Comparison of Weber and Durkheim

Comparison of weber and DurkheimAnomie and forced cleavage of labour for Durkheim and rationalisation and bureaucracy for Weber summed up the problem of industrial societies. Discuss.IntroductionEmile DurkheimMax WeberConclusionBibliographyIntroductionAnomie represents a concept that was introduced by Emile Durkheim (1997, pp. 303-304) in The Division of Labor in Society, which was head start printed in 1893. Durkheim (1997, pp. 303-304) use the word to describe the deregulation of orderliness whereby the rules representing how community should behave with respect to their interaction with each other was breaking down then creating confusion as to what in what others expected from one a nonher. In said book, Durkheim (1997, p. 184) advises that that term is where the moral and brotherly norms be not clear, and the removal of behavioural limits correspond a path to deviant behaviour. Durkheim is credited with turning sociology into a science as well as its installation as offset of the academic broadcast on France, and is considered by m any(prenominal) to be the father of sociology (emile-durkheim.com, 2006).Max Weber (cepa.newschool.edu, 2007) is also recognized as one of the fo under(a)s of sociology. He advises us on many instances that in the world of modernity, that the gods have deserted us ( turner, 1993, pp. 115-117). As Durkheim focused upon a set of social features that represented the open(a) of sociology, Weber essentially is considered as defining sociology (Marxists Internet Archive, 1999). This exercise shall delve into concepts and terms with respect to how anomie and forced division of labour under Durkheim, and rationalization and bureaucracy for Weber summed up the problem of industrial societies.DurkheimIn defining sociology as an academic conquer, Durkheim separated sociology from psychology, philosophy as well as economics and other disciplines through stating that sociologists discipline features of group flavour (About So ciology, 2007). Durkheim defines solidarity as representing the cohesion of societys human groupings into social unity, which can consist of mechanical as well as constitutional (Durkheim, 1997, p. 13-14). Mechanical solidarity represents a condition whereby the individuals within a society are linked via a conscience embodied (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 61-65). The preceding represents a condition whereby the smell systems and the sen beatnts that are common in the citizens within the same society (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 31-33). Thus, the individuals within the society are connected, or linked to each other as a result of their common beliefs, thereby belonging to society as opposed to belonging to themselves (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 31-33). A horde is what Durkheim (1997, pp. 126-127) termed a group or collection of people whereby their cohesiveness is fixed in resemblances. Such a group, horde, has no organization or form, and within this group the collective membership look upon each other as kin, whether or not such a relationship exists by blood or union (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 126-127). Within such a group, horde, punishments and responsibility are collective in action and nature and represent the more primitive, or non evolved societal types whereby individual personalities are submerged in the collectivity of the group (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 126-127).As individuals come to avow upon others, outside of themselves for various aspects of life, they have, or are moving towards an organic solidarity (Durkheim, 1997, pp. 69-71). People become and are reliant upon each other whereby individuals have parts to render to society as a part of the building block, whereby responsibility to others is a trait as well as moral character (Durkheim, 1997, p. 77). The foregoing is important in understanding the interactions within society that he termed as the moral density (Durkheim, 1997, p. 201). The preceding, moral density is proportionately linked to the division of labor with in a society (Turner, 1993, p. 3). Moral density represents an important factor in understanding what causes increased division of labor.Durkheims (1993, pp. 113) believes in this revolved around two facets that he thought were responsible for the preceding, material density and social garishness. The former, Durkheim states is (Turner, 1993, p. 113)Social life is based on a substrate whose size and form alike are determined. It is made up of the mass of individuals that constitute society, the manner of their geographical distribution and the nature and configuration of the whole range of phenomena that affect collective relations. The social substratum varies in relation to the size or density of the population, to whether it is concentrated in towns or scattered in rural areas, to the layout of the towns and houses, to whether the space occupied by the society concerned is large or small, to the kind of frontiers by which it is bounded, to the transport links which run the leng th and breadth of it, etc, On the other hand, the makeup of this substratum promptly or indirectly affects all social phenomena, in the same way as all psychic phenomena are in mediate or adjacent relation to the state of the brain. So these are all problems that are patently concerned with sociology and which, as they all refer to the same object, must be part of one science. It is this science we propose to call social morphology.Social volume, Durkheim states is (Turner, 1993, p. 116)as the various elements constituting the group grow more numerous, yet without at the same time ceasing to be closely connected, individuals can only(prenominal) hold their own if they become differentiated, if each chooses a task and a lifestyle of his own in this increase battlefield, where the intensity of the struggle grows in keeping with the number of the combatants. The division of labor thus becomes the primary condition of social equilibrium. And indeed, this simultaneous increase in th e volume and density of societies is the major new element distinguishing the nations of today from those of former times this is probably one of the principal factors dominating history as a whole at any rate, it is the cause which explains the transformations which social solidarity has undergone.Durkheim (Turner, 1993, pp. 98-99) brings together the facets of anomie, organic solidarity and the abnormal forms of the division of labor through distinguished three pathological forms the anomic, the enforced division of labor, and another abnormal form, which might be termed lack of internal organizational coordination. With respect to the foregoing anomie is expressed in economic crises, the opposition surrounded by capital and labor, and anarchy in science, arises at times of rapid change, during which new organs and functions develop without a corresponding using of rules of cooperation and therefore of social ties (Turner, 1993, p. 98). Anomie, represents the rapid as well as r adical change in social conditions that presents it egotism as the lack of regulation or deregulation Turner, 1993, p. 98). Durkheim (Turner, 1993, p. 98) explains that the foregoing does not represent a fundamental crisis of the system, but rather a crisis of adaptation, and continuous contact will eventually produce new rules and a new operating(a) equilibrium between the divided functions, thus assuring social integration.Whereas anomie can be eliminated by the gradual development of new rules, in the case of the enforced division of labor it is these very rules themselves which are the cause of the ills (Turner, 1993, p. 98). The preceding represents when the rules and underpinnings of society are not responsive to the underlying changes in the model of society, and thus the established order is retained by force (Turner, 1993, p. 98). This represents the abnormal form of the division of labor that is representative of privileged positions organism held by endure and social s tanding as opposed to abilities and talents Turner, 1993, p. 99). The condition, asserts can be alleviated through the adoption of formal equality of opportunity as well as freedom to choose a profession (Durkheim Turner, 1993, p. 99).Max WeberBreiner (1996, p. 26) advises that the critics of Webers approach to social science have issues with his reduction of all socially interpreted activity to instrumental rationality. Those who interpret him in a sympathetic manner see his focus on the interpretation of the meaningful occupy of social agents a strong argument in favor of the subservience of explanation to the rules or everyday understandings under which actions are intelligible (Breiner, 1996, p. 26). Turner (1993, p. 4) advises us to be circumspect with regard to Webers approach to modernism and rationalization as he remained highly ambiguous about the content and consequences with regard to the foregoing. The preceding, Turner (1993, p. 5) states that the preceding is a res ult of Webers ambiguities over capitalism were also expressed in his ambivalent attitudes to socialism as a rational planning of the market. He, Weber, argues that socialism was another step in the growth of rational management of resources socialism represented a further development of the second serfdomto calculation, planning, and instrumental rationalism (Turner, 1993, p. 5). Turner (1993, p. 5) further informs us that main issue in Webers political sociology is the absence of any analysis of the processes of democratization, about which Weber remained skeptical, if not dismissive. He (Turner, 1993, p. 5) supports the preceding in stating that In this respect, Weber was significantly influenced by Robert Michelss theory of the entreat law of oligarchy, which suggested that all mass-party organization would come to depend on an elite.To further understand Webers meaning, before we delve into the preceding further, we must understand vocational politics, which represents a vocati on, stating that For everything that is striven for through political action, operating with violent means and following an ethic of responsibility, endangers the salvation of the soul (Breiner, 1996, p. 6). Weber continuesIf, however, one chases later on the ultimate good in a war of beliefs, following a pure ethic of absolute ends, then the goals may be damaged and discount for generations, because responsibility for the consequences are lacking and those diabolic forces which enter into play remain unknown to the actor. These forces are inexorable and produce consequences for his action and even for his inner self, to which he must helplessly submit, unless he perceives them.His ambiguity over whether he is giving an impartial general account of the logic of methodical action or a subjective situation-bound account of the multiple logics that constitute the different terrains of action along with vocational politics have bearing on his concept of rationalization as it tends to skew his view against democracy by appealing to objective standards of feasibility while maintaining that commitment to either form is a matter of personal survival (Breiner, 1996, p. 10). The foregoing has direct bearing upon Webers concept of rationalization (Breiner, 1996, p. 10).The preceding thus permits us to explore Webers approach and concepts of modernisation within what Turner (1993, p. 12) calls a Weberian conceptualization of modern social change. Within modernity the social as well as cultural facets of life do not point us towards an orderly life, but instead a number of life spheres whose demands are objective and not influenced by the subject (Breiner, 1996, p. 59). Each of these spheres is represented by its own logic of action (Breiner, 1996, p. 59). Turner (1993, p. 16) advises that In bureaucracy, rationalization produced a system of reliable, dependable decision-making for the realization of public goals. Weber argues that Secularization had liberated human bei ngs from the magical world of the ancients, and that the very same processes of rationalization threaten to subordinate imagination and inspiration to the demands of standardized routines and technical procedures (Turner, 1993, pp. 16-17). Turner (1993, p. 17) continues they threaten to produce a new characterology of soulless, machine-like robots. The preceding is contained in context in Webers address of September 1919 (Turner, 1993, p. 17).The fate of our age, with its characteristic rationalization and intellectualization and above all the disenchantment of the world is that the ultimate, most sublime values have withdrawn from public life, either into the transcendental realm of cabalistic life or into the brotherhood of immediate personal relationships between individuals. It is no accident that our greatest art is intimate rather than monumental, nor is it fortuitous that today only in the smallest groups, between individuals, something pulsates in pianissmo which correspond s to the prophetic pneuma which formerly swept through great communities like fire and welded them togetherConclusionThe bureaucratic maze sees the projects of political actors may collide not only with the maximizing logic of economic actors seeking power over the market but also with the logic or bureaucracy, which undermines this economic logic (Briener, 1996, pp. 115-116). In order to overcome the preceding, Weber explains that the political actors may have to mobilize masses of citizens under party machines (Briener, 1996, p. 116). Turner (1993, p. 92) explains that under patrimonialism, at each stage of the tax-gathering exercise and at each level of the bureaucracy, the tax-yield was progressively creamed-off by the bureaucracy. The bureaucratic nature of the new state systems utilized bureaucratic level to administer programs that were overseen by inefficient levels of management and response to the public good, thus creating a tax based support system that stood upon the k eister of its supporters (Turner, 1993, p. 93). The preceding stifled creativity and innovation within the system as those in power seeking to maintain their power acted out of their own self interests and political interest first, as opposed to a view to the future that would have benefited their nation as a whole. This defensive posture of holding onto the customary and or accepted views in face of better approaches is a hallmark of bureaucracy which dehumises the human element in support of its own well being and safekeeping.The bureaucracy nature of industrial societies is still in force today, whereby the conforming to the norm represents the belief systems for the majority of its populations thus making Webers soulless, machine-like robots Turner, 1993, p. 17)a pragmatism for the lower and middle classes. An upper class still does exist as defined by educational attainment and or family heritage, and this can be found throughout the United States, United Kingdom, France, Ger many, Japan and other industrialized nations whereby the founders of major corporations have the heirs and or appointees installed as the operative heads of these machines of capitalisation.This brings us back to Durkheims forced division of labor (Turner, 1993, pp. 98-99)which still exists and is a control factor in modern industrialized societies as indicated by the aforementioned educational and heritage facets. The introduction of unions and associations to obtain rights and conditions for workers is proof of the foregoing, for if the machinery of society were in fact skewed to all of its individuals, then the need for these types of organizations would not be necessary. This is brings us to what Durkheim (Turner, 1993, p. 98) stated as a fundamental crisis of the system, but rather a crisis of adaptation, and continuous contact will eventually produce new rules and a new functional equilibrium between the divided functions, thus assuring social integration. Privileged position s are to a large degree still a factor of ones birth, with specialised higher education and contacts representing a path to the upper echelons. Thus Durkheim and Weber were prophetic in their analysis and understandings on some facets.BibliographyAbout Sociology (2007) Emile Durkheim. Retrieved o 27 May 2007 from http//www.aboutsociology.com/sociology/Emile_DurkheimBriener, P. (1996) Max Weber Democratic Politics. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., United Statescepa.newschool.edu (2007) Max Weber, 1864-1920. Retrieved on 27 May 2007 from http//cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/weber.htmDurkheim, E. (1997) The Division of Labor in Society. spare Press. New York, United Statesemile-durkheim.com (2006) Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). Retrieved on 27 May 2007 from http//www.emile-durkheim.com/Marxists Internet Archive (1999) Max Weber Definition of Sociology. Retrieved on 27 May 2007 from http//www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/weber.htmTurner, S. (1993) Emile Durk heim Sociologist and Moralist. Routledge Publishers, New York, United StatesTurner, B. (1993) Max Weber From History to Modernity. Routledge Publications, London, United Kingdom