Who are sociologists and what influences they have had? In this paper, we will discuss four sociologists: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and George Mead. They are all well-known and influential thinkers of their time who have greatly contributed to the current sociological approaches and studies. They differ in their theories, but all of them have a common goal to uncover the structural and social foundation of the society. What is society? How does it function? What drives the societal change? -are the questions that those four sociologists will try to answer through either an approach of “structuralism” or “agency”. Agency refers to individuals acting independently and making their own choices; whereas structuralism refers to the larger social structures such as social class, religion, etc that determine individual actions, choices and behavior. Thus in the following pages, we will explore each of those sociologists and understand their perspectives and compare them to each other.
Karl Marx, a middle-class German sociologist, analyzed society through a structural approach as he explored certain elements of human culture such as economic and material production and related that to a larger overarching capitalist system. He believed that a society was structured in a way to benefit the economic and material production. He theorized that the foundation of society was economically based, upon which other superstructures (political, religious, ideological, etc) were built on and served for the benefit of an economic progression.
Marx stated that “the relationships between men are shaped by their relative positions in regard to the means of production”(Jessop). As a result there was a class difference . He saw the society as being split into two groups, Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, (those who owned the means of production vs those who commodified their labor). Bourgeoisie as the ruling class was exploiting the Proletariat (the working class) to mass produce to gain monetary profit for an economic progression. According to Marx, in the world of capitalism “the factory was the prime locus of antagonism between classes – between exploiters and exploited, between buyers and sellers of labor power- rather than of functional collaboration”(Jessop).
He believed that the society was too economically driven which resulted in men becoming “an appendage of the machine … losing all individual character and all charm for the workman”(Lecture Marx 1/25/17 slide #14). This had led to an alienation of labor and commodification of labor. Individuals started making products and working only for the economic purposes rather than for the emotional joy of creativity and innovation. The technological uses were advanced to reach the maximum efficiency of mass production and Proletariats were used as tools or as hands to keep the production going.
The class difference was something that Marx believed to be a defining feature of any society. He stated that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”(Lecture Marx 1/25/17 slide 8). He believed that class conflict is what drives progress/change. That because of class difference, and exploitation of the working class, Proletariat would eventually become aware of their situation and as a result would rebel and revolt against the capitalist system. Gaining social consciousness was fundamental to creating a social change.
Weber like Marx, identified himself as a political economist. He had a quite different background. He was an upper middle class German, who has a highly successful career. His study of the society had also more of a structural approach and has agreed with Marx’s theories on some occasions. However, Weber discusses the social structure as more dynamic and offers more elaboration of what society composes of.
While Marx, only looked at two social groups, Weber analyzed human behaviors through group memberships which he called “Ideal types” (a group of people that had similar & common distinguishing features such as scientists, or politicians, or Protestants). He tried to analyze the sociology of human nature through value-neutral research and went against Marx as he believed that “scientist does not do his work to moralize”(Lecture Weber 1/30/17 slide 13). He wanted to remain objective in understanding how society worked. He used Protestants as Ideal types to explore/argue Marx’s idea of economy drives everything. Through his explanation, he showed that “modern capitalism arose only in the West because Calvinist Protestants considered the acquisition of wealth to be a “vocation”- a duty and end in itself, not a means to happiness or pleasure” (Lecture Weber 1/30/17 slide #25). The idea/faith of religion drove individuals (Protestants) to work harder to be more financially stable in order to get to “heaven”.
He agreed with Marx in terms of how there is a capitalistic and economic drive to improve the efficiency of the material production, but he expanded upon that idea. He believed that the notion of efficiency and “rational calculation” spread to all aspects of human society . Everything became too calculated and “disenchanted”. “There were no mysterious incalculable forces… rather one can…master all things by calculation”(Lecture Weber 1/30/17 slide #24). By that, “the performance of each individual worker is mathematically measured, each man becomes a little cog in the machine”(Bancroft) which translates directly in how bureaucracy operates in a way. Everyone needs to be treated the same, so the society created a system “bureaucracy” to ensure that. Thus, Weber’s views about the rationalization and bureaucratization of the world seem to have obvious similarities to Marx’s notion of alienation.
He also agreed with Marx’s class structure but then expanded on those classes to include: capitalists, property owners, those who hold patents/copyrights, and laborers. Weber tried to focus on more social groups whereas Marx was mostly focused on two primary groups. Also, Weber argued with Marx on the idea that class conflict is the only driving force for social change. He argued that “ communal class action will emerge only if and when the connections between the causes and the consequences of the class situation become transparent”(Bancroft); whereas Marx stated that a class would become conscious of their roles in relation to other classes.
Marx believed that there was a class difference because of the socioeconomic standing; yet Weber expanded on that idea and discussed “status” of individuals. He stated that “If economic circumstances are stable, status will drive social realities”(Lecture Weber 1/30/17 slide #41). Weber did not believe in totally making everyone equal as Marx wanted ( via a communist social structure). He actually thought that some form of domination/ power is legitimate as long as it falls into three categories (traditional, rational or charismatic).
Unlike Marx and Weber, who are known as conflict theorists, Durkheim believed that the structure of society is functional. Durkheim theorized that everything has a function and “social institution and practices exist because they provide those functions for the larger society”(Lecture Durkheim 2/1/17 slide #14). He also had a notion that not only everything had a function, but that everything was functioning really well. He was aware of the evolution and was capable of looking at the social dysfunction, but there is no record of that. He also was not good at explaining the historical causes and effects. He focused on the society at a particular time and not analyzing the historical past or possible future.
But, just like the previous two sociologists, he also believed that the individual choices and actions were the consequence of larger social structures. His approach would considered “structural”, but he identified more with “functionalist” approach and we can see that his theory does differ from the other two.
He believed that way people behaved and acted and heavily influenced by social facts. He referred to them as “distinctive social characteristics and determinants…which endowed with coercive power by… which they impose themselves upon him, independent of his individual will”(Bancroft). He used the example of “suicide” to prove that certain individual choices do not merely come from either biological or psychological predisposition, but rather heavily influenced by the social factors.
He thought that a significant increase in suicide rates in a particular group demonstrated that there was a lack of social cohesion or weakened which allowed external forces create such crises. He believed that everything and everyone had a function and their function was important and contributive force to the larger social structure and served to create and maintain society cohesion. However, he said that in order to maintain society cohesion, it is vital for the society to be united on similar goals, ideas and beliefs. He stated that “social order in traditional societies is “mechanical”: cohesion occurs because everyone is similar and shares common norms and behaviors” However, in modern societies, social order is “organic”….which led to different specializations in work and social roles created interdependencies”(Lecture Durkheim 2/1/17 slide #20). He had many revised theories on this, but his latter view stressed that even if there is a high differentiation in the way society functions, in order to keep the society growing and progressing and ensuring everything works well, then it’s vital to have common sets of beliefs and sets of symbolic representations. (the role of religion).
George Mead was an American sociologist who differed from the previous sociologists in terms of his approach. He looked at the society as more a collection of individual attributes that created a larger social structure. He thought that “the unity and structure of the complete self reflects the unity and structure of the social process as a whole”(Mead). He believed in agency rather than structure of the society. He talked about how the concept of self is influenced through childhood’s earlier social interactions and experiences. And that “before acting, individuals consider the socially defined meaning of both the stimulus and their potential responses”(Lecture Mead 2/6/17 slide #11). He believed that society is a collection of meanings and introduced the concept of social construction. Thus in order to bring a social change, one must change the meaning. By changing those meanings, the society changes the way it thinks and behaves and makes choices. And individuals can change those meanings by through social interactions.
Overall, I think it is interesting that there is no definite definition of “sociology” and we can see that through those four sociologists. Each of them had their own perspective and view on what society is and should be. I do not think there is one sociologist I totally agree with or disagree with. I believe that the combination of all their theories can be used to better understand people as individuals and as a group. That is why as much as I appreciate Marx’s, Weber’s and Durkheim’s structural perspective, I also liked learning about Mead’s theory. As I believe that as much as the society has an influence on individual choices, it’s individuals that make up the society. So there is no one way of looking at how society works, there are a ton. And it’s up to individuals to decide what they think makes sense for them. I also believe that all of their theories are relevant today. The societal issues and human flaws have existed for thousands of years and it’s just that we became more aware and analytical of them. Marx make a strong point about the capitalist system and making sure that the working class has a fair and equal playing feel as those who are at the top. I think that’s relevant in our current system. Politicians fighting to ensure that the working class is not disappearing and is provided with a fair number of job opportunities and not let 1 % over-dominate. Weber’s theory on rationalization and bureaucracy still exists today. The use of scantrons and tests are a huge example of rationalization; used to make things more efficient and faster. Durkheim’s theory on that everything and everyone has a function is relevant too. That people need to have common interests and goals to continue interacting with each other; otherwise there is no other substantial qualities that will draw them to each other and keep them interested and invested. Finally, Mead makes a good point about the unique qualities of individuals. We focused so much on how society affects individuals, that he brings a refreshing outlook on how individuals can affect the social structure. People’s favorite and overused phase is that “you should be the change you want to see in the world”, and I think there is a partial truth to that. I do believe that one individual can make a difference and influence the societal norms, but at the same it is much easier when there are other people who also believe in that change.
So personally, there is no such thing that he is right and the other one is wrong. I think that all of them are equally intelligent individuals who have changed the way people think about the sociology and what it actually means. They have made great contributions to understanding this world better and in way have piggy-backed from each other’s ideas, which means that all of them “worked together” to get a deeper sense of what makes this world functions in the ways it does.