Abstract

This study seeks to elucidate and defend the foundations for the critique of occupational specialization that was a centerpiece of much nineteenth-century emancipatory social theory. This critique, especially as elaborated by Karl Marx, highlights the consequences of certain patterns of extreme specialization, such as their detriment to individual welfare and contribution to systematically inegalitarian social stratification, neglected in the canonical treatments of the topic . I argue, moreover, that the normative framework for this critique derives from a commitment to personal autonomy. So construed and suitably reformulated, the classical criticism directed at the division of labor displays both normative cogency and contemporary relevance, and proves capable of meeting the formidable objections recently raised by Richard Arneson. ;The dissertation consists of four chapters and an introduction. In the Introduction I address various problems bearing on the conceptualization and analysis of the division of labor. The following three chapters of the dissertation all bear a predominantly historical orientation. Chapters One and Two examine and evaluate the largely eulogistic accounts of the division of labor found in the works of Smith and Durkheim, respectively. Chapter Three then explores Marx's highly critical analysis of the division of labor with a view to identifying those features of his analysis that remain valid and compelling today. In the fourth and final chapter I review the empirical research that substantiates Marx's criticism of specialization, and respond to Richard Arneson's argument against the chief policy implication of this criticism, namely the right to meaningful work