Sociology: Confrontation and comparison of Marx, Weber and Durkheim (part 1)

Introduction
Basic Thoughts and Interrelations:
Class, Status and Social Order:
Division of Labour and the Trio:
Capital, Economy and Politics:
Conclusion:

Introduction

Karl Marx (1818-1883), Max Weber (1864-1920), and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) helped build the sociological knowledge base known as classical sociological theory. His examination of social change and transformation from the mid-19th to the early 20th century captures fundamental questions of human existence and development. In the period of the emergence of modern social theory, the influential and main contribution came from these three thinkers. Not only is a comparative discussion between Marx, Weber and Durkheim necessary, but it is also necessary to recognize the common basis they chose to develop their theories. They networked about human history, society, politics, economy and culture. They show and reveal this link between the individual and society, which becomes the core of the practice of sociology. Therefore, reading the founding fathers of sociology Marx, Weber and Durkheim is necessary to gain knowledge of social theories and apply them to social problems (Visvanathan 2011). In addition, the contradictions and conversations between them regarding the human world and social changes allow us to examine any sociological problem with a critical point of view.

This article will help us to know more about the similarities of these three thinkers and their works. How did they see the social system and human culture? How do their ideas become both contradictory and complementary to each other at some point? What are the key points to counter the theoretical schemes they have given? What are the shortcomings of each of them to define and describe human society? By comparing Marx, Weber and Durkheim and discussing how their views contrast, this module will answer these questions.

Marx's theory based on social criticism and conflict, in which Durkheim emphasizes social factors. Weber believes that social relations shaped by politics, economics and culture and individual actions have a subjective meaning. To talk about human life, actions, behavior and formulation of human society, everyone has taken a strongly defined point of view. According to Marx: “The first historical act is… the production of material life itself. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history” (Marx 1964: 60). Based on this understanding, he develops the idea of historical materialism. He goes on to talk about basic human needs and the dissatisfaction that leads to new needs. For him, the production of new needs is the first historical act (Marx 1964). Listening to Marx, Durkheim also states that human desires are limitless and that "the more one has, the more one wants, since gratifications received only stimulate rather than satisfy needs" (Durkheim 1951: 248). However, it offers the idea of social control in this matter where society imposes limits on human desires and constitutions and normative power. Weber's definition of sociology reflects his view of human action and behavior. In his opinion, social facts are ultimately intelligible facts and we can observe human actions by penetrating the subjective meaning of behavior. Therefore, he defines sociology as the “science which focuses on the interpretive understanding (verstehen) of social behavior in order to obtain an explanation of its cause, course and consequences (Weber 1964: 29). Contrasting and comparing the ideas and theories of these three thinkers will improve opportunities to discuss the social system, social stratification, division of labor, religion and social change. Therefore, the form is designed to split it into two parts. In the first part we will learn more about the seminal works of Marx, Weber and Durkheim where we found their common interests. Then we will expand the discussion to some specific thematic points that bring their conceptual ideas. The second part of this module continues with the rest of the theme ideas.

Basic Thoughts and Interrelations:

A major figure in the history of economic and philosophical thought, Karl Marx sided with tensions and the struggle for social change by describing how society moves forward. To elaborate the idea, he emphasizes the class struggle, the division of labor and the system of production. He also specified that this class struggle had marked all of history and that these struggles differed according to historical phases. He proclaims: “Ideas and categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and ephemeral products” (Marx 1976: Ch. 2, p. 1). Marx was convinced of a holistic approach that saw society as a structurally interconnected whole. He counts and identifies all aspects of human life, such as education, culture, religion, legal codes, art, etc., that are dependently related to this structured whole, cannot be understood in themselves. Therefore, he suggests the main independent variable, which is the economic mode of production, and to know the historical phenomena, it is necessary to look at the economic factors.

The political, juridical, philosophical, literary and artistic development rests on the economic one. But they all interact with each other and with the economic base. It is not that the economic situation is the only active cause and everything else is only a passive effect. Rather, there is a reciprocity within a field of economic necessity that always asserts itself as a last resort. (Marx and Engels 1962: 304)

Another German-born sociologist and philosopher, Max Weber, introduced himself as a political economist. He opposes the idea of historical materialism to Marx and redefines the social system by combining economic and religious factors. In this new vision of society, Weber identifies the processes of rationalization, secularization and disenchantment. These three processes are associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity. This is a major shift in focus for analyzing capitalism from a Marxist perspective. This new way of thinking is demonstrated by Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, where he defines rationalization as a process in which a society's current values, traditions, and emotions that drive its current behavior are replaced by emerging thoughts and actions. to be more rational and a move towards rational-legal authority is inevitable. Secularization broadly refers to a progress through rationalization and modernization in which religion loses its supreme authority.

Disillusionment, for Weber, is a forward movement towards cultural rationalization and scientific progress by opposing the traditional system. It is a disenchantment because it is opposed to living in the traditional world where "the world remains in a large enchanted garden" (Weber 1971: 270). However, Marx mainly emphasized the emergence of modern society with the development of capitalism. Weber advocates a distinctive way of thinking, namely a "rational circulation" related to the Protestant ethic. On the other hand, for Durkheim it is related to industrialization and the new social division of labor (Harris 1992: 325).

For the French philosopher and sociologist, sociology is the science of discovering structural social facts. Unlike Marx and Weber, he was therefore interested in seeing how Western societies maintain their coherence and integrity in modern times. Then he said that in modern times, traditional social and religious ties are no longer assumed, but new social institutions are emerging. Contrary to Weber's interest in individual action, he offers the phenomena of society as a whole as a site of inquiry in sociology.

In the book The Division of Labor in Society (1893), Durkheim, unlike Marx, who identifies class conflict, considers conflict, chaos, disorder and crisis as pathological phenomena of modern society. To outline the evolution of society from “primitive” to “industrial capitalist”, he adopts the term “solidarity” and distinguishes between mechanical and organic solidarity. In mechanical solidarity, members of society are very similar in their dedication and contribution to the common spirit. Here “the ideas and tendencies common to all members of society are more numerous and more intense than those which affect each member personally. This solidarity can only grow in inverse proportion to the personality” (Durkheim 1956: 129).

On the other hand, where society functions with these growing differentiations among its members, organic solidarity arises from differences rather than from similarities. But it clarifies in modern times the organic solidarity that results from a strong division of labor but still needs certain common convictions and beliefs to bind it together, called a common collective of consciousness. These similarities and differences in some issues, contradictions and ideas that are quite new compared to other issues from Marx, Weber and Durkheim develop the great theories of sociology for the social sciences in general. One of the issues may be social stratification, which they approach from different but holistic perspectives.

Class, Status and Social Order:

The conceptualization of social class and class structure is Marx's classic contribution to the definition and elaboration of the human world and of historical materialism, or dialectical materialism. In his concept of class, he identifies the historical tendency of all societies to split into two unequal social classes. These classes are structured hierarchically. In this situation of multiple and subordinate gradations of social rank, the classes are always engaged in a "historical struggle" or "class struggle". He described it in the Communist Manifesto (1848):

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another…. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank….The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Society… splitting up into two great hostile camps,…— Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. (Marx 1988:55-56)

Contradicting Marx's position on classes and class struggle, Weber identifies the development of "status groups" in modern societies. In fact, he argues that three major adjustments have taken place in modernity: class, status, and party. Weber defines social class in terms of social action and emphasizes the class situation in a different way.

We can speak of a class if
(1) a person shares a certain causal component of his life changes, provided that
(2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and income opportunities and
(3) either under the conditions of the goods and labor markets represented. This is the class situation. (Weber 1968: 927)

From Weber's statement, we can see that the formation of social classes depends on
(a) modern market conditions,
(b) social actions, and
(c) different kinds of class antagonisms and struggles.

Weber proposes different kinds of class antagonisms to Marx's class struggle. According to Marx, depending on the common interests, the "mass people" transformed into a class and started a political struggle opposing the interests of the ruling class. Here again Marx emphasized that absolute "ownership of the means of production" is the sole determinant of the class situation. Weber offers a different argument here and outlines two categories of the class situation. The first category emphasizes ownership by a class that monopolizes the means of production and determines the class situation. In this situation, the chances of life existed only for the propertied classes and they only clashed. The second category highlights the class category determined by different skills, abilities, and education. These skills and qualifications can be sold on the market and create opportunities in life.

Here, in the modern market situation, the individual can have a chance to live even without property. From this point of view, he also found Marx's theory of class struggle "ambiguous" and suggested different types of social action and struggle. For him, there are no class interests in modern times, only the "middle interests" of individuals in comparable economic class situations. Class action against the class structure can only happen in two ways: "irrational protest" and "rational associations". (Weber 1968:929-30). In contrast to Marx's use of the term "class", Weber often uses "groups" and focuses on an important shift away from class struggle between antagonistic groups because the progressive use of the rule of law has been used to resolve disputes. On the way to resolving the extreme class struggle, he proposed the formation of a "status group".

Unlike Marx's class struggle for power and property/wealth, Weber's status groups compete for prestige and social status. It defines group status as individual's choice and life style which has nothing to do with market situation and economic behavior like class. Social honor is the purpose of the status group while having different activity criteria. Regarding status and status groups, Weber also considered a political party limited to the realm of political power and order. (Weber 1968:932-38). When we see a contradiction regarding the class situation and social stratification between Marx and Weber, another founder of sociology, Emile Durkheim, does not see social class as the main determinant of individual consciousness. Rather, he suggests social solidarity and describes modern society as based on new interdependencies involving a complex division of labour. We need a comparative discussion of the division of labor to learn more about their main positions on this particular issue.

Division of Labour and the Trio:

The classical sociology of Marx, Durkheim and Weber sees the development of industrialization and specialization differently and shows different perspectives. However, projects of future society are not present in the work of these theorists, but their analysis provides an effective framework for the study of modern society. The concept of division of labor is present in most of Marx's works, such as B. Economic and Philosophical Manuscript, The German Ideology, Capital, etc. Durkheim dedicated the same name to his first and most important theoretical work in this field and discovered a curious paradox when he asked: "How is it that with increasing autonomy the individual ever more closely dependent on society ? (Durkheim 1893: xxx).

Marx and Durkheim both say that the modern division of labor was made possible by the decimation of the old social order. Durkheim says that "the division of labor varies in direct proportion to the size and density of societies, and if it progresses gradually in the course of social development, it is because societies become steadily denser and generally more voluminous" (Durkheim 1986; 205). For him, the increase in social density is the cause of specialization and the subsequent development of the division of labor in societies. He goes on to say that the growth and development of societies requires a greater division of labour. It is therefore not the instrument by which this division takes place; but it is its determining cause (Durkheim 1986; 205). What is decisive for the increase in “moral and social density” is not demography, but the permanent increase in interactions between social groups. So he agrees with Marx that the place of specialization is in cities where people of different strata come together to differentiate work. Marx gives the example of North America and claims that the northern states of the American Union are more dense than India due to the development of the division of labor, despite India having a larger population (Tucker 1978; 393).

In Max Weber's work, the division of labor in society arises from an inescapable rationalization.

This rationalization process has changed the face of several domains and created a specific type of knowledge to meet the needs of society. In his work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he speaks of the rationalization of the Protestant through the doctrines of Calvinism, which changed the rational means of acquiring economic wealth to cope with the anxiety of redemption. Protestants generally undergo technical training which helps them to specialize in their field. They also followed the spirit of rationality in their work in order to cultivate the "spirit of capitalism" in them. The division of labor through specific rationalization processes created a differentiation in society that gave them the feeling of "disenchantment".

The Weberian notion of the division of labor is therefore different from the work of Durkheim and Marx, but Marx and Weber both find that the process of rationalization alienates workers. Max Weber in his theory of bureaucracy talks about the specific role given to specific positions by defining areas of responsibility, and these areas cannot be changed at the whim of superiors. He argues that the increasing rationalization of society leads to the development of a strict division of labour. This kind of division of labor is reflected in the bureaucratic organizations of society. His concept of bureaucracy is based on hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules, performance-based growth, specialized division of labor, efficiency, etc. The increasing rationalization of the social world is increasing man's control over nature. Rationalization, a key element of Weber's theory, is identified with the division of labour, bureaucracy and mechanization. He discusses the notion of progress and how it leads to “disenchantment” in Science as Vocation (Gerth and Mills 1946; 140). Durkheim's work is mainly based on "individual consciousness" and "collective consciousness", and these two things determine the intensity of the division of labor in society. Marx sees individual consciousness as shaped by the social strata to which an individual belongs, but Durkheim finds that social stratification is the pathological character of society in a phase of transition to modernity which he calls "anomie". He does not see them as an instrument of exploitation, but as a determinant of social solidarity.

Durkheim offers a functional analysis of society, attempting to understand the functionality of "normal" and "pathological" characters in society. He finds that pathology reinforces morality in society and for him the presence of pathology is not a problem since the collective consciousness of society reinforces normal conditions through several mechanisms such as when a deviant is punished by law , then the "collective representation" of society in the ritual of the execution of sentences obliges the individual to submit to the morality of society.

Therefore, he somehow tries to counter the pessimistic views of modern society provided by Marx. In addition to mechanical and organic solidarity, Durkheim uses "analysis of covariance" in the division of labor to find the true relationship of cause and effect and to rule out causes that are unrelated to effects. 9 In the chapter The Anomic Division of Labor, he finds two abnormal types of division of labor. He tries to trace the "partial breakdown of organic solidarity" in economic crises and bankruptcies and says that as the division of labor became more specialized, labor became organized and conflicts between employers and workers increased (Durkheim 1986 : 292-293). .

Marx finds the specialization of the division of labor alienating and calls for a revolution that will bring about an “organized division of labor.” The other abnormal division of labor is the "anomic division of labour". If the division of labor does not produce solidarity, it is because the interrelationships of the organs are not regulated and it is in a state of anomie. Durkheim believes that the structure of individual consciousness is formed by roles, norms and morals. These things produce a healthy personality of an individual in the society. Therefore, he sees the division of labor not so much as a means of class exploitation but rather as a cause of social solidarity in society. Both Marx and Durkheim see the effects of the division of labor differently, while Durkheim argues that the division of labor balances society; Marx sees human history as the history of class struggle. Contradictions, change and conflict are the main words in Marx's writings. He sees capitalism as the struggle between capitalists and proletarians. So only the revolution of the proletariat has the potential to change society.

Taken together, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber provide different kinds of analyzes of the division of labor. Their thoughts sometimes agree and sometimes they differ from each other's theory. However, the three thinkers find the specialization of the division of labor problematic for modern society, but each has a different view of it. Marx says that only revolution can change the pathological character of society, while Durkheim says that these anomic conditions will disappear from society when the transformation of society from "mechanical solidarity" to "organic solidarity" is complete. However, Weber sees no light at the end of the tunnel, as there is no way out of this "iron cage" of bureaucracy and rational rule-based control. Weber also criticizes the Marxist concept of alienation, stating that there is no emancipation with regard to it and that the global process of rationalization creates a split between the generality of the state and capital and individuals disconnected from the production methods.

Capital, Economy and Politics:

To develop their arguments, three of these thinkers deftly draw a strong connection between politics and business. They identify capital in modernity, critique political economy, and articulate the emergence and complexity of the political system. However, in a general and popular sense, 10 people regard Marx and Weber as major players in this respect, due to the authorship of works such as Das Kapital: Eine Critique of Political Economy, Economy and Society or The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of capitalism. But Durkheim also illustrates the "economic facts" by developing his theory of religion as the foundation of society. He contradicted the Marxist notion that the economy could be the root of society, arguing that religion was the foundation from which the economy grew. What did Marx say about capital? His main theorization of capitalist political economy, illustrated in the volumes of Capital (1867). Contrary to traditional views of market competition, entrepreneurship, supply and demand, he outlined the complexity of capitalism as a social formation and an economic system of production. He then proceeded to conceptualize the means of production and ownership over them, the productive forces and the relations of production, surplus value, the commodity and labour.

In capitalist accumulation, the commodification of labor power and the institution of wage labor is for him the most important factor. He argued that surplus value is the basis of profit for capitalists and that this form of unpaid labor results in class conflict. Hence, politically conscious or class conscious wage workers are a struggle for a post-capitalist society in which use value will be the goal of production, not surplus value and labor (Ritzer and Stepnisky 2011:141).

Marx's economic output and the complexities of capitalism were certainly tied to a strong political agenda, from struggle to activism to revolution and power. Weber defined modern capitalism as a kind of money economy and a kind of economic organization. The unmistakable imprint on the economic organization of Western capitalism had been left by Protestant religious maxims which influence economic behavior and become incentives for the regulation of life and the domination of material reality through asceticism. He uses this asceticism to articulate a form of self-denial that emerges in daily life to forbid indulgence and worldly pressures. Weber attached importance to the "rationalization" of industry and commerce, which eventually led to the development of "calculable law" and ensured the rational functioning of economic life.

This application of legal rules thus minimizes the extreme discrimination between bourgeoisie and proletariat, eliminates naked exploitation. Additionally, Weber expanded the idea of capitalism by comparing the other ways of making money to western capitalism. In his view, Western capitalism has developed an ethos or spirit that rejects worldly luxuries, extends wealth and profit beyond individual and personal needs, and avoids using wealth for personal pleasure. When Weber links economics to religion and explains the religious spark that underlies modern rational capitalism, he also sheds light on the suspension of those religious forces. Now, how did the capitalist system work and how did capitalism survive? In seeking the answer, we can look back to Durkheim's discussion of the sociology of knowledge. He argues that capitalism cannot survive without ideological support and that the school system plays a decisive role in becoming a central institution through which the cognitive capital embodied in the individual is produced (Steiner 2011: 213). In his book Elementary forms of religious life, Durkheim also proposes to examine the relationship between economics and religion: "the idea of economic value and that of religious value cannot be separated, but the nature of these relationships has not yet been studied ( cited in Steiner 2011, 58).

Durkheim was not convinced by Marx's political prognosis and the revolutionary transformation of the capitalist system. Although he is interested in the study of socialism and considers it a "social fact", in his definition of socialism it is not necessary to place economic life in the hands of the state, but of have a two-way interaction. From a functional point of view, it offered mutual understanding between business and political society. The management society of society treats the economy in a way that rewards the working class according to the social value of its service and integrates itself into all aspects of economic, political and social life (Durkheim 1962: 52 -61). When we found a contradiction between Marx and Durkheim in the discussion of political change and the system in capitalist formation and beyond, Weber advocated strong parliamentary democracy and criticized socialism as opposed to capitalism. He believes that challenging power and monopolies can be done more effectively in democracies. Weber argues that socialism does not offer the open competition of capitalism, where energetic entrepreneurs and energetic risk takers introduce a dynamic form of society (Weber 1946, Kalberg 2005). Despite these contradictions and differences in terms of economics and political system, Weber defines "power" and "politics" in different ways.

Conclusion:

In this post we have discussed the most important classical themes of sociology and three founders of this discipline. In doing so, we categorize thematic points and examine how Marx, Durkheim and Weber listen to each other, contradict each other and expand knowledge. From a materialist point of view, Marx begins his critical discourse on political economy, later Durkheim and Weber show the interconnection of the sociology of religion and the sociology of economics. Their extensive work has also led to a new approach to linking economic sociology, religious sociology and the sociology of knowledge. However, we must keep in mind that there is a contradiction between evolutionary and revolutionary approach, moral and material point of view. State apparatuses, bureaucracy, law, power and dominant belief systems are tools of the ruling class to oppress for Marx, Weber and Durkheim they are key elements of a functioning society.

From their basic theorizing some other questions have emerged that can broaden our knowledge in the sociology of studies. The comparative discussion would not be limited to the sphere of the economy, social structure or political system; it will also include cultural theories and further discussion of religious practices and rituals. However, the disagreements and disagreements between these three thinkers and philosophers, which sometimes go in opposite directions from each other, certainly make a complete trajectory of recognition a stage where we want to get the answer from three of them "who are we " and "how do we do which?" we live".

Bibliography

Allan, Kenneth. 2013. Exploration in Classical Sociological Theory: Seeing the Social World. 3rd ed. USA: SAGE.
Coser, Lewis. A. 2012 [1977]. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New Delhi: Rawat Publication.
Cuff, E.C., W.W. Sharrock and D.W. Francis. 2009 .1979. Perspectives in Sociology. 5 th ed. India: Routledge.
Delanty, Gerard. 2009. “The Foundation of Social Theory” Pp 19-37 in Bryan S. Turner (ed) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Durkheim, Emile. 1984 [1893]. The Division of Labor In Society. Trans W.D. Halls. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1995 [1912]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans K.E. Fields. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 2001[1912]. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. C. Cosman, New York: Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1938[1895]. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.