What do Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber all Have in Common? Essay
Karl Marx formed a theory called the conflict theory where he believed that there was a conflict between the ruling class (bourgeois) and the working class (proletariat) in relation to the issuing of wealth and labor in society. In his analysis Karl Marx spoked on capitalism has being the main reason for inequality in society between the two social classes. “Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”. (Definition of CAPITALISM, 2018). Marx believe that people were being force into labor against their will as a mean to survive in capitalist society. This was because of the unequal distribution of labor within society with the ruling class capturing and maintaining more of the material means for production that ultimately means they own and controlled most of the materialistic sentiments. The societies that Marx spoked about where exploitation was evident is the feudal society and the capitalist society. “In a feudal system, a peasant or worker known as a vassal received a piece of land in return for serving a lord or king, especially during times of war”. (“feudal system – Dictionary Definition,” 2019). In that time workers were exploited by the lords or kings and were offered lands and protection if they work and fought for them. Marx also made mention of the economic driven factor that has a contributed to human beings being forced to act on the world in certain ways– to engage in material production. (Harman, C., 2012). With that being said, society has been shape and form on the basis that persons are to work for the means of survival, to meet their needs in a world solely owned and controlled by the ruling class (bourgeois). This has created the evolutionary theory called false consciousness; where workers (proletariat) are convince that working in society under exploitative conditions are normal. This has clouded their minds, preventing them from seeing the real reason for them working. Their inability to recognize this exploitation has created a greater opportunity for the ruling class to take advantage of their own views and beliefs. This enable the ruling class to exploit and rule over the working class continuously as a way to maintain their power and control over the material means of production. For Marx, however, the continuous exploitation has caused alienation amongst workers in a capitalist society fueling a more degenerate contemporary society that was evident then and now. Needless to say, this exploitation it has only been beneficial to the ruling class and not the working class creating a more unequal society and marginalization between the two classes.
Marx further went on to explain the base (forces of production and relation of production) and superstructure (religion, culture family etc.) in the development of society. Base refers to the production forces, or the materials and resources, that generate the goods society needs and the superstructure describes all other aspects of society. ( https://www.facebook.com/thoughtcodotcom, 2014). Marx philosophy on the base and superstructure derive from how the economic and material means of production forms our political, religious and cultural views in society. This means that without the base in society all other things would have been unrealistic and unimaginative as the base is a determinant of how things were formed and created base on a materialistic culture. Additionally, Marx saw an economic driven culture in materialism as a foundation of how society is governed and ruled due to the dependency for material things by both classes to exist and survive. Nonetheless, for social revolution, as stated by Marx it is not until the working class become aware of the exploitation from the ruling class through class consciousness before any changes can be made that will eventually lead to social equality amongst themselves and the ruling class.
Notably, in Durkheim’s work from a functionalists perspective his views on how society works and functions to maintain balance and equilibrium is somewhat different for Marx’s views. To simply put, Durkheim looks specially on what holds society together rather than a materialistic economic driven perspectives compared to Marx. Durkheim point of view focuses on social solidarity and its interdependence between people and society to work simultaneously with each other to maintain social order respectively. Durkheim’s argument is that there are two types of social solidarity – how society holds together and what ties the individual to the society. (“Sociology 250 – Notes on Durkheim,” 2019a). Durkheim view on mechanical solidarity or a traditional society is that, it was held together base on the dependence of one another within social groups that eventually result in the formation of bonds and strong relationships amongst themselves and others. This was expressed by Durkheim as the “collective conscience”. Collective consciousness refers to the condition of the subject within the whole of society, and how any given individual comes to view herself as a part of any given group. (“collective consciousness,” 2019). Hence, reality is created when individuals interact with one another. This is evident in the family and other close knitted social groups who shared common beliefs and values. In this traditional society social integration was of utmost importance as it was what held individuals together rather than the division of labour.
On the other hand, the organic solidarity or modern society is defined as social integration that arises out of the need of individuals for one another’s services. (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010a). In this society emphasis is placed on the division of labor and as a consequence individuals begin to differ from one another and commonality amongst groups begin to reduce; hence a reduction in the collective conscience. Due to this interdependence amongst individual it has change the way we function and operate in the modern society and as a result there has been an increase in individuality. What hold this society together is the dependency that individual have on each other to perform task. This increase individualism and division of labor in society result in the survival mode in humans to increase to satisfy their material needs as mention by Marx. However, Durkheim also made mention of social integration and system integration and how they both keep social solidarity together. Additionally providing the understanding of social facts (things that are external to individuals such as institutions and culture that affects their behavior) Durkheim insist that this is what control our behavior upon interactions and historical evolution. Durkheim argue that social facts is the bases of how social order in maintained as it regards to how persons go about their lives and the constraints placed on the behavior of individuals. In his analysis he believed that social facts could explain our actions and in his attempt to prove this his study of suicide showed how too much or too little integration and regulation can result in this horrendous act.
At the same time, Max Weber saw rationalization as the epitome of society. To him the increase rationalization by individuals is what constitute for the different types of social actions in the past and now. Rationalization was seen by Weber as an indication that individuals were moving from a traditional society to more of practicable and calculable one, all while achieving efficiency with minimum effort. This is to say that, as the society changes and the organization grows there was also changes in the way people think and act. The different types of social action that Weber speaks about are the traditional action, the emotional action, the value-oriented action and the value-free action. These types of action, for Weber, were merely used to examine the historical rationalization processes in a sociocultural aspect. With the different types of social action Weber was able to place meaning on each action as this was a way to assess whether they were the act of rationalization or non rationalization. Weber was also concern with the meaning that individuals associated their actions with and as a consequence he was able to analyze the shift from the traditional society to a modern society.
He then continued to analyze how rationalization has shaped the modern society as it was an influences in the creation of the bureaucracy. “Bureaucracy can be considered to be a particular case of rationalization, or rationalization applied to human organization”. (Elwell, 2019). Initially, bureaucracy was the most effective way to organize people in society to determine who does what as well as the rules and laws. This was how social order is maintained within the organization with the aim to maximize on efficiency. In addition to this, the bureaucratically structure organization was a way to manage task in accordance to the individual’s role. It is an ideal way to distribute power in hierarchies where each individual is assigned a task and each of them is dependent on each other to get the work done. Weber, however, saw this increase rationalization in the development of bureaucracy has a way to trap individual in a society that is base solely on rationality. This was termed the “iron cage” by Weber. It was concluded by Weber that as individuals become more rational orientated within the organization or society in which they operate, it reduces self expression and creativity and as mention earlier in Marx philosophy this can result in alienation as workers become more rational and efficient.
Moreover, as the growth of the rationalization and the bureaucracy begin to prevail in the modern society so does capitalism. In a capitalist society religion was used as a tool to constrain the behavior of individuals. Weber argue that religion was a major contributor to capitalism and he believed that it was through belief and culture that society was shaped. However, Weber wanted to understand the rational meaning that individuals attach to their religious belief in relation to their social action. (“Content Pages of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Social Science,” 2019). This was highlighted in his study of the Protestant work ethic which answered Weber’s questions. In some religious groups such as Calvinists they were provided guidelines and rules on how they should behave and base on this code of conduct it will determine their fate with god. Weber also look at the historical dilemmas that have change the perceptions as to how humans see religion— as well as the increase or motivated behavioral patterns of individuals that were influence by their leaders in religious groups. Nonetheless, based upon the increase rationalization in the modern society religion is no longer used as metric tool by individuals as a guide as to how they should behave. This is to say that individuals no longer hold on to religious beliefs to make decisions. Ironically, though this can be seen as a contradictory approach to Weber’s initial analysis by looking at individuals as a conceptual tool to prove the rational interpretation of social actions but to also incorporate the influences of the outside contingency or in other words to take macro-level approach to sum up the understanding on the overall reshaping of society.
Georg Simmel approach was to look at individual interactions and how groups that differ in sizes relate to each other. “For Simmel, society is made up of the interactions between and among individuals, and the sociologist should study the patterns and forms of these associations, rather than quest after social laws.’ (“Notes on Georg Simmel,” 2019). This was somewhat different from Durkheim and Marx analysis as they focus on social laws and rules that govern society. Simmel place emphasis on the size of the groups in relation to their social interaction by which he used it has means to understand the behavior or nature of the group in which the term “sociation” was coined by Simmel. The dyad (2) and the triad (3) in Simmel analysis focused on how individual relationships affects the group. The dyad is where many general social forms exist in their pure state, also the limitation two only two members is the a condition that gives rise to specific social forms. (“Simmel,” 2019). Simmel interpretation of the dyad is that there is a relationship with only two members that is fairly simple because of the dependence of the individuals in the groups. He also stated that they are able to maintain their identity even if there are variations within the groups, however, if one persons leaves the group the group then ends. Triad adds the possibility for two actors (of the triad) to be connected not only “directly” but also through their contact with the third actor. (Portier, Pardo, & Salle, 1996a). This group consist of 3 or more persons, however, in this group if a person withdraw the group can still function on its own. Despite that, the third member acts independently of the group. As the group begins to expand or increase it result in more freedom and adaptability as the there will be a reduction in commonality amongst the group. Georg Simmel saw the individuals as being created by society and is apart of the processes that unfold in society; he saw the connection between the individual and society as being interrelated. Simmel also tried to understand the social types in society which includes the stranger, the poor, the mediator etc. Based on his reasoning the term social types place individuals into categories in accordance to the relationship they have with others. Yet, according to Simmel philosophy on money he believed that it was structural tool used in comprehending the meaning that individuals attach to it along with the ramifications that it has on the individual and society. Simmel mention that as the monetary economy binds us more tightly to each other by allowing universal exchange and specialization, the individual faces a greater freedom of self-definition because their lifestyle is no longer necessarily tied to their trade. (Auerbach, 2015). This means that as the economy experience changes so those the individuals in society hence there are some advantages and disadvantages associated the value system. This is because of the value that affix to money in the modern society. He believed that money in the modern society contributed to autonomy and self liberation and not only that but money is used as a means of exchange that increases the social interaction between people in society. The downside, for Simmel, however, is that individuals are less dependent on each other as the acquisition of money has given them the opportunity of freedom of choice. He stated that as we transition from a traditional society to a modern society money can be seen as an agent when fulfilling persons’ goal and implies the accretion individualism
Nevertheless , W.E.B du Bois out of all the sociologist he was the only one who proved conclusively that racism and segregation among the blacks and whites as fueling factor for social classes, capitalism, colonialism, politics and the economy. In Du Bois analysis his dialectical approach was what spoke evidently on how is society possible. Notably, he was the only sociologist to take into account the racial injustice in society and how the ramifications of slavery for blacks as shaped and transformed their life or lifestyles. The ideology of Du Bois’ work dealt with the double consciousness as it pertains to American blacks and whites. Double-consciousness is a concept in social philosophy referring, originally, to a source of inward “twoness” putatively experienced by African-Americans because of their racialize oppression and disvaluation in a white-dominated society. (Pittman, 2016). This is where Du Bois presented the theory of the veil and the color line which in fact speaks about the how the black and white on either side both had different experiences in life. The veil creates a lifeworld distorted by a series of dualities: a duality of agency within an oppressive system, a duality in the formation of the self, and a duality in the understanding of the word. (Itzigsohn & Brown, 2015). Within this dual environment there has been constant conflict between the whites and the blacks where self consciousness of one group differ significantly from the other base on how each of the two classes perceive themselves. Ideally, one class saw themselves as being more prestige than the other while the other saw themselves as how they were perceived by the other side (whites). The color line, on the other hand, that Du Bois spoke towards had the same notion as the veil. The color line emphasis mainly on the inequality in society with the whites being the majority and brown and blacks as the minorities limiting upward social mobility for the oppressed (blacks & browns) due to the scarcity of power and opportunities. This was reflected in the political affairs in the United Stated where it was noted that even though there were changes in the laws (grandfather clause 1800 & Jim Crow law) blacks were still being treated unfairly. However Du bois spoke about how the blacks used religion and socialization as a an instrumental tool for them to gain and preserve self recognition and to deal with their position in society. In the capitalist society Du bois noted that the blacks were viewed as merely objects and not real people. As a result, the African Americans self perception began to deteriorate based upon the inflicting views by the white supremacy. This alluded to the gap between the blacks and the whites in the capitalist society which contributed to the unequal treatment and unequal distribution of labor regarding the material means of production. In this case for capitalism the white were given better positions than the blacks and were provided better working positions than compared to the African Americans. “Du Bois calls up the American Dream of capitalism as a system of limitless wealth and economic mobility”. (Robinson, 2019). This, however, had encourage the competition between the blacks and the whites where workers had to challenge their upward mobility in order to survive in the capitalist system. Nonetheless, the constant wedge between the both groups undermine social and economic prosperity producing a more racially divided economy and society. Above all, with his view Du Bois was able to understand the social construction of society and how humans affected the world
Finally, to conclude, each theorists had different perspectives on how is society possible. Some looked at it from a macro level to give meaning to the formation of society and the determinants that have shaped and influence our behavior. While others took a different approach as they look at how individuals action and association with society has contributed to the formation of society along with the the institutions that have played a role in the development of our actions and behavior to gain insight on societal cohesion. However, despite each individual’s views most sociologist have failed to highlight the contribution of slavery and the colonialism of black peoples has impacted their lives. Hence result of a racially bias perspective on how is society possible as most approaches were from the eurocentric stand point with the exception of W.E.B du Bois.