Emile Durkheim and Max Weber as the Most Influential Sociologists of 20th Century - Case Study Example

Comparative study: Emile Durkheim and Max Weber Comparative study: Emile Durkheim and Max Weber Max Weber and Emile Durkheim are considered to be the most influential sociologist of 20th century. However, there are hundreds of sociologists who emerged during the period but the contributions of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber are prominent. This paper aims to compare concepts and theoretical tradition of these two sociologists. This paper illustrates similarities and differences of the concepts of the both of the sociologist. Max Weber’s theories are inspired of German intellectual position that emphasizes on individual’s action. On the other hand, Durkheim theories are inspired of French intellectuals that stress on the collective consciousness and social collectivity. This paper shall compare the theoretical approaches of both of the sociologist to develop in depth understanding about social order or social reality. We shall further investigate Weber and Durkheim opinions in detail to develop an understanding about the significance of sociology in society. The origin of sociology as a ‘science’ can be traced back in the 11th century. However, the concepts flourished during the 20th century with the contribution of hundreds of sociologist. This main objective of this paper is to compare concepts of two main sociologist of 20th century: Max Weber and Emile Durkheim. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is known as ‘father of sociology’. Emile was the first professor in France who taught sociology as an actual science in France. He is considered to be heavily influenced by the positive philosopher August Comte. According to Comte, the concepts of Durkheim are deductive social factors or social law. On the other hand, Max Weber’s orientations are considered to be inspired by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. The concepts of Weber were based on the concepts of individuality that is the social action, interpretation, etc. However, Durkheim had a different perspective. His sociological orientation focuses on collective action or social collectivity and determines it as an influence on individual’s consciousness. Durkheim studies stress on the social facts, functions, causality, generality, etc. (Kornblum, 2007). Durkheim’s views on the scientific knowledge and subject matter of sociology insisted on the distinction of sociology from the other science. He stated that the sociology is a natural science, and this is because the sociologist should free his mind from all the preconceptions that may take a sociologist approach to a passive direction towards social reality (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). Therefore, Durkheim believes that the positivism is one of the essential elements that a sociologist should be considered in order to get rid of all the perceptions. On the other hand, Weber had a different perspective about the scientific knowledge (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). He believed that the society and culture are the main elements of the scientific knowledge; therefore Weber states that the selection, over emphasizing and simplifying aspects of the bodies of scientific knowledge (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). Unlike Durkheim, Weber believed that the ‘presuppositionless’ is an empirical approach to investigate the reality. An event can be analyzed through determining different aspects of the event (Kornblum, 2007). According to Weber, “The real empirical sociological investigation begins with the question: what motives determine and lead the individual members and participants in this socialistic community came into being in the first place and that it continues to exist?’ Weber believes that the cause behind every action of individual is the meaning that the individual attributes to his action. Weber’s perceptions about the sociology are primarily concerned with the ‘meaning attributed action’ within society (Kornblum, 2007). Weber’s concepts stress that the people give the meaning to their own behavior as well as to the meaning to the behavior that other carry in their reciprocal relationship. According to Weber, individual’s meaning to their action or social relationship is the main thing that regulated the social life. Hence, Weber’s analysis is based on the individualistic approach that regulated social action in society. Durkheim’s perception about the social order are different, he analyzes the whole society as a set that derives individual action in a particular manner (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). He evaluates society on the whole to determine individual’s action. However, Weber’s ‘methodological individualism’ states that the society is constructed on the basis of the individual, whereas Durkheim believes on ‘methodological collectivism’ that is to analyze the society whole on its own, as its environment is the nature of the society is important not individuals (Programs for Comparative Sociology Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, 2014). Durkheim’s concepts rely on the phenomena that the continuity of the society is based on the social regulation that is based on the needs and desires of individuals. The social problems can be overcome through the determination of social regulations that are over the uncertainty of individual as explained “Man is double. There are two being in him: an individual being which has its foundation in the organism…and social being which represents higher reality in the intellectual and moral order that we can know by observation” (Durkheim, 1949). He believed that the needs of an individual are infinite, and it is impossible to meet the limits of human desire that derives his to adopt different social action (Kornblum, 2007). It implies that the society restrains the needs of individual due to which a person is engaged in uncertain social action (Programs for Comparative Sociology Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, 2014). In contras Weberian approach highlights that the types of actions and orientation with the term ‘usage’ that means that if the social action continues to occur it is the usage. Weber explains reciprocal relation associating with the different factors in his sociology that is dependent on the full spectrum of casual factors. In order to explain his idea, Weber gives example of western civilization. He elaborates that the Western Civilization cannot emerge or reduce due to idealist and materialist reasons. It shows that the emergence of the society cannot be associated with the materialistic or spiritual needs, he states that a human cannot be one sided or equally sided due to which his interpretation about equal materialistic and spiritual is actually an interpretation of the culture. To explain the casual factors of the society Weber illustrates that the economic, ethical, political, etc. were interrelated at the time when the western civilization emerged. Weber further explains this through studying on Protestant ethics and Calvinist ethics (Programs for Comparative Sociology Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, 2014). Calvinist ethics is based on the rational means and calculations that develop a personality. Self-discipline was the fundamental element of the Calvinist ethics, in the mean time impersonal bureaucracy emerged that limits that personal arbitrary. It was reflected from the irrational and absolute authority of the rulers in the society (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). These all factors were interrelated and the main cause for the development for preparation of the objectives, predictions and protective social conditions (Durkheim, 1949). This shows that Weber believes that the idea of social change is rooted in the history and culture. Durkheim has countered the idea through his interpretation regarding “division of labor in a society” (Durkheim, 1949). His idea demonstrates that the human is more a product of the society than a determinant of the society. He argues this with the context of Modern society that is the communication means, technology development that has complex the society (Programs for Comparative Sociology Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, 2014). Therefore, Durkheim states that “a nonsocial substrate operating outside the sphere of the exercise of the human mind and will” (Durkheim, 1949). On the contrary, Weber’s perspective about the modern society evaluates legal rational authority as the main element that has made the human to realize his desires and needs. It has projected the universalization of values and the competitive means to attain their desire (Programs for Comparative Sociology Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, 2014). This allows individual to take a rational decision and appropriate means to attain their want and desire. Weber states that the legal authoritative structure of the society is the main element that derives the realization of human towards their needs and desire, whereas Durkheim implies complex principles on individual, he states that the interdependency of the complex principles, traditions and grants from people (Durkheim, 1949). Therefore, in the modern society an individual is exposed to the idea of ‘freer’ that is developed on the spontaneous inner instinct of individual. Its shows that Durkheim has an optimistic approach towards Western Civilization that has allowed individual freedom to practice and change the means according to their desire. He believes that the civilization itself is the prominent aspect that changes the aspects of the society (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). Furthermore, Durkheim explains this with respect to the different specialization of individuals in occupation. He states that every individual does not have similar specialization or common interest to persuade his or her social relationship (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). It is the beauty of rights that a society gives to individual to practice his individuality in the society and thus it does not dissolve social order (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). Weber is rational towards modern society; he states that the emergence of the civilization has created barriers and limitations in the society that has restrained human freedom. He has pessimistic believes about the society (Hodson & Sullivan, 2009). Weber states that the modern society itself is slavery for humans, it has formally manipulated the freedom of the individual with the sets of rules and regulation. He says this as “ an inanimate machine is made objectified…together with the inanimate machine it is busy fabricating the shell of bondage which mean will perhaps be forced to inhabit some day, as powerless as the fellahs of ancient regime” (Weber, 2002). Hence it has taken away the beauty and freedom of the individual. The modern society restricts the social order in the society with respect to its principles. From the above information, it can be observed that the Max Weber’s studies society with respect to individualistic consciousness level through providing meaning and regulating the behaviors of individuals and their action that shall eventually shape the society (Weber, 2002). In addition, Weber’s concepts through legitimization of authority relation that has constituted the dominance in the society. On the contrary, Durkheim believes that the society is dependent on itself, and the social order is not dependent on the individualistic desire (Weber, The Theory Of Social and Economic Organization, 2009). The society is dependent on the social principles that dominate the society. According to Durkheim, individuals do not play the main role to create the meaning of the social world. References Durkheim, E. (1949). Divison of Labour. New York: The Free Press. Hodson, R., & Sullivan, T. (2009). The Social Organization of Work. Mason: Cengage learning. Kornblum, W. (2007). Sociology in a Changing World. Mason: Cengage Learning. Programs for Comparative Sociology Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. (2014, January 24). Retrieved from http://poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/res/durk.html Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Weber, M. (2009). The Theory Of Social And Economic Organization. New York: Simon and Schuster. Read More