The Enlightenment and Progress - Essay Example

?I. The Enlightenment and Progress Although it can be said that the roots of The Enlightenment go back to the times of Plato and Aristotle, the 18th century is customarily associated with it (Brians 2000; Nisbet 1979). Certain philosophers, scientists and writers “believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition, and tyranny to build a better world” (Brians 2000). It is a movement that aims to veer away from religious persecution and move towards rational thought and the propagation of human rights to progress towards a perfect society (Brians 2000; Bury 1920, p. 6). The idea of progress, then, denotes that “civilisation has moved, is moving, and will move in a desirable direction” (p. 6). For Enlightened thinkers, the desirable direction and final destination they aim for is a place where everyone lives in “a perfectly happy existence,” free from religious control, aristocratic discrimination and monarchical oppression (Bury 1920, p. 6). This idea is oftentimes criticised by modern thinkers as a naive belief in man’s capability for achieving perfection (Israel 2001, p. 3). However, Israel (2001, pp. 3-4) argues that “Enlightenment progress breathed a vivid awareness of the great difficulty of spreading toleration, curbing religious fanaticism, and otherwise ameliorating human organization, orderliness, and the general state of health.” Concurrently, even though famous Enlightened thinkers have opposing ideas about how to go about achieving progress, it cannot be denied that they share the same principles and morals. For instance, while Voltaire did not believe in the notion of equality and moved to educate and enlighten aristocrats into bettering the world, Rousseau detested them and lobbied for equality through revolution. However, both detested the Church and absolute monarchy and sought to change the status quo (Brians 2000). It is unquestionable, then, that the Enlightenment—though ripe with strife and conflicting ideas—moved towards the same destination; and that is, the achievement of progress through positive societal changes. The Enlightenment symbolizes civilisation’s actual forward movement towards a desirable direction. It is progress personified. Both supporters and critics of the Enlightenment and even opposing Enlightened thinkers show that its end-all and be-all is achieving progress through reason—progress that aims to create a better society at a time when religious tyranny and absolute monarchy and aristocracy ruled the world. II. Stages of History and Revolution Karl Marx views human history as a series of stages wherein man struggles to deal with and control the economic benefits of the resources of the world in order to achieve power and position (Weiner 2008, p. 42; Cohen 2004, p. 23). “The growth of human power is the central process of history. The need for that growth explains why there is history” (p. 23). Hence, Marx evaluates history as the process of man’s struggle for control over the developing system of production (Shaw 1978, p. 152). Marx (1904, p. 28) states the first stage of history as primitive communism where goods and property are shared and the means of production include hunting and gathering; the second stage is slave society where a class society based on private ownership is established (pp. 285-286); third is feudalism (p. 216); fourth is capitalism (p. 19); fifth is socialism (p. 10); and the final stage is pure communism exhibited through a classless society and the abolition of private ownership (Marx and Engels 1858 qtd. in Schumaker 2010, p. 46). This is a history of class struggle, as “new forms of society arise appropriate to the new forms of production when the new classes win power” (McCarthy 1995). It can be seen here how each historical stage moves on to the next only with the destruction of a socio-economic system through the uprising of the lower classes. For instance, feudalism evolved into capitalism after the landed aristocrats was challenged by craftsmen and merchants (Bowen 2011). Thus, a successful revolution that causes the downfall of the existing system is necessary in order for history to progress and for pure communism to be achieved (Marx and Engels 1858 qtd. in Schumaker 2010, p. 46). It can be seen through Marx’s theory of history how revolution is instrumental to historical development and the improvement of society. Revolution is the tool used for society to abolish a socio-economic system and establish a new one; thus, progressing from one stage of history to the next. III. Rationalisation and Bureaucracy Max Weber lived during a time when capitalism was on the rise; and being raised as a Calvinist, this made him explore the relationship between religion and capitalism (Frings 2003, p. 167). Because a capitalist society is composed of profit-making organizations, Weber examined how bureaucratic organisations were starting to overcome traditional ones in modern society (Rollag, 2011). Weber developed his Theory of Rationalisation, which can be understood as “a general movement towards a condition of cultural nihilism” (Gane 2002, p. 23). This denotes disenchantment in religious and traditional beliefs and a move towards what is rational and logical, looking for evidences and proofs instead of merely trusting or having faith in something, for instance (Frings 2003, p. 167). Hence, “with the rationalization of the world, worldly values break free of all religious constraints and begin to follow their own relatively autonomous logics” (p. 22). In line with this train of thought, “Weber regarded bureaucracy as the ultimate example of rationalization” (Ritzer 2011, p. 42). ”Domination through knowledge” is how Weber (1978, p. 225 qtd. in Gane 2002, p. 24) simplified rational bureaucracy. Contradictory to traditional organisations that rely on habit and custom, bureaucracy exemplifies the social process of rational thinking where decisions and goal-setting are made through scientific knowledge (Kirby, et al. 2000, p. 308). An ideal bureaucratic organisation is characterised by “hierarchy, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, specialized division of labour and efficiency” to create “a whole new realm of expert knowledge” (Smith 2001; Gane 2002, p. 24). In this sense, the traditional ways of nepotism, monarchical rule and aristocratic and religious control are phased out. Therefore, in order to veer away from the destructive and stagnant ways of the traditional, organisations must evolve into a bureaucracy that is rational and impersonal to its core. Weber argues that the process of rationalisation is complete when all organisations have become bureaucracies. Rationalisation is a process composed of a series of social actions rooted in rational thinking; and according to Weber, a bureaucracy is its fundamental and supreme example. IV. Division of Labour and Meritocracy Emile Durkheim saw the division of labour as critical to social cohesion in that a society wherein labour that is divided extensively produces positive solidarity, binding individuals together as one depends on another’s special skills (Usmani 2006, p. 3; Tucker 2002, p. 129). Social structure, then, is “constituted, not by a repetition of similar, homogeneous segments, but by a system of different organs each of which has a special role, and which are themselves formed of differentiated parts” (Durkheim 1933, p. 181). For instance, a state leader, despite his loft position, depends on farmers, bakers and cooks for his food; and this shows his unavoidable link to society (Usmani 2006, p. 3). Durkheim also saw that this type of differentiation of skills, talents and responsibilities present problems as a forced division of labour is created when workers are relegated to jobs that do not suit them as they are relegated to operating machines (Tucker 2002, pp. 131-132). Hence, if differentiation is not implemented smoothly and workers’ talents are not rightfully recognised and maximised, anomie occurs (p. 131). In a sense, Durkheim has contradicted himself in postulating that an extensive division of labour produces social solidarity. However, “Durkheim believes that a well-functioning division of labor creates a perfect meritocracy” (p. 132). This means that if the decision of labour is operating smoothly— unimpeded by rivalry and boosted by healthy competition—individuals’ natural talents will stand out, their activities and jobs will be determined by their innate abilities, and, in essence, “people will only want what they can achieve” (p. 132). Hence, a meritocracy will flourish, one in which power and position are gained “on the basis of individual merit” and not “allocated randomly, or by ascriptive characteristics such as race and gender, or by the machinations of the already powerful” (Barry 2005, p. 109). It can be seen through Durkheim’s view of the division of labour that he thinks that social solidarity is achieved, albeit indirectly, through a meritocracy. Although a meritocracy engenders an unequal society, it is a necessity in a symbiotic relationship between classes or groups of people. With a well-functioning division of labour in place, a meritocracy where people’s natural talents thrive is created. Bibliography Barry, B (2005) Why Social Justice Matters, Cambridge, Polity Press. Bowen, G L (2011) Marx’s Stages of History, [Online] Available at: http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/pictMarx.htm [Accessed 28 April 2011] Brians, P (2000) ‘The Enlightenment ‘, Washington State University, [Online] Available from: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html [Accessed 29 April 2011] Bury, J P (1920) The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry Into Its Origin and Growth, London, Macmillan. Cohen, G A (2004) Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Durkheim, E (1933) The Division of Labour in Society, New York, The Free Press. Frings, M S (2003) LifeTime: Max Scheler’s Philosophy of Time, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gane, N (2002) Max Weber and Postmodern Theory: Rationalization versus Re-Enchantment, New York, N.Y., Palgrave. Israel, J (2001) A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Origins of Modern Democracy, Oxfordshire, UK, Princeton University Press. Kirby, M, et al. (2000) Sociology in Perspective: AQA Edition, Oxford, Heinemann Educational Publishers. Marx, K (1904) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr & Co. McCarthy, J (1995) Marxism, Stanford University, [Online] Available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/marxism.html [Accessed 28 April 2011] Nisbet, R (1979) ‘Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay’, Literature of Liberty: A Review of Contemporary Liberal Thought, Vol. 2, No. 1, [Online] Available at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=259&id=165&option=com_content&task=view#lf-essay004lev2sec01 [Accessed 29 April 2011] Ritzer, G (2011) ‘The Weberian Theory of Rationalization and the McDonaldization of Contemporary Society’, In lluminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited, Fifth Edition, Kivisto, P (Ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine Forge Press. Rollag, K (2011) ‘Bureaucracy (Weber)’, In Babson College, [Online] Available at: http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/bureaucracy.html [Accessed 30 April 2011] Shaw, W H (1978) Marx’s Theory of History, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press. Schumaker, P (Ed.) (2010) The Political Theory Reader, West Sussex, UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Smith, J (2001) Max Weber, [Online] Available at: http://www.6sociologists.20m.com/weber.html [Accessed 30 April 2011] Tucker, K H (2002) Classical Social Theory: A Contemporary Approach, Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers Inc. Usmani, A (2006) On Durkheim and Social Cohesion, [Online] Available at: http://adaner.wikispaces.com/file/view/on+durkheim+and+social+cohesion.pdf [Accessed 28 April 2011] Weiner, J (2008) Global History, Volume Two: The Industrial Revolution to the Age of Globalization, Hauppauge, NY, Barron’s Publishing. Read More