Weber Vs Durkheim

In Durkheim's opinion a whole is not identical to the sum of its parts, thus society is not just a mere sum of individuals.

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.

Durkheim’s focused on social solidarity which entails individual members working together. He opposed individualism as the society is a totality of its members and noted that social facts are important in keeping it stable (Cotterrell, 1999). The social facts have control and authority over people and ensure societal equilibrium. Emile Durkheim noted that crime plays a sufficient

Weber also works off of Marx’s theories, far more than Durkheim appeared to. In the major instance, he takes Marx’s super-sub structure notion, flips it upside down, and molds it to his own theories. Marx hypothesized the economy to be the base of all society; Weber, on the other hand, conceived religion as being the base to shape the rest of society and theorized as such in The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism, where business and religion are viewed as strongly correlated.

Instances of capitalism can be traced all the way back to mercantilism in the fourteenth century in Western Europe. The ownership of land was becoming a more basic concept; however the ownership was concentrated in the upper class. The proletarian began to take their place as the laborers due to the fact that they either had no means of production or, even if they did, their rate and efficiency of production was shadowed by that of the big land owners and their workforce of other laborers. This is enough information to get the point across that this method of economic organization was what developed the economical situation, coupled with the desire for religious freedom, which caused many peasants to immigrate to North America in the first place. So, moving on, why did the people once again adopt capitalism? Personally, I agree with Weber’s theory. Weber believes that Protestant religious belief systems, including Calvinist, Pietistic, Baptist, and Methodist sects, played a role in the

Capitalism is an economic system in a society in which private owners control industry and trade within a country, rather than the state. Both Karl Marx and Max Weber, have written theories on how this system develops in countries and creates a nation state that is characterised by production and wealth. Marx’s theory takes more of a top-down approach, suggesting that people have little power in how their society is run. On the other hand, Weber’s bottom-up approach demonstrates how people have the ability to initiate capitalism and change their society. Marx’s theory of historical materialism is based on a 5-stage system inevitable of any society, Weber’s theory of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism states that it was a much smaller group within a feudal society whose religiosity inadvertently kick-started capitalism. Although both these theories look at how capitalism develops within a society, Marx’s macro-scale theory is more applicable to every society, unlike Weber’s micro-scale approach that focuses on one group within society and their ‘spirit of capitalism’. Naturally, the theories vary due to the time of writing and the economic or political situation. Marx wrote of historical materialism during a German economic crisis, whereas Weber wrote his theory a generation after, seeing the economy develop and stabilise. This impacted the message they were portraying and influenced two opposing theories.

Weber argued that the spirit of capitalism lay behind the unplanned growth of it in the 19th century. He defined this spirit as the belief in pursuing an ever increasing profit from economic activity, intolerance of greed, but encouragement to hard work in order to invest in and make profits. In other words, capitalists should refrain from living luxuriously while always prioritizing work. Max Weber also believed that this spirit developed directly from acetic Protestantism. Simple beliefs of acetic Protestantism require that people renounce physical pleasures and comfort in the pursuit of greater spiritual fulfillment. Weber considered Protestantism ideology as a sort of calling to the notion that humans have one task set forth by God and to prove one's faith to God, one must be working at it. Weber also focused on capitalism's relation to Calvinism, which is a branch of Protestantism. Calvinism held onto to the belief that whether someone would go to heaven or hell was predestined by earning the status of having greater wealth (Max Weber, Intellectual Influences & Core Ideas, 10-24-16). Followers could thus convince themselves that they were destined for salvation. For example, if two boys named Ben and Mike each decided to set up their own lemonade stands, start with three dollars which they use to buy three jugs of lemonade. Each jug of lemonade sells for a total of two dollars meaning both boys have made a profit of three dollars. What should they do with their earnings? They can reinvest their profits to buy more jugs of lemonade expanding their business or they should spend the money on candy. Mike realizes that if he buys candy for a dollar, he's not sacrificing one jug of lemonade but thousands of jugs. He decides to reinvest the money into his

Durkheim stressed how interconnectivity within a society is necessary for success and ultimate balance and stability. He linked the human body and its organs to society; the organs being the necessary parts that work collectively to maintain stability and keep the person alive. Cultural norms and values are placed within a society because of the socially deviant members who break said established norms, which calls for punishment and consequences. Such deviant actions could be in the form of social movements, protests, crime etc. Crime has been a part of human civilization since the beginning of time, and many argue that crime breaks the organic and mechanical solidarity that is, therefore crime is bad and should be extinguished from society.

In order to fully understand the terms self-organisation and salvation let us also understand what Weber understood by the term “the spirit of capitalism”. Weber describes this term as a peculiar ethic in which the aim is to seek an accumulation of capital, not necessarily for material purposes but also for the sake of wealth itself (Giddens, 1992:xi). It is considered as a calculated pursuit of continuous wealth accumulation and profit, it is this pursuit that is considered the essence of the spirit of capitalism. It should be noted that this accumulation not be confused with greed but rather a rational pursuit of profit (Giddens, 1992:xxxi). What we must also note

The concepts of control theories originated from the work of Emile Durkheim (1895-1982) who believed that the societal structure dictates its members’ behavior. He followed that an individual’s behavior is determined by the greater social system and that social order is achieved through common societal values. In regards to deviance, Durkheim viewed it as a normal part of society arguing that “crime is present not only in the majority of societies of one particular species but in all societies of all types. There is no society that is not confronted with the problem of criminality” (p. 65). Durkheim believed that small, close knit communities are able to better regulate behavior and that collective activity gives purpose and meaning in life.

One expects Weber to Capitalism is a result of Protestantism or to be more specific, Calvinism. Calvinism believes God has granted few with salvation whereas others have to go through damnation. This virtue isn't dependent on their good or bad actions/ deeds but because God wanted it in a certain way. This belief made believers of Calvinism worried about their salvation and made them invest more efforts into economic success. This, in turn, made them believe that they were the chosen favourites of God. Furthermore, the profits made by Calvanists were re-invested into the business for further profits rather than self-indulgence. Hence, the concept of "Protestant ethic" came into place which generally refers to desire of having enormous economic success and will of working hard. This concept of "work ethic"

Both Marx and Weber are concerned with the origins and development of capitalism. For Weber, religion, and specifically Protestantism, is a major factor in the development of modern capitalism. For Marx, capitalism is material based it is the result of who owns the means of production.

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber both appealed to me in the reading of chapter 1. They both have similarities and differences on their approaches to sociology. While reading the background of Emile, I found it fascinating how he studied sociology in a way that he put together the individual dimensions and added them together to better understand a society or social group. The case of suicide rates and religion. This one case can be analyzed through other elements, such as careers. For instance, the type of profession can be studied. I am really into statistics and like to break down information. The way he broke down the information to analyze a society or social groups interested me. Max Weber, I chose to write about because I felt he had a

Weber was concerned to demonstrate, contrary to Marx's thought, that culture was not reducible to the economic aspect of a society. Weber insisted that culture was to be considered as an autonomous value-sphere of any society. We might define such a value-sphere as; "..a distinct realm of activity which has its own inherent dignity and in which certain values, norms, obligations are inherent." (Brubaker:1983) Not only is this value-sphere of culture autonomous but, for Weber, it has the ability to construct forms of economic activity! For Weber, culture is seen as an agent in the production and maintenance of social relations. For

Weber believed that there was a certain attitude or disposition required for capitalism to exist. However, he is careful not to state that only ideas themselves encourage the perpetuation of capitalism. Rather, this disposition fits with capitalism and allows it to continue, without its origins coming from capitalism itself. Weber returns to the smaller scale interactions which occur around him to determine where this attitude had come from. He determined that there was a certain work ethic perpetuated amongst those of the Protestant religion, one of determination and perseverance, that fitted with the work ethic required for capitalism to survive, stemming from beliefs formed after the Reformation in which one works purely because it is God’s plan for him to do so. Any fraternisation with material goods or wealth would be seen as a direct disregard and disrespect of God’s plan for him. One would not question this, as his belief was that his life was already predetermined and his fate already decided (1905, 2007).