Category: Karl Marx

The theme of alienation is the most significant in Marx’s sociological views (Wendling 1). In his works, the great philosopher and sociologist pays much attention to the issue of people’s place in society and their relationships within and with it. Marx believes that labor is what makes people human. As such, he considers that all people should be provided with conventional work norms so as to avoid alienation.

Marx defines alienated labor as the estrangement of workers from the product of their work (Wendling 13-14). Alienation, according to Marx, becomes possible in the society where people are divided into classes. A crucial concept in this relation is exploitation (Burawoy and Wright 471). In Marxist theory, exploitation is a complex issue that is aimed at creating a specific form of the interdependence of people’s material interests based on the following criteria:

• the principle of inverse interdependent welfare;
• the principle of exclusion;
• the principle of appropriation (Burawoy and Wright 471).

The second principle is associated with the concept of alienated labor since this “inverse interdependence of welfare” is contingent on the prohibition of the exploited people’s access to particular productive resources (Burawoy and Wright 471). As a result, it is possible to remark that exploitation is a “diagnosis” of the process with the help of which the disparities in incomes are provoked by the disparities in powers and rights over productive resources.

A close interdependence between the exploiters and the exploited, according to Marx, makes exploitation a rather tense form of social connection. Firstly, exploitation establishes a social relation that puts in opposition the interests of two groups and demands their constant interactions. Secondly, it provides the exploited with the kind of power with which they can confront the concerns of the exploiters (Burawoy and Wright 471-472).

According to Marxist theory, such inequalities appear when the exploiters become able to confiscate the excessive results produced by the work of the exploited (Burawoy and Wright 471). The alienation from productive resources is one of the several kinds of alienation. The most typical alienation of labor occurs when people from lower social classes cannot afford to consume the products of their work.

According to Marx and Engels, labor division establishes the relationships between classes in terms of instrument, material, and product of their labor (43-44). In this relation, three forms of ownership are distinguished: tribal, communal, and feudal (Marx and Engels 44-46). In a relationship where one class of people is ruling, and the other has to obey the rules, alienation of labor is inevitable. An example of such process is people’s work at a factory in the times of industrial capitalism.

Most often, plant or factory employees were poor, and their work allowed them to satisfy only basic needs. Spending many hours doing strenuous work, such people had almost no pleasure from life, their major concern being the ability to provide for their families. Those employees did a monotonous job the product of which constituted a part of a large mechanism. The employers considered such workers not as creative individuals but as the elements of a huge scheme of gaining money.

The alienation of labor occurred when people could not afford to buy the final product of their work. Another serious implication of such work was that it alienated people from each other. Hard work depressed workers, and as a result, they had no time or desire to communicate with their families, their major wish being to have some rest before another tedious day at work.

Marx criticizes the alienation of labor by arguing that labor involves not only physical but also mental capacity. The sociologist considers the ability to produce ideas “the language of real life” (Marx and Engels 47). Therefore, he disapproves of the alienation by remarking that it deprives people of the possibility to be the masters of their own destiny. Marx emphasizes that every individual should have the right to self-realization and should be able to consume the products of their labor. Under the conditions of industrial capitalism, however, being autonomous individuals does not give people an opportunity to set their own goals and work towards reaching them.

Max Weber’s contribution to the development of sociology cannot be overestimated. Not only did he introduce the concept of legitimacy but he also differentiated between three types of social order, one of which – bureaucracy – is still widely discussed and analyzed (Sica 487-490). According to Weber, bureaucracy is an essential feature of industrial capitalism. Weber compares bureaucracy to machine and regards it as the counterpart of rational and scientific perspective (Weber 82). Weber remarks that for capitalism to be successful, it should be grounded on such criteria as calculability, control, efficiency, and predictability (82). As a result, the philosopher considers bureaucracy crucial for capitalism since it is able to increase productive capacity.

The bureaucratic order, as Weber defines it, is synonymous with legal order. In this order, rules and commands are issued by those who are in authority. Law applies these regulations to particular cases in order to reach the organization’s goals in a rational way. In Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy, office members should be obedient to their superiors not as people but as the embodiment of impersonal order (Weber 82-83).

In addition, incumbents are obliged to carry out only those commands that fall under their job description requirements. According to Weber, business relations are carried out in accordance with formal regulations. An important aspect of this system is hierarchy (Weber 84-85). Each lower rank of an office falls under the supervision and control of a higher rank. Also, every office has a defined sphere of activity and competence. What is more, Weber emphasizes the significance of employees’ qualifications and appropriate conduct in the office (Weber 85-86). A crucial component of the bureaucratic system is the protection of the employees.

The bureaucratic system has a number of benefits and limitations (Weber 82-87). The following advantages are outlined:

• bureaucracy is based on the division of labor;
• it is grounded in technical knowledge, which allows better accuracy, objectivity, and agility of administrative arrangement;
• bureaucracy guarantees that the most suitable people are chosen for each post through hiring people in accordance with their expertise and experience;
• it enables career growth in case an employee adheres to all regulations and demonstrates excellent performance;
• bureaucracy gives an opportunity for personal responsibility;
• it has the power to strengthen the process of social leveling;
• bureaucracy provides a high level of stability;
• it is the most adequate kind of administration (Weber 83-87).

However, along with a number of positive features, bureaucracy also has some disadvantages:

• sometimes, the stability of a bureaucratic organization is too rigid, which disables the potential development; such a process is called bureaucratic inertia;
• in the conditions of bureaucracy, the power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of individuals who are at the top of the hierarchy;
• bureaucratic organizations are not able to accommodate to the environmental changes quickly;
• innovation and creativity are highly unlikely to occur in the bureaucratic organizations due to the concentration of power in the hands of one person;
• bureaucracy discourages employees from taking risks and expressing individualism (Weber 83-87). However, despite these limitations, bureaucracy is valued for its discipline, stability, and opportunity to accomplish many tasks within a short period of time.

Weber’s model of bureaucracy is compared to some modern sociological paradigms. One of such principles is called McDonaldization (Hausbeck and Brents 102-103). In their article researching the bureaucratization of sex industries, Hausbeck and Brents compare McDonaldization to bureaucracy (102-117). McDonaldization is defined as the process by which the regulations of the fast-food restaurants are beginning to govern more and more domains not only of the American society but also of the whole world (Ritzer 4). Hausbeck and Brents remark the following features of the sex industry that may be correlated to McDonaldization:

• sexual efficiency is detached from human spirituality and does not presuppose any long-term emotional attachment between the participants;
• the organizations involved in the sex business have a high level of arrangement and are based on hierarchical structure (Hausbeck and Brents 103);
• workplaces in the sex industries pay much attention to the efficiency of their employees;
• the sex industry breaks its services into several components each of which suggests “maximum profitability” (Hausbeck and Brents 104);
• at the same time, the services and foods are accessible to the customers (Hausbeck and Brents 104-105).

Therefore, Hausbeck and Brents demonstrate the connections between the sex industry and McDonaldization (102-117). In its turn, McDonaldization is considered to be a contemporary form of bureaucracy.

Works Cited

Burawoy, Michael, and Erik Olin Wright. “Sociological Marxism.” Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner, Springer, 2006, pp. 459-486.

Hausbeck, Kathryn, and Barbara G. Brents. “McDonaldization of the Sex Industries? The Business of Sex.” McDonaldization: The Reader, 3rd ed., edited by George Ritzer, Pine Forge Press, 2010, pp. 102-117.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. The German Ideology. Edited by Christopher John Arthur, International Publishers, 2004.

Ritzer, George. “An Introduction to McDonaldization.” McDonaldization: The Reader, 3rd ed., edited by George Ritzer, Pine Forge Press, 2010, pp. 3-25.

Sica, Alan. “Weberian Theory Today: The Public Face.” Handbook of Sociological Theory, edited by Jonathan H. Turner, Springer, 2006, pp. 487-508.

Weber, Max. “Bureaucracy.” Social Theory: Roots and Branches, 4th ed., edited by Peter Kivisto, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 82-87.

Wendling, Amy E. Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Summary of theorists

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German theorist whose thoughts have formed the basis for the development of modern communism and socialism as they were based upon a materialistic interpretation of history. He held that individuals are supposed to take pleasure in the fruits of their toil but are hindered from achieving this in a capitalistic economic system, which leads to the oppression of the proletariat (the workers) for the benefit of the bourgeoisie (the wealthy).

Thus, to prevent this oppression from taking place, he proposed for a proletarian revolution in which the workers attempt to overthrow the wealthy minority to establish reforms for the benefit of their class.

The ideas of Max Weber (1864-1920) led to great advances in the field of sociology, as well. As a classic thinker in the field of social sciences, he viewed sociology in terms of an extensive science of social action. His works mainly discussed the aspects of rationalization and disenchantment that he connected to the development of capitalism and modernity, and the establishment of methodological antipositivism, which portrays sociology as one of the non-empiricists fields of study that must investigate social action in terms of interpretive methods.

Ralf Dahrendorf (1929-2000) was an influential thinker who proposed that neither structural-functionalism nor Marxism alone can give a realistic view of an advanced society. He argued that the former disregards the realities of social conflict while the latter gives a too narrow explanation of class in a historically unspecific context while disregarding consensus and integration in the modern social systems. Thus, he derived some aspects from both theories in developing his theory on class conflict in a post-capitalist society.

Charles Wright Mills (1916-1962), combining the ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber, developed what he called the classic sociological tradition that associates personal difficulties with public issues and threads life history into the historical structural dynamic by the use of models of society that illuminate large vistas of the social landscape.

Besides explaining the association of the triad of social structure, historical transformation, and life history, he also suggested that sociological imagination leads to a political perspective due to the understanding it gives of the state of humanity. Since he was emphatic in developing real-life applications from his sociology studies, it made him be in a bitter confrontation with some of the sociologists of the time.

Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff carried out an investigation to establish the relative importance of race and class in America and found out that in as much as the importance of class has increased over the past few years; race is still the dominant factor in the personal and social identity of the African Americans in the U.S.

They based their study on the Better Chance program that was initiated to recruit and empower minority students in their advanced educational pursuits, and they discovered that the students experienced problems in their attempts to cope with the new life in the most exclusive boarding schools in the country. The study by Zweigenhaft and Domhoff revealed that the U.S. is still at a crucial juncture in terms of the relations between the African Americans and the whites. Thus, race still plays a significant role in the American social structure.

Nowadays, the second half of the 19^th century (de facto extended into the early 1900s) is being commonly referred as one of the most ‘intellectually productive’ periods in the history of human civilization. Such a practice appears fully justified. The reason for this is apparent – throughout the historical time-stretch in question, the socio-cultural progress in the West has attained an exponential momentum. The sheer number of scientific discoveries that took place through the late 1800s/early 1900s serves as the best proof, in this respect.

There is, however, even more to it – the specified decades mark the time when many of the world’s prominent intellectuals began to realize that there are strongly defined systemic subtleties to the spatially prolonged phenomenon of the gender-based inequality and oppression. To exemplify the validity of this statement, we can refer to Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman – the individuals who succeeded in exposing the clearly societal preconditions for the social status of women in human societies to be lower than that of men.

Being remembered for their authorship of the 1848 Communist Manifesto and their intellectual contribution to the development of Communist ideology, Marx and Engels used to share the belief that gender inequality/oppression originates in two of the most fundamental principles of the Capitalist (and strongly patriarchal) society’s functioning – the exploitation of man by man, and the continual legitimation of the social institution of ‘private property’.

The line of Engel’s argumentation, in this respect, is concerned with his assumption that even though the male-dominated society does recognize and cherish women, on the account of their ability to act as the agents of social progress, it simultaneously commodities the representatives of the ‘weaker gender’. The latter is accomplished by the mean of referring to the women’s traditional preoccupation with the matters of procreation/child-raising, in terms of their ‘biologically predetermined’ (and therefore unpaid) social function.

As Trat noted: “According to Engels, the division of labor between men and women bears no relation to the other great divisions of labor that were to emerge when herds were domesticated and production was developed… (it) is based on procreation and never questioned” (93). It is understood, of course, that this could not result in anything else but in disadvantaging women, as the seekers of social prominence. Hence, Engels’ belief that the key to making a particular society gender-egalitarian is the elimination of the social preconditions for the measure of one’s evolutionary fitness to be considered reflective of this person’s ‘monetary’ worth – something best achieved through the worldwide Communist revolution (Pelz 118).

Marx’s views on the innermost causes of gender inequality/oppression are thoroughly consistent with those of the earlier mentioned theoretician of Communism. In essence, Marx used to insist that both determine the socially disadvantaged status of women in the Capitalist society:

1. the fact that men exercise an undisputed control over the means of production/capital,
2. the perpetuation of men’s complete dominance in the society’s intellectual sphere.

While striving to substantiate this idea, Marx had made a deliberate point in referring to the inter-gender dynamics within a family as having been economically rather than biologically predefined. As the main proof of this suggestion’s soundness, Marx considered the fact that the patriarchal conventions of a ‘proper family-living’ are perfectly consistent with the socially constructed discursive prerequisites for the representatives of the ruling class (bourgeoisie) to be able to exploit the proletarians in the most merciless manner.

What differs Marx from Engels, in this respect, is that unlike what it was the case with the latter; he believed that the very logic of historical progress presupposes the dialectical objectiveness of the process of women’s continual empowerment, in the social sense of this word.

As Brown aptly observed: “In contrast (to Engels), Marx not only noted the subordinate position of women, but also pointed to the potential for change, even under private property… Marx tended to take a more nuanced and dialectical approach (while addressing gender inequality)” (54). According to Marx, the on-going technological progress results in diminishing the value of physical assets as ‘things-in-themselves’ and intensifying the division of labor within the world economy. Consequently, this empowers the representatives of the underprivileged social classes, in the sense of enabling them to attain existential autonomy as hired workers.

The resulting beneficence for women is quite apparent – ever since the time of the Industrial Revolution, they have effectively ceased to be completely dependent on men as the ‘natural born’ agents of prosperity. At the same time, however, women continue to remain the subjects of Capitalist exploitation. According to Marx, this implies that the struggle for women’s liberation from the yoke of patriarchal oppression is an integral part of the worldwide Socialist endeavor.

Because Charlotte Perkins Gilman never ceased being closely affiliated with the ideals of Socialism, it comes as no surprise that her stance on the foremost causes of gender inequality/oppression does appear discursively compatible with those of Engels and Marx. After all, just as it was the case with these intellectuals, Gilman remained thoroughly committed to endorsing the idea that the social roles of men and women must be assessed systemically – that is, in full observance of the fact that human societies are essentially the spatially extended phenomenological entities of their own.

As Gilman pointed out: “Society is an organization… It is composed of individual animals of genus homo, living in organic relation. The course of social evolution is the gradual establishment of organic relation between individuals, and this organic relation rests on purely economic grounds” (101). On one hand, this implies that as the socially integrated beings, men and women are mutually interdependent, and subsequently defies the feminist assumption that the latter are in the position to aspire to gain a complete independence from the former. On the other, however, it assures the conceptual soundness of Gilman’s criticism of the patriarchal oppression of women, as we know it.

The author’s main claim, in this respect, is that women are denied the chance for their social contributions to be evaluated, within the context of what account for the resulting long-term systemic effects on the society’s overall well-being (Weinbaum 274). After all, there would be no human civilization to speak of if it was not up to the women’s willingness to seek self-actualization through motherhood and to assume the responsibilities of ‘housewives’.

Hence, what Gilman believed accounts for the main (gender) inequality-inducing hypocrisy of modern times – even though the male-dominated Capitalist society does endorse the idea that people’s activities are economically (interest) driven, it fails to acknowledge that, in this regard, women are no different from men. Had it been otherwise, women would be paid on an hourly basis for enabling the procreation of humanity and for taking care of their ‘household’ duties – something that the affiliates of ‘fair sex’ usually do at the expense of denying themselves the prospect of social advancement. As it can be seen, this idea correlates with the earlier outlined Engels’ take on the subject matter in question.

Nevertheless, even though Gilman remained an ardent advocate of women’s emancipation, her views on the innermost causes of gender inequality/oppression are not ultimately connected with the matters of political economy – something that sets the author apart from Marx and Engels. According to Hausman: “Women’s economic dependence on men and its effect on the ‘sex-relation’ were not for Gilman completely ‘social’ instances of subjection.

Rather, they represented the development of a particular social relation through human evolution” (497). In its turn, this naturally prompted Gilman to theorize that along with the purely social means of helping women to achieve the complete equality with men; there are also a number of those that now would have been deemed ‘bio-technological’. For example, Gilman believed that the era of women’s subservience would come to an end on the day when humanity decides to switch to artificial insemination, as so much more effective tool of procreation when compared to sexual intercourse.

The reason for this is apparent – in the aftermath of the initiative’s implementation, it will be no longer appropriate to think that women’s positioning in life is suggestive of the sheer ‘biologicalness’ of a female psyche.

Thus, it will be thoroughly logical to conclude this paper by restating once again that Marx, Engels, and Gilman did contribute rather substantially toward enlightening their contemporaries on what account for the societal determinants gender inequality/oppression in the West. This appears to be one of the reasons why the intellectual legacy of all three historical figures continues to be held in high regard by a great many people even today.

Works Cited

Brown, Heather. “Marx on Gender and the Family: A Summary.” Monthly Review 66.2 (2014): 48-57. Print.

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Print.

Hausman, Bernice. “Sex before Gender: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Evolutionary Paradigm of Utopia.” Feminist Studies 24.3 (1998): 488-510. Print.

Pelz, William A. “Class and Gender: Friedrich Engels’ Contribution to Revolutionary History.” Science & Society 62.1 (1998): 117-126. Print.

Trat, Josette. “Engels and the Emancipation of Women.” Science & Society 62.1 (1998): 88-105. Print.

Weinbaum, Alys. “Writing Feminist Genealogy: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Racial Nationalism, and the Reproduction of Maternalist Feminism.” Feminist Studies 27.2 (2001): 271-302. Print.

Introduction

Private property and property rights provide individuals with access to land or resources, which is the basis of modern economic and legal systems. Both Marx and Rousseau are well-known for their philosophic views on society and the development of human history. By examining Marx’s Manuscript and Communist Manifesto preface and Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, one may explore the question of private ownership from the perspective of historical materialism and amour propre.

Marx

In his view of private property, Marx relies on historical materialism as an approach that can explain the development of humanity. The material aspect is the center of attention in this theory because Marx believes that material conditions determine the essential element of life both for individuals and for society as a whole. In the preface to Manuscript and Communist Manifesto, Marx critically examines Hegelian’s law philosophy, stating that “either legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life” (12). Thus stating that the origins of modern laws should be studied in accordance with developments that people create.

The view of historical materialism summarizes Marx’s opinion on private property. The philosophic term offers a different perspective on the origins of society because Marx argues that an individual’s consciousness does not define his or her decisions. He refers to “social existence,” a person’s economic status, stating that it determines the consciousness of an individual (Marx 15). Rather, the aspect depends on materialistic components and economic conditions of the general society.

It is because people have to engage in actions such as studying or working, regardless of their wishes. According to Marx, “men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will” (12). History develops in accordance with these relations; thus, people’s beliefs regarding society or economics are determined by forces that individuals have no control over.

Therefore, according to Marx the source of private property is connected to the nature of society’s evolution. It is due to the fact that an author’s opinion technology and production capacity together with social determinants of manufacturing determine the structure of society and the course of its development. Human collectively develops and produce products that are necessary for survival.

In the current society and its political course, property rights provide certain individuals with legal power over a particular land, product, or manufacturing facility. However, according to Marx, these things are created by society as a whole and not by specific individuals. Thus, products of such developments should not remain in the hands of investors or executives. Instead, they have to be abolished by individuals for society’s benefit.

Rousseau

In his philosophic works, Rousseau is concerned with an individual’s freedom in a society where people depend on each other for the satisfaction of their needs. In the Origins of Inequality, the author argues that the subject cannot be explored without understanding the nature of human beings. Rousseau explores human nature stating that each person was created equal (5). However, as society develops, people form social structures that separate them, creating inequality.

According to Rousseau, society consists of “different privileges which some men enjoy to the detriment of others, like being more rich, more honored, or more powerful than they are, or even that they can make the others obey them” (10). Amour proper is a term describing a person’s self-esteem, which Rousseau presented as something dictated by the opinion of others. This factor obstructs personal freedom and authenticity, interfering with the nature of a human.

Rousseau’s work aims to offer a societal structure in which people would co-exist as equal and autonomous. The existence of private property as it currently is cannot be considered fair because contemporary political institutions create inequality, obstructing the natural laws. Private property in the view of Rousseau is something obtained in accordance with legal system requirements. Due to the fact that the author focuses on personal freedom and equality, rights that provide people with private property should create a fair social contract. It is because such property establishes social norms for individuals.

Thus, a person’s rights are combined with society’s rights leading to the creation of a public community. In his work, Rousseau provides an explanation of social inequality as a result of private property exists.

Conclusion

Overall, Marx and Rousseau critically examine contemporary society and criticize private property and privacy rights. Marx focuses his work on developing the concept of historical materialism, which explains the origins of human developments as components created by society and not an individual. Rousseau researches the nature of individuals, claiming that the current society functions by the rules of amour proper. Marx disregards private property and encouraged its abolishment because of his view on society and human history. Rousseau advocated for the creation of a state in which people would function as individuals, thus protecting the property of a community.

Works Cited

Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. The Communist Manifesto. Pluto Press, 1996.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. A Discourse on Inequality. Penguin Books, 1984.

Introduction

Marx, Weber, and Durkheim were each troubled about societal changes and the subsequent transformations they saw in the quality of people’s lives in modern industrial society. This paper will set forth how the Fathers of Sociology might respond to a future society through the examination of Andrew Niccol’s 1997 film, “Gattaca”.

The paper is claimed to discuss the views of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emil Durkheim. These scientists were bothered with the issue, how the industrial epoch changes society, and to what extent the social structure changes. The key aim of the paper is to put forth an idea, how all the three would respond to a probable variant of future society, by the example of the film “Gattaca”.

Main body

In their works, the three sociologists explored the problem of class relations. Understanding the way Marx, Weber, and Durkheim viewed class relations is relevant to the film as it also focuses on this problem. Along with numerous opportunities genetic engineering offers classical inequality: genetically superior discriminate genetically inferior against not for whom they are but for what they are made of (Perriman). In a genetically run society, genetically superior will feel more confident in their freedom and rights having the best-paid jobs and better opportunities to succeed in life.

We will start modeling the sociologists’ response to a probable variant of future society with an analysis of the views on society and class and the way they are applicable to the situation presented in the film.

Marx and Weber’s views on class relations result from the belief that any social order involves the regulation of opposing interests. The conflict between individuals and among groups according to this view is an essential part of every society:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes (Marx 2002: 30).

The quote implies that society does not exist without class struggle. No matter which direction the societal development might take any existing contradictions will definitely spill into class struggle. This seems to be the message of “Gattaca” in which at the beginning the society is proud of the scientific achievements and then gradually experiences the shortcomings of the existing contradictions between the representatives of different classes.

Marxism divides people into oppressed proletarians and bourgeois (Marx 1932). Marx described the proletariat as “a class of laborers who live only as long as they find work, and who find work only as long as their labor increases capital.” (Briefs 1937: XI) In Marx’s theory of class struggle, the bourgeoisie plays a significant role. By overthrowing the feudal organization it is seen as an originally progressive force that afterward becomes a reactionary force as it strives to prevent the ascendency of the proletariat from maintaining its own position of predominance (The Columbia Encyclopedia 2007). Thus, according to Marx the class struggle under capitalism consists in the contradiction between the ruling class, that is, the bourgeoisie that owns the means of production, and the working class, the proletariat that labor for a wage. Admitting the progressive role of the bourgeoisie in destroying feudalism the sociologists claim that the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production created by the bourgeoisie led to its downfall. The same situation is observed in the film. Genetic engineering offers numerous opportunities in the future if the human genome is examined in more detail: people will be able to build “designer babies” and project one’s future detrimental physical characteristics and health problems through examining his or her DNA at birth (Perriman). Still, the film suggests that the society of such “perfect” humans will definitely experience three major problems: “discrimination, expectations of prophetic genetics, and a loss of human diversity” (Perriman) which one day will lead to its complete downfall.

“Gattaca” depicts the class struggle that is much similar to that examined by Marx and Weber. The difference consists in the confronting classes whereas the principles of the struggle remain the same. The class confrontation depicted in the film is the struggle of valid and invalids. The relations between valid and genetically discriminated seems to be a metaphor for the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, which took place in Eastern-European states at the beginning of the 20^th century. As well as bourgeoisie appeared to be a progressive force, valid can also be regarded as the promoters of societal development.

The developments in genetic engineering move the progress on but cause the class struggle. The struggle of the classes serves as the prerequisite of social development. It presupposes the stops, and even recoils for the sake of moving forward. Thus, the ideology of division into classes promotes the development of society (Bartos & Wehr 2002).

Weber states that social structure and social division are determined historically, and cannot be made artificially just to make “the wrong” and “the right” (Weber 1919). In the case of the society depicted in the “Gattaca”, the division is quite artificial and absolutely wrong, as people still have their individual traits and spirit, which cannot be transmitted genetically. The spirit and the soul make one a human. They shape the system of general norms and values in the society and when this system fails due to the absence of any ethical directions that the humans are provided with, the social control system breaks down. The controlling impact of society on personal propensities becomes no longer effectual and individuals are left to their own means.

To define such a situation Durkheim resorts to the notion of anomie, a term that relates the condition of comparative absence of norms in a whole community or in some of its components. Anomie does not refer to feelings, but to possessions of the social arrangement scheme. It distinguishes a situation in which personal wishes and strivings are no longer controlled by general norms and where, as an effect, persons are left without ethical direction in the chase of their aims (McIntosh 1997).

For Durkheim, the level of integration and regulation felt by the society is a by-product of the evolution from mechanical solidarity, based on the likeness and similarities among individuals in a society, and largely dependent on common rituals, routines, and religion (these concepts are strong because the peoples share the same values), to organic solidarity, based on the interdependence of individuals wherein religion is secondary to the value of individuality, as the force that caused a break down of the collective effervescence (a life of the group above and beyond the individual lives of the members). This happened because people turned away from historical social institutions of religion and family and began to rely on the modern social institutions of government, education, economy to form social cohesion (McIntosh 1997).

The society depicted in the movie can be seen from both a mechanical and organic view. The people are all held together by their likeness and similarities to each other in so much that they are all genetically born but they are held together as a group through modern technology. Durkheim believed that society is in a constant state of change. During times of massive, swift change a state of normlessness, or anomie takes place. During a state of anomie, individuals have a loss of attachment, the maintenance of social ties and the goals of the group as well as the perception of being part of a larger collective. The state of anomie is self-regulating as society adapts to the changes and responds to them in a reasonable manner (McIntosh 1997).

As total anomie, or complete absence of norms, is practically impossible by Durkheim, existing normative directives may regulate life in communities (McIntosh 1997). Within any separate community, groups may vary in the extent of anomie that inundates them. Communal modification may create anomie either in the whole community or in some segments of it. When crisis heads for sudden descending mobility, de-regulation of people’s lives happens – a defeat of honest certainty and normal anticipations that are no longer maintained by the group to which these men once belonged. Likewise, the quick inception of affluence may lead some people to rapid upward mobility and hence divest them of the communal support needed for their new methods of life (Kautsky 1994).

Social division does not only foster the development of society but leads to the restriction of rights and freedoms of the discriminated class as well. The movie offers numerous examples of how bureaucracy sets barriers for ordinary people. The examples fit Marx’s position that the political state of civil society is “the state of generalized egoism from which the bourgeoisie alone reaps an advantage because of private ownership of the means of production” (Glassman et al. 1987: 15). In this society, bureaucracy becomes autonomous through creating certain institutional and attitudinal prerequisites. It establishes a hierarchy of knowledge based on the authority of the office. The main principle of the hierarchy is that the higher the rank, the deeper the grasp of the universal. It encourages submission and requires actions based on “fixed principles, views and traditions”, the world thus becomes a “mere object” to be manipulated (Glassman et al. 1987: 16).

Weber also speaks of the hierarchy that bureaucracy presupposes. This is a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination based on supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones (Weber 1921). The sociologist speaks of the possibility of appealing the decision of a lower office to its higher authority (Weber 1921), but the film offers the idea that there was no such a possibility for the invalids in the Gattaca society. Bureaucracy from the film seems to be dehumanized due to the destructive powers of efficiency and effectiveness of human domination over nature. All three sociologists agree that effectiveness and efficiency have been greatly increased which allows greater domination of men over nature, which in its turn leads to the dehumanization of all involved.

Conclusion

Thus, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim if responded to the social changes that the film depicted would speak of the destructive powers that a man’s domination over nature brings. Class struggle is the direct consequence of the work of such powers as the main problem that the Gattaca society experiences are the gradual loss of moral principles and values that unite people. Those who belong to this society should decide whether genetic engineering achievements are worth of dehumanization that they will inevitably face.

References

“Bourgeoisie.” 2007. The Columbia Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press.

Bartos, Otomar J., and Paul Wehr. 2002. Using Conflict Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Briefs, Goetz A. 1937. The Proletariat: A Challenge to Western Civilization. 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Glassman, Ronald M., William H. Swatos, and Paul L. Rosen, eds. 1987. Bureaucracy against Democracy and Socialism. New York: Greenwood Press.

Kautsky, John H. 1994. Marxism and Leninism, Not Marxism-Leninism: An Essay in the Sociology of Knowledge. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Marx, Karl. 1932. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Manuscript One. Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marx, Karl. 2002. “Bourgeois and Proletarians. Karl Marx: Selected Writings.” Chapter One in Manifesto of the Communist Party. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McIntosh, Ian. 1997. Classical Sociological Theory: A Reader. New York University Press: Washington Square, NY.

Niccol, Andrew. 1997. GATTACA. Columbia Pictures Corporation.

Perriman, Symon. “GATTACA: The Future of Genetic Engineering?” 2008. Web.

Weber, Max 1921. “Characteristics of Bureaucracy” Part III, Chap. 6 in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, pp. 650-678. 2008. Web.

Weber, Max. 1919. “Politics as a Vocation”. Lecture. Munich University. Essays in Sociology, pp. 77-128, New York: Oxford University Press 2008.

In order to understand the structure and functions of society, it is essential to study a vast number of sociological theories and perspectives created by various scientists. For example, Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, expressed his view of society in the theory of functionalism. According to Durkheim, there is vital interconnectivity of all the elements of any society that share common ideas and principles, and the sum of these elements is not as great as the society itself. The sociologist viewed society as a huge biological organism that requires all its parts to function properly in order to remain alive. Further, when discussing collective and individual behavior, Durkheim stated that these two concepts are entirely different, and there is the collective conscience that makes people adapt their actions and act in predictable ways. The concept of collective conscience is beneficial and positive as it defines and evaluates the norms of behavior.

Nevertheless, not all sociologists share the same view on society. For example, there is also a conflict theory developed by Karl Marx. Unlike functionalism, conflict theory views society as a system with an ongoing class conflict, primarily between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie. The main cause of this conflict is the lack of resources and their unequal distribution, while its effects are connected with the necessary changes happening in society. Further, while functionalism focuses on collectivism, social integration, and the necessity of acting in similar and predictable ways, Karl Marx emphasizes individualism and promotes alienation that isolates a person from society. Finally, while Durkheim insisted on the ability of collective consciousness to hold people together and unite them into society, conflict theory tried to eliminate false consciousness and replace it with class one.

It is evident that functionalism and conflict theory contradict each other. They are different in almost all ideas and concepts, including the primary structure of society. The main purpose of functionalism is to promote stability and make all elements of society function properly to avoid errors. At the same time, the key goal of conflict theory is to emphasize change because, without it, society cannot exist. Therefore, it is completely or almost impossible to see how these theories may complement each other.

Karl Marx’s contribution to sociology is indisputably great, as he is considered one of the most influential theorists in the sphere of sociology. He is well-known for criticizing Capitalism and the political, economic, and social consequences that it can bring. He vividly describes his vision and provides the advantages of Communism in his works, predominantly in “The Manifesto of the Communist Party” and “Capital” (Crossman). Also, he introduced such concepts as false consciousness, base and superstructure, and historical materialism, which are cited in numerous works of other researchers.

According to Marx’s conflict theory, when power and resources are unequally distributed in the society, the conflicts occur between different groups of people, some of them demanding for social changes and equality, while others resist, as they do not want to lose the power and capital. Marx’s conflict theory focuses on the reasons for the occurrence of social conflicts and their consequences (Crossman). In this theory, there are two opposing parties, namely, bourgeois (or the upper class consisting of capitalists) and the proletariat (or the working class consisting of poor people).

The appearance of Capitalism in Europe gave Marx the idea that this system would not last long because of the large chasm between the rich and the poor. He theorized that the feeling of social injustice would give the stimulus to the working class to demand changes and that the feeling of reluctance to share power in the upper class would force them to resist (Carter 113). Thus, in Marx’s opinion, Capitalism causes the alienation of the masses and the constantly growing indignation of the proletariat for being exploited by the bourgeois.

In terms of Marx’s philosophy, he created the so-called dialectical materialism based on Hegel’s dialectics, which is dialectical idealism. Marx thought that the main focus of dialectics should not be placed on the ideal world but the material world. Marx’s dialectical materialism maintains the material aspect of the ever-changing reality of economic activity and production. His theory became the philosophical basis of Communism.

Thus, according to Marx, Capitalism will eventually cause a revolution, which will result in either suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeois or its victory. In the first scenario, the revolution will inevitably repeat until the bourgeois is defeated (Carter 154). In the second scenario, the social system will change, and Capitalism will be ousted by Communism, where everybody will take according to their needs and give according to their abilities.

The Relevance of Marx’s Ideas on Contemporary Capitalist Societies

Despite the changes that have occurred in capitalist societies since Marx’s times, his theory is still relevant today. The reason for this is that in most countries, there is still a big chasm between the rich and the poor. Although in developed countries, people have managed to find a compromise, there are still people who are unhappy with the situation they are in.

As for Communism, certainly, after such major failures with its implementation in the 20^th century, which caused many wars and resulted in many human casualties, people either despise it or are skeptical about its successful realization (Sunkara). However, certain countries have managed to adopt Socialism, the milder version of Communism, and are now thriving.

The notion of “Social Exploitation”

The notion of “social exploitation” is one of the central concepts in the conflict theory in sociology. The reason for this is that it is, in fact, one of the main causes of the conflict between the proletariat and bourgeois. Marx thought that social exploitation is inevitable in the capitalist society; therefore, the conflict between the rich and the poor is also unavoidable (Carter 46). Thus, the main focus of Marx’s sociology is to find a solution to this conflict in the form of Communism where everybody will be happy.

Works Cited

Carter, Bob. Capitalism, Class Conflict, and the New Middle Class (RLE Social Theory). Routledge, 2014.

Crossman, Ashley. “Understanding Conflict Theory.”ThoughtC. 2017, eb.

Sunkara, Bhaskar. “Why the Ideas of Karl Marx Are More Relevant Than Ever in the 21^st Century?”The Guardian. 2013, Web.

Difference and similarity in Ontological view by Spencer and Herbert

Ontology is the study of objects and their ties. It gives criteria on how to differentiate objects which are real or non real, abstract or concrete with their ties. In short it is the study of reality. Marx idea on how human’s perception suggests that humans believe they see but they do not see (Allan, 2010). He says human nature is expressed in the work produced or created. The aftermath of the work should act as a mirror to the human being.

Marx ontological work is based on human’s material dialect. To Marx, reality is perceived in two ways; by idealism and materialism. He says that the world only exists in our idea. Marx believes that what exists to man in the world is only man’s idea. In his materialism aspect he argues that reality is similar to physical properties which are the simple reflections structured by the innate physical properties. Marx disregarded the idea of materialism but was in at least support of idealism (Allan, 2010).

Ontology in other words can be seen as what exactly occurs. Herbert on the other hand demonstrates the evolutionary theory to explain various phenomena. Herbert explains the aspect of organic and inorganic evolution. This he projects on human society, animal and the physical world at large. His work completely disregards the issue of idealism (Allan, 2010).In addition Herbert elaborates the issue of human liberty and moral rights.

To him a life projected by these two issues means an amazingly free and enjoyable life. Also in his discussions he reveals that, progress in a free environment enables man to use all his faculties. This implies that the government’s sole work is to protect man. Moral sentiments and social condition are inextricably connected, constantly interact. For Herbert moral habits are the primary motivators of man (Elwick, 2003).

Difference and similarity in Epistemological view by Spencer and Herbert

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified beliefs. Knowledge here includes; sufficient conditions, sources, structure and limits. It focuses on knowledge production and dissemination of that knowledge to areas that need clarification. Epistemology can be combined with ontology to form metaphysics.

To Karl Marx who is an idealist, knowledge is a product of the mind (Allan, 2010). The main concept of knowledge to him is to reason. On the other hand Spencer tries to inquire the basis of scientific study of education, psychology, sociology, and ethics of man from an evolutionary point of view (Alston, 1989).

His work although not valued in the present time brought out the distinguishing factor between sociology and social science. His work on evolutionary progress from a single unit of matter was justified. Spencer social philosophy dominated in the 19^th century (Craig, 2002). The main ideas he coined were of free existence or laissez-faire and survival for the fittest. His work was against reform because this affected the balance between nature and human society.

Difference and similarity in Human nature view by Spencer and Herbert

Karl Marx idea on human nature is based on society as a key survival tactic of different species. His thoughts linked how the human species survive with human consciousness. In addition is survival by creative production. The human conscious therefore has evolved by economical changes.

Marx illustrates that through production and creation of products, man did form an intimate relation with his/her environment. Hence, products made by other human being were as if they were made by him, hence man viewed himself as a creative producer (Allan, 2010). This depicted a form of social relation since every human identified with the product made by other human beings. They did communicate by the world they created.

Marx believes in communism. He says the world has dictated the current attributes of man. He adds that for man to be a communist again, he will have to undergo a social restructuring process. Marx argues that every species is defined by the mode of its survival or existence. Marx says to understand a human being is to understand his alienation, ideology and false consciousness.

On the other hand Spencer argues that human nature is flexible and is in the process of advancement (Elwick, 2003). He says ancient man was very primitive, aggressive and irrational. He envisioned human beings to be perfect at the end of evolution, hence completely adapted to social life. This was due to the adaptations to the requirements of the society in future. His notion was based on generations passing quality trait mantles to the next generation.

He saw a society that would be living in balance, harmony, and peace because of the calm nature of environment they would live in (Allan, 2010). Hence, no one would inflict pain on the other. This of course would be from the idea of natural selection as new adaptation would create a perfect human being (Craig, 2002) .Spencer last years of writing depicted him as a pessisimst regarding human’s future.

Reference List

Allan, K. (2010). Exploration in classical sociological theory. Seeing the social: London: Pine Forge Press. (2^nd Edition).

Alston, W (1989). Epistimitic justification; Essays in the theory of knowledge. Ithaca: Conwell University Press.

Craig, J. (2002).Classical Sociological theory. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Elwick, J. (2003). Herbert Spencer and the disunity of the social organism. History of science journal. 41, (pp, 35-72).

Introduction

The question of societal stratification has dominated among great thinkers of present and past centuries. The concept of traditional social stratification has changed much due to increased technology, information exchange and the rise of socially differentiated status groups. This has changed the focus from conflict of classes to the rise of new perspectives.

The sociological theories of Karl Marx, Bourdieu, Weber and others continue to guide the discussion in sociology as points of departure and convergence. This work will analyze why the politics of class in advanced industrial states are not predominant. The paper will explain the sociological views of Marx, Weber and Bourdieu concerning views of societal stratification.

Bourdieu’ Social Space and symbolic Space Summary and Analysis

In his ‘Logic of Practice,’ the method Bourdieu embraces and advocates for is that of transcending the borders between objectivism and subjectivism as well as structure and action. He argues that neither of the views is to be left to explain social sciences. However, a combination of the views would result to inseparable and solid knowledge.

He thus emphasizes that sociology must explain social structure inside the actor. In regard to this view habitus becomes the concept of explaining what already is known by devising new methods, ways, plans or knowledge through the mind and body.

However, the caution that should be taken with regard to social structure is about misrecognitions, partial or distorted misunderstanding laid by emphasis on what is experienced through ideologies. Therefore, Bourdieu attacks ideology as flawed since it tends to present mastery from wrong basis.

The definition of class by Marx is given as a group that is mobilized to engage in common purposes that are against another class (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012b). In his analysis of social space and symbolic space, Bourdieu observes through Distinction that those at the top of the society tend to pursue ideas and things from their perspective of class and how best they understand them.

These properties are very different from those in the lowest part of the society. He argues that the two kinds of persons in the society have far wider reaching limitations, tastes and preferences; where for those at the top the properties and tastes are not means as is the case for those at the low end scale (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012b).

Bourdieu organizes the society into social space and symbolic space. The social space is a representation of the varying levels and is identified by differences behaviors and attitudes. The social space illustrates that the society is not homogenous as thought, but a constant representation of individual differences that mirror the social division of the society. In developed countries, this space changes in the fact that those at the top of the society can assume positions thought to be for the very lowest in the society.

Emanating from this view Bourdieu comments that classes only exist in the form virtuosity. The presentation of social space is a source sheds light the conflicts that exist as differences in the developed nations either individually or collectively. Thus, in this observation, social space constructs different kinds of capital that become sources of power to defend or change such power.

Marx’s Classes Summary and Analysis

Max in ‘Classes’ observes that the difference in property like land, capital and rent leads to the social classes. In his writing, it is clear that in a society the persons who held these prestigious materials, eventually ends as the owner of production. For those in the society who do not have the privileges of owning materials, they have to survive by means of providing labor to the landed class. Therefore, the laborer becomes the source of food to the society through work. Social action arises from the increased debts and inadequate or lack of property.

The idea of social action comes from Weber’s point of view about honor in the society. Weber wrote that, those forming the group that owns nothing except labor will a group of intermixed persons in various structures of the social world of the society. The mixing of these individuals will lobby for the prestigious attention accorded to the propertied class. In this respect, the need for “fair-play in the market” becomes the new weapon for this group. In essence, this is the search for honor.

However, the industrial focus on the property is quite advanced from Marx’s explanation of democracy. Concretely, this should be seen as traditional democracy, which is in complete contrast with modern from legal order and politics. The rise of capitalism in search of individual liberalization in the market has changed the perceptions of class.

Today, developed counties are formed of competing individuals and groups, with each endowed with unique sets of strengths and weaknesses. The borders set strictly on ownership of property do not exist; rather, the presence of information and technology determines the success of an individual and a group at a glance.

This classification of the society has changed with the new dimensions of approach at social class. In recalling Bourdieu’s sociological theory, the politics of class are inexistent, and this only leaves the differences found on the diverse aspects of modern social world. Weber wrote that the aspects of search for status honor stratify the social world into social groups defined by unique attributes.

He states that social order may be used to gain economic power or even the opposite of that. As an example, the fact that people live on the same street or dress in similar fashions, is the basis for a class distinct from other groups basing on these factors.

Modernity in many developed countries from Max’s point of view may be explained as a resulted to the advancement of the industrial platform. Industrial progress and advancement in technology has led to prowess in informational technology. This has in effect changed the perception of business to global status thus getting the greater need to stay ahead of everybody, what Weber refers to maintaining the social circle negatively (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012a).

Weber’s Class, Status, Party Summary and Analysis

Weber’s theory observes that the old demarcations of social class have fizzled due to this notion. Modern and advanced industrial societies form the great countries of the earth. However, these nations’ states are homogenous if weighed by Marx’s theory, but forge forward to support Weber and Bourdieu. From here, the examination of education, fashion, music, politics and development ideas will be examined in light of these three sociological theories.

The education quality of the industrially advanced countries is often regarded the best. As mentioned, the availability of vast resources has made this possible. Those, persons found to belong to the same academic status are expected to observe behaviors and attitudes characteristic of this group.

Therefore, it does not matter who has property or not. The point of unification derives from scores of scholarly materials analyzed or academic honors achieved as well critical analysis of major works. Further, these academics vary in terms of differences in disciplines where sociologist will be different Mathematicians who are different from linguist (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012a).

Another class will be based on fashion and music. This will be established in terms of communities that ascribe to a given fashion that exhibits a distinct taste. In light to music, the genre of music brings a social group together, excluding subscribers of other genres of music like reggae, rock or even pop music.

The subscription to different views of politics; for example, the left, right or center, determines the social stratification of a people. In less advanced states, such differences have led to fatal civil wars, bloodshed or loss of lives. In terms of development, the concerned states will be seen affiliated to other states that are developing especially in terms of exchange of information and technology (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Ptaff & Virk, 2012a).

Conclusion

From Weber and Marx‘s writing, an analysis advanced capitalism eliminates the notions of the propertied and the not propertied. In this essence, politics are shaped by the majority of the same view without the discussion of what is the social standing of the respective party holders or bearers.

Although this may raise issues in Bourdieu’s theory, modern democracy does not differentiate between the propertied or not propertied in terms of that sense. In Bourdieu’s view, they form the social space and the symbolic space of the society. These stratifications will be maintained by each member behaving as the tenets require of them based on the stable establishment of the group.

References

Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Ptaff, S., & Virk, I. (2012a). Classical Sociological Theory. Garsington road, Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.

Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Ptaff, S., & Virk, I. (2012b). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Garsington road, Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.

The role of religion and religious beliefs on society is powerful indeed (Haar and Tsuruoka 16). People are eager to make a number of supernatural claims to justify their thoughts and actions in order to legitimate the existing cultural norms and values people have to follow. Durkheim and Marx are the two sophisticated theorists, who believed that religion was a crucial aspect of society but offered different opinions (Lundskow 18; Riesebrodt 63). In this paper, the theoretical approaches developed by Durkheim and Marx will be compared to explain the connection between religion and society and understand if it is correct to identify society in terms of religion, or it is the religion that is based on society and human needs.

Durkheim believed that “religion began at that point when a man found he was able to picture a supernatural being” (Durkheim and Pickering 13). In the majority of writings, the author underlined the power of religion over people. At the same time, it was wrong to say that religion could have a kind of priority over society. Religion and society remained to be inseparable from one another because religion was “an eminently social phenomenon” on the one hand, and “all mental categories and institutions developed out of religion” on the other hand (Riesebrodt 62). According to Durkheim, there were two crucial concepts: a sacred and a profane. A man is a profane due to their needs, desires, and egoism. However, when moral and social limitations are considered, a man can become sacred.

The ideas of Marx were based on a thorough evaluation of capitalistic society and its needs. As well as Durkheim, Marx underlined the importance of religion in society. Still, his position was the opposite. He defined religion as a form of escape for people. It was a protest available to people, an “illusory happiness” or false consciousness that was required for human “real happiness” (Marx and Engels 42). Besides, Marx introduced religion as one of the possible reasons for social inequality, a “tool for class oppression” (Andersen and Taylor 453), and the existing religious institutions served as the main instruments of dominance. However, despite numerous critiques of religion, Marx did not deny its importance in society but provided the majority of negative characteristics.

The approaches of Durkheim and Marx have a number of similarities and differences. Marx wanted to provide people with a chance to be free from religious beliefs and their superfluous power on society. Durkheim tried to explain the evident connection between religion and society as a chance for people to become better and happier than they were at the moment. Durkheim underlined that all religions were true, and Marx declared that all religions were false (Riesebrodt 63). At first, their contradictions may confuse people and get lost in the search for the right decisions. With time, their opposite ideas helped to come up with one truth: religion and society cannot be separated or divided according to the priorities. The connection between religion and society helps people to understand their own abilities and preferences and make the choices in regards to their personal needs as a significant part of society.

In general, a person, as a society member, is free to identify the role of religion in their life. Durkheim and Marx offered their ideas on how to understand religion and society and left the right of choice for people, who could use their personal attitudes to experience to realize how they should study religion and society.

Works Cited

Andersen, Margaret, L. and Howard F. Taylor. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2007. Print.

Durkheim, Emile and W.S.F. Pickering. Durkheim on Religion: A Selection of Readings with Bibliographies and Introductory Remarks. Cambridge: Casemate Publishers, 2011. Print.

Haar, Gerrie, Ter and Yoshio Tsuruoka. Religion and Society: An Agenda for the 21^st Century. Danvers, MA: BRILL, 2007. Print.

Lundskow, George. The Sociology of Religion: A Substantive and Transdisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2008. Print.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. On Religion. New York: Courier Corporation, 2012. Print.

Riesebrodt, Martin. The Promise of Salvation: A Theory of Religion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.