Posted: May 1st, 2024

COMPARISON BETWEEN WEBER, DURKHEIM AND MARX

COMPARISON BETWEEN WEBER, DURKHEIM AND MARX

INTRODUCTION
Many people understand the term Sociology as the study which focuses on how individuals related to one another and how they reside in their different environments. Sociology however refers to the science which makes an effort of understanding social action in order to arrive at an explanation of why it exists and how it affects people (Selef, 1997: p.15). Being social refers to the interaction that takes place between people in any given community and tends to incorporate ethnical, cultural as well as economic aspects. Action on the other hand is the human behavior to which the acting person gives subjective meaning (Neckerman, 2004: p.45). The history of social action has been in existence since early 18th Century and is not considered a foreign concept in this day and age. Social action can be defined as a conscious effort by members of a community directed at influencing the main policies and social condition (Hadden, 1997: p.28). In other words social action are efforts focused on bringing about change or preventing it in current situations and social practices via persuasion, pressure, propaganda or education on behalf of goals believed by social scientists to be socially desirable (Morrison, 2006: p.78).
Under the field of sociology there are a number of approaches that are considered under the study of social relationships that tend to affect human growth and relationships for instance social facts (Hughes, Martin & Sharrock, 2003: p.101). Social facts refer to expectations or ideas that do not emerge from personal responses as well as preferences but emerge from a given social community that tends to socialize each of its members (Shepard, 2005: p.40). Social facts are generally external to every living individual and are considered conditioning of behavior and thinking.
ESSAY
Historical Materialism is also a concept found under sociological studies and refers to an application of Marxist science to historical development (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.105). In simpler terms it is the notion or belief that a society’s economic framework be it communism or capitalism determines the nature of its cultural as well as social structure (Neckerman, 2004: p.46). Historical Materialism is believed to determine the economy of a given community. There have been a number of sociologists and professors in the recent past who have tried to understand social action and sociology as a whole for instance Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx, all of whom have come up with different theories in an effort of not only understanding how a society works under a given environment but also help others to understand their attitudes and behaviors in such environments.
Weber’s Understanding of Social Action
Born in the year 1864 Max Weber is viewed as the father of sociology as he perceived sociology as being an extension to social action where he mostly focused on specific social contexts (Hadden, 1997: p.33). In the course of his sociological studies Weber decided to concentrate on action in a social situation and argued that society is not a structure but rather is constituted interrelated actions (Morrison, 2006: p.79). He was particularly more interested in motivation and behavior of individuals unlike his fellow sociologists like Durkheim and Karl Marx who perceived the society to be an object in itself. His interest was in the objective as well as the subjective where he accepted and suggested the fact that class emerges from the relationship to means of production despite the fact that it also requires more than just that considering the fact that it is rather complicated analysis of market situation, ownership of wealth, status and finally power (Shepard, 2005: p.41).
Weber believes that social action is characterized by the relationship of others with the action. This means that not unless a social action possesses a relationship with the past, present or future behavior of others, it is not considered as such. To him social action should be inclusive of not only failures to act but also bear acquiescence which may be oriented to the past, present or future actions of others (Selef, 1997: p.16). In order for a social action to be considered truly social it needs to lean towards the behavior of other living things. Weber also defines social action as having the characteristic of being a result of cooperation as well as struggle between people and members of a given society (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.106). He argues that mere contact with human beings is not considered to be social action but the struggle and/or cooperation between a number of people is. For one to be able to explain an action they must interpret it subjectively in terms of its intended meaning (Neckerman, 2004: p.47). This means that one’s action needs to be explained in terms of consequences of their purpose rather than in terms of the action’s actual effects (Hadden, 1997: p.36). Weber thus suggests that it is important that an action is defined as per the terms of its sociological analysis and meaningfulness which should in turn follow through the identification of meaning that the actions have for actors (Morrison, 2006: p.80).
There are 4 main classifications of social action according to Weber and these include Evaluative actions, Rational actions, Traditional actions and Emotional actions. Evaluative actions refer to those which are usually determined by expectations regarding property of objects in addition to the behavior of others that the person comes across in his or her environment (Shepard, 2005: p.42). Rational actions also known as value actions on the other hand are actions that are generally determined by the conscious belief in the value not as a means towards any specified goal but directed towards some religious, political or some ethical form of behavior irrespective of the probabilities of the final success (Selef, 1997: p.17). Weber went on to define traditional actions as those dependent upon the unthinking, automatic behavior or habit in response to daily stimuli while Emotional or affectual actions as those determined by the person’s emotions, attachments or feelings (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.110).
Durkheim’s Notion of Social Fact
Born in the year 1858, Emile Durkheim was regarded as the first French academic sociologist and his life was generally dominated by his academic career (Neckerman, 2004: p.48). The main driving force in Durkheim’s overall doctrine and especially his works is the fact that he was rather insistent on the study of society which he believed must shun reductionism (Hadden, 1997: p.40). He also paid most of his attention to the social structural determinants of human beings’ social challenges thus coming up with his definition of social facts. Social happenings are considered to be social facts that are the subject matter of sociology in as far as Durkheim is concerned. He defines social facts as happenings that are part of the society rather than individual members of a society (Morrison, 2006: p.81). Durkheim’s idea of social facts tends to separate psychology from philosophy as he argues that they are not attached to any particular person and therefore can be studied empirically.
Durkheim also suggested that the main cause of a social fact requires sorting amongst those before it as compared to looking for it among the states of the individual consciousness (Shepard, 2005: p.43). People are born into already existing and established social systems that incorporate patterns of norms, values and beliefs which bring about major influence on the person. Social types of thinking and acting external to the person are said to be endued with a forceful yet compelling power which leads them to become habitual where they are imposed upon the person (Selef, 1997: p.18). As it is generally known each action tends to have an equal and opposite reaction and the most attempts to be independent of social factors are not easily accomplished leading to consequences that may invalidate the particular action taken by an individual. Thus Durkheim argues that the main aspect of social facts is the analysis of predispositions, traditions and beliefs of social group considered collectively (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.112). He believes social facts to be self existent objects rather that just notions and therefore tend to contain a notion of reality that can be observed. Unlike Max Weber who focused more on what motivates the behavior of individuals Durkheim paid attention to the study of social facts which are occurrences that have an existence in and of themselves, not bound to the behavior of people (Neckerman, 2004: p.49).
Durkheim’s focus on the rate at which specific occurrences took place as compared to the incidence gave him an additional advantage which allowed him to take part in comparative analysis of a number of frameworks. According to him one of the key elements of integration within a given society is the extent to which numerous members of the society relate with one another (Morrison, 2006: p.82). Taking part in rituals is more likely to draw members of a religious group into similar activities that tend to bind them together thus providing an environment that effectively insulates its members from frustrating experiences (Hadden, 1997: p.42). The social environment is considered to be a determining factor in collective evolution and is thus of great importance. Having been formed by neighboring societies the external social environment is able to have some influence through the mediation of the internal social environment (Shepard, 2005: p.44). Durkheim argues that among the transformations brought about by the environment those in harmony with the existing state of a given society are considered more useful as the environment is also the essential condition for collective existence (Selef, 1997: p.19).
Marx’s Conception of Historical Materialism
Having been born in the year 1818 in German Rhineland Karl Marx pursued his career as a lawyer while growing up. He later came to study Philosophy and is currently recognized as a revolutionary communist rather than a philosopher (Neckerman, 2004: p.50). Even though he was trained to be a philosopher, Marx focused more on politics and economics. His study of the philosophy of history and social sciences led him to develop or rather come up with the theory of Historical Materialism which centered around the notion that different types of society tend to rise and fall as they advance while impeding the development of human productive power (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.113). He argued that people cannot live without social organizations. Social organization according to Marx is founded upon social labor as well as social communication where the former takes place within a given structure of historically determined social relations of production (Hadden, 1997: p.44). Such relations then determine the last analysis of other social relations which include social communication.
Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism is categorized into its material component and historical component. He observes the historical component of this particular theory as proceeding through the required series of modes of production which are generally characterized by class struggle leading to communism (Morrison, 2006: p.83). Marx tends to view all human history as moving in a similar manner where material productive forces within a given society conflict with already existing relations of production (Shepard, 2005: p.45). Historical Materialism suggests that relations of production stabilize thus reproducing themselves as frameworks that can no longer be transformed in a gradual manner. These relations of productions are considered to be the sum total of social relations that people create amongst themselves in the course of production of their material lives (Selef, 1997: p.20). According to Marx, the theory does not deny one’s free will or their attempt at making choices regarding their existence as per their individual passions, their moral options, their convictions or interests as they understand them. In such instances class interests are more predominant. The immediate object of class struggle is viewed as material and economic (Neckerman, 2004: p.51). Marx observes that people tend to make their individual history therefore no mode of production is replaceable by another without the necessary deliberate action by large social forces (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.116).
Under his Historical Materialism, Marx argues that people tend to act consciously but can also act with false consciousness. He says that people may not necessarily understand why they want to realize specific social or political plans, the laws of social change or why they need to maintain or transform juridical or economic institutions (Hadden, 1997: p.47). He however claims that it is only through the realization of the main tenets of Historical Materialism that people can make a significant step towards understanding such laws without necessarily claiming to be in a position of predicting all future developments of a given society (Morrison, 2006: p.84). As Marx observes all social revolution, social transformations and counter revolutions tend to take place within determined material constraints. If a society is considered to be too poor in addition to goods and services being able to satisfy the human basic needs are too scarce, only part of such a society can be freed from forced labor. Marx continues to argue in his theory that once the productive forces are created enough to ensure the satisfaction of all individuals of their basic needs through limited productive labor then material needs of the division of society in classes ceases to exist (Shepard, 2005: p.46).
Comparison between Weber, Durkheim and Marx
Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx are considered some of the well recognized and well advanced theorists that almost everyone would be interested in getting to know more about especially after a course of classical theory. These three individuals created a number of seminal concepts as well as methods in the course of their lifetimes at the heart of economics, political science, social psychology, anthropology, economics as well as sociology (Selef, 1997: p.21). Their works were published between the 19th and 20th Century where their ideas are still used to define what social scientists tends to think about as well as the manner in which they analyze societal occurrences. Their works not only are considered important in trying to understand and study human societies but also provide energy that stimulates today’s social scientist’s critical intelligence, quest for truth, belief and sense of curiosity that it is possible for a better society to exist through systematic observation and application of reason where human behavior is concerned (Neckerman, 2004: p.52). Despite such similarities between their works, these three theorists also tend to differ in matters of societal phenomenon and this has been exhibited through the different theories that they have created.
Marx’s, Weber’s and Durkheim’s approach to societal happenings were quite different and each argued from their individual understanding as to why such takes place. While Marx argued that economic factors were the main cause of social phenomenon, Weber suggested that it was more than just economic factors and this included social status and parties to be the main cause (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.120). Durkheim on the other hand incorporated division of labor in society as a way of explaining social inequality. He believes that today’s society is characterized by organic unity with a high division of labor which in turn instills in people the desire to take up certain positions in society having unequal rewards for filling less important positions thus creating social inequality (Hadden, 1997: p.50). Weber argued that one can determine a class situation through location of groups as they relate to the market. In this case class is thus defined through people who have similar fate in terms of their life chances in addition to securing similar income as these people share similar economic interests (Morrison, 2006: p.85). Even though Karl Marx was not considered a sociologist but rather a communist, much of his works greatly influenced the study of sociology. He had different explanations regarding the source of prestige, power and everything else. Marx put more emphasis on relations to production where without necessarily denying the importance of wealth, he added value judgment individuals make concerning each other thus contributing to their social class (Shepard, 2005: p.47).
Weber being one of the 3 main fathers of Sociology helped people understand the nature of society where he did not concur with Marx’s approach towards social inequality but also disagreed with it in different ways than Durkheim (Selef, 1997: p.22). Instead of refuting the importance of material factors and agreeing with Marx or denying the idea of social facts external to people thus agreeing with Durkheim, Weber suggested that people need to look at notions especially meanings put onto things as well as the role of transformations of ideas contributing to society leading to social transformations (Neckerman, 2004: p.53). He also opposed Marx’s approach with regards to Industrial Revolution suggesting that first came a radical transformation of ideas which was exhibited through Protestant Reformation. While Marx perceived class as being related to the means of production, Weber believed class to be founded on 3 main factors that is prestige, power and wealth (Hughes, et al., 2003: p.121). On the other hand Durkheim’s approach was also quite different from Weber’s for instance while the former believed social facts to be forces beyond the person that affects their behavior, Weber suggested the importance of understanding the meanings people put on their actions to understand the society (Hadden, 1997: p.56).
Despite the comparisons and contrasts between the 3 fathers of sociology that is Weber, Durkheim and Marx, their works are still considered important with regards to understanding as well as studying human societies. Concepts of bureaucracy, capitalism, community, anomie, class, religious ritual and rationality are at the heart of their writings (Morrison, 2006: p.86). Weber agreed with both Marx and Durkheim that individuals more often than not tend to fight as a way of protecting their individual interests where these interests are determined by shared values and socialization (Shepard, 2005: p.48). On the other hand, Karl Marx was rather concerned with Durkheim’s sense towards the increase in Division of Labor but his position also supported Weber’s perspective towards increasing rationality as well as declining tradition (Selef, 1997: p.23). Marx’s and Durkheim’s works include the division of labor but while the latter feels that inequalities can be overcome through the increase of social consensus of norms, Marx believes that it is only through struggles that such inequalities of class stratification can be overcome.
CONCLUSION
Inequality has always been in existence in society especially in this day and age where the gap between the poor and rich is constantly widening. As it has been observed above there are numerous dimensions of inequality in society for instance ethnicity, status, gender, race and class. It is such inequalities that lead sociologists such as Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx to try making sense of such in addition to understanding how it comes about in the society. Each contributed different approaches towards finding solutions for instance Durkheim viewed the society as being a type of organism which was differentiated in function and form. To him society possessed an existence of its own. All in all, Durkheim, Weber and Marx are considered to have created the historical core of the sociological tradition which is still recognized and appreciated today.

REFERENCES
Acevedo, G. A. Turning Anomie on its Head: Fatalism as Durkheim’s Concealed and Multidimensional Alienation Theory. Sociological Theory, 23(1). 2005.
Andersen, Margaret L., and Taylor, Howard Francis. Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. 4th Edition. Belmont, C.A.: Thomson, 2006.
Bowles, Samuel and Herbert, Gintis. The Inheritance of Inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3). Pp. 3 – 30. 2002.
Gans, H. J. Sociological Amnesia: The Noncumulation of Normal Social Science. In Richard Alschuler (ed.), The Living Legacy of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. New York: Gordian Knot Books. 2000.
Giddens, Anthony, and Griffiths, Simon. Sociology. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2006.
Hadden, Richard W. Sociological Theory: An Introduction to the Classical Tradition. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. 1997.
Hughes, John A., Martin, Peter J., and Sharrock, Wes W. Understanding Classical Sociology: Marx, Weber, Durkheim. London: Sage, 2003.
Joseph, Jonathan. Social Theory: Conflict, Cohesion and Consent. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 2003.
Kornblum, William, and Smith, Carolyn D. Sociology in a Changing World. Belmont, C.A.: Wadsworth, 2008.
Manza, Jeff, and Sauder, Michael. Inequality and Society: Social Science Perspectives on Social Stratification. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009.
Morrison, Ken. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London: SAGE Publications, 2006.
Neckerman, K. (Ed.). Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004.
Powers, Charles H. Making Sense of Social Theory: A Practical Introduction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.
Shepard, Jon M. Sociology. Belmont, C.A.: Wadsworth, 2005.
Swift, Adam. Class Analysis from a Normative Perspective. Working Paper Number 2000-02. Department of Sociology. UK: University of Oxford, 2000.
Giddens, Anthony. Politics, Sociology and Social Theory: Encounters with Classical and Contemporary Social Thought. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1995.
Tucker, Kenneth H. Classical Social Theory: A Contemporary Approach. Malden, M.A.: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
Law, Alex. Key Concepts in Classical Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications, 2011.
Allan, Kenneth. Explorations in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press, Cop., 2005.
Selef, Leon. Social Cohesion and Legal Coercion: A Critique of Weber, Durkheim, and Marx. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1997.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Masters Essays, PSYC, Psychology Assignment, Psychology Case Study, Psychology Dissertations