Real good, and usually unspoken point on the difference, and rivalry,
between division of labor on social relationships and division of
labor based on development of technology. (Andrew Giddens claimed
that some of what Durkheim wrote was actually in reaction to Marx,
frustrated that his students were being perverted by the German
wild man...that last bit of editorial was my own). It has seemed
to me recentlyt that many social/cultural historical theorists,
were trying to split the difference between Durkheim and Marx.
from Levy-Bruhl (who had to do it quietly because he was in
Durkeim's circle) to Vygotsky (who had to do it quielty because
of the Bolsheviks. But it seems, from an intuitive stand point,
that the two are interchangable, and cannot be separate in
the development of social organization.
One other point. Tim Ingold, a Marxist anthropologist has made the
point that it is important to separate out development of social
organization that is the result of alienation of labor (that stems
from a capitalist system) and the development of social organization
in general. Commodification, it seems to me, is the result
of alienation of labor, while reification seems to be the result
of the development of social organiztion in general. I think we
combine them as a package at our peril. Also, if we talk about
Marx and Engels only in terms of alienation of labor I believe
we lose the wider scope and much of the richness of their theory
of social development. Then again, maybe not.
Michael
Michael Glassman
University of Houston