Abolishing division of labour or making it better?

IF 1 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
E. Renault
{"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?
废除劳动分工还是改善劳动分工?
在他的一些最新出版物中,霍尼思声称,当代劳动分工形式的问题在于,它们与劳动分工应该是什么样子不协调。他赞同黑格尔-迪尔凯姆的劳动分工概念,认为劳动分工是社会认同和团结的来源,因此反对马克思的假设,即劳动分工是有问题的,因此应该被废除。首先,本文重构了霍尼思的中心论点。第二步,它区分了劳动分工概念的不同含义。在第三步中,它提出了两组问题:试图改善劳动分工的所有方面是可能的和合法的吗?或者劳动分工的规范概念是否意味着应该废除其中的一些?难道我们不应该使用两个不同的分工概念,而只使用一个吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
22
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信