While there are many aspects of a common morality in our society, there are also many opportunities for individuals acting in a variety of ways in similar situations. Durkheim might recognize this as possible, but he seems to have little to say concerning the nature of human motivation. He is too concerned with the larger structural issues. Durkheim and Marx are similar in this sense; they both have a very strong structural view, with limited possibility for human action, or little theory of human action. Weber's model of action or some of the more recent approaches such as symbolic interaction would prove more useful here. While Durkheim makes a useful contribution in presenting ideas concerning the source of societal solidarity, this often appears to be his only concern. One difficulty with Durkheim and the structural functional approach is that the latter almost completely ignore conflict and power differences. Durkheim may have constructed his approach in part to negate the Marxian or conflict approach to the study of society. Durkheim treats the anomic and forced forms of the division of labor as unusual, and devotes little time to their analysis.
The Conflict Tradition.
Social conflict touches on everything that happens in society. When conflict does not openly take place domination occurs. Domination is the Norm. Structure is important. Production is the most important thing. We must organize ourselves behind production.
Karl Marx.
Conflict and human domination were the heart of his theory. He believed that the source of value is human labor. He had a theory of supply and demand in which he believed that the demand for something was the key for determining its value. He uses the example of property where he says the landowners of land and capital confront the workers who only own their labor and must work to survive. Labor is then the source of profit for the owners. In Marx's view humanity is oppressed by the material world, but humans are the ones who created the products that oppress.
