Ritzer and Weber, Marx and Bellamy Foster, Etzioni and Durkheim and Sociological Theory - Essay Example

Sociological Theory The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse the ideas of three contemporary sociologists in relation with the traditional theories of the most famous classical sociology’s theorists namely Marx, Durkheim and Weber. Beginning with a critical review of each of the worker’s theories, I will show an appreciation of the author’s contributions towards the debates in sociological theory and also an appreciation towards the works of each of the traditional sociologists. Also, I would attempt to analyse the merits and the criticisms of the arguments of each of the sociologists. Lastly, I would present a personal opinion on which theory deals with a certain problem of classical sociology better. Karl Marx and John Bellamy Foster John Bellamy Foster is one of the contemporary theorists who believe in some of the ideologies of Karl Marx. Using the traditional theories of Karl Marx, Foster tries to deal with the contemporary issues that are faced under sociology, especially related to the notion of ecology. In accordance with Foster (2000), the use of Marx’s ideologies related to the concept of ecology is not something that proves to be a courtesy to the past. Rather, for him, these ideologies prove to be an integral part of dealing with the issues that are faced currently. Most of the theories of Karl Marx were based, as Wood (2004) relates, on the concept that the class divides between the people would ultimately lead to a revolution. For Marx, according to Twigg (2006), the reason for the class divides among people was just the presence of a market based economy. He believed that the capitalism would ultimately end one day, because of the crisis, and would pave the way for socialism. It seems that Foster also shares some of the views of Karl Marx. Furthermore, Foster (2002) states that Marx lived in an era where the feudalism was being changed to capitalism therefore he was able to observe the changes that had happened personally, unlike the contemporary theorists. It is this fact that has compelled Foster to work on the ideologies of Marx, as he (2002) relates. Foster (2002) also argues that the questions that were raised by Marx in that time ‘about capitalist society and even about the relation between society and nature were often more fundamental than what characterises social and ecological thought, even on the left, today.’ For Foster the technology may have changed and the present times may be very different from those of the past yet the problem of the global crisis is the same, and in his words it is the ‘capitalisms antagonistic relation to the environment.’ This means that the technology is not the primary issue of the world today. Rather the true problem that is present is the capitalist nature and logic of the production process. For the study of the devastating environmental conditions that are faced by the world today, it is important to study how detrimental capitalism can actually be. Foster, through most of his works, has focused on the relation of the global environmental crisis and the crisis that is existent in the capitalist societies. Also he, like Marx, has proposed socialism as a solution to the crisis problems faced globally. The benefits of such an ideology, according to Ifeh (2010), are that it leads to the lowering of the gap between the rich and the poor. Socialism ensures that the production process does not just lead to the well being of one small community. Rather it leads to an equal distribution of wealth and income among all, irrespective of their status quo. One of the most important issues that are faced today is the discrepancy among incomes that leads to poverty. Foster’s theories are valid to some extent because socialism may actually prove to be a solution to the problem of poverty and may deal with the global crisis. However, like any other theory, Foster’s theory also has been criticised lately. In accordance with Elwell (2009), the prime focus of Foster was to incorporate nature in to the study of ecology, unlike other ecologists. Critics argue that Foster may be an advocate of the ideology of Karl Marx, but he had failed to recognize that Marx had not intended his work to be taken in the way Foster took it. As Beach (2007) relates, Marx focused on the human nature and for the study of the ecology the human nature was not the only one that had to be considered. This was what Foster’s theory also had lacked. Now, the paper focuses on the works of both Ritzer and Weber. Ritzer and Weber Ritzer is also one of contemporary theorists who have undertaken the work of a famous sociological theorist Max Weber. According to Keel (2010), Ritzer has made use of the work of Max Weber, updated and expanded it and has tried to apply it to the critical issues that are faced today. The concept of McDonaldization is one aspect of Weber’s work that Ritzer has concentrated on. Weber’s work basically focused on the concept of rationalization. This process, according to Keel (2010), meant that the traditional modes of thinking were replaced by means that could help improve efficiency and ‘formalized social control’. Weber was of the view that a proper hierarchical structure (the ‘bureaucracy’) was needed that could not just affect the human interaction but could also induce a thinking process which might ultimately lead to a more rationalized world. For Weber, rationalization could be achieved by a proper bureaucracy, well written rules and regulations and an increased need towards technical competence. It seems that Ritzer is also of the same view. Ritzer, through his work, has focused a lot on the process of McDonaldization. As Ritzer and Goodman (2004) narrate, the problem that is faced by the global economy is ‘rationalization’ and rationalization can be only improved if the bureaucracies are given more chances. He, like Weber, believes that the reason why the fast food restaurants have become so important in the daily lives of the people is the fact that they have achieved ‘rationalization’ through their hierarchical structures. In order to deal with the problem, in Ritzer’s view, it is important the bureaucracies are given more importance. This would help achieve, in Keel’s (2010) words, the efficiency that has been achieved by the fast food chains. Also it would ensure that less time is wasted. Critics, however, think otherwise. Keel (2010) believes that the ideas of Ritzer are so much based on the ideologies of Weber that they have failed to even consider the aspects of capitalism and alienation in the markets. Rationalization is not the only solution to the problems faced in modern times. Yes it is true that the process of rationalization may improve the efficiency of the markets it may also lead to increased class divide and hence other related problems. Also, the nature of the industry is important. It is possible that the process of rationalization does not affect the industry positively. Even the famous fast food restaurants may also prove to be a contradiction here. Keel (2010) argues that the fast food industry may also lead to ‘irrational’ outcomes. Some of them may include less nourished food, more time wasted in standing in queues, and less family integrity (which used to be previously centered on the family meal). The paper now concentrates on the works of Durkheim and Etzioni. Etzioni and Durkheim The works of Etzioni, a contemporary theorist, are also based on a number of concepts of Durkheim, especially in relation to the community and the morality in a democratic state, as the title of Etzioni’s (1998) book states. Durkheim’s ideologies are mostly focused on morality. He believed that the society was a source of morality and the morality could be used as a form of education that could penetrate through the society and help change it. He urged the need for the humans to realize that thinking about one’s own self is not what morality is. Rather the humans should also concentrate on the common good. It seems that Etzioni also has followed the same positivist approach as Durkheim is. Etzioni (1998) criticized the American overemphasis on the individual rights. This is because Etzioni, like Durkheim, believes in the notion of morality and hence the need for a greater good. Taking the communitarian’s approach, Etzioni believes that efforts should be made to educate the people in such a manner that leads to the welfare of all. According to Armitrage and Roberts (2002), Etzioni updates Durkheim and ‘proclaims a need for the society to take precedence over individualist desires’ Hence Etzioni, throughout his works, stresses for a balance between personal liberty and socialist imperatives. Some people do agree with Etzioni stating that his communitarian approach might lead to the betterment of the society as a whole and might ensure that the humans are not selfish but considerate towards each other. It may also help to deal with the problems that are faced globally; though there are others who disagree. Critics (the advocates of individualistic liberty) fear that the Etzioni’s notion of the ‘greater good’ is something that is more like ‘authoritarianism.’ The notion of the shared social values is not acceptable to such people who believe that the individuals should not be forced to do something out of their own accord. Imposing social values onto someone may not prove to be the solution of the problems that are faced today. Conclusion To conclude, I would say that the works of each of the contemporary workers that are based on the traditional sociological theory can be criticized heavily. However, the criticism of any theory does not make it invalid or valid, for that matter. However, I personally believe that the use of Ritzer’s use of the rationalization of Weber is the most valid one for the dealing of the problems of today. References Armitrage, J. and Roberts, J. (2002). Living With Cyberspace: Technology & Society in the 21st Century. US. Continnum Beach, T. (2007). Marxism and the Socialist Movement. UK. Slide share. Elwell, F. (2009). Google Docs [internet] Available from: [Accessed 25 May 2010] Etzioni, A. (1998).The New Golden Rule: Community And Morality In A Democratic Society. US. Basic Books. Foster, J. (2000).Marxs ecology. US. Monthly Review Press.   Foster, J. (2002).Marxs ecology in historical perspective. US. International Socialism Journal. Ifeh, K. (2010). Explaining Socialism [Internet] Available from < http://www.helium.com/items/1423325-explaining-socialism > [Accessed 27 May 2010] Keel, R. (2010). The McDonaldization of Society [Internet] Available from < http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/010/mcdonsoc.html > [Accessed 27 May 2010] Ritzer, G. and Goodman, D. (2004). Sociological Theory. US. McGraw-Hill Twigg, L. (2006). Karl Marx versus Adam Smith. UK. Rebirth of Reason Wood, A. (2004). Karl Marx (Arguments of the Philosophers). UK. Routledge Read More