| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "DIVISION LABOR": |
|
|
?The Division of Labor in Society?, 2002.
A review of the book ?The Division of Labor in Society? by Emile Durkheim.
2,629 words (approx. 10.5 pages), 0 sources, MLA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how in his book "The Division of Labor in Society", Emile Durkheim sees society as evolving, as developing over time and how he considers the specific element of solidarity as it was manifested at each stage of development. Division of labor is another specific dimension by which we explain the existence of the kinds and types of social organization in a given society. It shows how Durkheim in his book, explains both the nature of society as well as the meaning of, development of and place of individuality within that structure. It examines how Durkheim's vision of the division of labor is of a naturally occurring reality that becomes a force for social cohesion and solidarity, binding individuals in society more closely together and may imperil individuality as a result.
From the Paper
"In discussing the bond of social solidarity, Durkheim indicates that there are two ideal types of solidarity, one mechanical and the other organic. The bond of solidarity is that which defines a society and its rules and regulations, rules which can be transgressed by the criminal precisely because that solidarity exists and stands as that against which crime is directed and defined. Crime is defined by Durkheim as an "act contrary to strong, well-defined states of common consciousness" (Durkheim 60). He then indicates that it is possible to see what kind of solidarity the penal law symbolizes, and he says that it is clear that social cohesion exists when there is a certain conformity of each individual consciousness to a common type, the psychological type of society. "
| |
|
The Division of Labor, 2005.
An essay on the concept of the division of labor from both a theoretical and practical perspective.
1,392 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains what the concept of the division of labor means in terms of its theoretical and practical applications in an industrialized, capitalist society. The paper further explains that such a division of labor makes it impossible to separate an industry fully along the lines of internal divisions of labor, mechanistic and human, from the society which surrounds it.
From the Paper
"It is often the case that a generalized term is often known both by its theoretical and its practical applications, but it sometimes happens that such a term is also known to cover different practical effects when dealing with two different sets of circumstances. When talking about labor and capital, especially the industrialized, mechanistic labor inherent to capitalism, differentiations of application are often made along the lines of human beings and machines, or human beings and the mechanistic work that they are taking part in. The division of labor is mainly thought of by scholars and thinkers as being the whole of two distinct sums: that of the actual mechanized process of separating
and dissociating work as individual parts that lead to a complete whole and that of the effect on the human beings taking part in the dissociated work, in which each person plays an integral, if incomplete, role in the manufacture of a product. "...In one form or another the division of labor has remained the fundamental principle of industrial organization" (Braverman 69). It is a very significant concept concerning both a process and the effects of the process on the workers involved."
| |
|
Causes and Effects of the Division and Labor, 2002.
Compares and contrasts the theories of Marx and Engels regarding the causes and effects of the division of labor with Smith's theories.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The basis of Smith's theories about the division of labor in human production rests in his repeated reference to "the natural" effects of production. Marx, on the other hand, understands production as a structure that is premised on social inequalities amongst humans. Where Smith regards "self-interest" as the natural force behind increasing a nation's wealth, Marx regards differences in social class as the source of exploitation in labor. Smith idealizes the division of labor, and Marx & Engels both regard exploitation of social inequality as the basis for divisions in labor.
| |
|
Capitalism and The Division of Labor, 2002.
Discussing the famous economist, Adam Smith's view on capitalism and division of labor.
963 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper talks about the role that division of labor plays in capitalism. It focuses on Adam's Smith's view of division of labor and how it fits into our society. The advantages and disadvantges of this practice are listed and analyzed.
From the Paper
"Capitalism, what is Capitalism? It is an economic system, which has been dominant in the western world since the breakup of Feudalism. An economic system in which competing firms produce material use values (anything humans produce for use or sale) as commodities for a society wide competitive market."
| |
|
The Marketplace, Division of Labor, and Modern Culture, 2002.
Discusses the importance of the marketplace and the division of labor to the creation of modern culture.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Summary: Without the Development of the Marketplace and the Division of Labor, Our Modern Notion of Culture Would Have Been Inconceivable. Culture needs the development of the marketplace and the division of labor, but capitalism can only develop along cultural lines.
| |
|
Civilization and the Division of Labour, 2005.
A comparison of the views of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim with regards to the division of labour.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 2 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the thinking of Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim on the division of labour and social change. It analyzes how each theorist addresses similar social political and economic issues from fundamentally distinct perspectives. The paper demonstrates a critical point of difference between the two thinkers and how that lies in their understanding of the social function of the division of labour and how, in the view of Marx, it leads to social oppression and class conflict, while in the view of the functionalist Durkheim its consequences include individualism and civilization with social solidarity as its function.
| |
|
Division of Labor, 2006.
Explains the importance of the concept of the division of labor.
1,386 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the division of labor is a significant concept which involves both the process itself and the effects of the process on laborers. More specifically, the paper explains that the division of labor is a fundamental theoretical and practical principle that involves the actual process of separating labor into distinct roles which do not let the worker manufacture a completed product, but rather separates the work into dissociated roles which are picked up by different skilled and semi-skilled workers, each completing a part of the process.
From the Paper
"The result and goal of this process is ultimately profit. And it follows that the capitalists running the production operation will use the division of labor to separate their working pools into skilled, highly-paid labor and semi-skilled, low-pay labor. Barbara Garson, realizing this conclusion, calls even the efficiency of the division of labor into question: "The main advantage of the auto assembly line to an employer is not speed but control... the requirement for control over unwilling workers shapes the division of labor at least as much as any straightforward calculation of the most efficient methods." The workers are perhaps thus unwilling because the division of labor has rendered the satisfaction possible and perhaps inherent in making a whole product from its individual parts to a more mechanistic process of manufacture in which one worker is responsible solely for a monotonously repeated process of sub-manufacture in which the worker feels naturally dissociated from the end product of his/her labors."
| |
|
Division of Labor, 2004.
This paper discusses that the division of labor is a significant concept that involves both the process itself and the effects of the process on laborers.
1,390 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that early political economists considered the division of labor as a fundamental theoretical and practical principle, especially in industrialized, capitalist societies. The author points out that the division of labor involves the actual process of separating labor into distinct roles, which do not let the worker manufacture a completed product, but rather separates the work into dissociated roles that are picked up by different skilled and semi-skilled workers, each completing a part of the process. The paper states that the result and goal of this process is ultimately profit.
From the Paper
"The relation of the division of labor to productivity and efficiency is often explicit. The first condition that must be met, though, is the quantity of the divided parts that are to be produced and assembled by workers. Without an abundance of parts at each individual work-station, the division of labor would be useless, as the product would stop being constructed at any work-area at which materials were not abundant. In this way, the division of labor evinces the same sort of potential problems faced by the individual worker who is unable to complete a project from start to finish due to a lack of materials at any certain point in the process. What is different in the division of labor, then, can be better assayed through the consideration of a successful process than the consideration of a potential problem."
| |
|
Advertising and the Division of Labour, 2002.
A look at the connection between advertising and the division of labour.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes an ad from a magazine or newspaper representing women and/or men. It analyzes the ad with reference to gender, class, race, rage or other identifications. It provides answers to the following questions: what ideas, stereotypes and messages does the ad project? What are the implications of these women and men as far as the division of labour is concerned within the home and outside?
| |
|
The Division of Labor, 2002.
A discussion on Durkheim's division of labor and the separative issues of organic solidarity.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Durkheim's theories on the division of labor and the modern form of solidarity and organic solidarity. It also discusses whether the components are complimentary and therefore linked with one and other.
| |
|
Women in the International Division of Labour, 2005.
A discussion of the role of women in the international division of labour, based on the chapter by Maria Mies.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the chapter entitled "Housewifization International: Women and the New International Division of Labour", written by Maria Mies. The paper discusses concepts presented in this chapter, such as the role of women in the globalization of labour. The paper presents the writers views on the matter.
From the Paper
"Women in the International Division of Labour Maria Mies' chapter entitled "Housewifization International: Women and the New International Division of Labour" examines the role of women in the globalization of labour. I found this chapter extremely useful, as I have recently been learning about the evils attendant upon globalization, but I have not learned about the genderized nature of this movement. In fact, I realize that a gender lens has been conspicuously absent from most of what I have read, and therefore this chapter is valuable in terms of filing in that gap."
| |
|
Marriage and Conflict Theory: Divisions of Labor, 2002.
A discussion on how sex and gender constitute the basis for a division of labor and as such determine conflicts in a marriage as a conflict in divisions of labor based on social roles.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyses marriage from a perspective of conflict theory. Based on theories of Marx, and economic structures in societies, conflict theory assumes that all social relations are based in kinds of conflicts and that social order is determined through coercion. Power is the dominant feature of conflict.
| |
|
Women and Children in the International Division of Labour, 2005.
Examines globalization and its impact on women and child laborers.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper studies how globalization has further disadvantaged women and children in the international labor market. The concept of the International Division of Labour (IDL) is discussed. The paper looks at the general effects of globalization on labor and finds that the systematic exploitation of women is an integral part of globalization and the current IDL.
From the Paper
"The current trend towards globalization has led to a massive shift in patterns of international labour division (IDL). Like all of the changes caused by globalization, these changes have tended to favour the advantaged and further disadvantage the disadvantaged. This means that women and children, who have always been the most disadvantaged in the patriarchal system, have been further disadvantaged by the changes wrought by globalization. This paper will examine this, and will show the systematic exploitation of women is an integral part of globalization and the current IDL. When we talk about the international division of labour, we are talking about the division caused by globalization."
| |
|
Emile Durkheim's Theory of the Division of Labor, 2006.
A review of Emile Durkheim's idea that everything serves a function in society and his quest to determine exactly what that function was.
2,034 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews and discusses Emile's Durkheim's theory of the division of labor. The paper also compares Durkheim's theory to that of Karl Marx. The paper further discusses Durkheim's concern with the social implications of increased specialization.
From the Paper
"Nowadays, students have to choose between different academic disciplines: maybe one student prefers to be a psychologist rather than a physician. And then once the student has decided on psychology, he must choose, for example, to be a psychology major, as opposed to a physician major. Further more, there are even different categories within disciplines: social psychology, organizational psychology, clinical psychology, educational psychology etc., each with its own concepts, terminology and methods. As in many other areas of activity, the division of labor in modern academia was a necessary phenomenon in the modern society given the the economic and social conditions of the modern world, when the aim of education is to prepare students for different specializations and then, through working, interdependence and collaboration is necessary in order to reach the goal and obtain the wanted results. Durkheim's theory division of labor depicts the fact that in a society based on the members' dissimilarity, co-operation is essential and, finally, this is what characterises modern society. "
| |
|
Division Of Labor, 2002.
Compares and contrasts social theorists' viewpoints on the specialization of functions.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Compares and contrasts social theorists viewpoints on specialization of functions. Social and economic philosophies of Karl Marx, Adam Smith & Max Weber. Their agreement regarding the standardization of production. Disagreement regarding economic and social purposes and outcomes of the division of labor. Concepts of Capitalism, self-interest, alienation of labor, free trade, social justice.
From the Paper
"Division of labor is an economic concept involving the specialization of the functions and roles of production. To social theorists, such as Karl Marx, Adam Smith and Max Weber, the division of labor is more than economics; it is rooted in their own individual philosophy of life and society. This paper will compare and contrast Marx, Smith and Weber with respect to their analysis of "the division of labor."
All three men agree that the division of labor is tied to the standardization of production. To Adam Smith, the division of labor is the underlying principle of free trade, a concept he strongly advocated. To Marx, the division of labor is the underlying cause of the ills of society because it creates class differences, planting dissension among the individual workers. To Weber, the division of labor is the means by which one group in a ..."
|
|
|
