In this essay I will aim to explain first, how organic solidarity came to existence because of increasing division of labour in society. To begin with I will take a peek into Durkheim’s background and see how his interest was developed in this field. The next few paragraphs will focus on the phenomenon of ‘division of labour’ and how it affects solidarity in individuals. Next I will look into features of traditional societies and mechanical solidarity and then onto features of modern societies and organic solidarity. In the end I will try to explore the concerns that have been left unaddressed in Durkheim’s theory of ‘division of labor’.
Firstly, the self-creativity of one dominant state’s economy and the adaptability of global economic changes are laborious to retain permanent, which means there would appear a newly political environment and then damage the hegemon. In other words, as other states grow more powerful, their aspirations, reputation and the dissatisfaction of the status grow as well. As Schweller and Pu (2011) demonstrated, when the competitors arise enough, the system become fluctuation. The rapidly growing states are generally more conceivable to the threat to the hegemon and international allies. Secondly, to sustain the cost that supply for the common goods, the economic surplus of leadership decreased gradually, even been using up.
Years ago, the world was a different place. The technology, people, environment, laws, and government were all simplistic. Now, it is drastically different. These things are more advanced than ever making complicated things not so simple. For example, the way people think, act and work have made something like competition a big deal and where laws are more punishable than ever.
Innovations becomes a rule rather exception; leads to creation of pool of future leaders and not just ordinary followers. However, there are some challenges which need to be taken care of under this leadership type. This model assumes that followers will work towards a larger goal; the application of this model in real life situation is time consuming. This type of leadership answers the question “what” but not “How”. There had been examples in our world when people like Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, very glaring examples of pseudo transformational leadership type (Graham, Ziegert, & Capitano, 2015) had led the world to devastation and
The author defies Woodward by introducing rationality and socialization. He says that individual predilections play a huge role and hence forcing mechanistic structures when technology is manageable and organistic structure when it’s not manageable is not possible. He also says that technology and structure may be related in part because of the kinds of people frequently found performing and supervising manageable and non-manageable tasks. Woodward’s classification of organizations along unit, mass and continuous productions is nominal than ordinal and many other sub dimensions of technology other than manageability will affect structure. Like we might expect that when task interdependence is high, participativeness will be high and vice versa but that might not be the case.
Today’s consumer is a far more complex character than Maslow once thought. The literature today calls for a revamp of Maslow’s heavily sighted work to make it applicable in today fast passed world. As you can see in figure 1 consumers today are more egotistical as they care more about how they look and feel than their needs and safety. It is clear that these needs have evolved dramatically over the
This can be related to Marxist theory and how it class relations are based on shared ideas of the class position and struggle that they face therefore in terms of Marxism constructivism theory states that those acting on behalf of their states with reflect inter-subjective which define international social practise. In this case the dominant theory of capitalism defines the actions of common rules, and national interest (Burchill
It promotes a message to ask people to work harder and consume greater quantities of material goods. (J Alexander, 2011) It paves a way to the general public focus more on their extrinsic values, meaning the conformity, image, financial success, achievement and power. From investigating the research done by Frederick Grouzet and Tim Kasser, placing too much attention on extrinsic value possesses a close relationship with higher level of prejudice. (Williams, 2011) It is on no account good for the society. People become more apathetic to human rights and their society environment.