Comparative Social Theories - Case Study Example

Comparative Social Theories There was an era when different societies in the world were nothing buta ruling class and a class that was ruled with certain classes. There was no probability for a member of the ruling class to cross over to the working class or vice versa. But after that a time came when the concept of capitalism and industrialization was introduced. Societies who accepted this system came to be known as modern or capitalist societies. Numerous issues arose due to the advent of these modern societies. Numerous theorists tried to clarify the complications of these societies, among the greatest of them Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Among these issues was the issue of religion as to how religion would be incorporated in a society whose foundation rested on rationalism. Religion and religious institutions occupy an influential position in manipulating a society and its members. The sociological traditions of Marx, Weber and Durkheim view religion entirely differently, yet all of them agree that religion is an imperative part of a society. For Marxists, religion is a tool to rationalize and protect the class system, also to make certain the status quo of the dominant principles of the society. Religion plays a major function in the beliefs and values that cover any society and thus operates to safeguard the present social order. The rich make large donations to the church which ultimately result in the beliefs of the church is shaped in the favor of the ruling-class. As a result the needs of the rich will be fulfilled and the class system would be preserved. Furthermore, religion also assists in preserving the current social order by making life more tolerable, and by rationalizing the class system. Because of religion, individuals accept the present situation and look forward to joy and escape they will get after death. Like, Marx, Durkheim, thought that religion was self-created by the individuals of the society. Durkheim suggested that religion results in serving numerous functions for the individuals, society and social relationships. Religion works as a foundation of solidarity and identification for the individuals of a society. It gives a meaning for life, offers influential figures, and most notably, strengthens the morals and social norms held within a society. It brings individuals together both physically emotionally through gathering. It provides stability to a changing world. It gives social control, cohesion, and reason for people, also another way of communication and meeting for people to cooperate and reaffirm social norms. Durkheim also recognized the meaning of rituals or rites in all religions. Durkheim suggested that at the back all of the religious activities is the power of society. Like Durkheim, Weber perceives the modern society embedded in the concept of religion. On the other hand, like Marx, Weber perceives the motivating force of history as material interests and not ideologies, as originated in religious beliefs. According to Weber, religion offers the instruments for both steadiness and social transformation. A variety of trends are observed in the development of this process. Initially, he illustrates the significance of magical beliefs for explaining the effectiveness of actions. These magical beliefs then turn into symbolic representation which then results in conception of gods. As the symbol systems and gods became rooted into the community, and as political systems established, the gods came to signify those political communities. The conception and preservation of these symbols and gods resulted in priesthood whose role in society was to uphold these symbol systems and generate rational systems of thought to fit together the symbols and gods. The priesthood ultimately resulted in the establishment of laws and ethical standards. Then came the prophets, who were to spread a new doctrine to displace the old system, hence correcting these injustices. Weber then explained the system of bureaucracies which is the upholding of cultural symbols and the allocation of goods and services to the contemporary society. Sociologists define a social class as any group of individuals who have similar socioeconomic situation. According to Marx's view, since the evolvement of humanity, individuals have been divided into classes.'He suggests that the owners of the means of production exploit those who make goods. Marx's investigation persistently focuses on how the relations between individuals are fashioned by their comparative location in the means of production, that is, by their degree of difference in the access to scarce resources and scarce power. Marx started by observing those who possess the means of production, the capitalists, and those who produce the goods, the proletariat. He stressed that the principal feature of capitalism was the division of labor from the ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is therefore essentially a society of two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Weber acknowledges that class is an economic classification and suggests that class position equals market position. According to Weber, the individual's position in the market puts them in a similar spot. He recognizes the Marx's explanation of the market situation according to property. Weber further divides the holder of property according to the various types of property they own. A property class is one in which disparities in property-ownership mainly decides the class position. An income class is one in which the probability of using goods or services on the market primarily decides the class position. A social class is the whole of those class positions. He further explains the economic power of the advantaged property classes which he calls rentiers, equal to the Marxist term, bourgeoisie. He considers that society is classified into many in-between positions of class. Durkheim's work is very much different from both Marx and Weber. Durkheim is basically concerned with solidarity. Durkheim suggested that solidarity was the usual condition of society, and although he accepted the confusion linked with industrialization, he considered conflict atypical or pathological. He acknowledged two main types of social integration, mechanical'and'organic. Mechanical integration refers to integration that is based on shared beliefs and emotions, whereas organic integration refers to integration that consequence from specialization and interdependence. According to Durkheim, these types mirror different forms in which the societies structured themselves. Societies of mechanical integration are inclined to be comparatively small and structured around kinship affiliations. Social relations are synchronized by the similar belief systems, known as the'collective conscience. Infringements of social norms were taken as a straight risk to the shared identity, and thus, responses to deviance resulted in punishment. As a society becomes larger, division of labor increases. In large societies, a multifaceted organization of labor is essential, for the production of material goods. As individuals start to dedicate themselves in certain fields, the foundation for the collective conscience is weakened. Integration founded on the shared belief system is not possible anymore. Durkheim argued that complications do not lead to disintegration; rather, they lead to social integration supported on interdependence. Because individuals are no longer generating all the needed things, they have to work together. Solidarity is the consequence from the acknowledgment that each individual needs the other. Societies of organic integration are structured around economic and political organizations. Their legal systems control behavior founded on beliefs of exchange and compensation, rather than punishment. Marxist state theory provided a refined description of the beginning and role of political power within capitalism. Marx viewed the state as the tool of domination by exploiting classes that are set by their place within the means of productions, for example, the bourgeoisie. He also stated that the state itself is an independently exploiting instrument. To Marx, the term state is to define the institutions through which class rule is preserved. People exist in a class society where the ruling class does not stand for the welfare of the entire population, where a majority upholds its authority and privileges by exploiting the minority. They have to convince the minority to acknowledge the present condition. They do this partially though their control of thoughts, for example, through their possession of the mass media, their over all power over education system and other institutions. They attempt to convince individuals that their arrangement is the solitary and greatest way of arranging the society, nearly to the degree of being natural. For centuries individuals lived in classless societies, what Marx called primitive communism, where all individuals were reliant on one another and collaboration was the leading belief of society. On the other hand, as labor grew to be more industrious, society produced a surplus further than its immediate requirement. This produced the situation for class society. The class with financial authority and power, the ruling class, established the state to defend itself, seize its opponents and assure that what it wanted was done. Furthermore, Marx argued that every type of capitalist rule, include a variety of forms of coercion. This means that the ruling class establishes certain repressive apparatuses through which they control the other class. Weber recognized the requirement for ideal types of society, but with a consideration that ideals are gross simplifications, omitting most of the chaotic reality. He acknowledged a three-component theory of stratification of society in which he gave details about the social class which is founded on economic connection to the market. He also explained status which was supported on non-economical elements such as religion, family and education. Moreover, the component is party which is connects to political parties and groups. According to Weber, the state has domination on physical force and the use of this is given to police and military only. All other use is banned; apart from defend one's body or property in certain situations. In addition, previously, the church had been capable of using might, for example in investigations and witch-hunts, but this power has slowly been removed. Weber further recognized three pure types of political leadership in which domination and authority is the first one which is charismatic domination by families and religions. Secondly, traditional domination is the authoritarian domination by patriarchs and through feudal societies. The legal domination is the third which describes modern systems of state and bureaucracy. He further described bureaucracy in which he identified seven factors that govern a bureaucratic organization: rules, specialization, meritocracy, hierarchy, separate ownership, impersonality and accountability (Simon, No date). Durkheim discussed the role of the state in terms of sustaining integration in society. He argued that the beliefs of morality had to exist in society, but he held that the state could put into effect these principles fulfilling purpose such as justice, education and health. Values like responsibility, shared obligation, equality and others should be imposed through policies delegated by the state in all areas. To Durkheim, the state was not a symbol of society, but an organization capable and essential to promise individual rights and turn them into reality. He argued that state is capable of playing the character of the moderator between what people desire and what they can have in the economic empire. The state was also in charge for the enforcement of contracts, which in his view were an obligatory stipulation to create economic pledge among individuals due to the increase in the division of labor and the resulting outlook of self-interest as the ruling force forceful social relations. When egotism develops, contracts become a necessity. Yet Durkheim knew that only contracts were not sufficient to hold society collectively. They did not involve the common morality and shared consciousness that society required to maintain its cohesion. Thus, Durkheim also removes the function of contracts as a source of solidarity. But removing religion, the state, and contracts, Durkheim suggested the arrangement of professional groups as a different key to avoid the loss of solidarity. He comprehended that to avoid the state from becoming dictatorial; it had to be objective by intermediary institutions, which were symbolized by connections of professionals with shared interests and goals. Previously, this solidarity was offered by the family, but afterwards it would be provided by secondary groups. These institutions, in addition to stopping the state from becoming dictatorial, would also signify a basis of moral solidarity in which individuals would share common ideas, interests, emotions and activities which the rest of the population does not. Professional institutions would characterize not only an area for individuals to share their common ideas and beliefs, but they would also give the individuals the need to attain collective goals that the state was not aware of. Durkheim asserted that because the state was distant from its individuals, it could exert only a remote, irregular power over them. Classical sociological theories are significant not only previously, but in addition, because they are living documents with modern application to both modern theorists and today's social world. The effort of established thinkers keeps on to inspiring modern sociologists in numerous ways. A lot of modern thinkers look to reinterpret the traditional theories to be applied to the current scenario. A lot of the sociological ideologies in the twentieth century are embedded in the efforts made by Marx, Weber and Durkheim. Their theories reveal how they are concerned with the social implications of state, class and religion. It is argued that Britain is far from being a classless society, although there are important and fascinating changes occurring to the size and composition of all the main classes. The aspect of state in contemporary Britain has also evolved into something novel. It has demarcated several different aspects of public participation in private life through the twentieth century. The state has moved into some parts of life, at the same time as departing from others effecting both the civil society and intellectual life in Britain. Furthermore, contemporary Britain at its present stage is a secular society. The churches, which can be seen in ruins, are even put up to secular activities. Religion has turned into just one of the several belief systems as it is more complicated to stand for all the individuals in a more multifaceted society. While contradictory in many respects, these founding classical sociologists all share knowledge that have confirmed application of their theories to existing times. Capitalism, class struggles, division of labor, religious ideas, and the state are all among the present day issues. And the effort to achieve comprehension of the connection between the economy and society has been very much supported by their significant theories. WORKS CITED Simon, J. Scott. "Economy and society in Marx, Durkheim and Weber." (No date). 19 Nov. 2009 < http://shell.cas.usf.edu/'ssimon/documents/Economy%20and%20Society.pdf> Read More