Karl Marx and Max Weber Contributions to Development of Social Thought - Essay Example

Karl Marx and Max Weber Contributions to Development of Social Thought Sociology concerns itself with how people interact in the society, the studies of the society, inter-personal relationships, human interactions and intra-personal relationships. It provides the scientific study of social institutions, systems and organizations (Hwang, 2006). Sociologists view the world in different perspectives with some believing that the society it is steady and on-going entity. Sociologists are swayed by survival of the families, how religions and other social institutions are organized (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013). The society is made up of many groups in conflict and striving for limited resources. Also, some sociologists are interested in the way people interact with one another in the society (Scott, 2006). This study focuses on the views of Karl Marx and Weber Max contributions to the development of social thought. Although various sociologists had different views about the existence of society, their views had significant contributions towards understanding of social relations and human actions. Karl Marx focused on defining social life and individuals through economic systems that he believed they existed in the social order. He viewed human beings as spectators in the society (Blackledge, 2006). Just like Weber, Marx had a similar view that social configurations of the society are influenced human actions (Hwang, 2006, p. 24). Therefore, Karl Marx developed theory of economic systems in order to demonstrate how structures of the society influence human actions (Chambers, 2012, p. 65). This led him to focus more on economic issues in which he focused on the structural study of industrial capitalism and economic systems to distinguish the fundamental issues in the society. Karl Marx had a view that the society was highly stratified in the sense that the people committed their effort towards their work earned least from their labour. In relation to that observation, Karl Marx wrote the communist manifesto to describe a bout a perfect communist society (Chambers, 2012, p. 71). In his mind, he perceived a communist society as one in which all people could earn equally from their labour without anyone gaining advantage of the other. People would contribute their labour towards work and gain equal share irrespective of one’s effort (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013). As he sought to accomplish the communist ideology, Karl Marx established the relationship between individuals and the society that was responsible for the transformation (Wendling, 2009). He established that the relationship was in the method of production that is achieved by exploiting the wage labour and thus he concluded the connection was between individuals and the production methods (Blackledge, 2006). In his view society is composed of two classes that he refers as Plorotariate and Bourgeoise with antagonistic interests (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013). He observed industrial society and saw the factory as the focal point of conflict between the exploiters (the owners of means of production) and the exploited (the workers). His dramatic thinking became an inspiration to the supporters of communist in Cuba, Russia, etc. (Charles, Davies & Harris, 2008). Karl Marx argues that the human being is oblivious of the existence of the social system and the impact they have on their actions (Eagleton, 2011). He adds that the lack of awareness about the existence of the social systems has conditioned their lives. He believed that human beings are unaware of their environment and that results to social problems. Marx viewed sociology as a natural science and argued that one day it will incorporate science of man while the science of man integrate natural science the two will emerge as a single science (Eagleton, 2011). In addition, he examined the supremacy of history and established ‘historical materialism’ theory which scrutinized the society from a hypothetical angle and examined the circumstances of human existence (Scott, 2006). In his assessment, Marx concluded that the human being must achieve their economic needs from their effort. However, this perception was demoralizing because the effort of people is passive since it is determined by the status of available materials (Sperber, 2013, p. 325). Therefore, Marx’s ideology elaborates the relationship existing between man and material substances in the society. In his notion of ‘mode of production,’ Marx argues that economy has supremacy over the political and cultural institutions. The implication of his model is that the mode of production influences the political, intellectual and social life (Fulcher & Scott, 2007). The social being is the determinant of human consciousness and not the consciousness of men that determine the being of a man. He distinguished ‘forces of production’ from ‘social relations of production.’ He claimed that the forces of production refer to those factors essential for the production of a livelihood such as machinery, technology, fuel, human limbs, ability of the workforce, skills, physical strength, etc. (Sperber, 2013). The social relations of production refer to relations that have control over the factors of production. Therefore, when people in the society get into relations of production, it is then that they can put the production elements into use (Hwang, 2006). This gives the explanation of the existence of the society and how resources are generated in the society. In order for a society to advance, people should recognize the social relations of production and forces of production. The model explains the existence of powerful social class of resource owners and the class of producers that is subject to control of the resource owners (Charles et al., 2008). Max Weber argued that sociology should focus on understanding the social behaviour of human. He sought the meaning of human behaviour rather than focusing on their actions. He developed the concept of ‘social action’ to achieve an intellectual understanding of the social world and the notion is based on historical materialism and is the mother of capitalism (Fulcher & Scott, 2007). The concept of social action provides an insight for understanding the actions of the people the way they act rationally and systematic organization of the world. Weber argued that the social science aims at appreciating the human behaviour though not all human actions can be scientifically determined (International Schumpeter Society, 2003). His contribution in the social study enables sociologists to determine which human actions are of significance to understanding and the ones they should not be concerned about. His ideology also brings an understanding of active and reactive behaviour of human beings (International Schumpeter Society, 2003). Active behaviour are considered as meaningful action such as coughing in order to capture someone’s attention, while reactive behaviours are those that have a physical cause such as coughing because someone’s throat has been clogged (Chambers, 2012). Therefore, sociology is concerned with active behaviour because they are induced by meaningful cause and because there are directed towards other persons or takes consideration of other persons. Therefore, Weber’s view of rational action has contributed to the development of the social idea in the sense that they help sociologists to determine the cause for such actions or how people act towards others (Scott, 2006). Rational conducts are taken by people towards others for a meaningful purpose thus it helps in understanding the way people interact in the society. He argued that sociologists can apply “Verstehen” method to understand what people conceive in their minds. However, in order to explain the consequences of social actions sociologists should take into consideration the norms, believes and values of the people they are investigating (Fulcher & Scott, 2007). He also claimed that it is very essential to understand the intention of the people for their actions. He applied the method because he perceived intentions as the significant cause of action which is essential for the interpretive sociology that seeks clarification of action through identifying people’s motives. Actions and motives behind the actions give the explanations of human behaviour. Therefore, Weber’s Verstehen model guides the sociologists in understanding human actions as the products of the human thinking. By understanding what people conceive in their minds sociologists, can understand their actions. The people actions and motives are the determinants of their behaviour and relationship with other in the society. Once one can read the mind of others they can discern their motives behind their actions hence they can be able to determine how to relate or interact with them (Antonio, 2003). Weber further argued that the certainty with which human understands the actions can occur in rational of an empathetic form. He suggested rational intelligibility entails the likelihood of accomplishing understanding of rational meanings (Boudin, 2008). Despite the fact that different people have different norms in the society they are personally conscious about those norms through understanding of meanings. Webers perception of ‘rational intelligibility’ can result to rational certainty that enables difficult meaning to be logically understood with clarity and wholeness. The perception of Weber’s ‘empathetic certainty’ is accomplished the moment a person can comprehend the complex feelings of the agent and recall those feelings through the performance of empathetic thoughts (Boudin, 2008). Empathetic certainties are the cornerstone of Verstehen model and understanding of the significance. Therefore, the ability to recall one’s imaginations is of great significance towards understanding of the interpretation of the meaning of diverse values and norms of the people in the society. However, the diverse people’s norms and values are the more challenges they are to understand (Eagleton, 2011). This may require one to have an intellectual understanding or just accept them as fundamental facts. Unlike Karl Marx, who perceived that one-day natural science and social science will integrate into a single science, Weber focused on dominance of social action (Fulcher & Scott, 2007). He observed four types of behaviour that includes affective, instrumental action, traditional and value-rational behaviour. He argued that the affective behaviour seeks immediate gratification without assessing the means and end of one’s action, but is determined by the present state of mind. Instrumental behaviour involves taking action in considerations of the consequences of the outcome (Chambers, 2012). Traditional behaviour ‘sits on the borderline of being meaningful’ since it is an instinctive response to automatic conformity with traditions. Finally, value rational behaviour is based on taking action based on a certain value held for it irrespective of the consequences it may have. Finally, Weber admits the complexity of social life that comprises of complex human behaviour. However, he perceives an “ideal types” notion to help in the understanding complexity of social life (Antonio, 2003). The implication of ideal types is to establish rational criteria for people to factor out important elements being studied and relate them together in a meaningful way. The model enables social scientists to perceive the world in a more logical manner and estimate the reality with greater efficiency (Sperber, 2013). In conclusion, it can be argued that although Karl Marx and Max Weber had different perceptions about the society there ideas made significance in the study of social behaviour. Marx made an immense contribution to social development that cannot be underestimated in the study of sociology. Marx observed that people’s relations and the ways of lives are influenced by the establishments of the social relations. His perception historical materialism has contributed to sociology and understanding of social life. He observed the society as made of the social system and stratified. He also elaborated on the existence of social classes determined by the ownership and control of means of production as the essential components influencing relations in the society. His contribution attained great support from the communist supporters. On the other hand, Max Weber observed the human actions and human beings as the creators of society. He proposed Verstehen model to help understand the human mind. He established the complexity of the society and introduced ‘ideal types’ ideology to help in understanding the complexity of social life. List of References Antonio, R. (2003). "Marx and Modernity: Key Readings and Commentary." Malden, MA: Blackwell. Blackledge, P. (2006). Reflections on the Marxist Theory of History. Manchester University Press. Boudin, L. B. (2008). The Theoretical System of Karl Marx. Wildside Press LLC, Pp. 1-288. Chambers, D. (2012). A Sociology of Family Life. Polity. Pp. 1-240. Charles, N., Davies, C.A., & Harris, C. (2008). "Families in Transition: Social Change, Family Formation and Kin Relationships." Policy Press. Pp. 265. Eagleton, T. (2011). Why Marx Was Right. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Fulcher, J. & Scott, J. (2007). Sociology, (3rd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hwang, R. R., (2006). "Recent Interpretations of Karl Marxs Social Theory." Peter Lang. 1-143 International Schumpeter Society, (2003). Change, Transformation and Development: With 61 Tables. Springer Science & Business Media, 1-450. Mommsen, W. J. & Osterhammel, J. (2013). Max Weber and His Contemporaries. Routledge. Pp. 1-608 Ransome, P. (2010). Social Theory for Beginners. Policy Press. Pp. 1-480. Scott, J. (2006). "Social Theory: Central Issues in Sociology." London: Sage. Sperber, J. (2013). Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life. W.W. Norton & Company. Pp1-648 Wendling, A. (2009). Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation. Palgrave Macmillan. Read More