How Marx, Weber, and Durkheim would Propose to Maintain Social Order - Essay Example

How Marx, Weber and Durkheim would propose to maintain social order Some have argued that underlyingall sociological theory is the question, "how is social order maintained?" Contrast how Marx, Weber, and Durkheim have answered this question. Introduction In the field of sociology, there are perhaps no greater influences than the thoughts and ideas presented by Karl Marx, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim. Their contribution to the understanding of social systems and the workings of society have been debated, discussed and written about ever since they first gave their ideas to the world. While their ideas may be popular to more or less the same degree, they actually take very different positions on how order is maintained in society. At the same time, there are certain similarities between the thoughts of these philosophers which can be discussed if an examination is made of each thinker’s ideas. Karl Marx Of the three sociologists mentioned in the question, Marx is the one who gives sociology the meaning of conflict. Even though his philosophical and moral discourses covered a wide range of topics, his ideas about class conflicts between the workers of the world and those who control the means of production were the ones which made him famous. The struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie coupled with the dominance of the bourgeoisie doesn’t actually maintain social order since such a system is inherently instable according to Marx because a struggle between these classes is inevitable (McLellan, 1973). Similar to the functionalist ideas presented by Durkheim, Marx presented the function of the bourgeoisie to control society because they controlled the means of production in the system. On the other hand, the proletariat simply has to depend on working as labor for the bourgeoisie simply because it is their natural function. While there is conflict between these classes, it is not necessarily evil or a step on the way to a revolution since the two classes can live with ease under a capitalist system which provides opportunities for all parties (Avineri, 1968). Unlike the other two sociologists mentioned in the question, Marx is perhaps the most misunderstood and misinterpreted of all philosophers since his philosophies and social ideas were changed by others enough in his own lifetime to lead him to declare that he was not a Marxist. While conflict and revolution were discussed by Marx extensively he considered them to be natural processes and the functional results of a capitalist or feudal system. Once a revolution happens and the struggles subside, a Marxist society would evolve into a classless system which remains in perfect harmony (McLellan, 1973). Revolutions could also be brought about by those who believed in the ideas presented by Marxist or related philosophies. The world was able to see how Marxist philosophy affected society and how a social revolution could turn violent with the events of the October Revolution in 1917 which led to the victory of the Russian Bolsheviks. As a matter of fact, Marxist ideas of sociology and social order affected nearly every region of the world before and after the Second World War and still hold sway over the remaining communist countries (Avineri, 1968). Max Weber The second German sociologist on the list is Maximilian Weber but unlike Karl Marx, Weber takes a very different approach to the concept of how social order is maintained. Religion plays a dominant role in the ideas presented by Weber but it can not be denied that his ideas are very applicable and representative of how modern western countries have taken shape. Being an anti-positivist, he takes an opposing view to Durkheim, especially in his famous essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism which deeply connects which the social influences and the sociology of religion as well as the relation between economy and religions (Iannaccone, 1998). In the simplest of terms, social order and society itself is maintained by the elected government or any other governing authorities with a total monopoly can control over the use of force. In fact, statehood and the legitimacy of the state comes from having total control over how and when force can be used to bend the will of other individuals to its own (Wolfgang, 1992). This also leads to a similar position to Karl Marx who suggests that conflict is inherent in a capitalist system and revolutions can come about when the proletariat rises against the hegemony of the state. Weber’s definition of states and the maintenance of social order can be easily applied to how governments function at the basic level today. Force and punishment is the sole purview of state authorities while individuals who use force against others on their own are liable to be prosecuted, captured and punished for said use of force. In effect, even if the unauthorized use of force by an individual was for revolutionary reasons as suggested by Marxist thought, it would be severely punished and might even be called treason which leads to the ultimate penalty (Wolfgang, 1992). The difference between Weber and Marx is made obvious by the idea that Weber supports the capitalist system and thinks it is a natural state of affairs which must be established for the growth and development of a society, Marx thinks that the capitalist system is an artificial creation which can lead to the exploitation of the working classes. Additionally, while a lot of Weber’s philosophy is focused on the systems and positive influences on social as well as economic setups of a society due to religion (Wolfgang, 1992), on the other hand, Marx does not think that religion plays a great role in boosting the social setup and in fact it acts as a tool for the control of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie (McLellan, 1973). The control of society and maintenance of the social order is helped significantly by the creation of a bureaucracy which not only concerns the government and resource allocation of a country but may also permeate into other areas of the society at large. Social organizations, local groups and even informal clubs may create their own systems of bureaucracy which are rational methods to control individuals with laws and rules. The hierarchy of individuals with greater and greater power over a given system has been established in many western systems which include everything from the publicly traded company to a large government department with thousands of employees (Wolfgang, 1992). Like Marx, Weber did not think that such a system would be efficient by any means since bureaucracy leads a society away from being action oriented to being goal oriented and these goals may never be reached. Additionally, bureaucratic systems have a tendency to expand themselves and trap people in rules and regulations which must be followed or punishments can ensue (Wolfgang, 1992). While a light level of bureaucracy can be helpful for the system and create a good governance system for a nation it can also act as too much of a good thing. Judging by the historical examples, it can be said that Max Weber turned out to be more pragmatic than Marx or Durkheim simply because he foretold that the over dominant bureaucracy could become the ruling class where rules and laws would lead to the collapse of the system. This certainly happened in the case of Russia where the politburo reforms and the removal of a free market system led to a state where the union simply could not hold itself together. If we examine the works of Durkheim, it can be said that he would suggest that the bureaucracy as a social body could not perform its function. Émile Durkheim Durkheim’s ideas represent a mixture of the ideas of conflict and stability presented by Marx as well as the ideas concerning religion and society as presented by Weber. A lot of the work presented by Durkheim was concerned with the representation that religious dogma came from social influences more than divine injunctions and a significant portion of his writings deals with how social organizations maintain their basic functions in a society where a common religion and ethnic background could not be ensured (Iannaccone, 1998). For instance, the issue of immigration has changed the social structure as well as the majority/minority equations in many pockets around the country and Durkheim’s ideas are very applicable in these cases in maintaining and upholding the social order as well as a stable social system. Using a scientist’s approach the idea of social stability, Durkheim saw society as an organism where different parts of the system had different functions to perform. As long as the functions were performed with efficiency and without too much waste, a social setup could continue to exist in perfect harmony without conflict or a breakdown in services. However, if there was a breakdown it would have to be fixed quickly or the entire system could collapse (Lukes, 1985). Unlike the approach taken by Weber, Durkheim did not focus on the role of the individual in society but rather on the role of the groups which make up society what it is. Durkheim coined the term social facts which point towards a phenomenon that have an existence of their own and are not dependent on the work done by any person. Perhaps the strongest fact which a society adheres to is the division of labor which separates men and women into different positions within a social order (Lukes, 1985). This social role in turn, becomes their individual function for a society, social group or a family structure which maintains the order in the system. Conclusion Given the depth of the ideas which the three sociologists have presented the world, this analysis is merely a cursory look at how a social order is maintained according to Weber, Marx and Durkheim. In fact, a complete comparison of these philosophers as well as the ideas presented by them would require the production of a book or several volumes. However, if a person takes a glance at the social suggestions made by these philosophers, it becomes clear that removing present conflicts and the control of emerging conflicts are essential towards the establishment and maintenance of a social order. Additionally, once a social order is given a state of equilibrium, it becomes necessary to maintain that state with delicate balancing of powers, responsibilities and accountability systems which form a part of the social order. That process can be studied, understood and even used in the real world, but it is never done quite easily as it can be studied. Works Cited Lukes, S. Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work. Stanford University Press, 1985. Iannaccone, L. “Introduction to the Economics of Religion.” Journal of Economic Literature 36.1(1998): 1465–1496. Wolfgang. M. The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber. University of Chicago Press, 1992. McLellan, D. Karl Marx: His Life and Thought. Macmillan, 1973. Avineri, S. The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press, 1968. Read More