{"title":"Abolishing division of labour or making it better?","authors":"E. Renault","doi":"10.1177/1468795X231170365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In some of his latest publications, Honneth claims that what is problematic with the contemporary forms of division of labour is that they are not in tune with what the division of labour should be. He endorse a Hegelian-Durkheimian conception of a division of labour as a source of social recognition and solidarity and therefore rejects Marx’s assumption that the division of labour is problematic as such, and therefore should be abolished. In a first step, this article reconstructs Honneth’s central argument. In a second step, it distinguishes different meanings of the very notion of the division of labour. In a third step, it raises two sets of questions: Would it be possible, and legitimate, to try to improve all dimensions of the division of labour, or would a normative conception of the division of labour imply that some of them should be abolished? Should we not use two distinct concepts of division of labour rather that only one?","PeriodicalId":44864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Classical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X231170365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In some of his latest publications, Honneth claims that what is problematic with the contemporary forms of division of labour is that they are not in tune with what the division of labour should be. He endorse a Hegelian-Durkheimian conception of a division of labour as a source of social recognition and solidarity and therefore rejects Marx’s assumption that the division of labour is problematic as such, and therefore should be abolished. In a first step, this article reconstructs Honneth’s central argument. In a second step, it distinguishes different meanings of the very notion of the division of labour. In a third step, it raises two sets of questions: Would it be possible, and legitimate, to try to improve all dimensions of the division of labour, or would a normative conception of the division of labour imply that some of them should be abolished? Should we not use two distinct concepts of division of labour rather that only one?
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Classical Sociology publishes cutting-edge articles that will command general respect within the academic community. The aim of the Journal of Classical Sociology is to demonstrate scholarly excellence in the study of the sociological tradition. The journal elucidates the origins of sociology and also demonstrates how the classical tradition renews the sociological imagination in the present day. The journal is a critical but constructive reflection on the roots and formation of sociology from the Enlightenment to the 21st century. Journal of Classical Sociology promotes discussions of early social theory, such as Hobbesian contract theory, through the 19th- and early 20th- century classics associated with the thought of Comte, Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Simmel, Veblen.