The Social Division Of Work By Durkheim

The social division of work by Durkheim

Durkheim deals with this problem through different prolonged studies in the time in which he observes that the annual percentages of suicides barely suffer deviations. Likewise, different events that occurred throughout history are responsible for the deviations detected in the different graphics.

Pay attention to the percentages of people who make the decision to take their lives and obtain the conclusion that they differ according to the country or the area that is analyzed. This leads him to know that for example, Protestant religion societies.

For Durkheim this clearly implies a social fact. He based his investigations on empirical evidence (based on experiences) on the percentages of suicides in Jewish peoples confirming that these were lower than other societies. This is why Durkheim concludes that a high or low percentage of suicides is more dependent on the type of society in which the individual is from the individual situations of them.

It is evident that Durkheim was not badly aimed with the thought exposed in previous lines. At present, the same thing happens in terms of the percentages and profiles of suicides, "a trend that occurs at the continental level does not have to reproduce nationwide".

If we compare the data between Europe and Spain obtained in a report by the European Statistics Office, we can observe how young people occupy the profile of individuals with the greatest average who come to make this decision.

On the contrary, in Spain the opposite case is given. People with 50 years or more are the highest suicide rate profile. If we only stick to this data there is no doubt that Durkheim was right in stating that suicide depends more on the environment or society than the individual itself. However, thanks to the data collected in the Eurostat5 report we can observe how the individual himself for reasons inherent to the company influences the making of this decision. The clear example is that, analyzing suicides by gender we can observe how 77% of the people who make this decision are men.

Weber’s power and bureaucracy

As we have already mentioned throughout this essay, Weber I investigate the different types of power, differentiating them from authority.

Since he considered that the actions of individuals were oriented towards different objectives, through their behaviors, he design a kind of social structure to try to schematize this thought.

Social action was the axis of all interactions and, therefore, different social actions had significantly influenced these relationships. There were clearly identifying inequalities such as working people with those individuals who possessed wealth and therefore properties. This situation derives in the perception of individuals and the status that is granted in consequence of the position that the individual has both economically and at the cultural or educational level.

All these circumstances lead us to analyze power, who possesses, why and in what scenarios.

For Weber, the tradition was key to the legitimate authority or dominance that certain individuals possessed by the simple fact of the custom of the different social groups.

Today this is a clearly visible fact in society. The child respects his grandfather simply by tradition, for the customs learned in his home, for the inculcation of his environment in which the right thing is to respect his grandparents why they are greater and that simple fact gives them power in front of the child. Although we have said it is something visible in most cases, we cannot ignore that, in the current modern societies, this tradition is being lost in a way. The little ones have no longer grown with these customs and relationships are more egalitarian. Another example of this is the student-professional relationship. We are getting used to visualizing television news in which a certain student has attacked or lacking in respect to his teacher, something unthinkable at Weber’s study time. It is unquestionable that dominance by custom or tradition, in this case, is deteriorating.

Also, the charisma, which is that "special capacity of some people to attract or fascinate" is something key when granting or recognizing the power of an individual. It is a historical fact and is repeated over the years in history. In those societies that have suffered different dictatorships, leaders or dictators were individuals with a great charism, such as Adolf Hitler in dictatorial Germany.

"His Manichaeism and apparent security of him in himself infected his confidence followers in the forces and aggressiveness against the" strangers ", in particular the Jews, soon turned into responsible for the evils of the nation. Aware of the springs to dazzle the masses, Hitler was built a "heroic past" and presented, with respect to the future, as a visionary, a prophet."

We currently have other examples, but they are also simple to appreciate. The current political leaders are usually people of enormous charisma, we like more or less. If we make the following reflection, what percentage of people votes to a politician based on their training? Do people investigate the studies of politicians who present themselves in the different elections?, The answer is clear, the percentage of people who take into account these circumstances, is very low. Most people vote for political leaders for their charisma, so they transmit them when they speak, for the way of communicating, etc.

We have a clear example with the American president Donald Trump. We can agree with its policies, decisions or statements, or not being. What is unquestionable is that his charism has led him to be currently, the president of the country considered the greatest power in the world.

Finally, Weber also defined legal dominance, which is the one that is shield in the laws to be applied. It is a dominance that considers the duties and rights of individuals.

This type of dominance is what the State holds in any nation, and applies it through its different institutions. The individual is aware that the State is in charge of ensuring the rights and duties of citizens and that, therefore, in case an individual commits an infraction, the State will sanction.

The individual is also aware that, if he finds that his rights have been violated, he can resort to the State to request the repair of said violation.