Karl Marx’s theory of alienation, although
intended to reflect the inequities of nineteenth century Europe, is analogous
to the plight of the worker in a contemporary capitalistic society. When Marx
wrote his influential sociological theory, he believed himself to have been
addressing an extremely specific audience. His writings were focused towards
the upper class white elites of nineteenth-century Europe, in an attempt
influence those in positions of power, and thus, impact the course of history.
(20 Hughes) Marx directed his analysis at the challenges that workers faced
during the Industrial Revolution, and his purpose was to educate and enlighten
the society around him to the realities of the exploitation of the worker. (2
Levy) Although Marx’s writings were directed at a specific group of people
living within a particular time period, he would not be surprised to find that
despite major changes in the workforce, the social hierarchy of the modern
capitalistic workplace continues to alienate its workers, demean their
autonomy, and reduce them to mere machinery, much the same as it did in the
mid-nineteenth century.
Marx analyzed
his theory of alienation from the materialist perspective, and focused on free
wage labor to accentuate his argument. He referred to an important shift in
ideology when he said that “labour produces not only commodities: it produces
itself and the worker as a commodity” (35 Marx). With the onset of free wage
labor, the worker as well as the products he created became exchangeable on the
market. As a product, the worker himself became a machine that afforded
monetary value to an employer. Thus, the employer saw the employee as something
in need of control in order to increase his production revenue. As more control
was exerted over the employee, he was robbed of his autonomy, and was subject
to increasing degrees of alienation from himself, his product, the production
process, as well as his managers and peers.
As seen by
Marx, the worker under capitalism felt alienated from the product because he
was no longer producing it for its intrinsic value, but for the capital it
generated. In essence, the ultimate goal of the producing the product became
not the product itself, but instead, the money associated with its sale. The
pride that one would take in craftsmanship or in the performance of “a job well
done” was measured not by the actual accomplishment, but in the value of the
monetary reward that it was capable of deriving. In addition, the object itself
became an “external existence,” as no matter how great his need for the
item, at the end of the day the worker must give away that which he had
produced (35 Marx). Marx saw the worker as dominated by the product. (7 Cox) He
wrote that “the worker puts his life into the object, but now his life no
longer belongs to him but to the object” (35 Marx). The worker sold his
creativity, and in exchange received money, with which he could buy products.
But what he could not repurchase was his creativity; that was lost forever. (7
Cox) He had been both exploited and alienated- from his product and from
himself.
Marx furthered
his analysis by citing an estrangement between the worker and the production
process. The worker created products using machinery and materials that were
not owned by him, and under rules and regulations of which he had no say in. (5
Bramann) He had no control of
the process, and no ownership of its rewards. Furthermore the worker was forced
to produce to the limits of his “physical and mental energy” (37 Marx). The
“fragmentation,” or specialization of the labor process had allowed employers
to gain increasing control over the workers, as workers were expected to perform
highly specific jobs in exactly the same way, repetitively (8 Cox). This served
to stunt intellectual and creative growth in the workplace and alienate workers
from their mundane day-to-day activities.
Marx felt that
man has a natural need to be productive and creative. Depriving himself of his
basic needs caused his labor to become external to him and resulted in an
absence of his sense of self-identity through his work. He viewed himself as
“at home when he [was] not working, and when he [was] working he [did] not feel
at home” (37 Marx). Work was no longer a gratifying force in his life, thus
requiring him to look elsewhere for self-gratification. He had been alienated
from his human self, and “in his human functions [the worker] no longer [felt] himself
to be anything but an animal” (37 Marx). Freedom could only have been achieved
through the exercising of man’s most animalistic functions, such as “eating,
drinking and procreating” (37 Marx).
Alienation
from one’s peers, co-workers, and superiors soon followed. Marx felt that the
demand for ever-increasing productivity created a competitive environment in
the workplace and beyond. All relationships became valued by how much they
would contribute or take away from productivity. He felt that this “[served] to
replace communal values with competitive individualistic ones” (36 Hughes). A
“fundamental social antagonism” developed, and continuously perpetuated itself
(41 Hughes). Under these conditions, workers lost their desire to produce and
work became “not voluntary, but coerced; it [was] forced labour” (37 Marx).
Work no longer brought happiness as it was perceived as an enslaving force, and
was “shunned like the plague” (37 Marx).
The changing times have brought about a shift
from an industrial-centered economy into a service-oriented job market. The
middle class population is a product of that change. The standard of living of
today’s capitalists is not as distinguishably different from that of the
present day working class, and the boundaries between them are not as sharp. (2
Bramann) But is today’s middle
class really so different from the proletariat class of Marx’s time? Marx believed that social classes were
grouped according to common relations to the production process, rather than
economic worth. (1 Gingrich) This would thereby equate the middle class to the
proletariat, as they both represent the working class of their respective
times. Marx also felt that this working class was persecuted by the
capitalistic system under which it existed. Modern middle class thinking
portrays this group as having achieved a degree of economic and social
independence not previously attainable. But does today’s middle class really
enjoy an economic freedom that works to foster the individual’s sense of self worth
and autonomy, or is it too victimized by a system that only rewards the elite?
By analyzing the practices of capitalist institutions, one can gain insight
into the application of Marx’s alienation in today’s society.
Modern capitalist governments pride themselves
on their ability to maintain internal harmony while competing in a global
economy. They place value on such things as low unemployment rates, rising
corporate growth and low rates of inflation, and use them as measures of their
prosperity as a nation. Marxist theory, if applied to this model, would likely
argue that the while the fundamental concept of the need of governments to
maintain domestic tranquility is correct; the mechanisms employed by
capitalistic governments to achieve this goal are flawed. He would also
probably argue that the measures of success utilized by these capitalists are
incorrect and that success is only attainable when the individuals of a society
are free of oppression. Marx would likely see the strategies that are used by
these societies to advance themselves, as alienating the very individuals that
they were designed to benefit.
In addition to the government as a
capitalistic institution, capitalistic societies pride themselves on the
strength of big business. The McDonald’s corporation has grown into a
multi-billion dollar business, and exemplifies many of the characteristics of
alienation previously shunned by Marx. Contemporary sociological theory has
coined the practices of McDonald’s as “McDonaldization.” Under “McDonaldization,”
advancements in technology are used to “deskill and control workers,” and
follow the McDonald’s corporate model (53 Aronowitz). McDonald’s incorporates
similar mechanisms of command at each of their 11,800 locations to increase
productivity and ensure product standardization. (40 Leidner) Employees are
given minimal to no individuality in their work. The various jobs at McDonald’s
restaurants are specialized and repetitive to foster speed and efficiency, and
employees are expected to conform to a predetermined set of rules and
regulations. To ensure their compliance,
technological advances such as computers and cameras are utilized as monitoring
devices. In addition, work schedules are adjusted to clientele volume in order
to allow for the maximum amount of corporate productivity. This economic model has been employed by
various companies throughout the capitalistic world, in attempt to remove any
individuality, creativity, and freedom in the workplace, thus placing the
worker in an easily expendable and replaceable position. Marx would consider
McDonald’s employees to be an “appendage of the machine” (81 Marx). As such,
the worker fails to develop an allegiance to his job and the product that is
being produced, serving to perpetuate the alienation. The result of this is a
strong, rich and powerful corporation, and a poor, estranged employee.
Scientific and technological advances have
made communication and information easily accessible. Such innovations have
“freed” workers from their previous constraints, but in doing so have made the
workers more dispensable. Workers are no longer needed to work jobs that could
now be done more efficiently by machines. Examples of this include the mass
production technique known as “Fordism,” where large numbers of cars are
produced by the aid of machines along an assembly line (53 Aronowitz). With job
security on the line, workers have had to maintain their own competitive edge.
This has often required expansion of work hours that previously were dedicated to
pleasure. Employees have been forced to “transform every place into a work
place,” and often work nights and weekends to remain competitive (54
Aronowitz). Women have entered the work force in amazing numbers and the
anonymous nature of the computer generation has caused “differences of age and
sex [to] have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class”
(81 Marx). While this has furthered the cause for women’s rights, with all
family members working to their maximum potential, the family unit as a whole
has undoubtedly been negatively impacted. Marx would potentially view this as
the ultimate exploitation of the worker, removing from him the last freedom he
has left, the freedom to manage his own spare time. (54 Aronowitz)
Analysis of the social structure in capitalist
countries has shown the emergence of an “upper” middle class. This partly
consists of the trained professionals that are commonly perceived to have risen
in ranks from that of the salaried worker. However, Marx would not support this
concept, but instead would argue that the opposite has occurred. Such
professionals have actually taken a downward spiral back to that of a salaried
worker. (59 Aronowitz) Physicians and attorneys are amongst those trained
professionals that have traditionally been associated with independent
entrepreneurship. An influx of bureaucracy has lowered their decision-making
ability and technological change has depersonalized their work. (59 Aronowitz)
They have had to face a change in practice that has constrained their autonomy.
Job satisfaction has deteriorated as exemplified by “significant declines in
medical school enrollments” (60 Aronowitz). Not even the upper-middle class is
exempt from the dilemma of alienation facing the salaried worker.
Marx’s theory of alienation in a capitalist
society is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it one hundred and sixty
two years ago. Changes in social structure, technological innovation, and in
the job market have effectively hidden it beneath the surface when compared
concurrently with that of the nineteenth century. Perhaps today’s workers
experience estrangement from their product, the production process, themselves,
their employers, and their co-workers on an even greater scale than those of
Marx’s time. Living under the shroud of a prosperous and protected society,
hopes and expectations for success have been escalated. People are blinded to
the subservient nature of their existence and appear unaware that their
actions, or lack there of, only serve to perpetuate their entrapment. For the
most part, they seem blinded to the reality that no matter how hard they try,
they will never get ahead in the current system, as forces that they cannot
control continue to dominate them. It will take a major structural re-design to
successfully afford a sense of control and a reversal of alienation. Marx feels
that as the proletariat class awareness continues to grow, it will eventually
rise up “stronger, firmer, [and] mightier” than before (82 Marx). When reality
sets in, despair and desperation will reign and revolution will result. This
chapter in history has yet to be written, but if history continues to follow
Marx’s theory, capitalism as we know it will face an inevitable challenge.
Works Cited:
Bramann, Jorn. "Marx on Alienation." Philosophical Forum.
2004. Frostburg State University. 13 Mar. 2006
<http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Marx.htm>.
Cox, Judy. "An Introduction to Marx's Theory of Alienation." International
Socialism 79 (1998): 1-22.
Gingrich, Paul. "Marx on Social Class." Marx's Theory of
Social Class and Class Structure. 28 Sep. 1999. University of Regina. 13
Mar. 2006 <http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/s28f99.htm>.
Hughes, John A. Understanding Classical Sociology. 2nd ed.
London: Sage Publications, 1995.
Leidner, Robin. "Over the Counter: McDonald's." Mapping
the Social Landscape: Readings in Sociology. Ed. Susan J. Ferguson. Boston:
McGraw Hill, 2002. 40.
Marx, Karl. "Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of 1844." Classical Sociological Theory. Ed. Craig Calhoun.
Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2002. 34-43.
Marx, Karl. "Manifesto of the Communist
Party." Classical Sociological Theory. Ed. Craig Calhoun. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2002. 76-84.
Good article!
ReplyDelete