Comparison of Sociologies of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.

(1) Contracting to Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, Max Weber proposes that society is neither driven by social conflict, nor it is sui-generis. Society is made up of actors, those who perform action (Social Action) and accordingly form relationship with each other developing family, kinship, etc. Therefore, Webers sociology is realistic sociology and not idealistic (as that of Marx and Emile Durkheim). (2) The recent decades have witnessed the renaissance of classical tradition is sociologies as fashioned by Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber Post World War-2 the world has witnessed new radical movements both in capitalist and socialist societies and countries that are making transition from agrarian to industrial economy. Therefore sociologists have become more aware of conflict and change in social life. They have turned their attention to social issues that preoccupied the founding fathers of the discipline. (3) Both Durkheim and Max Weber were successful in introducing sociological approach into other social sciences, Eg. in history, law, economics, politics and comparative religion. Both, being classical sociologists, aimed to establish the scope and methods of new disciple and to show its worth. (4) Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim positivists. Max Weber nonpositivist. Despite the differences, both schools have tried to establish causal connections and functional correlations Eg: Emile Durkheims study of Suicide, Max Webers Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism. (5) Max Webers Ideal Type solved one of the biggest problem in sociology. The primary problem faced by sociology is that various concepts are not linked firmly to a particular description or explanation. Eg. What Hegel calls civil society, Marx calls it capitalism; what Hegel calls state, Marx calls it socialism. According to T.B. Bottomore, if Max Webers ideas, esp. his concept of Ideal Type, had been followed in sociology, much of this confusion and aimless discussion could have been prevented. According to Max Weber, all definitions are in part arbitrary and the value of a definition is only determined by its fruitfulness in research. (6) Social Relationship Durkheim has classified Social Relationships on the basis of Solidarity between Mechanical Solidarity and organic solidarity. Max Weber SR are vast, unorganized, chaotic. Based on S.A. (based on subjective meanings. . . . . . .) But he is more concerned about Social Relationships based on political system - he made distinction between Traditional, charismatic and Bureaucrat type of authority. Thus, while Emile Durkheim gave primary important to solidarity in sociology, Max Weber gave important to Social Action. This concept has been celebrated and widely used in contemporary sociology by Talcott Parson, Robert K. Merton and later Sprott.

(7) The contemporary sociology is much less concerned with the construction of all embracing theories than during the time of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. For this development, sociology owes much to Max Weber who considered reality as vast, unorganized, chaotic which cannot be studied entirely .Therefore one should not develop Grand theories (like Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim) but use ideal type to study social phenomena. The recent sociological work has been more descriptive and interpretative. It gives more important. To what R.K. Merton calls theories of middle range. (8) Different between Max Weber and Marxists over modern capitalism and its origin . . . . .(expand) (9) Sociologist like Emile Durkheim were very impressed by the characteristics of new industrial societies in which they lived. This led them to contrast modern societies from all other pre-modern human societies. Thus Emile Durkheim considers organic solidarity superior to mechanical solidarity but such a classification is very inadequate to encompass all varieties of human sociology which exist or have existed. It also contrasts two societies in which collectivity dominates an individual And presents an unalterable situation. Though such a distinction between modern and pre-modern sociology underlines the work of Max Weber. His views are different and more applicable. He celebrates Modernity but does not consider modern society as only rational society. (See Rationality and Rationalization) Nothing is goodbad ; superior inferior. (10) Classification of societies Emile Durkheim i) Simple Sociology (the Horde) ii) Simple Polysegmentary sociology. (Iroquois tribes) iii) Simply compound Polysegmentary Sociology (Iroquois confederation, the three tribes which founded Rome) iv) Doubly compound polysegmentary Sociology (an evolutionary scheme distinguished primarily in terms of scale) (Germanic tribes) But human sociology are complex, no two sociology are same. Therefore according to Max Weber we can at best development Its and no classification can explain all sociology. On similar grounds Max Weber criticizes the division sociology by Karl Max. Therefore Max Weber consider them as Ideal Types and not actual types. These are constructs which do not describe actual sociology. But are instrumental in analysis of actual sociology. (11) Karl Marx denounced capitalism and celebrated socialism and communism. Max Weber feared that socialism nigh result, not in the liberation of man, but in his enslavement to an all powerful bureaucracy. Therefore proposed in his essay Politics and a vocation

(8a) Origin of capitalism debate between Karl Max and Max Weber (in Religious values) (Protestant ethics and spirit of capitalism) In his views on decline of capitalism, Max Weber argues that the decay of capitalism will largely be a consequence of Rejection of Bourgeois values and not economic breakdown (as said by Marx). Max Weber writes The puritan (a member of Protestant Church) wanted work to be his vocation we are forced to want it. Criticizing all positivists, Weber argues that while they glorify the idea of objectivity in sociology, they are greatly driven by value judgment eg :Emile Durkheim considers organic solidarity good and anomie bad. Marx is worried about Capitalism, Commodification of labor, alienation, pauparisation, appropriation of surplus labor, etc. Weber considers then not as sociologists but as social activists and moralists. Max Weber focuses on value neutrality, so that sociology is not reduced to a prescriptive discipline but remains descriptive. Marx studies society as a whole, therefore, passes statements like. History of all hitherto . . . . .struggle. But Max Weber considers reality as vast, unorganized. . . . Therefore it is very dynamic and cant be studied entirely but only in essence. Since reality is dynamic, class antagonism cant exist. Hostile relations today may develop cordial tomorrow and Hostile again day after tomorrow. - Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx Reality is nothing but a product of collectivity. Therefore focus on collectivity). Also collective reality has capability to think, feel and perceive (as a class does, C.C does). - Max Weber focuses on individuality. Collectivity does not have life to think, feel and perceive. Therefore individuals matter more in sociology than collectivity because they determine the behavior of collectivity through their own behavior Eg. differential behavior of different individual Gives rise to the institution of family (a collectivity). Therefore family does not have life of its own with individuals present in it. To study this variety of Individual Behaviors, we cant use any fixed scientific methodology. Therefore he proposed Verstchen. To study complex collectivity, he proposed IT. - Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim accused of moldings facts to fit into the theory. Therefore they propose absolute conflict and absolute integrity respectively in the society. - Max Weber uses Ideal Type so that a theory can be developed which conforms to facts and not the other way round. Therefore Ideal Type collects facts and finds out the level of conflict and integrity in society. - Emile Durkheim takes into consideration social facts. Sociology studies only social facts. Max Weber it is very difficult to distinguish between social facts and CFs. Because. Individuals manifest different behavior for same situation, therefore there is a need to study not only social aspects but also cultural, emotive aspects of the behavior. Hence need to study entire social structure.

CLASS

Max Weber - An Ideal Type, That is different for different societies because different societies have different realities - Studies class as one of the many foundation to inequality in society.

Karl Max - A real type, that is same classes in all societies - Foundation to inequality in sociology.

- While studying rationality and modernity, Weber rejects the approach of Emile Durkheim and Karl Max of celebrating or denouncing modernity. According to Max Weber, reality should be studied with value neutrality using Ideal Type. - Domination Karl Marx wealth is the only source of domination - Max Weber political authority, Bureaucracy as sources. - Karl Marx - Domination of Bourgeoisie is never endorsed by Proletariat. Therefore he takes about illegitimate domination. - But according to Max Weber, Illegitimate domination cannot last for long and soon converts into legitimate domination. - Therefore, while Karl Max considers state as pro-dominant class and anti-poor, according to Max Weber state is indeed a body of armed men and women but domination of state over its citizens is legitimate and not illegitimate. - Bureaucracy Karl Marx overly pessimistic Bureaucracy as hallmark of every class society. It is secretive, seclusive, out of reach of common man, engaged in safeguarding the interests of dominant class. Therefore promotes false consciousness. Max Weber studies bureaucracy with value neutrality (both + positive and negative) using Ideal Type.