Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/32027 |
Resumo: | This article extends the different arguments of Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim about the apology of social order. Their points underlay the naturalization of the division of labor. Adam Smith discusses issues of “negotiating, exchanging, and persuading” which he believes belong to human nature together with the forms of the division of labor, the specialization of task and the exploitation of one’s self-esteem to achieve what one desires. At the same time, the argument is that natural progress and general abundance are distributed among the members of society which is related to the above conditions. Within this position, the ‘selfish nature’ of economic activity can be thought of as altruistic. On the other hand, Émile Durkheim discusses the division of labor as belonging to the law of nature and with a moral function to be fulfilled through the activities that people perform by the specificity of the activities that they perform. Durkheim engages notions of interdependence; social solidarity; organic solidarity; and guarantor of social cohesion. For Adam Smith, the idea of the “invisible hand” of supply and demand is sufficient for corporate self-regulation. For Émile Durkheim, the state cannot avoid the role of society’s “brain” to regulate problems [anomie] which are still unresolved by the lack of complete sedimentation of organic solidarity. For both theorists, the division of labor fulfills the civilizing role of empowering and distributing wealth and solidary social bonds. Thus, the apology of order has been stated as effective with discourses based on the idea of human nature and in two of the new modern sciences: Political Economy and Sociology. |
id |
UFC-17_7549373972fae92a50e1a2309e5df6b9 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufc:article/32027 |
network_acronym_str |
UFC-17 |
network_name_str |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile DurkheimApologia da ordem e divisão do trabalho em Adam Smith e Émile DurkheimWork divison. Social order. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim.Divisão do trabalho. Ordem social. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim.This article extends the different arguments of Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim about the apology of social order. Their points underlay the naturalization of the division of labor. Adam Smith discusses issues of “negotiating, exchanging, and persuading” which he believes belong to human nature together with the forms of the division of labor, the specialization of task and the exploitation of one’s self-esteem to achieve what one desires. At the same time, the argument is that natural progress and general abundance are distributed among the members of society which is related to the above conditions. Within this position, the ‘selfish nature’ of economic activity can be thought of as altruistic. On the other hand, Émile Durkheim discusses the division of labor as belonging to the law of nature and with a moral function to be fulfilled through the activities that people perform by the specificity of the activities that they perform. Durkheim engages notions of interdependence; social solidarity; organic solidarity; and guarantor of social cohesion. For Adam Smith, the idea of the “invisible hand” of supply and demand is sufficient for corporate self-regulation. For Émile Durkheim, the state cannot avoid the role of society’s “brain” to regulate problems [anomie] which are still unresolved by the lack of complete sedimentation of organic solidarity. For both theorists, the division of labor fulfills the civilizing role of empowering and distributing wealth and solidary social bonds. Thus, the apology of order has been stated as effective with discourses based on the idea of human nature and in two of the new modern sciences: Political Economy and Sociology. O artigo expõe os argumentos de Adam Smith e Émile Durkheim acerca da apologia da ordem social e da subjacência deles na naturalização da divisão do trabalho. Em Adam Smith, negociar, trocar e persuadir pertencem à natureza humana e formam a divisão do trabalho, a especialização das tarefas e a exploração do amor-próprio de outrem para alcançar o que se deseja, ao mesmo tempo, alcança-se progresso natural e abundância geral a ser distribuída entre os membros da sociedade; assim, o egoísmo da atividade econômica pode ser pensado como altruísta. Por sua vez, Émile Durkheim pensa a divisão do trabalho como pertencente à lei da natureza e com uma função moral a cumprir, a saber, ao tornar as pessoas dessemelhantes em virtude da especificidade das atividades que desempenham, empreende a interdependência e viceja um tipo de solidariedade social peculiar, a solidariedade orgânica, garantidora da coesão social. Para o primeiro Autor, a “mão invisível” da oferta e da demanda basta para a autorregulação societária; para o segundo, o Estado não pode se furtar ao papel de “cérebro” da sociedade para regular problemas [anomia] ainda não resolvidos pela falta de sedimentação completa da solidariedade orgâ- nica. Para ambos, a divisão do trabalho cumpre o papel civilizatório de potencializar e distribuir riquezas e vínculos societários solidários; assim, efetiva-se apologia da ordem com discursos fundamentados na ideia de natureza humana e em duas das novas ciências modernas, a Economia Política e a Sociologia. Universidade Federal do Ceará2018-04-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/32027Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; No 19Argumentos - Periódico de Filosofia; Núm. 19Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; n. 191984-42551984-4247reponame:Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online)instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)instacron:UFCporhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/32027/72338Copyright (c) 2018 Argumentos - Revista de Filosofiainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessEsteves, Anderson Alves2021-07-23T00:07:31Zoai:periodicos.ufc:article/32027Revistahttp://www.filosofia.ufc.br/argumentosPUBhttp://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/oaiargumentos@ufc.br||1984-42551984-4247opendoar:2021-07-23T00:07:31Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim Apologia da ordem e divisão do trabalho em Adam Smith e Émile Durkheim |
title |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim |
spellingShingle |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim Esteves, Anderson Alves Work divison. Social order. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim. Divisão do trabalho. Ordem social. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim. |
title_short |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim |
title_full |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim |
title_fullStr |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim |
title_full_unstemmed |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim |
title_sort |
Apology of the order and division of work in Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim |
author |
Esteves, Anderson Alves |
author_facet |
Esteves, Anderson Alves |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Esteves, Anderson Alves |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Work divison. Social order. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim. Divisão do trabalho. Ordem social. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim. |
topic |
Work divison. Social order. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim. Divisão do trabalho. Ordem social. Adam Smith. Émile Durkheim. |
description |
This article extends the different arguments of Adam Smith and Émile Durkheim about the apology of social order. Their points underlay the naturalization of the division of labor. Adam Smith discusses issues of “negotiating, exchanging, and persuading” which he believes belong to human nature together with the forms of the division of labor, the specialization of task and the exploitation of one’s self-esteem to achieve what one desires. At the same time, the argument is that natural progress and general abundance are distributed among the members of society which is related to the above conditions. Within this position, the ‘selfish nature’ of economic activity can be thought of as altruistic. On the other hand, Émile Durkheim discusses the division of labor as belonging to the law of nature and with a moral function to be fulfilled through the activities that people perform by the specificity of the activities that they perform. Durkheim engages notions of interdependence; social solidarity; organic solidarity; and guarantor of social cohesion. For Adam Smith, the idea of the “invisible hand” of supply and demand is sufficient for corporate self-regulation. For Émile Durkheim, the state cannot avoid the role of society’s “brain” to regulate problems [anomie] which are still unresolved by the lack of complete sedimentation of organic solidarity. For both theorists, the division of labor fulfills the civilizing role of empowering and distributing wealth and solidary social bonds. Thus, the apology of order has been stated as effective with discourses based on the idea of human nature and in two of the new modern sciences: Political Economy and Sociology. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-04-30 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/32027 |
url |
http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/32027 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://periodicos.ufc.br/argumentos/article/view/32027/72338 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Ceará |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal do Ceará |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; No 19 Argumentos - Periódico de Filosofia; Núm. 19 Argumentos - Revista de Filosofia; n. 19 1984-4255 1984-4247 reponame:Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) instname:Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) instacron:UFC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
instacron_str |
UFC |
institution |
UFC |
reponame_str |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
collection |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Argumentos : Revista de Filosofia (Online) - Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
argumentos@ufc.br|| |
_version_ |
1797068846465548288 |