This essay will compare and contrast the constructs of ‘alienation ‘ and ‘anomie ‘ . Karl Marx foremost outlined his theory of disaffection in The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts ( 1844 ) and refers to a define set of societal relationships that were foremost formed in feudal societies which so became disrupted by modern industrial society. Anomie nevertheless, is defined by Emile Durkheim as a alteration in “ normalness ” and a dislocation of societal ordinances. Durkheim became interested in the societal status characterised by a dislocation of ‘norms ‘ regulating societal interactions. “ The province of anomy is impossible wheresoever organs solidly linked to one another are in sufficient contact, and in sufficiently drawn-out contact. Indeed, being next to one another, they are easy alerted in every state of affairs to the demand for one another and accordingly they experience a keen, uninterrupted feeling of their common dependance. ” ( Durkheim, Tocopherol: 1893 ) . Durkheim went on to develop his involvement of anomy farther when he began his research into ‘Suicide ‘ , where he suggested that when a individual ‘s ‘norms ‘ and regulations that regulate their lifestyle become hebdomad, this can take to a signifier of self-destruction which he called ‘Anomic Suicide ‘ .
Marx believed that there were four grades of disaffection that break down the cardinal nexus that human existences have to their ego specifying qualities. First there is ‘product disaffection ‘ which Marx believed was estranging to the worker because the merchandises that they produce do non reflect their originative energies and are simply objects produced by the bid of the employer ( Ransome, P: 2010 ) . Which he argues was present in industrialized society but non in feudal societies as a consequence of capitalist economy and its economic addition fuelled society. ( Morrison, K: 2006 ) . Second, Marx said that disaffection could come from ‘act of production ‘ . This, harmonizing to Marx is linked to ‘product disaffection ‘ as the merchandise of labor is estranging so so is the act of production. So in capitalist societies people have no pick but to work and experience alienated to run into their basic demands. Marx ‘s work stated that “ The worker feels himself merely when he is non working ; when he is working he does non experience himselfaˆ¦ his labor is hence non voluntary but forced ” ( Marx, K: 1844 ) . Third, Marx suggested that there was disaffection due to ‘common intent ‘ . He outlined that this happened when a worker ‘s societal relationships become debased and they are taken from a concerted societal dimension, for illustration on mill lines and in unfastened offices. Finally the 4th disaffection type that Marx wrote about was ‘alienation from humanity ‘ . Marx believed that this happened when a individual worked long hr yearss -as Marx wrote in the Victorian society this was highly common- and together with the three other signifiers of disaffection ; a individual lost their sense of humanity and became alienated from their ain inner ego ( Ransome, P: 2010 ) .
Durkheim nevertheless argued that anomy in the division of labor alike that of disaffection, deprived persons of a sense of connexion with society ( Ransome, P: 2010 ) . Durkheim believed that this sense of want caused people to go disorientated and dying and saw anomy as one of the societal factors that influenced self-destruction ( Giddens, A: 2009 ) . He argued that there were four types of self-destruction: Altruistic, Anomic, Egoistic and Fatalistic ( Pope, W: 1976 ) . Altruistic self-destruction being excessively much societal integrating, for illustration self-destruction bombers give up their life for the demands of their societal group ( Giddens, A: 2009 ) . Egoistic self-destruction, in Durkheim ‘s footings was due to deficient ordinance. This can be seen in societies such as spiritual groups ; Durkheim found that self-destruction was higher in the Protestant faith than it was in Catholic spiritual groups. He believed that this was due to the Catholic faith holding a more rigorous ordinances, so hence people believed that it was ‘against God ‘ to perpetrate self-destruction and besides with the Catholic society being greater regulated, he believed that this closer connected society made the people have a greater sense of community and moral values so did non experience the demand to perpetrate self-destruction ( Ransome, P: 2010 ) . Durkheim related the low self-destruction rates during World War 1 to this as he believed the face of an external enemy brought about societal integrating ( Giddens, A: 2009 ) . Fatalist self-destruction for Durkheim was due to extra ordinance. This can be seen in modern-day society in prisons as people feel that they have no sense of future or self worth. However Durkheim felt that this type of self-destruction was of small importance in modern society but it was of specific historical involvement. Historically, this is apparent in the slave communities in America during the civil war ( Morrison, K: 2006 ) . Durkheim argued that Anomic self-destruction occurs when regulations and ‘norms ‘ that govern a individual ‘s lifestyle become unstable and interrupt down. He looked at this topic of self-destruction by researching the suicide rates of industrial society during periods of economic crisis created by fiscal recession and periods of economic alteration. Between 1845 and 1869 in Europe, Durkheim identified that there was a rapid rise in self-destruction rates, which he linked to the economic province at the clip as there was repeated economic crisis, which resulted in a dramatic diminution in the concern rhythm and terrible bankruptcies. He besides acknowledged that there was a specific form of the suicide rates during this clip across Europe ; he found that there was a rise in the rates of self-destruction as the province of the economic system decreased, and when the crisis deteriorated the rates fell. However as the economic system worsened once more, the self-destructions increased ( Morrison, K: 2006 ) .
When taking into history Durkheim ‘s theory of ‘Suicide ‘ and Marx ‘s four types of disaffection, it could be argued that there are several similarities between the two societal theories. ‘Alienation ‘ in basic footings defines the relationship that a worker -mainly- has with their productive function and their ego being within society. ‘Anomie ‘ can be suggested to associate to this likewise as it seems that it defines a individual ‘s ego being within society and themselves. However, reviews have suggested that the theory of anomy for Durkheim was non in fact in relation to a individual but it refers to society, although there are definite deductions of a individual ‘s province of head in his plants ( Robinson, J ; Shaver P and Wrightsman, L: 1991 ) . When mentioning to the topic of anomy, societal ideas of other sociologists must be taken into history. Robert Mereton extended Durkheim ‘s ideas on anomy and emphasised that an single intensifies their anomies when they abandon their ‘norms ‘ to fulfill their intricate desires and therefore anomy and deviant behaviour draw from a disjuncture between a culturally prescribes aspiration of a society and socially constructed avenues for making those aspirations ( Giddens, A: 2009 ) . Durkheim ‘s theory of anomy can be seen as similar to both Mereton ‘s reading of anomy and Marx ‘s theory of disaffection in footings of isolation and freak out. However clearly it can be seen that there is a important difference in retrospect to money being the beginning of the worker ‘s life style and the theory that it keeps the governing category on top and the remainder of the population down in footings of Marx ‘s idea of disaffection, where as Durkheim dealt with the subjects of attitudes and outlooks of the society within his theory of anomy and people defying and holding the pick of their life style instead than being forced into life styles likewise in disaffection.