hapter 4 ntroducing western sociologists

66 UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY

CHAPTER 4

INTRODUCING WESTERN SOCIOLOGISTS

Sociology is sometimes called the childof the ‘age of revolution’. This is becauseit was born in 19th century WesternEurope, after revolutionary changes inthe preceding three centuries thatdecisively changed the way people lived.Three revolutions paved the way for theemergence of sociology: theEnlightenment, or the scientificrevolution; the French Revolution; andthe Industrial Revolution. Theseprocesses completely transformed notonly European society, but also the restof the world as it came into contact withEurope.

In this chapter the key ideas ofthree sociological thinkers: KarlMarx, Emile Durkheim and MaxWeber will be discussed. As part ofthe classical tradition of sociology,they laid the foundation of thesubject. Their ideas and insightshave remained relevant even in thecontemporary period. Of course,these ideas have also been subjectedto criticism and have undergonemajor modifications. But since ideasabout society are themselvesinfluenced by social conditions, we

begin with a few words about thecontext in which sociology emerged.

THE CONTEXT OF SOCIOLOGY

The modern era in Europe and theconditions of modernity that we takefor granted today were brought aboutby three major processes. These were:the Enlightenment or dawning of the‘age of reason’; the quest for politicalsovereignty embodied in the FrenchRevolution; and the system of massmanufacture inaugurated by theIndustrial Revolution. Since thesehave been discussed at length inChapter 1 of Introducing Sociology,here we will only mention some of theintellectual consequences of thesemomentous changes.

Activity 1

Revisit the discussion of the comingof the modern age in Europe inChapter 1 of Introducing Sociology.What sorts of changes were thesethree processes associated with?

2019-20

67INTRODUCING WESTERN SOCIOLOGISTS

The Enlightenment

During the late 17th and 18thcenturies, Western Europe saw theemergence of radically new ways ofthinking about the world. Refered toas ‘The Enlightenment’, these newphilosophies established the humanbeing at the centre of the universe, andrational thought as the central featureof the human being. The ability tothink rationally and criticallytransformed the individual humanbeing into both the producer and theuser of all knowledge, the ‘knowingsubject’. On the other hand, onlypersons who could think and reasoncould be considered as fully human.Those who could not remaineddeficient as human beings and wereconsidered as not fully evolvedhumans, as in the case of the nativesof primitive societies or ‘savages’.Being the handiwork of humans,society was amenable to rationalanalysis and thus comprehensible toother humans. For reason to becomethe defining feature of the humanworld, it was necessary to displacenature, religion and the divine acts ofgods from the central position theyhad in earlier ways of understandingthe world. This means that theEnlightenment was made possible by,and in turn helped to develop,attitudes of mind that we refer to todayas secular, scientific and humanistic.

The French Revolution

The French Revolution (1789)announced the arrival of political

sovereignty at the level of individualsas well as nation-states. TheDeclaration of Human Rightsasserted the equality of all citizensand questioned the legitimacy ofprivileges inherited by birth. Itsignaled the emancipation of theindividual from the oppressive rule ofthe religious and feudal institutionsthat dominated France before theRevolution. The peasants, most ofwhom were serfs (or bondedlabourers) tied to landed estatesowned by members of the aristocracy,were freed of their bonds. Thenumerous taxes paid by the peasantsto the feudal lords and to the churchwere cancelled. As free citizens of therepublic, sovereign individuals wereinvested with rights and were equalbefore the law and other institutionsof the state. The state had to respectthe privacy of the autonomousindividual and its laws could notintrude upon the domestic life of thepeople. A separation was builtbetween the public realm of the stateand a private realm of the household.New ideas about what wasappropriate to the public and privatespheres developed. For example,religion and the family became more‘private’ while education (speciallyschooling) became more ‘public’.Moreover, the nation-state itself wasalso redefined as a sovereign entitywith a centralised government. Theideals of the French Revolution —liberty, equality and fraternity —became the watchwords of themodern state.

2019-20


The Industrial Revolution

The foundations of modern industrywere laid by the IndustrialRevolution, which began in Britainin the late 18th and early 19thcenturies. It had two major aspects.The f irst was the systematicapplication of science and technologyto industrial production, particularlythe invention of new machines andthe harnessing of new sources ofpower. Secondly, the industrialrevolution also evolved new ways oforganising labour and markets on ascale larger than anything in thepast. New machines l ike theSpinning Jenny (which greatlyincreased the productivity of thetextile industry) and new methods ofobtaining power (such as the variousversions of the steam engine)facilitated the production processand gave rise to the factory systemand mass manufacture of goods.These goods were now produced ona gigantic scale for distant marketsacross the world. The raw materialsused in their production were alsoobtained from all over the world.Modern large scale industry thusbecame a world wide phenomenon.

These changes in the productionsystem also resulted in major changesin social life. The factories set up inurban areas were manned by workerswho were uprooted from the ruralareas and came to the cities in searchof work. Low wages at the factory

meant that men, women and evenchildren had to work long hours inhazardous circumstances to eke outa living. Modern industry enabled theurban to dominate over the rural.Cities and towns became thedominant forms of humansettlement, housing large andunequal populations in small,densely populated urban areas. Therich and powerful lived in the cities,but so did the working classes wholived in slums amidst poverty andsqualor. Modern forms of governance,with the state assuming control ofhealth, sanitation, crime control andgeneral ‘development’ created thedemand for new kinds of knowledge.The social sciences and particularlysociology emerged partly as aresponse to this need.

From the outset sociologicalthought was concerned with thescientific analysis of developments inindustrial society. This has promptedobservers to argue that sociology wasthe ‘science of the new industrialsociety’. Empirically informedscientific discussion about trends insocial behaviour only becamepossible with the advent of modernindustrial society. The scientificinformation generated by the state tomonitor and maintain the health ofits social body became the basis forreflection on society. Sociologicaltheory was the result of this self-reflection.

2019-20


he engaged in a critical analysis ofcapitalist society to expose itsweaknesses and bring about itsdownfall. Marx argued that humansociety had progressed throughdifferent stages. These were: primitivecommunism, slavery, feudalism andcapitalism. Capitalism was the latestphase of human advancement, butMarx believed that it would give wayto socialism.

Karl Marx was from Germany butspent most of his intellectuallyproductive years in exile in Britain.His radical political views led him tobe exiled from Germany, France andAustria. Though Marx had studiedphilosophy he was not a philosopher.He was a social thinker who advocatedan end to oppression and exploitation.He believed that scientific socialismwould achieve this goal. To that end

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Biography

Karl Marx was born on 5 May 1818 in Trier, part ofthe Rhineland province of Prussia in Germany. Sonof a prosperous liberal lawyer.

1834-36: Studied law at the University of Bonn andthen at the University of Berlin, where hewas much influenced by the YoungHegelians.

1841: Completed his doctoral thesis inphilosophy from the University of Jena.

1843: Married Jenny von Westphalen and movedto Paris.

1844: Met Friedrich Engels in Paris, who became a lifelong friend.

1847: Invited by the International Working Men’s Association to prepare adocument spelling out its aims and objectives. This was written jointlyby Marx and Engels and published as the Manifesto of the Communist

Party (1948)

1849: Exiled to England and lived there till his death.

1852: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (published).

1859: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (published).

1867: Capital, Vol. I, published.

1881: Death of Jenny von Westphalen.

1883: Marx dies and is buried in London’s Highgate Cemetery.

2019-20


Capitalist society was marked byan ever intensifying process ofalienation operating at several levels.First, modern capitalist society is onewhere humans are more alienatedfrom nature than ever before; second,human beings are alienated from eachother as capitalism individualisespreviously collective forms of socialorganisation, and as relationships getmore and more market-mediated.Third, the large mass of workingpeople is alienated from the fruits ofits labour because workers do not ownthe products they produce. Moreover,workers have no control over the workprocess itself — unlike in the dayswhen skilled craftsmen controlledtheir own labour, today the content ofthe factory worker’s working day isdecided by the management. Finally,as the combined result of all thesealienations, human beings are alsoalienated from themselves andstruggle to make their lives meaningfulin a system where they are both morefree but also more alienated and lessin control of their lives than before.

However, even though it was anexploitative and oppressive system,Marx believed that capitalism wasnevertheless a necessary andprogressive stage of human historybecause it created the preconditionsfor an egalitarian future free from bothexploitation and poverty. Capitalistsociety would be transformed by itsvictims, i.e. the working class, whowould unite to collectively bring abouta revolution to overthrow it andestablish a free and equal socialist

society. In order to understand theworking of capitalism, Marx undertookan elaborate study of its political,social and specially its economicaspects.

Marx’s conception of the economywas based on the notion of a mode ofproduction, which stood for a broadsystem of production associated withan epoch or historical period. Primitivecommunism, slavery, feudalism andcapitalism were all modes ofproduction. At this general level, themode of production defines an entireway of life characteristic of an era. Ata more specific level, we can think ofthe mode of production as beingsomething like a building in the sensethat it consists of a foundation or base,and a superstructure or somethingerected on top of the base. The base —or economic base — is primarilyeconomic and includes the productiveforces and production relations.Productive forces refer to all the meansor factors of production such as land,labour, technology, sources of energy(such as electricity, coal, petroleum andso on). Production relations refer toall the economic relationships andforms of labour organisation which areinvolved in production. Productionrelations are also property relations, orrelationships based on the ownershipor control of the means of production.

For example, in the mode ofproduction called primitivecommunism, the productive forcesconsisted mostly of nature — forests,land, animals and so on — along withvery rudimentary forms of technology

2019-20


like simple stone tools and huntingweapons. Production relations werebased on community property (sinceindividual private property did not yetexist) and included tribal forms ofhunting or gathering which were theprevalent forms of labourorganisation.

The economic base thus consistedof productive forces and relations ofproduction. On this base rested allthe social, cultural and politicalinstitutions of society. Thus,institutions like religion, art, law,literature or different forms of beliefsand ideas were all part of the‘superstructure’ which was built ontop of the base. Marx argued thatpeople’s ideas and beliefs originatedfrom the economic system of whichthey were part. How human beingsearned their livelyhood determinedhow they thought — material lifeshaped ideas, ideas did not shapematerial life. This argument wentagainst the dominant ways of thinkingin Marx’s time, when it was commonto argue that human beings were freeto think whatever they wanted andthat ideas shaped the world.

Marx placed great emphasis oneconomic structures and processesbecause he believed that they formedthe foundations of every social systemthroughout human history. If weunderstand how the economy worksand how it has been changing in thepast, he argued, we can learn how tochange society in the future. But howcan such change be brought about?Marx’s answer: through class struggle.

CLASS STRUGGLE

For Marx, the most important methodof classifying people into social groupswas with reference to the productionprocess, rather than religion, language,nationality or similar identities. Heargued that people who occupy thesame position in the social productionprocess will eventually form a class. Byvirtue of their location in theproduction process and in propertyrelations, they share the same interestsand objectives, even though they maynot recognise this immediately.Classes are formed through historicalprocesses, which are in turn shapedby transformations in the conditionsand forces of production, andconsequent conflicts between alreadyexisting classes. As the mode ofproduction — that is, the productiontechnology and the social relations ofproduction — changes, conflictsdevelop between different classes whichresult in struggles. For example, thecapitalist mode of production creates theworking class, which is a new urban,property-less group created by thedestruction of the feudal agriculturalsystem. Serfs and small peasants werethrown off their lands and deprived oftheir earlier sources of livelyhood. Theythen congregated in cities looking forways to survive, and the pressure of thelaws and police forced them to work inthe newly built factories. Thus a largenew social group was created consistingof property-less people who were forcedto work for their living. This sharedlocation within the production processmakes workers into a class.

2019-20


Marx was a proponent of classstruggle. He believed that classstruggle was the major driving forceof change in society. In The Communist

Manifesto (which was also aprogramme of action), Marx andEngels presented their views in a clearand concise manner. Its opening linesdeclare, ‘The history of all hithertoexisting societies is the history of classstruggle’. They went on to trace thecourse of human history anddescribed how the nature of the classstruggle varied in different historicalepochs. As society evolved from theprimitive to the modern throughdistinct phases, each characterised byparticular kinds of conflict between theoppressor and oppressed classes.Marx and Engels wrote, ‘Freeman andslave, patrician and plebeian, lord andserf, guild master and journeyman, ina word, oppressor and oppressed,stood in constant opposition to oneanother, carried out an uninterrupted,

now hidden, now open fight’. Themajor opposing classes of each stagewere identified from the contradictionsof the production process. Incapitalism the bourgeoisie (orcapitalists) owned all the means ofproduction, (such as investible capital,existing factories and machinery, landand so on). On the other hand, theworking class lost all the means ofproduction that it owned (or hadaccess to) in the past. Thus, in thecapitalist social system, workers hadno choice but to sell their labour forwages in order to survive, because theyhad nothing else.

Even when two classes areobjectively opposed to each other, theydo not automatically engage inconflict. For conflict to occur it isnecessary for them to becomesubjectively conscious of their classinterests and identities, and thereforealso of their rivals’ interests andidentities. It is only after this kind of

Activity 2

Although it is also called a ‘class’, does the group formed by you and your classmatesform a class in the marxian sense? What arguments can you give in favour andagainst this view? Do factory workers and agricultural workers belong to the sameclass? What about workers and managers working in the same factory — do theyboth belong to the same class? Does a rich industrialist or factory owner wholives in the city and owns no agricultural land belong to the same class as a pooragricultural labourer who lives in the village and owns no land? What about alandlord who owns a lot of land and a small peasant who owns a small piece ofland — do they belong to the same class if they live in the same village and areboth landowners?

Think carefully about the reasons for your responses to these examples.[Suggestion: Try to imagine what interests the people mentioned in these examplesmay have in common; think of the position they occupy in the larger social system,particularly in relation to the production process.]

2019-20


Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

Emile Durkheim was born on April 15, 1858 in Epinal in theLorraine region of France on the German border. He was froman orthodox Jewish family; his father, grandfather and greatgrandfather were all rabbis or Jewish priests. Emile too wasinitially sent to a school for training rabbis.

1876: Enters the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris to studyphilosophy.

1887: Appointed lecturer in social sciences and educationat the University of Bordeaux.

1893: Publishes Division of Labour in Society, his doctoraldissertation.

1895: Publishes Rules of Sociological Method.

1897: Founds Anee Sociologique,the first social science journal in France; andpublishes his famous study, Suicide.

1902: Joins the University of Paris as the Chair of Education. Later in 1913 theChair was renamed Education and Sociology.

1912: Publishes The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.

1917: Dies at the age of 59, heartbroken by the death of his son, Andre in WorldWar I.

‘class consciousness’ is developedthrough political mobilisation thatclass conflicts occur. Such conflictscan lead to the overthrow of adominant or ruling class (or coalitionof classes) by the previouslydominated or subordinated classes —this is called a revolution. In Marx’stheory, economic processes createdcontradictions which in turngenerated class conflict. But economicprocesses did not automatically leadto revolution — social and politicalprocesses were also needed to bringabout a total transformation of society.

The presence of ideology is onereason why the relationship betweeneconomic and socio-political processesbecomes complicated. In every epoch,the ruling classes promote a dominantideology. This dominant ideology, or

way of seeing the world, tends to justifythe domination of the ruling class andthe existing social order. For example,dominant ideologies may encouragepoor people to believe that they are poornot because they are exploited by therich but because of ‘fate’, or because ofbad deeds in a previous life, and so on.However, dominant ideologies are notalways successful, and they can also bechallenged by alternative worldviews orrival ideologies. As consciousnessspreads unevenly among classes, howa class will act in a particular historicalsituation cannot be pre-determined.Hence, according to Marx, economicprocesses generally tend to generateclass conflicts, though this also dependson political and social conditions. Givenfavourable conditions, class conflictsculminate in revolutions.

2019-20


Emile Durkheim may be consideredas the founder of sociology as a formaldiscipline as he was the first to becomea Professor of Sociology in Paris in1913. Born into an orthodox Jewishfamily, Durkheim was sent to arabbinical school (a Jewish religiousschool) for his early education. By thetime he entered the Ecole NormaleSuperieure in 1876 he broke with hisreligious orientation and declaredhimself an agnostic. However, hismoral upbringing had an enduringinfluence on his sociological thinking.The moral codes were the keycharacteristics of a society thatdetermined the behaviour patterns ofindividuals. Coming from a religiousfamily, Durkheim cherished the ideaof developing a secular understandingof religion. It was in his last book, The

Elementary Forms of Religious Life thathe was finally able to fulfil this wish.

Society was for Durkheim a socialfact which existed as a moralcommunity over and above theindividual. The ties that bound peoplein groups were crucial to the existenceof society. These ties or socialsolidarities exerted pressure onindividuals to conform to the normsand expectations of the group. Thisconstrained the individual’s behaviourpattern, limiting variation within asmall range. Constriction of choice insocial action meant that behaviourcould now be predicted as it followeda pattern. So by observing behaviourpatterns it was possible to identify thenorms, codes and social solidaritieswhich governed them. Thus, the

existence of otherwise ‘invisible’ thingslike ideas, norms, values and so oncould be empirically verified bystudying the patterns of socialbehaviour of people as they related toeach other in a society.

For Durkheim the social was to befound in the codes of conduct imposedon individuals by collective agreement.It was evident in the practices ofeveryday life. The scientificunderstanding of society thatDurkheim sought to develop wasbased on the recognition of moralfacts. He wrote, ‘Moral facts arephenomena like others; they consistof rules of action recognizable bycertain distinctive characteristics, itmust then be possible to observethem, describe them, classify themand look for certain laws explainingthem’ (Durkheim 1964: 32). Moralcodes were manifestations ofparticular social conditions. Hencethe morality appropriate for onesociety was inappropriate for another.So for Durkheim, the prevailing socialconditions could be deduced from themoral codes. This made sociology akinto the natural sciences and was inkeeping with his larger objective of

establishing sociology as a rigorousscientific discipline.

DURKHEIM’S VISION OF SOCIOLOGY

Durkheim’s vision of sociology as anew scientific discipline wascharacterised by two definingfeatures. First, the subject matter ofsociology — the study of social facts— was dif ferent from the other

2019-20


sciences. Sociology concerned itselfexclusively with what he called the‘emergent’ level, that is, the level ofcomplex collective life where socialphenomena can emerge. Thesephenomena — for example, socialinstitutions like religion or the family,or social values like friendship orpatriotism etc. — were only possiblein a complex whole that was largerthan (and dif ferent from) itsconstituent parts. Although it iscomposed entirely of individuals, acollective social entity like a footballor cricket team becomes somethingother than and much more than justa collection of eleven persons. Socialentities like teams, political parties,street gangs, religious communities,nations and so on belong to a differentlevel of reality than the level ofindividuals. It is this ‘emergent’ levelthat sociology studies.

The second defining feature ofDurkheim’s vision of sociology was that,like most of the natural sciences, it wasto be an empirical discipline. This wasactually a difficult claim to makebecause social phenomena are by theirvery nature abstract. We cannot ‘see’ acollective entity like the Jaincommunity, or the Bengali (orMalayalam or Marathi) speakingcommunity, or the Nepalese or Egyptiannational communities. At least, wecannot see them in the samestraightforward way that we can see atree or a boy or a cloud. Even when thesocial phenomenon is small — like afamily or a theatre group — we candirectly see only the individuals who

make up the collectivity; we cannot seethe collectivity itself. One of Durkheim’smost significant achievements is hisdemonstration that sociology, adiscipline that dealt with abstractentities like social facts, couldnevertheless be a science founded onobservable, empirically verifiableevidence. Although not directlyobservable, social facts were indirectlyobservable through patterns ofbehaviour. The most famous exampleof his use of a new kind of empiricaldata is in his study of Suicide. Althougheach individual case of suicide wasspecific to the individual and his/hercircumstances, the average rate ofsuicide aggregated across hundreds ofthousands of individuals in acommunity was a social fact. Thus,social facts could be observed via socialbehaviour, and specially aggregatedpatterns of social behaviour.

So what are ‘social facts’? Socialfacts are like things. They are externalto the individual but constrain theirbehaviour. Institutions like law,education and religion constitutesocial facts. Social facts are collectiverepresentations which emerge fromthe association of people. They are notparticular to a person but of a generalnature, independent of the individual.Attributes like beliefs, feelings orcollective practices are examples.

Division of Labour in Society

In his first book, Division of Labour in

Society, Durkheim demonstrated hismethod of analysis to explain theevolution of society from the primitive

2019-20


to the modern. He classified a societyby the nature of social solidarity whichexisted in that society. He argued thatwhile a primitive society was organisedaccording to ‘mechanical’ solidarity,modern society was based on ‘organic’solidarity. Mechanical solidarity isfounded on the similarity of itsindividual members and is found insocieties with small populations. Ittypically involves a collection of differentself-sufficient groups where each personwithin a particular group is engaged insimilar activities or functions. As thesolidarity or ties between people arebased on similarity and personalrelationships, such societies are not verytolerant of differences and any violationof the norms of the community attractsharsh punishment. In other words,mechanical solidarity based societieshave repressive laws designed to preventdeviation from community norms. Thiswas because the individual and thecommunity were so tightly integratedthat it was feared that any violation ofcodes of conduct could result in thedisintegration of the community.

Organic solidarity characterisesmodern society and is based on theheterogeneity of its members. It isfound in societies with largepopulations, where most socialrelationships necessarily have to beimpersonal. Such a society is basedon institutions, and each of itsconstituent groups or units is not self-sufficient but dependent on otherunits/groups for their survival.Interdependence is the essence oforganic solidarity. It celebrates

individuals and allows for their needto be different from each other, andrecognises their multiple roles andorganic ties. The laws of modernsociety are ‘restitutive’ in nature ratherthan ‘repressive’. This means that inmodern societies, the law aims torepair or correct the wrong that is doneby a criminal act. By contrast, inprimitive societies the law sought topunish wrong doers and enforced asort of collective revenge for their acts.In modern society the individual wasgiven some autonomy, whereas inprimitive societies the individual wastotally submerged in the collectivity.

A characteristic feature of modernsocieties is that individuals withsimilar goals come together voluntarilyto form groups and associations. Asthese are groups oriented towardsspecific goals, they remain distinctfrom each other and do not seek totake over the entire life of its members.Thus, individuals have many differentidentities in different contexts. Thisenables individuals to emerge from theshadow of the community andestablish their distinct identity interms of the functions they performand the roles they play. Since allindividuals have to depend on othersfor the fulfilment of their basic needslike food, clothing, shelter andeducation, their intensity ofinteraction with others increases.Impersonal rules and regulations arerequired to govern social relations insuch societies because personalisedrelations can no longer be maintainedin a large population.

2019-20


The Division of Labour in Society

provides a good preview ofDurkheim’s enduring concerns. Hisef fort to create a new scientificdiscipline with a distinct subjectwhich can be empirically validated isclearly manifested in the way he

discusses the different types of socialsolidarity as social facts. His objectiveand secular analysis of the social tieswhich underlie different types ofsociety laid the foundation ofsociology as the new science ofsociety.

Max Weber (1864-1920)

Max Weber was born on 21 April, 1864 in Erfurt,Germany into a Prussian family. His father was amagistrate and a politician who was an ardentmonarchist and follower of Bismarck. His mother wasfrom a distinguished liberal family from Heidelberg.

1882: Went to Heidelberg to study law.

1884-84: Studied at the universities of Gottingenand Berlin.

1889: Submitted his doctoral dissertation on AContribution to the History of Medieval

Business Organisations.

1891: Submitted his habilitation thesis (entitlinghim to be a teacher) on Roman Agrarian

History and the Significance for Public and

Private Law.

1893: Married Marianne Schnitger.

1894-96: Appointed Professor of Economics first at Freiburg, and then Heidelberg.

1897-1901: Has a nervous breakdown and falls ill; unable to work, travels to Rome.

1901: Weber resumes scholarly work.

1903: Became the Associate Editor of the journal Archives for Social Science

and Social Welfare.

1904: Travels to the USA. Publishes The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism.

1918: Takes up a specially created chair in Sociology at Vienna.

1919: Appointed Professor of Economics at the University of Munich.

1920: Weber dies.Almost all of his major works which made him famous were translatedand published in book form only after his death. These include: The

Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930), From Max Weber:

Essays in Sociology (1946), Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social

Sciences (1949), The Religion of India (1958) and Economy and Society

(3 vols, 1968).

2019-20


Activity 3

Try to compare what Durkheim and Marx say about the social division of labour.They both agree that as society evolves, the social organisation of productiongrows more complex, the division of labour becomes more detailed, and this createsunavoidable interdependencies among different social groups. But where Durkheimemphasises solidarity, Marx emphasises conflict. What do you think about this?

Can you think of reasons why Marx may be wrong about modern society? Forexample, can you think of situations or examples where people are joining togetherto form groups or collectivities despite being from different class backgroundsand having conflicting interests? What counter arguments could you give topersuade someone that Marx may still have a point?

Can you think of reasons why Durkheim may be wrong about modern societygiving more freedom to the individual? For example, isn’t it true that the spreadof mass communication (specially through television) has tended to standardisepopular fashion in things like clothes or music? Today, young people in differentsocial groups, different countries, states or regions are now more likely to belistening to the same music, or wearing the same kind of clothes than ever before.Does this make Durkheim wrong? What could be the arguments for and againstin this context?

Remember, sociology is not like mathematics where there is usually only oneright answer. In anything to do with society and human beings, it is possible thatthere are many right answers, or that an answer is right in one context but wrongin another, or that it is partly right and partly wrong, and so on. In other words,the social world is very complex, and it changes from time to time and from placeto place. This makes it all the more important to learn how to think carefullyabout the reasons why a particular answer may be right or wrong in a particularcontext.

Max Weber was one of the leadingGerman social thinkers of his time.Despite long periods of physical and

mental ill health, he has left a richlegacy of sociological writing. He wroteextensively on many subjects but

focused on developing an interpretivesociology of social action and of powerand domination. Another major

concern of Weber was the process ofrationalisation in modern society andthe relationship of the various

religions of the world with this process.

Max Weber and Interpretive Sociology

Weber argued that the overall objectiveof the social sciences was to developan ‘interpretive understanding of socialaction’. These sciences were thus verydifferent from the natural sciences,which aimed to discover the objective‘laws of nature’ governing the physicalworld. Since the central concern of thesocial sciences was with social actionand since human actions necessarilyinvolved subjective meanings, themethods of enquiry of social science

2019-20


also had to be different from themethods of natural science. For Weber,‘social action’ included all humanbehaviour that was meaningful, thatis, action to which actors attached ameaning. In studying social action thesociologist’s task was to recover themeanings attributed by the actor. Toaccomplish this task the sociologisthad to put themselves in the actor’splace, and imagine what thesemeanings were or could have been.Sociology was thus a systematic formof ‘empathetic understanding’, that is,an understanding based not on‘feeling for’ (sympathy) but ‘feelingwith’ (empathy). The empathic (orempathetic) understanding whichsociologists derive from this exerciseenables them to access the subjectivemeanings and motivations of socialactors.

Weber was among the first todiscuss the special and complex kindof ‘objectivity’ that the social scienceshad to cultivate. The social world wasfounded on subjective humanmeanings, values, feelings, prejudices,ideals and so on. In studying thisworld, the social sciences inevitablyhad to deal with these subjectivemeanings. In order to capture thesemeanings and describe themaccurately, social scientists had toconstantly practise ‘empatheticunderstanding’ by putting themselves(imaginatively) in the place of thepeople whose actions they werestudying. But this investigation hadto be done objectively even though itwas concerned with subjective matters.

Thus, ‘empathetic understanding’required the sociologist to faithfullyrecord the subjective meanings andmotivations of social actors withoutallowing his/her own personal beliefsand opinions to influence this processin any way. In other words, sociologistswere meant to describe, not judge, thesubjective feelings of others. Webercalled this kind of objectivity ‘valueneutrality’. The sociologist mustneutrally record subjective valueswithout being affected by her/his ownfeelings/opinions about these values.Weber recognised that this was verydifficult to do because social scientistswere also members of society andalways had their own subjectivebeliefs and prejudices. However, theyhad to practise great self-discipline —exercise an ‘iron will’ as he puts it —in order to remain ‘value neutral’ whendescribing the values and worldviewsof others.

Apart from empathetic under-standing, Weber also suggestedanother methodological tool for doingsociology — the ‘ideal type’. An idealtype is a logically consistent model of asocial phenomenon that highlights itsmost significant characteristics. Beinga conceptual tool designed to helpanalysis, it is not meant to be an exactreproduction of reality. Ideal typesmay exaggerate some features ofphenomenon that are considered to beanalytically important, and ignore ordownplay others. Obviously an idealtype should correspond to reality in abroad sense, but its main job is toassist analysis by bringing out

2019-20


important features and connections ofthe social phenomenon being studied.An ideal type is to be judged by howhelpful it is for analysis andunderstanding, not by how accurate ordetailed a description it provides.

The ideal type was used by Weberto analyse the relationship betweenthe ethics of ‘world religions’ and therationalisation of the social world indifferent civilisations. It was in thiscontext that Weber suggested thatethics of certain Protestant sectswithin Christianity had a deepinfluence on the development ofcapitalism in Europe.

Weber again used the ideal type toillustrate the three types of authoritythat he defined as traditional,charismatic and rational-legal. Whilethe source of traditional authority wascustom and precedence, charismaticauthority derived from divine sourcesor the ‘gift of grace’, and rational-legalauthority was based on legaldemarcation of authority. Rational-legal authority which prevailed inmodern times was epitomised in thebureaucracy.

Bureaucracy

It was a mode of organisation whichwas premised on the separation of thepublic from the domestic world. Thismeant that behaviour in the publicdomain was regulated by explicit rulesand regulations. Moreover, as a publicinstitution, bureaucracy restricted thepower of the officials in regard to theirresponsibilities and did not provideabsolute power to them.

Bureaucratic authority ischaracterised by these features:(i) Functioning of Officials;(ii) Hierarchical Ordering of Positions;(iii) Reliance on Written Document(iv) Office Management; and(v) Conduct in Office.(i) Functioning of Officials: Within the

bureaucracy officials have fixedareas of ‘official jurisdiction’governed by rules, laws andadministrative regulations. Theregular activities of thebureaucratic organisation aredistributed in a fixed way as officialduties. Moreover, commands areissued by higher authorities forimplementation by subordinates ina stable way, but the responsibilitiesof officials are strictly delimited bythe authority available to them. Asduties are to be fulfilled on a regularbasis, only those who have therequisite qualifications to performthem are employed. Officialpositions in a bureaucracy areindependent of the incumbent asthey continue beyond the tenure ofany occupant.

(ii) Hierarchical Ordering of Positions:

Authority and office are placed ona graded hierarchy where thehigher officials supervise the lowerones. This allows scope of appealto a higher official in case ofdissatisfaction with the decisionsof lower officials.

(iii) Reliance on Written Document: Themanagement of a bureaucraticorganisation is carried out on thebasis of written documents

2019-20


(the files) which are preserved asrecords. There is cumulation in thedecision making of the ‘bureau’ oroffice. It is also a part of the publicdomain which is separate from theprivate life of the officials.

(iv) Office Management: As officemanagement is a specialised andmodern activity it requires trainedand skilled personnel to conductoperations.

(v) Conduct in Office: As official activitydemands the full time attention ofofficials irrespective of her/hisdelimited hours in office, hence anofficial’s conduct in office isgoverned by exhaustive rules andregulations. These separate her/his public conduct from her/hisbehaviour in the private domain.Also since these rules andregulations have legal recognition,officials can be held accountable.Weber’s characterisation of

bureaucracy as a modern form ofpolitical authority demonstrated howan individual actor was bothrecognised for her/his skills and

training and given responsibilities withthe requisite authority to implementthem. The legal delimitation of tasksand authority constrained unbridledpower and made officials accountableto their clients as the work was carriedout in the public domain.

Activity 4

To what extent do you think thefollowing groups or activities involvethe exercise of bureacratic authorityin Weber’s sense?(a) your class; (b) your school; (c) afootball team; (d) a panchayat samitiin a village; (e) a fan association fora popular film star; (f) a group ofregular commuters on a train or busroute; (g) a joint family; (h) a villagecommunity; (i) the crew of a ship; (j)a criminal gang; (k) the followers ofa religious leader; and (l) an audiencewatching a film in a cinema hall.

Based on your discussions, whichof these groups would you be willingto characterise as ‘bureaucratic’?Remember, you must discuss reasonsboth for as well as against, and listen

to people who disagree with!

GLOSSARY

Alienation: A process in capitalist society by which human beings are separatedand distanced from (or made strangers to) nature, other human beings, theirwork and its product, and their own nature or self.

Enlightenment: A period in 18th century Europe when philosophers rejectedthe supremacy of religious doctrines, established reason as the means to truth,and the human being as the sole bearer of reason.

Social Fact: Aspects of social reality that are related to collective patterns ofbehaviour and beliefs, which are not created by individuals but exert pressureon them and influence their behaviour.

2019-20


Mode of Production: It is a system of material production which persists over along period of time. Each mode of production is distinguished by its means ofproduction (eg: technology and forms of production organisation) and the relationsof production (eg: slavery, serfdom, wage labour).

Office: In the context of bureaucracy a public post or position of impersonal andformal authority with specified powers and responsibilities; the office has aseparate existence independent of the person appointed to it. (This is differentfrom another meaning of the same word which refers to an actual bureaucraticinstitution or to its physical location: eg. post office, panchayat office, PrimeMinister’s office, my mother’s or father’s office, etc.)

EXERCISES

1. Why is the Enlightenment important for the development of sociology?

2. How was the Industrial Revolution responsible for giving rise to sociology?

3. What are the various components of a mode of production?

4. Why do classes come into conflict, according to Marx?

5. What are social facts? How do we recognise them?

6. What is the difference between ‘mechanical’ and ‘organic’ solidarity?

7. Show, with examples, how moral codes are indicators of social solidarity.

8. What are the basic features of bureaucracy?

9. What is special or different about the kind of objectivity needed in social science?

10. Can you identify any ideas or theories which have led to the formation ofsocial movements in India in recent times?

11. Try to find out what Marx and Weber wrote about India.

12. Can you think of reasons why we should study the work of thinkers whodied long ago? What could be some reasons to not study them?

REFERENCES

BENDIX, REINHARD. 1960. Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, Anchor Books,New York.

DURKHEIM, EMILE. 1964. The Division of Labour in Society, (trans. By George Simpson),Macmillan, New York.

IGNOU. 2004. ESO 13-1: Early Sociology, IGNOU, New Delhi.

2019-20

hapter 4 ntroducing western sociologists

Documents