Karl Marx' and Émile Durkheim's body of work attempts to structurally analyze society as well as determine whether or not the societal system is functioning properly. The differences in their logic are representative in each of their respective paradigms. Marx argues that structurally, capitalism is inherently flawed due to the necessity of class inequality causing conflict. Durkheim suggests that society is generally a good thing, important for social cohesion and development, but when a specific institution begins to fail in society, the institution can be pathologically diagnosed and 'cured' of its problems. In this paper I shall argue that these writers formulate their paradigms in descriptive terms to objectively determine problems within …show more content…
For Marx inequality is derived from the unfair exploitation of one group by another, in this instance the bourgeois class exploiting the proletariat. The workers are subject to the terms of the employer to earn a wage to upkeep their subsistence because they do not own their own means of production. (_)The employers use this to their advantage to earn extra labour.(_) Structural imbalance is inherent to a capitalist system as the bourgeoisie are poised in a position of power whilst the proletariat at weak and subject to unfair condition (GI192) is unjust and unfair. The conflicting interest between these groups create a class antagonism. Marx warns that societal inequality will create further create conflict between classes, potentially leading to social change or revolution(GI p.184). For Durkheim inequality isn't necessarily a problem. Unlike Marx, who believes that problems arise by internal contradictions, Durkheim thinks that problems are caused by internal dysfunction within the system and that they can be resolved. Inequality is a natural within the functions of an advanced capitalist society. The division of labour separates people in society according to their merit and through merit individuals can be rewarded for their work.(_)Moral regulation and economic regulation are both crucial in maintaining organic solidarity so that people can understand that there is a justifiable and moral reason for their differences within
Defining law can be difficult to do since its definition varies among various people. Many people see law as standards for human behavior that reflect the deepest values and morals of the society. Others see law as a game which acts as a set of guidelines for settling disagreements in a nonviolent way. From a sociologist’s perspective law is viewed as a behavioral system with the two aspects of roles/hierarchy and rules/discretion. Not only is law thought of as a behavioral system from a sociologist’s perspective but also as an institution which is a set of directions for doing things. When laws have been disobeyed by a member of society a form of punishment will be determined and it is not always effective. Everyone has their own views on law and punishment which is why I want to look at what theorists Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view as the role and function of law and punishment. Before I can show the weaknesses, similarities and differences between each of their views I will give an overview of their thoughts on the role and function of law and punishment.
The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.
Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have.
Along with his study on social facts, he also focused some on the Division of Labor. Many people during this time believed that the social order of things was in danger due to the selfishness of society as a whole. While Marx believed that capitalism was a bad thing and was bringing down society, Durkheim believed that it was a good thing and it pulled society together. As times progressed, so did society. Durkheim began to look at the solidarity of society. He categorized them into two different types mechanical and organic solidarity. . (Ritzer 2004) I believe that Durkheim thought
Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) were sociologists who both existed throughout similar time periods of the 19th and early 20th centuries, resulting in both Marx, and Durkheim to be concerned about similar effects and impacts among society (Appelrouth and Edles: 20, 77). Marx’s main focus was on class distinctions among the bourgeoisie and proletariat, forces and relations of production, capital, surplus value, alienation, labour theory of value, exploitation and class consciousness (Appelrouth and Edles: 20). Whereas Durkheim’s main focus was on social facts, social solidarity – mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, anomie, collective conscience, ritual, symbol, and collective representations
Compare and contrast the various early European urban theorists as found in Chapter 1 of the course text. (300-400 words)
The theoretical works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber still influence sociological theory. Though their works are decades old they still are a major part of what sociology is today. Though their theories can seem very different, there are some similarities. To become a great sociologist one most learn and understands how to use all sociological perspectives. To do this one must understand and use the different theoretical perspectives created by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber.
How useful are classical sociological accounts for understanding the rise of compulsory education in nineteenth and twentieth century Britain? Discuss with particular reference to Durkheimian and Marxist ideas.
After determining what resulted from modernization, Durkheim unlike Marx was interested in reforming not eliminating modern society. In analyzing Durkheim’s theory of modern society, I will begin with the focal point of it, namely solidarity.
The essay will begin by providing a brief introduction into the two perspectives of Functionalism and Marxism, focusing on the theories of the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim and the German philosopher Karl Marx. Then it will give a brief discussion showing the transformation that took place from feudalism to capitalism, providing the reader with an insight into the dramatic change that took place during a time of revolution and revolt. Finally the essay will compare and contrast Marx’s idea of class and class conflict with Durkheim’s theory on the Division of labour.
Durkheim was one of the most influential sociologists in relation to the functionalist theories which stated society consisted of a structural consensus with a collective conscience of shared norms and values. He argued in order to establish the meaning of society one must understand the structures and social facts. He highlights changes in society from traditional societies which were linked with mechanical solidarity consisting of small scale ties with little division of labour. This in turn created a strong collective conscience of unity in comparison to modern society where differences amongst groups are promoted in turn weakening social solidarity. This is due to rapid changes within society in which Durkheim emphasises is due to a complex division of labour. Durkheim then argues that due to the combination of enlightenment notions and a capitalist society a collective conscience of individualism and greed is created. (Jones, Bradbury and Boutillier, 2011, pp.62-64)
Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber are considered to be three canon social theorists who laid the foundation of sociology and contributed, in detailed accounts, the fundamentals of study of society. Each theorist belongs to a different school of thought and presents separate theories on how societies work. While there are bits and parts that might seem similar in each theorist’s social theory, each theorist largely differs from each other. Durkheim, Marx and Weber, among other things, also discussed social change and the evolution of society. Each theorist has tried to explain the changing structures of societies, taking evidence from history and trying to explain the rudimentary functions of the society and how it was changing with time. For instance, Emile Durkheim talks about collective consciousness and mechanical and organic solidarity, while Marx talk about revolution and the rise of proletariats. On the other hand, Weber talked about the rise of bureaucracy and his concept of iron cage. Change is an important topic in all these theorist’s works.
Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls
While looking at the three sociologists who make up the sociological canon it is important to take into consideration how they view social order and social change. Karl Marx used his theory of social class in order to explain how society structured itself (Bratton, Denham 2014). Marx theorized that classes were relational, exploitive, and conflictive in nature. Marx explained social order, by way of the labour market and modes of production. His theories showed a pessimistic but realistic view of how the system abuses and takes advantage of the working class, and through strife the working class needed to empower themselves to grow and reach their potential. Emile Durkheim theorized about the division of labour, which was a written work that analyzed the relationship between social solidarity and the
When people look at the world, they see it is structured in a specific way. Each perspective varies depending on the person. For instance, when looking at classical theory in sociology, there exists three viewpoints on society. Karl Marx believed the world based on conflict while Weber made sense of it by viewing the meanings. As for Durkheim, he made sense of it through social cohesion. Unlike Marx, whose primary focus was conflict, Durkheim’s writing centered around how people were capable of coexisting harmoniously.