Max Weber’s and Mircea Eliade’s Disagreement with Durkheim, Marx and Freud

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.

Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are all important characters to be studied in the field of Sociology. Each one of these Sociological theorists, help in the separation of Sociology into its own field of study. The works of these three theorists is very complex and can be considered hard to understand but their intentions were not. They have their similarities along with just as many of their differences.

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.

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.

Weber argued that modern societies are characterized increasingly by a process of rationalization meaning that the world is increasingly governed by rationality in which tradition and affective forms of action are replaced by predominantly rational forms. This leads to disenchantment being seen as secularization, including the progressive disposal of non-rational elements from all spheres of life.  Weber feared that this process of rationalization would drive out the warmth and humanity of social life, the very things that give meaning to human existence.

The 17th century was torn by witch-hunts and wars of religion and imperial conquest. Protestants and Catholics denounced each other as followers of Satan, and people could be imprisoned for attending the wrong church, or for not attending any.

Ordinarily, religion is one of the rationales of social orientations, that in one way or another influences the society’s social stability. This is because religion is the impelling force for regulations in the society as well as a destabilizing drive for transformation. Marx Weber together with Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim were very influential personalities in the course of the 19th century, and even now. In one way or another, these persons attempted to make plain as well as comprehensible social change, particularly in the aspect of religion in the society. Their perspectives on religion differ on some aspects. Even though their views on religion are diverse, they all seem to be in accord that

In this essay I will be looking at the theories of Edward Burnett Tylor and Émile Durkheim, and comparing them to see which theory I think gives a better explanation about what religion is, or whether religion is actually definable. On the one hand we have Tylor’s theory that tells us that religion is belief in spiritual beings and that religion is just a step on the way to reaching full evolutionary potential. Durkheim’s theory, however, says that religion is very much a social aspect of life, and something can only be religious or “sacred” if it is something public (Durkheim 1965:52). Ultimately these theories do not give us an outright explanation about what ‘religion’ is, but there are aspects of the theory that can be used to gain an understanding or idea.

Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes

The theoretical works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber still influence sociological theory. Though their works are decades old they still are a major part of what sociology is today. Though their theories can seem very different, there are some similarities. To become a great sociologist one most learn and understands how to use all sociological perspectives. To do this one must understand and use the different theoretical perspectives created by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber.

Karl Marx and Marx Weber The latter part of the nineteenth century was teeming with evolved

In Sigmund Freud’s, The Future of an Illusion, he studies religious foundations and the influence of religion on civilization and social principles. As he explores the psychological depths relating to religion, he also portrays a scientific and rational civilization. In turn, he reveals his hope for an ideal world where humans surpass their feelings of helplessness and insignificance to live in an improved civilization based on reason and the increase of knowledge. Through his analysis and ideas, Freud is able to incite feelings of doubt surrounding religious beliefs and their validity.

Among the most controversial figures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The rhetoric of the first of these men, Karl Marx, both inspired revolutions in China, Russia, and Cuba, as well as led to his expulsion from Germany, France and Belgium. As for Freud, Yale history professor Peter Gay notes in his biography of the psychologist: “[He] has been called a genius, founder, master, a giant among the makers of the modern mind, and, no less emphatically, autocrat, plagiarist, fabulist, the most consummate of charlatans.” (xvi). Though Marx is perhaps best described as a political theorist and Freud a psychologist, there is a great deal of overlap in the work of the two intellectuals. Most importantly, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx shared a fervent dissatisfaction with society and its oppressive mechanisms. Yet the source of this oppression was not a point of agreement among the two thinkers. Where Marx advocated class struggle and bourgeois domination as the main obstacles to a harmonious, peaceful society, Freud contended that the fundamental barrier to such a society is human nature itself, which, in his opinion, consists of a constant struggle between a desire for pleasure and the constraints of reality; while Marx believed that Communism could bring about societal contentment, Freud held that the pleasure which man derives from aggressiveness precludes the possibility of collective peace and, concurrently, the restraint with

“Truth is anything society deems it to be” is considerable right when our society believes that the only method of determining the “truth” is through laws and ideologies, which have been administered by the upper class Europeans. Our laws have been constructed to support the interest of the majority population, which supports their interest rather, then the general citizens. That being said, who created the legislation and administers laws, and who has the resources and inclination to challenge these laws? (Branch, 129). This question will be answered through the theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx who will be compared in regards to the construction of the legal knowledge, how law has become the truth in societies with the help of the