The Theories and Methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber - Essay Example

Weber and Durkheim Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Compare and contrast the theories and methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber regarding social behaviour Introduction It is an apparent fact that both Max Weber and Emile Durkheim are correctly and generally regarded as being two of the principle comparative analysts in the long history of sociology. These individuals developed diverse theories and methods of analyzing different phenomena in their time. Their theories and methods are endowed with extensive differences as well as similarities which will be explored in the subsequent sections of this paper. Nonetheless, it is imperative to be cognizant of the fact that these scholars had different backgrounds and inspirations which influenced a great deal of their work. Mazman (68) determined that Max Weber (1864-1920) established his intellectual orientation in the rationalistic tradition predominant in Germany. He was also under massive influence from the works by another German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. On the other hand, Emile Durkheim (1858-1918) was under great influence of an idealistic and positivistic intellectual Milieu in France. In addition, his emergence as a sociologist and philosopher was through the Ecole Normale Superieur. Based on this divergence in background and influence, Weber and Durkheim developed different but sometimes similar theories and methods in regard to social behavior. Against this backdrop, this paper will be focused on comparing and contrasting the theories and methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber regarding social behaviour. This is founded on the fact that coming from two divergent theoretical traditions, both of these sociologists exhibited extensive differences as well as similarities in their theoretical and methodological approaches to social behavior. These are comprehensively analyzed in the subsequent section. Comparison and contrast of theories regarding social behavior Contrast Firstly, it has been noted that Weber greatly focused on the tensions related to the autonomy of individuals in regard to the desires and ideas vs. social regularity. In this regard, the tackling of the query into how social regulation emanate from the chaos of indeterminacies of boundless human desires and needs is done at the individualistic level. Subsequently, Weber asserted that the primary rationale behind the regular actions of individuals is founded on the inherent meaning that these individuals attach to their actions. In this regard, Weber forwards his understanding of action to mean the acting which an individual attribute a subjective meaning to his behavior (Mazman, 69). Therefore, the theory of social action according to Weber asserts that individuals allocate meaning not only to their own behavior at the individual level. Instead, they also they give meaning to the behavior of other people in their reciprocal relationship based on the fact that the ‘action of each is perceived to rake account of that of the other’ (Etzrodit, 95). On the contrary, when Durkheim puts social order into consideration, he basically assesses it as a whole, not as a set of peculiar specifics or individual actions as are apparent in the Weberian social behavior analysis. In this regard, the Durkheim’s ‘methodological collectivism’ perceives the core of the society as being taken into account as a social whole. This can be perceived to be completely contrary to the Weberian ‘methodological individualism’ which perceives the core of the society as being comprised of individuals (Mazman, 70). As a result, Durkheim perceived social continuity as emanating by the supremacy of the regulations at the societal level over the uncertainty and vagueness of the individualistic vast and indeterminate psychological as well as biological desires as needs. It is imperative to recollect that in the Weberian analysis, the individualistic desires and actions which influence their behavior are given supremacy over the societal regulations. This difference in perception brings a major contrast in regard to social action theory between Weber and Durkheim. The prior asserts the domination of individualistic needs and desires while the latter fortifies the supremacy of regulations at the societal level. The second theoretical difference between these two sociologists is founded on their perception on the spectrum of causal factors. In his theoretical approach, Weber perceived the political, economic as well as the individual-ethical spectrums among others as being fused with the emergence of the western civilization. This is best epitomized one of his most renowned work, Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism (1905). In this case, Weber determined that the Calvinist ethics played a key role in facilitating individuals to make rational end-mean calculations. Additionally, Weber cited that impersonal bureaucracy which was newly emerging, its laws which minimized the random, uncertain political decisions of individuals as well as the absolute authority accumulated by the ruling class became a central spectrum in the course of western civilization emergence (Mazman, 72). The combination of all these factors played a key role in the preparation of uncertain, objective and sheltered social conditions for the decisions among individuals as well as rational calculations. In this case, it is prudent to note that the Weberian analysis inferred that the ideas among individuals can play a significant role in the process of social change as well as in the history. On the contrary, Durkheim in his work Division of Labour in Society (1893) made extensive attempts to demonstrate that thoughts and ideas among individuals can never pose any significant effects on the social order which is already in existence as well as the path of history (Mazman, 72). This is contrary to the Weberian analysis explored above. The above fact is supported by Emirbayer (278) who determined that the basic fact is that generic understanding of history in its diverse patterns and outcome is in every day and every way constituted of individuals. Nonetheless, the acknowledgement of this fact was nowhere in the actual analysis of Durkheim who chose to primarily center on the wider societal factors as the determinants of social change and history. Nonetheless, it is plausible to note that the above divergence of theoretical approach between Weber and Durkheim in regard to social behavior and history (spectrum of causal factors) does not necessarily mean that these scholars took totally opposite ideas in this respect. In actual sense, to both Weber and Durkheim, the emergence of western capitalism necessitated an exceptional mixture of dependent factors in the political, cultural and economic sense. Thus, Weber and Durkheim perceived capitalism as not being merely a mode of production but also a set of beliefs, perceptions and motivations. It thus evolved into becoming a ‘form of life’ which is different from any other in the history of human beings. Consequently, apart from being in harmony with human nature as earlier economists like Adam Smith had alluded, the modes of activities underpinned in capitalism according to both Durkheim and Weber have a nearly ‘unnatural’ quality (Palumbo and Scott, 2). While comparing and contrasting the theoretical tenets of Weber and Durkheim, the above reality brings into a convergence their theoretical approach to the history of human beings, mostly in regard to the evolution of capitalism in the Western countries as well as its contribution to social behavior in the contemporary world. The other difference between the theories of these two sociologists is in regard social behavior is related to the role of modern society in human individuality. According to Durkheim, organic solidarity which characterizes the modern society plays an integral role in imposing sophisticated principles on individuals. This is in regard to the elevated level of interdependence of various units on each other (division of labor) which is central in granting individuals when compared to the ties and dependencies which characterized the traditional societies (Mazman, 72). In this regard, Durkheim explicitly explained the divergences between the mechanical solidarity which characterized the traditional society and the organic solidarity which is attributed to the modern society. The latter model according to Durkheim endows individuals with heightened freedom and independence which impacts on their social behavior in metropolitan areas. This is best exemplified by the level of human freedom which is evident in the large, metropolitan cities when juxtaposed with the extreme restrictions by the communities living in small ones. Additionally, Durkheim asserted that despite the fact that all the individuals and collectives in the modern cities have divergence in terms of their occupational specializations, they are also bound by common interests based on the virtual of the social relations which are ongoing for the sake of survival which impacts on their social behavior. Thus, the modern society according to Durkheim, concurrent with the organic solidarity brings forth elevated harmony of individual and collective interests and influences the social behavior in the modern society. Nonetheless, this heightened freedom and independence does not necessarily dissolve the social order which is in existence (Mazman, 72). To Durkheim, there is more strength in individuality embedded in division of labor as evident in organic solidarity and collective conscience is often weaker (Denham, 8). On the contrary, Weber contradicts the optimism in Durkheim’s theory on modern society in regard to its role in producing human individuality and elevated freedom as determinants of human behavior. For Weber, this heightened level of rationalization of the modern society explained in the Durkheim’s organic solidarity has only served the purpose of bringing further limitations and restrictions to human freedom (Mazman, 72). In this regard, Weber exhibits increased pessimism about the modern society and its role in the creation of a curtailing mechanism to formal rationality and human freedom. Despite the role of western civilization through its extensive process of rationalization bringing forth total efficiency and effectiveness in regard to gaining benefits from both human and natural resources, it also dealt a massive blow to human freedom and independence in the modern society (Mazman, 72). The other difference between Durkheim and Weber is related to their theoretical approach to morality as an aspect of social behavior. According to Durkheim, morality is eminent in any given society and is perceived as part of the social life impacting on social behavior. However, the impediment on how the people in a given society obey the moral laws which regulate social behavior is not a major concern in the sociological approach of Durkheim to morality. In the theoretical approach by Durkheim, individuals in a given society tend to internalize the rudimentary components of the moral order and engage in spontaneous actions to reproduce it. In this regard, the Durkheimian perception views moral laws as taking a preliminary niche on social behavior among individuals as they continue to live in this social order (Mazman, 74). On the contrary, the Weberian theoretical approach perceives the process of legitimizing a dominant principles and rules in the society as well as the mechanisms under which the people in the society will exhibit obedience to political authority as being an integral problem that ought to be given in depth consideration. Thus, from the Weberian theoretical context, people often make sure that their actions and behavior have legitimacy within the socio-political environment under which they live in. Concurrently, there is a process through which the power embedded in the political realm acquires legitimacy and evolves into becoming an authority eliciting compliance and submission from the subjects. This is contrary to the Durkheimian approach of compelling external factors which views social behaviour as a result of general and natural social rules. Apart from the above differences and similarities, both the Weberian and Durkheimian theoretical dispositions to social behavior concurred on other aspects outside the realm of sociology. This is best epitomized in the perception of these two sociologists in regard to the role of religion in influencing social behavior. According to Gabriel (1), both Weber and Durkheim perceived religion as a fundamental reflection of the wider society as opposed to being an external supernatural reality. Thus, both of them viewed modern society as being deeply rooted in religious processes which impact on social behavior among individuals and collectives. Comparison and contrast of methods regarding social behavior Firstly, both Weber and Durkheim differed on the method of attaining meaning to the actions of social actors and eventually eliciting causal explanations to their causal relations and offering interpretative understanding of the distinct phenomenon. The method which was primarily used by Weber is commonly known as Verstehen. This method basically focused on the specific differences as opposed to general laws. In this regard, Weber developed an ‘individualizing method which extensively emphasized on the qualitative and distinguishing aspects of a specific phenomenon (Mazman, 76). Thus, the Weberian method of ‘methodological individualism’ made profound efforts to understand facts which are particular in nature as well as actions by individuals, an approach which is divorced from the wider universal laws. This is founded on the assumption that interpretative sociology gives extensive consideration to specific actions by individuals as the basic unit or as its atom (Mazman, 77). On the contrary, the Durkheimian method was opposed to the ‘methodological individualism’ as well as interpretation of individual actions. The methodological approach by Durkheim seeks to raise the social facts to the subject matter of the discipline. This is aimed at the attainment of objectivity as well as departing from the individuals’ psychological state (Munch, 21). Thus, it is plausible to note that this method seeks to offer an explanation to social reality through a causal manner using relationship between certain facts to the general principles. Perhaps the most ideal example of this methodological approach by Durkheim is evident in his study of suicide which is phenomenon embedded on social behavior. In this study, Durkheim made extensive efforts to ascertain that suicide which at the first stance seems like a personal phenomenon is in the actual sense dependent on social facts (Mazman, 77). Nonetheless, the methods by Durkheim and Weber in regard to social behavior had some similarities. Firstly, both Durkheim and Weber developed ideal type as a theoretical approach to aid in the interpretation of sociological phenomenon. It is imperative to note that this ideal type developed by these sociologists did not directly emanate from empirical reality. In actual sense, this was molded through artificial mechanism out of what Weber and Durkheim perceived were the fundamental features of some sophisticated historical phenomenon. Thus, the utility of ideal types was an imperative tool of generalization aimed at assisting in the understanding of otherwise sophisticated topics (Gabriel, 1). Lastly, both Weber and Durkheim believed in the imperative role of putting empirical procedures into utility in the effort to support their sociological hypothesis. This is whereby both of them extensively linked causes and effects together in their widespread observations of the society. This is best exemplified whereby Durkheim mentioned about ‘establishing relations of causality in his observations while on the other hand Weber spoke about the imperative role of ‘causal significance’ in his societal observations (Gabriel, 1). Conclusion From the preceding analysis, it is apparent that Weber and Durkheim exhibited extensive differences as well as similarities in their theories. The differences analyzed above are related to their theories of social action, spectrum of causal factors, the role of modern society in human individuality as well as morality as an aspect of social behavior among others. However, their theories had some similarities, mostly in regard to their theoretical approach to the history of human beings as well as the role of religion in influencing social behavior. On the other hand, their methods had some differences in regard to the method of attaining meaning to the actions of social actors as well as similarities in ideal type and use of empirical procedures. Works cited Denham, David. ‘Marx, Durkheim and Weber on market society’. July, 2005. Web. 20th March, 2013. (http://www.scasss.uu.se/IIS2005/total_webb/tot_html/papers/marx_durkheim_weber.pdf). Emirbayer, Mustafa. ‘Durkheim's Contribution to the Sociological Analysis of History’. Sociological Forum. 11. 2 (1996): 263-284. Etzrodit, Christian. ‘Advanced Modern Versions of Max Weber’s Action Concepts’. Ritsumeikan Social Sciences Review. 40.4 (2005): 91-105. Gabriel, Brian. ‘Similarities between Durkheim and Weber’. 2013. Web. 20th March, 2013. (http://www.ehow.com/info_8657070_similarities-between-durkheim-weber.html). Mazman, Ibrahim. ‘Max Weber and Emile Durkheim: A comparative analysis on the theory of social order and the methodological approach to understanding society’. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 10.1 (2008): 67-83. Münch, Richard. Understanding Modernity: Toward a New Perspective Going beyond Durkheim and Weber. New York: Routledge, 1988. Palumbo, Antonio and Scott, Alan. ‘Weber, Durkheim and the Sociology of the Modern State’. The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought. Ed. Terrance Ball and Richard Bellamy, Cambridge: CUP, 2003. 368-391. Read More

On the contrary, when Durkheim puts social order into consideration, he basically assesses it as a whole, not as a set of peculiar specifics or individual actions as are apparent in the Weberian social behavior analysis. In this regard, the Durkheim’s ‘methodological collectivism’ perceives the core of the society as being taken into account as a social whole. This can be perceived to be completely contrary to the Weberian ‘methodological individualism’ which perceives the core of the society as being comprised of individuals (Mazman, 70).

As a result, Durkheim perceived social continuity as emanating by the supremacy of the regulations at the societal level over the uncertainty and vagueness of the individualistic vast and indeterminate psychological as well as biological desires as needs. It is imperative to recollect that in the Weberian analysis, the individualistic desires and actions which influence their behavior are given supremacy over the societal regulations. This difference in perception brings a major contrast in regard to social action theory between Weber and Durkheim.

The prior asserts the domination of individualistic needs and desires while the latter fortifies the supremacy of regulations at the societal level. The second theoretical difference between these two sociologists is founded on their perception on the spectrum of causal factors. In his theoretical approach, Weber perceived the political, economic as well as the individual-ethical spectrums among others as being fused with the emergence of the western civilization. This is best epitomized one of his most renowned work, Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism (1905).

In this case, Weber determined that the Calvinist ethics played a key role in facilitating individuals to make rational end-mean calculations. Additionally, Weber cited that impersonal bureaucracy which was newly emerging, its laws which minimized the random, uncertain political decisions of individuals as well as the absolute authority accumulated by the ruling class became a central spectrum in the course of western civilization emergence (Mazman, 72). The combination of all these factors played a key role in the preparation of uncertain, objective and sheltered social conditions for the decisions among individuals as well as rational calculations.

In this case, it is prudent to note that the Weberian analysis inferred that the ideas among individuals can play a significant role in the process of social change as well as in the history. On the contrary, Durkheim in his work Division of Labour in Society (1893) made extensive attempts to demonstrate that thoughts and ideas among individuals can never pose any significant effects on the social order which is already in existence as well as the path of history (Mazman, 72). This is contrary to the Weberian analysis explored above.

The above fact is supported by Emirbayer (278) who determined that the basic fact is that generic understanding of history in its diverse patterns and outcome is in every day and every way constituted of individuals. Nonetheless, the acknowledgement of this fact was nowhere in the actual analysis of Durkheim who chose to primarily center on the wider societal factors as the determinants of social change and history. Nonetheless, it is plausible to note that the above divergence of theoretical approach between Weber and Durkheim in regard to social behavior and history (spectrum of causal factors) does not necessarily mean that these scholars took totally opposite ideas in this respect.

In actual sense, to both Weber and Durkheim, the emergence of western capitalism necessitated an exceptional mixture of dependent factors in the political, cultural and economic sense. Thus, Weber and Durkheim perceived capitalism as not being merely a mode of production but also a set of beliefs, perceptions and motivations. It thus evolved into becoming a ‘form of life’ which is different from any other in the history of human beings.

Read More