A Look into the Sociological Works of Marx, Durkheim & Weber - Essay Example

Introduction The study of sociology requires different paradigms that take different theories. Theory enables sociologists to have multiple methods of conceptualizing the society. The angle upon which we explore social theory is called a paradigm. Kerbo defines a paradigm as a “fundamental image of the subject matter within science. It serves to define how it should be studied and what should be studied, what questions should be asked, how they should be asked, and what rules should be followed in interpreting the answers obtained.” Paradigm assumptions are similar to paradigms but more specific to images about a subject matter contained within a paradigm (Kerbo, 2009, 113). Given, all social theorists have some truths to them. I will use conflict theory as a realistic way of understanding the society. I think that conflict theories do a better job in explaining societal paradigms. Most conflict theory premise on the belief that individual interests create an anarchic relationship with societies: Conflict theories Conflict theories maintain that society is held together in the face of conflicting interests because: There so many divided interests groups that individual must learn to cooperate. Through this conflict, order prevails. Society is divide in parts Karl Max Karl Marx is perhaps the most renowned German thinker and political activist was born in 1818 in the ancient city of Trier, in Southwestern Germany, Marx’s father was a prosperous lawyer, a Jew who converted to Lutheranism. Marx was a student of law at the University of Bonn. He later went to Berlin, where he began to study history and philosophy. While in Germany, Marx joined a group of radical thinkers known as Young Hegelians who developed a strong critique of the philosophy of Georg W.F Hegel. Hegel’s philosophy of social change gave Marx the basis of his theoretical system and historical materialism (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 23). By the middle of the 19th century, the industrialization that began in Britain a century earlier was spreading so fast throughout Western Europe. There was an increasing wave of technological advances in transportation, communication manufacturing which spurred an explosion in commercial markets for goods. This led to modern capitalism and the rise of middle class owners of capital. With rapid expansion of industrialization, there was a rapid urban migration, leading to the distortion of traditional agricultural life among most families. According to Appelrouth, manufacturing was soon going to rival and then surpass the numbers working in agriculture (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 25). In his reaction to this stage of social and economic development, Marx came up with a theoretical model intended to both interpret the world and change it (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 25). In doing so, he centered his analysis on capitalism, alienation, and feudalism. Marx emphasized private property as the innermost institution of a capitalist society. In a capital society, a small segment of the population controls wealth and power. Because of this arrangement, two classes are created in the society: The owners of capital otherwise called the bourgeoisie and the working class also known as proletariat. He analyzed the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as an inherently exploitative one. The bourgeoisie make profit by inadequately paying the working class. This way, the proletariats are exploited in both body and soul. They have no control over the products that they make Appelrouth and Eddie 27). To him, capitalism is a process that entirely prevents the working class from realizing their essential human capacity to engage in creative labor while the owners of capital get better in their system of ownership and wealth accumulation. Marx then went on to argue that capitalism was the source of alienation, which is the separation of the individual from either the preconditions or the products of labor. According to Marx, division of labor makes society possible but it also destroys freedom and creates alienation. Marx also claimed that alienation is rooted in specialization and that a society without alienation is utopian, a societal state that could never be achieved in the presence of specialization (McGee and Warms 2008: 65). According to Marx, economic classes have an impounding effect on social cohesion in the society. Feudalism, for instance, is a system where landowners oppressed the peasants. This led a revolution that was the brainchild of capitalism. In his view, the class relationship of capitalism is a representation of inconsistency. Capitalists need workers and workers needs capitalists, but the economic desires of the two groups are primarily distinct. Capitalists are out for competition and profit making, while the workers are out for wages and survival. Such distinction allude to inherent conflict and volatility. Why I chose Marx Marx's ideas have reinterpreted by scholars for generations, his theory has taken a great variety of forms. Three reasons explain why Max was on point with the social theory. Max argued that to understand societies, there is a need for the theorist to understand material conditions. This encapsulated on what is called material capitalism. Contemporarily, the society is divided into classes of the poor and the rich, developed countries and developing countries, and 99 percent vs. one percent. Insomuch as we have progress, class still plays a big role in the way we visualize the society. Although a social conflict has not ensued, there have been disputes that point to class struggles. Apartheid struggle in South Africa, Arab spring, and the Occupy Wall Street movements are just examples (Ganaway, G. K. (2003). While the development of the welfare state and the growth of the middle class has almost succinctly eliminated the threat of the conflict between the haves and the do no t haves, many societies in the world do not have a major middle class societies. Such societies are thus prone to conlict. For example, in the third world, there are revolutions after revolutions and wars, pointing to a struggle of classes. Finally, I agree with Max because I see the class struggle in the segmentation of the society through race, culture, class, and religion. There is nothing else except the presence of a struggle that best makes sense to me. Emile Durkheim .David Emile Durkheim was born in Eastern France in 1858. In his youth, he followed his family’s tradition by becoming a faithful Jew and eventually a rabii. He however came to reject Judaism in his adolescence years. In 1879, Durkheim enrolled in France’s most prestigious college, the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, to study philosophy. By his third year, he switched from studying philosophy to sociology. It is his practical and scientific approach to central social issues that would shape his ambition to use sociological methods as means of constructing moral order of French society. According to Durkheim, the French society was in decay thanks to the French Revolution (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 86). During that time in France, the country was faced with myriad of problems. First, there was the open exploitation of the people by the political class and the pervasive influence of the military; the French society also witnessed increased rates of divorce and suicide and a problem of strong hatred to the Jewish people. In Appelrouth’s words “it seemed to Durkheim that social bonds and a sense of community had broken down and social disorder had come to prevail” (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 86). Durkheim graduated from Ecole Normale and began teaching in secondary schools from the Alsace region of France. In 1887, Durkheim became a college professor gaining a good reputation for his dedication (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 86). In 1893, he produced his first book The Division of Labor in the Society”. His second book “The Rules of Sociological Methods” came out in 1895 and in 1897, he published his third book “Suicide”. In 1899 he established the L’Annee Sociologique.. In 1902, Durkheim became a professor at Sorbonne University in Paris because of his excellence in academia (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008 87). Sociological Works Emile Durkheim simplified explanation of functionalism was that institutions, practices and customs exist because they contribute to the reproduction and integration of society, which in analogical terms, is the idea that the society is composed of parts ‘organs’ that work towards the proper functioning of the “body” as a whole. In his 1893 work The Division of Labor in Society Durkheim examined how social order was maintained in different types of societies (Appelrouth and Eddie 86). Durkheim argued that traditional societies were 'mechanical' and were held together by the fact that everyone was more or less the same, and hence had things in common (Griffin, Ricky W., and Gregory Moorhead, 2006). Durkheim argued that traditional societies were held together by circumstances. The circumstances force individuals to be generalists involved in the production and distribution of different types of goods (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 102). As an example, women, men and children are all needed during planting and harvesting of crops, and it is this shared work experience that led to idea of collective the conscience. He felt that people in traditional societies shared a feeling of “oneness”. He contrasted this to the highly complex division of labor found in modern societies and called it 'organic' solidarity. In this society, labor is specialized and people engage in dissimilar work. Ideas, beliefs and cultures are all distinct even in the same geographical area. Each person is interdependent with others forming a compound wave of mutual relations (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 102). In further comparing this to mechanical solidarity, he stated that the sentiment of unity or collectivism arises not from each person doing their own part, but throughout continuous cooperation. This interdependencies created by social roles are what ties people to one another, since people can no longer count on filling all of their needs by themselves. A tangible example of “organic” solidarity is whereby workkers earn money, and have to rely on other people who specialize in certain products to meet their needs. The result is increased division of labor. Durkheim however thought that this type of solidarity was dramatically fading in modern societies. He questioned how in contemporary societies, two individuals could work at the same work place yet they didn’t even know each other. Additionally, Durkheim succeeded in changing the ways in which social scientists think about the relationship between individuals and society. He believed that harmony, rather than conflict, defined a society, despite his recognition of the turmoil associated with industrialization during that time. He emphasized on the significance of social cohesion and that solidarity was the normal condition of a society (McGee and Warms 2008: 93). Durkheim later developed the concept of suicide from this perspective on which he published a book out of in 1897. His ideas on why people resolved to suicide were that, individuals have a certain level of attachment to their groups called social integration. According to him, suicide was as a result of a society that lacked integration and acceptance. High or low levels of social integration lead to high death rates. On the other hand, high levels cause people to kill themselves to avoid becoming burdens on the society. Low levels of social integration causes disorganization in the society, causing people to turn to suicide as a last resort. In Appelrouth’s words, Durkheim meant that man’s characteristic privilege is that the bond he accepts is not physical but moral, that is, social (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 120). Karl Emil Maximilian Weber Karl Emil Maximilian Weber, a German sociologist and political economist. He was the eldest son to Max Weber Sr., who, apart from being a lawyer, was also involved in politics. Weber’s mother, Helene, came from the Fallenstein. Evidently, Max Weber was brought up in a prosperous, cosmopolitan, and highly cultivated family background that was well-plugged into political and social establishment (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 141) Weber was diagnosed with meningitis at the age of six that he eventually recovered from. However throughout the rest of his life, he suffered tension and always underwent nervous breakdown. Some of the works he read were for Kant, Spinoza, Goethe and Schopenhauer. Before his fourteenth birthday, he wrote two historical essays. School wise, Weber never took class seriously, but he was a genius and always thirsted for knowledge (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 141). For the most part of his life at home, Weber was confused by the struggles between his father and his mother. He was proud of his mother’s outstanding religious fidelity and devotion to her family, but hated his father’s mistreatment of her. At the same, he admired his father’s intellectual accomplishments and was critical of his mother’s passivity. In 1884, Weber interrupted left his studies for military duties. Weber was asked by his father to complete college education at the University of Berlin University to pursue edcuctaion as a scholar. In 1894, he became the professor of economics at Freiburg University and in 1896. Soon after his father's death in 1897, Weber suffered from a psychic disturbance that led him to wheel chair in 1902 (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 142). By the next year he was well enough to join Werner Sombart in editing the most prominent social Science Journal at that time. Weber on Bureaucracy A part from other aspects of sociology, Weber focused on the emergence of bureaucracy which he analyzed from traditional organizational forms and its rising pre-eminence in the modern society. Weber agrued that “bureaucracy is a particular type of administrative structure developed through rational legal authority” (Appelrouth and Edie 2008: 185). His essay on bureaucracy, tended to lean on supporting this form of administrative structure in its effort to reveal the characteristics of such an organization. In this essay, Weber argued that a number of features ensured technical superiority bureaucracies, making for a clear chain of command (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 185). He saw this as a tool that helped reduce the likelihood in incompetence that could result from officials through nepotism or virtue of traditions. He posited on that conventional legal form that stability exists in the presence of subordinates and the bosses. Under this arrangement, the authority allows the subordinate more independence and discretion. He stated that subordinates had the power to ideally challenge the decisions of their leaders by referring to the stated rules. He saw bureaucracy as a system that could handle more complex operations than traditional systems. Weber recognized the power of bureaucracy in creating elite groups of technological experts concerned with managements and administration pursuing their own professional interests. His standpoint was that such organizational leaders do not necessarily advance the interests of the ruling capitalist’s class. Rather they promoted a specialized division of labor that allowed more efficient completion of assigned tasks. To him, bureaucracy was governed by formal, impersonal rules that regulate all facets of organization (Appelrouth and Eddie 2008: 186). Webers’s theory of functionalism was premised on the role of bureaucracy. He argued that for purposes of clarity, organizations needed to draw boundaries of hierarchy and authority to avoid conflict. Weber’s argument posited on the claim that authorities worked best only in the presence of clear structures. Webers’s theory was thus supported with the position that the rationality of bureaucracy worked hand in hand with specialization and made the process of decision making easy. .Conclusion: Comparing Marx, Durkheim and Weber Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim played important roles in the development of sociology as a field of study. Still, each of the theorists had distinct assertions that made them unique from one another (Kerbo, 2008). However, different each of the theorists were, they were all influenced with the happenings of the industrial revolutions in Europe. Each of them had a critique of a society that was changing reparably from the practices of feudalism to market societies. The main similarity between the three is the presence of conflicts in the transformation of the society. Still, Karl Marx had his specific view of the society compared to Durkheim and Weber, who some parts of their works forwarded similar ideas on their idea of the society. Marx’s central idea was class-consciousness and the ambiguity that accrues from capitalism. In his book, the Communist Manifesto, Max focuses on the organization of society. His view of the society is in two groups. The first group comprise of the proletariat while the second ones are called the bourgeoisie. The proletariat lives the substandard life and is mostly the working poor. The bourgeois the owners of the capital and use it at their own prerogative at the expense of the poor. Because of their status in the society, the bourgeoisie control the means of production thereby making them the controllers of the society. This system, called capitalism brings about division of labor and classism. A small segment of the society has access to wealth, while the majority of the society lives below the standard of poverty (Horvath, Julius & Grabowski, 1999). Durkheim and Weber’s simplified point of similarity was their idea on the issue of functionalism, which the latter examined mainly from an individual level while the former analyzed it from an organizational level, hence named it organizational theory. Through different examples and analysis, the two theorists drove one point home that the division of labor was a cooperative, functional specialization regulated by the normal system. This can be derived from a portion of Durkheim’s ideologies in his book, The Division of Labor in the Society and similarly in Weber’s claims on the subject of rational bureaucracy or functional specialization (Jon, M. R., & Warms, R, 2008). Let us conclude by stating that Marx was totally into communism and very hopeful for the collapse of capitalism, which to him was causing alienation and exploitation. He envisioned that the majority proletariat would someday revolt in campaign against capitalism and for communism. However, Durkheim and Weber did have a different view of things. They insisted that that transformation of the society to modern cities did not mean societal loss of community, instead, they saw as an effect of division of labor. Under this arrangement, every element in the society had a role to play that defined their place and their societal status. References Appelrouth, S., & Eddie, L. (2008). Classical Contemporary Sociological Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Jon, M. R., & Warms, R. (2008). Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. New York, USA: McGraw Hill. Kerbo, H. R. (2008). Social stratification and inequality: class conflict in the United States. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Ganaway, G. K. (2003). Some additional questions. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 20, 201-205.  Griffin, Ricky W., and Gregory Moorhead. Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print Akindile, S.T, T.O Gidado, &O. R Olaopo. (2002).Globalisation, Its Implications and Consequences for Africa. Retrieved Feb, 23rd, 2011, from, http://globolization.icaap.org/content/v2.1/01-akindile-etal.html. Horvath, Julius & Grabowski1999 ‘Core and ‘Periphery’ in the World Economy: An Empirical Assessment of the Dependence of Third World Growth on the Developed Countries. Department of Economics Jere- Malanda, Regina.2008 Profiting from Poverty, ( Cover Story) New African Journal, ( 467), 10-17. From http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8ca7b031-e286-4e05-be65-b1629ffcc5b3%40sessionmgr111&vid=5&hid=119. Accessed December 2011. Read More