Durkheims Social Facts with Webers Bureaucracy - Coursework Example

Comparison and Contrast of Durkheim’s Social Facts with Weber’s Bureaucracy Introduction The social scientists Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) and Max Weber (1764-1920) were contemporaries and were highly influential thinkers of the twentieth century. Weber and Durkheim were at opposite poles as social theorists and had contrasting effects on the field, their works being classics of modern sociology (Bendix, 1989). Social facts are a unique subject matter, according to Durkheim. This separate category of facts “consists of ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with a power of coercion, by reason of which they control him” (Durkheim, 1982: 4). Weber’s views were different, he firmly opposed the idea “that history had some ultimate end, and seriously doubted the possibility of human liberation through a socialist revolution” (Hughes et al, 2003: 55). According to him, the organisational form of rationalisation is that of the Bureaucracy, and this too contributed greatly to the meaninglessness of modern life, with the individual becoming increasingly insignificant within the vast administrative structures. Weber perceived Bureaucracy as an “iron cage” resulting from industrialism, stifling unique human qualities in both socialist and capitalist societies. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the theories of Durkheim’s “Social Facts” with Weber’s “Bureaucracy”. Discussion The two scholars differed in their purpose and approach to sociology. Durkheim extended the study of science to the study of social facts, whereas Weber attempted to provide existing social studies with a better foundation. Hence, Durkheim consistently expressed his belief that social facts had distinctive properties which must be recognized in order to make the study of society more scientific. On the other hand, Weber did not pioneer a new field, his work treated old themes and known materials with a new precision and from the standpoint of new questions. Durkheim’s and Weber’s different definitions of “social facts” and their divergent sociological studies of religion reveal the differences in their perspectives (Bendix, 1989). Comparisons: Durkheim’s Social Facts and Weber’s Bureaucracy Similarities in the work of the two social scientists include the fact that both Durkheim and Weber refer to ways of anthropomorphising society, that is, they provide a human form to society. In their individual ways, they emphasise the knowledge that both Social Facts and Bureaucracy theories respectively, dominate lives and therefore society is seen as a living thing, as seen in the following comparison: Durkheim (1982) stressed that social facts cannot be defined by their universality, there may be different and distinctive manifestations. They are general throughout society and diffused within the group. They are external to individuals, exist independently of individual will, and form the structure of society as social rules and customary practices. Further, though beliefs and social practices come to us from without, they are not received passively or without modification. Instead, they are individualized as in language usage where differences in turns of phrase, vocabulary, idioms, dialects, and other features occur commonly. People may not feel the constraint or coercion of the collectivity, they may cling to and love the institutions that compel them, they may find their welfare in following them and in the constraint they impose. Thus, social facts are collective causes that become manifest through the individual, but are not reducible to their consciousness or actions. This category of facts “consists of all the ways of acting, thinking, and feeling external to the individual, and are endowed with the power of coercion with which they exert control” (Durkheim, 1982: 3). On the other hand, Weber’s approach has a more limited conception of the field. Sociology is to concern itself with an interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences. Action is specifically meaningful and social, insofar as the individual takes into consideration the behaviour of others, and orients action in its course (Weber, 1978). A sociological definition of the state would imply specific policies whereas history shows that states have pursued all kinds of policies including contradictory ones. Weber’s concept may work as a limitation, but it is also associated with one of his great strengths, which is the dialectic or arrival at the truth by exchange of logical arguments, as in his paired concepts. Comparative studies are central to Weber’s work for which his interpretation of Bureaucracy is specifically suitable (Bendix, 1989). Weber’s bureaucracy relates to a specifically modern form of administration, which is understood as the executive organ of legal authority. On the basis of comparative studies which forms a key characteristic of Weber’s work, he presented Bureaucracy as an “iron cage”. This well-known concept of Weber includes each administrative position being precisely circumscribed by its official duties, a position in a hierarchy, a salary fixed by contract, full-time employment and other factors. Though all functions of bureaucratic work appear to be fixed, Weber allows an element of uncertainty to enter this iron cage. This element is the technical and bureaucratic qualification of the official, which are important along with his experience and good judgment. The technical qualification and knowledge of bureaucratic procedures and official practices also provided the possibility of degenerating into a special technique of bureaucratic abuse or circumventing the rules by finding appropriate loopholes (Bendix, 1989). Though Weber could perceive greater efficiency and leveling effects on society created by bureaucracy, he recognized that the concept had its drawbacks. Bureaucracy had the potential to stifle development, create a new class of officials who exert inordinate power over their respective administrative areas, and who become domineering over their subjects (Anderson, 2004). Weber (1978) also perceived a political threat in the growth of bureaucracy, and believed it could lead to a conflict between the administrative system and the political leadership which directed it. Administration is a means not an end in itself, but Weber saw the danger of the officials on the basis of their administrative expertise, able to dominate over their supposed leader, and would give priority to their own administrative work, in place of the political objectives of the politicians who should be giving purpose to and controlling their work. According to Weber, it is the politician’s role to lead the nation state in pursuit of its destiny, not to be manipulated by civil servants. Both theorists are concerned with the power society and government has over the individuals within communities. For example, Durkheim mentioned that social facts are a guide for individuals to behave within society and Weber states that bureaucracy gives individuals the rules to live and abide by. Moreover, Durkheim and Weber both argued that there are forces within society that are greater than the individual. Durkheim’s social facts found that the greatest force was moral rules and Weber states that within bureaucracy laws where the greatest forces as it were the laws that controlled individuals. Both theorists argued that these forces came to represent an individual’s state of mind. Weber found that it was bureaucracy that represented who you are and along side this; it was Durkheim that found that Social Facts didn’t just represent who you are but also determined this factor. Among Durkheim’s social facts are legal and moral regulations, religious faiths, and economic or political systems, as well as less institutional social currents such as the language spoken or the fashion followed by individuals. In Durkheim’s view, the indication that they are external to any individual is that they retain an identity over time regardless of who follows the rules, speaks the language or any other similar factor. Social facts also have a power of constraint, so that individuals who violate rules or do not conform in any other way, find themselves restrained or punished (Bendix, 1989). One of Weber’s great strengths is associated with the dialectic or exchange of logical arguments leading to the truth, which is his main area of work, as seen in paired concepts (Hughes et al, 2003). The ideal type of modern bureaucracy, according to Weber was as “a rational edifice built upon the secure foundations of a statistically regulated system of economics” (Herzfeld, 1993: 18). Thus, in terms of equality, both Durkheim and Weber see the individuals as less than society and that leads to the notion of why people within society itself need to be regulated. Weber mentioned that society becomes more of the individual and along side this, Durkheim states that individuals are not more or less important within the theory of social facts and bureaucracy. Further, Weber believes that due to bureaucracy, people are limited in possible actions which means that they are restricted to do some things which in turn would make them who they are. Durkheim also found that social facts limited individuals within society in terms of expressing themselves how they wish to. This however could be a positive aspect as if people were allowed to do as they wished the world would be in chaos. An individual being limited within society then leads to the notion that both Durkheim and Weber based their theories on the society and viewed it as being paramount. In other terms, they both felt it was society that made people who they are and without the regulations people wouldn’t behave and act the way they do. Contrasts Between Durkheim’s Social Facts and Weber’s Bureaucracy The main differences in the approach of the two social scientists included the fact that Durkheim was a social evolutionist, while Weber did not integrate social theories with historical development. While Durkheim distinguished between normal and pathological aspects of society or social organization which were objective social facts, Weber believed that ethical judgments based on uncertain biological analogies could not be accorded scientific status (Bendix, 1989). Weber stated that all subjects should accept and abide by laws, while Durkheim believed that the people’s place was intrinsic to their existence. Weber also argued that the power of bureaucracy lies within the office whereas Durkheim found that the power was something that was at society level. Weber, advanced the view that order within society lies in accepting power of laws that were created by people. However, Durkheim found that the order actually lies in people knowing that they have the power. A crucial distinction between Weber and Durkheim is that for Weber functional analysis was of preliminary orientation, whereas for Durkheim it was a major objective. Weber hesitates to ascribe actions or ideas to collectivities, while Durkheim does so freely. Weber believed that the state should be defined in terms of administrative organization, and no sociological definition of the state can be correct. Contrastingly, Durkheim emphasized functional relationships in the interest of science and attributed actions and feelings to society (Weber, 1978; Durkheim, 1982). In terms of Weber’s theory individuals are not tied to one position, they are regulated by the bureaucratic rules that guide their progress, which is also known as meritocracy. However, Durkheim’s theory showed that the individuals can progress and move upward in their careers, nevertheless, they are tied with the notion of Division of Labour. This is because of the external factors that act on people in society, and the expectations of contributing to the public good, that need to be fulfilled. The political alternative to stopping the drift towards the iron cage was the socialist movement, but Weber believed that this would increase the extent of bureaucratic domination. The role that the socialists projected for the state would cause even more bureaucratic regulation. Although the intention would be to ensure liberation, it would inevitably involve people’s further subjection to senseless, self-serving bureaucratic rule. Socialism would only lead to more bureaucracy because the need for an administrative bureaucracy “led to a dilution of the political programme in favour of the expansion of the organisation” (Hughes et al, 2003: 11). Durkheim’s social facts also manifest themselves as social duties or obligations which make it necessary for individuals to act within social limits and constraints, overlooking their personal considerations (Morrison, 2006). Social facts also help to establish social order. Thus, Durkheim agued that people are constrained by their social facts, however, Weber contradicted this viewpoint, and stated that people within the society and communities are individuals at their own costs. Social facts exist independently of the actions of any particular individual whereas Weber stated that bureaucracy was an aspect of people’s lives that could be changed or amended. Besides Weber’s view that life functions within an iron cage of regulation and administrative oppression, bureaucracy also includes political dangers. Bureaucratic organisations are able to effectively promote their own interests, over those of others, including of those who are supposedly their political masters. Weber perceived this tendency to be a great threat to the political life of the modern world, leading him to stress the need for strong inspirational but democratic political leadership, “which could keep the bureaucracy under control, and ensure that it served a meaningful political purpose, not only its own expansion and empowerment” (Hughes et al, 2003: 118-119). Weber’s political requirement was to resist the rising tide of bureaucracy, and to create the opportunity for a charismatic and democratic, political leadership to arise and to provide a sense of national purpose. Weber’s politics were both democratic and elitist. He perceived a requirement for exceptional and inspired leadership to provide a sense of purpose for the society of his day, and to dominate the bureaucracy, in line with democratic politics. However, he felt that the conditions in Germany did not permit the realisation of such hopes, hence the iron cage would continue to dominate. Weber’s approach examined what could be expected from social scientific activities, based on philosophical and methodological preconceptions (Hughes et al, 2003). Another contrasting element between the two scholars is in their attitude towards religion. Durkheim believed that moral ties and sacred goals were of vital importance in contemporary societies. On the other hand, Weber advanced a thesis of disenchantment, with the approach that in the age of bureaucracy, the focus is on efficiency and rationality rather than on pursuing ultimate meanings. Life had lost its sense of purpose, and people had become trapped in the iron cage of meaningless bureaucracy and rationalism (Smith, 2001). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the similarities and differences between Durkheim’s theory of Social Facts and Weber’s theory of Bureaucracy. The main similarity is that both scholars are concerned about the power that society and the government have over individuals. According to Durkheim, the external realities of society have powers that are capable of imposing restraint. These may be in the form of duties and obligations that over-ride the private choices of individuals (Morrison, 2006). Similarly, Weber states that bureaucracy gives individuals the rules to live and abide by. The two social scientists differ mainly in their approach to society, such as Durkheim’s ascribing authority to individuals who form the society, whereas Weber focused on the administrative organisation or bureaucracy defining the state. While Durkheim focused on and sought to extend social solidarity, integration and control, Weber advanced his theory of bureaucracy and control exercised by the governmental organisation, along with his other theories such as rationality. Unlike Durkheim, “Weber’s work does not form a coherent whole but is rather a collection of disparate, and sometimes incompatible themes and ideas” (Grint, 2005: 86). References Anderson, W.P. (2004). Mises versus Weber on bureaucracy and sociological method. Journal of Libertarian Studies. 18 (1): 1-29. Bendix, R. (1989). Embattled reason: essays on social knowledge. Edition 2. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules of sociological method. Steven Lukes (Ed.). The United Kingdom: Free Press. Grint, K. (2005). The sociology of work: introduction. Edition 3. England: Polity Press. Herzfeld, M. (1993). The social production of indifference: exploring the symbolic roots of Western bureaucracy. Edition 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hughes, J.A., Sharrock, W.W. & Martin, P.J. (2003). Understanding classical sociology. London: Sage Publications Limited. Morrison, K.L. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought. Edition 2. London: Sage Publications. Smith, P.D. (2001). Cultural theory: an introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell Limited. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.). London: University of California Press Limited. Read More