Sociology-Enlightenment Age v/s Classical Age - Essay Example

? Sociology-Enlightenment Age v/s ical Age Sociology-Enlightenment Age v/s ical Age Enlightenment age is formally associated with 18th century period. This enlightenment age swept the entire continent of Europe. The atmosphere of this time was the need to reshape the philosophical, political movement and cultural perspectives to include the rule of reason, in these aspects of life (Schmidt, 1996). The era of going through the dead weight of tradition, blind faith and superstition, religious norms, utilitarian rule in administration and government, use of brute force, stubborn politics initiated the need to act through reasoning. However, there existed a group of classical thinkers, who thought contrary to enlightenment era. The ‘holy trinity’ of sociology-Marx, Weber and Durkheim formed part of that group. The classism philosophers conformed into a more natural order analyzing the way the society lived. Their sociological perspective was that the effects of economic conditions and divisions of labor shaped the way society operated. Their concept came during the industrial revolution era. The philosophy of the sociological pioneers the ‘holy trinity’ lived a time when capitalism was the order of the day. Capitalism purely controlled the economy, as it was the dominant force (Schmidt, 2004). The ‘holy trinities’ arguments expressed how people and society reacted to changes. The classical perspective revealed that cohesiveness in any society depended on the construction of labor mechanisms. Modernization and materialism acted as the key of their arguments. This approach does not conclude that the three had same written works. Each philosopher had his own divergent view of life and society but they converged into the same policies. These classical thinking still apply today, though the age of enlightenment changed some norms, they deeply borrows from classical conclusions. The enlightenment era influenced classism era by bringing remarkable intellectual development in the face of utilitarian approach. During the late 17th century and early 18th century, the mechanical approach towards life as seen in the classism perspective changed (Wilson, 2004). A number of long-standing life ideas, beliefs on social life experience a total over haul. For example, the enlightenment period brought the issue of civil society into the labor force. This philosophy came as non-practical to classism thinkers like Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. The enlightenment era wanted to bring rationality into how laborers faired in the hands of the industry owners. The civil society would provide space, create a chance for debate, and operate free from government control. Enlightenment era aimed at isolating industrial employers away from the employees. They wanted rationality on the way workers were treated. In the face of classical thinkers, industrial owners had powers over their employees and they determined how operations could go on. This came at a time when industry controlled the economy. The output of the labor came under great coaxing and sometimes brutality. This necessitated the philosophers in enlightenment era to find a way in the labor force. They believed that humanity and rationalism could not separate and thus the voice of those in any labor force deserved a decent approach (Morigiwa, Stolleis, M., & Halpe?rin, 2011). They detached workers from the remote control of their employers. They also put in place mechanism to advocate for human right. The enlightenment era came in the time when working dwelt on quantitative and mechanical approach. For example, one of the notable classism approaches was Fredrick Taylor’s approach of industrial work through scientific management. The result of Taylor’s approach brought continual misuse of laborers as they worked in controlled environment like machine. The light brought by Enlightenment era wanted sense. They fought for representation of the work force and more importantly, the treat of labors as normal human beings. Thinkers in the era of the enlightenment period set the stage on a new form of sociology that would change the world. In this period, the philosophers for the first time defended their approach with principals. Unlike the classical theories of Marx view on society as ruled by natural forces, the enlightenment era thinkers detached themselves by expounding the existing principles that would bring the general foundations of social life. They advocated for self-determination, as this was an age of reason. It aimed at future of humanity that restored order and normalcy (Morigiwa, Stolleis, & Halpe?rin, 2011). The age of reason left human power on the fate of individual reasoning. This was different from the classical belief that the society was under the hands of the wealthy people. As to the enlightenment era, they changed humanity to exercise self-critical awareness, democracy, and universal peace. To the enlightenment era thinkers, nothing would determine the future of neither any society nor its order rather than the continual improvement of people way of life both in the facet of physical soothe and intellectual superiority. This contrasted to the views of Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. For example, Durkheim believed on the role played by the collective consciousness rather than individual strives. He argues that humanity is inherently egoistic. He said that norms, beliefs, and values are the ones, which form the basis of our societies. He believed on the importance and the crucial role-played by the collective reasoning of people without which the life in the society would not survive since there is no social integration. He shows that the human capacity is emotionally bound to culture. So in his perspective, through collective consciousness, human beings would become aware of each other as social animals rather than just animals. As for the part of the enlightenment thinkers, they advocated for individual prowess. They wanted the human capacity to realize freedom of conscience and exercise it. They believed that individual independence would castigate development and progress, which would eventually act, as the banner under which societies would live away from their binding odd ways and allow into them the liberated mentality for this would promise future life. They wanted people to move ahead of socially constituted norms. The enlightenment thinkers believed as human beings we had the full responsibility for our fate in life and that faith and optimism remained as the basic goodness of human capacity. On the issue of economy and society, the era of enlightenment influenced the classical beliefs of the three philosophers formerly known as the ‘holy trinity’. The three theorists agree that the economy formed an important part of the society. For examples, Marx economy forms the casual foundation on all ensuing social trend. He believes that the ruling class controls the means of production and exploits, the working class. The resultant of these is class warfare that characterized the industrial revolution of the time. Marx believed that capitalism prepare the way forward for society’s revolution. One would understand Marx’s perspective as not giving recognizing the individual role and capacity towards the development of the society something that, the Enlightenment thinkers did not buy. The enlightenment philosophers recognized the role played by an individual in the development of society. They inclined that a radical mass of informed people in a society, could act as think tanks and instigate change in the society. The economy, political and cultural condition of the society is depended on the individual contribution. Their approach on the impact of people on economy of the society was not so much attached to ideas. They however, led people in acquiring positive attitude that would create a cause for their life. They believed that this would create a new way of thinking and this is the epoch of human self-actualization. The thinkers of the enlightenment era called for reasoning in all aspect that would influence the economy of their society unlike the classism belief that attached a society’s economy on innovators motives and desires. The impact of scientific approaches in the era of enlightenment depicts the change that the world needed away from the premeditated concepts that defined life. The classical theorists such as Marx conformed into traditionally set orders and retained that man ought to live life in accordance with the natural forces and guidelines. According to one of the Enlightenment thinkers, Watson, who had a strong interest in understanding the human mind tried in shedding natural principal from human capacity (Morrison, 2006). The scientific revolution in the era of reason emphasized that human nature and his progress as a product of advancement through his initiated psychology and the human mind. The era beginning late in 18th century came as modern starting point. It was an empiricist approach towards life. Everything needed systematic analysis and approach so as to determine which aspect formed an integral part to human life and which ones merely existed but not of benefit to man. Science concerned the understanding of nature, psychology, and philosophy of mind. All these worked in unison to provide a scientifically informed picture of human nature. Contrary to this, the classism period created a myriad of the hypothesis that dwelt on uncertainty of ideas and only tied man. Secular theories and beliefs characterized the classism period. Due to unexposed humanity, people conformed to the set standards often falling to exploitation by the bourgeois class. This continual dominance of the few in the society is what the pioneers of the era of reason came to avert. The norms provide by Marx, Weber and Durkheim contained some seeds of authoritarianism and conservatism and this is what theorists of elite era refer to as diminutive political philosophies. The sides differed only in the position of man, whether he is liberal or should conform to premeditated ideas. On the issue of governance, enlightenment period addressed the subject contrasting the path taken by the classism concepts of Weber, Marx, and Durkheim. The age of reason emphasized on individual possession, and reliance on his critical reasoning as opposed to traditional authority in the government. In the classism era, reason and knowledge remained two of the hardest ideas one could grasp. Just like the contrasting opinions expressed by the Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, the period was punctuated by the same (Kegley, 2012). Everyone had his views on different subjects. This state of confusion created a problem of reasoning since no one knew whom to believe. According to ‘holy trinity’, philosophers, the government, and the church had overall power over the people. This meant that decisions came from these two authorities. They made the decision in all fields of life such as politics, social, economic, moral, and material perspectives. Since the church and the government controlled the power, traces of manipulation continued to reign. The people in the society fell into social stratification from the highest to the lowest. This also brought the division in nobility, clergy, serf, and peasants. The rise of the age of reason came to claim back the position of individual autonomy and his significance in the society. The philosophers at the age of reason fought for the value of individualism. They said that man could make effective decisions and raise his significance power in the issues of his society. They opposed the one sided approach on government, which was not incorporating the people in its decisions. The age of reason fought for democracy and a system of authority that did not belittle its citizen but rather uphold the rule of law. Individualism came as another aspect, which the philosophical perspectives had divergent issues. On the side of the classism era, Durkheim seems to quash the significance of individuals in the society. His studies and researches rarely touched on individual. To him, the society came first. The society’s life needed no human capacity and by this; the value-attached to humanity came as insignificant according to Durkheim. It is after his researches on societies then that he later structured down the social properties of individuals. For Durkheim, the society is real and its existence needed no individual interaction. Durkheim pulls individual characteristics away from and seems to suggest that they do not affect the society. On the side of the enlightenment thinkers, individualism comes as a note worthy impression. The philosophers in this era stressed on the importance of an individual’s personality, intellect, exceptionality, and full improvement of one’s capabilities and talents (Kegley, 2012). The philosophers wanted human capacity to express his intellectual potential since the dark ages seemed to inhibit his progress and value he ahs in the society. As from this time, individualism has remained as a dominant theme even in today’s western world. Human intelligence was empowered by the possibility of exhibiting individual capabilities. As a result, there was unlimited exploration characterized by unrestrained imagination, poignant liveliness, and impulsiveness in both art and personal life. Such was the impact of the enlightenment era to the concepts of the pioneers of sociology, the ‘holy trinity’. The continual support of this concept saw much individual accomplishment emerge. For example, Sir Francis Drake, brought fame to his country by becoming; the first man to circumnavigate the world. This was an individual accomplishment. At this time, individualism had matured to something natural overcoming the minute idea it had originated. People have used this notion not only to conquer self-drives but also create fame for their country. What humanity has achieved through individual innovations has surpassed the collective reasoning, which classism philosophers seemed to bring forth. In simple understanding, the theories of classism against the force of enlightenment seemed like laws, which protected the freedom of the weak against the aspirations of the mighty. One would imagine if the concept of individualism had not fought its way through the naturalistic society; the dark ages would characterize our daily struggles. The rise of rationality brought divergent views on the concept of religion. While enlightenment era tried to unbind humanity from unreasonably conforming to religion, philosophers like Durkheim resolved that religion is part of human nature. The age of reason tried to analyze how humanity tied itself into serving uncertain beliefs and forfeiting the most important aspect of reason in them. Some philosophers could even relate religion to a social structuring conspiring to deprive human capacity their freedom. The age of reason expressed so much faith in the power bestowed in humanity and that exploiting such internal potential could lead one to a more divine being (Cohen, & Mendes-Flohr, 2009). Classism thinkers perceived it differently. According to Durkheim, his philosophy of religion saw it as a more founder mental element in social life. To him, humanity had no chance but follow a particular religious doctrine. This contradicts the belief advocated by the philosophers in the age of reason. They wanted a freeman. Their perception of humanity was that man has his supernatural prowess on the society in which he lives in, and following his self-belief would lead to self-satisfaction. So man was free and detaching himself from any religious background. Durkheim even suggests that human history is born from religion. The response attached to counter this as suggested by philosophers in enlightenment era was that just like any other social institution, religion springs from nowhere. They stack on the notion that religion contained forces, which could limit persons thinking and thus result into ineffectiveness in such a person. The social forces create a universal milieu thus resulting into conforming into the forces and that is how religion comes into human life. The argument brought by enlightenment philosophers was a rational point of view. They believed that if human capacity could disengage himself from conforming into society norms, his self-growth would bring a more attachment because every religion has its social foundations. The belief in religion according to Durkheim brings humanity to adhere to three facets: sacred objects, set beliefs, and, practices. Only a Sacred community should practice. The idea of making one self came as the point of critique as to the reason why age of reason detached man from reason. They argued that if one observed to reach the expected notion, he detaches himself from self-realization (Morrison,2006). This would divert individual aspiration and thus religion would create retardation to humanity. Neither the naturalistic view nor the animalistic perspective appealed to the age of reason. They wanted change from the old order that emancipated man from social ties to explore individual aspiration. This could form a rational approach to life. The age of enlightenment influenced the perception created by Classism pioneers on class struggle. While classism stressed that one cannot separate class from society and its people, the mentality possessed by the enlightenment thinkers on the same was the creation of a liberal society that benefited each individual (Smith, 2003). The impact created by the age of reason influenced the view of structuralism as created by the old order. It was a revelation that man should not discriminate the other since we live in the same society and each one has an equal right to the material possession with which the society avails. The feeling was that no one could force social stratification upon people since the position of an individual in a society is equal. The view however expressed by classism theorists was different. For example, according to Marx, class struggle and stratification is inevitable in society. The fact that any society depicts dialectal, and history of economic life, then naturally class is within it. The assertion by Marx was realistic in the eyes of enlightenment theorists. Since that was characteristic of any society, they however called for reasoning. They questioned the independence of a man such that he could belittle the other. The age of reason saw the world from the edge of reasoning. To them, man was social being and the society was appoint of socialization whereby socialization did not mean overlooking the other person rather benefit from individual capabilities (Beamish, 2010). This made sense and that was the way, even today how as a society should live. Even though Marx declares that historically humanity has exhibited class struggles, conflict of interests between the dominating class and the exploited class of people; this should change. Reasoning should prevail. This was the only way for humanity to change their life course, which pinned down its potential individual and group innovations. Even though humanity evolves through class struggle, the society’s social force should champion for humanism to reason and change the way we live in today’s world. This formed the basis through which the age of reason took the best for humanity out of the crippling hands of the aristocratic social order. As much as the classical theories have witnessed much interference, classical theories are much relevant in today’s world. They remain as theories of great scope and the ambition with which their founders had in them, and have helped shape the world we live. First, they helped develop the sociology that is much relevant today as it was in those days. Our contemporary sociologists continue to read and apply them to shape the course our society takes (Gane, 2002). Due to this, they have become classical for they touch on almost every aspect of life. Thus, they remain elastic philosophies, which have withstood the change of time to remain relevant. For example, the old classical theory on trade is still applicable today. Concepts such as; the effects of change in supply of labor or capital is still relevant. They also argued that any increase in the capital of any country would subsequently expand its production of the capital-intensive good and a contraction of production in then labor-intensive good. Another theory, which still, stands relevant, is the organizational theory. Even today, the study of organizations in order to identify common themes hence purpose on solving problems, maximizing efficiency and production has remained very much applicable in the corporate world. The perspective within the theory has classical roots that arguably are the best in today’s industrial businesses. Furthermore, scientific management introduced by Fredrick Taylor to encourage production efficiency and productivity is much alive especially in underdeveloped world. The inequitable industrial exploitations has seen many struggling nation adopt subconsciously or consciously Taylor’s approach even though it is an old fashion in western world (Kegley, 2012). Most production companies today are very much concerned on what their workers would produce within a normal working hours and always trying new innovative create the best alternative to increase production and increase efficiency. This is what Taylors emphasized hence the modern application of Scientific Management. Even today, corporate world trains its workers and maintain co-operation with the sole purpose of creating a rapport in order the company goals and targets do not fail. This was a classic approach and is what makes these theories very much relevant in today’s world. Notably, does Fayol, a successful France mining engineer, towards management personnel. He pointed out that a successful manager should always learn his roles-manager. He should rely on focusing and planning, organizing, the rule of command, to co-ordinate and control. These principles of management dominate today’s world. This clearly depicts how important and relevant have the classical theories reshaped the world’s society (Dahms, 2012). References. Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Los Angeles, Calif: Pine Forge Press. Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Los Angeles, Calif: Pine Forge Press.Bottom of Form Baldick, C., & Baldick, C. (2008). The Oxford dictionary of literary terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beales, D. (2005). Enlightenment and reform in eighteenth-century Europe. London: I. B. Tauris. Beamish, R. (2010). The promise of sociology: The classical tradition and contemporary sociological thinking. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Cohen, A. A., & Mendes-Flohr, P. R. (2009). 20th century Jewish religious thought: Original essays on critical concepts, movements, and beliefs. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. Dahms, H. F., & Hazelrigg, L. E. (2012). Theorizing modern society as a dynamic process. Bingley: Emerald. Edles, L. D., & Appelrouth, S. (2010). Sociological theory in the classical era: Text and readings. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press. Elkadi, H. (2006). Cultures of glass architecture. Aldershot (Hampshire: Ashgate. Gane, N. (2002). Max Weber and postmodern theory: Rationalization versus re-enchantment. New York: Palgrave. Gardner, H., & Kleiner, F. S. (2013). Gardner's art through the ages: A global history. Boston, Mass: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Kegley, C. W., & Blanton, S. L. (2012). World politics: Trend and transformation. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Morigiwa, Y., Stolleis, M., & Halpe?rin, J.-L. (2011). Interpretation of law in the Age of Enlightenment: From the rule of the king to the rule of law. Dordrecht: Springer. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern social thought. London [u.a].: SAGE Publications. Outram, D. (2006). Panorama of the Enlightenment. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum. Schmidt, C. (2004). The culture of classicism: Ancient Greece and Rome in American intellectual life, 1780-1910. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Schmidt, J. (1996). What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-century answers and twentieth-century questions. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. Smith, B. C. (2003). Understanding Third World politics: Theories of political change and development. New York, N.Y: Palgrave Macmillan. Stubbs, J. H., & World Monuments Fund (New York, N.Y.). (2009). Time honored: A global view of architectural conservation : parameters, theory, & evolution of an ethos. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons. Wilson, E. J., & Reill, P. H. (2004). Encyclopedia of the enlightenment. New York, NY: Facts On File. Zafirovski, M. (2011). The Enlightenment and its effects on modern society. New York: Springer. Read More