View on the Society of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber - Essay Example

This research study will analyze the works of three sociologists that is Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim who commands high following in sociology. We will focus on their contribution to the society through religion and their understanding on impact of economy on the society. In some cases, their theories converge and in others they diverge as it is in this paper. Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim made a major contribution more than any other philosopher in the 19th century. Marx, Weber and Durkheim both combined their efforts in defining the nature of our society with respect to social changes that were likely to be encountered in the 20th century. Despite the fact that the works of Karl has been regarded as ‘dead issue’ meaning that it is not relevant in the 20th century, very ideological and it is methodologically, flawed, his work has some understanding of the society. The question that most scholars are asking themselves ‘is if the works of Marx had impact in the society during those early days and the impact it has in the contemporary society’ (Craib 1997). Reference to the works and experience of Karl there are several frameworks that explain his understanding of the society. Karl explains that materialism is a methodology that explains what is happening in the social environment (Ritzer, 2011). He states that social change in the contemporary society is driven by materials substances that force the relationship between forces and production. This includes changes in technology and property systems present in the society. “Materialism rebuffs the thoughts and ideals that drive social change; thus, nationalism, culture, patriotism, patriarchy ideologies and religion are epiphenomena rather than the originating causes of social change”, (Morrison 1995). For example, Karl means that materials things such as wealth and property that human beings have in the society plays a significant part towards the social change in the society. He also depicts that those with more wealth and property take the top most social class in the society as compared to those with limited resources mostly known as the ‘poor’ or the ‘have-nots’. Karl further places emphasis on the primacy of class and property. Karl Marx points out that capitalist interest shaped by property system in given society comes forth with outstanding foundation of collective actions of social change. Marx acknowledges that those occupying advantageous positions in the society given the property relations they have always what to preserve those positions through power relations and social injustice against those who occupy disadvantageous positions in the society. In addition those with disadvantageous positions in the society have interest in mobilizing to change those relations and advantage that the higher have. This is a key cause of dysfunction in the society leading to civil wars and the pull and push among the affluent and the poor in the society. A good example of this Marx’s understanding of this social dilemma is the cause of civil wars in Nigeria and Democratic Republic Congo. The civil wars in these countries are as a result of Minerals that rich investors are mining without giving workers enough wages and salaries. In addition, even the disadvantaged locals are not given enough employment with the tycoon investors and miners. Another perspective that Marx uses to explain the understanding of the society is through the theory of culture and consciousness of the people. Institutions of culture and consciousness play a vital role in attacking and stabilizing the most significant social relations of domination in the society. According to Marx educational and academic institutions nurture individuals to take part of hold specific roles in the society such as workers, managers, social worker etc. Therefore, struggle and confrontation over form and content of the institution or organizations of enculturation are expected to polarize social class lines. Generally, Marxists postulated that views in one’s life reflect our contemporary life experiences both in domestic chores and professional work (Marx 1988). Thus, elites create their own world that is quite different from those of subordinate groups. For example, Marx tries to say that those who have attained skills and knowledge from academic institutions are more likely, to enjoy both economic and social achievements in the society as compared to those without these skills. He also states that those that have attained these qualifications are considered important and relevant to the society than their counterparts with no academic qualifications. Marx tries to explain the diagnosis of the socially ill in the society via dehumanization, exploitation and alienation of the social relations. According to Karl Marx, exploitation has something to do with the flow of material good and wealth through the property system from producers to property owners. On the other side alienation deals with self control and loss of autonomy that people have with capitalist structure. Marx’s addiction to this idea is that the loss of autonomy has varied consequences to social frameworks such as depression and lack of self respect. All the above determinants of social integration within the society are vital in composition of a whole and composed individual. For example, Marx states that religion and culture plays part in building and individuals’ reputation and behavior in the society hence those who fail to conform to state laws are considered to be the ones that have failed to adhere to societal cultures and religion. He states that the society is divided by the power of religion and social status or class ‘the rich and the poor’, ‘Christians Vs Muslims’. So what about all the understanding that Marx has to the society? Is Marxism relevant to the contemporary society? The answer is yes if we shy away from rigidity and dogmatic ideas that were associated with tradition. Social class, religion and capitalism continue to be essential in the social world. We ought to take Marx’s corpus as interpretation and hypothesis about how capitalism works. Despite that fact that Marxism is not an inclusive theory of social change and organization, but it provides an explanation of how social mechanisms work together in a class-divided society. Therefore, this means that Marxism can be used for the past, present and the future as a social framework. Weber differs marginally from Marx when he defined different categories of men in the society. He differ in the following ways; men have specific casual component of life, these components are shown wholly by economic interest in opportunities and possession of goods and the components are represented under labor market conditions (Weber 2004). Weber’s work is almost similar to Marx’s perspective of the society though not necessarily close to Marx. He argues that societal class action will only emerge when there is a connection between the consequences and the causes of class situation; Marx would have an opinion that class becomes conscious of their needs and interest of its class and relation. Though, Weber’s theory of stratification is different from that of Marx since in introduces additional section known as the “status group”, (Weber 2003). Classification of people into groups depends on the consumption patterns and not in their place in the society. Weber thought that Karl Marx had neglected this category since it places its attention in production sphere (Weber 2004). Contrary to the classes that are composed of communal groups, status groups according to Weber are generally communities that are held by concept of good life style, honor accorded by others and social esteem. Associated with this are the expectations that human beings have concerning the restrictions that exist of the social intercourse with those not belonging in the social circle and assumed social distance to inferior individuals. With respect to this social understanding of other sociologists, Weber’s sociological view of the society differs with other interns of social category; he says that social category has different that his fellow sociologists and scholars have on social relationships. According to Weber social status groups only exist when other individuals out of the group accord prestige or degrade, which de-aligns them from the social actors thus, increasing their social distance. For example, the society is composed of political groups can be considered as social group, if other people find the importance or determine that the political group can benefit the entire society then they have no option of supporting this group as well as its social strata. This is evident in Great Britain with their hereditary kingship that has existed over centuries. Weber’s view on the society is that considers that the society is divided into strata and groupings that have distinct life styles and contemporary views of the world. He states that in most cases social status and groupings conflict in the society (Ritzer & Smart 2003). Due to this the society sometimes accepts or disregards stable social patterns of super-ordination and subordination. With these two different strata, Weber lays the foundation for the understanding of pluralistic outline of social differences and conflicts in the contemporary society and helps to explain the rare cases of polarized society. He did this to explain why, “Marx’s exclusive class-oriented scheme that failed to forecast cultural beliefs and norms in the modern society full of cultural conflicts” (Weber 1968). References Callinicos, A., 2007, “Social Theory: A Historical Introduction”, Cambridge: Polity Craib, I., 1997, “Classical Social Theory: An Introduction to the Thought of Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Simmel”, Oxford: OUP. Durkheim, E., 1982, “The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. by W.D. Halls”, New York, NY: The Free Press. Durkheim, E., 1984, “The Division of Labor in Society”, New York, NY: The Free Press Giddens, A., 1971, “Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber”, Cambridge, CA: Cambridge University Press Marx, K., 1988, “The Communist Manifesto”, ed. Frederic L. Bender. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Morrison, K., 1995, “Marx, Durkheim and Weber: The Formation of Modern Social Thought”, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ritzer, G., 2011, “Sociological Theory”, Boston: McGraw-Hill Ritzer, G. & Smart, B., 2003, “Handbook of Social Theory”, London: Sage Weber, M., 2003, “From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology”, ed. by Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. London: Routledge Weber, M., 2004, “The essential Weber: a reader”, ed. by Sam Whimster, London: Routledge Weber, M., 1968, “Economy and Society: Part I and II”, trans. by Fishoff et al. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press Read More