Views of Power of 3 Sociologists: Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx - Essay Example

Critically analyze and compare the differences and similarities on the views of power of 3 sociologists: Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx Customer Inserts His/Her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 6th August, 2011 Power has been defined and held in speculation by many sociologists. It is essentially the extent to which a state, unit or an entity can control the power of other units. Authority is used to denote the power perceived as legitimate by our social order. Power can be either evil or unjust. When it comes to the corporate world, power is usually displayed as upward or downward. In the case of downward power, the superiors in the company have an influence over the subordinates and vice versa in the case of upwards. There have been views on power held by several sociologists. In this paper, we aim to analyze the similarities and differences on the views of power of Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Weber (Lukes, 1985). A renowned sociologist in French and a guiding figure in the same language, Durkheim was born to Jewish parents in the Eastern part of France where his father was a prominent rabbi in the district. Durkheim did not have very strong views on power as compared to Karl Marx and Max Weber, neither was he actively involved in politics. He was an advocate of a state-oriented, idealistic and non-Marxian type of power and politics. Karl Marx is best renowned as a revolutionary communist whose work on power and the state has inspired many such communal regimes. Max Weber is regarded as one of the leading theorists of the twentieth century. He is known as one of the chief founders of Social Sciences. His vast contributions gave birth to several new academic disciplines such as sociology and public administration. All his writings established the basis of modern social science and he considered to be inspirational for many modern thinkers and sociologists (Swatos, 1998). Karl Marx and Durkheim’s views on religion will greatly show the power struggle in our society because religion divides the society into two constructs. According to Marx, religion is used to justify and safeguard the classes in our society and consequently also used to ensure the domineering ideologies prevalent in our society. Religion plays an imperative role in shaping the beliefs and values that exist in our social construct and also contribute to acts that build up our social order. For instance: the rich are capable of making wealthy donations to the church as opposed to the poor and gradually, the beliefs of the church will be shaped as per the interests of the ruling class. Hence, the desires of the rich will be met and the class system will be become more and more pronounced (Wolff, 2011). Later onwards, Marx formulated the concept of alienation, which is a condition in which the men are held in power or dominated by the forces of their own creation. When workers in a society are alienated, they do no usually have proper access to the outcome of their own labour. This labour is for someone else. Marx asserts that all the different social institutions in a capitalist society are marked by alienation. The very essence of religion bears testimony to the fact that a man is alienated from himself. Durkheim like Marx also believes that religion hasn’t been divinely created, but is essentially the product of our own illusion and religious ideas stem from this illusion. Men achieve their greatest intensity when they are together and they have the same ideas and sentiments. Durkheim also emphasized on the communal nature of religion and the type of communal bonds created by religion (Turner, 1983). On the other hand, Max Weber believes that power can have many different forms. One such form is bureaucracy. This is a specific type of administrative structure, which has been formed through rational and legal authority. Bureaucratic structures have evolved in the following ways and consist of the following stipulations: 1. The geographical areas are clearly specified and the activities within that area are allocated as official duties, as opposed to traditional form where duties assigned by the leader can be changed at any time. 2. The organization abides by the hierarchical principle i.e. the subordinates have to follow their superiors. However, they have their own right of appeal, which comes as advantageous, as opposed to the more primitive forms of traditional authority. 3. There are certain rules that govern decisions and actions. These rules are quite laborious. 4. The decisions are generally documented in permanent files. 5. All the production and administration means belong to the office. 6. The hiring criteria for the officials include technical qualifications. 7. When the organization appoints, it should be considered as a career. In this case, the official is a full-time employee. After a probationary period, they get tenure of position. Weber believed that all these above stipulations constitute a system of power where the leaders asserted influence on the others based on a certain system of discipline. Furthermore, he added that the rational-legal form was the steadiest system for both superiors and sub-ordinates, because not only is it very lucid and clear, but it also allows more independence. It also gives subordinates the right to challenge certain decisions of their leaders by referring to rules (Mommsen, 1992). Marx’s primitive power theory is based on the grounds that the “history of our current society is the history of class struggles.” To develop upon this further, Marx says that since the time human society has come out from its rudimentary state, it has remained divided amongst classes who are fighting amongst each others in the pursuit of their own vested personal interests. For instance in the world of capitalism the factory is the focal point of all the hostility existing between the classes i.e. between the buyers and sellers, the exploiters and the exploited rather than a proper functional collaboration. The confrontation of power and the class interests are the majors determinants of historical and social phenomenon’s and interests. Marx’s analysis also focuses on the fact that how the relationships between men are formed in context to their means of production i.e. access to scarce resources and power. Furthermore, he observes that unequal access can lead to active class struggle. But it was quite interesting and bewildering for him that there is a considerable potential for class struggle in every society because such a society generates conflicts between people at different levels who are located at varying places within the social structure, specifically with regards to production. Marx was also concerned as to how certain positions in the social order helped in shaping the experiences of people and led them to committing actions, which would consequently be effective in improving their collective fate (Cambridge University Press, 2001). Marx believed that the stratification system rests on the total amount of men relative to the means of production. Most of the modern classes are merely owners of labor-power, and owners of land-owners and capital whose sources of income include profit, wages and ground-rent. These classes generally perform the same type of function in organizing production. However, classes which are separate from the total number of people sharing a common fate require some conditions such as the total concentration of people, a common enemy and a network of communication. The self-conscious classes will only come up, if there is a junction of ideal and material interests, as pointed out by Marx. This also includes the juxtaposition of political and economical demands along with different ideological beliefs. This reasoning also led Marx to believe that the working class would also develop class consciousness once the conditions appropriate were present because of the inherently competitive relations that existed between capital producers and which rendered incapable of developing consciousness of its collective interests. According to classical economists, the economic system of a market economy is one in which a man working in the favor of his own interests is concerned solely with augmenting his own gains, but manages to contribute nonetheless to the interests and harmony of the whole community. As opposed to utilitarians who consider self-interest to be a regulator of a peaceful society, Marx reckons that individual self interest among capitalists is destructive of that particular type of class interest and therefore leads to the self-destruction of capitalism. Also, the fact that capitalists act logically in their own self-interests contributes considerably to economic crises and also to the destruction of interests, which are common for all. However, Weber believes that power can take a variety of forms; generally, it refers to the chance that a person may have to realize their will in a communal action, which is perpetrated against them. The power of a person can be displayed through his/her status, the economic order of his or her class and the political order of his or her party. Therefore, class, party and status are the three divisions of power in a community. There are three types of orders existing in the society. Social order indicates social honour or prestige in a society. There are different status groups i.e. professors and construction workers who have varying places on the prestige line. Economic order indicates the allocation of economic goods and services i.e. the arrangement of classes in the society. Lastly, political order shows the allocation of power among parties which have an influence on communal decisions. According to Weber, power is the chance that an individual may have in a social relationship where he/she can achieve his or her own will even against the resistance of others. This definition encompasses a lot of things, so to make it simpler, Weber used the concept of domination, which according to him is the probability that all the commands or the demands in a society will be met and obeyed by a certain group of people. The general features associated with domination are interest, belief, regularity and obedience. He also said that domination in its most genuine and untouched form comes with some sort of an interest i.e. one’s own vested interests. These examples of dominance could range from teacher-student domination, employer-employee domination, parent-child relationships or even relations between a priest and a church member. The power relations include the following factors: 1. Firstly it involves voluntary obedience and conformity. The individuals are not compelled to obey, but do it out of their own free will. 2. Those who do it usually have some sort of an interest or they think they have some sort of an interest. 3. There is also belief required in the legitimacy of the actions of the leading individual group. 4. The compliance or the obedience is not disorganized or associated with a short-term social relationship, but constitutes a long-term relationship of power and subordination. In order to show the dynamics of power, Weber identified three types of classes: social classes, property classes and commercial (acquisition classes). Furthermore, he says that individual can only belong to these types of classes, if they are in the similar class situation. This refers to the probability of individuals having their own position, goods and satisfaction in life. This is drawn from their own relative control over goods and skills. Another type of class includes property classes, which are known by property differences. They are those classes which monopolize on expensive foods and other perks, such as education and also they are also those classes, which have the control of all the wealth, sales and hoarded capital in the society. Such classes mostly consist of “rentiers” and they get their income from a lot of sources, which include land, people, bank securities and factories. The people who aren’t privileged there are known as paupers. The position of these classes can be identified by the marketability of goods and services, which may also give the chance to explore the market. These commercial classes are determined by the skills features that members bring into the market. The social group consists of different types of class situations, and within these situations individual mobility is quite regular and easy-going. In other words, there is easy movement of individuals in these class situations. Moreover, individuals can be also ranked on the grounds of their nobility and reputation. The status situation of a person consists of all features of his or her life, which can be assessed by his honor. These groups are grounded on the numerous factors: inherited or learned honor, education, training, way of living life etc. Weber particularly emphasized on the fact that status; class and political power are interlinked with each other. Although, the class factor has controlling importance, Weber pointed out that status and class are not naturally connected. There are some individuals who are low in class position, but can be high in honor and vice versa. There are some groups known as parties, which have an objective of securing power in a certain organization or a state, so that the leaders may gain some benefits or advantages for its proactive members. This does not only constitute political parties such as Democrats but also political groups. They can use status, classes and groups and even their own members to achieve their power. The aim of these parties is to get their programs developed or accepted. In addition, they also want to get positions of power and operate within a rational order, so that it’s easier for them to accept their goals when there is a struggle for power (Kim, 2008). According to Weber, every society has been segregated into different types of groups and strata’s and they all possess a different life style and outlook of the world. Although, these classes may have conflicts and discourses amongst themselves, they are essentially accepting of stable patterns of sub-ordination and super-ordination. When it comes to analyzing power in a society, Weber has a very pluralistic notion. Despite agreeing with Marx at certain level, Weber manages to refine and extend Marx’s analysis on power. According to Marx, power is always rooted only in the last form in economic relations. The people who have power tend to exercise it either directly or indirectly. Weber believes that in the modern capitalist world, power is usually in its most dominant form. However, he opposes the fact that the emergence of economic power can be attributed to power existing on other grounds. For instance: those people have large-scale bureaucratic organizations can generate a lot of economic power, even though they may be just salaried individuals. Weber understands that power indicates the chance of one man or several men to realize their will in communal action, even though it may not be in the favor of others. Furthermore, he says that the sources from where this power is derived can vary, as per the social context, which includes both historical and social circumstances. Therefore the location of the source of power becomes a dilemma for Weber, which he believes cannot even be answered by Marx’s own set of dogmatic beliefs. Also, Weber argues that it’s not just power that men use in order to enrich themselves. The power which also includes economic power is quite important in its own right. And very often the desire to achieve this power is determined by the social honor that it carries (Shortell, 2004). References Kim, Sung Ho, "Max Weber", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Accessed 6th August, 2011 Mommsen, J, Wolfgang, The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber, Published in 1992, University of Chicago Press, Accessed 5th August, 2011 Shortell, Timothy, Weber’s theory of Social Class, Published in 2004 http://www.brooklynsoc.org/courses/43.1/weber.html, Accessed 5th August, 2011 Swatos, H, William, Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, Published in 1998, http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/coverpage.htm, Accessed 5th August, 2011 Wolff, Jonathan, "Karl Marx", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Accessed 5th August, 2011 Lukes, Steven, Emile Durkheim, his life and work, Published in 1985, Stanford University Press, Accessed 5th August, 2011 Cambridge University Press, Pragmatism and the Question of Truth, Published in 2001, http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/durkheim.htm, Accessed 5th August, 2011 Turner, P, Stephen, Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Moralist, Published in 1993, http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=FHYmaDVRFEgC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=emile+durkheim+on+power&source=bl&ots=2Bdw7Fm-ra&sig=lZDLDYwQ2UU8WNFGDAj4SBJDI3I&hl=en&ei=7es8TuObCobFswaS7Y0k&sa=X&oi=book_result&, ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q&f=false, Accessed 5th August, 2011 Read More