Analysis of Works by Durkheim and Marx - Essay Example

Analysis of Works by Durkheim, Max and Marx Emile Durkheim Emile Durkheim features as one of the central figures in establishment of sociology as a social science. During his lifetime, especially from 1906-1917 when he was a professor of sociology in Paris; Durkheim analyzed numerous concepts of sociology contained in his books like ‘The Rules of Sociological Methods’ and ‘The Division of Labor’ among others. Together with other renowned social scientists like Parsons and Spencer, Durkheim was considered the pioneer of functionalism. As a functionalist, Durkheim questioned the role of society in influencing individual’s life. In addition, he also sought to understand the relationship between religion as a social concept and government as a political entity. With respect to religion and governments, Durkheim noted that there has been a profound transition of solidarity from traditional times to modern times. Aside from transition of solidarity, Durkheim also became concerned with certain aspects of modern societies like division of labor, individualism and collective consciousness. In his work, Durkheim asserts that contemporary sociology can be categorized into mechanical era and modern era. Division of sociology into these eras is based on facts indicating significant difference between communities and their practices in ancient and modern times. Correspondingly, each of these eras had a characteristic form of social solidarity. According to Durkheim, traditional or mechanical solidarity is characterized by extricable interaction between religion and state organs. As early as 140 BCE, religion occupied the central position in society, and the government was the main proponent of religious beliefs (Allan, 81). With the dawn of modernity, a substantial conflict between religion and government entities ensued. Evolution of new political ideologies like democracy and the economic concept of capitalism caused further separation between religious and governmental institutions. Transition from mechanical solidarity to modern solidarity is not without apparent impacts in the society. Prior to modernity, government organs championed the concept of collective consciousness and performance of religious rituals. For example in ancient role, Christianity eventually became a state religion. Persecution of non Christians was sponsored by the state. As a result, individuals in the society adopted the use of symbols like crosses as a show of solidarity with the state religion. Durkheim says that mechanical solidarity was characterized by strong similarity in religious practices and uniformity in social thoughts and actions. However, modernity ushered in a new concept of science, which took a central position as opposed to religion. In modern solidarity, people do not subscribe to religious beliefs and practices because of threat from governments. Rather, modern solidarity is influenced by new social values, emerging norms and common threats from external forces. Transition from mechanical to modern solidarity explains the apparent difference of religious beliefs observed among communities in today’s culturally diverse societies (Allan, 83). One of Durkheim’s main concerns in modern societies is the concept of collective consciousness. First, Durkheim acknowledges that human beings are boundless and insatiable. This explains why there is an ongoing evolution of ideologies and practices in the modern era. Additionally, human beings are inherently self seeking and individualistic. Humans are always out to fulfill their individual desires regardless of social dictates (Allan, 87). Despite the concepts of insatiableness and individualism, the society still exerts control on individuals through collective consciousness. Technically, human life is based on a collective emotional component. Individuals intrinsically draw meaning and satisfaction by associating with collective emotions and beliefs. This is because a neuroscience research proved that the emotional component of an individual take precedence over the cognitive component (Allan, 87). Durkheim is also concerned with religious laws. Undeniably, churches and religious groups generate substantial emotional energy; hence exerts immense power in the society. Members of a typical religious group share similar beliefs and social feelings. Uniformity in beliefs and feelings results from underlying laws of sacredness and subsequent rituals. Sacredness came into existence when humans could not logically comprehend certain supernatural phenomena (Allan, 89). Consequently, supernatural events formed the foundation of sacred ideas. In modern societies, similarity in sacred ideas is diminishing. However, generation of common emotions still persists whenever people meet and interact in performance of religious rituals. These common emotions guide individual’s behavior and sets moral boundaries, thus acting as laws in modern social settings. Max Weber Max Weber was a German economist and also a lawyer. In his heydays, Max would gather members of Berlin’s intellectual community at his home and discuss several issues related to politics, social order and economics. As a professor of economics at the University of Heidelberg, Weber wrote several pieces of work on the subject of power and different forms of governance. In his work, Weber failed to create a solid link between the influences of modernity in power structures. However, he developed a comprehensive analysis of bureaucracy in power, and the influence of power on social class, economic status and political affiliations. Primarily, Weber described power as a necessary tool for social order. Power determines one’s ability to control other members of the society by establishing norms and ensuring adherence to those norms. Power also contains a control aspect because adherence to norms attracts reward while deviation from the order warrants punishment (Allan, 136). Explicitly, Weber acknowledged the fact that power is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is an intrinsic human need, and power exerts influence on class, status and party affiliation of individuals by limiting their freedom. Class features as one avenue through which power is exercised. In this context, class refers to a person’s ability in exerting social and economic influence on others. Some persons are positively privileged, meaning they have a relatively high control within a given socio-economic order. Contrarily, negatively privileged individuals have limited control while the middle class have a neutral influence. Weber asserts that the positive and negative privileges of class form the poles of power (Allan, 138). On the other hand, the middle class acts as the equator because it has neutral privileges. With respect to power, wealthy members of any society monopolize situations to their advantage. However, the poor are at the whim of the rich, and are left with no option other than to labor for the positively privileged. The middle class can neither monopolize situations nor work as laborers. Typically, the middle class experience minimal influence of power because they control their situations. According to Weber, class is determined by money in modern societies (Allan, 138). This explains why a few elite members of the society can easily safeguard their social, economic and political positions. Unlike class which is determined by money and material possession, status is determined by honor and relative social esteem. Typically, a high school drop out with immense wealth assumes a low status compared to an averagely wealthy professor in an esteemed university. In this case, status is accorded with respect to perceived prestige in academics. According to Weber, status is a cultural issue while class is an economic issue (Allan, 139). Despite difference in monetary capabilities, individuals held in high regards like the aforementioned professor exerts more power compared to the high school dropout. People are immediately willing to side with people of high status out of respect for their position. Collectively, a few members occupying a high social status can exert more power compared to a vast population of lowly esteemed individuals. Having understood the role of class and status in the society, it is now time to acknowledge that people sharing similar intentions group themselves in parties in order to gain power. For example, the wealthy individuals may form a party meant to safeguard their economic interests (Allan, 139). On the contrary, clergy men holding high status may act as proponents of a party meant to bring social advantages to its active members. In this context, it would be right to say that a party is a tool used by the self-seeking individuals in striving to achieve their collective objectives. Therefore, a party is a group whose ambitions are oriented towards controlling power by gaining an administrative position within a social, economic or political organization. With respect to World War 2, Allied powers and Axis powers were examples of parties. Also, Democratic and Republican parties in today’s American politics feature as another example of parties. Collectively, members of a given party can exert power depending on their economic strength and status within a parent cultural setting. At this juncture, it is acknowledgeable that class, status and parties are the main avenues through which power can be exercised. However, one must appreciate the fact that human beings are inherently self-seeking. This means any group would have a collective tendency to oppose a ruling power, unless they believe that the authority in power assumes a legitimate position in their society. Lack of legitimate believes typically causes resistance and revolution. However, legitimate forms of power are respected by all members of the society. Among the highly esteemed forms of legitimate governance include traditional authority, legal authority and charismatic authority (Allan, 140). These three forms of authority are perceived as being fair and objective; hence any group striving to gain power should subscribe to principles advocated for by these power structures. Karl Marx Karl Marx was a German lawyer and philosopher. While living in Berlin, Marx experienced growing negativity from anti-Semitism movements. Consequently, he moved to safer zones like Paris and London. While in Paris and London, Marx analyzed several fronts of capitalism, especially those regarding to its contradictions and exploitation. In the early times of capitalism, Marx tried to understand the concept’s progress in actual economic settings. As a new ideology, capitalism still struggled with obstacles from both the social and political contexts. In addition, Marx realized that the genuine goals of capitalism had already been damaged by selfish ambitions of the wealthy (Allan, 106). In the 1800s, child labor became common, and slavery intensified. Children as young as 4 years worked in mines. There were no life insurance for laborers and children ended up maimed or even dead from accidents. Suddenly, Marx realized that capitalism caused more problems than freedoms. Rather than increasing social satisfaction, capitalism was destroying democracy and undermining human dignity. One contradiction of capitalism lies on the concept of overproduction. Objectively, the free market capitalism proposed by Adam Smith in 1776 was meant to preserve and advance the economic rights of humanity. Economic liberty is an intrinsic value of humanity, and anyone has a right to pursue his or her economic objectives (Allan, 108). However, capitalism evolved into a rather subjective form of economic individualism. Instead of desires to own moderate material wealth, individuals became engaged in endless pursuit for relative needs. Traditionally, capitalism accorded individuals freedom to accumulate material wealth that was necessary for simple sustenance. However, capitalism presented a situation where economic needs neglected human dignity and personal freedom. Competition for scarce resources causes an immediate shift from voluntary labor to forced labor. Consequently, exploitation ensued and employers paid laborers merge wages in order to retain more profits. Therefore, capitalism led to an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, thus undermining any hopes for economic equality. As acknowledged earlier, democracy came under serious threat. The concept of commodity fetishism led to misrecognition of social and political relations. Obsession with wealth ushered in an era where human value was measured in terms of monetary worth. No one still recognized ideas and values that created humanness and social connections. Rather, the ruling class exerted more influence on the low classes. Instead of protecting individuals’ rights through democracy, political leaders sought to preserve and even advance interests of the wealthy (Allan, 112). Ultimately, Marx agreed that capitalism unleashed full human capacity for inhumanity. The rich continued to gain wealth while the poor toiled and diminished as a result of exploitation. Work Cited Allan, Kenneth. A Premier in Social and Sociological Theory: Capitalism, power and religion. Pittsburg: Pine Forge Press, 2010. Print. Read More