Marx, Durkheim and Weber on the Development of Modern Industrial Society
Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber are the dominant classical voices when studying or analyzing the emergence of society from a more cooperative, collective feudal society to a modern capitalistic society. All three of these sociological philosophers contributed to the nature of society and social change. Each of them eventually surmised that the relationship between individuals and their fellows and individuals and their world was directly related to their relationship to economic conditions. Whether referencing Marx and his concept of “alienation”, Durkheim and his thoughts on social solidarity or Weber and rationalism and disenchantment, the outcome for the modern citizen was not naturally grounded in humanitarianism or connectedness with his fellows, rather it was grounded in the division of labor and relationship to modern capitalism and the means of production. No matter how profound the differences in viewpoints, they were acutely concerned with the evolving market society and its effect on society and human interaction. Moreover, none of the three saw capitalism as a system without serious downfalls and consequences to human relationships with their world, their fellows and themselves.
Marx
Marx theoretic endeavors are clearly influenced by the history of his time. His works show a shift from more philosophical influences to more economically based studies. The antecedent of Marx studies was the move from feudal society to a society based on capitalism. In analyzing Marx, his belief that the move into capitalism was a necessary step in societal evolution is primary. In identifying the issues of class based in economics and the exploitation of workers, Marx sought to explain and change the social scheme of society. The shift to an owner /worker society would inevitably lead to alienation of the worker. The end result, according to Marx, was revolution as a result of the development of class consciousness and an eventual advance into a utopian society.
The Essay on The Relationships Between Capitalism, Colonialism And The Libratory Struggles
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s have written the “Communist Manifestos” to encourage the working class to fight and stand up against the exploitation of workers by the Bourgeoisie class. Marx and Engel’s also address the influence of history and predict the future and the development of economical changes which envisions the eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie, and the ...
Marx argued that social change was created through a series of changes or “stages of development” whereby capitalism evolved as the dominant social structure. This development between man and his relationship to the means of production was critical for his survival, pivotal even in maintaining his social being. Marx in no way assumed that this economic state was normal however it had to be accepted as natural/normal in order to be effective. Because this system of owner and worker was constantly being reproduced it would “become” normal, accepted in the consciousness of the individual. In order to successfully reproduce and become internalized at a” consciousness level”, this economic system had to be adopted in other structures of society including religion, education, entertainment et al. Marx explains in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy that the relations of production in essence represent the economic structure of society on which the legal and political superstructures are built. The message adopted by these social structures had to be congruent with the ideology of capitalism. This dependence on the means of production was a state achieved quite likely against his or her will. The initial strength in his theory is in identifying and addressing his belief that the individual’s very consciousness is determined by his or her social being rather the converse.
Diverging from the theoretical framework of Adam Smith and “The Wealth of Nations” which viewed the division of labor as a natural consequence of human exchange and its inherent ability to find balance, Marx formed the theoretical framework that saw the division of labor as one of conflict where capitalism functioned as a system of oppression and exploitation of one class over another. Yet it was within this very system of exploitation that change would occur as exploited workers in the proletariat would, as a result of class consciousness, become aware of the political, economic and social ideologies of the bourgeoisie and would revolt in response. The end result would be the end of class division and its oppressive nature and individuals would be free to be and do what they chose.
The Term Paper on Adam Smith And Karl Marx: Contrasting Views Of Capitalism
... According to Marx, the production process comes about from the desire to meet the needs of people in society. In capitalism workers were also ... work. It becomes like a monster or “universal whore” “Every individual necessarily labours to render annual revenue of society as great ... control by the rich and it was subject to create social problems due to the great gaps between the rich and ...
Furthermore, Marx analyzes and examines the ideas of alienation, a phenomenon hopelessly intertwined in capitalism. For Marx, it is not a matter of consciousness rather a natural development of capitalism wherein the individual becomes alienated from his or her work product, then his or her peers and finally the self. It is the owner then, not the worker that would own and profit from the end product. Marx, In the Communist Manifesto, states that the worker actually becomes the product. He or she is relegated to a wage laborer and according to Marx, a seller of themselves. It is then inherent in capitalism that the individual only sees himself or herself in terms of the relationship to the means of production and the corresponding social class. For Marx, these capitalist developments are not congruent with humanity ‘the human being is […] an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society. Production by an isolated individual outside society […] is as much of an absurdity as is the development of language without individuals living together and talking to each other”(1973: 84).
The exploited class now has lost any access or direct connection to the means of production but is solely dependent on another. The struggle to achieve as a wage laborer is still the dominant position today as a person’s ability to consume, to buy, to reach the American Dream and even to survive is dependent on the connection to and place within the means of production. In The Economic and Philosophical Manuscript, Marx illustrates that the process of alienation is complete as man or woman becomes objectified.
Finally, in Das Kapital, Marx points out that in the schema of capitalism the worker then has become a commodity as he or she sells self, talent, skill – he or she is the product. Complicating individual circumstance is the fact that the technological advances within the means of production are his or her enemy. The worker then lives within the dichotomy of the benefit of technology that lessens and hastens the work load and the likelihood that that technology might usurp one’s position in the commodity market. He or she may no longer be a “necessary commodity”. Moreover, technology, with its ability to create more with greater efficiency, could eventually lead to depression. Marx explains that religion then becomes the “opiate of the people”. Marx meaning is the religion provides at least temporary relief from the suffering of the people. For Marx, religion may provide this temporary respite however it only works if one is willing to accept their conditions. Here lies the problem, when the citizen accepts religious relief he or she turns from the possibility of revolt or revolution to a stagnant acceptance of the circumstance they are in. The impetus toward change is dulled by the numbing power of religion. For Marx then even the form and value of religion is determined by those in power.
The Report on Evaluation of the Study of Sociology from the Enlightenment Through to the Writings of Durkheim, Marx and Weber
... Plummer, 2005) Weber challenged Durkheim’s view that society exists independently of the individuals who make up society. Social action theorists do not ... In recent years the need for such rigid divisions between quantitative and qualitative methods have been questioned ... he wanted to explain social action and social change. (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008) Comte, Durkheim, Marx and Weber shared a ...
Durkheim
What of Emile Durkheim then? What was his position in regards to Marx? While both examined the move into industrial society, the division of labor and the relation to the means of production they differ stronger on the problems of social solidarity, inequality and social conflict. This new economic state and the division of labor then was the natural outgrowth of individuals with different interests and skills. Durkheim would rely on science, social facts and sociological investigation to study, understand and explain social phenomenon. Durkheim set out to adopt a theory of social change that would address the problems inherent in a modern, capitalist industrial society. Durkheim’s fundamental premise was that society was based on solidarity and harmony and that the turmoil evident in industrialization was abnormal. With reliance on social facts or those phenomena external to the individual, the patterns and causes of human behavior could be understood and uncovered. It follows then that understanding the social forces at work within the capitalist industrial society would allow for understanding as to their effect on human behavior and bring about a solution that would bring society back to a state of harmony or equilibrium – the homeostatic state at which it was designed to remain.
The Essay on The Effects That Society Has On Individuals Are Negative
Society is, by definition, a group of people who live in the same area who tend to follow the same standards. Society influences people to follow their expectations, because it is thought of as the right way to live. Due to this influence, society has a negative impact on the individuals who are a part of it. Society forces conformity on others, has individuals acting selfish, and lowers self- ...
Where Marx saw the modern industrial world as a necessary step to freedom, Durkheim saw it as a development with specific social phenomenon (social facts) that needed to be studied scientifically as explained in The Division Of Labor in Society. These social facts were outside the individual and were capable of exercising power over the individual influencing behavior. By examining these social facts as they applied to modern industrial societies, adequate solutions could be designed and devised to deal with the problems inherent in the new society. While social conflict and inequality are inherent in the division of labor, studying them and their influence on behavior scientifically could lead to viable solutions to bring equilibrium.
Unlike Marx, who believed the industrialized society would bring alienation and revolution, Durkheim believed it would bring cohesion and interdependence. Greater specialization would create greater interdependence. Marx and Durkheim both saw the change in society as epochal with the passage of the old group identity to a more individuated existence. Within the more individual society the fight for survival would be exacerbated by a more intense, denser population. They also agreed that the modern division of labor would bring negative consequences to the individual however, as discussed in The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim maintained that this new division of labor could bring about a new, more modern type of solidarity. Durkheim then viewed class conflict as a consequence of face paced change. Where Marx saw an inevitable revolution, Durkheim saw an adherence to norms and morals that would bring homeostasis through shared beliefs and values.
The Term Paper on Max Weber And Social Sciences
Max Weber and Social Science Max Weber thought that "statements of fact are one thing, statements of value another, and any confusing of the two is impermissible," Ralf Dahrendorf writes in his essay "Max Weber and Modern Social Science" as he acknowledges that Weber clarified the difference between pronouncements of fact and of value. 1 Although Dahrendorf goes on to note the ambiguities in ...
The new more individuated industrial society for Durkheim would be based on this “collective consciousness” as evidenced in his work entitled Suicide. By analyzing this seemingly individualistic act, Durkheim illustrates the position of society as a powerful entity in itself. This collective conscious represents the commonality of beliefs, values and ideals within a society. Durkheim’s research in Suicide analyzes the individual’s connection with society – whether highly integrated/regulated or very low in integration or regulation society has a profound effect on the acts and behaviors of its members. Clearly Durkheim illustrates the power and the forceful nature of society to bring cohesion and division. This representation of society as a thing outside the individual represents another side of the human being – the body on one hand as individually represented and the social on the other. The individual’s further development hinges on societies development. The two aspects of the individual can be in a state of tension but they are interconnected and mutually necessary. For Durkheim, society is independent of the individuals who create it and has the power to control, determine and govern at an internal level, to create tension, restore cohesion and to influence solidarity.
According to Durkheim in The Division of Labor in Society, previous unindustrialized societies were defined by “mechanical solidarity’. These earlier societies were characterized by their commonality with a strong sense of community. Conversely, modern industrial societies do not operate on cohesion rather they are characterized by diversity, individual uniqueness and a weak connection with the collective. Consciousness is socially and historically constructed. The new kind of consciousness is based in individuality therefore solidarity needs to be found within the division of labor. It is necessary then for individuals to create new, mutual interdependencies which he refers to as “organic solidarity”. The terminology used here clearly asserts his reliance on science and his belief that society operates much like an organism (organic) where each part has a function and is necessary for maintaining balance. Each organ is dependent on the other each individual is dependent on the others. Since people are no longer able to produce everything they need they must rely on others. Moreover the very essence of individuated personality disappears and is replaced by the collective. Simply viewing the behavior, norms, values et al of modern society gives proof to this lessening of individual acts, desires and beliefs for the all-powerful view of the societal collective. When an individual violates the norm or collective in modern industrial society it is necessary to restore the offender to a functional role in society.
The Term Paper on Marx Weber Durkheim And Simmel The Individual Society
Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that most of the individuals in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a more perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all ...
Organic solidarity can be further embedded by the creation of social structures or institutions that facilitate common goals, ideals and identities. Since a lessening of solidarity is acute in capitalist societies, Durkheim believed that it was necessary to create a new way to reinforce social norms and bring about a sense of commonality. This could be accomplished through religion and kinship however it could also be accomplished through participation in occupational groups. These relationships while economic in nature would also transcend politics. Occupational groups could help maintain balance checking the oppressive nature of political bureaucracies and the self-centeredness of individual passions and goals. Moreover, since these groups would be made up of workers in similar labor responsibilities, the members would have shared interests and a strong cohesive identity.
As to the existence negative effects of modern industrialization and the division of labor, Marx and Durkheim agreed. Durkheim delineates between two abnormal forms of the division of labor; forced and anomie. He iterates “[…] the fact that the working classes do not really desire the status assigned to them and too often accept it only under constraint and force, not having any means of gaining any other status’. (1984: 293).
In this case Durkheim refers to the worker as “a lifeless cog” through the rigors of uniformity and through his separation from his social environment. This notion is consistent with Marx view of alienation. Again consistent with Marx, Durkheim outlines the negative effects of the division of labor both to the laborer and the producer with the second form of abnormal labor division – anomie. While often described as a state of normlessness, Durkheim intended it to mean norms that were not clearly defined. This state of anomie results from social disorganization and a lack of strong organization and authority of social structures meant to maintain control producing social conflict. Durkheim continued to believe that even this state of anomie would bring social solidarity as norms and moral conscriptions restructured social behavior. Following his scientific method when modern society faces the dangers inherent in an anomic state, society would find a modern way to deal with it. Ultimately balance can be restored through organic solidarity and in regard for the interdependence brought on by the division of labor.
Clearly, Durkheim saw the advance into industrialism and capitalism as a time of great and epic change bringing with it new challenges however he did not feel it necessary to give up rather he saw it as an opportunity to utilize scientific method and research to discover an appropriate solutions. Since solidarity, according to Durkheim, was the normative condition of society, organic solidarity was the solution. Becoming aware of the necessity of interdependence, adhering to social norms and adjusting those who step outside, Durkheim’s social equilibrium could be realized. This functionalist view is often a dominant view in society today wherein one can argue that the division of labor is not bad or necessarily oppressive rather it is necessary for societal balance. Where Marx might view the extremely gifted individual relegated to a menial wage job due to position in the division of labor a tragedy, Durkheim might view the same situation as an integrated necessary function of a well-balanced society.
Weber
Marx, Durkheim and Weber are responding to the social situation of the time and a shift from traditional society to a more modern industrial society. The previous sections explained the approach of Marx and Durkheim. Unique in his analysis, the core of Weber’s theology is grounded in ideas, ideas including values and beliefs. In this he strongly disagreed with Marx. While Marx was analyzing the relationship to the means of production, Weber was analyzing the impact of how one viewed and thought about his or her world – his or her ideology. Weber’s take on the economic industrial change is no exception. One example of the relationship between interests and ideas for Weber is religion. Weber suggests that religious ideology could influence the economic social structure. For Weber religion is a foundation on which the economic structure can be built. Furthermore the individual relationship with a spiritual power within the religious dogma could be juxtaposed into a relationship with capitalism. This individual relationship and experience in religion could represent the individual experience within capitalism. In contrast to Marx, Weber felt that religion should act as a means of stability though oppressive in nature. Unlike Durkheim who viewed religion as external to individuals, Weber analyzed it through the meaning men and women put into things and how these ideas facilitate social change and influence society. Religion then is an example of the controlling and governing capability of ideas. Ideology for Weber is directly related to the material status of society through class, status and power. This adds dimension and definition to Marx theory of division of labor and relationship to the means of production.
As Durkheim sees a new form of solidarity and Marx sees class conflict Weber analyzes a broader table of class distinction- class, status and power. Weber’s ideology regarding class is more consistent with a form of stratification rather than the strict class division of Marx. Class and status are indicative of the material sphere of society and either can be the root of conflict. Status differs in that it is the accumulation of social commonalities and differences. Weber’s power holds some similarity to Marx in that those in power have the ability to control economic resources, to determine production and to decide the direction and extent of consumption. Power represents domination. Power can be achieved through traditional, rational-legal or charismatic means. Traditional power relies on the legitimacy of the claim to power. Charismatic power relies on the character of leadership whether though coercion or inspiration. Weber’s system is far more complex and diverse than Marx’ and would allow more variation and opportunity.
Furthermore, as Marx concentrated on alienation and conflict and Durkheim on organic solidarity and harmony, Weber was focusing on competition and rationalization. Weber is more congruent with Marx in areas of conflict and the importance of competition in the economic environment however where Marx saw it as a means for alienation, Weber saw it as a more effective form of stratification. Weber replaces Marxian focus on owners and workers with bosses and employees which demonstrated a more viable, less oppressive social environment. These redefined roles facilitate the idea of rationalization – a key to Weberian theory. Rationalization brings freedom from traditional feudal societies and sets the stage for modern industrial societies as people in a new modern industrial world determine social actions through a means and ends evaluation. Utilizing one of the previous mentioned definitions of power, an applicative example could be authority in a bureaucracy wherein power is achieved through the knowledge and experience of the individual, a premise unlike Marx emphasis on owners and workers. This process of calculation becomes the method by which actions and behaviors are determined. Behavior then can be analyzed by calculable rules and role expectations which lead to favorable outcomes. For Weber modern individuals would calculate their behavior based on the necessary input and probable outcome.
Weber argued that capitalism would become the dominant social motive, overreaching religion, morals or emotion. It follows for Weber then that as the process is increasingly determined by rationalization and the population becomes greater and denser that bureaucracy would be a viable development to act as an agent in directing and controlling human behavior and actions. Efficiency would be paramount. Bureaucratic organizations would dominant and determine life chances. For Weber bureaucracies might represent institutions that control and determine, direct in essence, individual behavior. Weber understood bureaucracies as organizations of people carrying out social actions in order to meet the expectations of the bureaucracy. Clearly it sounds like a rat in a maze. For Weber the advantages that a bureaucratic organizational system brought to the problems inherent in large-scale institutional could meet the demands of modern capitalist societies. Conversely, Weber expressed deep concerns with humanity’s growing dependence on the bureaucratic system. He clearly expressed concern over the confining nature of the bureaucracy creating an escape proof prison within the capitalist society. It is in this vein that Weber suggested “the iron cage of rationality” defining rationality (formal rationality) as a means to achieve goals through calculation and accounting; procedures and rules. Rationalization could lead to the disenchantment of the world devoid of religion, fantasy and magic. This state that Weber feared with the dominance of capitalism with its bureaucracies was devoid of spontaneity, creativity or individual initiative rather it was a world of monotonous routine based on reason and calculation.
Conclusion
Marx, Durkheim and Weber agree that the division of labor and economics are important determiners in social action and organization. All three are strongly influenced by the historical transformation of the time. However their specific views on even on the consequence of capitalism as well as the economies influence on social interaction differ. Moreover the importance of religion, the idea of materialism is all unique and individual. For Marx everything social comes down to the division of labor – the means of production, the oppressive nature of the owner and the exploitation of the worker determines social relationships. While it is now fully clear yet as to how accurate these theorists’ claims are, it is clear through the examples of violence and conflict within class relationships that Marx was correct.
Where Marx viewed the relationship of the economy and society as negative, Durkheim and Weber viewed it as positive. For Durkheim, the division of labor and the economy allowed for a new type of solidarity – organic solidarity. Durkheim sought to determine solutions through the examination of social facts for the ills and deviance that were prevalent in industrial society. Both Durkheim and Weber maintained a religious connection with capitalism – Durkheim, as to societies similarity to religion, its worship of self; Weber as to its impetus toward capitalism and the ethic of work. Marx totally disagreed with both as to the nature of religion and capitalism. For Marx, religion was a tool of those in the dominant class to make oppressed citizens feel better about their position in life. For Marx, religion was dependent on the material and economic structures rather than the converse. While none of the three classical theorists, by any means, presented a comprehensive explanation to the changing industrial world, the three together presented a comprehensive, information and dynamic theory of the changing world.
References
Durkheim, Emile. 1890. “The Principles of 1789 and Sociology.” Pp. 34-42 in Emile Durkheim
on Morality and Society, edited by R. N. Bellah. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1898, “Individualism and the Intellectual.”Pp. 43-57 in Emile Durkheim on
Morality and Society, edited by R. N. Bellah. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1952. Suicide. A Study in Sociology. London, England: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1957. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals. London, England: Routledge.
Durkheim, Emile. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. London, England: Macmillan.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labour in Society. London, England: Macmillan.
Marx, Karl. 1844. “Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts 1894.”Pp 421-24 in Early
Writings, K. Marx. London. England: Oxford Press.
Marx, Karl. 1859. “Preface to A Critique of Political Economy.”Pp. 388-92 in Karl Marx
Selected Writings, Edited by D. McLellan. Oxford, England: Oxford Press.
Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital: a Critique of Political Economy, volume 1. London, England:
Penguin Press.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 1967. Manifesto of the Communist Party. London, England:
Penguin Press.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society: Part I and II. Translated by Fishoff et al. Berkley,
CA: The University of California.
Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott
Parsons. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.