Marx And Durkheim 's Theory Of Social Inequality

Defining law can be difficult to do since its definition varies among various people. Many people see law as standards for human behavior that reflect the deepest values and morals of the society. Others see law as a game which acts as a set of guidelines for settling disagreements in a nonviolent way. From a sociologist’s perspective law is viewed as a behavioral system with the two aspects of roles/hierarchy and rules/discretion. Not only is law thought of as a behavioral system from a sociologist’s perspective but also as an institution which is a set of directions for doing things. When laws have been disobeyed by a member of society a form of punishment will be determined and it is not always effective. Everyone has their own views on law and punishment which is why I want to look at what theorists Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view as the role and function of law and punishment. Before I can show the weaknesses, similarities and differences between each of their views I will give an overview of their thoughts on the role and function of law and punishment.

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, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have.

People in present society are divided up into different positions in the work force. Durkheim sees society from a structural functionalist perspective and refers to society as a system of different organs, each with a

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) were sociologists who both existed throughout similar time periods of the 19th and early 20th centuries, resulting in both Marx, and Durkheim to be concerned about similar effects and impacts among society (Appelrouth and Edles: 20, 77). Marx’s main focus was on class distinctions among the bourgeoisie and proletariat, forces and relations of production, capital, surplus value, alienation, labour theory of value, exploitation and class consciousness (Appelrouth and Edles: 20). Whereas Durkheim’s main focus was on social facts, social solidarity – mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity, anomie, collective conscience, ritual, symbol, and collective representations

According to Marx’s theory, social stratification is created by unequal property relations and by people 's differing relationship to the means of production: either they own productive property or they provide labor for others. In a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie, or the ruling class, owns the means of production, such as tools, machines or resources that can be used to produce commodities or objects with value. The proletariat, or the working class, possess no means of production other than their own labor power, which they sell to the bourgeoisie in order to earn wage and survive. However, Marx believed that the capitalist economic order would corrode eventually, through its internal conflict between two

Many sociological theorists who were relevant over a century ago are also still applicable to today’s society. Whilst parts of the theory and the context of the theories may have quite dated, some parts do still reign true. Some theories however, like Marx’s ideas of a capitalist society, have become more influential in today’s economic climate. Perspectives like Durkheim’s theories of suicide, Marx’s theories on Capitalism and changes to economic status, Weber’s input on Capitalism and his influential work on Religion. The ideas this essay will be focusing upon are the ‘iconic’ theories, that the previously mentioned sociologists are known for and showing how these theories have progressed through the time.

Talcott Parsons, a functionalist sociologist who elaborated on Durkheim’s work about society and its functions, claimed that society is like an organism, in particular, the human body. He argued that all institutions, such as the family and the education system, within society function together to maintain society just as the organs within a human body work together to maintain life. In particular, Parsons identified three similarities between the human body and society; he claimed that they were both systems within themselves – all the parts of a body and the institutions within society fit together in fixed ways. He also identified that these ‘systems’ have needs – the human body needs nutrition to help it sustain life, whereas society needs adequate socialisation in order for society to continue functioning in the way that it does. Parsons also stated that both the human body and society have functions – the functions of the systems within the human body ensure that the body’s needs are meet thus maintaining life; whereas, in society, the economy functions to maintain the social system. As parsons’ analogy helps sociologists to better understand the way in which institutions in society work

How useful are classical sociological accounts for understanding the rise of compulsory education in nineteenth and twentieth century Britain? Discuss with particular reference to Durkheimian and Marxist ideas.

Due to the rise of capitalism, people’s working lives have changed drastically in the developed world. Two theorists, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx both have views and theories that can describe people in the working world today. Durkheim is pro capitalism, believing that social solidarity is necessary to maintain social order, while Karl Marx is very structural and believes that capitalism will lead to a revolution among society. Durkheim’s anomie theory and Marx’s concept of alienation both have developed with modernity, however differ greatly. Emile Durkheim believes that each person holds a place in this world that is based on society’s moral values, however certain social forces (like capitalism for example) disintegrate the morality of society as a whole.

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,

The essay will begin by providing a brief introduction into the two perspectives of Functionalism and Marxism, focusing on the theories of the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim and the German philosopher Karl Marx. Then it will give a brief discussion showing the transformation that took place from feudalism to capitalism, providing the reader with an insight into the dramatic change that took place during a time of revolution and revolt. Finally the essay will compare and contrast Marx’s idea of class and class conflict with Durkheim’s theory on the Division of labour.

His views can be divided into three different theories; the form of solidarity, Anomie, and the division of labor. Durkheim explained that there are two different types of the social integration; which is mechanical and organic solidarity. He explained that the mechanical solidarity forms a group or community where people affiliate and feel the comfort by regulated by the shared rules and the systems of beliefs, which is we call common conscience. The mechanical solidarity has a strong social morality compare to organic solidarity. The organic solidarity is more like an opposite theory of mechanical solidarity. The organic solidarity is the society that is more focused on individual’s values, performance in different tasks, and form a society that has less social morality with less common conscience. Durkheim explained, as a society grows up, the division of labor increases and become powerful. The mechanical and organic solidarity must exist in our society to keep the balance between the inequality and equality. But at the same time, it also makes big distance between the high class and working class and it is causing working class to feel devastated because of the differences of advantages and disadvantages between the high class and working

Durkheim was one of the most influential sociologists in relation to the functionalist theories which stated society consisted of a structural consensus with a collective conscience of shared norms and values. He argued in order to establish the meaning of society one must understand the structures and social facts. He highlights changes in society from traditional societies which were linked with mechanical solidarity consisting of small scale ties with little division of labour. This in turn created a strong collective conscience of unity in comparison to modern society where differences amongst groups are promoted in turn weakening social solidarity. This is due to rapid changes within society in which Durkheim emphasises is due to a complex division of labour. Durkheim then argues that due to the combination of enlightenment notions and a capitalist society a collective conscience of individualism and greed is created. (Jones, Bradbury and Boutillier, 2011, pp.62-64)

To start of my essay I will compare and contrast between the two theories of Karl Marx and Max Weber on the topic of social class that will be discussed widely. The inequality between people is the basis of the democratic system, which is “a political system”. It is said that “those who have the skills and abilities to perform and produce will succeed in life.” But this belief is the assumption that all people are given equal opportunities and advantages. During the 19th century Karl Marx and Max Weber were two of the most influential sociologists who developed their own theories about why inequality is maintained with social class in society. Many might argue that there are many similarities and differences between these sociologists theories, however although Marx’s and Weber’s both examined similar ideas. This essay will compare the differences and similarities between Marx and Weber’s theories of class within society, which are based on economic inequality and capitalism. And lastly this essay will demonstrate that Max Weber comes across as the greater theorist as he can relate his concept more towards today’s society. Anthony Giddens (2nd edition) quoted that “You need greater equality to achieve more social mobility.” Therefore social class is referred to a group of people with similar levels of wealth, influences, behaviours and status. Henry Ward Beecher (1813-1887) American Politician states that the “ignorant classes are the dangerous classes.”