The Convergence and Divergence of the Thoughts of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim - Essay Example

Social theory essay Introduction Marx, Durkheim, and Weber supposed that the study of society and history were inseparable. Their theories of history informed their understanding of social life. The uniqueness inherent in the modern world had its roots from the societies that modernity had succeeded. Change was conceptualized from different angles. Durkheim conceptualized social change as a transition from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity governed by scientific rationality. According to Weber, social change was as a result of transition from the social world of kinship to a modern bureaucratic order of systems. Marx viewed social change in relation to the succession of modes of production from the capitalist to socialism and communism (Morrison, & Ken p 14). Discussion Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was instrumental in laying the foundation for the emerging discipline of sociology. He argued that, the primary domain of sociology is the conditions and circumstances external to an individual that determines his/her course of action, unlike psychology, which deals with an individual’s personality or instincts. He campaigned for a systematic examination of social facts and the impact they have on individuals. Durkheim thoughts were parallel to those of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau, in the Social Contract, believed that a genuine social contract where everyone participates in creating laws existed so as to have a free and equal society. In a parallel way, Durkheim was concerned with subjective elements of society and the external social facts. Elements of the society include; commitment to a moral code or feelings of solidarity. He believed that societies were integrated by subjective elements. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was another classical figure of sociology, though he viewed himself as an economist and social critic. He shaped an economic philosophy that was once embedded in science and humanist prophecy. Marx analyzed the capital system to establish the economic dynamics of capitalism, social, and moral problems inherent in the system. A third core classical theorist of sociology, Max Weber (1864-1920), was concerned about the idea systems and material conditions of modern societies. He combined methodical and scientific approaches in his studies. Apart from sociology, economic and political revolutions emerged with a specific intellectual environment. The Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment formed the foundation for a whole host of social and political developments. In the sixteenth century, remarkable political, economic, and religious transformations occurred. This new discipline of sociology sought to explain the causes and effects of such social change (Münch, & Richard p 46). The most important aspect of these changes was the Industrial revolution. This was a period whereby power-driven machinery was applied to manufacturing. This revolution turned Europe to a predominantly industrial society from a predominantly agricultural society and galvanized the system of capitalism. With the industrial revolution, people left agricultural work and sought for employment in factories located in the growing cities. Migration from rural to urban areas was at an all time high. By the end of the nineteenth century, half of the population of Europe lived in cities. Increased demand for labor and technological changes transformed factories. Sophisticated machines were adopted while tasks became systemic. The rise in efficiency escalated the levels of unemployment. Mechanized production reduced the number of jobs available and the demand for human power. Besides that human costs also escalated. Accidents were frequent and workers were mistreated; punished and wages docked. Women and children worked under life threatening conditions (Wyatt, & Lee p 54). Marx became concerned about the disorganizing social effects and economic changes that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. Besides writing books on the conditions faced by workers under capitalism, he assisted in the organization of revolutionary labor movements. He managed this through political action and focused on provoking the broad social change. Weber also became distraught about the profound social transformation that was occurring. He was concerned on the effects that such transformations had on the society. He argued that modern economic and organizational structures affected social relations. Modern economic structures related to capitalism while organizational structures focused on bureaucracies. This argument was in contrast to Marx’s political action since he examined the specific systems of meaning that caused and resulted from such profound structural change. Weber compares society to an “iron cage.” Structural change was induced and resulted to particular systems ideas. The eighteenth century saw tremendous economic and political transformation. The most significant political event was the French Revolution, which toppled the ancient regime. The French Revolution was triggered by Rousseau’s Social Contract with a basic principle that “all men are born free and equal in rights.” The revolutionaries sought to achieve equality, liberty, and fraternity. They wanted to substitute equal rights for privilege and reason for tradition. Their aim was to rebuild the government from the bottom up by restructuring the nature of government from its foundation. They sparked a bloody aftermath to make it clear that even democratic revolutions contribute to social disruption; that is, dreadful deeds can be done in the name of freedom. The German sociology provided a great platform for comparing the thoughts of different thinkers. Karl Marx developed a materialist orientation that inclined on real material entities. He argued that the modern society faced problems that could be traced in the structures of capitalism. His materialism drove him to conclude on the labor theory of value. This theory stated that, “profits were based on the exploitation of the laborer.” Marx condemned the exploitation of workers while under the control of British political economists. Weber dismissed the ghost of Marx, by coming up with theories that depicted the success of his long debate. He was not conversant with the works of Marx and viewed the Marxists as economic experts who offered single-clause theories of social life. Weber saw ideas as independent forces with the capability of affecting the economic world. This was unlike the Marxists who viewed ideas as associated reflections of economic facets. Weber tried to disapprove the works of Marx by identifying the pertinence of ideas and rejecting the effect of material facets. Weber’s work was based on the theory ascribed to the process of rationalization unlike Marx who seemed guided by capitalism theories. Universally applied regulations and laws dominated large number social sectors in a bureaucratic dimension. Weber continued to argue that rational-legal structures of authority edged out traditional authority systems, charismatic authority, rooted in beliefs, and structures that relied heavily on extraordinary qualities of a leader. His studies of religion indicate why rational-legal forms were established in the West but not elsewhere. His views were welcomed more than Marx’s radicalism in sociology. Weber’s approach to the social world was evenly balanced as opposed to Marx. Durkheim was a French functionalist who looked at society in a scientific way. He believed that members of society wanted the same goals and had the same attitudes; that is, they were in consensus with each other. He argued that everyone and everything had a place in the society. Economic, political, and religious institutions worked together to create a functional society according to his proposition. This system socialized humanity into a consensus of values. He viewed religion as the worship of society, which strengthens societal bonds. Marx came up with a conflict theory. Being a German philosopher/activist/economist, he headed the sociological discipline of Marxism. He viewed the society as a sad place where members are continually in conflict with each other. In the industrial revolution, he believed that the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat by paying minimum wages in monotonous jobs. It is for this reason that he concluded that the society is in constant turmoil. He is very critical of capitalism and believes that it is discriminatory; it only benefits the middle class while oppressing the working class. His proposition for future systems was that; the proletariat would eventually overcome the vices inherent in capitalism by forming unions to overthrow the current system. Marx concluded his thoughts by saying that true happiness within the society would be achieved in a socialist society. Comparing these three thinkers broadens knowledge and can influence the way we think. Individuals incline on one of the three thoughts in relation to how they interpret the society. Weber argued that culture, economics, and politics shaped social relations. He believed that the economy is shaped by ideas while class is molded by economics and prestige. Humans would build organizations for convenience, but these organizations eventually end up ruling us. Durkheim argued that society shapes who we are. Social factors external to us determine our behavior and personality. We cooperate to create the natural state of society that is harmonious. Conflicts and social problems are abnormalities in the system and it is our responsibility to come up with order and structural functionalism. Marx thoughts focused on a social critique. According to him, life is a competition for resources and it is conflict that shapes us. Humanity does not cooperate as everyone wants to be on top as a means of survival. These three thinkers also had different views on religion. Religion forms a major element in the context of modernity and factors into a society built on the basis of rationalism. Marx did not write much on religion. From his writings, he presumed that religion forms the people’s opium. He argued that the criticism of religion was the fundamental criticism that thinkers would engage themselves. The criticism of religion disillusioned people so that they think of themselves as people who had lost their illusions and regained their reasons. People ended up revolving around themselves like their own sun. He describes religion as a sigh of relief for the oppressed members of the society and the opinion of a heartless world. Religion provides an escape route for masses living in a society that; cares less for its people, houses structures that enslave them, and a systems that dehumanize workers. The fact that religion exists is an indication that severe conditions exist. The alienation experienced by individuals with regard to their material existence is described by the alienation that religion portrays between humans and God. Durkheim also views religion as a holistic system that comprises practices and beliefs relative to sacred things. These are things that are set apart and forbidden. These practices and beliefs unite all those who follow to them into one common moral community (the church). He turns around his definition of religion to a relatively secular meaning. He argues that religion is a system comprising ideologies through, which people think of the society and the ambiguous yet intimate relations they experience with it. By doing so, he concludes that society is the origin of religion and not the other way round as he had argued in the first place. His suggestion is in line with that of Marx that the society is the origin of religion. Whereas Marx views God as an idea created by human nature, he sees God as society itself. He matches several functional characteristics of God with that of the society. This means that the society needs us to serve it and forget our own interests. Weber invested significant resources with regard to time in the study of resources. His thoughts match those of Karl Marx in the sense that, he views the driving force of society to as a result of material goods rather than ideas found in religious beliefs. Ideas behind religious beliefs guide the perception of the forces that already existed. Weber suggested that structures and religious leaders help people to achieve desired interests. This means that religion provides the platform for both social change and stability. He describes trends that indicate how the religion process developed from prophets and magical beliefs used in early society. Marx, Weber, and Durkheim represent the sociological traditions exploring religion. They gave room for objectivity to govern their dispassionate assessment of the evidence. This examination generated ideologies that any person may use to obtain an understanding on the works of religion within different facets of society. Conclusion Many contemporary theories of social change base their research from the tenets of the classical theorists. Functionalists utilize the insights of Weber and Durkheim whereas Giddens applies Marx’s thought in developing a theory of social change. From their diverse thoughts, social change is the ability of people to adapt to their environment through the growth of rationality. Adaptation would replace the undifferentiated pre-modern world of tradition with the modern world. Sociological tradition is, therefore, grounded in the exploration of social change. The convergence and divergence of the thoughts of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim assist us in establishing ordering, identity-producing, and goal-setting factors as drivers of social change. The unique features of modern society emerged from the interpretation of cultural, political, religious, communal and economic spheres in action (Weinstein, & Jay p 67). Work Cited Morrison, Ken. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: formations of modern social thought. 2nd ed. London: Sage, 2006. Print. Münch, Richard. Understanding modernity toward a new perspective going beyond Durkheim and Weber. London: Routledge, 2010. Print. "Understanding Modernity." Alibris Marketplace. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. . Weinstein, Jay A.. Social change. 3rd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010. Print. Wyatt, Lee T.. The industrial revolution. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2009. Print. Read More