Sociology and Sociological Canons
Sociology focuses on the society, culture, patterns of social relationships and social interaction of the everyday life. Its advancement has been influenced by the contributions of sociological canons most of which are still applicable in modern society. While assessing their works, I noted a couple of overlapping ideas as well as specific contrasts that stems from surrounding elements or theories relating to other subject fields. This essay will examine the forces, which contributes to social stability and conflict in the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim.
Karl Marx
Karl Marx, born in Trier Germany, was a sociologist, socialist revolutionary, philosopher, journalist, economist, and political theorist. Being a sociological canon with works published on politics, law, and economics among overs, his name, has been used as a symbolic idea of his works. Marx had his focus mostly held on capitalism and its effect on the decision of labor as well as the stratification of classes in the society. I also noted that his ideas could be used to clarify the concept of identity oppression as asserted in the works of Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018: pg173) “A class only truly exists when people become aware of their conflicting relations to other classes.”
In his theory, Marx records that people were not grouped according to class. However, due to the role played in the process of production, two classes came to be; the bourgeoisie – owners of themeans of production; and the proletariat – all those who sold their labor as the means to meet their daily living. This stratification gave the bourgeoisie a sense of power since the proletariats sold their labor in exchange for a salary, which they spent on their necessities and thus made them the consumer of the produced products.
The social relationship, in this scenario, is between power and capital since the proletariats are solely dependent on the Bourgeoisie as emphasized in the textbook “Within the idea of capital is contained a social relation between those who own the means of production and those whose wage is exploited” (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018: Pg171). Such a system is advantageous to some and disadvantageous to others as the rich continue to become richer while the poor continue to suffer. Further, the division of labor influences the work done since it alienates the workers from their full potential and final work. Labor, in capitalism, is reduced to being the means to an end and not perfection. Since there is no expression of purpose while performing a task, the workers may not find satisfaction on what they do, and therefore they feel the work as outside themselves (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018: Pg165).
Karl Marx also viewed an ideology as an inverted reflection of reality and as the systems of ruling ideas that hide the flaws set by the capitalist. Religion (“opium of the people” as frequently quoted) can be said to be an instance of an ideology. According to Marx, religion holds some truth although in an inverted manner. He saw it as an illusion that justified the injustices, which were imposed and claimed to be a “test of the faithful” by the capitalists.
Max Weber
Max Weber, was a German philosopher, jurist, political economist, and sociologist. His ideas greatly influenced social research and social theory. His main intellectual concern was the comprehension of the processes of “disenchantment,” rationalization and secularization, which he related to the rise of modernity and capitalism. Weber saw a class being multidimensional, in which it was stratified based on power, economics, and status (Ritzer and Stepnisky,2018: Pg240). In itself, the class structure was more of a class situation that was satisfied by the cohesion of the people who strove to attain specific economic interests, which were represented by opportunities for income. This class orientation thus grew into a group or a party, which did not see this assemblage but shared a common interest.
Instead of theorizing over the society as a whole like Marx, Weber focused more on social structure. Other than his political ideas, most of his arguments were similar to those proposed by Karl Marx. According to Ritzer and Stepnisky (2018: pg241), Weber wanted to see a gradual change in the society, but he did not want to provoke a revolt against the capitalist. Weber and Durkheim were against socialism while Marx believed that the people, as a whole, could rise together and make a difference. Weber perceived a political faction that was under a leader as the ideal approach to make a difference and noted that there were more authentic ways of obedience, which could be used to attain the anticipated authority (instead of domination). However, for a leader to persuade his subjects, he needed to have rational, charismatic and traditional authority.
Weber also examined and leaned more on the ideal types instead of the ideologies, in clarifying various social phenomena, and he was critical on this since he found that it was essential to leave conceptual tools that other sociologists and historians could employ later. Generally, this was a more open-ended approach that was essential for adaption since society is not static and thus social theories ought to adapt as changes ensue (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018: Pg.233). Similar to Marx, he theorized that religion was a distraction, but only abstracted the actual rationalization of thinking and reality. Weber, however, studied the structure of religion and what effects it has on rationalization. Later, Weber adopted the idea that religion could not dictate the life of a person although ideal interests and materials could dictate.
Emile Durkheim
Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, is acknowledged as the father of sociology since he formally established it as an academic discipline. Much of his work is concerned with how society can maintain its modernity, integrity and coherence, a period in which the traditional religious and social ties are no longer assumed. Durkheim studied the society as a whole instead of individual components and noted that the society comprised social facts. In his argument, he stipulated that empirical methods of observation and such, similarly to science, were the best techniques for studying the society. He asserted that these social facts were responsible for the class structure that had been formulated by the other two canons. Due to his focus on society as a whole, his theory is regarded as a social structure, which is defined by the social conventions, moral obligations, and legal rules. This means that the set norms and values influence a society, while morality and injustices determine the implications.
Durkheim compared his work to the later work of Auguste Comte in explaining the division of labor but refuted the notion of social cohesion arising from the similarity. “The division of labor in modern society is not held together by the similarities between people who do similar things. Instead, it is the division of labor that in itself pulls people together by forcing them to be dependent on each other” (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018: Pg.201). This means that the social facts are interdependent and these division does not separate the individuals. Instead, it brings them together to ensure the survival of the whole society.
Durkheim also perceived religion differently as compared to Karl Marx and Max Weber. These two gave religion a non-social link and made it an ideology. On the other hand, Durkheim never saw religion as an ideology and did not consider it as a distraction at all. According to him, religion was more of a social fact, a system of symbols that the society uses to be aware of itself (Ritzer and Stepnisky, 2018: Pg.213). This became his explanation as to why different societies always have a religion, traditions and a system of beliefs as this gives them a sense of identity and awareness.
Conclusion
The arguments postulated by these sociological canons has had a significant impact on thinking and rationalization, most of which, have influenced the way a society can be perceived. Although their opinions had some comparisons, they were also very critical in their contrast. Therefore, it is essential to consider their claims and examine the social fact as well as the moral values that they endured, which had an impact on their works.
Criticism
Based on what each claims, it is hard for me to criticize their works. All I can is only learn from them since I prefer to take their ideas and use them in my daily activities. Further, these canons have given me a new social lens, which I can use to view the world. For instance, I believe that if there were chances to modify the world’s social structure and lessen capitalism, people would not be afraid of socialism. Moreover, there is a need to consider the argument of Weber of having a government which can push change since relying on the masses to influence change can be chaotic and unethical. Although politics are not always considered as legit in the present world, I think if the political governments were reformed, they would be able to effect changes for the greater good of the people and the society.
References
Ritzer George, Stepnisky Jeffery. 2018. Classical Sociological Theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage publications.
Nakhaie Reza. Lecture Notes
