In What Ways Does Sociological Sense Differ from Common Sense - Assignment Example

In what ways does ‘sociological sense’ differ from ‘common sense’? In developing your answer, draw upon the arguments of AT LEAST TWO sociologists you have encountered in this module. Sociology as a discipline of study took off only in the twentieth century. The growth in communications technology, coupled with unprecedented levels of human migration, both facilitated and made necessary the study of human interaction from the perspective of ethnicity, race, class, gender, etc. Intellectuals such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons and Anthony Giddens have proposed important theories toward understanding the dynamics of societies. Karl Marx was identified as a sociologist posthumously for during his life-time the field of sociology was not yet formed. But despite the lack of nomenclature Marxs ideas have profoundly affected later generations of sociologists. Marxs achievement is in attempting to explain social situations and problems from the point of view of economic class of constituent groups in society. Max Weber, on the other hand, saw religion to be pivotal to society and hence included religious considerations alongside economic ones. Although Weber helped enrich the understanding of the then emerging capitalist world order, he did not completely condemn it as Marx did. Despite the differences in their emphasis, both Marx and Weber greatly influenced scholars, politicians and commentators for generations to come. More importantly, their theories and insights have a direct appeal to lay people, for the state of economic and political organization of society has a direct and immediate bearing on its members. Marx and Weber can also be credited for making sociological discourse accesible to the general population. And by doing so, they expanded the reach of the discipline to a wider audience and enabled it to interpret commonplace events in uncommon ways. In other words, their works interpreted and presented social, political and economic events in an alternative perspective, that contrasted or enhanced the common sense view. The rest of this essay will extend this contention by way of referring to practical examples of such cases. Max Webers works emphasize the influence of religious beliefs in the affairs of state and society. During his lifetime Christianity was the dominant religious ideology in Germany and most of Europe. So Weber asserts that the rise and flourishing of capitalist economic systems in this region is attributable to certain concepts in the Christian ethic. In other words, the seeds for the eventual flowering of industrial capitalism in Europe from the eighteenth century onwards were already evident in the moral fabric of society as conditioned by principles laid out by Christianity. By extension, Weber argues that the resistance or reluctance to accept capitalism in the East is similarly conditioned by the precepts of Buddhism and Hinduism. After Weber expounded his theories, it is easy to see in retrospect how different regions of the world evolved different kinds of political and economic systems that were grounded on historic, religious and cultural factors (Bakker, 1999). But in order to arrive at this theory, Weber had to study rigorously and meticulously centuries upon centuries of facts and patterns. In other words, to arrive at this sociological understanding of what factors determine political and economic structures of modern societies, the scholar (in this case Weber) had to look way beyond common sense explanations of status quo as is expressed in mainstream sources of information. To illustrate this point, let us consider the Russian Revolution of 1917, which terminated the dynastic rule of the Tsar and established in its place Communist leadership in the form of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. In the years leading up to the Revolution, the brewing communist propaganda hardly demonstrated a sophisticated and historically informed analysis of the impending political change, which is in sharp contrast to the Weberian synthesis of the movement. The subversive propagandist literature of the time rather tried to appeal to the vast masses of Russian peasantry using simple language and simplistic presentation of problems and solutions. It would be apt to say that the sociological understanding of the Russian Revolution as explicated by the Weberian method of studying society is much more rich and profound that the simplistic, common sense versions of the socio-political event available to mainstream channels of information. A similar observation could be made with respect to the works of Karl Marx. The first few years of the twenty first century are marked by rapid migrations from rural to urban spaces all across the world. And it is no coincidence that neo-liberal economic reforms set in motion since the 1970s continue to play a major role in furthering this phenomenon. But even as early as the late nineteenth century, Marx was able to predict the propagation of such trends in any society dominated by capitalist ideology (Bakker, 1999). The common sense view of the countryside holds it to be idyllic, pristine, relaxed and peaceful. But in the sociological sense the countryside is a stage in the process of economic growth. Similarly, while the common sense view of towns and cities hold them to be cluttered, polluted and competitive, Marx sees them in a unique sociological sense. According to Marx, “Rural life leads to idiocy because the nascent productive vitality inherent to all social organization is overwhelmed by the ideology of a deference to tradition which is antithetical to the material and productive possibilities in social organization. Therefore, according to this formulation, rural life is idiotic because it endlessly and unimaginatively repeats the social patterns of previous generations under the guise of a feudal ideology which legitimates patriarchy, hierarchy, and the domination of people in general. From this perspective, the ideology of family, community, and tradition associated with rurality is a mere "sentimental veil" that bound the majority of people, particularly women and children, to a subordinate, impoverished life, and encouraged a "slothful indolence."” (Bakker, 1999) Weber too has given his analysis of the connection between modernty, capitalism and urbanization, although his conclusions are quite different from that made by Marx. In his influential essays such as The City and Capitalism and Rural Society in Germany, Weber underscores the influence of local conditions and is the first of the classical sociologists to distinguish between rural societies of Europe and America and, in the process, the first to acknowledge the “disappearance of the sociological relevance of the urban-rural distinction. The growth of the nation-state, the development of capitalism as an international order, and the bureaucratic rationalization of more and more areas of social life all mean that the distinctiveness of "urban" and "rural," as referencing different communities is gradually disappearing.” (Sayer, 1991) Such inferences come at the end of sustained, longitudinal study of history and illustrate the point that human societies, when studied in a systematic and scientific manner, can lead to a refined and broader understanding that is normally out of reach of common sense analyses. One of the famous quotations of Max Weber is his view that the state claims “a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence” (Sayer, 1991). This view was controversial at the time of its first publication, but is born of a careful study and synthesis of human social history and the power relations inherent in them. It has relevance in contemporary society too, as witnessed by the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, wherein the might of American military caused irreparable damage to a four thousand year old Arabian civilization. After the exposition of American governments role in misinforming the public about Weapons of Mass Destruction hidden in Iraq, it is quite apt to term this episode in modern political history as one where a state had employed its monopoly power over legitimate use of violence. In the case of Iraq, apparently, such use had served vested interests such as military contractors, major oil corporations, etc. As Weber rightly noted in 1926, “In democracy the people elect a leader in whom they have confidence. Then the elected leader says: ‘Now shut up and obey me’. People and parties may no longer meddle in what he does”. (Bonner, 1998) Marxs view of state power is quite similar to that of Webers. And in their sociological synthesis we see evident truths that are not ostensible to the common sense perspective. To emphasize this point let us consider the role of police in society. In the wake of the announcement of the Iraq war the general public gathered in huge numbers to demonstrate their displeasure over their governments policy. And in what little video footage that slipped into mainstream media, one could see police forces gathered in impressive numbers to keep the public in check. The police, in contradiction to its role as the protector of people, was actually protecting people in power. In Webers 1918 speech titled Politics as Vocation, after noting that the state “successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”, he goes on to add that “the political leader in mass democracy was once more clearly located within the category of charismatic domination, but, in reality, obedience is determined by highly robust motives of fear and hope—fear of the vengeance of magical powers of the power-holder, hope for reward in this world or in the beyond—and besides this, by interests of the most varied sort”. (Bonner, 1998) Most democracies in Western Europe today espouse the separation of church and state. Indeed, the growing atheist movement in this region has further reinforced the lack of relevance of religion in affairs of the state. The United States of America is an interesting case, which, despite being the originating place of this principle, shows strong interconnections between the domains of religion and state. For example, the phenomenon of television evangelicalism is uniquely American, having been pioneered by extremist members of the American Right. And in every election, religion thrusts itself as a matter of contention, despite the constitution making no such provisions. And with the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on America, a war on radical Islamic ideology has been declared by the American government. The ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber provide an interesting context in which to analyse this state of affairs. Marx was an advocate of atheism and he firmly believed that religion plays a negative role and suppresses emancipation of people. While Weber was not as vehement in his condemnation of the role of religion, he nevertheless saw its influence on society as profound and far-reaching. Indeed, Weber believed that the political and economic institutions of a nation are shaped by its dominant religious ideology. In the case of the ongoing War on Terror, the simple explanations given for the continuation of the war would easily appeal to common sense. In other words, phrases like they hate our way of life, axis of evil, you are either with us or against us, the coalition of the willing, etc tries to portray the situation in simple black or white terms. But as is true with matters of global geo-politics, a far more nuanced understanding of the situation is available for the scrupulous intellect. Marx and Weber possessed such intellects; and although they did not witness in their lifetimes a conflict similar to the ongoing War on Terror, their ideas do find application here. For example, it would not have surprised Karl Marx that the most devastating war of modern history, the Second World War, had a religious basis. Hitler believed that the systematic rounding up and extermination of Jews in Europe was an act carried out on behalf of God. The Roman Catholic Church’s continued patronage of Hitler during the worst period of his atrocities underlines the point. Coming back to the War on Terror, one sees again the role of religion. Both the parties in the United States fall right-of-centre in the political spectrum. Moreover, their representatives in Congress and Senate tend to be believers of Christian faith, at least outwardly so. Hence, despite lip service being paid to the separation of state and religion, one cannot dismiss the ongoing War on Terror as not being religiously inspired. The usage of the word crusade by former President George Bush in the wake of the terror attacks is quite instructive too. Going a little further back, all the 19 suicide bombers who drove air planes onto buildings, claimed to do so for the sake of their religion. Seen in this backdrop, “there may yet be room for a little social analysis in a Marxist spirit, of religions other than Christianity: those whose heart-lands have not experienced class formation and subsequent transformation, whether revolutionary or evolutionary, in their political economy and social structure. Even if an adage like the opium of the people or the concept of social control in its more sinister sense have lost their applicability in Western conditions, the world remains a much larger place than whatever may be encompassed by the West. As the non-West impinges increasingly on Western security, and does so not least in the guise of a religious ideology, a little bit of classical sociology may be in order”. (Kershaw, 2002) Hence, while common sense suggests that people of faith have a higher moral character than those who dont believe in God, the ground reality cannot be different than this. So, a sociological study of any situation, properly informed by historical facts and empirical evidence, is more likely to lead to a better understanding than what is attained through common sense. References Bakker, J. (1999). The Living Legacy of Marx, Durkheim and Weber: Applications and Analyses of Classical Sociological Theory by Modern Social Scientist. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36(2), 286+. Bonner, K. (1998). Reflexivity, Sociology and the Rural-Urban Distinction in Marx Tonnies and Weber. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 35(2), 165+. Kershaw, R. (2002, September). Full Marx for Mullahs: A Reflection on Social Control in Islam - Part I. Contemporary Review, 281, 129+. Sayer, D. (1991). Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber. New York: Routledge. Turner, B. S. (1993). Max Weber: From History to Modernity. London: Routledge. Read More