Compare and Contrast the Concepts of Durkheim's Social Facts with Weber's Bureaucracy - Term Paper Example

Compare and Contrast the Concepts of Durkheims Social Facts with Webers Bureaucracy Registration Number Module Number and of Assignment Date of Submission 1 INTRODUCTION There have been ongoing interests in the social events that affect people’s lives, both in good and bad ways. Sociological theories have been developed and introduced as far as a few hundred years ago to address this issue and to better understand the reasons behind people’s behaviour. Sociologists use these classical theories to reason and analyse how social action, social processes, and social structures work in different ways. Furthermore, the ideas of these theorists continue to be relevant to sociological theory today as modern theorists continue to refer to these classical theories in the current social events. In this essay, the theories of Émile Durkheims social facts and Max Webers bureaucracy will be discussed with comparisons and contrasts. 2 THEORIES Émile Durkheims Social Facts According to Durkheim, social facts are things that influence people’s behaviour and these things can include jobs, money, education or marital status (http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/durkwrk.html, 1977). These are things external to an individual, but yet are considered as powerful determinants to the patterns of behaviour that are evident in individuals. Thus, an individual will feel the constraints with or without these factors, if these become embedded in the consciousness of an individual because of its ability to direct an individual’s desires. Having established that the society influences an individual’s interests and directs an individual’s desires, Durkheim went on to study the characteristics of two different religious groups and the behaviour of its respective followers. In this study, Durkheim found that social integration, or the lack of, of a group affects the behaviour of individuals, whether good or bad. This social integration includes specific social attachments among individuals as well as the degree to which they share common sentiments and beliefs (Classical Stage European Sources of Sociological Theory, 2008). Durkheim believes that strengthening the adherence to a moral code would be suitable in securing social integration within the society. He also highlighted the importance of division of labour in creating harmony between people. Max Webers Bureaucracy Max Weber, another classical sociology theorist, formulated the characteristics of bureaucracy. He believes that rationalisation is an ideal form of bureaucracy, whereas traditional forms are irrational. The traditional forms may use social factors, like religion, to explain the social world and that authority may also be derived from these. Weber regards these methods as having no systematic form of development, and that continued reliance on non-rational form will occur (http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o14f99.htm, 1999). In his theory, Weber states that the proper way of doing things through bureaucracy by establishing rules and regulations will improve social situations and benefit the economies. However, he also acknowledges the dysfunctional aspect of this theory, which is the abuse of power. 3 COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS On Society In comparison, both Durkheim and Weber emphasise the knowledge that both theories dominate lives and therefore society is seen as a living thing. This is because both theories of social facts and bureaucracy believe that social factors affect the way people behave. In social facts, society brings about collective conscience that results in common social bond expressed by ideas, norms and beliefs (Kilcullen, 1996). The reliable and clear system that the rational approach to bureaucracy renders makes the subordinate more independent and discrete (http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/bureaucracy.html), leading to a more effective organisation. This basis is fundamental part of how society is organised. On People In contrast, Weber states that it was bureaucracy that represented who you are and along side this; Durkheim states that social facts didn’t just represent who you are but also determined this factor. Both theorists argued that these forces came to represent an individual’s state of mind. Bureaucracy’s regulatory framework sets people’s actions and behaviour. Social facts are external and exert constrains over people (Classical Stage European Sources of Sociological Theory, 2008). Without this, people’s desires and aspirations become insufficient and social integration becomes low, giving rise to anomie. Durkheim states that anomie will lead to conflicts and disorder. On Power The theories are also concerned with the power society and government has over the individuals within communities. This is because concentration of power has a negative effect on society. In the first place, Weber was inspired to develop his theory of bureaucracy during the unstable political situations during his era. Without bureaucracy, Weber believes that people will tend to exercise power in a more violent way. On the contrary, the act of bureaucracy justifies actions on the basis of rationality. Durkheim thinks that too much power leads to having too strong a social cohesion, which can then result in demoralisation in people when they fail to fulfil social expectations (Classical Stage European Sources of Sociological Theory, 2008). In addition, Durkheim believes that social facts can result in the use of coercive power on individuals (Kilcullen, 1996). Both theorists believe that too much of power can have an adverse effect on society. On Social Determinants Furthermore, both see the individuals as less than society and that leads to the notion of why people within society itself need to be regulated. Durkheim states that individuals are not ruled by their own desires, but by the external forces of social determinants as seen in his study of religion. However, Weber thinks that a regulated system is stable and will ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of outcomes. This gives individuals a sense of satisfaction and security. On People’s Actions Weber states that due to bureaucracy, people are limited in possible actions. Bureaucracy is all about setting rules and regulations in black and white that people are expected to obey. Thus, their actions are simply regulated and restricted. However, Weber thinks this process is essential and can be learned (http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/encyclop/bureaucracy.html). Durkheim found that social facts limited individuals within society in terms of expressing themselves. This is because socialisation and education have led people to behave in a socially accepted manner. And as social facts impact people’s behaviour, their actions are limited to these. In contrast, Weber’s theory of the individuals is not tied to one position which is also known as meritocracy. Meritocracy is one of the factors that govern bureaucracy and in Weber’s opinion this process can bring about social cohesion. On the other hand, Durkheim’s theory shows that the individuals can move around nevertheless, they are tied with the notion of division of labour. Durkheim stated that division of labour increases both the reproductive capacity and skill of the workman. However, an increasing division of labour leads to social disintegration as it weakens the sense of identification with wider community (Kilcullen, 1996). On Regulations Weber stated that all subjects should accept and abide by laws with his theory of bureaucracy and to this Durkheim stated that the people’s place is hard wired. Weber also argued that the power of bureaucracy lies within the office whereas; Durkheim found that the power was something that was at society level. This is because according to Weber, it is the state of the organisation that determines how the society is organised. On the contrary, Durkheim finds that it is the society that influences people’s behaviour. Moving on, Weber argued that the order within society lies in accepting power of laws that were created by people. However, Durkheim found that the order actually lies in knowing you have any power at all. On Religion In his bid to learn more about social justice, Durkheim went on to study religion and how it affects the society. He learned that religion is a means by which the community come together to unite as one. With religion, people develop shared beliefs that bound them together. According to Durkheim, religion exudes power over people. On the other hand, Weber thinks that religion leads to capitalism, where people merely fulfil obligations imposed on them. With capitalism comes rationalisation, which leads to social cohesion through regulated tasks (http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/weberrelbk01.htm, 2003). Thus, both theorists believe that religion can bring about social cohesion, but in two different ways. On Constraints Durkheim agued that people are constrained by their social facts but Weber argued that this wasn’t the case and that people within the society and communities are individuals at their own costs. Social facts are external things that exist independently of the actions of any particular individual. However, according to Durkheim this is what binds social communities together as they share common interests. Weber stated that bureaucracy was an aspect of people’s lives that could be changed or amended. Weber believes bureaucracy, although rigid, is something the people can learn to adopt and follow. 4 CONCLUSION In a way, Durkheim’s social facts and Weber’s bureaucracy theories are aligned in terms of the scientific aspect of sociological study. Both classical theories address the social influences of people and how these impact their behaviour. Indeed, modern theorists are still curious and have continued to apply these studies in today’s society trends. Of course these theories remain debatable, especially with the current global position of economies, social behaviour have become even more complicated. The theories themselves have received their fair share of cynicism. In fact, even Weber thinks that his theory of rationalisation is an iron cage. This is because the theories present a very ideal social situation but not exactly right-fitting ones. The highly complex society makes it difficult for such theories to be applied as they are; people have different needs and different social determinants can satisfy such needs. Unless theorists can arrive at similar findings, these theories will remain as academic sources of sociology literatures. *** End *** BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Diana Kalajian. The Paradox of Durkheim’s Social Facts. [Online] Available at: http://www12.georgetown.edu/students/organizations/nscs/capitalscholar/durkheim.html (Accessed: 25 April 2009) 2. Steven Lukes; trans. by W.D. Halls. (1982) The Rules of the Sociological Method, Emile Durkheim. New York: Free Press. 3. F. Elwell. Emile Durkheim. Roger State University. [Online] Available at: www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Durkheim/Power/Emile Durkheim.ppt (Accessed: 28 April 2009) 4. Phil Bartle, PhD. Durkheim and Weber. Available at: [Online] http://www.scn.org/cmp/modules/soc-web.htm. (Accessed: 29 April 2009) 5. Max Weber: On Bureaucracy. (1996) John Kilcullen. Macquarie University 6. Max Weber. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. part III, chap. 6, pp. 650-78. 7. Eugene Kamenka. (1989) What is Bureaucracy and What is its Future? [Online] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/kamenka/1989/bureaucracy/future.htm (Accessed: 30 April 2009) 8. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. (2008) Classical Stage European Sources of Sociological Theory. 9. Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors. (2003) [Online] Available at: http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/weberrelbk01.htm (Accessed: 30 April 2009). Read More