Durkheim vs Marx Views about Society - Essay Example

Durkheim Vs Marx Durkheim Vs Marx Introduction Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx differed in their views about society. As a junior social theorist, Durkheim rarely referred to Karl Marx. Despite their different approach to the issue of social structure, the two theorists were concerned with the rise of modern capitalism. They were particularly concerned with the issue of the division of labor and the market society. Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim approached these developments by highlighting the effects of the spread of market relations on solidarity and the ability of a society to reproduce. As a result, the two theorists had to engage with the implications and causes of crucial developments such as the industrial revolution and concepts such as the French Revolution (Morrison, 2006). Additionally, the two theorists developed ways of revising the apologetic and simplistic accounts of 19th century capitalist societies. Karl Marx Karl Marx’s social structure differed from Emile Durkheim’s social structure on the basis of his critique of idealist philosophy and the issue of historical materialism. Karl Marx was concerned about the individual members of a society. Marx’s notion of social structure uncovered the scientific laws, which determined capitalism. These notions were developed through his theory of social change. According to Karl Marx, social change was a succession of developmental stages. Each of the stages was part of a defined sequence or pattern (Morrison, 2006). As an explanatory framework, Marx’s historical materialism was a response to idealist philosophies, which viewed the state as the highest expression of a community. This ideal also viewed Christianity as the highest religion. Marx developed a materialistic outlook of history, religion, and the state. Marx criticized capitalism because he did not agree with the fact that the capitalist organization or approach to production and the division of labor were the outcome of human natural tendencies to produce in order to exchange. Marx’s objective was to advance the view that capitalism was apologetic and simplistic. He advanced an account of social change, which dismissed abstract individualism underlying political economy (Martin, 2011). Additionally, Marx showed that class relations within a society were conflicting. According to Marx, capitalistic modes of production rest on the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalist. Marx’s notion was used to develop a framework that was used to unmask the ideological aspects of the bourgeois legal, social and political arrangements. They also contributed to the formation of a revolutionary movement that sought to emancipate the individual and abolish class divisions. Marx believed that the exploitative nature of capitalism can be demonstrated using the concept of political economy. According to Karl Marx, the historical and social nature of humans connects them to their action. These actions play a crucial role within a system of production and class division. The social nature of production, labor and exchange means that people face historical productive forces that act as external realities, which cannot change (Martin, 2011). In this case, social change is only possible through the dissolution of systems of social relations, which characterize capitalistic modes of production. Marx argued that the capitalist mode of production traced its origin to the disintegration of feudalism. Marx argued for the formation of a communist social structure, in which individuals are prevented from political emancipation. One of the most important arguments by Marx was that demands for political recognition and freedom gave rise to double emancipation. The resulting freedom would lead to the freedom of the state instead of the freedom of citizens. Additionally, political freedom may be used by private individuals against social constraints in order to pursue their personal interests. Marx argued for the creation of a situation where the political concepts of a society confine communal life to an ideal. This would prevent people from pursuing their egotistical interests without considering other human subjects or members of the community. Marx’s critique of political emancipation showed that he rejected the discourse of rights (Martin, 2011). Marx believed that the discourse of rights could be used by egotistic members of a society to advance their interests while separating themselves from other members of the society. In order to advance his argument, Marx used the French leader Napoleon III to show how the concept of rights can be used to support class division. In this case, the imperial French state, under Napoleon III committed its resources towards the protection of the interests and property of the country’s middle class. Emile Durkheim Emile Durkheim’s notions of social structure differ from Karl Marx’s notions on the basis of social facts, science and the rule of sociological methods. Durkheim expressed modern notions of the concept of the division of labor. He stated that the modern division of labor was an event, which contributed to the disintegration of the feudal society. The two theorists agree that individuals must undergo processes of liberation in order for the society to shift from the old system to the new order. This process entails the development of consciousness, which affirm the primacy of personal identity rather than group identity. The two theorists also agreed that one of the factors that led to the modern division of labor was an increase in social density, which was caused by the breakdown of the old segmented society. Durkheim disagreed with Marx because he stated that the division of labor was a source of solidarity, which was suited to modern human conditions. Durkheim also suggested that class conflict was an outcome of the pace of transition from the old system to the new system (Morrison, 2006). As a result, Durkheim supported a different course of action in response to capitalism. Durkheim stressed the moral discipline and role norms in play during the structuring of individual actions and development of healthy personalities. Durkheim tried to replace the abstract and universal model of political economy with a socially embedded and substantive agency. Durkheim also supported Marx’s claim that the modern division of labor was caused by the collapse of previous social orders. He argued that people were pushed to specialize by the increase in social density, which was caused by the collapse of the old and sedimentary society. This led Durkheim to postulate that the increase in social density was not caused by demographic growth, but by the fact that people belonged to separate social groups, which interacted frequently. However, unlike Marx, Durkheim did not consider social classes as the determinant of individual consciousness (Morrison, 2006). Durkheim characterized class division as a product of modernity. Additionally, he did not view the division of labor as a means for class exploitation, but a source of social solidarity. According to Durkheim, the difference between the modern pluralistic society and the old sedimentary society is seen in the nature of their solidarity. Explanation of the Social Structure of the United States Emilie Durkheim provided the most accurate explanation of the social structure of the United States. Durkheim’s explanation of the civil society, state and human rights shows a combination of cosmopolitanism, Universalism and particularistic association with democracy. This is one of the major characteristic of the social structure of the U.S. In the U.S, politics is considered as a pluralistic process that plays a crucial role during the negotiation of group-specific issues or concerns. Additionally, the state is the highest level of a multi-level system of governance. U.S citizen’s view of the state is similar to Durkheim’s view because they consider the state as an organ that has the responsibility to outline representations for the good of all citizens (Coffey, 2007). According to Durkheim, the state relies on a civil society, which comprises of actively participating citizens. Marx’s view does not reflect the social structure of the U.S because he disagreed with the principles of rights and political enlightenment. Marx believed that people should be prevented from pursuing their personal interests for the sake of the community. This is against the social structure of the U.S, which is based on the recognition that freedom and human rights gives people a platform to progress and move the society forward. Conclusion An analysis of Karl Marx’s social structure shows that the theorist underestimated the significance of cultural and social practices. Marx focused his analysis of societies on the economic sphere and retained is prejudices of political economy. By focusing on the economic sphere, Marx did not answer crucial social structural questions, which are answered using religion or nationality. Conversely, Durkheim’s notion of the social structure is based on cultural anthropology. References Coffey, A. (2007). Reconceptualizing Social Policy. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd. Martin, J. L. (2011). Social Structures. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. London [u.a.: SAGE Publications. Read More