Sociological theories of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Mosca

Sociological Theories

The theory of history from Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Mosca- There are a number of different modern social theories regarding the nature of society, social change, human's place within society and the idea of how integration and alienation fit within a modern society. These paradigms combine reflexively into a notion of history. Many of these theories have been used to buttress political regimes, many social and psychological thoughts, and many simply to readdress the manner in which humans can more appropriate interact in a post-industrial world. There are three four theorists that have contributed to this discussion; certainly not an opus of their work, but clearly, influential and controversial in their own right: Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile' Durkeim and Gaetano Mosca.

Karl Marx was one of the most influential political and social philosophers of the 19th century. He and Freidrich Engels wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in response to working and social conditions in the Industrialized world, and their views were expanded by Russians Lenin and Stalin, China's Mao, Cuba's Castro and Guevara, and numerous other social thinkers of the 19th and 20th century. Max Weber was a German politician, scholar, economist, and sociologist. In fact, he founded the modern studies of sociology, public administration, and organizational theory. He was born in 1864 and so was writing and publishing after Marx, but still looking at capitalism, socialism, and the various dictates of society as ways humans are shaped, actualized, and able to have upward mobility. He is most famous for his works surrounding the sociology of religion and government, and how those two institutions shaped, controlled, and contributed to humankind. Whereas Marx was completely comfortable with his works being interpreted in the hard sciences, Weber really focused on the social aspects of theory in explaining the human condition. Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist of roughly the same period (1858-1917) studied education, crime, religion, suicide, and the manner humans acted within society -- which would become the modern science of sociology. Durkeim was primarily focused on the manner in which societies could maintain integrity and coherence within the modern, post-industrial world when past trends and traits (such as religion and ethnic backgrounds) could no longer be assumed to be a general fact of that society. Instead, Durkheim asked, what is it that binds society together as a unit -- and causes people to actualize individually and collectively. Gaetano Mosca, the most modern of the four (1858-1941) was an Italian political scientist whose most famous work, the Theory of Elitism, defined modern elite systems based on their superior organizational skills. Influenced, of course, by Marx, Weber and Durkheim, Mosca was able to view changes in the political structures of Europe in their dramatic changes during the early 20th century.

All four used the theory of history as one of their primary templates. Marx viewed history as one of continual class struggle. This struggle was apparent in that the ancient world (slavery) gave way to feudalism, capitalism replaced feudalism, and eventually, the historical dialectic would allow the workers to overthrow the bourgeoisie and form a stateless, classless society called pure communism. Historical materialism says society is determined by the material conditions at any given time:

At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure (Marx, Manifesto).

For Weber, the idea of rationalism -- rational thought based on societal efficiency and productivity, runs through his works -- particularly the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this seminal work, Weber argues that the idea of Protestantism contributes to history and economics in that piety and the chance for a better life after death cause humans to strive for economic gain in certain ways, whereas that is not always using work as an expression of self -- it is work, as Marx might say, for the ends justifying the means, rather than the means justifying what work is being done. Authority, then, rather than being solely economic, does have at its basic roots an idea of class or structure and control -- alienation for Marx from humanity, a preponderance of ways to keep one from actualization for Weber. "In order that a manner of life well adapted to the peculiarities of the capitalism…. Could come to dominate others, it had to originate somewhere, and not in isolated individuals alone, but as a way of the common to the whole group of man" (Weber, Protestant Ethic).

Durkeim focused more on the description of societal phenomena that exist cohesively and without ties to unique individuals, as opposed to society being comprised of what motivates unique individuals and then becomes collective. It was the process of education; one might say the historical process that feeds the vitality of the individual in combination with the rule of law. Thus, "The most visible symbol of social solidarity is law (24). Law is the organization of social life in its most stable and precise form. All the essential varieties of social solidarity are reflected in law" (Division, I:i). In a formative way, Mosca saw a Marxian development of society, but based it on political society and class -- history as a dialectical theory of constant competition between elites. This elite, "always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings" (Mosca in Grusky, 195).

Compare Marx's account of the emergence of capitalism in the German Ideology with Max Weber's account in the Protestant Ethic- for Marx, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits. Over time (history) capitalism has progressed through several stages, arriving after the Industrial Revolution at a more mature state of exploitation. However, capitalism tends to incorporate a certain "way of thinking," driven by greed, the search for ever increasing profits, worldwide expansion, and internal development. Starting from the earliest origins of capitalism, only societies with the capabilities and the appropriate mindset could flourish amidst this period of economic, social, and religious dispersion.

The earliest form of capitalism is seen in feudalism, the political and economic system based on the relation of lord to vassal held on conditions of homage and service. Feudalism was characterized by a surplus of agriculture and monopolistic rights, as only the members of town guilds could practice certain trades. Essentially, monopolistic redistribution of the product of society has been the essence of capitalism from the beginning, which originated from Feudalism.

However, capitalism evolved into a complex European system that soon spread around the globe and involved many aspects: the accumulation of capital, increased productivity, wage labor, mass-trade in necessities, individualist thinking, and the large-scale goal to produce wealth and develop the national economy. Capitalism, as a system, was unique not in the fact that it used capital, but that for the first time in history it used capital as the sole reason for society -- profit.

In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production -- antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence - but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation (Marx, CM).

Modern capitalism first arose in Western Europe. Many factors led to the rise of capitalism. Technological advancements led to demographic and economic advancements. Christianity's humanitarian ethics promoted manual labor, which helped provide the necessary productivity for a surplus. A dramatic population increase struck many areas, particularly western European, between the 10th and 14th centuries. This population increase demanded a greater food supply, bigger towns, and more necessities. Cities grew and banded together; subsequently merchants gained power and formed guilds. The Industrial Revolution, a spark of technological advancements to benefit industrial production, communication, and transportation, was the single most important cause of the West's transformation and expansion in the nineteenth century. The Industrial Revolution provided economic incentive exploiting both human and natural resources, within Europe and then as the need grew, through Colonial empires. England was the first country to industrialize, due to England's abundant labor supply, secularization of technology and religion, strong domestic and overseas markets, large supply of capital, sound banking system, good transportation, rich coal deposits, stable government, politically supported merchant class, and array of inventions that transformed a number of industries.

Many different views abound on the origins of modern capitalism, causalities that range from economic to political, from religious to cultural, or for some, an amalgamation of societies need to expand and the resources necessary to fuel that expansion. Max Weber's the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is a study of the relationship between the ethics of ascetic Protestantism and the emergence of the spirit of modern capitalism. An ascetic Protestant is one who practices self-denial and self-discipline. Weber argues that the religious ideas of groups such as the Calvinists played a role in creating the capitalistic spirit. Calvinism focused on predestination and God's infinite power, a hierarchical system that transcended religion and moved into economic and social activities.

This is true not only in cases where the difference in religion coincides with one of nationality, and thus of cultural development . . . . The same thing is shown in the figures of religious affiliation almost wherever capitalism, at the time of its great expansion, has had a free hand to alter the social distribution of the population in accordance with its needs, and to determine its occupational structure. The more freedom it has had, the more clearly is the effect shown. It is true that the greater relative participation of Protestants in the ownership of capital, in management, and the upper ranks of labour in great modern industrial and commercial enterprises, may in part be explained in terms of historical circumstances which extend far back into the past, and in which religious affiliation is not a cause of the economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of them (Weber, PE, I).

For Weber, though it is interesting to note that he turns to a rather modern "liberal," Benjamin Franklin, to establish the basis of a true definition of capitalism. To demonstrate the meaning of the spirit of capitalism, Weber includes a long writing from Benjamin Franklin. He says that Franklin's attitudes illustrate capitalism's ethos. Franklin writes that time is money, that credit is money, and that money can beget money. He encourages people to pay all of their debts on time, because it encourages the confidence of others. He also encourages people to present themselves as industrious and trustworthy at all times. This is the spirit of modern capitalism. Weber argues that in order for a manner of life so conducive to capitalism to become dominant, it had to originate somewhere, as a way of life common to a large number of people. It is this origin that must be explained. Capitalism cannot then simply be a necessary step in the world's development, because in order for it to emerge, particular values must be present.

Religion, then, can be seen as a hierarchical outline of capitalistic structure. Weber speaks of "the Protestant Ethic" as being a work ethic in which followers of this religion incorporated their religious ideals and values into their own economic lives. The way they ran their business and their attitudes towards gaining wealth and how they would spend it was all derived from the way their religion showed them how to live all aspects of their life. On top of the work ethic there was another quality that Protestants felt to be necessary to be living life the correct way and that was individualism. This individualistic attitude can be understood to create a competitive mindset for those in business. Weber's study has produced thoughts about how we see religion. Weber does not limit religion and its importance strictly to worship, but also how it affected society and the people's roles in acting upon their beliefs. For Weber, religion also has another function -- organizing society into segments more conducive to economic control.

Comparison of the explanation of religion for Marx and Durkheim -- for Marx, religion is an expression of a hierarchy of the ruling classes that tends to focus material realities and economic injustice, thus causing societal problems by perpetuating class structure. However, religion is not the disease, it is the symptom used by the bourgeoisie to make the proletariat feel better about all that they experience in the earthly plane by promising them something more comfortable and fruitful in the spiritual afterlife. This view is the origin of Marx's comment that religion is the "opiate of the masses," in that it both numbs and comforts them, but in a perpetual state of falsehoods and confusion. and, an opiate does not solve the problem, it only masks the symptoms -- one forgets their pain and suffering, but only if one is masking pain while working to solve the cause of that pain. Instead, capitalist extremes push religion, instead, Marx notes: "Let us liberate them from these chimeras, let us revolt against the rule of thought. These innocent childlike fancies are the kernel of the Young-Hegelian philosophy which the present publication aims to uncloak, to show how their bleating merely imitates the conceptions of the German middle class" (Marx, GI, preface).

Religion, though, is an institution and part of the social structure of society at large. It is, according to Marx, only dependent upon economic realities of the individual culture, so much so that the trappings and belief systems are almost irrelevant. This functionalist approach to religion sees it as an illusion that is in place to keep society functioning at the status quo. For instance, Marx believed that capitalism takes labor and alienates the worker from the value of that labor -- so too, religion take human actualization and ideals and alienates the individual from that as well, projecting them into something unknown and yet all powerful -- God. Marx's primary reasons for finding religion to be a social injustice are:

Religion is a delusion -- it pressures the individual to worship appearances rather than reality.

Religion negates humanity -- it forces the hierarchy onto the individual by preaching that it is good to be servile and accepting of the status quo.

Religion is hypocritical -- it professes valuable and positive philosophical principles, but sides with the oppressor class.

Durkheim, as the developer of sociology as a serious discipline, was of course a champion of social relationships and institutions and their own interrelationships. Because religion is a social institution, Durkheim wrote that "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden" (Durkheim, EF). Durkheim's focus was on the caption of the "sacred" and the way that it relates to the welfare and benefit of society. Like Marx, Durkheim believes that religion is symbolic of social realities -- meaning without this mirror based on society, religion would then have no meaning. Marx thought that religion was reflective of the real universe -- Durkheim argues that it was dependent upon social institutions, Marx economics. Of course, for Marx, all human institutions are interdependent upon economics. Thus, Durkheim's overall view of the unified system called religion relates to the sacred (e.g. forbidden or mysterious things), united to a single moral authority (the Church), to reflect societal control and evoke and maintain a similar status quo and power hierarchy.