Theorists Who Have Played a Pivotal Role in Developing Political and Socio-Economic Ideology - Assignment Example

Theorists of Sociology Number Introduction It is a fact that world systems have their underpinnings in ideology, while these ideologies date back to as far as human civilization began. These ideologies have been political, social and economic in nature. Some of the theorists who have played a pivotal role in developing political and socio-economic ideology are Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Martineau and Emile Durkheim, as shall be seen in the ensuing discussion. Question 1 (a) As different human identities, it is a fact that Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau would have different viewpoints on the theory of social contract. Thomas Hobbes (April 5, 1588- December 4, 1679) was an English philosopher who is considered the father of political science and modern political philosophy on the one hand. On the other hand, Jean Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712- July 2, 1778) was a Genevan political philosopher who lived in the eighteenth century. Hobbes and Rousseau Had Different Views on the Social Contract Hobbes and Rousseau differ on the views of the theory of social contract, on several fronts. One of the areas in which Hobbes and Rousseau disagree on social contract is the state of nature. According to Hobbes, war comprises the state of nature. In this state, no morality exists and people live in a constant state of fear. This constant state of fear removes the state of freedom. Equality in the Hobbesian state of nature is only availed or underscored by the fact that even the weak have the ability to bring down even the strongest of men. This is not the case with Rousseau. According to Rousseau, the state of nature is characterized by men being free and equal. The import of the Rousseauan state of nature is that partakers therein are noble savages who have only been corrupted over time by the forces of civilization. Secondly, Rousseau and Hobbes differ on the purpose of the government, as far as the theory of social contract is concerned. According to Rousseau, the government exists to bring men into harmony. This harmony is achieved when the government uses its instruments of coercion and monopoly of the legitimate use of force to unite all men under the General Will. On the other hand, Hobbes sees the government as having the sole function of preventing the state of war. The government does this by imposing law and order. In another wavelength, Rousseau and Hobbes part ways on the theory of social contract is concerned when the issue of representation is brought up. The Hobbesian theory of social contract is characterized by a government which is driven by the need to control and is designed for the selfsame purpose, in lieu of representation. According to Rousseau, representation is an important facet of governance but is barely enough, since it is impossible that citizens delegate their civic duties. Because of this, it is important that citizens are actively involved in matters that deal with governance. In this regard, Rousseau envisions direct democracy as being able to express the people’s will more expressly than representational democracy. Elaborating on Rousseau’s criticisms of Hobbes’ Version of the Social Contract Rousseau criticizes Hobbes’ attempt to create liberty by pointing out that the Hobbesian civil society is one that brings about illegitimate chains. This is the case since people in Hobbes’ civil society are forced to live up to a legal system and civil codes that they had not envisioned, created or consented. The crux of the matter herein is that the lawmaker in this case brings about a situation wherein the people are not able to pursue and obtain their desires. Instead, people become a slave to the state and are disallowed from exercising their rational contribution and capacity to follow general will, benefit the society and to perpetuate their personal interests. How Rousseau Attempted to Overcome these Difficulties Hobbes attempts to stem the difficulties that are inherent in his theory of social contract not by amending it [for it would be anachronistic to speak of Hobbes answering Rousseau since he antecedes Hobbes by at least two centuries] but by restating his position. Therefore, it is important to appreciate the fact that Hobbes does not necessarily reply Rousseau’s criticisms, but merely addresses criticisms to his work. It only happens that Rousseau addresses matters that Hobbes’ contemporaries had saw as a matter of concern. Specifically, Hobbes states that it is self-defeatist to predicate an argument on the idea of complete freedom since complete freedom is neither here nor there. Complete freedom cannot be achieved because of fear. It is this fear that makes it necessary the government to impose law and order, as a way of preventing the state of war. It is for this reason that Hobbes contends that the government is designed to control and not to represent. The crux of what Hobbes is saying is that man is imperfect and therefore, envisioning a situation whereby he is accorded absolute rights is dwelling in the unrealistic. Question 2 (b) It is an indisputable fact that religion is a powerful force and tool of socialization and acculturation. It is for the same reason that many sociologists and social scientists have given their theories and standpoints on religion. Harriet Martineau (1802- 1876) and Emile Durkheim (1858- 1917) are some of the most renowned sociologists who have made their postulations on religion and have provided theoretical frameworks for modern day sociologists. Martineau’s ideas on religion are found in her book, Society in America, while Durkheim’s views on the same are found in his book, Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings. Comparing Martineau’s and Durkheim’s Perspective on the Nature and Function of Religion Martineau sees the function of religion as being individual-centered. This is to the effect that Martineau viewed religion as being emphatic on personal growth. On the contrary, Durkheim deemed the nature of religion as not being individual-centered, given that the principal purpose of religion is to perpetuate, enhance and strengthen social cohesion. Durkheim sees all the functions of religion being divisible into four main parts. According to Martineau, religion fosters social cohesion and stability. This is the case since religion can shape a harmonious and consistent moral community and can shield people from alienation, anomie and danger. Durkheim points at the ability of religion to mobilize people into action and into cohesion for instance through collective ceremonies and rituals. Thus, religion also plays the role of fostering societal integration. Again, religion is responsible for forming collective conscience, morally. This in turn helps the formation of principal values and value consensuses. Durkheim shows that this is usually the case in respect to totems and the use of totemic symbols such as flags. Totems work simply because people have a shared social value, or other exogamic groups have consented to embracing or respecting the totem. The case above is not envisioned by Martineau who saw religion as an act of individualism. To Martineau, American religion was being shaped by the peculiar American character of approachability, gentleness, sociability, fairness and openness. For instance, fairness became of the principal American character since Americans always maintained their respect for their democratic society and democratic society. The American society stresses the importance of religious development and citizens readily accept this. Over time, the belief in the concept of individualism becomes the premises upon which religious consciousness is developed in the United States. Martineau sees the clergy and members of the first estate as an impediment to the pursuit of religious ideals as this group had made the Church lose its meaning, value and purpose. Martineau sees the Church as being in a way that neither serves the people nor helps them to hear the word or voice of God. In this light, Martineau saw the emergence of the several denominations as the defeating of the mechanical observation and adoption of religion and the acceptance of individuality of speech, thoughts and actions. Martineau takes the standpoint that the primary function and nature of religion is to serve as the principle for personal life by perpetuating human values and teaching people the essence and importance of decency. How Martineau’s Position Is Related to Her Assessment of the American Character It is a fact that Martineau views the American character as being relevant to her assessment which is the role and nature of religion in the society, specifically, the United States. Martineau tends to insinuate that people can modify the tenets of religion to take on nationalist traits and values. Specifically, Martineau says that America’s character of gentleness, sociability, approachableness, openness and fairness shaped the American religion, so that American religion emphasized these values. These values also became the rallying points by which religion is promoted. Religion in America is therefore promoted in the United States as the ideal characters that should inhere an individual and that individual should live by. This is so since religion should help develop an individual and the development of desired trait is an important part of this development. It is for this same purpose that fairness had become the principal American character since America always maintained its respect for their democratic society and democratic society. Read More