Structural Consensus And Conflict Theories Of Social Action

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.

Along with his study on social facts, he also focused some on the Division of Labor. Many people during this time believed that the social order of things was in danger due to the selfishness of society as a whole. While Marx believed that capitalism was a bad thing and was bringing down society, Durkheim believed that it was a good thing and it pulled society together. As times progressed, so did society. Durkheim began to look at the solidarity of society. He categorized them into two different types mechanical and organic solidarity. . (Ritzer 2004) I believe that Durkheim thought

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

For Durkheim, the problem concerning modernity emerged from the move to an industrial society wherein the division of labour (increasing specialisation of occupations) led to a decrease in mechanical solidarity (social cohesion based on similarities between members of pre-industrial societies); resulting in the breakdown of the influence of social norms on individuals within a

2. Durkheim: What term does Durkheim associate with social solidarity? How do societies achieve it organically and mechanically? What did he think threatened social solidarity?

“Treat social facts as things” is an expression that epitomises the works of Emile Durkheim. This essay focuses on four main sociological concepts proposed by the functionalist Emile Durkheim; the division of labour; mechanical and organic solidarity; anomie and suicide, and examines their relevance in contemporary society.

From Durkheim’s perspective, society creates the individuals but also individuals create the society. For Durkheim, the desires and egocentricity of people are only held in check by influences that are created outside of the individual. Division of labor produces solidarity, which leads to a general cohesion of society. Plus, the economy and division of labor have positive effects on society that allows to social unity. On the other hand, Weber sees the religion influences, Protestant ethic is individuals’ being predestined. Everyone has to work hard and demonstrate their ability to reinvest money in their enterprises and maintain poverty as immortal and view the place of work as an improvement. Consequently, the change in ideals and customs are what contributed to the rise of modern

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

Where Marx saw the modern industrial world as a necessary step to freedom, Durkheim saw it as a development with specific social phenomenon which he refers to as “social facts” that needed to be studied scientifically as explained in The Division of Labor in Society. These social facts were outside the individual and were capable of exercising power over the individual and influencing behaviour.

After determining what resulted from modernization, Durkheim unlike Marx was interested in reforming not eliminating modern society. In analyzing Durkheim’s theory of modern society, I will begin with the focal point of it, namely solidarity.

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

Emile Durkheim lived during the rise of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution. These changes in his own society made him question the origin of state and the evolution of social complexity (Moore, 2000). To answer these questions, Durkheim believed that all societies should be studied through scientific research methodology, because Durkheim viewed sociology as the “science of societies” (p. 43). Through this method, Durkheim developed a variety of hypotheses about society and its evolution; there were two forms of social integration, mechanical and organic solidarity. Mechanical solidarity was a homogeneous society with individuals resembling each other in their positions in society and in their values and views, creating a conscience collective. In an organic solidarity society, each member of society is more of an individual, each playing a different role but ultimately under the control of a central “organ” (p. 47). Societies naturally transition from a mechanical solidarity society to an organic solidarity society, according to Durkheim, gradually losing the homogeneity, conscience collective,

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 special role that differentiates parts from one another (pg 122). According to Durkheim, the differences we hold in society create interdependence among one another due

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.