Karl Marx And Emile Durkheim

The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were full of evolving social and economic ideas. These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of ideas taken from the past revolutions. As the Industrial Revolution progressed through out the world, so did the gap between the class structures. The development of a capitalist society was a very favorable goal for the upper class. By using advanced methods of production introduced by the Industrial Revolution, they were able to earn a substantial surplus by ruling the middle class. Thus, maintaining their present class of life, while the middle class was exploited and degraded. At this time in history, social theorists like Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx

The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.

Karl Marx and Max Weber were influential sociologists that paved the way for modern sociological school of thought. Both, Karl Marx and Max Weber contributed a lot to the study and foundation of sociology. Without their contributions sociology would not be as prominent as it is today. From the contribution of how sociology should be studied, to how they applied their theories to everyday life has influenced many sociologists. Predominantly, both of these theorists’ discussed the effects of capitalism, how it has developed, shaped and changed society into what it is today. Specifically, Karl Marx’s contribution of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class and Max Weber’s social stratification has helped individuals to understand how modern day society has transformed into what it is today. Particularly, this paper will lie out Weber’s theory of social stratification and Marx’s theory of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class; additionally this essay will also compare and contrast the ideas of these two influential sociologists. Finally this essay will criticize both of these sociologists’ theories and display that Marx and Weber do not explain how modern day society and classes have been formed.

It reinforced the morals and social norms held collectively by all within a society. Society, to Durkheim, was greater than the individual and it gave people strength and support and made things possible and meaningful. The function of religion was to keep society in check, to assist social control, and to provide individual meaning for each individual’s life.

Émile Durkheim and Mircea Eliade have dissimilar understandings of religion. Emile Durkheim did not have an interest in a belief system or the cognitive approach. He dismissed the study of how particular beliefs lead to certain practices and adopted a functionalist approach. He does not acknowledge the belief in God, rather focuses on what religion does within society. He believed that individuals encompassed a more pure form and focused on the essential structure of religion. His theory of totemism developed, which centers around the idea that the subject of religion is to bring people together, and to ultimately result in social cohesion. He metaphorically relates this to when people in a community rally around the totem. Furthermore, making the totem represent the sacred. Durkheim then understands that the totem will eventually develop into a spirit, and ultimately into a ‘God’ or spiritual form. Moreover, connecting a society on a metaphysical level. This concept does not center around a belief system, rather on social cohesion.

Conversely, according to (Turner 23-109), Durkheim points out that religion is part and parcel of the society and that each society has religion. Emile Durkheim’s purpose was to assess the connection between particular religions in various cultures, and finding a common cause. Basically, he wanted to comprehend the three major aspects of religion; that is the empirical together with the social and the spirituality components. His definition of religion is that; it is a joining arrangement of beliefs together with practices in relation to sacred things. According to him, it is religion that establishes the contemporary society as

Compare and contrast the various early European urban theorists as found in Chapter 1 of the course text. (300-400 words)

Karl Marx and John Locke share immediate commonalities. Their philosophies were the foundation of two incredibly influential ideologies: classical liberalism and Marxism. The former had impact in the founding of the United States Constitution and in the rejection of the divine right of kings. To see the impact of the latter one need look no further than the force of Communism in the 20th century. Their ideas in many cases share come common ground, but on most issues are rivals in thought.

Though Karl Marx and Alexis de Tocqueville differ, they both contributed greatly to revolutionary concepts of their era. To better understand the analyses between politics, social, and economic changes Marx and Tocqueville discuss, we must first understand the shift of their time and the need for sociological analysis. The 19th century was a time of change and adaptation for everyone and few scholars were capable and willing to understand the impacts these changes would have on society and its entities. Both industrial and democratic revolutions affected their times and created shifts in society. The industrialization affected many aspects of society. It created a structural change in the economy shifting from agrarian income to industrial and commercial income. Technology impacted labour force and production shifting to large-scale manufacturing creating new types of investments. These changes affected class structure, migration, and workers which in turn affected economy and a shift in politics.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Friedrich Nietzsche are both prominent figures of Modern Political thought even though they lived more than a hundred years apart from each other. Rousseau and Nietzsche tend to differ from each other in terms of their views on what we now call “globalization”.

There was once a time when the societies of the world were nothing more than a ruling class and a class that was ruled. In these feudal societies classes were set. There was little chance for a member of the ruling bourgeoisie class to cross over to the oppressed proletariat class or from the proletariat class to the bourgeoisie class. Every individual within each class had the routine for each day set out for him or her. There was little change in the lives of individuals of these societies. There was monotony in their work and their work did little more for them than keeping them alive. In those societies,

Karl Marx, also a philosopher was popularly known for his theories that best explained society, its social structure, as well as the social relationships. Karl Marx placed so much emphasis on the economic structure and how it influenced the rest of the social structure from a materialistic point of view. Human societies progress through a dialectic of class struggle, this means that the three aspects that make up the dialectic come into play, which are the thesis, antithesis and the synthesis (Avineri, 1980: 66-69). As a result of these, Marx suggests that in order for change to come about, a class struggle has to first take place. That is, the struggle between the proletariat and the capitalist class, the class that controls

When people look at the world, they see it is structured in a specific way. Each perspective varies depending on the person. For instance, when looking at classical theory in sociology, there exists three viewpoints on society. Karl Marx believed the world based on conflict while Weber made sense of it by viewing the meanings. As for Durkheim, he made sense of it through social cohesion. Unlike Marx, whose primary focus was conflict, Durkheim’s writing centered around how people were capable of coexisting harmoniously.

Moreover, Durkheim compares religion to society. He says that society is the cause of the unique sensations of the religious experiences, so called “sui generis” (Ritzer, 84). This concept

Both Karl Marx and Max Weber assert that capitalism is the dominion of abstractions and the irrational accumulation of abstract wealth for the sake of wealth. For Marx, the state of capitalism is entrenched in the social classes to which people have bben assigned. Capitalism, according to Marx, is a result of the bourgeoisie 's ascent to economic and political power. This fuels the manifestation of a system that exploits the labour power of the lower socioeconomic classes for the gain of the higher socioeconomic classes. Weber understands the state of capitalism to be the end product of the work ethic of the Protestant branches of Christianity and the secularization of Protestant puritanism, which helped fuel rationalism. Capitalism, according to Weber, is to be understood as the relations and methods of production and commodities, now rationalized. Ultimately, Marx ascribes the ascent of capitalism to the exploitation of people and power, while stressing that such a system can be overcome by a communist revolution, whereas Weber states that such a system is the result of cultural choices and is not as convinced that capitalism can be overcome.