Alienation: Estranged Labor

Alienation: Estranged Labor

Name:

Institution:

Alienation: Estranged Labor

Karl Marx’s theory of alienation attempts to explain the social alienation of people from elements of their human nature. Marx proposed that this phenomenon was caused by existing in a society categorized into social classes. This theory has found great relevance within the 21^st century especially within the corporate world. Its application in the area holds the potential towards explaining employee behavior, labor patterns, and other phenomena. For this particular paper, the analysis will concentrate on my own personal experience as well as someone else’s experiences in the office. The conclusions of the examination will shed more light into the concept of alienation.

Within Maxtor Limited, I assume the position of the vice president that contains numerous responsibilities. I have noticed that with the advancement in position and benefits within the organization, more responsibilities are bestowed upon me. In comparison, the remuneration and benefits do not escalate in the same proportion as the duties. According to Karl Marx, alienation is a direct outcome of dwelling in a socially classified society, because being a member of a social system isolates an individual from humanity. In my workplace setting, being a member of Maxtor has had the effect of secluding me from my acquaintances, family and other people in the city. The capitalistic system works to achieve this effect by allocating more and more duties to an employee and simultaneously encouraging them with monetary and social benefits (Archibald, 2009). The theoretic foundation of isolation in a capitalistic system is that the employee consistently loses the power to influence their life and future, when denied the right to perceive himself as the controller of his actions. When I was still a junior employee at Maxtor, I had more freedom to choose working hours, projects, and even office space. However, when I became promoted, most of these choices were not in my hands. The working hours and responsibilities were decided by management. Furthermore, as a vice president, I was expected to maintain a certain image that forced me to take up a mortgage for a bigger house and a luxury vehicle. Looking back, these choice made by management were obviously designed to ensure that I would be bound to the organization and that I would maintain my level of productivity.

Without realizing it, most of my career, financial and personal alternatives were gradually reduced to a point where it would be suicidal for me to leave the position (Blackledge, 2012).

Marx noted that at this point, employees lose the ability to characterize their affiliation with other people to decide what type of occupation to assume, the salary being paid and consume the goods and services, created with their effort. This was exactly the case at Maxtor. My position as the vice president was merely ceremonial. Most of the decisions were already decided by the management or the board of directors. I had little say over the outcome of many aspects in the organization. Rather, I became a passive element of the corporate world. On the social front, I was isolated since I had little contact with the outside world.

Although the employee is an independent, he or she is considered a monetary entity; most of the objectives and activities are availed and controlled by the bourgeoisie, who appropriate the means of production. This arrangement is intended to reap from the employee the greatest amount of surplus value (Archibald, 2009). While employed, I realized that my working conditions, even at the vice president level, were controlled largely by the trend across other companies within the same sector. The “bourgeoisie” as Marx called them, were responsible for ensuring remuneration levels, level of responsibility allocated to each employee and a myriad of other things. The company and others like it encouraged their employees to work hard for better pay and other benefits. However, using Marx’s theory of alienation, one can argue that this was a strategy to ensure that employees worked at maximum output.

Chris Yuill in his article “Forgetting and remembering alienation theory” argues that Marx was against the rational idea that people posses a rigid nature that exists autonomously outside the society they reside. He illustrated that numerous features accredited to static human nature in are vastly different depending on the type of society. For instance, other data storage companies within the city had adopted slightly different approaches towards employee performance and contact with the rest of the society in an official context. The adoption of flexible social polices allowed employees to go on leave, manipulate their work environment, and even dictate their working hours. This laissez faire approach has ensured that workers in rival companies has not exploited while performance levels remain largely unaffected, if not increased. However, Marx’s ideas on labor and human nature were largely rational. He disputed that in nearly all human societies, human beings needed to work in order to satisfy their needs. For survival, human must manipulate nature with labor (Brennen, 2006). However, he still points out that even though labor is a necessary factor, human develop consciousness and this gives them the alternative to continue laboring in certain conditions or change the conditions.

The relationship between employees and the organization within a capitalistic system is largely tipped in favor of the system and it benefactors, the owners of means of production. The system has managed to transform versatile human beings into automated and lifeless employees (Blackledge, 2012). In his article entitled “Searching for “the sane society”: Erich Fromm’s contributions to social theory” Bonnie Brennen investigates the contribution of Erich Fromm in attempting to understanding societies’ issues (Brennen, 2006). Erich Fromm discussed the loss of qualities that identified a human being as being unique. Qualities such as being able to interact with others, conversing, and maintaining contact with different circles. In other words, aspects that was not “alienating” in nature (Yuill, 2011). Both Fromm and Marx reached a consensus concerning the current state of employees in the corporate sector and the role played by the capitalistic system (Brennen, 2006).

Conclusion

After making several analyses on the theory of alienation, the following conclusions can be made. One, capitalism thrives on the ability to exploit the employees. In such a system, the employee is considered an “economic entity” that can be bought for a price and which is equally affected by the market forces of supply and demand (Blackledge, 2012). Therefore, any aspects of human nature are discouraged and eliminated using “alienation” strategies. The ultimate goal in capitalism is to exploit employees for maximum gain without incurring any losses (Archibald, 2009). Human beings who are members within the capitalistic system act as mere subjects who are controlled by the bourgeoisie for their own interests. Ordinarily, it may be difficult to note this manipulation (Yuill, 2011). However, it is relatively easy to spot the real positions of power when analyzing corporation owners and their employees.

References

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Top of Form

Blackledge, P. (2012). Marxism and ethics: Freedom, desire, and revolution. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Brennen, B. (January 01, 2006). Searching for “the sane society”: Erich Fromm’s contributions to social theory. Javnost, 13, 3, 7-16.

Archibald, W. (January 01, 2009). Globalization, Downsizing and Insecurity: Do We Need to Upgrade Marx’s Theory of Alienation? Critical Sociology, 35, 3, 319-342.

Yuill, C. (January 01, 2011). Forgetting and remembering alienation theory. History of the Human Sciences, 24, 2, 103-119.

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form