, the market and commodity production are the defining elements at the third phase of the social division of labor. Regarding the productive forces, it should be noted that each stage of their development has led to a higher and complex division of the social labor, which resulted the character of the relations of production, rellations par excellence social-economics.

Recent challenges to foundationalism do more than repeat 19th century rejections of epistemological absolutism in particular and the fantasy of autonomous philosophical reason in general. In the hands of thinkers like Rorty and Lyotard, the attempt once again to come to terms with the tradition is also a debate over the political role of intellectuals. To be sure, a conservative linkage between the rejection of philosophical reflection on rationality and the use in politics of abstract theory is not itself something new, but a theme well worked-over at least since Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France. i But Rorty and Lyotard suggest that their challenges come from the left, not the right. ii Now suspicion about reason draws from criticisms of knowledge-power as well as a significant recent literature on intellectuals and the ambitions of the New Class. iii The rejection of systematic reflection is now associated with greater freedom and democracy which require a break with the Enlightenment tradition and with a Marxian thinking fatally compromised by its association with authoritarian communism.

1982

The paperback edition ofthis book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way oftrade or otherwise, be lent, resold , hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

Some recent Marxist contributions, among them the so-called New Solution to the " transformation problem, " call into question the idea of labor-power as a fully-fledged commodity. Yet, the rejection of the commodity nature of labor-power compromises Marx's whole explanation of the origin of surplus-value on the basis of the exchange of equivalents. It can be shown, however, that it is possible to offer a positive case for the commodity-nature of labor-power which is consistent with Marx's broader dialectical investigation of the determinations of the value-form. This requires building upon the arguments that Marx explicitly put forward in his economic works, but also going beyond them, albeit on the basis of those arguments themselves. Furthermore, this novel approach that treats the reproduction of labor-power as a commodity determined by the self-valorization of capital proves to be very valuable in shedding light on two classic Marxist controversies, namely: the debate on domestic labor and the one on skilled labor.

2003

This brief article draws on observations about the chores elites (including politicians) don't do to argue for sharing in "public chores," just as people in more egalitarian households share in private chores.

It's implied in this passage from I Corinthians 12 : 4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. 7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. In this passage the reference to "gifts" can be construed as referring to abilities. Note that the "given" in the passage suggests that only innate abilities are being referred to, not acquired ones-with that "given" also suggesting a purpose behind the giving-the "gifts" given are to be used to serve the "common good." II. View Two Adam Smith [1723-1790], according to this article, presented his concept of the "division of labor" in his 1776 book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (hereafter referred to simply as Wealth): The main focus of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations lies in the concept of economic growth. Growth, according to Smith, is rooted in the increasing division of labor. This idea relates primarily to the specialization of the labor force, essentially the breaking down of large jobs into many tiny components. Under this regime each worker becomes an expert in one isolated area of production, thus increasing his efficiency. The fact that laborers do not have to switch tasks during the day further saves time and money. Of course, this is exactly what allowed Victorian factories to grow throughout the nineteenth century. Assembly line technology made it necessary for a worker to focus his or her attention on one small part of the production process. Surprisingly, Smith recognized the potential problems of this development. He pointed out that forcing individuals to perform mundane and repetitious tasks would lead to an ignorant, dissatisfied work force. For this reason he advanced the revolutionary belief that governments had an obligation to provide education to workers. This sprung from the hope that education could combat the deleterious effects of factory life. Division of labor also implies assigning each worker to the job that suits him best. Productive labor, to Smith, fulfills two important requirements. First, it must "lead to the production of tangible objects." Second, labor must "create a surplus" which can be reinvested into production.

Civitas, 2018

This paper presents a discussion on how the concept of the division of labour within society appears in the work of Émile Durkheim, of Karl Marx, and of Axel Honneth. Historically, that notion has been related to Durkheim's De la division du travail social, but it was also a subject to which Marx and, more recently, Honneth directed their attention. In highlighting how those three authors conceptualise the division of labour, this paper intents to show that all of them, with their respective particularities, conceive modern societies as a normative order based on the principle of mutual recognition, which for its part is expressed in the historical process of the division of labour.