Social Thinkers For Paper 1
Social Thinkers For Paper 1
Social Thinkers For Paper 1
in
Conflict Perspective
Like functionalists, conflict theorists also stress on structure and, hence, are predominantly positivist in
their approach. They too suggest a grand framework to explain working of society, but instead of
emphasizing on consensus, they focus on the divisions in society. They seek to explain why unequal
relations exist in society and how they are perpetuated. Marx was the first social thinker who gave this
perspective through his dialectical materialistic conception of history. He saw societies as divided into a
dominant upper class in form of the haves and a subjugated class in form of the have nots. His ideas
had a reflection of not only of sociological analysis, but also of a radical agenda of political reforms.
Frankfurt School of Germany was another major carrier of Marxist ideas. But it also aimed at getting rid
of deficiencies in Marxist perspective by introducing an element of culture into structural analysis.
Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and most recently Jurgen Habermas belonged to
this school which is also known as Critical School or neo-Marxist school.
KARL MARX
II.
Relations between man and man They pertain to the associations which individuals
form in order to undertake production. These associations also lead to stratification and
formulation of classes depending upon different positions in the production process.
Broadly, there are two classes the haves who own the production and earn profit or
benefits, and the have nots who sell their labor and earn wages in an industrial
society. Nature of these relations is in form of antagonistic cooperation. This is because
of an essential contradiction between the interests of the two classes.
Relations between man and things They are of nature of ownership and nonownership of things required in the production. The haves own the production process
Primitive Communism In this mode of production, all are equal and have equal access
to forces of production and society is hunting gathering society. Forces of production
are at extremely low level and there was de facto equality in society as food is also
abundant as population is low. Relations of production were based upon cooperation,
rather than domination as ownership of forces of production was communal. With
invention of new tools, forces became sophisticated. Communal structure of society
starts to break up as new form of social organization emerge with emergence of private
ownership. This leads to conflicts and contradiction between erstwhile mode of
production and emerging new mode of production which is termed as negation of
primitive communism. Those who held command over tools emerged as masters and
those who became dependent became slaves in new mode of production.
II.
Ancient Slave Mode of Production In this mode, some men have control over skills
and tools and others were subordinate to them. This mode symbolises ancient slavery in
which slaves didnt have control on their labor also. As population further increases,
slaves are pressurised to produce more and more and their exploitation increases and
slave revolt. New forces of production emerge in form of agriculture and feudalsim
emerges.
III.
Feudalism In this mode, land was central to economic activity and feudal lords were in
control of land and serfs were dependent on feudal lords. In this mode of production,
erstwhile masters become feudal lords controlling the land and slaves become serfs.
Serfs were free, but were forced to cultivate on land of feudal lords and have to pay tax
and service which kept on rising leading to revolt of serfs when mature conditions
arrived. New mode of production in form of capitalism emerged with increase in trade
and erstwhile feudal lords became capitalists and serf became workers in factories.
IV.
Capitalism In this mode of production, capital was central to production and society is
primarily divided into proletariat and bourgeiose. Marx argued that capital produces
nothing. Only labor produces wealth, yet wages paid are too low. The difference
between the two is the surplus which is gobbled up by capitalists. Workers lose control
over their labor as well and start feeling alienated. The most significant contradictions
that leads to class conflict in capitalist society is contradiction between the social
character of production and private capitalist form of appropriation. It leads to conflict
and exploited workers will unite and revolt heralding new mode of production
socialism eventually leading to comminism.
Marx terms Feudalism and Capitalism as negation of negation as these modes of production
negate a mode of production which has itself negated another mode of production. Future
stages include
V.
First of all, his futuristic communist utopia never arrived even in the communist
countries. Proletariats have never taken a leading role in toppling capitalism and
instead, intellectuals have filled the void by coming forward for the cause of the
proletariat.
II.
He also suggested that some societies may have different mode of production as in Asia
Asiatic mode of production which runs counter to his generalised mode of
production theisis.
III.
His mode of production theory is criticised of narrow empiricism and reductionist in
approach. He has also limited his analysis to production and has ignored the aspects
related to consumption.
IV.
He has also ignored the feminist dimension of production as patriarchy is also seen as an
important factor in the growth of capitalism.
V.
His futuristic modelling smacks his obcession with social justice and communism is
widely viewed as utopian.
MARX on INDIVIDUAL
According to Marx, man is perpetually dissatisfied, he creates new needs once existing needs
are satisfied. Marx, however, sees man as driven by structure of society and subordinate to it.
Individual consciousness is shaped by the production process. Consciousness is a function of the
persons position in the production process i.e. forces and relations of production influence
human thoughts.
Marx view on individual are further elaborated in his idea of being. According to him, there
two essential aspects of human nature, first which is constant and other which changes with
changes in production.
The constant part is called being and is perpetually dissatisfied and creative. Man
tends to create things which are expression of his creativity. Once the society limits the
creativity of individual, he feels alienated.
II.
The other part of human nature is governed by a persons social position. This is
referred as social being. It is identified by the work done by the individual. In the
existing societies, man is identified by his social being and not by his being. Similarly,
in existing societies, individual consciousness is determined by his social being, rather
than his being.
Marx also talks of basic predominant nature of social being in different societies. For example
In capitalist societies, social being is selfish, on the other hand in Communism it becomes
cooperative.
ALIENATION
Marx believed that there is an inherent relation between labor and human nature and that this
relation is perverted by capitalism. He calls this perverted relation as alienation. It explains the
peculiar form that our relation to our own labor has taken under capitalism and labor in
capitalism is no longer seen as serving purpose of human existence. Rather than being an end in
itself an expression of human capabilities labor in capitalism is reduced to being a means to
an end i.e. earning money for the capitalists. Labor is now owned by the capitalist, it no longer
transforms the workers, they get alienated from it and ultimately from themselves. Alienation is
an example of the sort of contradiction that Marxs dialectical approach focused on. There is a
real contradiction between human nature which is defined and transformed by labor and the
actual social conditions of labor under capitalism. Thus, Marx uses this concept to show the
devastating effect of the capitalist production on human beings and on the society.
Concept of alienation occupies a central role in Marxian understanding of exploitation and he
dwell on it in his works Economic and Political Manuscripts, 1844. Alienation literally means
separation from. Marx sees this separation in multiple dimensions. It is a feeling of
estrangement and disenchantment from a group, a situation, society and even with oneself. It
also refers to a situation of powerlessness, isolation and meaninglessness experienced by the
people when they confront social institutions which they cannot control and consider
oppressive. it is the breakdown of the natural interconnection among people and what they
produce.
History of mankind has a dual aspect according to Marx It was a history of increasing control
of man over nature, at the same time it was history of increasing alienation of man. Primitive
man felt alienated with nature as nature was too overpowering. Man devised means of
production and forces of production to overpower nature, but alienation is transferred from
natural sphere to social sphere. As man goes from one mode of production to another,
alienation increases and in those modes of production, It is not the consciousness of the man
that determines their existence, but on the contrary, it is their social being that determines their
consciousnesses. Hence, man becomes a slave of production and his individuality is lost.
According to Marx, individual is essentially creative and his true consciousness is defined by his
In a given mode of production, it increases with time. This is because material forces
become stronger and control over forces of production becomes tighter leading to
increasing exploitation. For example slaves in Ancient mode of production become
Karl Popper says that alienation can be breeding ground for creative ideas also.
Durkheim had highlighted that anomie and alienation can be corrected by existing
structures also.
III.
Goldthorpe and Lockwood in their Affluent Worker study highlight that work is just a
means to an end which is better standards of living. Workers are more concerned about
the latter. Workers are more concerned about what happens outside the factory and it
shapes their behaviors and attitude more than the work itself. Workers can satisfy their
expressive and affective needs through family relationships.
IV.
According to C W Mills in his study of middle class entitled White Collar, 1951, it is not
just the working class that suffers alienation, but white collared staff also witness
alienation. Even white collar staff has to assume a false personality at work in terms of
fake smiles, artificial politeness etc which alienates them from their true self. According
to him, their personality is also sold to employer.
V.
Robert Blauner in his study Alienation and Freedom. 1964 has highlighted that
alienation depends on technology used at work. In different industries using different
technologies, degree of alienation is also different. Different technologies provide for
different degree of control workers have on their own work and different degree of
sense of meaning in their work. Different technology also allows different levels of social
integration as well. For example printing jobs involve workers creative inputs and
division of labor is not very high and hence alienation is minimum on the other hand,
automated automotive assembly lines are the most extreme form of alienation. He
rejects the Marxian notion that workers in industrial society are autonomously
alienated. He divides the concept of alienation into 4 dimensions degree of control
workers have over their work, the degree of meaning and sense of purpose they find in
work, the degree to which they are socially integrated into work and the degree to
which they are involved in their work. He finally concludes that change in technology
used can go a long way in solving the problem of alienation. However, Marxian argue
back that Blauner missed the big picture. Marx never said that industrialization leads to
alienation, but it is the capitalism which leads to alienation.
VI.
Max Weber say over bureaucratization of society leads to alienation as man is guided by
fixed rules and his creativity is suffocated.
CLASS and SOCIETY
Class is the fundamental unit of organization according to Marx and society is always divided
into opposing classes. Man is born in a society in which property relations have already been
determined. Just as a man cannot chose who his father will be, he has no choice over his class as
well said Marx famously. Class is central concept in Marxian writings to understand society as a
whole. In his seminal work Das Capital, 1867 Marx writes that class results from the relations
of production which create different positions and he defines it as A group of people sharing the
same position in the process of production. However, he saw a class more than this and he saw
it in terms of potential for conflict and a class truly exists only when people become aware of
their conflicting relation to other classes.
Class in itself is the objective manifestation of class. It is like a category which is seen
by others as so and the members are not aware of being part of a common stratum. It is
only an analytical construct to Marx in order to stratify position. It is by virtue of people
having a common relationship to the means of production. It is solely defined by
position in relations of production. For example Proletariat are a class in itself because
they have some common attribute like lack of ownership of production means. A class
in itself becomes a class for itself when the contradiction between the consciousness
of its members and the reality of their situation ends.
On the other hand, Class for itself is a class in which workers are aware of their
common condition, their mission etc and develops only when class consciousness
develops among workers themselves. They start to see through the condition of
exploitation and can themselves realize the unequal terms of production. It is a social
class which has been defined on the basis of subjective criterion. It is only when workers
become class for itself that they will be in a position to unite against the capitalist. It is
the phase which is a pre-condition for the change of mode of production to socialism.
Transformation from class in itself to class for itself is governed by ever increasing
exploitation, communal working in a factory and rising gap between the haves and the
have nots. Polarization of two classes will further hasten process. Polarization will occur
as a result of increasing mechanization and homogenization of workforce. As two strata
become clear in their formation, the fault lines will also become apparent. According to
Marx, the capitalist society by its very nature is unstable as it is based on contradictions
and antagonisms which can be resolved only by its transformation. According to Marx,
class in itself becomes a class for itself only in capitalist mode of production, as in earlier
modes of production, change of mode of production resulted only in replacement of
one set of contradiction by the other and no qualitative change in relationships of
production occurs. Before communism arrives, class for itself is merely transitory in
nature as old contradiction is replaced with the new contradictions. Final transition of
class in itself to class for itself occurs only in communism.
Marx sees classes in society in terms of antagonistic cooperation. So, Class Struggle is also
inherent in Marxian conception of class. In each mode of production, the haves and the have
nots enter into relations of production. Due to antagonistic cooperation, classes enter into
struggle which keep on increasing. According to Marx History of hitherto existing societies is
history of class struggle. He also states that Class struggle acts as motor of the history i.e.
conflict between the two classes in every mode of production is the force behind historical
developments. New things and new modes of production emerge as a result of class struggle.
Class struggle is not smooth and is mediated by a number of factors and situations. Forces of
production keep on changing which require entirely new set of relations of production. Old
relations come into conflict with new relations thereby contributing to class struggle. For
example In feudal system, industrial production emerged which required geographically
mobile labor, whereas agricultural production required people tied to their lands. Inherent
contradiction in production process becomes a basis for class struggle. The interests of haves
and the have nots are opposite leading to antagonistic relations. Increase in prices benefits only
the capitalists and rise in wages is never proportionate.
Marx also sees increasing class struggle in terms of increasing alienation which is a situation of
separation. Productive forces constrain individual creativity, thereby leading to alienation. The
alienation and class struggle reaches at its peak in capitalism.
Mechanism of class struggle differs in different societies depending upon the factors and
situation. However, its fundamental nature remains same. The mechanism is same in ancient
and feudal mode, but different in capitalist mode. In ancient and feudal mode, the have nots
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Marx futuristic conception failed to take shape even 130 years after his demise.
Industrial capitalism has in fact grown stronger and socialist experiments have failed
worldwide and communism is still a utopian concept. The qualitative transformation he
talked so vociferously never happened.
Frank Parkin in his Class Inequality and Political Order, 1972 points out that classes
exist even in socialist countries.
Contrary to Marxian prediction that class struggle will intensify, it has moderated in
most of the Europe which is epitome of capitalism. Workers themselves have become
affluent and now have a stake in capitalist economy. Class is, in fact, given more
importance as it is now used as a source of identity.
Weber and others have highlighted that apart from economic basis, there are other
basis of stratification in society.
Lenski asserts that even breakdown of capitalism may not lead to socialism, as other
modes of production may emerge.
According to Dahrendorf, contrary to Marx prediction, the manual working class has
become increasingly heterogeneous or dissimilar.
In this, light, modern Marxists like Ralf Dahrendorf contend that modern capitalism has modified
itself. Though Marxian ideas still hold, their context has changed. He also contends that classes
have further fragmented as division of labor becomes more specialized. In fact, inequalities are
now at individual level.
Marx says Capitalism sows its own seeds of destruction as Marx believed that capitalism was an
exploitative and oppressive system, but was nevertheless a necessary and progressive stage of human
history because it created the preconditions for an egalitarian future free from both exploitation and
poverty. Capitalism is an inherently unstable system as it is based on contradictions and exploitation.
There is also a contradiction between social production, but individual ownership by the capitalist. Apart
from this contradiction, a process of class polarization will further make class divide more acute.
Intermediate classes will merge into a single proletariat as mechanical production reduces semi-skilled,
skilled workers in single category. Due to competition, only large companies will survive and wealth will
be concentrated in hands of a few only. Further, capitalism provides the masses an opportunity to
organize themselves for ultimate social change, thus sowing seeds for its self-destruction. Even when
two classes are objectively opposed to each other, they do not automatically engage in conflict. For
conflict to occur it is necessary for them to become subjectively conscious of their class interests and
identities, and therefore also of their rivals interests and identities. It is only after this kind of class
consciousness is developed through political mobilization that class conflicts occur.
Marx is still relevant in explaining conflict in various aspect of life. His concepts are still relevant in
understanding social order, social problems and individual. Many great scholars like Herbert Marcuse,
Theodor Adorno, Habermas, Gramsci, Althusser carried forward Marxist ideas into newer fields of
sociological study. Neo-Marxists understand todays world order in terms of neo-colonialism. World
System Theory of Wallerstein is an example of re-definition of Marxian paradigm in a global set up.
Similarly in India also, Naxal issue can be seen from Marxist lens.
Failure of socialist countries is cited by the detractors of Marxism as failure of Marxism, but they fail to
notice that the proclaimed socialism was never similar to Marxist socialism and was at best pseudosocialism which was more suffocating than emancipatory in nature. Ideals of equality were never
practiced in these socialist countries and instead state acted as supra-power.
Some also accuse Marx of being economic determinist or reductionist, but they fail to notice that he also
acknowledges influence of social superstructure on economic infrastructure. Further, Marx has also
acknowledged that there was a different mode of production in Asia. While explaining mature
conditions, he also acknowledges influence of leadership and ideology as well.
EMILE DURKHEIM
SOCIAL FACTS
Durkheim was highly influenced by the approach of natural sciences and inspired by that he saw
discovery of universal social laws as a solution to the problems of society. His theory of social
facts is significant because, according to Susan Jones in her What Does Durkheim Mean by
Thing?, 1996, it was crucial in separating the new discipline from philosophical discourse. To
discover such universal laws, the first precondition was that there should exist some social
facts in society like natural facts in natural world. According to him, just as behavior of matter in
nature can be regarded as a reaction to natural stimuli, behavior of man can also be seen as a
response to the external constrain of such social facts.
In his first monogram titled Montesquieu and Rousseau, 1892 he laid down the general
conditions for the establishment of a science of society. According to him, a social science
should
Deal with specific subject matter and not total knowledge that is around
Aim at identifying the general types rather than describing individual types
Have a definite and observable field to explore and it should study objective reality
Its subject matter should yield general principles or laws
Finally, science needs methods and the methods similar to natural science can also be
used in social science as well
Durkheim further clarifies the scope and methodology of sociology in his book The Rules of
Sociological Method, 1895. According to him, task of sociologist is to study social facts as
things as we study things in natural world. He defined social facts as social facts are ways of
acting, thinking and feeling which are external to the individual and are endowed with the
power of coercion by reason of which they control of him. He considers social facts as those
phenomena which exist outside the individual as a force which coerce the individual to think, act
and feel in a particular manner. The task of sociology is to identify and study such social
phenomenon or social facts.
Social facts, thus can be understood by their four characteristics
I.
Externality Social facts exist outside the individual and must be seen apart from the
individual. These are sui-generis (coming into existence on their own as a part of
autonomous development of society). They are expressions of autonomous
development of society.
II.
Constraining The social facts exercise constraining influence over the individual action.
The constraint is in nature of coercion. The existence of constraints makes social facts as
real as constraint is visible in terms of its consequences.
III.
Generality Social facts are general in nature and must not be confused with the
individual interpretations or individual facts. These are in the form of generalized
perception which is understood by all individuals in same manner. Durkheim rejects the
study of exceptions and focuses upon identification of general types. For example he
studies religion as a general type and not a particular religion.
IV.
Independence Social facts are independent of the will of the individual. Individuals
cannot change the social facts, but rather opposite is true.
Thus, Durkheim kept social facts above individual. According to him, social facts are not abstract
phenomena and they can be visualized as objective reality. Durkheim conceded that social facts
are difficult to study as they seem intangible and hence cannot be observed directly. In The
Rules of Sociological Method, 1895, Durkheim differentiated between two broad types of social
facts material and nonmaterial Social Facts. Although he dealt with both in the course of his
work, his main focus was on nonmaterial social facts for example, culture, social institutions,
morality, collective conscience, social currents etc rather than material social facts for
example, styles of architecture, forms of technology, division of labor and legal codes. He
concluded that earlier societies were held together primarily by nonmaterial social facts,
specifically, a strongly held common morality, or what he called a strong collective conscience.
He saw social facts along a continuum of materiality. The sociologist usually begins a study by
focusing on material social facts, which are empirically accessible, in order to understand
Determining cause of social facts According to him, cause of social fact lies in another
social fact. For example cause of suicide doesnt lie in individuals will, but should be
explored through various social facts like population, integration, social order and so
on.
II.
Determining functions of social facts According to him, social facts perform certain
functional pre-requisites of society. Most important of which maintenance of social
order. According to him, collective conscience is that social fact that maintains social
order. It has constraining effect individuals which affect their actions. Thus, society
manifests itself in individual activities.
To visualize them as objective reality, he suggested certain rules of studying the social facts
which were explained in his The Rules of Sociological Method, 1895 as a part of Durkheims bid
to establish a distinct methodology of sociology. The rules included
I.
II.
III.
Rules of observation Social facts should be studied as things. Their reality can be
observed objectively. Although, these may seem to be abstract, every social fact has
some representation which exists in the form of objective manifestation of the social
facts. It is through these manifestations that social facts can be observed as things.
Durkheim called representations as collective representations in the form of different
types of symbols which denote different types of social facts. Social fats must be
observed as things in order to study them objectively. It will help us to view them as
definite reality rather than as abstract phenomenon.
Rules of classification Durkheim says that every social fact is not unique, but part of a
broad classification. Different types of social facts can be identified as
a. Structural or Morphological Facts These are the facts which give a particular
society its appearance.
b. Institutional Social Facts These are facts which are institutionalized and
accepted by the people. These include religion, division of labor, rate of
suicide etc.
c. Non-Institutional Social Facts These are the facts which are not still accepted
by the people, but have a potential of exerting constraints on individuals. They
rise spontaneously and may or may not sustain. For example mob behavior,
crowd behavior etc. They are also termed as socio-currents.
Rules of distinction While studying social facts, a distinction must be made between
normal and pathological state. Social facts remain in general in normal state, but
sometimes in certain situation also display pathological characteristics. Social facts are
Heidleman considers that Durkheim is more concerned about making of society, rather
than describing a methodology for it.
II.
His emphasis on universalistic and general theories didnt have much practical
significance for their all encompassing nature. According to Merton, middle range
theories are required.
III.
Stephen Lukes in his Power: A Radical View, 1974 contends that Durkheim has glorified
empiricism and moralism and hence neglected emotions and individual subjectivity.
IV.
Peter Berger accuses him of doing an injustice to discipline by ignoring individual human
behavior in his bid to objectivity. Further, objectivity is not possible in social
observation.
V.
He couldnt explain why same social facts influences different individuals differently
VI.
According to Weber, Social facts dont exist as things in their own right waiting to be
gathered like pebbles on beach. Social facts lie inside an individual and their influence is
on the basis of individuals own interpretation of social fact. In a nutshell, instead of a
purely macro perspective, a micro view is also required in understanding of society.
DIVISION of LABOR
In the background of the upheaval in French society, Durkheim was concerned with the
maintenance of solidarity and social order in the society. He states that In the modern society
where differentiation, heterogeneity and complexity exists, what holds the society together?. He
attempts an explanation of it in his Division of Labor in Society, 1893 as a part of his doctoral
thesis which, according to Tiryakian, is now regarded as the first classic of sociology. It was
written at a time when there was a widespread feeling of moral crisis in France and Durkheim
wanted to find a solution to it in form of bringing the social order back in shape. While Marx was
DEGREE
TIME
Integration of society Division of labor is the basis of organic character of the society in
which people are different, but still live together because of functional inter-
MARX
Basic
Functional
Conflict
approach
Causes
of Both, Durkheim and Marx make a very clear distinction between division of
division of labor in simple societies and complex industrial societies and acknowledged
labor
that division of labor is inevitable.
Durkheim explains division of labor Marx does not see it as a means of
in industrial societies as a cooperation and coexistence. He views
consequence of increased material it as a process forced upon workers in
and moral density. Specialization order that the capitalist might extract
makes it possible for harmonious profit.
coexistence.
Nature
of Durkheim sees Division of Labor as Marx sees division of labor as Unequal
division of functional
and
leading
to relationship which legitimizes the
labor
cooperation.
relationship between the haves and the
have not.
Consequence It leads to integration in society.
It leads to dehumanization of workers
SUICIDE
It was the first serious effort to establish empiricism in sociology. In his theory of suicide,
Durkheim attempts to examine a seemingly personal phenomenon in a sociological way. He
exhibited the use of scientific methodology in sociology or the first time and showed that real
laws are discoverable in sociology as well. His study of suicide is often taken as a starting point
of research methodology in sociology as it is based on data which can be directly observed and
measured. This theory is well known for the pragmatic approach of Durkheim in understanding
social problems.
Durkheim in his Le Suicide, 1897 defines suicide as Suicide is any case of death caused by
directly or indirectly, positive or negative action of the victim himself, which he knows will
produce this result. Positive actions are those actions taken by the individual to end ones life,
for example consuming poison. Negative actions are in form of inaction which causes death,
for example starvation, remaining inside a burning house etc. Indirect causes are those when a
person has no intention of dying, though he knows that he may die, as in case of army, fire
fighter etc.
As a sociologist, Durkheim was not concerned with studying why any specific individual
committed suicide, instead, he was interested in explaining differences in suicide rates among
different groups.
For the purpose of theory building he took data from police records from various regions of
Europe at different time periods. With the help of this data, he established that suicide is a
social phenomenon and not an individual phenomenon. He gave following arguments in his
support
I.
Forces of integration These result into two types of suicides associated with two
states of integration over-integration and low integration.
a. Altruistic suicide It results from over-integration of an individual. It is
characteristic of traditional societies with high degree of mechanical solidarity.
He quoted various examples like Sati in India, soldiers in war, Japanese
kamikaze pilots etc are acts of altruistic suicide. Terrorist attack of 9/11 also
qualifies in this category as the terrorists deliberately rammed the airplanes into
the Twin Trade Towers.
b. Egoistic suicide In this case, suicide is result of low integration of individuals in
society. Social bonds are feeble and individual feels alienated and they feel that
they are not part of society, and this also means that society is not part of the
individual as well. Examples of egoistic suicide are suicide resulting from
failure, depression, success, depression etc. Societies which have such values
that bind individuals strongly have fewer incidences of egoistic suicides.
II.
J M Atkinson in his Discovering Suicide, 1978 contends that quality of statistics used by
Durkheim is questionable. For example, there is evidence to suggest that religious
censure of suicide is Catholics than among Protestants. As a result, Catholics may go to a
great length in disguising suicides. Similarly, higher rates of suicide in some countries
over others may be due to different methods of investigations used in different
countries.
II.
His data has poor reliability as it is taken from police station which doesnt include
unreported suicides.
III.
He also didnt include attempted suicides.
RELIGION and SOCIETY
Durkheims theory of religion is also borne out of his concerns for social order and integration.
He evolved a functional explanation of existence of religion in the world and observes its
existence as a social fact and not a supernatural phenomenon. It was also partly in reaction to
the existing explanations of religion which Durkheim deemed as non-sociological explanation
especially that of Tylors animistic theory based on supernatural and of Max Muller based on
nature-myth.
He dwells upon idea of religion in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1912 and he defines
religion as A unified system of beliefs and practices related to sacred things, that is to say
things set apart and forbidden, beliefs and practices which unite them into a single moral
community, for all those who adhere to them. According to Durkheim, beliefs are system of
ideas which explain the sacred, they constitute of myths, spiritual ideas, ethical code etc.
Practices are rites or rituals explaining individuals behavior towards the sacred. There are two
types of such rites positive and negative. Positive rites bring individual and sacred together
The dichotomy of profane and sacred is not absolute and there can be things which are
mundane also as per Weh Stanner.
II.
Durkheim also didnt explain why a particular totem is chosen. Even a tribe may have
more than one religion.
III.
His theory is termed as an armchair theory by Malinowski he didnt visit the Arunta
tribes even for one time
IV.
Narrow basis generalization of a primitive religion to modern sophisticated religions is
a bit far fetched
V.
According to Edmund Leach, profanity and sacred are two extreme, all social actions fall
in between.
VI.
Scholars argue that it is not religion, but secularism which is binding societies together
in modern industrialized societies and his ideas are applicable only to simple societies.
VII.
His theory fails to explain the cause of solidarity in multicultural polytheistic societies
like India.
VIII.
Durkheim ignored the conflict caused by it and focused only on its functional aspect.
RELIGION DURKHEIM and WEBER
MAX WEBER
SOCIAL ACTION
According to Weber, subject matter of sociology is to study social action which he defines as
Any action is social by virtue of the meanings attached to it by the actors, it takes into account
the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course. In this definition, Weber mentions
two conditions for any action to become social
I.
II.
Action is social if some meaning is attached to it by the actor i.e. actor must be
conscious to his action. The meaning are in form of motivation of an individual which is
his own subjective state. Weber rejected the independent influence of values on
individual, rather the values are interpreted y an actor according to his motivation and
according to that action is taken.
Action is social if it is oriented to some other i.e. only those actions are social which are
taken in orientation to some other object. The orientation can be physical or mental i.e.
the other person may or may not be present in a social action. Weber also differentiated
between action and behavior. Behavior is a biological concept and is spontaneous in
nature with no attachment of meaning.
II.
III.
According to Hans Gerth and C Wright Mills, although Weber implied that he had a great
concern with mental processes, he actually spent little time on them.
He laid greater stress on individual meanings and ignores influence of social structure in
the understanding of reality.
His claim of objectivity is also not true. His methods of Verstehen and Ideal Type are
highly susceptible to subjectivity of investigator.
His idea of social action has focus on individual and collective action is ignored.
Weber also ignores unintended meanings and consequences of social action. Merton
highlights such consequences in terms of latent functions.
His definition of social action is also handicapped by inclusion of orientation towards
others. Parsons expanded meaning of social action by including situational choices,
constraints and aspiration of actor as well.
IDEAL TYPES
Weber believed it was the responsibility of sociologists to develop conceptual tools, which could
be used later by historians and sociologists and one such conceptual tool was Ideal Type which
he defined as An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of
view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally
absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly
emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct In its conceptual purity, this mental
construct cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality. In Webers view, the ideal type was
Ideal Types of Historical Particulars These are ideal types of particular historical
phenomena like some ancient city, protestant ethics, capitalism etc.
Weber has not suggested any specific method to identify elements of ideal type and it is
totally left on investigator.
Despite his claim of objectivity, ideal type is highly susceptible to subjectivity of
investigator, especially in selection of elements of ideal type.
AUTHORITY
Webers conception of authority is a demonstration of his concept of ideal type in action.
According to him, both power and authority are social in character and come into play where
relations are there. Power is defined by Weber as The chance of a man or a number of men to
realize their own will in a communal action, even against the resistance of those who are
participating in the communal action.
Authority according to Weber is a form of legitimate power i.e. power which is considered
legitimate in society. Weber identifies three sources of legitimacy tradition, rationality and
affective or charisma and on the basis of these, he developed three pure types of authority.
Traditional Authority It is that type of authority which stems out from Traditional
Social Actions i.e. authority based upon beliefs, customs and values. An example would
be a leader who comes to power because his or her family or clan has always provided
the groups leadership. For example authority exercised by a hereditary monarch, a
feudal lord, a caste Brahmin. Weber also used his ideal-type methodology to analyze
historically the different forms of traditional authority. He differentiated between two
very early forms of traditional authority. A gerontocracy involves rule by elders,
whereas primary patriarchalism involves leaders who inherit their positions. Still more
modern form is feudalism. Weber saw structures of traditional authority, in any form,
as barriers to the development of rationality. Weber argued that the structures and
practices of traditional authority constitute a barrier to the rise of rational economic
structures in particular, capitalism as well as to various other components of a
rational society.
II.
Charismatic Authority This is a result of personal qualities of the person who exercises
it. It corresponds to Affective Social Action. For example authority exercised by
Mahatma Gandhi over masses. Although Weber did not deny that a charismatic leader
may have outstanding characteristics, his sense of charisma was more dependent on the
group of disciples and the way that they define the charismatic leader. If the followers
fail to recognize a leader as a charismatic leader, he ceases to remain one. To Weber,
charisma was a revolutionary force the rise of a charismatic leader may well pose a
threat to that system and lead to a dramatic change in that system. This type of
authority becomes more pronounced in times of crisis and turmoil when other types of
authority seem to be failing. A charismatic system is inherently fragile; it would seem to
be able to survive only as long as the charismatic leader lives or the crisis lasts. This type
of authority is also not as effective as legal-rational authority as organization is not done
on rational criterion and members are not technically trained. An organization based on
charismatic authority has no formal rules, no established administrative organs, and no
precedents to guide new judgments.
III.
Legal Rational Authority This authority is based on Zweckrational Social Action or
total rational action. Rational-legal authority can take a variety of structural forms, but
the form that most interested Weber was bureaucracy, which he considered the purest
type of exercise of legal authority.
Actual authority may be a combination of above ideal types of authority. For example, Franklin
D Roosevelt as a president of the United States and Nehru, the Indian prime minister ruled on all
three bases as they were elected t in accordance with a series of rational-legal principles. By the
time they were elected three times, a good part of the rules had traditional elements. Finally,
Webers conception of authority is primarily criticized for anomaly in ideal type of social
action and ideal type of authority. He mentions four types of social action, but mentions
only three types of authority.
II.
Michel Foucault has argued that authority and power dont lie with particular
institutions and persons as Weber suggested. Power is highly dispersed in society and
operates at all levels in different situations.
III.
According to Robert Dahl, authority is situational and one may hold different kinds of
authority. It is also relative. One may be in controlling position in one instance and may
be controlled by others in other instance.
BUREAUCRACY
Bureaucracy is also linked to the ideal type concept of Weber and Weber links it to the rising
rationalization of society. It is an ideal type of organization in which structure is based on legal
rational authority. According to Weber, bureaucracy is the type of organization which suits most
the modern societies where work is done rationally. It is a hierarchical organization designed
rationally to coordinate the work o many individuals in the pursuit of large scale administrative
tasks and organizational goals. Capitalism which is the basis of economy in modern world also
works on rational organization requires bureaucratic organizations for its working. According to
him, From a purely technical point of view, a bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest
degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational known means of exercising
authority over human beings. It is superior to any other form in precision, in stability, in the
stringency of its discipline, and in its reliability. It, thus, makes possible a particularly high degree
of calculability of results for the heads of the organization and for those acting in relation to it. It
is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations and is formally
capable of application to all kinds of administrative tasks.
Weber distinguished the ideal-typical bureaucracy from the ideal-typical bureaucrat. He
conceived of bureaucracies as structures and of bureaucrats as positions within those
structures.
Typical elements of bureaucracy according to Weber are
I.
II.
Bureaucracy works on the basis of written legal rational rules. Activities of bureaucrats
are in form of official duty.
There is a hierarchy of officials in authority.
Doctrine of predestination some people are chosen by God to enter into heaven and
nobody can know whether one is chosen or not
II.
This worldly asceticism protestant ethics suggest strict self-discipline with no
enjoyment and more hard work for the glory of God
III.
All work is sacred it is not mere work, it is calling or mission and should be done with
devotion for the glory of God
IV.
God created the world for his own glory and he is unknowable
V.
No mediation of any priest can help us know God
VI.
Riches earned through hard work should not be spent on luxuries, but in the glory of
God
Ideal type of capitalism is explained with following elements
I.
II.
III.
Ideal types which Weber draws may be erroneous. He seems to have concentrated on
certain aspects of religion only.
II.
It is also argued the doctrine of calling was already present among the Catholics.
III.
He seems to be selective while drawing elements for his analysis. For example,
according to Milton Singer, he took selective elements out of Hinduism, there is an
equivalent of Calvinists in forms of Chettiyars of Madras.
IV.
Lawrence Stones studies in England concluded that it were not Protestant ethics, but
British aristocracy which had accounted for the rise of capitalism.
CAPITALISM MARX and WEBER
View of society
View of
capitalism
Emergence of
MARX
WEBER
Karl Marx takes society as Weber studies society in terms of meanings
his unit of analysis.
attributed or given by individuals to the
world around them
Marx describes capitalism as Weber understands capitalism in terms of
one of the historical stages the psychological motivations of individuals
and gives a mono-causal and gives a plural-causal explanation of its
explanation of its rise
growth
Marx sees the emergence of Weber sees rise of capitalism as a result of
Stratification
Solution
Contribution of Weber is immense as he managed to rise above the positivism and non-positivism
debate. He added many new perspectives, concepts, methods to sociology and was later followed
closely by Chicago School and others also. He enriched the subject matter and scope of the discipline. He
never claimed of giving universalistic theories, but rather focused upon establishing cause and effect
through multi-causal approach.
In present society, his ideas are still relevant in understanding of society in wake of tremendous rise of
individualism, isolation etc. His prognosis of bureaucracy as an iron cage of rationality is also found
correct and we have seen tremendous growth of such institutions. His concepts are still widely used by
the contemporary scholars. George Ritzer in his McDonaldization of Society, 1993 used Weberian
bureaucratic model to explain the increasing mechanization/rationalization of human experiences and
its negative impacts. Ritzer argues that McDonaldization is dehumanizing as we make queues to get a
burger as if we are on a conveyer belt and staff repeats the same mundane tasks again and again like
robots.
Parsons
Variables
Social
System,
Pattern
TALCOTT PARSONS
Second problem, apart from value consensus, is the apparent incompatibility between the needs of
society or social system and individual needs. This is referred by Parsons as motivational problem and
is dealt by the respective systems by meeting individual needs.
SOCIAL ACTION
He considers that all
possible
empirical
action of the people can
be arrested into a
universal
theoretical
framework. Hence he
developed structure of
social action in contrast
to Webers four ideal
types of social action.
Nitin
It occurs in a social situation i.e. actor is a member of society while performing a social
action
II.
It is oriented towards attainment of a particular goal; i.e. actor is motivated
III.
Action is regulated by norms and values
IV.
It involves investment of energy
According to him, an actor is a goal seeking individual with alternative means to attain those
goals and is influenced by two factors
I.
II.
Nitin Sangwan
First, social systems must be structured so that they operate compatibly with other
systems.
II.
Second, to survive, the social system must have the requisite support from other
systems.
III.
Third, the system must meet a significant proportion of the needs of its actors.
IV.
Fourth, the system must elicit adequate participation from its members.
V.
Fifth, it must have at least a minimum of control over potentially disruptive behavior.
VI.
Sixth, if conflict becomes sufficiently disruptive, it must be controlled.
VII.
Finally, a social system requires a language in order to survive.
However, Parsons did not completely ignore the issue of the relationship between actors and
social structures in his discussion of the social system. Parsons was interested in the ways in
which the norms and values of a system are transferred to the actors within the system.
Initially, Parsons through his Mechanism Equilibrium Phase viewed Social System only in terms
of structure only i.e. how different mechanisms like family, law education maintain an
equilibrium which according to Parsons is Moving Equilibrium, but later through his Requisite
Functional Phase Parsons talked of Social System in terms of fulfillment of functions or
functional prerequisites or AGIL functions. Thus introduction of AGIL was a subtle shift from
analysis of structure to analysis of function. Every system fulfills certain functions; Social System
itself performs function of Integration in society. Further, he generalized his AGIL model and
said that every system has further four sub-systems, for example, Social System also has four
subsystems and so on.
At the highest abstraction/generalization he gave four action systems
I.
II.
System is a unified whole made up of interdependent parts called subsystems, and each
such sub-system can be treated as a system itself.
II.
Each system has a boundary that separates it from other systems and environment.
III.
Systems or subsystems are organized in a relatively stable manner, so that definite
patterns of inter-relations come to exist between subsystems.
IV.
Systems are dynamic in nature
V.
There are certain functional pre-requisites which needs to be fulfilled for the existence
of a system
Parsons distinguished among four structures, or subsystems, in society in terms of the functions
(AGIL) they perform. According to him a system exists because it performs certain functional
pre-requisites which are necessary to sustain the system in equilibrium. To visualize the system
and its functional prerequisites, Parsons gave an AGIL framework where there are four
problems or functional pre-requisites of any system Adaptation (to physical environment),
Goal Attainment, Integration, Latency or pattern maintenance (stability). A society must find
solution to these problems, if it is to survive.
I.
In order to survive, social system must gain some control over environment (for needs
like food, security). The economy is the subsystem that performs the function for
society of adapting to the environment through labor, production, and allocation.
Through such work, the economy adapts the environment to societys needs, and it
helps society adapt to these external realities. Adaptation refers to the relationship with
environment.
IV.
The polity (or political system) performs the function of goal attainment by pursuing
societal objectives and mobilizing actors and resources to that end.
The fiduciary system or institutions of socialization (for example, the schools, the family,
religion etc) handle the latency or pattern maintenance function by transmitting culture
(norms and values) to actors and allowing it to be internalized by them. It helps in
maintaining the basic patterns of values in society.
Finally, the integration function is performed by the societal community or institutions
of social control (for example, the law), which coordinates the various components of
society.
Thus, through his AGIL concept, he understands all the parts of society in terms of the functions
they perform.
Parsons took a synthetic approach (Action theory or micro and Systems theory for macro
explanations) which is called as structural functional view of society. His idea of system and
social system was said to be a master analytical framework. He saw existence of society in terms
of a social system which in terms has various subsystems and so on and each performing a
unique pre-requisite.
A social system is distinct from other systems and maintains a boundary as do other systems
from each other. A social system survives by maintaining this boundary.
In his conceptualization of systems, Parsons also sees their inter-relation and inter-linkages.
Social System is linked with other systems through Energy flow and Information control,
which Parsons termed as Cybernetic Hierarchy of Control.
Social Change occurs when there is change in the energy flow or the information control as
equilibrium stage is disturbed. This is restored by
Socialization shared values are transmitted from one generation to another by various
institutions like family, education etc.
II.
Social Control it discourage deviance and various institutions enforcing it are law,
police etc.
Parsons also views social change as a change in terms of evolution from simple to complex
societies.
Parsons concept of social system is criticized on various grounds, some of which are
I.
Grand functional theory with little practical utility and low on empirical testability. His
ideas are too abstract with little empirical verifiability. Dahrendorf called his conception
as utopian.
II.
He takes an over-socialized view of man in which man is influenced by the values and
norms alone like a cog in machine.
III.
Merton takes much realistic view and he included latent functions, dysfunctions as well
in his analysis. Merton termed such a grand conception as both futile and sterile.
IV.
According to Jonathan Turner, structure functionalism of Parsons suffers from
illegitimate teleologies and tautologies which are the two most important logical
problems confronting structural functionalism. They often take cause and effect and
vice-versa.
V.
The emphasis in the writings of Parsons and Merton on the scientific character of
sociology has been criticized by many later sociologists as positivism.
VI.
Marxist sociologists criticize functionalism for its neglect of class conflict or class
antagonism that exist in society. Political sociologists have criticized it for neglecting the
role of power and domination in the structure and function of social institutions.
VII.
He ignored conflict. According to Turner he was obsessed with integration.
However, despite its limitations, the social system framework can be used as a framework to
understand various social sub-systems and their problems or functional pre-requisites. Social
problems like insurgencies in tribal areas can be understood from systems view as
I.
Poverty (Adaptation Economic System)
II.
Vested Interests (Goal Attainment Political System)
III.
Alienation (Integration Cultural System)
IV.
Stress and Lack of Motivation (Latency Family)
PATTERN VARIABLES
In more general terms it is referred as types of orientation. He defines these as the
fundamental dilemmas that actors face in any situation. Pattern Variables are to simply put are
choices between alternative variables while performing roles. (According to him, Action
Systems in society exist in form of Roles. Society develops such roles in order to achieve
certain goals. Roles are vital link between individual and society).
Parsons idea of Pattern variables is closely linked with his idea of social actions and inspired
from Weberian idea of Ideal Types. Pattern Variables is the connecting link between the
ROBERT MERTON
He modified earlier functionalist view and criticized the three fundamental postulates of earlier
functionalist and suggested their modification in following paradigms
I.
II.
Modification of postulate of functional unity According to him, social reality has to be viewed
in terms of a system and various objects or phenomena ensure the unity of the system.
Durkheim, Spencer and Radcliffe Brown emphasized on functional unity. Merton argued that
todays world is complex and it is not necessary that whatever exists provides the function of
unity of the system. Investigator has to study dysfunction and non-functions of a particular
social item as well. This idea was novel in functionalist approach as earlier structural
functionalist never looked beyond pure functionalist perspective.
Modification of postulate of functional indispensability Earlier functionalists like Radcliffe
Brown and Parsons argued that there are some indispensible functions to be performed in
society and there are also some social institutions which are indispensible to perform such
functions. However, Merton argued that social items are not indispensible in nature and there
may be functional alternatives i.e. same function may be performed by different items as well.
By recognizing that some structures are expendable, functionalism opens the way for
meaningful social change. Merton states just as the same item may have multiple functions, so
Conformist He or she is the one who accept both goals and means and despite their
utility or fairness, he or she keep on pursuing them with some degree of indifference.
Innovator It occurs when an individual accepts culturally defined goals, but rejects
socially accepted means. According to this broad definition, scientists are also deviants
apart from thieves, robbers etc. On the other hand if a person who may accept cultural
goal of material progress, but resort to means like theft and crime can also fall in same
category of innovator. Merton argues that the members of the lower strata of society
are most likely to resort to this route to success. He also argues that innovators are
III.
IV.
V.
imperfectly socialized. So, that they abandon institutional means while retaining success
aspiration.
Ritualist A ritualist accepts socially understandable means, but fails to understand
goals. Red-tapism in bureaucracy follows ritualism. A ritualist is least concerned with the
achievement or non-achievement of goals. Members of lower middle class are the most
likely adopters of this response as their occupations provide them little chances of great
success, but their lower middle class values deter them to take other means.
Retreatist It involves rejection of both means and goals. Alcoholics, drug addicts,
vagrants etc fall in this category.
Rebellion It involves first rejection of both goals and means and then creation of new
means and goals. Social reformers fall in this category as they propose new goals which
become institutionalized later on. They most predominantly belong to a rising class
rather than the most depressed strata.
Means
Goals
Conformist
+
+
Innovator
+
Criminals
Ritualist
+
Bureaucrats
Retreator
Drug Addicts
Rebellion
+
+
Revolutionaries
Out of these five responses, except for the first one, other responses are anomic responses.
According to Merton, majority of people remain conformists, even if there is a discrepancy
between means and goals.
His theory of deviance is important for following terms
I.
Those who are conformists at one point are deviants at another point of time.
Further, even a deviant also confirm to either means or goals (except a Retreatist)
Many cultures diverge from each other, such that deviance in one culture is
conformance in another. For example Homosexuality in India vs Germany.
MERTON
Anomie is a structural phenomenon.
REFERENCE GROUP
Reference group as a concept first appeared in Archives of Psychology of Herbert Hayman,
but it was Merton who added a functional dimension in his Contribution to the Theory of
Reference Group Behavior, 1950.
HERBERT MEAD
In Meads view, traditional social psychology began with the psychology of the individual in an
effort to explain social experience; in contrast, Mead always gives priority to the social world in
understanding social experience. A thinking, self-conscious individual is logically impossible in
Meads theory without a prior social group. The social group comes first, and it leads to the
development of self-conscious mental states.
The gesture is in Meads view the basic mechanism in the social act and in the social process.
More generally it can be physical or vocal. What distinguishes humans is their ability to employ
significant gestures, or those that require thought on the part of the actor before a reaction.
The vocal gesture is particularly important in the development of significant gestures. Not all
vocal gestures are significant, for example a grunt. However, it is the development of vocal
gestures, especially in the form of language that is the most important factor in making possible
the distinctive development of human life.
A significant symbol is a kind of gesture, one which only humans can make. Gestures become
significant symbols when they arouse in the individual who is making them the same kind of
response they are supposed to elicit from those to whom the gestures are addressed. Only
when we have significant symbols can we truly have communication. Communication in the full
sense of the term is not possible among ants, bees, and so on. Physical gestures can be
II.
Play Stage The first stage is the play stage; it is during this stage that children
learn to take the attitude of particular/discrete others to themselves. Although
lower animals also play, only human beings play at being someone else.
Children play various roles in which they learn to take roles of others who are
around them. As a result of such play, the child learns to become both subject
and object and begins to become able to build a self. However, it is a limited
self because the child can take only the roles of distinct and separate others.
For example, children may play at being mommy and daddy and in the
process develop the ability to evaluate themselves as their parents, and other
specific individuals, do. However, they lack a more general and organized sense
of themselves.
Game Stage It is the next stage, the game stage, that is required if a person is
to develop a self in the full sense of the term. Whereas in the play stage the
child takes the role of discrete/particular others, in the game stage the child
must take the role of everyone else involved in the game i.e. take the roles of
generalized other. In the play stage, children are not organized wholes because
they play at a series of discrete roles. As a result, in Meads view they lack
definite personalities. However, in the game stage, such organization begins and
a definite personality starts to emerge. Children begin to become able to
function in organized groups and, most important, to determine what they will
G H mead gave a distinct social-psychologist explanation when sociology was dominated by macro
theories. He indicated that foundation of human life is human behavior i.e. not normatively defined as
earlier sociologists like Emile Durkheim have argued nor it is purely driven by instinct as indicated by
Sigmund Freud nor behavior is totally guided by material considerations as explained by Marx. Rather,
human behavior is reflective, reactive and modifiable in interactional situations
Mead is often criticized for ignoring biological/genetic influence on human attitude. According to
Ropers, Meads analysis sees social activities as only discrete episodes without any historical continuity.
However this criticism is largely unwarranted as Mead has highlighted that self is not same for every
individual and I of individual offers much dynamism to his theory.
This theory of mead debunked all the predecessors and it offered a cornerstone to the rise of Symbolic
Interaction. He was a true founder of micro sociological tradition which emerged as twin pillar of the
discipline. According to John Dewey, Mead was a seminal mind of very first order.