Comparison of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim in the Concept of Modern Society - Report Example

Comparison of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim in the concept of modern society Introduction Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim were three of the maintheorists and philosophers that gave the concept of modern society and several attributes and aspects related to it. These philisophers made much more contribution to the way the perceptions of the modern society were formed in the 20th century as compared to the 19th century philosophers. These widely ready thinkers developed their individualistic philosophical constructs. The impact of the economics and the forces of labor on the evolution and shaping of the societies are not surprising considering the fact that all three philosophers proposed their ideas amidst the industrial revolution. In spite of the fact that Marx, Weber, and Durkheim observed a world wherein capitalism became strong enough to control and dominate the economics, all three philosophers have developed individualistic, distinct, and unique explanations of the way individuals react to economics’ social contexts, and the way societies develop around those reactions. There is tremendous role of modernization and materialism in the development of the theories of these philosophers’ about socialization. An in-depth analysis of their works suggests that society’s cohesiveness depends to a large extent upon the formation of the labor mechanism. It is indeed ironical that despite the immense divergence of the theoretical constructs of the three thinkers, they have a common locus from which their constructs are formed. The nature of society as depicted by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim relates to the division of labor among those who work and those who own. This leads to a very important conclusion; the disagreement between the ideas of the three philosophers lies in the way society reacts and responds to the division rather than in the existence of a division. Marx To develop a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the society as it applies to Weber and Durkheim, it is imperative that the theories of Marx are understood. Marx denounced capitalism. He thought that socialism could lead to the enslavement of man to a very strong bureaucracy rather than man’s liberation. Marx is worried about the appropriation of the surplus labor, alienation, pauarisation, capitalism, and labor commodification. Marx conducts a holistic study of the society. The modern bourgeois society is the result of the history of class warfare whose origins can be traced back to the feudalism that preceded it. “The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society, has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones” (Marx, 1988, p. 56). The fundamental trait of the modern bourgeois society is the Proletariat’s and Bourgeoisie’s class antagonism. The former serves and is subordinate to the latter since the means of production are owned by the latter. Modern industry and expansion of the global market are both the outcomes of the bourgeoisie that exploit the proletariat as wage-labor and operate through free trade. Marx says that the bourgeoisie “has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands” (Marx, 1988, p. 59). As a result of this, nation states formed and the politics became centralized, thus making it easier for the bourgeoisie to exercise their rights for the exploitation of the proletariat. History of the modern bourgeois society is the rebellion of the production forces against the production conditions which gets into a crisis in what has been referred to by Marx as the “epic of over-production” (Marx, 1988, p. 60). When the forces of production get to the state where it is not possible for the industry to grow any longer, that is the time of occurrence of a period of destruction sanctioned by bourgeois. As a result of this, the economic means is restored that is required for the continued expansion of the industry. Therefore, the economy for Marx is the fundamental cause of the social superstructure of politics, religion, and ideology (Marx, 1963). The history of class warfare has resulted from the disparity between the owners of the means of production and the laborers. According to Marx, such class warfare would lead to a communist revolution in the long run wherein the distinctions of class and the private ownership of the production means would be abolished. Weber Weber has defined sociology as a science that tends to interpret the social action in order to reach the causal explanation of its effects and course (Weber, 1968). Weber inverts the idea of economic determinism that is held by Marx. Instead, Weber suggests that the economic social structure is influenced by religious ideology. Therefore, religion serves as the foundation whereas the economy serves as the superstructure. In Weber’s approach, the best way to understand the economic forces is through religion’s sociology. Weber emphasizes upon the sufficiency of the analysis of the occidental religions because of lack of the reliable data about other religions. Weber has identified different kinds of architecture, politics, and music as distinct features of the West apart from capitalism. Therefore, while analyzing capitalism and Protestantism, a cultural history is formed by Weber. Weber has addressed a phenomenon specific to capitalism; the major practitioners that include but are not limited to the business owners and skilled labor are overwhelmingly protestant. Therefore, Weber suggests, “the supposed conflict between other-worldliness, asceticism, and ecclesiastical piety on the one side, and participation in capitalistic acquisition on the other, might actually turn out to be an intimate relationship” (Weber, 1930, p. 42). It is a matter of control in addition to the historical factors. The protestant reformation in contrast to Catholicism led to the intensification of the daily life control. Weber has laid out a tentative description of capitalism. According to Weber, education is the stronger motive as compared to profit. In the modern capitalist society, profit serves as a moral obligation. “For not only is a developed sense of responsibility absolutely indispensable, but in general also an attitude which, at least during working hours, is freed from continual calculations of how the customary wage may be earned with a maximum of comfort and a minimum of exertion. Labor must, on the contrary, be performed as if it were an absolute end in itself, a calling. But such an attitude is by no means a product of nature. It cannot be evoked by low wages or high ones alone, but can only be the product of a long and arduous process of education” (Weber, 1930, p. 61-62). The Ideal Type of Weber solved a very big problem in the field of sociology. Various concepts in sociology are not strongly related to a specific explanation or description. For instance, what is defined as civil society by Hegel is referred to as capitalism by Marx. What is called as state by Hegel is defined as socialism by Marx. Weber suggests that all definitions are partly arbitrary. A definition’s value is only determined by the extent to which it is useful in research. Although this distinction between the pre-modern and modern sociology underlines Weber’s work, yet his thoughts are considerably different and more applicable as compared to the views of others. In spite of the fact that he celebrates modernity, Weber does not think of the modern society as the only form of a rational society. Weber thought that capitalism would decline as a result of refutation of the bourgeois values rather than because of an economic breakdown. Weber argues that while all the positivists glorify the notion of objectivity in the field of sociology, their approach is driven, to a large extent, by the judgment of value. For instance, Durkheim thinks of the organic solidarity as good whereas he considers anomie bad. Weber considers the positivists moralists and social activists rather than sociologists. Weber places emphasis upon neutrality and value so that sociology remains a descriptive discipline rather than prescriptive. The dynamics of reality do not leave room for the class antagonism to exist. Today’s hostile relations may tomorrow become cordial and again revert to being hostile a day after tomorrow. Weber has focused on individuality. According to him, different individuals’ differential behavior leads to the collective institution of family because of which, a family does not have its own life because of the individuals it is composed of. In contrast to the theories of Marx and Durkheim, Weber suggests that the society is driven neither by sui-generis nor by social conflict. Weber proposes that society is composed of actors who perform the social acts and thus develop the relationship with one another that leads to the formation of family and kinship etcetera. Durkheim Durkheim classifies the social relationships based on the solidarity between organic and mechanical solidarity. Weber’s social relationships are unorganized, chaotic, and vast. Weber shows more concern about the political system’s basis of the social relationships in that he distinguished between the charismatic, traditional, and bureaucratic authority. Weber placed emphasis upon social action whereas Durkheim considered the solidarity in sociology important. Many sociologists are widely using and celebrating these concepts in the contemporary sociology. Durkheim was quite impressed by the new industrial societies’ traits that he observed. This provided him with the reason to compare the pre-modern human societies with the modern societies. Therefore organic solidarity as deemed superior in comparison to mechanical solidarity by Durkheim, though this classification is not suitable for encompassing the different varieties of human sociology that have prevailed in the history and still exist. It also compares the two societies in which the individuals are dominated by collectivity and lead to an unalterable situation. Durkheim, unlike Marx, thinks that economy is amongst the numerous contributing factors that constitute a society. Durkheim suggests that the economy is not privileged with respect to the social superstructure, and is a social fact like many others. Durkheim has defined the social fact in terms of an external thing that possesses a strong force which it uses to control the people. This control may be ideological or economic. Durkheim draws a contrast between the social facts, the psychical facts, and the organic facts. The study of social facts distinguishes sociology. Social facts are the collective tendencies, practices, and beliefs of the groups that include economy amongst others. Durkheim’s sociological form extends beyond the class warfare’s economic analyses that are found in Marx. Durkheim criticizes the economic materialism of Marx in these words, “Even without setting against economic materialism any definite facts, how can one fail to notice the inadequacy of the proofs on which it rests? Here is a law which lays claim to being the key to history. Yet, in order to demonstrate it, one is content to cite a few scattered and disjointed facts, which together make up no methodological series and whose interpretation is far from being settled” (Durkheim, 1982, p. 172). Marx instantly jumped to conclusions rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself. The evidence in favor of Marx was insufficient to convince Durkheim; “Not only is the Marxist hypothesis unproven, but it is contrary to facts which appear established” (Durkheim, 1982, p. 173). According to Durkheim, religion is a very important factor whose impacts can be seen on economy along with art, science, morality, and the different forms of politics. Durkheim also suggests that economy depends to a large extent upon the religion; he says, “is it not probable that the economy depends on religion and not vice versa?” (Durkheim, 1982, p. 173). Durkheim argues that anomy can happen as a result of the crisis, sudden disturbance, or rapid change in the economic and social forces. Under such circumstances, society is not able to maintain a regulating impact upon the behavior and expectations (Durkheim, 1951, p. 277). Conclusion In the recent decades, there has occurred a renaissance of the sociology’s classical tradition as designed by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. After the Second World War, various new radical movements happened in the world in the socialist as well as the capitalist societies along with the countries where the economy is changing from agrarian to industrial. As a result of this, sociologists have become increasingly aware of the change and conflict in their social lives. Most sociologists have started to pay attention to the social issues that were given immense importance by the discipline’s pioneers. Marx visualized the origins of the conflicts throughout the history in the division of labor Durkheim sees the division as a normative form which helps the society function effectively whereas Weber is of the view that the competition in the capitalist system leads to individual as well as societal progress. The nature of society for each of the three philosophers remains hidden somewhere in the production relations, though the three differ on their understanding of this nature. While Marx carries out a holistic study of the society, Weber thinks that the reality is so unorganized and vast that it cannot be studied in entirety; rather it can just be studied in essence. Weber and Durkheim successfully introduced the sociological approach in the other sciences of society that include but are not limited to politics, economics, comparative religion, history, and law. Both Weber and Durkheim are classical sociologists that tried to establish the methods and scope of new disciple. According to Marx and Durkheim, reality is hardly anything more than a product of collectivity whereas Weber, unlike both, places emphasis upon individuality. Weber does not think unlike Marx and Durkheim that reality can feel, perceive, and think. Therefore, according to Weber, individuals are more important in sociology as compared to collectivity because individuals determine collectivity’s behavior by means of their own behavior. Concluding, Weber’s approach to defining the concept of modern society differs considerably from the approaches of Marx and Durkheim. Indeed there is a disagreement between Weber and Marx regarding the ideology as the social organization’s legitimate determinant. Marx thought of ideology as the outcome of economic determinants whereas according to Weber, it was a view naïve and simplistic. Weber’s sociology is realistic rather than idealistic whereas the sociology of Marx and Durkheim is idealistic instead of realistic. Weber is a non-positivist whereas Marx and Durkheim are positivists. This leads to the development of two schools of thought. In spite of their differences, both schools of thought have attempted to make functional correlations and casual connections. The contemporary sociology seems very less concerned with the development of all embracing theories than the concern that existed during Weber’s and Durkheim’s time. Weber thought of reality as unorganized, chaotic, and vast that cannot be explored in entirety. Sociology owes a lot to Weber for this development. This imparts the need not to develop grand theories like the ones developed by Durkheim and Marx but instead to study the social phenomena using the ideal type. Weber criticized Marx’s division sociology. Weber considered them ideal types rather than actual types. These constructs do not explain the actual sociology, yet they prove instrumental in the actual sociology’s analysis. The contemporary work in sociology is more interpretative and descriptive. References: Durkheim, E 1951, Suicide: A Study in Sociology, NY, NY: The Free Press. Durkheim, E 1982, The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. by W.D. Halls. NY, NY: The Free Press. Marx, K 1963, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, NY, NY: International Publishers Marx, K 1988, The Communist Manifesto, ed. Frederic L. Bender. NY, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Weber, M 1930, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. by Talcott Parsons. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing. Weber, M 1968, Economy and Society: Part I and II, trans. by Fishoff et al. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press. Read More