Understanding of the Idea of Society - Essay Example

 Description, Comparison, and Evaluation of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber’s Contribution to Society Introduction Given that Sociology is focused on analyzing how people and the society as a whole functions, Sociology is considered as a broad subject. As explained by Farley (2000, pp. 69 – 70), it is necessary to examine not only the existing political system in each region or country but also the cultural and economic aspects when learning about how people interacts within a given society. Since 1800s, capitalism within the society has gradually becoming more evident as compared to the previous times. Because of significant development in capitalism, urbanization and industrialization took place during the early part of the 19th century. Because of the presence of competition and socio-economic struggle, the gap between the social classes of people started to widen. As part of understanding how society function as a whole, this report will describe, evaluate and compare specific contribution of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber when it comes to issues related to the society. Description, Comparison, and Evaluation of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber’s Contribution to Society Description and Comparison in the Contribution of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber in the Study of Society Having a strong interest in analyzing the impact of religion to the entire society, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber are among the prominent sociologists who were known for their unique classical and seminal sociological theories between the later parts of 19th century up to the present time. Since each individual have different assumptions with regards to understanding the human nature in a society where capitalism is progressing, Marx, Durkheim and Weber had unique opinions and suggestions which all contributed in the development of sociology. The theory of Marx with regards to analyzing the society is similar to an organism in the sense that each part of the human body performs unique function. With this in mind, Marx publicly introduced the concept of labour division within the society as a result of capitalism – a situation whereby the capitalists deal with a group of labourers for the purpose of profit gain and increase in production (Hess, Markson and Stein 1989, p. 12). Unlike Durkheim and Weber, Marx provided a more valid description and reasons as to why development in the structure of capitalism created serious socio-economic problems in the modern way of living. As explained by Marx, capitalism could only result to endless exploitation of the poor as a result of the continuous economic expansion within the modern industrial system (Morrison 1995, p. 5; Ritzer 1988, pp. 20 – 23). Marx revealed that capitalists within the society take advantage of the services rendered by the workers in exchange of limited salaries aside from preventing most of the people from being able to acquire their own property. Since the workers in general are being exploited by their employers, Marx revealed that it is not right for workers to assume that the market creates value for their services (Marx 2002, pp. 51 – 55). Because of the possible conflict between the labourers and the capitalists, Marx suggested the need to destroy the existing structure of capitalism in order to solve the evolving socio-economic problems in the society. In relation to the perception of Marx with regards to capitalism, Durkheim suggested the strong need for socio-economic reformation as a way to effectively solve the conflicting interests between the capitalists and the labourers (Ritzer 1988, p. 88). Because of the continuous economic development within a society, Durkheim explained the identity of each individual will gradually be destroyed because of the possibility wherein the elite and the capitalists would gain strong control in terms of manipulating the society (Giddens 1971, p. 117). Durkheim explained that the evolution in the socio-economic status of each nation can be noted with the presence of division in workforce (Durkheim 2002, p. 128). With this in mind, Durkheim predicted the possibility that developments in capitalism could result to the shift from agriculture to industrial revolution. Since significant changes in the external workforce structure could affect the social being of each individual (Ritzer 1988, p. 16), Durkheim explained that socio-economic reforms are necessary to enable us to cope with the continuous changes in the economic activities in each society (Durkheim 2002, p. 148). Earlier, it was mentioned that Marx’s idea with regards to the root cause of social class conflicts arises out of capitalism. Contrary to the perception of Marx with regards to social class conflict, Durkheim considered the absence of a common morality among the people living in each society as the root cause of social class conflicts. In line with this, Durkheim’s idea of the need to develop a common morality within the work environment can be achieved by encouraging employers, managers, and employees in each business group to identify and recognize their individual and common interests when designing an integrated moral system (Ritzer 1988, p. 88). Despite the fact that Durkheim and Weber were both considered as the founders of modern theory in sociology, these two individuals have different interpretation when it comes to analyzing the impact of capitalism with the present society. Similar to Durkheim, Weber was never against the development and existence of capitalism in our society nor does he suggest the need to develop revolutionary solutions when it comes to solving the socio-economic problems that arises out of capitalism (Weber 2002, p. 194; Ritzer 1988, pp. 134 – 135). Unlike Marx who viewed capitalism as the root cause of socio-economic problems that takes place within a society, Weber was more positive when it comes to perceiving the socio-economic impact of capitalism over the lives of each individual. Since the presence of capitalism in our society is something that we cannot easily omit (Weber 2002, p. 194), Weber viewed capitalism as a normal economic structure in the Western countries. Similar to Marx, Weber did not consider capitalism an economic system that is not flexible when it comes to forcing the people living in each society to obey the rules of the economic greed (Ritzer 1988, pp. 134 – 135). Even though Weber was aware of the negative socio-economic consequences associated with capitalism, Weber strongly suggests that people within the society should live with the changing economic needs in order to live comfortable (Weber 2002, p. 194). Evaluation of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber’s Contribution to Society Upon examining the similarity between Weber and Durkheim’s methods used in studying how the society works, Ragin and Zaret (1983) revealed that both sociologists are using comparative methods that are highly related to their individual substantive and epistemological perception when analyzing the social order and significant changes that are taking place within the society. The only difference between the two is that Weber often use case-based comparative research method whereas Durkheim was relying more on the use of variable-based comparative research. Throughout his lifetime, Durkheim does not consider the presence of historical diversity as the best method when studying how the society works as a system. Instead of heavily relying with historical events, Durkheim focused his study based on the vision of a positivist in relation to the study of society. On the contrary, Weber strongly considered the foundation of historical diversity as a way of determining how people within a society interacts with one another. These are the reasons why Durkeim and Weber come up with explanations that are functional and genetic respectively (Ragin and Zaret 1983). Among the three sociologists, the contribution of Marx’s theory in the development of modern sociology clearly explains the negative socio-economic consequences associated with a stronger capitalism. As explained by Marx in his book entitled Capital, the Communist Manifesto and other Writings, capitalism took place within a society in a gradual process such that human beings formed themselves into small family units that aggressively engaged themselves in agriculture. Since then, inequalities within a society particularly with regards to financial or socio-economic issues became more significant (Marx, Engels and Puchner, The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings 2005). Similar to the contribution of Marx, the existing theory of labour value clearly explains the ways in which the bourgeois are able to exploit people within the working class of individuals in each society (Gregory and Stuart 1999, p. 69). In line with the theory related to labour value, Ritzer (1988, pp. 51 – 52) explained that workers in a capitalized system are alienated in terms of their “productive activity” or work services and the end-product of their services. It means that only the capitalists are able to fully enjoy the fruit of the workers’ services. Specifically the contribution of Marx with regards to the impact of capitalism within the society can be related to majority of individuals who are unable to accept or freely acknowledge the need to adopt with the socio-economic changes that is taking place as a result of globalization. Because of the inability of some individuals to embrace the socio-economic changes that is taking place today, many people around the world are either unemployed or unable to maximize their ability to convert and make use knowledge, skills and services in a more fruitful way of earning monetary gains. It is very unfortunate that there are people in this world who are close minded when it comes to maximizing the use of their skills, talents, and other available resources for their own individual benefits. Because of narrow mindedness, millions of people suffer from the socio-economic consequences of capitalism. Aside from the inability to have good education, a lot of people around the world suffers from hunger as a result of high poverty rate. As well-known sociologists, Durkheim and Weber are more positive when it comes to dealing with the social and economic consequences associated with capitalism. Similar to the impact of Marx’s perception with regards to the impact of capitalism in today’s society, the basic explanation of Weber with regards to capitalism can also be readily observed in today’s modern society. Instead of focusing on the majority of individuals who failed to cope with the significant changes that is currently taking place within the society, the concept of Weber with regards to capitalism is similar to successful business people and high-skilled professionals in the sense that these individuals are able to adjust with the changing demands in the way businesses are being conducted today. Conclusion and Recommendations Because of generation gap, the difference between Marx and Weber’s contribution in the study of society can be noted in the sense that Marx’s study was made when he tried to examine the impact of capitalism and bureaucracy including the influence of capitalism on society’s economic and political perception. Since Weber was born during the stage wherein capitalism was already widely accepted within the society, his study focused on identifying not only the cause behind the progress in capitalism but also the positive impact of being able to cope with the changing economic demands. Given that Marx was born during the developmental stage of capitalism, Marx’s study failed to perceive that capitalism can lead to positive socio-economic consequences. Similar to the theories of Marx and Weber, the contribution of Durkheim’s theory is equally useful in the sense that he provided us with the idea on how to consider the psychological-and-sociological explanation when analyzing the impact of capitalism in the socio-economic growth and development of each society (Ritzer 1988, p. 90). In general, the study of human nature is a complex topic due to the fact that each individual has their own way of analyzing and perceiving the possible impact of capitalism over the society as a whole. The contribution of Marx, Durkheim and Weber with regards to their individual perception over the role and impact of capitalism on people living in each society is unique. In line with this, Marx was more focused on analyzing the negative social consequences of capitalism based on economic perspective (Morrison 1995, p. 5). In the case of Durkheim and Weber, the social economic consequences of capitalism were analyzed based on psychological-and-sociological dimension and historical-and-sociological dimension respectively (Ritzer 1988, p. 90). The application of Marx’s theory with regards to the social and economic consequences of capitalism in the development of modern sociology could hinder the ability of each individual to prosper and take advantage of the socio-economic benefits associated with the on-going process of globalization. As a common knowledge, Marx’s theory with regards to capitalism is close in terms of accepting the need to cope with the socio-economic changes that is taking place within the society. Since the only thing that is constant in this world is change, people should learn to avoid Marx’s perception over this matter. In relation to globalization, the only way to socio-economic success is to become more flexible when dealing with socio-economic changes. Religion is one of the common factors that could significantly affect the way the society perceives life in general. Even though Marx was not against any form of religion, he acknowledged that the presence of religion could hinder people from having the opportunity to know the truth (Christiano et al. 2008, p. 126). For this reason, rationality is so much better than having a strong belief in religion. Being rational is referring to the need to consider the importance of scientific-based studies over the strong belief over religion. Since Weber highlighted the need to be rational and goal-oriented, it is best to consider applying the concept of Weber’s theory in one’s life. Instead of considering capitalism as the root cause over the increasing number of socio-economic problems related to poverty, it is best to educate people to become more flexible when dealing with socio-economic changes. *** End *** References Christiano, K. et al., 2008. Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Durkheim, E., 2002. The Division of Labor in Society. In Calhoun, C. et al. (eds) "Classic Sociological Theory". Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Farley, J., 2000. Majority - Minority Relations. (4th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Giddens, A., 1971. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. An Analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gregory, P. and Stuart, R., 1999. Comparative Economic Systems. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company. Hess, B., Markson, E. and Stein, P., 1989. Instructor's Manual to Reflections on American Society video to accompany Sociology. 3rd Edition. New York: Macmillan. Marx, K., 2002. Commodities. In Calhoun, C. et al. (eds) "Classic Sociological Theory". Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Marx, K., Engels, F. and Puchner, M., 2005. The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings. Barnes & Noble. Morrison, K., 1995. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication. Ragin, C. and Zaret, D., 1983. Theory and Method in Comparative Research: Two Strategies. Social Forces , 61, pp. 731-754. Ritzer, G., 1988. Sociological Theory. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Weber, M., 2002. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In Calhoun, C. et al. (eds) "Classic Sociological Theory". Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Read More