Max Weber : Inequality, Punishment And Religion

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.

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

The purpose of this essay is to analyse Weber’s theory of authority and power in order to establish its role in the modern contemporary world today. Weber, in his most acclaimed writings, discusses his three ideal types of authority being outlined as traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. He believes that in order for any political leader or political establishment to hold legitimate authority over its peoples, they must have either one of these types of authority. All of these types of power and authority can be referred to in some way in today’s contemporary world using examples of differing political leaders and systems. However, Weber’s writings were conducted in 1922 and may be considered as out-dated, and not as relevant as they were at his time of writing. Also, many dispute that Weber’s types of authority were perhaps not entirely relatable and Martin Spencer, like many other critics of Weber’s work in fact argue that there should have been four types of authority. Hence why these issues must be discussed in order to conclude whether Weber’s ideal types of authority are representative of political leaders and governments, and whether or not they can be associated with the contemporary world we live in today.

According to Max Weber, the economic and technological relationships that organized and most importantly grew out of the capitalistic production became fundamental forces in the society. This means that one has to adapt to the society that he/she was born into in regards to the division of labor, and the hierarchical social structure. When analyzed, this theory shows that it is difficult for one to envision a life that is alternative to what they were born into.

Sociology studies and defines the diverse aspects of some of the most basic human behaviour, particularly focusing on the purpose and the value that human behaviour holds. Max Weber, the highly influential philosopher (born 1864 – died 1920), documented and observed human behaviour, focusing primarily in his text, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, on social action. Weber determines that social action is the behaviour or action of an individual, or actor, in the presence of another individual. The specific role of social action is to monitor the influence of another on an individual’s work output and how their behaviour changes and the direction of their actions determined. Weber claimed that “a correct causal interpretation of concrete course of action, is arrived at when the overt action and the motives have both been correctly apprehended and at the same time their relation has become meaningfully comprehensible.”

Two names that are repeatedly mentioned in sociological theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In some ways these two intellectuals were similar in the way they looked at society. There are also some striking differences. In order to compare and contrast these two individuals it is necessary to look at each of their ideas. Then a comparison of their views can be illustrated followed by examples of how their perspectives differ from each other.

Marx and Weber’s characteristics of modern societies were different. Marx stressed capitalism and class conflict and Weber stressed rationalization and bureaucracy.  Marx and Weber identified problems within modern society.  Marx had a generally optimistic view about the future and believed his theory could improve human conditions. Weber on the other hand was more pessimistic.

For Weber, religion can be seen as a factor which pushes for social change, while for Marx it is essentially used as a conservation, keeping the wealthy, wealthy and suppressing the poor

While he highlights a lot of positives, he also saw a lot of issues within bureaucracy. Webers’ bureaucracy is a bottom line model that values calculable decision making over all else. Within this model are the people, or parts, that can be replaced if they cause a decrease in productivity. The issue becomes that the rationalized view of bureaucratic systems is unable to see individuals and respond to individual needs. There is a format and if someone does not fit in, or if they begin to fall behind, there is no understanding or support. His argument is that the bureaucratization of our world has made it depersonalized.

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber are two prominent philosophers whose theories unequivocally differed on countless themes. The outlooks of Durkheim and Weber contrast however, their general message in which they attempt to convey are of similar ideologies. When examining Durkheim and the concept of sacred and profane, one would see how it parallels with Weber’s notion of enchantment and disenchantment. Their stances on religion correspond with each other and despite their distinct conceptual frameworks and differing perspectives, Durkheim and Weber both offer profound contributions to the concepts of religion and modernity.

Religion, as defined by the High Court of Australia, is ‘a complex of beliefs and practices which point to a set of values and an understanding of the meaning of existence’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005) and can be studied either substantively or functionally (Berger 1974:126). Substantive studies of religion fall predominantly in the realm of theology and are more concerned with defining religious beliefs; their historical accuracy; and the existence of supernatural entities (Holmes, Hughes & Julian 2007:425). Sociology however, concerns itself primarily with the relationship between religion and society, examining religion as a social construction (Van Krieken et al. 2010:350-1) and concerned only with the substance of

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. 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.

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.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Max Weber (1864-1920) are two remarkable founding fathers of Sociology. Both of them spent huge effort to study the rise of capitalist society. Marx created conflict theory paradigm called Marxism while Weber inspired the symbolic interactionism, both paradigm are still influential nowaday. This paper would try to discuss the differences and similarities of their understanding of the historical development of capitalist society; their view on social stratification on capitalist society and their understanding on the operation and future prediction of the capitalist society in three parts.

The purpose of this essay is to compare, contrast and critically evaluate Marxist and Weberian theories of stratification. To do this effectively this essay must explain and consider the main features, claims and perspectives of both Karl Marx and Max Weber. O’Donnell (1992) defines social stratification as “the division of a society or group into hierarchically ordered layers. Members of each layer are considered broadly equal but there is inequality between the layers.” Functionalist Durkheim (1858-1917) argued that the reason for the existence of stratification was because it was functional or beneficial to the order of society.