Marx, Durkheim and Weber laid the foundations for sociological knowledge. Each of them although different hoped for the same outcome, that of social harmony. They dedicated much of their research towards the individual within society. Individuals had to learn to deal with the enormous changes occurring within society; the Great Transformation. The four main aspects of modernity were industrialisation, urbanisation, rationalisation and capitalism. All three sociologists believed that different aspects of each would present problems for individuals and society as a whole, and alienation would prove to be the biggest consequence of all. They had great influence on our understanding of the meaning, experiences and consequences of living in the modern world. This piece will examine some of the main aspects of their theories. Firstly, it will look at Durkheim’s ideas and his Suicide theory in relation to integration and regulation, and the consequences of anomie. Secondly, it will examine Marx’s ideas of alienation and class division. Thirdly, it will briefly examine Weber’s theory on Bureaucratisation, Rationalisation and ideal types and finally, it will show how these theories can be applied to differing circumstances in life, and the consequences of this.
Durkheim feared, with the loss of religion and the rise of secularisation individualism would increase, which would further give rise to social disharmony and misery. With the loss of tradition and mechanical solidarity anomie would occur. He did however, believe that in modern societies the division of labour is more specific and that people would form an organic solidarity, as individuals were dependant upon others for the products and services that their occupations provided. Individuals left to their own devices, without some form of constraint and structure would not find true happiness and contentment. He believed that sociological knowledge should be accepted as social facts. Durkheim also emphasised the importance of societal institutions, such as the family, education and political systems, these along with Durkheim’s social facts contributes towards a functionalist society. Functionalism can be defined as the process of socialisation via first the family, and then the state education system, with the ultimate goal of creating a new civic morality.
Durkheim’s Suicide theory explained the consequences of an imbalance of integration and regulation within modern society. He divided his theory into four parts; Anomie, Fatalistic, Egoistic and Altruistic; each shows how society can fail the individual. We will look at Anomie and Egoistic suicide. Anomie is where the individual is under-regulated and becomes too individualistic, it is the opposite to Fatalistic. They have no sense of involvement in either social solidarity or attachment to family, friends or their community. So when problems arise they are alone and isolated and have nowhere or no-one to turn to. Egoistic suicide occurs when an individual is not integrated enough into their society or a social group. They have feelings of not belonging, which in turn leaves them with no form of support, this is the opposite to Altruistic.
Durkheim’s studies showed different suicide rates for different groups. Categories of individuals who are most likely to commit suicide according to Durkheim are; men, Protestants, the wealthy and the unmarried. For example the weatlhy may have worked and concentrated so much on making money and achieving status, that they lacked integration due to their subjectiveness, ambitiousness and individualism. They may also have lacked anomie, a common morality; due to their desires to get to the top of the financial ladder, pushing others aside along the way. On the other hand he claimed that women, Catholics, Jews, the poor and the married were less likely to commit suicide. Catholics religion and common sense of morality with other Catholics, forbids them to commit suicide as they will be damned to an eternity in hell, rather than enjoy the tranquillity of the said, Afterlife. So by this, one can see the importance of proper integration and regulation, and the possible consequences of an imbalance between these two factors.
Marx’s theory differed to that of Durkheim’s; however, the consequences were the same, alienation. He believed that in a capitalist society there are only two divisions of class. First the Bourgeois (capitalists), at the top of the financial ladder who own the means of production, such as factories and machinery. At the bottom of the ladder are the Proletariats (the workers) who merely own their own labour. They are dependant on selling their labour to the Bourgeois in order to have the means to survive; this gives the Bourgeois the opportunity to abuse the Proletariats. The workers would be exploited and dehumanised in the process as the capitalists want for profit would conflict with the workers need for a wage.
According to Marx, workers under such control would be alienated from the products they produce, as they belong to the capitalists, whereas, in primitive times one owned the products of their labour and disposed of them however they chose. They would also be alienated from their human creativity, as they merely worked and produced goods in order to survive, and would achieve little if any satisfaction from their work. Finally, he believed they would be alienated from their co-workers, as in a capitalist society, time is money, and there is no space for idle gossip or conversation amongst workers. The overall consequence of this would be that the workers would lack fulfilment and meaning in their lives, leading ultimately to alienation, consequently destroying social cohesion and human collectiveness. Marx believed that the workers had a false consciousness, and in order for them to gain consciousness they would have to rise-up against the capitalists, and fight for a more equal outcome. Weber on the other hand acknowledged that there are negative and positive consequences of capitalism. What ever the case, capitalism he believed is here to stay.
In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber claimed that capitalism first developed in the Western world, through European religious patterns. He believed that religions such as Puritanism and Calvinism encouraged the accumulation of income and worldly goods, through productive action. However, due to the individual sacrifice celebrated by these religions, one could not indulge in this wealth; instead they must reinvent it creating further possibilities of productive work. To be blessed rather than damned one must achieve worldly success, be disciplined and prove willingness to work. Consequently, the rationality behind this insured great wealth and possession, and a new religion was born, capitalism. Weber, therefore believed, that the Protestant ethic had become the work ethic, and religious rewards were quickly replaced with material rewards (Bilton et al).
Weber, unlike Durkheim, believed that there are no casual laws, or social facts. He believed rationality is brought about through reason and is the driving force behind science and capitalism. This is all based on clear and objective ideals. He believed that through this, bureaucracy was developed. Bureaucracy he admitted is rational and efficient, however, it can also be dehumanising and cause disenchantment. Individuals are mere commodities in an ever expanding, increasingly organised, and often un-democratic system, which as rational as it may appear can often create irrational consequences. Capitalists’ developments are dependant upon a systematic application of impersonal rules and regulations (Bilton p.482), meaning bureaucratisation could drive one to despair. It would become as Weber described the iron cage of rationality, within which one would be trapped.
Weber was the first sociologist to attempt to understand the actions of an individual by attempting to step inside their minds. He did this to enable him to understand the meaning one gives to their actions, their motives and intentions. He then developed ideal types. In developing his ideal types, he observed, empathised with and interpreted the actions of others, enabling him to understand the world from their point of view. He divided social action into four types, traditional, affective, value-oriented and rational. Rational action, he believed will inevitably be the one which will last. It occurred when one examined and calculated the most effective and efficient means of obtaining something. “I’ll do this because I reckon it’s the most efficient way of getting that” (Bilton, p.483). One would become solely subjective in their thinking; they would protect themselves and put the needs of others firmly to the back of their minds. Consequently, this would lead to disenchantment, isolation and misery.
An article in the Irish Times newspaper, highlights some of the issues Marx and Weber dealt with. It discusses the unsanitary and inhumane conditions that workers in countries such as the Philippines, China and India are subjected too. It shows how they barely earn enough to survive, while the capitalists accumulate ridiculous amounts of profit. Ms Nazma Akter, a former worker in a garments factory in Bangladesh stated in an interview with Chris Dooley from the Irish Times, that she “worked every day for twelve to fourteen hours, seven days a week” (p.4) for what would barely be accepted as three hours wages here in Ireland (33). Many of these factories do not supply maternity leave, medical benefits or simple things such as fresh drinking water, all of which are taken for granted in the developed world. This exemplifies the exploitation which can develop through capitalism and also highlights the irrationality of rational thinking.
With regard to Marx’s alienation, one can easily understand how a worker can become alienated, when you look at assembly line production. This also explains Weber’s disenchantment, and even Durkheim’s anomie. If you examine the way McDonald’s fast food restaurants are run, it is possible to see that each individual has a robotic type job, one fries the chips, one cooks the burgers, one dresses the burgers, one wraps the burgers, one takes the order, and so on. The quantity and quality of the drink and food remains remarkably the same every time you order. The individuals who work there have no control over this, they merely get on with their individual task in the process, in order to claim the rights to a wage at the end of the week. There is nothing enchanting, exciting or satisfying about this type of work, it is merely a procedure.
The health care system also highlights how insignificant an individual is in a bureaucratic type situation, how rational thinking can be irrational, and how humans are treated as inhuman robotic creatures. If we look at the Outpatients Clinics for example, each patient is given approximately fifteen minute intervals, clinics are run from ten in the morning to five in the evening, and on arrival each patient receives the same questions, medical history, and so on. These appointments are to ensure a high turnover of patients and cost efficiency. The ailment the individual is attending the clinic for seems irrelevant; as they are all treated the same and assigned the same amount of time, regardless.
To show the effects of isolation on a human being, and the lack of socialisation, I am briefly going to discuss a case about a little girl called Anna who spent the first five years of her life in the attic of her mother’s and grandfather’s house. Anna lived in the attic as her grandfather was enraged over her illegitimacy. She was born in 1932 to a twenty-six year old woman who was mentally impaired. Anna barely survived on the milk she was given, and spent her days and nights continuously in the attic without any human contact. There she remained until a social worker who had heard of Anna investigated and removed her, bringing her to a county home. Davis Kingsley (1940) a sociologist, learned of Anna’s discovery and went to meet with the girl. He found that she was unable to smile, speak or show anger; she was totally unresponsive to everything around her (Macionis and Plummer, p.130). As one of England’s greatest ever social figures, Lady Diana Spencer said, in an interview with Martin Bashir “isolation is the worst punishment an individual can be subjected to” (p.4).
As this piece has shown, Marx, Durkheim and Weber all contributed to our understanding of the meaning, experiences and consequences of living in a modern world. The overall arguments show that alienation or isolation can be detrimental to an individual. Perhaps this is why it is conceived that isolation from the outside world by means of imprisonment is considered the greatest punishment for non-adherence to social rules, or laws within a society. Additionally, it has shown that problems may arise and develop due to class divisions within societies. Class division is still ever present in modern societies in many different forms, however, capitalism does not seem to pose quite the level of difficulty that Marx perceived, nevertheless, cases of exploitation, and job dissatisfaction still exist. Rationality appears to create the greatest difficulties, as this piece has shown, many irrational consequences arise out of what is presumed at first to be rational. Adverse consequences of rationality are ever present, however; due to the desire for profit and efficiency it is doubtful that they will disappear. As great as an influence as these three sociologists had, it does however, seem that research must now move on. Whilst sociological research has contributed towards our understanding of the individuals and society, globalization is the greatest phenomenon occurring at present, and further research into this would be of great benefit to a pre-modern world.
