Weber, Durkheim and Marx Influence on Social Theory - Essay Example

Introduction Contemporary Social Theory deals with different definitions of a society in its natural context. This is the nature of a society, which is an issue that introduces the varied meanings that emerge in a societal context. Elliot (2009) traces the various definitions of a society that have emerged during the twentieth century and even those that surfaced in the early twenty first century. In the social theory point of view, he firstly defines a society as coming up with an institution that constitutes unequal power and dominion relations. Secondly, a society to him is structuring of social interactions in a social institution and again as process of converting linguistic structures into social interactions. In addition to the above, contemporary social theories are about sociology which searches to examine the nature of the societal actuality. This also has the desired specific characteristics as well, characteristics that describe a sprouting contemporary society, Anthony King (2004). In accordance with him, Anthony realizes how sociology focuses on the extraordinary effectiveness of the social relations implicated in up to the most private issues of individuals. In a clear fact, it is important to understand that social relations are a compelling reality that has its own terms. Following a term used by Durkheim, to describe the same, social relation are regarded as sacred as possible. To explain this, he sees that the social relations contain their lively interaction. Body It is in social relations that human beings develop attachments of emotions with each other that become so powerful. As it is seen still Durkheim explanation about these powerful relations, a bond that joins different individuals develops, and the ultimate result is an immeasurable inspiration amongst the bonded individuals as they carryout common activities. Anthony King (2004). Ball & Bellamy (2003) consider three key models of the state that modern social theory proposes. These include aspects of an instrumentalist, another of a realist and the third one is that of a pluralist. Apparently, the three models have got their respective representatives that contributed much in making real and certain philosophies regarding the society and its aspects in general. For instance, Karl Marx represents the model of an instrumentalist, Max Weber a realist as Emile Durkheim represents the model of a pluralist. These are the theories that have played a great role in explaining a society and its different constituents as well as how individuals of the same societies interrelate to realize a smooth coexistence. To be true to the theories stated above, Karl Marx emerges to be the sole originator of his own model of the state, Ball & Bellamy (2003). Weber, on the other hand, stands out in sociology that depicts political realism that is, making politics real in the society. However, the idea was not exclusively his, and as Ball & Bellamy (2003) have realized and indicated in their book, his political sociology back traces and identifies with other philosophers. These are Hobbes and Machiavelli. In his original aim in politics, Weber preserved fundamentals of materialist methodology (Ball & Bellamy 2003). He had a notion that power is an expression of the will. Again, Weber viewed society and politics as an acute venue for endless strife and struggle; this is how deep his view about the same is completely rationalized. In fact, Weber achieved a lot in his model and to sum it all up, many ways can describe the achievements that he acquired. As Ball & Bellamy (2003) observe, they may be illustrated as one of the productive elements of materialism, nihilism and most importantly, realism. His work was not limited to letting himself reveal the meaning and translation of his theoretical words into the contemporary social sciences. Looking at their influence in depth, a lot are noticeable. All the three philosophers contributed and collectively influenced the American interpretations of history that existed in the past, history about sociology reflecting specifically on Europe, Giddens (1995). That Marx fore saw immense theorems that Weber and Durkheim later worked on is a reality. This, however, went unnoticed for a great deal of time at a personal level. This means that personal individuals did not realize the effects that Karl Marx introduced in both Durkheim and Weber. For instance, there are issues that got introduced in the society by Weber and Durkheim through Karl Marx even without realizing, Giddens (1995). The trio has done a lot that it takes to change the conception of a whole society. This has however happed in different levels of effectiveness as King (2004) has noticed and elucidated. According to him, there has been different status of sociological classics in a broad manner, and it is these aspects that he explains in details. Therefore, he testifies that classical social theories have some real force in them. He even goes ahead to analyze whether the proposed classics posses any sense of similarity with the individuals that founded them. There are common features that cut across the earlier philosophers, specifically Marx and Durkheim. This is evident in their dualistic nature in dealing with issues that affect our society at different levels. In fact, Derek (1997) in his book observes how Marx and Durkheim were dualistic as they tried to patch up existence of a social reality with the inner consciousness. He describes the latter as an objective form of social life and the latter a subjective one that exists in persons that live around their influence. Still checking on the contemporary social phenomena, it is true to say that they posses objective characteristics. In simple terms, this observes the difficulty in explaining them in terms of an individual’s conduct or particular encounters that people frequently have. As Derek (1997) detected, the trio who earlier emerged as great philosophers discovered the real objectivity of the social sphere. This is considered as a foremost contribution of the three classical theorists namely Karl Marx, Weber and Durkheim up to now. A similarity that exists between Karl Marx and Durkheim is that they both observed dualism mentioned above. In a clear sense, the dualism was associated with movement of societies regarding their history. In the outer objective reality, there is a product of conditions that existed in the past, as Lavder (1997) observed. Johnson (2008) in his view observes a difference and a competition that existed between Karl Marx and Durkheim. He observes that Karl Marx’s work paved the way for Durkheim and ideas that Marx developed intended to provide a rationale theoretically. This would in turn result to a revolutionary transformation and focusing on its influence on, it would be more radical in the society than the French revolution. Again, the work done by the three philosophers had a great impact in clear sense social classes. As Johnson (2008) indicates in his book, there existed opposing interests of dissimilar social classes depending on definite conditions of the history. Karl Marx majorly exposed the distinguishing situations and opportunities that existed between different social classes. All these were evident in the contemporary society and to be more specific, he talks about the ruling class in view of the ruled or the subordinate one, Johnson (2008). It is clear how the ruling class always succeed in promoting false consciousness while they are in the midst of the subordinate class. It is even worse to note that the unsuspecting subordinate class is not able to envisage whichever pragmatic options to the schemes that do exist. To tell the truth, the ruling class has an advantage over the subordinate class and all they can do is to exploit them lesser class beyond recognition, Johnson (2008). They feel discriminated against, and this condition just ushers in a dooming dawn on them, a situation that gladly welcomes an opportunity for them to be definitely exploited. This is the moment, as Johnson (2008) observes, that results in a great sense of powerlessness in them. They ultimately lack the strength of making their lives to be of any meaningful influence on the conditions of their lives. Various events happened in the contemporary society that suppresses the subordinate class. The rich ruling class as we had seen had full control over them denying them a chance to, even, control the fruits of their own labour. Coming up to provide a remedy for the problem was Marx, who sought to adequately, enlighten the general society with the aim of relieving them off their cocoon, Johnson (2008). We see a great deal of unity in his attempt to bring relief to middle class individuals and the subordinate in general. This was shown in his effort to unite with his friend, collaborating to publish a book in the mid 1880s as Johnson (2008) observes. On the same note, Charles (2010) noted that during the publication of the same book entitled The Communist Manifesto was written not many years before Durkheim became into existence. The book focused more about political and economic system during the revolution of industries in Western Europe. Attention of Marx was more on the importance of the systems of the economy as well as interest of classes they create. This was how Marx purposed to influence the contemporary society just as Charles (2010) scrutinized. Karl Marx had an ultimate goal of helping working class members to overcome their discrimination and alienation that they faced in the society. His influence was going to be immensely felt for all he had in mind was to eliminate exploitation from the ruling class over the working class and the subordinate. He wanted to facilitate their interest to eventually influence the society and advance it into a subsequent stage of history, Johnson (2008). Regarding the same issue of classes’ differences, Elliot (2009) depicts the sense in Karl Marx when he put the similar efforts that Doyle talked about. According to him, Marx brought the feeling of living and be accepted in a contemporary society. He observes how Karl and other authors subjective to Marxism explain the real meaning of social bonds. They say indeed that the causative determinants of a social bond include structured inequalities, which in other words mean class conflicts. These two go hand on hand with the view of Doyle that is seen above. Karl Marx has worked very hard to amend views about a fundamentally divided, torn and a split society because of the existence of social classes. Anthony agrees with the efforts of Marx at a greater depth and considers his efforts towards the same. According to him, Karl Marx provides a position in the contemporary society that many would like to live in. This is an immense effort that brings about influence to the members of the society whose’ insights might not be fully open to realize and take into consideration. Elliot (2009) has keenly revealed the intention of Marx as one of the prominent philosophers that were out to see change effected in our contemporary society. In fact, Elliot (2009) not only considered Marx’s position in influencing the contemporary society into a new look of a good coexistence amongst its members. He went ahead and observed what Karl’s fellow philosophers namely Durkheim and Weber had in store for the people of both the past and the present times. All these are explained subsequently as follows. Max Weber emerges the second in Elliot (2009) contemplation. In his position, Weber considered the quality of the up to date society as the one that incarcerate its members in the highest order. It is not a lie that most of the individuals in the society were caged in an enormous deal of technical rationality. He emerged to see how to go about oppression that faced the societal members, oppression that came through modern industrialization. All he could see was a number of threats that the contemporary industrial society posed to individuals living in the same societies. According to Charles (2010), Weber’s approach to the study of sociology in the world is quite dissimilar to those of Durkheim and Marx. He was unique in his efforts to influence the contemporary society through studying the long time history of the entire society. So to speak, his trend dwelt much in weighing against history of diverse places comparing their geographical vicinity noting the differences and similarities that existed. As Sexton (2006) similarly observes as Anthony (2010) did, Weber went an extra mile as compared to both Durkheim and Marx to reveal the true nature of the sociology. He intensively researched and realized that interacting socially traces its definition from interaction of individuals and their exact reaction to the social factors. This means that individuals in the society have to freely associate with each other for them to realize what is expected in their social world and the changes that may be effected through their interactions. Certainly, as Weber depicts, understanding the sociological analysis in its finer details plays a vast role in shaping the societal history, Timothy (2006). This is better off because of the positive influence that when keenly viewed traces its origin from the wonderful efforts of Weber, the philosopher. The efforts of the trio philosophers are so far immeasurable regarding all scopes of their studies. These shows all of their intense research they put into place just to see change taking place in the society of their time. In fact, it was not limited to their generation because their work as we see is all about sociology of our time too. The better part of it to check and hold on is how diverse they were in tackling the contemporary issues affecting our society. In each and every work of the esteemed philosophers, there exist enormous deals of diversity, something that offers solutions to the problems that face individuals in the contemporary society. This, therefore, introduces Emile Durkheim, a theorist that like others worked tirelessly hard to air his views regarding the contemporary social theory. Elliot (2009) offers him a third position on the texture of the contemporary society. According to him, individualism is a real constrain to social integration. With him, he saw the importance of ethics in the cosmopolitan society. He declares that morality is quite significant in the development of a contemporary society. Durkheim emphasis is about morality of the society. He says that the existence of a society deeply depends on the moral framework that is in place in a contemporary society, Elliot (2009). This is the root of good social relationship amongst individuals of the society. It also forms a significant base for individualisms. Sexton (2006) observes yet again a similar view with Elliot (2009), this time round a view regarding labour. Comparing their views on the same, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim have got a definite contrasting up holdings. As earlier seen about Marx, Sexton (2006) also observes how labour in the society resulted to exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the ruling class. On the contrary, Durkheim’s take is somehow counterbalanced than that of Marx. He observes individuals of a society who view a divided labour in a different context. Some of them embrace it, whereas others do not, Giddens (1971). The sense of exploitation is insignificant to some of the members of the contemporary society. He makes certain that, in the labour field, different individuals have diverse interests and skills of performance. Still talking about them in depth, an acute difference exists between Marx an Emile in their economic analysis. Marx, on one hand, sees a vision in economics, and he gives an example of a forced labour in a drama talented woman, who is engaged in a chain of unskilled work. To this she does for the rest of her life, the sole reason being that she traces her origin from the lower class. It is even worse to notice that she is denied that chance because of her low social status, Sexton (2006). In contrast with non-talented women is the example given of Hilton Paris, who barely knows how to act but is seen at the television and movies acting! On the other hand, Sexton (2006) explains Durkheim’s take as one, which is in real contrast with Marx’s. His economic vision regards the same scenario as an incorporated operation that serves to uphold the social array. He has no problem, neither with exploitation of individuals in the society nor unfair representation in the social classes as Marx has. Morality to him is all about grasping it and then applying a complex interweaving with an excellent degree of our shared social environment, Elliot (2009). Regarding the sense of the social action of human beings existing in our societies, so much different takes crop up amongst the trio of philosophy. Weber insists that human social action in the society is distinguishing in its own way since it is directed to other people, Anthony (2004). Moreover, he notices that reactions in humans are not autonomous to consciousness of human beings. It is better off when all human beings try to understand their interactions with one another in the contemporary society. Weber’s theory revolves around human beings participation in their relations and actions. Both Weber and Durkheim are exhilarated about inestimable potential of human beings and their social relations, Anthony (2004). They say that life is inexhaustible owing to its irrational certainty and its store of achievable significances. Weber and Durkheim share certain characteristics that make their views on the contemporary social theory click together. For instance, Ball & Bellamy (2003) observe that they are both liberals. However, to some extent they are not conventionally as liberal as it may seem for both of them do not accept a sole argument about liberalism in economy. This concept stipulates that markets are self- reproducing and self-generating, something that both of them totally disagree with, Ball & Bellamy (2003). They observe how the two philosophers have different views concerning the state itself, democracy and the nation. They played a significant role in lively but significant prop up to the political system in the contemporary society. Durkheim and Weber based their sociological psychoanalysis politically under this place. In terms of solidarity that exists in the contemporary society, the trio takes different ways to stand up with Karl Marx and Max Weber taking a similar path that contrasts that of Emile Durkheim, Sexton (2006). In a view of what they share in totality, the three philosophers regarded as the trio of their times share an aspect of the society with regard and relation to labour. They all consider significance of competition as a key aspect of for the formation of the society. Eventually, this has an influence over the contemporary social theory. A slight difference emerges between Marx and Weber. As much as Karl regards competition as a facet of aberrant needs of structure reproduction, numerous societal ethics associates with competition as Max Weber considers, Sexton (2006). As has been seen throughout the text, Durkheim approach to the changes that influence the modern social theory is that of functionalism. In his view of functionalism, he has been attentive to the responsibility of actors or objects pertaining to what they are capable of performing, Sexton (2006). The various beliefs in social actions that exist in the contemporary society helped a lot in terms of solving disputes or conflicts. For instance, the theory of modernism that depicts itself in the philosopher Durkheim is of a great admirable quality. He believed in harmony is the perfect definition if a society as opposed to conflict and disagreement or misunderstandings of any nature. He believed in facilitating social cohesion in the cosmopolitan society. Conclusion Durkheim’s influence in the current social theory is of a great magnitude since. It has helped so many individuals in the society that previously had little understanding about the societal norms and the ways that suggest their mode of upholding them. To be precise, Durkheim studied all that involved labour division religion and even suicide form the similar aspect. Overall, the above-discussed issues clearly show contributions of the three theorists, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. They intensified in exposing the way forward for individuals in the society that had difficulties in identifying their social positions and the manner in which they are expected to correlate with one another. In the end, their contributions have had an influence of a great deal in the social theory. References Ball, T & Bellamy, R 2003, the Cambridge History Of 20th Century Political Thought, Cambridge University Press, New York. Charles, P 2010, Making Sense of Social Theory: A Practical Introduction, Rowman and Little Field. Elliot, A 2009, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, Taylor and Francis Group, New York. Giddens, A 1971, Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings Marx, Durkheim and Marx Weber, Cambridge University Press, New York. Giddens, A 1995, Politics, Sociology and Social Theory: Encounters with Classical and Contemporary Social Thought, Stanford University Press, California. Johnson, P D 2008, Contemporary Sociological Theory: An Integrated Multi-Level Approach, Springer New York. King, A 2004, The Structure Of Social Theory, Routledge Press, London. Lavder, D. (1997) Modern Social Theory: Key Debates and New Directions, Routledge Press, London. Morrison, K. (2006) Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought, SAGE Publication, USA. Sexton, T. (2006) Marx, Durkheim, Weber And The Nature Of The Social, Yahoo! Contributor Network, UK. Read More