CLASSICAL-SOCIOLOGICAL-THEORY-munotes

Page 1

1
1

PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS AND
ECONOMIC CONCEPTS

Unit Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Marx’s Conception of Human Nature and Human Potential
1.3 Alienation and Critique of Capitalism
1.4 ‘Work’ and Labo ur Theory of Value
1.5 Historical Materialism
1.6 Fetishism of Commodities
1.7 Class and Division of Labour
1.8 Summary
1.9 Unit End Questions
1.10 References and Further Readings

1.0 OBJECTIVES

 To understand ‘human nature’ and ‘human potential’ in the
philosophical ideas of Karl Marx.
 To familiarize students with Marxian concepts such as ‘work’ and
‘alienation’.
 To know the ‘historical method’
 To understand Marx’s economic concepts of ‘ Critique of Capitalism,
and ‘Labour Theory of Value’
 To explore Marxian understanding of ‘Fetish ism of Commodities’ and
‘Class and Division of Labour’.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883), a German,
was a philosopher, sociologist, historian, economist, besides being a
political theorist and renowned social revolutionar y. He is famous for his
contributions to the socialist movement as well as the school of thought
known as Marxism. Marx was highly influenced by the theoretical
writings of the famous German philosopher Georg Hegel. His
contributions remain the guiding ide ology, from the which the social,
political and economic thought is derived in Marxism.

munotes.in

Page 2

2
Karl Marx’s parents were Jewish by birth, but were known to have
converted to Protestantism. Notwithstanding this change of faith, the
Jewish background continued to influence Marx in a long way. In fact, his
critical thinking about the prevalent significa nce of religion was due to the
social discrimination he faced within the Jewish society. Not just religion,
his opinion on every social, political and economic aspect of society was
shaped by his critical thinking, for instance, his theories of alienation,
class struggle, exploitation, labour and so on. More than anything else,
Marx was truly a secular intellectual, because of which and his theoretical
contributions, he continues to remain one of the most widely read,
contested and followed intellectuals ti ll date.

Some of his famous theoretical contributions include A Critique of
Hegel’s Philosophy of Right and ‘On the Jewish Question’ in 1843, The
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts in 1844, A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy in 1859, Das Kapital first published in
1867; and in collaboration with Frederick Engels, The Holy Family in
1845, The German Ideology in 1845 -7, The Communist Manifesto in 1848
(Morrison, 2006 ), amongst many others. His theoretical contributions,
spanning many years, such as historical materi alism, alienation, class
struggle, wage -labour, surplus, and so on continues as the political and
economic legacy of Marx.

As there are many philosophical, economic and political concepts
and ideas of Marx that this syllabus intends to elaborate and expl ain, these
are not neat compartments and continue to remain overlapping. For
instance, Marx’s philosophical assumptions and ideas governed his
economic and political understanding. And therefore, Marx’s concepts and
ideas are put forth in this unit appropr iately.

1.2 MARX’S CONCEPTION OF HUMAN NATURE AND
HUMAN POTENTIAL

With his initial and critical readings of the philosophy, Marx
became deeply engaged with the concept of human nature. For Marx,
humanity is objectified by its own subjectivity in a diale ctical manner, in
the universe which is an ultimate process by itself (Tabak, 2012 ).
Therefore, Marx argued that human nature predominantly existed in
dialectical and determined by the forces of the existing economic systems.
The prevalent econom y governs the ways in which humans act and think.
As the economy changes, human nature also undergoes a drastic change.
There lies the dialectics of human nature – a product of society and
economy, instead of biology.

In 1847, Marx published a book title d The Poverty of Philosophy ,
within which he argues with the philosophical and economic notions of
French anarchist Pierre -Joseph Proudhon through latter’s book on ‘The
Philosophy of Poverty’. While analyzing this work, Churchich (1990 )
highlights that it is here Marx states “all history is nothing but a munotes.in

Page 3

3
continuous transformation of human nature” (p. 46). There is constant
change in our societies, resulting in changing human nature, and this
remains the essence of our history.

Marx was in deed greatly influenced [critically] by the German
materialist Ludwig Feuerbach, to the extent that Marx rejected
Feuerbach’s sociobiological understanding of essential human nature. In
his ‘Theses on Feuerbach’, Marx argues why Feuerbach’s idea, of human
nature being shaped by material or objects only, s hould be rejected, and
that rather the social and economic relations which are constantly
changing should be considered important (Karl Marx & Engels, [1845 -7]
1998 ). The whole society, with its economy and production systems tend
to shape and re -shape human nature.

In fact, production remained very crucial in Marx’s underst anding
of human nature. For Marx, humans are essentially driven by their socially
productive tendencies and that humans constantly strive to produce things
that can give them satisfaction for having produced something (K. Marx &
Engels, [1894] 2007 ). Therefore, it is human potential and human nature’s
need to produce something constantly and that it also results in the
production of newer needs. So it remains a continuous process, whereby a
need to produce a product eventually can also result in the production of
newer needs, further resulting in a satisfying experience. The whole idea
of ‘alienation’ that Marx talks about, also derives from this under standing,
which will be dealt in the following sections.

Therefore, instead of materialistic basis of human nature, Marx
argues for an social and economic foundation that is driven by the human
potential as well as the human need to produce. The creative and
intelligent capacity of the humans is something that differentiates them
from the animals. Thus the modern economy guides the human potential
and human nature to produce certain products and newer needs. It is
human nature to realize its innate potent ial by actively involving in the
creation and production of things that can result in satisfaction.

Check Your Progress:
1. What is ‘human nature’ according to Marx?

1.3 ALIENATION AND CRITIQUE OF CAPITALISM

As it remains obvious from Marx’s work, he was highly critical of
the prevalent capitalist mode of production was the foundation on which
the lives of the people were laid. It was within this system, that labourers
were considered as mere commodities, that have no feelings. Capitalism
gave rise to a small class of individuals that controlled the masses by munotes.in

Page 4

4
virtue of ownership of means of production. The workers instead had
nothing but their labour to offer in exchange of money for a livelihood.
Capitalism th us becomes the root cause of suffering of the working class.
Thus, in developing a critique of capitalism, Marx also put forth the theory
of alienation.

Alienation is an historically created phenomenon with its origin
and continuity in civilized society arising from the alienation of labor
which characterizes all systems of private property from slavery to
capitalism (Mandel & Novack, 1973 ). As wealth remains in the hands of
the few, and as workers starve even for their basic needs, the capitalist
mode of production creates an unequal, unjust and meaningless society,
resulting in the alienation of the workers. As human nature is seen as
being creative and productive, capitalism however hampers this urge by
transforming workers into machine -like beings.

Thus, capitalism is essentially evil as the human nature loses
control over itself, and it comes to be governed by the means of
production. The theory of alienation is therefore dependent on the idea of
human nature and human potential. The theory of alienation also further
derives from Marx’s critique of capitalism. Nevertheless, theory of
alienation is much more that the essence of h uman nature itself. Alienation
is the manipulation of the workers by the ruling class, for the benefits of
the latter. And this manipulation vehemently results in, Marx argues,
alienation from one’s own product, alienation from the act of producing
(human nature), alienation from the other workers or producers and
alienation from one’s own self (Ollman & Bertell, 1976 ). The huge profits
by the ruling class creates wide gap between themselves and the working
class persons. Under this capitalist system of production, it is ensured that
the working class continue to remain poor and unimportant.

Even if the workers put more efforts at improving their conditions,
the capitalist systems does not allow them to climb up the social and
economic ladder. They are used like commodities to increase the profits
for the ruling class. Poverty and alienation t hus increases amongst the
working class persons. Not just that, the capitalist market conditions
encourage competition amongst the fellow workers, resulting in the
alienation from one’s own class people. Capitalist mode of production is a
witness to the ab ject poverty of the working class and thereby their
unprecedented alienation.

Labour thus becomes an ‘alienated labour’. It is within the system
of capitalism to categorically suppress the creative need of human beings
to the extent of presenting them as commodities that have meagre value in
exchange for their labour. And therefore, Marx professed abolition of
capitalism to end this system where a small minority owns and controls
the means of production and replacing it with a more just system – a
sociali st revolution.
Check Your Progress: munotes.in

Page 5

5
1. What is ‘alienation’ in a capitalist society?

1.4 ‘WORK’ AND LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE

The labour theory of value grew out of the ideas of the natural law
philosophers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries such as Grotius,
Pufendorf, Hobbes, Locke, Quesnay, Hutcheson and Adam Smith, among
others who shared a common research agenda, tracing back to antiquity
(Dooley, 2 005). The labour theory of value predominantly talks about
labour and value – the value of labour or how the labour leads to its value.
Thus, the classical school, particularly that of Ricardo and Adam Smith,
greatly influenced Marx’s approach to labour theory. The place of work
also becomes the place of massive exploitation and that the labour is
exploited and highly undervalued by the capitalists, is what Marx’s
theorization states.

As apparent from the discussion on Marx’s views on ‘human
nature’, c reativity and production remain central to human beings’ sense
of fulfillment. Therefore, ‘work’ and ‘labour’ are extremely crucial in
understanding human existence. For Marx, value of an object is nothing
but the amount of the labour utilized to produce i t. Labour remains
significant for Marx and his economics, also because labour is something
that is exploited the most under the capitalist system, yet it remains the
backbone of any production. As such, Marx’s theory of labour and his
critique of capitalis m are deeply connected. As the value of a product is
because of the labour, Marx proposed that profits derived from such
products should necessarily be held by the workers, not by the capitalists.

For Marx, commodities have ‘use value’ and ‘exchange valu e’
(Morrison, 2006 ). While th e use value of the commodity is determined by
unique characteristic of that commodity that creates its demand for giving
certain satisfaction, the exchange value of the commodity, usually
predominant in the capitalist societies, simply refers to the its qu ality for
being able to command a value in its exchange with a another commodity.
Therefore, the use value is said to be the qualitative aspect of labour,
whereas, the exchange value is said to be the quantitative aspect – the two -
fold character that Marx sees in labour being responsible for the two -fold
character he attributes to value (Ollman & Bertell, 1976 ).

Marx stated that the labour has a ‘dual character’. Marx’s inclusion
of this dual character of labour – useful labour and abstract labour - is a
diversion from the political economy proposed by Smith and Ricardo
(Morrison, 2006 ). While the useful labour is interconnected with the use
value of commodity, the abstract labour is interconn ected with the
exchange value of the commodity. Thus, labour and its intrinsic worth munotes.in

Page 6

6
remain central to Marx’s arguments against the capitalist mode of
production.

Check Your Progress:
1. Explain Marx’s approach to labour.
1.5 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

Very crucial to Marx’s theorization of political economy, was the
importance of history. Historical materialism implies that human societies
should be understood by studying their history. History is considered as
having stages, with varying material conditions. As such, it is the material
condition within the historical stages that influence human societies in all
matters. The evolution of human societies, thus, takes place due to their
material evolution.

Marx and Engels were the first to present a scientific theory of
society, based on history and as such created historical materialism by
extending and applying philosophical materialism and materialistically
revised dialectics to the revolutionary practical activities of the working
class, in order to interpret the society (Lorimer, 2006 ). Karl Marx and
Engels ([1845 -7] 1998 ) in The German Ideology , thus proposed their ideas
on historical materialism – which, according to them, was not a theory of
specialized social aspects of life, but rather it dealt with the most general
laws of existence for the historically determined socioeconomic
formations.

Marx was deeply influenced by Georg Hegel, as the latter was
famous for his philosophical doctrine known as philosophical idealism –
significance of ideas in history. However, for Marx, while hum an
transformation throughout history was crucial, the materialist perspective
that he added became a new interpretative framework for understanding
history (Morrison, 2006 ). Simply put, the material conditions define
human existence, throughout history. Thus, Marx rejected ‘idealism’ and
promoted ‘materialism’ to argue that the basic material needs of the
human beings drive them to produce, which in turn accounts for its
development and evolution.

Marx’s materialistic theory of history remains the antithesis of the
Hegel’s idealistic theory of history. There are four fundamental concepts
that are central to the materialistic theory of history: (a) the means of
production, (b) the relations of produc tion, (c) the mode of production, and
(d) the forces of production (Morrison, 2006 ). These concepts remain the
foundation of this theory.

Marx also identified four different economic stages of ownership – munotes.in

Page 7

7
(a) tribal or primitive communism, (b) slavery, (c) feudal society, and (d)
industrial capitalist society (Bober, 1950 ). The human society is believed
to have evolved from these stages of historical and material significance.
Marx also proposed ‘socialism’ to be the next stage of the human society
in order to ov ercome all the fallacies of the previous stages, particularly
the adversaries of the woring class in the capitalist society.

Check Your Progress:
1. Explain Marx’s contribution to the theory of history.

1.6 FETISHISM OF COMMODITIES

Karl Marx and Engels ([1845 -7] 1998 ), in their Critique of
Political Economy formulated ‘commodity fetishism’ to show that
commodities’ exchange value is derived from its economic value and not
the social relations that are utilized to produce it. There are no social
relationships between the people, but there are economic relation ships
between the commodities and its economic worth in terms of money, that
matter in the market situations.

The ‘fetishism of commodities’ refers to the misconception of the
people for the products of labour once they enter exchange (Ollman &
Bertell, 1976 ). As a reification, the exchange value of the commodity, in
monetary terms, gets personified so as to have an equivalent for the
exchange, by negating its use -value. Commodity fetishism thus remains a
cognitive illusion arising from market transactions (Elster, 1986 ). As
capitalism takes on a life of its own, through fetishism of commodities,
human ‘reify’ their social interrelationships upon the commodities, in
econ omic terms.

Check Your Progress:
1. What is ‘fetishism of commodity’?
__
1.7 CLASS AND DIVISION OF LABOUR

Marx’s theory of class is based on the relations of domination and
exploitation in production and therefore, look upon the class struggle. As
there are classes of people with conflicting interests, there arises a
situation to combat it. For Marx, class is an actual group of persons with a
common interest and economic condition. Marx argued, classes are not munotes.in

Page 8

8
differenti ated merely by income and occupations of their members, but
instead what constitutes class is the work context , and not the work itself
(Elster, 1986 ). The dominant class is the owner of means of production
and the working class only serves the dominant class.

In Communist Manifesto , published in 1848, while outlining the
concept of class, class struggle and class formation, Marx gives several
characteristics for describing the concept of class: (a) all societies have the
historical tendency to divide themselves into two unequal social classes,
(b) all classes are structured in a hierarchy with superordinate and
subordinate socio -economic privileges, (c) classes are always engaged in a
‘historical struggle’ resulting in a ruin of these classes, (d) in each
econom ic stage, a given population transforms into a class depending
upon the prevailing economic conditions, and (e) the transformation of
people into a class thus creates a common set of interests that define their
class situation finally leading to a class st ruggle (Morrison, 2006 ).

In the Communist Manifesto , Marx writes the disastrous effects of
machinery and the division of labor how owing to the extensive use of
machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost
all individual character, and consequently all c harm for the workman
(Wendling, 2009 ). For Marx, the division of labour, within the capitalist
society, creates enmity amongst the people by creating and upholding
massive class differences.

For Marx, due to division of labour, the capitalist society is ab le to
separate workers from their final products as the labour required to
produce it is itself broken down and thus the workers lose control over
their products as well as the markets where these are exchanged for
money. This division of labour influences the way workers experience
their work, their creation, resulting in ultimate alienation from the work,
the product and fellow beings.

Marx emphasized that modern production more and more required
cooperation, division of labour, and social production; a nd that the
expression “the division of labour” can be interpreted either as division of
labour in general or as a particular division of labour in a specific
historical and social period. (Ware, 2019 ). However, division of labour
eventually becomes a standardized method of explo itation.

Check Your Progress:
1. What is ‘division of labour’?
_

munotes.in

Page 9

9
1.8 SUMMARY

Karl Marx has been regarded as the one of the most prolific writers
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries . His significant contributions
include the theory of alienation, labour theory of value, theory of class and
class struggle, critique of capitalism, Das Kapital and Communist
Manifesto, amongst many others, which were published posthumously.
Marx’s ideas and ideology have influenced the intellectual thought
throughout the world. Also, what is worth knowing is the fact there are
contestations amongst the Marxists themselves with special reference to
interpreting and applying his concepts and ideas.

1.9 QUESTIONS

1. Explain ‘human nature’ from a Marxian perspective.
2. Elaborate on the ‘Critique of Capitalism’.
3. What is ‘Historical Materialism’?
4. Explain the theory of class.

1.10 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS

 Bober, M. M. (19 50). Karl Marx's Interpretation of History . Cambridge:
Harward University Press.
 Churchich, N. (1990). Marxism and Alienation . USA: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press.
 Croce, B., & Meredith, C. M. (2019). Historical materialism and the
economics of Karl Marx . London: Good Press.
 Dooley, P. C. (2005). The Labour Theory of Value . UK: Taylor &
Francis.
 Eckstein, P. (1970). On Karl Marx and Max Weber. Science & Society,
34(3), 346 -348. doi: 10.2307/40401499
 Elster, J. (1986). An Introduction to Karl Marx . Cam bridge: Cambridge
University Press.
 Hollander, S. (2008). The Economics of Karl Marx: Analysis and
Application : Cambridge University Press.
 Lorimer, D. (2006). Fundamentals of Historical Materialism: The
Marxist View of History and Politics . Delhi: Aakar B ooks.
 Mandel, E., & Novack, G. (1973). The Marxist Theory of Alienation .
London: Pathfinder Press.
 Marx, K., & Engels, F. ([1845 -7] 1998). The German Ideology:
Including Theses on Feuerbach and Introduction to The Critique of
Political Economy (Reprint ed. ). USA: Prometheus Books.
 Marx, K., & Engels, F. ([1894] 2007). Capital: A Critique of Political
Economy (Reprint ed. Vol. III). New York: Cosimo, Incorporated.
 Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern munotes.in

Page 10

10
Social Thought . New Delhi: Sag e Publications.
 Ollman, B., & Bertell, O. (1976). Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man
in a Capitalist Society (Reprint ed.). USA: Cambridge University Press.
 Tabak, M. (2012). Dialectics of Human Nature in Marx's Philosophy .
United States: Palgrave Macmil lan.
 Ware, R. X. (2019). Marx on the Division of Labour Marx on
Emancipation and Socialist Goals: Retrieving Marx for the Future (pp.
79-98). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
 Wendling, A. (2009). Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation . UK:
Palgrave Macmillan

*****
munotes.in

Page 11

11
2


POLITICAL IDEAS AND THE LEGACY OF
MARX TODAY

Unit Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Materialist Origins of State
2.3 Historical Origins of the Modern State
2.4 The State and Civil Society
2.5 Marx’s Legacy
2.6 Summary
2.7 Unit End Questions
2.8 References and Further Readings

2.0 OBJECTIVES

 To understand the political ideas of Marx
 To understand the state and civil society in Marxian thought
 To explore the contemporary legacy of Marx

2.1 INTRODUCTION

As we have seen it, Marx remains one of the most widely read as
well as contested scholar. Not just between the Marxian and non -Marxian
scholars, there are serious cleavages between various Marxian scholars as
well. Yet, despite all this, Marx continues to remain an all -time-favourite
scholar and writer, almost as popular as religious/political leaders.

Marx is known for his contributions to sociology, economics,
political economy, and so on. In addition to observing firsthand the
emergence of the industrial worker and the development of capitalism in
Europe and England, there have been a number of key influences shaping
Marx’s conception of society and history at the time. These influences
have led to several theoretical developments which have been very
significant to the formation of Marx’s overall view of society and history,
and of these at least two stand out: first, was Marx’s break with Hegel’s
idealist philosophy which helped him devise a method that was suitable to
the study of society and history which was form ally outside philosophy;
second, was the introduction of materialism and the materialist outlook as
a strong theoretical perspective for looking at the formation of historical
societies (Morrison, 2006).

Marx’s political philosophy is his view on the natu re of political munotes.in

Page 12

12
relations and the general law of its development, including political value,
political system and political ideal. In fact, as the research on Marx has
suggested, Marx has brought great changes to modern political theory,
which is to transf er the central field of politics from the traditional state
and law to the economic field. By revealing the nature of power
oppression of capitalist economy, a new field of political theory is opened
up, and the core content is the theory of class and clas s struggle (Lai,
2020).

2.2 MATERIALIST ORIGINS OF STATE

Marx’s political ideas in fact were laid down as soon as he
introduced the materialist perspective for looking at the formation of
historical societies. With his materialist perspective, Marx was a ble to
show that the very first act of all societies was always economic because
human beings had to satisfy their everyday material needs much before
anything else. Thus, this premise becomes the major theoretical
perspective for looking at the social and historical development of
societies from the point of view of their economic production and the
division into social classes (Morrison, 2006).

From the perspective of theoretical value, Marx’s political
philosophy has achieved the unity of scientific and revolutionary nature,
ideal and practical nature of political philosophy. The concept of people -
oriented governance, the pursuit of fairness and justice, and the political
ideal of human liberation embodied the advanced value concept of Marx’s
political philosophy. Marx’s political philosophy based on his optimistic
understanding of human nature, and then attributed the root of human
social confli cts to social production relations (Lai, 2020).

As a theoretical system, Marxism has constituted the principal
alternative to the liberal rationalism that has dominated western culture
and intellectual enquiry in the modern period. As a political force, in the
form of the international communist movement, Marxism has also been
seen as the major enemy of western capitalism, at least in the period 1917 –
91 (Heywood, 2019).

In an early writing entitled Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
published in 18 43, Marx undertook a critical revision of Hegel’s political
philosophy, which eventually led to one of Marx’s first systematic
discussions of the state. Later on, in his work ‘On the Jewish Question’,
Marx looked at the relationship between civil society a nd the development
of modern state. In 1851, Marx undertook a historical study of the state in
his work called The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and finally
in 1871, in a work entitled The Civil War in France , he focused on the
development of the French political state (Morrison, 2006).

Marx’s basic conception of the state is stated in his famous piece
Communist Manifesto arguing that it is the repressive arm of the munotes.in

Page 13

13
bourgeoisie and, as a set of institutions, takes on a wide range of functions
corresponding to the needs of capital and/or interests of the capital class
(as cited in Wetherly, 2005, p.17). One can’t find any distinctive theory of
the state in Marx’s studies. Rather, he uses a traditional conception of the
state in his theory of the his tory. Marx thus analyses different modes of
production as well as forces of productions that create different relations
of production along a continuum throughout history. Marx places the state
within the realm of superstructure in his famous base and supe rstructure
metaphor (Wetherly, 2005, p. 11).

The fact that there is no explicit theory of the state by Marx has led
many social scientists to evaluate his conception of the state from different
perspectives. One of the most common ideas is that the state is the result
of the existence of different classes in Marx’s ideology as put forward by
Giddens & Held (1982). In general terms, Marx argues that classes are the
creation of history and they will disappear in the future. Classes only arise
when a surplus value is generated because it then becomes possible for
non-producers to live off the productivity of the others (p. 4). So, one can
inevitably expect to encounter a great amount of attributions to the
emergence and significance of classes while studying Marx’s conception
of the state.

Marx’s work The German Ideology set in the context for outlining
some of the historical as well as the materialist principles of state
development. In fact, the assertion by Marx that the state has a historical
origin is ex plicitly discussed in the 1859 preface to A Critique of Political
Economy , whereby he argues that the central features of the state grow out
of the economic base of society and that the state is not independent of the
economic foundations of society. Thus, within the scope of this reasoning,
not only does the economic base give rise to the superstructure of the
society and its institutional configuration, but as the productive system
changes so does the political and legal superstructure of the state
(Morri son, 2006).

The scope and limits of the theory of history are more confined
than Marxist state theory taken as a whole. This is because the relevant
historical materialist concept is the ‘legal and political superstructure’
rather than the state. The theo ry of the state is contained within the theory
of history to the extent that the state is contained within the superstructure,
and it is so only partially. The superstructure might be something more
than the state, and there might be more to the state than what is included in
the superstructure (Wetherly, 2005).

The superstructure consists of non -economic phenomena, but only
such phenomena as are economically relevant. This means only those
phenomena that are functionally explained by the needs (or functi onal
requirements) of the economic base. Thus non -economic phenomena are
defined as superstructural only in virtue of being causally related in a
certain way (i.e. functionally) to the economic structure. According to munotes.in

Page 14

14
Elster ‘the central question in the Ma rxist theory of the state is whether it
is autonomous with respect to class interests, or entirely reducible to them’
(Elster, 1986, p. 402). However this way of presenting Marx’s views is
unhelpful because it suggests a false dualism or even antithesis. Elster’s
‘central question’ actually conflates two, and each is most fruitfully posed
not in ‘eitheror’ but ‘both -and’ terms (Wetherly, 2005).

Two broad conclusions can be drawn from Marx’s perspective on
state formation. First, economic production shapes social and class
relations and hence the political structure of society. Second, economic
production gives rise to a legal and political superstructure which comes to
represent the productive relations. And therefore, taking Marx’s
materialist theory into account, the political structure of society and later
the state, always reflect the prevailing class interests and is never
independent of them (Morrison, 2006).

Check Your Progress
1. What is the inter -relationship between the state and superstructure, in a
Marxian understanding?





2.3 HISTORICAL ORIGINS OF THE MODERN STATE

The materialist origin of the political institutions led Marx to focus
on the historical formation of the state. As we saw, Marx’s early writings
on the state were formulated as a critique of Hegel’s political and social
philosophy. Hegel understood the modern state to be the embodiment of
rationality and universality as developed over the course of human history.
Marx’s critique rested on the claim that by locating universalit y and
equality in the bourgeois constitutional state ( Rechtsstaat ), Hegel inverted
the relationship between the state and civil society.

Marx traced the growing separation between civil society and the
state as part of the transition from the estate and g uild societies of the late
medieval period to the consolidation of mercantile capitalist society in
eighteenth century northwestern Europe. Marx’s analysis of the state thus
spanned two related but nevertheless distinct standpoints:
the philosophical persp ective of his earlier writing, where the state is a
juridical fiction that masks the class interests openly expressed in civil
society, and a historical -political perspective where it is a social relation
that reproduces a specific balance of forces in soc iety. Although this has
been explained as the gap between the young and the mature Marx, there
are also certain continuities. Namely, the overcoming of political
alienation by the eventual reabsorption of the state into society — what
Engels later called t he “withering away” or dying out the state — munotes.in

Page 15

15
reappears in later writings such as The Civil War in France .

Marx, Engels and their followers (particularly Lenin) had no faith
on the social contract theory as the origin of state. They have viewed the
origin from a materialistic’ standpoint which emphasizes that though the
state is the creation of man, behind this there is no emotion, idea but the
influence of material conditions which they termed as economic
conditions. They have divided the development of so ciety into old
communist social system, slave society, feudal society and industrial
society. In the old communist society there was no state because there was
no existence of private property. The system of private property worked as
a potential cause of the rise of state. The owners of private property felt
insecurity as to its protection and they felt the necessity of a super power
which could provide protection ultimately.

Check Your Progress:
1. How did the system of private property helped the creation of state?





2.4 THE STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY

There is some similarity between this idea of alienated politics and
the view of the state as a ‘parasitic institution’ which exploits and
oppresses civil society. Although this view i s expressed in both The
Eighteenth Brumaire and The Civil War in France ,12 it essentially
belongs to the critique of Hegel where Marx argues that ‘the state becomes
the private property of officials in their struggle for self -advancement’
(Jessop, 1977, p. 354) and predates the development of a class theory of
state (Wetherly, 2005).

The Marxist theory of the state involves economic determination
as its principle of explanation. This is a version of a ‘society -centred ’ view
of the state that places emphasis on external (located in society) causal
influences. Of course, Marxism is not the only version of a society centred
theory as other traditions in state theory, notably pluralism, share this
approach.1 All such theor ies utilize a conception of the state as
institutionally differentiated from ‘civil society’. The distinctiveness of
Marxism derives from the emphasis it places on causal influences rooted
in the nature of the economic structure, coupled with its distincti ve
characterization of capitalist relations of production ( ibid).

Marx borrowed the term ‘civil society’ from Hegel’s writings. In
the Philosophy of Right , Hegel had asserted that the state rises above self
interest by mediating it through the universal i nterest. Marx fundamentally
rejected this view as he saw the state promoting itself through its defense munotes.in

Page 16

16
of private property and its ultimate alignment with the ruling classes. And
subsequently, Marx turned his attention to the historical development of
civil society (Morrison, 2006).

Marx saw the solution of problems posed by the eighteenth -
century theorists of civil society not in the division between civil society
and the state but in its eradication. This abolition was viewed by Marx as a
future desider atum to be achieved after the Revolution. A future unity of
human existence and thus true freedom might be achieved only through
the negation of the distinction between civil society and the state and
‘dissolution’ of the latter. Marx was very critical of a positive concept of
civil society: ‘Marx accepted Hegel’s account of civil society, especially
its darker aspects.

According to Marx, political revolution, which followed the rise of
commercial society, abolished the people from the community and thus
the political character of civil society. Political emancipation reduces man
as an independent individual to a member of civil society or to a citizen, a
moral person. With Marx the theory of civil society reaches its end. He
accepted Hegel’s account of civ il society but rejected his account of two
other spheres of social life, family and the state. According to Marx, in
society as a whole, viewed as bourgeois society, people treat each other
primarily as means to their own ends and the class solidarity is
exceptionally weak.

Marx believed that civil society brought about the breakdown of
the individual’s relation to the wider society by fragmenting the whole of
society into political and civil parts. While Hegel saw civil society and the
political state as separate, Marx saw them as one and the same (Morrison,
2006).

Check Your Progress
1. What is civil society according to Marx?





2.5 MARX’S LEGACY

An interesting question is whether Marx remains useful for us
today. Which of Marx's theories are hopelessly dated or dead, and which
remain a source of new ideas and hypotheses? The development of Marx's
doctrine after his death first followed the course of a mainstream, the
Second International, and then div ided into two separate currents, Soviet
Marxism and Western Marxism. The story of these developments is, by
and large, a depressing one. Although the Marxist movement has produced
some great political leaders, there have been no outstanding thinkers after munotes.in

Page 17

17
Marx. Moreover, the propensity of some political leaders to believe
themselves great thinkers and their ability to impose this view on others
have had a permanently stultifying effect on intellectual life in the
communist countries (Elster, 1986).

We can think of Marx as the great -grandfather of today’s anti -
capitalist movement. Of course, much has changed. For example, Marx
seems to have assumed that natural resources were inexhaustible, and thus
he has a much more limited ecological perspective than one would expect
today. But on the other hand Marx portrays a world in which the capitalist
market comes to permeate society, putting a price on everything and
crowding out non -economic forms of value (Wolff, 2003).

Reading Marx, though, is a task to be handl ed with care. Although
sometimes regarded as a great stylist —and perhaps he is by the standards
of contemporary economists and social theorists —reading the texts can be
dispiriting. His great masterpiece, Capital Volume 1 begins with page
after dry page on the definition and nature of the commodity (although
patience is eventually rewarded). Perhaps The Communist Manifesto ,
jointly written with Engels, is his most widely read work. This is much
more accessible, but its polemical tone does not do the depth o f Marx’s
thought real justice ( ibid).

Owing to theoretical disputes or political events, interest in Marx’s
work has fluctuated over time and gone through indisputable periods of
decline. From the early twentieth century “crisis of Marxism” to the
dissolu tion of the Second International, and from debates on the
contradictions of Marx’s economic theory to the tragedy of “actually
existing socialism”, criticism of the ideas of Marx seemed persistently to
point beyond the conceptual horizon of Marxism. Yet th ere has always
been a return to Marx”. A new need develops to refer to his work –
whether the critique political economy, the formulations on alienation, or
the brilliant pages of political polemic – and it has continued to exercise
an irresistible fascina tion for both followers and opponents.

So, Marx’s grandest theories are not substantiated. But he is not to
be abandoned. His writings are among the most powerful in the Western
intellectual tradition, and, true or false, they are to be appreciated and
admired. But further, he does say many true and inspiring things. His work
is full of insight and illumination. We have found many such examples.
Marx remains the most profound and acute critic of capital ism, even as it
exists today (Wolff, 2003).

Check Your Progress
1. What is Marx’s relevance in contemporary society?



munotes.in

Page 18

18
2.6 SUMMARY

Through this module, we saw the perspective of Marx on the
formation of a state as well as the civil society. Also, despite the failure of
communist regimes, the magic of Marxian thought has definitely not
faded. This is to the extent that no scholarly soc iological as well as
economics one can be completely without considering Marx and his
significant contributions.

2.7 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. What is ‘state’ for Marx?
2. What are the historical stages in development of states?
3. What is civil society?
4. Does Marxism have a future?

2.8 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

1. Elster, J. (1986). An Introduction to Karl Marx . Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2. Giddens, A & Held, D. (1982). Classes, Power, and Conflict,
Berkeley: University of California Press
3. Heywood, A. (2019). Politics : Macmillan International Higher
Education/Red Globe Press.
4. Lai, T. F. (2020). The Basic Characteristics of Marx’s Political
Philosophy. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8, 313 -319.
5. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Fo rmations of Modern
Social Thought. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
6. Slaughter C. (1980) The Legacy of Marx. In: Marxism, Ideology and
Literature. Critical Social Studies. Palgrave, London.
7. Wetherly, P. (2005). Marxism and the State: An Analytical Approach ,
Leeds: Palgrave MacMillan
8. Wolff, Jonathan. (2003). Why Read Marx Today? OUP Oxford


*****
munotes.in

Page 19

19
3


METHODOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
AND THE DIVISION OF LABOUR

Unit Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Social Fact
3.3 Division of Labour
3.4 Mechanical Solidarity
3.5 Organic Solidarity
3.6 Collective Conscience
3.7 Restitutive and Repressive Law
3.8 Summary .
3.9 Unit End Questions .
3.10 References and Further Readings

3.0 OBJECTIVES

 To understand the methodological contribution of Durkheim.
 To understand the division of labour work of Emile Durkheim.

3.1 INTRODUCTION

In this unit we will look into Durkheim’s Social fact which is his
methodological contribution to sociology. In addition, functionalist
perspective which he has been also influenced.

3.2 SOCIAL FACT

In order to help sociology, move away from philosophy and to give
it a clear and separate identity, in The Rules of Sociological Method
(1895/1982), Durkheim argued that it is the special task of sociology to
study what he called social facts (Nielsen, 2005a, 2007a). He understood
social facts as forces (Takl a and Pope, 1985) and structures that are
external to, and coercive of, the individual.

Durkheim differentiated between two types of social facts —
material and nonmaterial. Although he dealt with both in the course of his munotes.in

Page 20

20
work, his main focus was on nonmaterial social facts (for example,
culture, social institutions) rather than material social facts (for example,
bureaucracy, law). Social facts are the ways of acting, thinking and feeling
which possess the remarkable property of existing outside the
consciousness of the individual. It is a kind of public conscience in which
individuals are trained in the societyi. Social facts are also ‘sui generis’
which means its own kind, it is unique. Social fact has to be seen different
from that of biological an d psychological events.

Durkheim gave two ways of defining a social fact so that sociology
is distinguished from psychology. First, a social fact is experienced as an
external constraint rather than an internal drive; second, it is general
throughout the society and is not attached to any particular individual.
Social facts have control over individuals. These act as guides and controls
of conduct for the members of society. It is also external in individual. For
e.g. Norms, mores, folkways.

Snell, Patr icia (2018) notes that a social fact according to
Durkheim consists of collective thoughts and shared expectations that
influence individual actions. Examples of social facts include social roles,
norms, laws, values, rituals, and customs. Violating social facts confirms
their existence because people who act against social facts are typically
sanctioned.

A social fact is an idea, force, or “thing” that influences the ways
individuals act and the kinds of attitudes people hold. As a social subject,
these facts are not particular to a single individual but are rather “supra -
individual,” meaning they are held in the minds of multiple people and
culminate in the “collective conscience.” Social fact is considered within
the minds of an individual, it originates outside of an individual and is
experienced and expressed by more than one person. For e.g. When you
think of a cab driver in India or in England, the roles and duties and the
image comes in front of you. So, this is social fact. The duties and the
norms, roles etc.

Social facts impose themselves upon people, individuals feel
compelled to conform to thei r implicit expectations. When people violate
those expectations, they often experience a sanction, which is a form of
punishmentii.Ritzer notes that Durkheim also distinguished between the
normal and the pathological within the sphere of social facts. Pheno mena
such as crime and suicide are normal for a society if they correspond to its
type of social organization and level of development. For example, crime
is normal in a society that also prizes individual innovation, and no
progress would be possible with out the actions of criminals who represent
in their individual person the new cultural tendencies and provide a focus
for new outlets for emerging currents of public opinioniii. Studying social
facts which help in understanding the society better and even t o build a
framework for developing the society.
munotes.in

Page 21

21

Check Your Progress
1. Discuss the social fact as methodology given by Durkheim.




2. According to you, is social fact as a methodology applicable to
understand society ?





3.3 DIVISION OF LABOUR

The first edition of Emile Durkheim’s ‘The division of labour in
society: a study of the organization of the higher societies was published
in 1893. It was his doctorate dissertationiv. Durkheim first used the
phrase division of labour in a sociological sense in his discussion of social
evolution.v.

To use Durkheim words’, “Social harmony comes essentially from
the division of labour. It is characterized by a cooperation which is
automatically produced through the pursuit in each individual o f his own
interests. It suffices that each individual consecrate himself to a special
function in order, by the force of events, to make himself solidarity with
others.”vi

Durkheim stated that specialization arose from changes in social
structure caused by an assumed natural increase in the size and density of
population and a corresponding increase in competition for survival.
Division of labour functioned to keep societies from breaking apart under
these conditions (ii). Through division of labour Durkhei m tries to look
into the relation between individual and society.

During Durkheim times the French Revolution had taken place
which was a voice against the control of traditional authority and religious
beliefs. There was crisis in the society. Comte developed sociology to
understand this chaos to bring back order, cohes ion in the society.
Durkheim too tries to understand this complexity and gives his theory.

The core idea of the Division of Labour is that modern society is
not held together by the similarities between people who work in the same
way. However, it is th e division of labour that brings people together by
making them dependent on each other. Durkheim argued that “the
economic services that it can render are insignificant compared with the
moral effect that it produces and its true function is to create bet ween two munotes.in

Page 22

22
or more people a feeling of solidarity.” Durkheim wanted to how social
solidarity operated in the real life of members of society. Hence, he
developed the concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity. Let us look
into its details.

3.4 MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

Mechanical solidarity is the social integration of members of a
society who have common values and beliefs. These common values and
beliefs constitute a “collective conscience” that works internally in
individual members to cause them to cooperate. Because, in Durkheim’s
view, the forces causing members of society to cooperate were much like
the internal energies causing the molecules to cohere in a solid, he drew
upon the terminology of physical science in coining the term mechani cal
solidarity .

3.5 ORGANIC SOLIDARITY

Organic solidarity is social integration that arises out of the need of
individuals for one another’s services. In a society characterized by
organic solidarity, there is relatively greater division of labour, with
individuals functioning much like the interdependent but differentiated
organs of a living body. Society relies less on imposing uniform rules on
everyone and more on regulating the relations between different groups
and persons, often through the greater use of contracts and lawsvii.

People in modern society perform a relatively narrow range of
tasks, they need many other people in order to survive. The primitive
family headed by father -hunter and mother –food gatherer is practically
self-sufficient, but the modern family needs the grocer, baker, butcher,
auto mechanic, teacher, police officer, and so f orth. These people, in turn,
need the kinds of services that others provide in order to live in the
modern world. Modern society, in Durkheim’s view, is thus held together
by the specialization of people and their need for the services of many
others. This specialization includes not only that of individuals but also of
groups, structures, and institutions. The society operates in the below
given formviii

Solidarity Volume Intensity Rigidity Content
Mechanical Entire
society High High Religious Organic Particular
groups Low Low Moral individualism
Check Your Progress
1. Discuss in few lines about division of labour.
munotes.in

Page 23

23



2. Explain mechanical and organic solidarity in few lines.





3.6 COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE

Collective conscience means shared understandings, norms, and
beliefs. According to Durkheim primitive societies had a stronger
collective conscience. The increasing division of labour has caused a
disturbance of the collective conscience. The collective c onscience is of
much less significance in a society with organic solidarity than it is in
mechanical solidarity. People in modern society are more likely to be held
together by the division of labour which resulted in functions performed
by others than by a shared and powerful collective conscience. Organic
societies also have a collective consciousness, though in a weaker form
which allows for greater individual differences.

In a society characterized by mechanical solidarity, the collective
conscience covers virtually the entire society and all its members; it is
believed in with great intensity; it is extremely rigid; and its content is
highly religious in character. In a society with organic solidarity, the
collective conscience is limited to particular groups; it is adhered to with
much less intensity; it is not very rigid; and its content is the elevation of
the importance of the individual to a moral precept (v).

3.7 RESTITUTIVE AND REPRESSIVE LAW

Durkheim stated that there are two kinds of law whi ch operates in
both the mechanical and organic solidarity i.e., Restitutive and Repressive.
Mechanical solidarity is characterized by repressive law as people are
bonded more closely. There is more of collective consciousness. The
restitutive law is very s evere in nature the violator is punished severely.

In contrast in the organic solidarity the individuals are dealt with
restitutive law. Here there is scope for correction. The crime is seen and
treated as an act by an individual. (Emotions are given les s importance).
Most people do not react emotionally to a breach of the law as there is a
weak common morality. (instead of one in bracket use this line)

3.8 SUMMARY

Thus, Durkheim gives his methodology of social fact which could munotes.in

Page 24

24
be used to understand so ciety. Durkheim also argues in ‘The Division of
Labour’ that the form of moral solidarity has changed in modern society,
not disappeared. We have a new form of solidarity that allows for more
interdependence and closer, less competitive relations and that produces a
new form of law based on restitution.

3.9 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. Explain the concept of Social fact.
2. Explain Division of Labour and Mechanical & organic solidarity.

3.10 REFERENCE & FURTHER READINGS

 Durkheim E. (1982) What is a Social Fact?. In: Lukes S. (eds) The Rules
of Sociological Method. Contemporary Social Theory. Palgrave, London.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978 -1-349-16939 -9_2
 iiSnell Herzog, Patricia. (2018). Social Fact. 1 -4.
10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss151.pub2.
 iiiRitzer, G. (Ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of social theory . Sage publications.
 ivJ. A. Barnes. (1966). Durkheim's Division of Labour in Society. Man, 1(2), new
series, 158 -175. doi:10.2307/2796343
 vhttps://www.britannica.com/topic/division -of-labour
 vi Durkheim, E. (1982, first published 1893), The Division of Labour in
Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
 viihttps://www.brit annica.com/topic/mechanical -and-organic -solidarity
 viiiRitzer, G. (Ed.). (2004). Encyclopedia of social theory . Sage publications.


*****
munotes.in

Page 25

25
4


THEORY OF SUICIDE, RELIGION AND
LEGACY OF DURKHEIM TODAY

Unit structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Theory of Suicide
4.2.1 Integration Regulation
4.2.2 Altruistic Suicide
4.2.3 Egoistic Suicide
4.2.4 Anomic Suicide
4.2.5 Fatalistic Suicide
4.3 Elementary forms of Religious life
4.4 Beliefs, Rituals and Church
4.5 Primitive religious forms
4.6 Totemism
4.7 Collective Effervescence
4.8 Legacy of Durkheim today
4.9 Conclusion
4.10 Summary
4.11 Unit End Questions
4.12 Reference & Further Readings

4.0 OBJECTIVES

 To understand about Suicide from Emile Durkheim perspective.
 To understand views of religion from Emile Durkheim.
 To apply views of Durkheim to the contemporary world and issues.

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Emile Durkheim is one of the important classical sociologist.
Many of his work is relevant even today. In this chapter we will study
about two topics firstly theory of suicide and secondly about Durkheim
work on religion and its relevanc e today.

4.2 THEORY OF SUICIDE

According to Durkheim , ‘Suicide is applied to all cases of death munotes.in

Page 26

26
resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim
himself, which he knows will produce this result’ .

From generation suicide is considered to be one of the personal act,
that a person may exhibit. Durkheim believed that if he was able to
explain suicide with the help of sociology, it would be easy to extend and
link sociology to private/personal phenomeno n.

Durkheim being a sociologist was interested in studying the reason
behind the rate of suicide in a particular community than the reason why a
particular person commits suicide. He explained the differences in suicidal
rates, and he was interested in f inding out the reason behind the higher rate
of suicide in one community than the other. He believed that a
psychologist and biological factors can very well explain why a person
commits suicide but only the social facts reveal the reason why one
particula r group had higher rate of suicide.

4.2.1 In tegration and Regulation:

The theory of Durkheim on suicide can be very well understood if we
examine the link between the types of suicide and the rooted social facts namely
integration and regulation. Integr ation means the bond that a person has with
his/her society. Regulation means the restrictions that a person has on people.
For Durkheim suicide is dependent on integration and regulation variables, and
suicide rate may rise if either of them is too low o r too high. High integration and
low integration may result in altruistic and egoistic suicide respectively. And
high regulation and low regulation results in fatalistic and anomic suicide
respectively . Let us now look into the different types of suicide.

4.2.2 Altruistic Suicide:

When society imposes upon the individual. The individual
personality has little value in the larger scheme. The individual attaches
his identity, his whole self to the group and when he or she commits
suicide that is altruistic suicide. It is out of obligatory, too much of social
integration, att achment, towards the social group. It also out of sense of
honor, duty attached to the group. Altruistic suicide is more likely to occur
when “social integration is too strong” (Durkheim, 1897/1951:217). The
individual is literally forced into committing s uicide. More generally,
those who commit altruistic suicide do so because they feel that it is their
duty to do so. For e.g. - In the Titanic movie when the captain doesn’t step
outside the ship however, he remains in the same room even when the ship
is abo ut to submerge. It is due to the attachment towards to the material
object ship (this could possible because of the high integration of the
captain towards the material object ship and he felt it was his failure that
as a captain he couldn’t protect his pa ssengers).

4.2.3. Egoistic Suicide :

This type of suicide takes place when the individual feels alienated munotes.in

Page 27

27
from the group. The social integration in this category is comparatively
less. There is a lack of sense of belonging on the part of the individual.
Durkheim believed that lack of integration may result in egoistic suicide
because the person may feel that he/she does not belong to the larger
society. it can also be interpreted as the society is not the part of the
individual. He believed that the better part of a human being such as the
morality, values and sense of purpose are due to the larger society. the
larger society also helps to heal the daily chaos and provides us with moral
support. Without the help of society a person cannot survive for a long run
and he/she may commit suicide for smaller disappointments. Therefore, he
believes that egoistic suicides are more prone to happen in societies where
integration is less.

Due to the differences in social integration, there will be difference
in social currents as well. These difference in social currents may end up
in difference in suicidal rates. Politics is generally seen as a domination of
futility and morality is more o ften seen as a personal choice. It can be
viewed as strongly integrated society discourage suicide on a great extend.
If a society have high integration the social currents produced will
discourage egoistic suicides. It also provides people with the meanin g of
lives.

Durkheim states that religion safeguard man from self harm/ self
destruction. An amount of belief and practices constitute religion which is
followed by most of the people. If a person is highly committed to
religion, he will be highly integr ated to the religious community and thus
he will have higher support system. Therefore, he will not be in a state of
self destruction for smaller frustrations. But, Durkheim states that not all
the religions provide equal support for people. The religion w hich focuses
on the individual rather than worshiping provide less integration of the
community members therefore the protection of the people from self
destruction is less. From this it is clear that the importance is of the degree
of integration and not on the belief and rituals.

The statistics developed by Durkheim states that people who are
unmarried tends to have less social integration and therefore suicide rates
go up. In the time of crisis such as war, pandemic, etc the value of life is
known to t he people and suicide rates are comparatively less during these
times. Therefore, it can be summarized as increased feeling of integration
help person to resist suicidal ideation.

Check Your Progress
1. Explain Egoistic Suicide.






munotes.in

Page 28

28
2. State in few lines about social regulation and integration





4.2.4 Anomic Suicide:

Anomic suicide is likely to happen when the regulatory powers of
the society are disturbed. Such disturbances are likely to leave individuals
frustrated because their desires, which are free to run wild in an insatiable
race for pleasure, have little power. The rate of anomic suicides are likely
to increase irrespective of the positive and negative disruption. Both
positive and negative disruptions have an adverse effect on the
individuals. Such conditions put people in new situations that old norms
are no longer viable and new norms are yet to develop. The currents of
anomie are depended on the periods of disruption and these would result
in the higher rate of anomic suicide. F or example - During economic
depression people who are employed in a factory would be affected and
would probably ends up in unemployment. This unemployment would
make the person vulnerable to the after effects of currents of anomie and
prone to self destru ction.

The effect of economic boom is difficult to imagine. Durkheim
suggests that immediate success often pull people from the traditional
systems they were practicing. This sudden shift may force the people to
take up new job, find new partners, and ev entually to change the standard
of living. All these new changes will hinder the regulations and make the
people vulnerable to anomic social currents. In such a scenario, the actions
of people are freed from control, and even their dreams are no longer hel d
back. There seem to be endless opportunities for people in an economic
boom, and "reality seems valueless compared to the dreams of fevered
imaginations."

The high rate of anomic suicide during deregulation of social life
are constant with Durkheim’s vi ew on the effect of individual passion free
from external disruptions. Those people will become slaves of passion and
in Durkheim’s view will commit suicide.

4.2.5 Fatalistic Suicide:

This type of suicide is a little discussed by Durkheim in the
footnote of suicide. Fatalistic and anomic suicide are dependent on
regulations. While anomic suicide is dependent on lack of regulation,
fatalistic suicide occurs due to excessive regulation. T hose people who are
likely to commit fatalistic suicide are “persons with futures pitilessly
blocked and passions violently choked by oppressive discipline.” For e.g.
A slave who takes up his life because of the hopelessness that he had due
to the oppressi ve controlling of his every action. Too much of munotes.in

Page 29

29
controlling/regulation may result in the increased rate of fatalistic suicide.

As mentioned above the social currents seriously affect the rate of
suicide happening ion a particular area. Individual suicide s are affected by
those social currents such as egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism. The
social currents dominate the decision of the individuals and the rate of
suicide of a particular community can only be explained with the help of
social currents.

4.3 ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE

Randall Collins and Michael Makowsky call it “perhaps the
greatest single book of the twentieth century.” In his book Durkheim
included the sociology of religion and the theory of knowledge. Through
this book Durkh eim tried to find out the enduring essence of religion by an
analysis of its ancient primitive forms. Durkheim’s theory of knowledge
tried to fill the gap between basic categories of human thought and the
social origins. He was a genius to find connection between the most
puzzled concepts. Though his book he found the essence of religion. This
connection is created through rituals and beliefs that translate the moral
power of the society to religious symbols that helps people to integrate
themselves. His ar gument is that this moral bond becomes a cognitive
bond because the kinds of understanding such as time, classification,
causation and space are all extracted from religious rituals.

Society as an institution defines certain process as sacred and other
as profane. Those activities which are set termed as sacred, which are set
aside from the everyday contribute toward forming the religion. The rest
of the activities are categorized as profane which include the
commonplace, the utilitarian, the mundane aspe cts of life. Religion is the
system through which the society becomes aware of itself.

Together society is a power which binds the individuals together
and which supports the individuals in difficult times. It helps in reducing
our selfish tendencies, tak e out the negative energies and fills us with
positive energy. According to Durkheim he sees “only society transfigured
and symbolically expressed”.

4.4 BELIEFS, RITUALS AND CHURCH

The differences between sacred and profane and the increase of
some ele ments of social life to sacred are important but are not necessary
condition to the development of religion. Three other conditions are
needed for the same. Firstly, the set of religious belief should develop over
a course of time. These religious beliefs “the representations which
express the nature of sacred things and the relations which they sustain,
either with each other or with profane things” Secondly, a number of
religious rituals are needed. These are “the rules of conduct which munotes.in

Page 30

30
prescribe how a ma n should comport himself in the presence of these
sacred objects”. Lastly, a religion requires a space for moral community
for example a worshiping place like church. These three conditions helped
Durkheim to develop the definition of religion; “A religion is a unified
system of beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral
community called a Church, all those who adhere to them”.

The second and third conditions are really important in the theory
of Durkheim because they help in connecting the so cial and individual
practices. Durkheim often thinks that the social currents are taken up by
the individuals through some ways, but in his theory he very well explains
the process in which it really works. Individuals get to know more about
religion by en gaging in the activities of the church community. The social
currents are kept in the group through keeping the collective memory of
the group.

4.5 PRIMITIVE (INDIGENOUS) RELIGIOUS FORMS

The main source of his data was from Arunta, a clan -based
Austral ian Tribe. He believed that the tribe was of a primitive culture. But
currently there are tribes that are found to be more primitive than Arunta.
The first reason why he wanted to study religion in a primitive culture is
because he believed that primitive cultures have less developed ideologies
and system, so that he can study easily as compared to the modern
ideologies and systems. In primitive society the religious forms can be
understood from their nudity and it requires only the slightest effort to
study them as well. While in the case of modern society religion forms
diverse groups and it is possible difficult to study all. This concept made
him to relate the common beliefs to common structures of society.

Durkheim choose primitive religion because a non -modern society
could be tapped easily by their collective conscience. But when the
religion becomes specialized it is difficult to study the religion in narrow
domain. On the other hand other institutions represents other aspect of
collective morality. The various collective representations of modern
society have their origin in all encompassing religion of the primitive
society.

4.6 TOTEMISM

Durkheim like to believe that society is the source of religion and
that is th e reason why he was interested in studying more about totemism.
It is the system of religion in which certain animals and plants are
regarded as sacred and as the emblems of clan. He viewed totemism as the
primitive and simplest form of religion and he ass ociated it with the
simple form of social organization, namely clan.

Durkheim states that totem is the representation of clan itself. In a munotes.in

Page 31

31
gathering if people experience heightened energy of social force, it seeks
some explanation for the state. He like to believe that the reason for the
heightened energy is the social gathering itself. But today also people
believe to pay the attribute to social forces. But in reality, the member of
the clan attributes the heightened energy as the symbol of clan. The tot ems
are the material symbolization of the non material forces which is at their
base. And the nonmaterial force discussed above is the society itself.
Totemism and religion are derived from morality and impersonal forces
and they are not the mythical mater ial forces as articulated and believed by
the community members.

Durkheim’s interpretation was questioned by different people.
Totemism is not the most primitive religion, but it can help to develop
theory that binds religion, knowledge and society. a so ciety may have a
large number of totem but Durkheim viewed each totem as interrelated set
of ideologies that give the society a complete representation of the world.
In totemism, three things are connected namely, the totemic symbol,
animal or plant, and t he member of the clan. Thus, Durkheim was able to
state that the ability to categorize nature into cognitive categories were
extracted from religious and social experiences. After all the society
develops its own ways for categorizing nature and its symbol s.

Check Your Progress
1. Discuss in few lines about Elementary forms of religious life book.





2. State in few lines about Totemism from Durkheim view point.





4.7 COLLECTIVE EFFERVESCENCE

There were times in the past where the fundamental and cognitive
categories were altered. Durkheim calls this alteration as collective
effervescence. The notion of this particular concept is not well written in
Durkheim’s works. It was rooted in his mind t hat collectivity in any
community would be able to achieve altered or highlighted level of
collective exaltation that can even lead to alteration in the structure of
society. Collective effervescence is referred to formative moments in
social development a nd they are social facts by birth.

To collectively conclude Durkheim’s theory of religion, the source
of religion is society, god, the difference between sacred and profane. In
reality we can state that god, sacred and the society are same. Durkheim
proved this through a study on primitive tribe and which shows that it is munotes.in

Page 32

32
followed even today even though there are complexities in the modern
society. To conclude with the Durkheim’s sociology of knowledge, he
state that basic concepts and the fundamental cat egories are the
representations that society put forth (initially through rituals). And we
can conclude that society and an individual are connected by religion and
its related rituals.

4.8 LEGACY OF DURKHEIM TODAY

Durkheim describes a lack of social norms in a time with sudden
industrialization and mass movement of families into urban areas. This
resulted for him in a breakdown of the ties between individuals and
their community and, thus a fragmentation of t heir social identity and a
feeling of isolation (Boundless, 2014) .

The recent pandemic period showed how the norms where broken
where crisis was everywhere in the society. Everyone looked at each other
with sense of doubt than respect and the companions hip. The pandemic
crisis also revealed the role of government. The marginalized population
who suffered the most when they were walking or taking whatever means
available to go back to their home town. This is what Durkheim calls as the
state of anomie or normless. The background of Durkheim to develop his
theory was that of the period of industrialization but it is very much
relevant even today.

Durkheim view on suicide is very much relevant even today. Even
today out of crisis people have committed suic ide i.e., in an anomic
situation. Even out of lack of attachment in the families or society, lack of
a support group people have committed suicide.

The solution for Durkheim is to fix the norm -system by creating
professional communities and solidaristic identities (commonly shared
values) in addition to institutions moderating competition (Szelényi,
2009). Durkheim concept of collective consciousness, solidarity is
relevant even today. People have shared common goals as a result they
continue to function with each other. These shared goals are happiness,
prosperity, better standard of living. Those Durkheim work comes out post
industrialization even in the 21st century the division of labour concept is
relevant. Durkheim view on religion whereby people wor ship totem and
attach meaning to it. It still relevant whereby we symbols, idols, rituals
surrounding the totem continuing in different parts of India and world
even today.

Check Your Progress :
1. Discuss Collective Effervescence.



munotes.in

Page 33

33

2. Explain in few lines the relevance of Durkheim view on religion in the
contemporary times.





4.9 CONCLUSION

Durkheim in his study tried to understand that the roots of religion
are in the social structure of society. Things are categorized as sacred and
profane by the society itself. He analyzed the social source of religion in
the analysis of primitive totemis m through studying the social structure of
the clan. Durkheim summarized that religion and society are almost same,
and they are the interpretation of the same process. Sociology of
knowledge was also discussed by Durkheim. He tried to conclude that the
fundamental mental categories of each person and concepts are society
produced representation through religious rituals.

4.10 SUMMARY

The work of Emile Durkheim is relevant even today. Durkheim ’s
two most important works on suicide & Elementary forms of Religious
life is discussed in this unit. Durkheim was interested in studying the
reason behind the rate of suicide. He mentioned that Integration and
Regulation as major factors that cause suicide. He spoke about Altruistic,
Egoistic, Anamic and Fatalistic suicide. In his work, ‘ Elementary forms
of Religious life, he spoke about the sacred and profane. The legacy of
Durkheim remains relevant even today

4.11 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. Explain Durkheim ’s theory of suicide.
2. Explain Durkheim ’s view on Religion .

4.12 REFERENCE AND FURTHER READINGS
 Brinn, Jaqueline. (2015). Sociological Significance and Contemporary
Relevance of Alienation in Durkheim and Marx.
10.13140/RG.2.1.1578.1285.
 Ritzer, George, and Jeffrey Stepnisky. Classical sociological theory .
SAGE Publications, 2020.
 Ritzer, George. "Contemporary sociological theory." (1983).
 Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (2017). Contemporary sociological theory
and its classical roots: The basics . Sage Publications.
 Morrison, K. (2 006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of modern
social thought . Sage.
 Aron, R. (2017). Main currents in sociological thought: Montesquieu,
Comte, Marx, Tocqueville and the sociologists and the revolution of
1848 . Routledge.
***** munotes.in

Page 34

34
5

METHODOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
AND THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTIONS

Unit Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Brief Sketch of Max Weber
5.3 Methodology
5.3.1 Verstehen
5.3.2 Ideal types
5.4 Rationalization
5.5 Bureaucracy
5.6 Disenchantment
5.7 Iron cage
5.8 Social action
5.9 Summary
5.10 Glossary
5.11 Unit End Questions
5.12 References and Further Readings

5.0 OBJECTIVES

 To understand the methodology used by Weber .
 To comprehend the meaning of Verstehen and ideal types.
 To evaluate the contribution of Weber to understanding rationality and
bureaucracy.
 To understand the concepts of disenchantment and iron cage
 To understand the types of social action as explained by Weber

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Max Weber (1864 -1920) was not just a sociologist but his interest
varied across economics, music, law, philosophy and history. Weber like
the sociologists of his time was interested in understanding the nature and
causes of social change. Much of his work was also concerned wi th the
development of modern capitalism and the ways in which modern society
was different from earlier forms of social organization. Through a series of
empirical studies, Weber set forth some of the basic characteristics of
modern industrial societies an d identified key sociological debates that munotes.in

Page 35

35
remain central for sociologists today. In Weber's view, economic factors
are important, but ideas and values have just as much impact on social
change.

5.2 BRIEF SKETCH OF MAX WEBER (1864 -1920)

Max Weber was born in Erfurt, Germany in 1864 into a middle -
class family. The deep differences in the world view of his parents had a
profound impact on his intellectual and psychological upbringing. His
father was a bureaucrat with an important political position. He was in
sharp contrast to his wife, who was a devout Calvinist who lived an ascetic
life devoid of the worldly pleasures craved by her husband.

At age 18, Max Weber left home for a short time to attend the
University of Heidelberg. Weber st udied law, history, philosophy and
economics for three semesters at Heidelberg University before spending a
year in the military. When he resumed his studies in 1884, he went to the
University of Berlin and spent one semester at Göttingen. He earned his
Ph.D. in 1889 and became a lawyer and started teaching at the University
of Berlin.

There was a tension in Weber’s life and, more important, in his
work between the bureaucratic mind, as represented by his father, and his
mother’s religiosity. This unreso lved tension permeates Weber’s work as
it permeated his personal life.

5.3 METHODOLOGY

Weber was exposed to the methodological traditions of Kant,
Hegel, Comte, Saint Simon, Durkheim and Marx before his contribution
to sociology. The idealist and rationa l method developed by Kant and
Hegel promoted the difference between the statement of value - which
explains what it should be and the statement of fact - which indicates what
it is. Application of human mind serves the dichotomy between the two.
The positiv istic method used by Comte advocated that knowledge about
the reality can be understood through the empirical or the positivist
method. Positivism holds that science should be concerned only with
observable entities that are known directly to experience. O n the basis of
careful observations, one can infer laws that explain the relationship
between the observed phenomena. Positivism extends the methodology of
natural science to the field of sociology. Weber was convinced with
neither the rational or the empi rical approach to study the reality but
believed that behind every reality there exists causalities of values, forms
of actions and sources of motivations.

Weber focused on substantive work stating that “only by laying
bare and solving substantial proble ms can science be established and their
methods developed. On the other hand, purely epistemological and munotes.in

Page 36

36
methodological reflections have never played the crucial role in such
developments".

Weber’s thinking on sociology was shaped on the debates in
Germany between the positivists who thought that history was composed
of general laws and the subjectivists who reduced history to idiosyncratic
actions. The positivists thought that history could be like a natural science;
the subjectivists saw the two as radically different.

Weber established the relationship between history and sociology.
He explained the difference between the two stating that sociology seeks
to formulate type concepts and generalized uniformities of empirical
processes, whereas histor y is oriented to the causal explanation of
individuals action, structures and personalities possessing cultural
significance. In Weber’s view, history is composed of unique empirical
events; there can be no generalizations at the empirical level. Sociologi sts
must, therefore, separate the empirical world from the conceptual universe
that they construct. The concepts never completely capture the empirical
world, but they can be used as heuristic tools for gaining a better
understanding of reality. With these concepts, sociologists can develop
generalizations, but these generalizations are not history and must not be
confused with empirical.

Weber i n his study combined the two. His sociology was oriented
to the development of clear concepts so that he could p erform a causal
analysis of historical phenomenon. Weber believed that history is
composed of an unlimited collection of specific phenomena. To study
these phenomena, it was necessary to develop a variety of concepts
designed to be useful for research on the real world. As a general rule,
although Weber did not adhere to it strictly and neither do most
sociologists and historians, the task of sociology was to develop these
concepts, which history was to use in causal analyses of specific historical
phenome na. In this way, Weber sought to combine the specific and the
general in an effort to develop a science that did justice to the complex
nature of social life.

With philosophers Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 –1911) and Heinrich
Rickert (1863 –1936) , Weber believed t hat it was difficult to apply natural
science methods to accurately predict behaviour. The influence of culture
on human behaviour was important as human behaviour cannot be
understood without understanding the meaning individuals attribute to
their behavi our.

Weber was among the first sociologists to conceptualise sociology
as a descriptive and interpretative discipline. Weber defined sociology as
“the science concerning itself with the interpretative understanding of and
thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences". Thus,
sociology for Weber should be a science, sociology should be concerned
with caus ality-thereby combining Sociology and history - and sociology munotes.in

Page 37

37
should utilise interpretative understanding or what is called Verstehen.

5.3.1 Verstehen :

Weber and Dilthey introduced the concept of Verstehen which
refers to the use of empathy, or putting oneself in another’s place, to
understand the motives and logic of another’s action. Verstehen according
to Weber means comprehending or understanding on the level of
meaning. This ability to understand social phenomenon is what set social
sciences apart from the natural sciences that only observe uniformities and
deduce generalizations about the relationship between the atoms or
chemical compounds. Verstehen makes possible the scientific study of
social behaviour in two ways - it facilitates direct observ ational
understanding of the subjective meaning of human actions and it facilitates
understanding of the underlying motive.

Sociology requires an understanding of the sense of the attributed
meaning or reason that involves the action of agents i.e., indi viduals who
attribute a sense, a reason, a causal factor to what they do.

Weber's thought on Verstehen was derived from hermeneutics - a
special approach to the understanding and interpretation of published
writings to understand the thinking of the auth or as well as the basic
structure of text. Weber sought to use the tools of hermeneutics to
understand actors, interactions and human history. Verstehen was a
rational procedure of study - a tool for macro level analysis - rather than
simply intuition, sympa thetic participation or empathy.

Weber distinguished two types of Verstehen : direct observational
understanding and explanatory understanding. Direct observational
Verstehen is the obvious subjective meaning of the individual’s behaviour
and the social scientist attributes meaning to what he observes. It allows us
to see actions as what they are. It constitutes the use of outward behaviour
and facial expression to understand what is going on. Explanatory
understanding would mean when we k now the motive behind an
individual's action. Here action is placed in a sequence of motivation and
why it is occurring. To achieve this one needs to get into the shoes of
people doing the activity.

Example - chopping wood is direct observational underst anding, chopping
wood to earn money or for firewood is explanatory understanding.

A sociologist cannot understand the meaning of an individual’s
behaviour to that person. But if the behaviour is typical for multiple
individuals in a given situation, the sociologist can formulate
generalizations that can provide the basis for causal linkages. Since the
sociologist is confronted with plurality of causes affecting social or
historical events, whether the event would have been different if some
specific cause is removed and if yes then there is an objective possibility munotes.in

Page 38

38
that the cause had a decisive effect. Causality for Weber is the probability
that an event will be followed or accompanied by another event. Weber's
thinking on causality is his belief that beca use we can have special
understanding of social life (Verstehen), the causal knowledge of the
social sciences is different from the causal knowledge of the natural
sciences.

Rossides (1978) explains that for Weber Verstehen sociology was
a search for in sights and solutions to the unique and changing problems
that humans face rather than just a search for the underlying principle of
existence.

5.3.2 Ideal types:

The ideal type grew out of Weber's concepts of Verstehen and
causal explanation.

When Weber combined his idea of understanding with ideal types,
sociology took a step towards scientific sophistication and socio - political
utility. As explained by Collins and Makowsky ‘social realities under
Weber's analysis must be understood ( Verstehen ) by imagining oneself
into the experience of men and women as they act out their own worlds,
ideal types are the tools for making scientific generalizations out of our
understanding of this infinitely complex and shifting world ’.

Sociology for Weber mus t formulate ideal types to make
significant contribution to the causal explanation of social and cultural
events. Ideal type is an abstract statement of the essential, though often
exaggerated, characteristics of any social phenomenon. These ‘ideal types’
can then be contrasted with actual, empirical forms found in reality

According to Rossides (1978) "An ideal type is an analytical
construct that serves the investigator as a measuring rod to ascertain
similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases". It is a mental
construct. At its most basic level, an ideal type is a concept constructed by
the social scientist on the basis of his or her interests and theoretical
orientation to capture the essential elements of some social phenomenon.
They are heuristic device and are useful and helpful in doing empirical
research and in understanding sp ecific aspects of the social world.

In the words of Weber, the function of ideal types is - " its function
is the comparison with empirical reality in order to establish its
divergences or similarities, to describe them with the most unambiguously
intelligible concepts, and to understand and explain them causally."
Weber developed three kinds of ideal types based on their level of
abstraction.
a) ideal types of historical particulars which refer to specific historical
realities such as western city, Protestant ethic or modern capitalism.
b) ideal types which refer to abstract elements of the histori cal reality that munotes.in

Page 39

39
are observable in a variety of historical and cultural contexts such as
bureaucracy or feudalism.
c) ideal types that constitute rationalizing reconstructions of a particular
kind of behaviour such as propositions in economic theory.

In Weber's view the ideal type was to be derived inductively from
the real world of social history. To produce ideal type researches first had
to immerse themselves in historical reality and then derive the types from
that reality. Although ideal types are to be derived from real world, they
are not mirror images of the world, they are to be one sided exaggeration
of what goes on in the real world. The ideal type must be judged on its
typicality and adequacy at the level of meaning. In Weber's view the more
exaggerated the ideal type the more useful it is for historical research.

An ideal type is not ideal in the sense of a standard of perfection or
an ultimate goal. Ideal types do not embody essences or truth but ideal
types are constructed by sociologist s and therefore are constructed from
particular points of view.

Applied primarily to various types of rational behaviour, ideal type
is fundamentally “a model of what an agent would do if he were to act
completely rationally according to the criteria of rationality in his
behaviours sense.” The ideal types provide the language and procedure for
analysing specific behaviour while aiding in the formulation of theoretical
explanations for behavioural instances which vary from “ideal typical
norms” (Abraham a nd Morgan 1989 )

Check your Progress
1. Explain the concept of Verstehen






5.4 RATIONALIZATION

Rationalisation is the process in modern society characterised by
efficiency, predictability, calculability and dehumanisation.
Rationalisation has not only transformed the modern society but has
played an important role in the development of capitalism . A rational
society is one built around rational forms of organisation, technology and
efficiency overcoming religion, morality or tradition.

In his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism he
characterised rational capital as the " most fateful force in our modern
life".
munotes.in

Page 40

40
It is difficult to point out one definition of rationalization since
Weber operated with a number of definiti ons of the term and often failed
to specify the definition he was using in a particular discussion. The
rationalization process that Weber described in one social structure or
institution was usually quite different from the rationalization of another
structure or institution. As Weber put it, the process of rationalization
assumes “unusually varied forms” and “the history of rationalism shows a
development which by no means follows parallel lines in the various
departments of life”.

Kalberg (1980) identi fies four basic types of rationality in Weber's work.

1. Practical rationality : It is defined by Kalberg as “every way of life
that views and judges worldly activity in relation to the individual’s purely
pragmatic and egoistic interests”. People who practice practical rationality
accept given realities and merely calculate the most expedient ways of
dealin g with the difficulties that they present. This type of rationality
stands in opposition to anything that threatens to transcend everyday
routine. They distrust all impractical religious or secular utopian values.

2. Theoretical rationalit y: Theoretical or Intellectual rationality involves
such abstract cognitive processes as logical deduction, induction,
attribution of causality, and the like. Unlike practical rationality,
theoretical rationality leads the actor to transcend daily realities in a quest
to understand the world as a meaningful cosmos.

3. Substantive rationality : (like practical rationality but not theoretical
rationality) directly orders action into patterns through clusters of values.
Substantive rationality involves a choice of means to ends within the
context of a system of values. One value system is no more (substantively)
rational than another. To Weber, substantive rationality is the only type
with the “potential to introduce methodical ways of life” (Kalberg, 1980).
Thus, in the West, a particular substantive rationality with an emphasis on
a methodical wa y of life —Calvinism — subjugated practical rationality
and led to the development of formal rationality.

4. Formal rationality : It involves means –ends calculation. formal
rationality arose only in the West with the coming of industrialization. The
universa lly applied rules, laws, and regulations that characterize formal
rationality in the West are found particularly in the economic, legal, and
scientific institutions, as well as in the bureaucratic form of domination.

Ritzer highlights six basic character istics of formal rationality:
(1) Calculabilit y: things that can be counted or quantified.
(2) Efficiency : finding the best means to a given end.
(3) Predictability : things operate in the same way from one time or place
to another.
(4) Replacing human technology with nonhuman technology :
Nonhuman technologies (such as computerized systems) are viewed as munotes.in

Page 41

41
more calculable, more efficient, and more predictable than human
technologies.
(5) Gain control over an array of uncertainties : gain control especiall y
on the uncertainties posed by human beings who work in, or are served
by, them.
(6) Irrational consequences : Rational systems tend to have a series of
irrational consequences for the people involved with them and for the
systems themselves, as well as f or the larger society.

The conflict between substantive rationality and formal rationality
have played “a particularly fateful role in the unfolding of rationalization
processes in the West.” (Kalberg 1980).

Weber used rationalisation most powerfully and meaningfully in
his understanding of the modern western world especially in the capitalist
economy, as an iron cage of formally rational structures. Weber described
capitalism and bureaucracies as “two great rationalizing forces”. In fact,
Weber saw capitalism and bureaucracies as being derived from the same
basic sources (especially inner worldly asceticism), involving similarly
rational and methodical action, and reinforcing one another and in the
process furthering the rationalizati on of the Occident. In Weber’s view,
the only real rival to the bureaucrat in technical expertise and factual
knowledge was the capitalist.

The works of Max Weber focused on the problems of the western
civilization - with the rationalization and demystific ation of aspects of
modern life. There was a growing disenchantment of the world with the
radical transformations in social life. By rationalization Weber meant the
process of making life more efficient and predictable by wringing out
individuality and spo ntaneity in life. For Weber growing rationalization
results in what he referred to as the iron cage, in which the individual is
trapped by the systems of efficiency that were designed to enhance the
well-being of humanity.

Check your Progress
2. What is Rationalization?






5.5 BUREAUCRACY

Weber’s focus on rationalisation led him to the study of operations
and expansion of large -scale organisations in public and private sectors of
modern societies. Bureaucracy can be considered to be a particular case of
rationalization, or rationalization applied to human organization. munotes.in

Page 42

42
Bureaucratic coordination of human action, Weber believed, is the
distinctive mark of modern social structures.

Weber’s sociologic al interest in the structures of authority was
motivated by his political interests. His analysis of authority structures
was consistent with his assumptions about the nature of action. Weber was
mainly interested in legitimate forms of domination which he called
authority. The three bases on which authority is made legitimate to
followers is the rational, traditional and charismatic. What interested
Weber was bureaucracy which Weber considered as the purest form of
rational legal authority. Bureaucracy was defined in its ideal type by these
characteristics:
1. Official business is conducted on a continuous basis.
2. Business is conducted in accordance with stipulated rules
3. Every official's responsibility and authority are part of a hierarchy of
authority.
4. Officials do not own the resources necessary for them to perform their
assigned functions, but are accountable for the use of those resources.
5. Offices cannot be appropriated by their incumbents; it always remains
part of the organization.
6. Official busine ss is conducted on the basis of written documents.

Bureaucracy in Weber’s analysis fits the spirit of rational
capitalism. A capitalist market economy demanded that the official
business of administration should be precisely discharged without
ambiguity and should be continuous and discharged with the maximum
speed.

He pointed out that bureaucracy promotes a rationalist way of life.
He described bureaucracies as “escape proof" and the hardest to destroy
once they were established. The ideal typical bure aucracy is an
exaggeration of the rational characteristics of bureaucracies. He
distinguished ideal typical bureaucracy from ideal typical bureaucrat. He
conceived of bureaucracies as structures and of bureaucrats as positions
within those structures.

Among the most important factors contributing to the development of
modern bureaucracy are :
1. The development of money economy that guaranteed a constant
income for maintaining bureaucracy through a stable system of
taxation.
2. The quantitative development of a dministrative tasks.
3. Qualitative changes of administrative tasks.
4. The superiority of bureaucracy over any other form of organization.
5. The complicated and specialized nature of modern culture that
demands the personally detached and strictly objective expe rt munotes.in

Page 43

43
6. The rational interpretation of law.
7. The concentration of material means of management in the hands of
the industrialists and the public organizations as the state or army.
8. The levelling of economic and social differences and the rise of
modern mass representative democracy.

Increasing b ureaucratisation and rationalization of the modern
western economies was inevitable and inescapable. Bureaucratisation
would ultimately lead to de -person alisation of human relations in
government and industry.

5.6 DISENCHANTMENT

For Weber, there was a strong pessimistic streak: he saw the world
as an Iron Cage, with growing rationality creating an ever spreading
‘disenchantment with the world’

Weber like Karl Marx recognised the efficiency of industrial
capitalism. Like Marx he also believed that modern society leads to
alienation - for Weber the regulation and dehumanisation that comes with
expanding bureaucracy leads to alienation an increasing ‘disenchantment
with the world’, for Marx it was economic inequality leading to alienation.
Bureaucracies, Weber warned, treat people as a series of cases rather than
as unique individuals. Specialisation and tedious routines regulated the
individuals. We ber envisaged modern society as a vast and growing
system of rules seeking to regulate everything and threatening to crush the
human spirit. Like Marx rather than serving humanity modern society
enslaves them. Weber portrayed the modern individual as ‘only a small
cog in a ceaselessly moving mechanism that prescribes to him an
endlessly fixed routine of march’. He feared that the rationalisation of
society would end up reducing people to robots.

Weber used the German word Entzauberung , translated into
English as “disenchantment” . It literally means “de -magic -ation.” For
Weber, the advent of scientific methods and reasoning meant that the
world was demystified - the role of religion, magic, mystery, superstitions
and faith became less prominent, and repl aced by more rational motives
for acting . Tradition and forms of magical thinking is replaced with
calculation, everything is explained in scientific and rational terms.

But, for Weber, the effect of that demystification was that the
world became disench anted and disenchanting, predictable and
intellectualized. The disenchantment of the world is the alienating and
undesirable negative consequence of scientific progress. People started to
think more about how they should act, what they should do, and the best
way to achieve their goals.

munotes.in

Page 44

44
Check your Progress
1. What Is Bureaucracy?





2. Explain the concept of Disenchantment





5.7 IRON CAGE

The concept of Iron cage as proposed by Weber suggests that the
technological and economic relationships that organized and grew out of
capitalist production became themselves fundamental forces in society.
Individuals are trapped in organisations based on the principles of
efficiency, rationality and control. Modern organisations are characterised
by rules and regulations which govern the behaviour of the people
working in it to the extent where work process becomes so rational that
there is no enjoyment and fulfilment leading to alienation.

Weber while explaining iron cage said that “modernisation creates
hedonists without heart and specialists without spirit”.

5.8 SOCIAL ACTION

Weber’s sociology was based on ideas of social action. Weber's
discussion of social action is an example of the use of an ideal type. The
combined qualities of action and meaning were important for scientific
analysis of society. Weber differentiated between action and reactive
behaviour. He was concerned with action that involved the intervention of
thought processes between the occurrence of a stimulus and the ultimate
response. Action occurred when individuals attached subjective meaning
to their actions. Weber explains that “Action is social in so far as, by the
virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual, it
takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its
course.”

In his action theory the focus was on the individual and not the
collectivity. He was inte rested in the actually assigned reasons for
identifiable behaviour given by the actors themselves. In the absence of
assigned meaning by the individual the actions are meaningless.

He utilises his ideal type methodology to clarify the meaning of action by munotes.in

Page 45

45
identifying four basic types of action.
1. Rational action in relation to the goal : here the actor determines the
goal and chooses his means in terms of the efficiency to achieve the
goal. e.g., Achieving higher education in a good university to obtain a
good job.
2. Rational action in relation to a value : here means are chosen for their
efficiency but ends are determined by values. e .g., the captain of a ship
going down with it.
3. Affective or emotional acti on: here emotions determines the ends and
means of the action. The action is determined by the emotional state of
the actor. e.g., A mother slapping the baby.
4. Traditional action : here ends and means are determined by customs and
rituals. e .g.: Following a particular practice because that is the ritual.

Although Weber identified four ideal types of action, he was well
aware that in practice any given action involves some combination of all
four types of action. Weber argued that sociologist have a much be tter
chance of understanding action of the more rational variety than they do
action dominated by affect or tradition.

The typology given by Weber was to understand how modern
western societies differed from the past. The modern western society is
domina ted by goal -oriented rationality touching every aspect of modern
social life including politics, economics, law, interpersonal relationships
and has resulted from the sustained application of a means - to- ends utility
in human behaviour.

5.9 SUMMARY

Weber’s work ranged over many areas: music, religion, love, law,
the economy, politics. He looked at a wide range of civilisations. He also
engaged with politics (and his wife, Marianne, was a leading feminist of
her time). He struggled with the balance be tween his personal political
commitments and his view of sociology as being scientifically neutral – or
value free. With a broad understanding of law, economics, religion and
history, Max Weber (1864 –1920) produced what many regard as the
greatest individu al contribution to sociology. He generated ideas that were
very wide ranging. Much of his work was also concerned with the
development of modern capitalism and the ways in which modern society
was different from earlier forms of social organization. Throug h a series of
empirical studies, Weber set forth some of the basic characteristics of
modern industrial societies and identified key sociological debates that
remain central for sociologists today.

For Weber the basic structure is social action and the ro le of
sociologist is to understand the meanings associated with action rather
than mechanically studying action and its consequence using the methods
of natural science. He introduced the concept of verstehen. The concept of munotes.in

Page 46

46
ideal types can help sociologis ts to make comparisons on the basis on
which generalisations can be made.

5.10 GLOSSARY

 Verstehen
 Ideal types
 Disenchantment
 Bureaucracy
 Rationalisation
 Social action
 Iron cage

5.11 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. Analyse Weber’s contribution to social action.
2. What is an ideal type? Explain the idea of the ideal type in Weber’s
theory of bureaucracy.
3. Discuss the characteristics of modern bureaucracy as explained by
Weber.
4. What does Weber mean by describing the modern world as an iron
cage? Is there any way out?
5. Explain Weber’s view on rationalisation.
6. Explain the concept of Disenchantment.
7. Discuss the methodology of Weber.

5.12 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS

 Abraham, F and Morgan, J. 1989. Sociological Thought: From Comte
to Sorokin . USA: Wyndham Press.
 Adams, Bert N. and R. A. Sydie. 2002. Sociological Theory . Vistaar
Publication.
 Ashley, D., Orenstein, D. 2005. Sociological Theory -Classical
statements, 6th Edition. Pearson Education.
 Cole, Nicki Lisa, Ph.D. "Max Weber's Key Contributions to
Sociology." ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020, thoughtco.com/max -weber -
relevance -to-sociology -3026500.
 Giddens, A. 2009. Sociology 6th Edition . Polity Press.
 Haralambos and Holborn (2013) Sociology Themes and Perspectives .
HarperCollins Publi shers.
 Kalberg S. 1980. Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for
the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History: The American
Journal of Sociology , Vol. 85, No. 5 (Mar., 1980), pp. 1145 -1179
Published by: The University of Chicago Press munotes.in

Page 47

47
 Macionis, J and P lummer, K. 2008. Sociology – A Global Introduction
4th Edition . Pearson Education.
 Ritzer, G. 2011. Sociological Theory Eighth Edition . USA: McGraw
Hill.
 Scott, J. (2006) Social Theory: Central Issues in Sociology. New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
 Turner, J.H. (2013) Contemporary Sociological Theory. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.


*****




munotes.in

Page 48

48
6


DIALOGUE WITH MARX AND
THE LEGACY OF WEBER TODAY

Unit Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Religion and the rise of capitalism
6.3 Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism
6.3.1 Religion and capitalism in China
6.3.2 Religion and capitalism in India
6.4 Legacy of Weber
6.5 Summary
6.6 Unit End Questions
6.7 References and F urther readings

6.0 OBJECTIVES

 To understand Weber’s perspective on religion.
 To understand Weber’s analysis of the relationship between the
ethics of acetic Protestantism and the rise of capitalism.
 To understand Weber’s view on world religions.
 To understand the legacy and relevance of Weber in today’s context .

6.1 INTRODUCTIO N

Max Weber (1864 -1920) was the eldest of the children of Max
Weber Sr. and Helene Weber. Weber’s parents represented diverse
personality and worldview. Weber’s mother was very religious whereas
his authoritarian father was without the religious outlook and desired the
bourgeoisie standard of living. The religious and the emotional differences
between the parents had a profound impact on Max Weber who
experienced an ideological and psychological tension. Weber was also
troubled with the political turmoil in G ermany at that time. From early in
Weber’s life the impact of the intersection of religious beliefs and political
and economic interest within his family was evident. A source of personal
tension and a marked strain throughout his life, Weber turned his critical
skills to an investigation of their fundamental relationship with
meticulousness and creative genius - that led to his classical study of the
Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. munotes.in

Page 49

49
6.2 RELIGION AND THE RISE OF CAPITALISM

Both Marx and Weber are known for their analysis of capitalism
and its relation with religion. Marx was an economic determinist wherein
all social, cultural, political and technological aspects of the society are
determined by economic forces. In his clas sical study the Protestant Ethic
and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber demonstrated that economic factors
are not the only factors in bringing progress and transformation, but other
forces like religious institutions are equally important in shaping
individu al action and development of the society. Weber believed religion
could be understood as something separate from society unlike Marx who
considered religion inseparable from the economy and the worker. Marx
considered religion as the false consciousness of man- the “opium of the
masses” -helping proletariats temporarily cope with the exploitation and
miseries caused by capitalism. Religion according to Weber was not an
ideology produced by economic interests rather it was what made modern
capitalist world a reality. It would be incorrect to assume that Weber
replaced one sided economic determinism of Marx with ideological
determinism. He considered social, economic, and political factors as well
but the confluence of religious values played a central role.

Marx and Weber both agree that the desire to accumulate wealth
and rationality due to technological advancements led to the rise of
capitalism. However, Marx saw rise of capitalism as predicted by history
whereas Weber believed that it was due to the Prot estant Ethic with its
emphasis on hard work and accumulation of wealth. Marx looked at
capitalism in terms of its alienating impact on individuals and Weber in
terms of rationalization. Rationalization for Weber produced a
disenchantment of the world.

Weber’s thought on rationalization was illustrated in his work on
religion and capitalism. In the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, Weber explained how rationalism of western culture tied to
economic and technical conditions of machine producti on was originally
motivated by religious values. In the course of time religious values lost
their significance and the technical and economic aspects became an
irresistible force determining everyone’s life and enclosing them like an
“iron cage".

Weber was interested in the relation between religion and the
development of the capitalism found in the west. He was primarily
interested in the system of the ideas of the world’s religion, in the spirit of
capitalism and in the rationalization as a modern syst em of norms and
values. His work on religion and capitalism involved an enormous body of
cross -cultural historical research. At one level it was a study of
relationship between religious ideas and the spirit of capitalism and at the
other level it is a stu dy of how the west developed a rational religious
system of Calvinism that led to the development of capitalism. munotes.in

Page 50

50
6.3 PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF
CAPITALISM

In his classical work Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Weber sought to demon strate that only economic factors do not have a
determining influence, which he believed was Marx's major weakness and
failure.

In Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber traced the
impact of Protestantism primarily Calvinism on the rise of the spirit of
capitalism.

The relationship between religious values and economic interests
was triggered by a number of factors. Weber noticed that Protestants,
particularly Protestants of particular sects were the chief captains of
industry and possessed more wealth and economic means than other
religious groups, namely the Catholics. Therefore, he wanted to ascertain
whether there is an essential harmony between the Protestant Ethic and the
spirit of capitalism. He also sought to find out to what exten t the religious
values in India, China and the Middle East facilitated or hindered the
development of capitalism. To define Protestant Ethic and capitalism
Weber made use of the concept of ideal type. Protestant Ethic referred to a
set of values and belief s that make up the religious ideal. Capitalism in its
ideal type is that complex activity designed to maximize profit through the
careful exercise of rational organisation and management of production.

Weber rejected the explanation that capitalism arose in the west in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries due to the material conditions at
that time and also the psychological explanation that the development of
capitalism was due to acquisitive instinct. His view was that religious
ideas produced by the religious revolutions in the sixteenth century was
the major explanatory variable.

Weber identified a number of values in Protestantism, particularly
Calvinism, that led to growth of capitalism (Abraham and Morgan 1989)
1. The shift from ritualistic and o ther worldly orientation to down to
earth pragmatism.
Human society should seek to understand natural order rather than
indulging in mysticism. This was essentially an anti -ritualistic attitude that
favours the development of science and rational investigation.
2. Changed attitude towards work: Work is worship. Protestant Ethic
looks at work as a virtue contributing to the glory of God. Pursuit of
economic interest was not merely self -interest but an ethical d uty.
3. The concept of calling: Calvinism entailed the idea of predestination;
people were predestined to be either among the saved or the damned
and nothing can change his ultimate fate. They believed that there are munotes.in

Page 51

51
signs by which God indicates to every ind ividual whether they are
among the saved. People were urged to work hard, to be diligent so
that they could uncover the signs of salvation which was to be found in
economic success. The Calvinist were urged to seek gainful enterprises,
accumulate wealth a nd become a man of vocation and prove their
destiny.
4. New attitude towards collection of interest on loans:
Calvinism prescribed collection of interests on loans which was
prohibited in Catholicism. This led to increase in economic activity,
establishment o f lending houses, new investments and new floating
capital.
5. Strictures on alcoholic beverages consumption, rejection of
holidays : this encouraged working throughout the year for maximum
utilisation of capital and other investments leading to greater
produ ctivity – and encouragement of literacy and learning.
6. Protestant asceticism : Protestant Ethic incorporates the idea that one
should abstain from earthly pleasures. On one hand it urged people to
accumulate wealth and on the other hand prohibits the use of wealth for
enjoyment. Thus, there is ceaseless pursuit of profit, not for enjoyment
but simply for the satisfaction of producing more and more.
Weber was well aware that social and economic conditions have a
reciprocal impact on religion. Though he did no t deal with such
relationships he made it clear that his goal was not to substitute a one
sided spiritualistic and ideological interpretation for the one -sided
materialistic explanation attributed to Marxists.

To explain why capitalism did not arise in other societies Weber
dealt with the spiritual and material barriers to the rise of capitalism.
Weber found a variety of non -religious social and economic conditions
conducive to the development of capitalism in C hina and India but the
ethical system of Confucianism and the idea of karma in Hinduism were
not favourable.

6.3.1 Religion and capitalism in China:

China had the material prerequisites for the development of
capitalism. In China there was a tradition o f acquisitiveness and
unscrupulous competition, there was industry, enormous capacity for
work, powerful guilds, population was expanding and there was growth in
precious metals. With all these material conditions also, capitalism did not
arise in China as it did in the west. Not that there was no capitalism in
China, one found the moneylenders who sought high rates of profit - but
the market as well as other components of the rational capitalistic system
were absent. In Weber’s view the social, structural a nd religious barriers
in china prevented the development of capitalism.
munotes.in

Page 52

52


Among the structural factors were:
1. The structure of the typical Chinese community: The Chinese
community was held together by rigid kinship bonds in the form of
sibs. The sibs were ruled by the elders and were self -contained entities
who dealt little with other sibs. This encouraged small, encapsulated
land holdings and household based r ather than market economy.
Partitioning of land prevented technological developments,
agricultural production remained with the peasants and industrial
production with the small -scale artisans. Because of the allegiance to
the sibs, it was difficult for m odern cities - which were the centres of
western capital - to develop. The central government was not able to
govern these units effectively.
2. The structure of the Chinese state : The patrimonial state governed
by tradition was a structural barrier to the dev elopment of capitalism.
A rational and calculable system of administration and law
enforcement was largely absent. With few formal laws covering
commerce, absence of central court and rejection of legal formalism
was a barrier to the rise of capitalism. The general administrative
structure, officials of bureaucratic administration with vested material
interests acted against the development of capitalism.
3. Nature of Chinese language : In Weber’s view the nature of Chinese
language militated against ration ality by making systematic thought
difficult. Intellectual thought was in the form of parables that made it
difficult for the development of cumulative body of knowledge.
4. The two dominant systems of religious ideas in China :
Confucianism and Taoism - milit ated against the development of the
spirit of capitalism. In Confucianism literary knowledge was more
important than technical knowledge for the higher position. It
encouraged “a highly bookish literary education.”

The literary intellectuals were unconcer ned with economic
activities and the state of the economy. The Confucianism world view
grew to be the policy of the state. The Chinese state played minimal role
in rationally influencing the economy and the society. Only the
Confucians could serve as off icials and all other competitors like the
bourgeoisie, prophets and priests were blocked from serving in the
government.

Rather than working for salvation like the Calvinist, Confucian
accepted things as they were. Confucians rejected thrift, active
engagement in profitable enterprise was morally dubious with the focus
only on good position and not high profits. All this prevented the rise of
capitalism. Weber perceived Taoism as mystical Chinese religion in which
supreme good was deemed to be a psychic state, a state of mind and not a munotes.in

Page 53

53
state of grace to be obtained by conduct in the real world. Taoism was
traditional and did not provide motivation for innovative action in this
world. With no motivation to change the world or to build a capitalist
system Confucianism and Taoism did not favour the rise of capitalism.

6.3.2 Religion and capitalism in India :

The structural barriers of caste with its restrictions on social
mobility and regulation of minute aspects of people’s lives prevented the
development of capitalism in India. The upper castes especially the
Brahmins were like the Confucians, with the idea that certain works were
beneath them. With emphasis on literary knowledge, observance of
elegance in manners and proprieties in conduct, indifference to the
everyday affairs of the world were barriers to development of capitalism.
The Hindu religion with its emphasis on reincarnation, achievement of
salvation by following faithfully the rules, the world as being transient
failed to produce people who could create a capitalist economic system
and a rationally ordered society.

6.4 LEGACY OF WEBER

Weber's writing helped form the basis of modern sociology. His
influence runs throughout the realms of sociology, politics, religion and
economics. Weber’s work represents a fusion of historical research and
sociological theorising. His study on concrete s ituations and historical
processes, his analysis of the structure of social action, comparative study
of religions, his writings on rationality and bureaucracy in the modern
society are important contributions to sociology. Weber made extensive
use of his knowledge of history, philosophy, religion and social structures
to refine his concepts and to develop general theoretical schema dealing
with a variety of social phenomena.

Weber’s most important legacy is the challenge that his work
presents to the Mar xist worldview. The Weberian challenge to Marxism
involves whether or not there is some meaning to history.

Weber’s sociology has been used and adapted by
phenomenolog ists Alfred Schutz who took Weber’s conception of
interpretive theory as the starting point for his work. Schutz agreed the
study of Verstehen was important for sociological explanation. Critical
theorist used Weber’s analysis of rationalization and rational legal
dominatio n as the starting point of their analysis of modes of class
oppression in advanced capitalist society. Talcott Parsons who played a
major role in introducing Weberian sociology into US, made Weber’s
social action theory a foundation for his “voluntaristic” theory of action.
The theories of social stratification are based on Weberian rather than
Marxist model of stratification. Weber’s comparative sociology of
religion is still considered an important contribution. munotes.in

Page 54

54

Weber’s ideas on rationality, authority and bureaucracy are
relevant today in the study of organisations and organisational research.
Weber’s discussion of organisation was written in the early part of the
twentieth century. North American sociologist George Ritzer suggested
the ‘bureaucratisati on of society’ has proceeded further and deeper. He
took the case of McDonald’s restaurants as his illustration, but drew much
wider implications.

Weber’s comparative sociology of religion is still viewed by many
as the most important contribution to soci ology. Weber’s idea of
bureaucracy imprisoning humanity in “iron cage” resonates in modern
society in what Castells calls the new global economy the ‘automaton’ —
he thinks that we no longer fully control the world we have created. As
Castells puts it: 'Hu mankind's nightmare of seeing our machines taking
control of our world seems on the edge of becoming reality - not in the
form of robots that eliminate jobs or government computers that police our
lives, but as an electronically based system of financial t ransactions’.

6.5 SUMMARY

In Weber’s work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
Weber traced the impact of Protestantism, more specifically Calvinism on
the rise of the spirit of capitalism. Weber believed that the Protestant Ethic
was one of the important causes for the rise of capitalism. Weber found a
variety of non -religious soci al and economic conditions conducive to the
development of capitalism in China and India but the ethical system of
Confucianism and the idea of karma in Hinduism were not favourable.
Weber’s ideas on rationality, authority, bureaucracy and religion are
important contributions to sociology which are relevant in understanding
modern societies.

6.6 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. Discuss the role of Protestant Ethics in the development of capitalism.
2. Examine the difference between Marx and Weber in understanding
religio n and capitalism.
3. Explain how the ethical beliefs in Protestantism were critical to the
rise of western capitalism.
4. Discuss the relevance of Weber to understanding the modern society.

6.7 REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS

 Abraham, F and Morgan, J. 1989. Sociological Thought: From Comte
to Sorokin . USA: Wyndham Press.
 Adams, Bert N. and R. A. Sydie. 2002. Sociological Theory . Vistaar munotes.in

Page 55

55
Publication.
 Ashley, D., Orenstein, D. 2005. Sociological Theory -Classical
statements, 6th Edition. Pearson Education.
 Cole, Nicki Lisa, Ph.D. "Max Weber's Key Contributions to
Sociology." ThoughtCo, Aug. 28, 2020, thoughtco.com/max -weber -
relevance -to-sociology -3026500.
 Giddens, A. 2009. Sociology 6th Edition . Polity Press.
 Greenwood, R and La wrence, T. The Legacy and Relevance of Max
Weber for Organization Studies. The Iron Cage in the Information
Age: The Legacy and Relevance of Max Weber for Organization
Studies. Edi torial (sagepub.com)
 Haralambos and Holborn (2013) Sociology Themes and Perspectives .
HarperCollins Publi shers.
 Kalberg S. 1980. Max Weber's Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for
the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History: The American
Journal of Sociology , Vol. 85, No. 5 (Mar., 1980), pp. 1145 -1179
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
 Macionis, J and Plummer, K. 2008. Sociology – A Global Introduction
4th Edition . Pearson Education.
 Ritzer, G. 2011. Sociological Theory Eighth Edition . USA: McGraw
Hill.
 Scott, J. (2006) Social Theory: Central Issues in Sociology. New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
 Turner, J.H. (2013) Contemporary Sociological Theory. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.

*****
munotes.in

Page 56

56
7


THE THREE LEVELS OF SOCIAL
REALITY, INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Unit Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Background
7.3 George Simmel in the context of Western Modernity
7.4 Levels and Areas of Concern
7.5 Dialectical Thinking
7.6 Fashion
7.7 Individual Consciousness
7.8 Summary
7.9 Unit End Questions
7.10 References and Further Readings

7.0 OBJECTIVES

 To comprehend the contribution of George Simmel in context of
Western Modernity
 To examine the Levels and Areas of concerns depicted by him
 To evaluate the significance of his idea of Individual Consciousness

7.1 INTRODUCTION

George Simmel was one of the first generation of German
sociologists. Though George Simmel is not regarded as being as
influential in sociology as wer e Marx, Weber, Durkheim, or even Parsons.
These sociologist despite their significance had little influence on
American theory in early 20th century. Several of the early United States
sociologists were influenced by Simmel . He is better known to be the
early American sociologist. In recent years the increasing influence of
Simmel on sociological theory is quite vivid.

7.2 BACKGROUND

Georg Simmel (1858 -1918, Germany) was born in Berlin on
March 1, 1858 and received his doctorate in 1881 based on a study munotes.in

Page 57

57
of Immanuel Kant 's theories of philosophy. Following his degree, Simmel
taught philosophy, psychology, and early s ociology courses at his alma
mater. He was of Jewish ancestry and was marginalized within the
German academic system. Only in 1914 did Simmel obtain a regular
academic appointment, and this appointment was in Strasbourg, far from
Berlin. In spite of these problems, he wrote extensively on the nature of
association, culture, social structure, the city, and the economy. His
writings were read by Durkheim and Weber, and Simmel contributed
greatly to sociology and European intellectual life in the early part of this
century. One of his most famous writings is "The Metropolis and Mental
Life" (1903) and his best known book is The Philosophy of Money (1907).
Simmel's ideas were very influential on the Marxist scholar Georg Lukacs
(1885 -1971) and Simmel's writings on the city and on money are now
being used by contemporary sociologists.

7.3 GEORGE SIMMEL IN THE CONTEXT OF
WESTERN MODERNITY

Simmel combines ideas from all of the three major classical writers
and was influenced by Hegel and Kant. When Simmel discusses social
structures, the city, money, and modern society, his analysis has some
similarities to the analyses of Durkheim (problem of individual and
society), Weber (effects of rationalization), and Marx (alienation). Simmel
considered society to b e an association of free individuals, and said that it
could not be studied in the same way as the physical world, i.e. sociology
is more than the discovery of natural laws that govern human interaction.
"For Simmel, society is made up of the interactions between and among
individuals, and the sociologist should study the patterns and forms of
these associations, rather than quest after social laws." (Farganis, p. 133).
This emphasis on social interaction at the individual and small group level ,
and viewing the study of these interactions as the primary task of
sociology makes Simmel's approach different from that of the classical
writers, especially Marx and Durkheim.

It is Simmel's attempt to integrate analysis of individual action
with the structural app roach that makes his writings of contemporary
interest.

Simmel began his inquiries from the bottom up, observing the
smallest of social interactions and attempting to see how larger -scale
institutions emerged from them. In doing so, he often noticed pheno mena
that other theorists missed. For example, Simmel observed that the number
of parties to an interaction can affect its nature. The interaction between
two people, a dyad , will be very different from that which is possible in a
three -party relationship, or triad . (Farganis, p. 133)

Simmel is best known as a microbiologist who plays a significant
role in the development of small -group research, symbolic interactionism
and exchange theory. All of Simmel’s contributions in these areas reflect munotes.in

Page 58

58
his belief that sociologists should study primarily form and types of social
interaction.

7.4 LEVELS AND AREAS OF CONCERN

Simmel is best regarded for his much more complicated and
sophisticated theory of social reali ty. As cited in Ritzer and Goodman
(2004) Tom Bottomore and David Frisby argue that there are four basic
levels of social concern in Simmel’s work.
1. Microscopic assumptions about the psychological concerns of social
life.
2. His interest in sociological compo nents of interpersonal relationships
on a larger scale.
3. At macroscopic level, his work on the structure of and change in the
social and cultural “spirit” of his time.

Simmel not only with this three tiered image of social reality but
also adopted the principal of emergence which advocates that the higher
levels emerge out of the lower levels. According to Simmel , If society is
to be an autonomous object of an independent science, than it can only be
through the fact that, out of the sum sum of the individual elements that
constitute it, a new entity emerges; otherwisw all problems of social
science would only be those of individual psychology” (Frisby,
1984).Overarching these three tiers is that fourth which involves ultimate
metaphysical principal of life.

All the above truths affected Simmel’s work and played a
significant role in shaping his image of the futur e directions of the world.

All the above concerns with several levels of social reality is reproduced
through Simmel’s definition of three distinguishable problem “areas” in
sociology in “The Problem Areas of Sociology” (1950).
1. He described first as “pure ” sociology. In this psychological variables
are combined with forms of interactions. Although Simmel clearly
assumed that actors have creative mental abilities, he gave slight overt
attention to his aspect of social reality. His most minuscule work is
with the form that interaction takes place with the types of people who
engage in interaction. These forms include subordination, super
ordination, exchange, conflict and sociability. In his types of work he
differentiated between position in the interaction structure, such as
“competitor” and “coquette,” and orientation to the world, such as
“miser,” “spendthrift,” “stranger,” and “adventurer.”
2. At the intermediate level is Simmel’s “general” sociology, dealing
with social and cultural products of human histor y of societies and
cultural.
3. Finally, in Simmel’s “philosophical” sociology, he deals with his
views on basic nature, and inevitable fate of humankind. munotes.in

Page 59

59
Check Your Progress
1. Explain the concept of Dyad and Triad





7.5 DIALECTICAL THINKING

Simmel’s way of dealing with the interrelationships among three
basic levels of social reality gave a dialectical character to his sociology.
This approach was multi -casual and multidirectional, integrates fact and
values, and rejects the idea that there are hard and fast rules and dividing
lines between the phenomena. Simmel’s sociology was always concerned
with the relationships, especially interactions. He was a “methodological
relationist” who operated with the principle that everything interacts in
some way or the other with everything else.

7.6 FASHION

An example of how Simmel examines some of these connections
in a concrete connection is his discussion of fashion. (See Ritzer p. 161
and Ashley and Orenstein, pp. 314 -5). Simmel views fashion as
developing in the city, "because it intensifies a multiplicity of social
relations, increases the rate of social mobility and permits individuals from
lower strata to become conscious of the styles and fashions of upper
classes." (Ashley and Orenstein, p. 314). In the traditional and small circle
setting, fashion would have no meaning or be unnecessary. Since modern
individuals tend to be detached from traditional anchors of social support,
fashion allows the individual to signal or expres s their own personality or
personal values. Simmel noted that fashion provides the best arena for
people who lack autonomy and who need support, yet whose self -
awareness nevertheless requires that they be recognized as distinct and as
particular kinds of b eings. (in Ashley and Orenstein, p. 314).

Ritzer notes that fashion can be considered to be a part of objective
culture in that it allows the individual to come into conformity with norms
of a group. At the same time, it can express individuality, because an
individual may choose to express some differe nce from norms. Fashion is
dynamic and has an historical dimension to it, with acceptance of a
fashion being followed by some deviation from this fashion, change in the
fashion, and perhaps ultimate abandonment of the original norm, and a
new norm becoming established. There is a dialectical process involved in
the success of the fashion involved in its initial and then widespread
acceptance also leads to its eventual abandonment and failure. Leadership
in a fashion means that the leader actually follows th e fashion better than
others, as well as there being followers of the fashion. Mavericks are those
who reject the fashion, and this may become an inverse form of imitation. munotes.in

Page 60

60
In summary, fashion allows personal values to be expressed at the same
time as norm s are followed. The two exist together, and the one without
the other would be meaningless. In all of this, social interaction is of the
essence - what others think, what one thinks that others think, how one
conceives of fashion, etc.

Check Your Progress
1.Explain the fashion from Simmel point of view.





7.7 INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Simmel clearly operated with the sense that human beings possess
creative consciousness.This interest in creativity is manifest in Simmel’s
discussion of the diverse forms of interaction.

For Simmel, there is a dynamic or dialectical tension between the
individual and society -- individuals are free and creative spirits, yet are
part of the socialization process. Simmel was troubled by this relationship,
viewing modern society as freeing the individual from historical and
traditional bonds and creating much greater individual freedom, but with
individuals also experiencing a great sense of alienation within the culture
of urban life. Simmel notes:

The deepest problems of modern life derive from the claim of the
individual to preserve the autonomy and individuality of his existence in
the face of overwhelming social forces, of external culture, and of the
technique of lif e. (Farganis, p. 136).

Simmel makes three assumptions about the individual and society.
(Ashley and Orenstein, p. 312). These are:
1. Individuals are both within and outside society.
2. Individuals are both objects and subjects within networks of
communicative interaction.
3. Individuals have the impulse to be self -fulfilling and self -completing,
that is, they seek an integrated self -concept. Society also tries to
integrate itself (like Durkheim noted), although the effect of this may
be in opposition to individual integrity.

In the social world, the various forms and styles of interaction are
brought into existence by people and the above assumptions are realized
as individuals interact with one another. Ritzer notes that humans
possess creative consciousness and the basis of social life is "conscious
individuals or groups of individuals who interact with one another for a
variety of motives, purposes, and interests." (p. 163) People are conscious munotes.in

Page 61

61
and creative individuals and the mind plays a crucial role in this m utual
orientation and social interaction. This creativity allows for flexibility and
freedom on the part of the individual, but at the same time it helps to
create the structures of objective culture that may constrain and stifle this
freedom. That is, soc ial interaction becomes regularized and has patterns
to it, and these become forms of association. These patterns and forms,
regardless of their content, is what sociologists should study.

This means that society is not a separate reality of its own, but
"society merely is the name for a number of individuals, connected by
interaction ... society certainly is not a 'substance,' nothing concrete, but
an event : it is the function of receiving and affecting the fate and
development of one individual by the ot her." For Simmel, society is
nothing but lived experience , and social forces are not external to, nor
necessarily constraining for the individual, rather it is individuals who
reproduce society every living moment through their actions and
interactions. Ri tzer notes that Simmel disagreed with Durkheim that
"society is a real, material entity" and did not view society as merely a
collection of individuals. Rather, he adopted the position of "society as a
set of interactions." (p. 170).

The individual in a s ocial unit must be an entity or constituent part
of the unit, and Simmel distinguishes between a personal self and a social
self. If there is no self-consciousness , symbolic interaction would
disappear and human experience would just be the responses to st imuli.
Instead, we live and die in terms of what is inter subjectively meaningful -
- i.e. view ourselves in terms of responses of others - and even on others
who we have never met.

Ashley and Orenstein (p. 316) provide an example using sex and
gender differences. Within a patriarchal or unequal male/female
relationship, relations may appear to be intimate and spontaneous. In fact,
if the situation is one of dominant and subordinate, the nature of the
relationship is structured by the expectations of bo th the dominant and the
subordinate. Objective form of dominance and submission contain the way
in which what is thought of as subjective can be expressed. This dominant
and subordinate relationship is also maintained by the subjective impulses
that are pa rt of the interaction.

All of Simmel’s discussion of the forms of interaction imply that
actors must be consciously oriented to one another. Thus interaction in
stratified system requires that superordinates and subordinates orient
themselves to each othe r. The interaction would cease and stratification
system may collapse if mutual orientation is missing.

Simmel stated that society is not “out there” but is also “my
representation’ something dependent on the activity of the consciousness.”
He also had a sense of individual conscience and of the fact that the norms
and values of the society become internalized in individual consciousness. munotes.in

Page 62

62
Though we can see manifestation of Simmel’s concern with consciousness
in various places in his work, he did very littl e more than assume its
existence.

7.8 SUMMARY

George Simmel was one of the first generation of German
sociologists. Though George Simmel is not regarded as being as
influential in sociology as were Marx, Weber, Durkheim, or even Parsons.
These sociologis t despite their significance had little influence on
American theory in early 20th century. Several of the early United States
sociologists were influenced by Simmel. He is better known to be the
early American sociologist. In recent years the increasing i nfluence of

Simmel on sociological theory is quite vivid. Over the course of
the next 15 years, Simmel lectured and worked as a public sociologist,
authoring numerous articles on his topics of study for newspapers and
magazines. His writing became popular, making him well -known and
respected across Europe and in the United States.

Ironically, Simmel's gro undbreaking body of work was shunned by
conservative members of the academy, who refused to recognize his
achievements with formal academic appointments. Exacerbating Simmel's
frustrations were the chilling effects of the rising anti -Semitism he faced
as a Jew.
Refusing to knuckle under, Simmel, redoubled his commitment
to advancing sociological thinking and his burgeoning discipline. In 1909,
along with Ferdinand Tonnies and Max Webe r, he co -founded the German
Society for Sociology.

Levels of Concern:

There are four basic levels of concern in Simmel’s work. First are
his assumptions about the psychological workings of social life. Second is
his interest in sociological workings of interpersonal relationships. Third is
his work on the structure of changes in the social and cultural “spirit” of
his times . He also adopted the principle of emergence, which is the idea
that higher levels emerge out of lower levels. Finally, he dealt with his
views in the nature and inevitable fate of humanity. His most microscopic
work dealt with forms and interactions that takes with different types of
people. The forms include subordination, super -ordination, exchange,
conflict and sociability.

Dialectical Thinking:

A dialectical approach is multicasual multidirectional, integrates
facts and value, rejects the idea that there are hard and fast dividing lines
between social phenomena, focuses on social relations, looks not only at
the present but also at the past and future, and is deeply concerned with
both conflicts and contradictions. Simmel's sociology was concerned with munotes.in

Page 63

63
relationships especially interaction and was known as a "methodological
relationist". His principle was that everything interacts in some way with
everything else. Overall he was mostl y interested in dualisms, conflicts,
and contradictions in whatever realm of the social world he happened to
be working on.

Individual Consciousness:

Simmel focused on forms of association and paid little attention to
individual consciousness. Simmel bel ieved in the Georg Simmel creative
consciousness and this belief can be found in diverse forms of interaction,
the ability of actors to create social structures and the disastrous effects
those structures had on the creativity of individuals. Simmel also b elieved
that social and cultural structures come to have a life of their own.

7.9 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. Explain the concept of Fashion and Individual consciousness
2. Give a brief account of Simmel ’s areas of concerns.

7.10 REFERENCES

 Ashley, David and D. M. Orenstein, Sociological Theory: Classical
Statements (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1990), second edition.
 Farganis, J., Readings in Social Theory: the Classic Tradition to Post -
Modernism (McGraw -Hill, New York, 1993)
 Frisby, David, Georg Simmel (Ellis Horwo od, Chichester and Tavistock, London,
1984), Key Sociologists Series. HM 22 G3S482 1984.
 Frisby, David, Simmel and Since: Essays on Georg Simmel's Social Theory (London,
Routledge, 1992). HM 22 G3 S4828.
 Frisby, David, Sociological Impressionism: A Reasses sment of Georg Simmel's
Social Theory (London, Routledge, 1992). Second edition. HM 22 G3 S483.
 Knapp, P., One World -- Many Worlds: Contemporary Sociological Theory (Harper -
Collins, New York, 1994).
 Prakash, D. (2010). Sociological Thought. New Delhi: Glo bal Publications.
 Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory (McGraw -Hill, New York, 1992), third edition.
 Simmel, G. (1908 ). Soziologie . Leipzig : Duncker and Humblot . [Google Scholar]
 Simmel, G. (1903/1950 ). The metropolis and mental life . In K. Wolff (Ed.), The
sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 409–426). London : The Free Press . [Google
Scholar]
 Simmel, G. (1908/2009 ). Sociology . Leiden : Koninklijke Brill . [Google Scholar]
 "Georg Simmel." in Sociological Theory (7th ed.). New York: McGraw -Hill (2008).
Print.
 Simmel, Georg; Frisby, David; Featherstone, Mike (23 January 1998). Simmel on
Culture (First ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. p. 70. ISBN 978-0803986527 .
 Wolff, Kurt, The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1950).
HM 57 S482
 https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Georg_Simmel
 https://www.thoughtco.com/georg -simmel -3026490
***** munotes.in

Page 64

64
8


THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONEY AND THE
LEGACY OF SIMMEL TODAY

Unit Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 The Philosophy of Money
8.1.1 Introduction
8.1.2 Philosophy of Money
8.1.3 Money and Value
8.1.4 Money, Reification and Rationalization
8.1.5 Negative Effects
8.1.6 Conclusion
8.2 The Legacy of Simmel Today
8.2.1 Introduction
8.2.2 ‘The web of group -affiliations’
8.2.3 Death and Legacy
8.3 Conclusion
8.4 Summary
8.5 Unit End Question
8.6 References and Further Readings

8.0 OBJEC TIVES

 To understand the “Philosophy of Money” as propagated by George
Simmel.
 To assess the relationship of his theory in contemporary context.
 To evaluate the impact of Simmel’s contribution through his legacy.

8.1 THE PHILOSOPHY OF MONEY

8.1.1. Introduction:

People think about money as coins and banknotes that enable you
to buy goods and pay services. However, from the sociological
perspective, money is much more. For example, an anthropologists Mary
Douglas, defines money as: extreme and specialized type of ritual. While
the philosopher Schopenhauer, says that money is human happiness in the
abstract. The economist Adam Smith, saw money as the work, while Leo munotes.in

Page 65

65
Tostoy called them "new form of slavery and terrible." The Holy Catholic,
will say that the love of money is the "root of all evil." The economist
John Keynes, said that the accumulation of money for self -interest is
pathological disease. Marx argued that the use of money in the right way
has the capacity to be "a radical level" of inequality, but also a s a "foreign
entity" that dominates, to which people are subjected. He believed that the
system of money made people needed. However, Georg Simmel see
money as "freedom." In his Philosophy of Money, he explores the social
meaning of money and treats money as a symbol. He looks at some of the
effects of money and their symbolism for people and society in general.
According to Simmel in every society, money is made on personal or
objective measurment of the value. The transition from the economy of
exchange t o the economy of money, marks a shift in public relations and
social interactions. The use of money in society, enables the personal
relationship between strangers on issues of substantial value or importance
in those days.

8.1.2. Philosophy of Money:

Simmel's major work concerns money and the social meaning of
money. In this book ‘The Philosophy of Money’ (1907/1978) Simmel is
concerned with large social issues, and this book can be thought of as on a
par with The Division of Labour of Durkheim, althou gh not as extensive
and thorough as Marx's Capital or Weber's Economy and Society .

In The Philosophy of Money , Georg Simmel puts money on the
couch. He provides us with a classic analysis of the social, psychological
and philosophical aspects of the money economy, full of brilliant insights
into the forms that social relationships take. He analyzes the relationships
of money t o exchange, human personality, the position of women, and
individual freedom. Simmel also offers us prophetic insights into the
consequences of the modern money economy and the division of labour,
in particular the processes of alienation and reification i n work and urban
life.

Though it is clear from the title that that Simmel’s focus is on money, his
interest is embedded in a set of broader theoretical and philosophical
concern.
1. Simmel was interested in in the broad issue of value and money can
be seen as a specific form of value.
2. At another level he was not interested in the money but its impact on
wide range of phenomena as the “inner world” of actors and objective
culture as a whole.
3. He treated money as a specific phenomenon linked with a variety of
components of life, including “exchange, ownership, greed,
extravaganve, cynicism. Individual freedom, the style of life, culture,
the value of personality etc. munotes.in

Page 66

66
4. Finally he saw money as specific component of life capable of
helping us understand the totality of life.

He saw economic problem of his time as simply a specific
manifestation of a more general cultural problem, the alienation of
objective from subjective culture. The Philosophy of Money begins with a
discussion of the general forms of money and va lue. Later he moved to
discussion on impact of money on the “inner world” of actors and on
culture in general.

Check Your Progress
1. Explain the Marxist philosophy of money?





8.1.3 Money and Value :

One of the Simmel’s concern were relationship between money
and value. Acording to him "the exchange function as a direct interaction
between individuals, will be crystallizes in the form of money as an
independent structure" (Simmel 1900/1990: 175 quoted by Craig, page
153). He ar gued that people create value by making objects, separating
themselves from those objects and then seeking to overcome the “distance,
obstacles and difficulties.” The greater the difficulty of obtaining the
object the greater is its value. In general terms the value of things comes
from people’s ability to distance themselves from objects. The things that
are too close, and easy to obtained are often not valuable. Also the things
which are too far, too difficult and nearly impossible to obtain are also not
often valuable to us. Most valuable things rae neither too distant nor too
close. Factors responsible for making valuable or not valuable includes
time, scarcity, the difficulties involved in obtaining it etc. People try to
keep themselves at a proper dist ance from attainable objects.

In economic realm, money serves both to create distance from
object and to provide the means to overcome it. In modern economy the
value attached to the object places it at a distance from us.. We cannot
obtain it without money. The difficulty in earning the money and the
difficulty in obtaining it makes it valuable to us. Also when we have
enough money we are able to overcome the distance between the object
and ourself. Money thus performs an i nteresting function. Money creates
connections and obligations between peoples and institutionalized
relations with the use of coins, banknotes and contracts as a bank account.
For example, relations of dominance and dependence become quantitative
relation ship for an individual who has more or less money - their status is
on personal and rationally numerable. The use of money prevents
individuals from things and provides the means to overcome this distance.
Also, allows a much greater flexibility for indivi duals in society, like munotes.in

Page 67

67
traveling in greater distances, to accumulated as many as possible symbols
by their validity, ownership or status and to overcome personal limitations.

8.1.4 Money, Reification and Rationalization :

In the process of creating value, money also provides for the
development of the market, the modern economy, and ultimately modern
society. Money provides the means by which these entities acquire a life
of their own that is external to and coercive of, the actor. This provided a
contrast of the earlier society based on barter or trade which did not result
in reified world - a distinct feature of modern economy. Money permits
this development in various ways. For example Simmel argued that money
allows for “long term calculations, large sca le enterprises and long term
credits”. Not only does money help create a reified world, it also
contributes to the increasing rationalization of that social world.

With expansion of reified structures and mone tary trans actions
becoming important part of society, Simmel saw a decline in the
significance of the individual. In some sense it was difficult to see how
money can take on the central role that it does in modern society.

Simmel thus suggests that the spread of the money form gives
individuals a freedom of sorts by permitting them to exercise the kind
of individualized control over "impression management" that was not
possible in traditional societies. ... ascribed identities have been discarded.
Even strangers beco me familiar and knowable identities insofar as they are
willing to use a common but impersonal means of exchange. (Ashley and
Orenstein, p. 326)

At the same time, personal identity becomes problematic, so that
development of the money form has both positi ve and negative
consequences. That is, individual freedom is potentially increased greatly,
but there are problems of alienation, fragmentation, and identity
construction.

8.1.5 Negative Effects :

A society in which money becomes an end itself, indeed the ultimate end
has a number of negative consequences on individual. Two most
remarkable of it are:
1. Increase in cynicism :
Cynicism is induced when both highest and lowest aspects of social life
are for sale, reduced to common denominator - money. Thus one can “buy”
beauty, truth or intelligence as easily as we can buy cornflakes and
deodorants. Thus equatin g anything with money has resulted in the cynical
attitude where anything can be bought and sold in the market.

2. Increase in the blasé attitude :
This money economy also include the blasé attitude where everything munotes.in

Page 68

68
seems equally dull and grey hue as not being excited about. The blasé
person loses his ability to make differen tiation between the value of the
object being purchased.

3. Impersonal Relations :
Another negative effect of money economy is increasing impersonal
relations amongst the people. Instead of dealing with individual and their
personalities we are increasingly dealing with their positions like delivery
man, the baker and so on regardless of the person holding that position.
Thus in modern economic society as we depend more and more on others
for our existence and survival we are less aware about the people who
occupy those positions. The personality of an individual tends to hide
behind the identities of the positions that they held.

4. Reduction of Human Values :
Another impact of money economy is the reduction of all human values to
dollar terms. He gave example of exchange of sex for money. The
expansion of prostitution can be attributed to growth of money economy.
Thus there is an emphasis on quantitative rather qualitative factors in
social world.

The key to Simmel’s discussion of money’s impact on style of life
is in the growth of objective culture at the expense of individual culture.
The gap between the two grows larger at an accelerating rate.

For Georg Simmel, the use of money in economic exchanges,
always has to do with the individual who chooses to sacrifice something in
order to optimize a desired thing. He believed that every soci al action is
exchange action. Therefore, social interaction is the exchange of
representations or symbols (money). According to Simmel, philosophical
meaning of money within the practical world represent the safe figure and
high formula of which personific ate all beings, according to which things
make sense through each -other and have their existence through their
mutual relations. (Simmel, 1900/1990: 128 -9, quoted in Craig, p. 152 -3).

Check Your Progress
1. What are the negative affects of money?





8.6 CONCLUSION

Simmel's sociology can be regarded as similar to that of the other
classic writers in some senses, although he had less to say about social
structure or its dynamics than did Marx, Weber, or Durkheim He did munotes.in

Page 69

69
discuss objective culture and his writings on money have some affinity
with Weber's rationalization. Where his contribution is notable for
contemporary sociology is his view of society, the emphasis on social
interaction, and his writings on the city.

Simmel discussed social and cultural phenomena in terms of
“forms” and “contents” with a transient relationship. He was a forerunner
to structuralist styles of reasoning in the social sciences. With his work on
the metropolis, Simmel was a precursor of urban sociology and to that
extent also influential in the futu re development of symbolic
interactionism and social network analysis.

In The Philosophy of Money, Simmel provides us with a
remarkably wide -ranging discussion of the social, psychological and
philosophical aspects of the money economy, full of brilliant insights into
the forms that social relationships take. He analyzes the relationships of
money to exchange, the human personality, the position of women,
individual freedom and many other areas of human existence. Later he
provides us with an account of th e consequences of the modern money
economy and the division of labour, which examines the processes of
alienation and reification in work, urban life and elsewhere. Perhaps, more
than any of his other sociological works, The Philosophy of Money gives
us an example of his comprehensive analysis of the interrelationships
between the most diverse and seemingly connected social phenomena.

8.2 THE LEGACY OF SIMMEL TODAY

8.2.1 Introduction:

While Georg Simmel is widely known, the impact of his work has
been far from straightforward, with the ways in which his ideas have been
taken up by later thinkers as complex and diverse as the ideas
themselves. The Simmelian Legacy is a comprehensive study of the work
of this influential sociologist and philosopher and its reception in the
Anglophone, German, and French intellectual worlds.

Simmel, has built his own view based on the ideas of Durkheim,
Marx's, Hegel's and Kant's. His analysis of social structures, city, cu rrency
and modern society is similar to Durkheim's analysis, the problem of the
individual and society is similar to Weber's work on the effects of
rationalization. Simmel's work on the symbolism of money is similar to
Marx's work on alienation. However, w hat makes it distinct Simmel's
work by mentioned theorists, is its emphasis on social interaction at the
individual and small groups level, because for Simmel, “the society is
composed of interactions between and across individuals, and that
sociologists s hould study the patterns and forms of these associations,
which is better than the search for social laws.". Simmel's writings on the
city and money, continue to be used by contemporary sociologists.
munotes.in

Page 70

70
Simmel lived in the last half of the nineteenth century and in the
early years of the twentieth, long before the internet, digital technology,
and social media were invented, let alone could become so pervasive in
everyday life. He was the first to uncover, isol ate, and articulate the forms
and patterns that underlie the organization of any and all societal units –
from dyads to networks to nations – and to theorize how these structures
affect their members and the dynamics of their members’ interactions. His
insights would be astonishing in any era, but are all the more so when their
application to practices that he surely could never have imagined are
considered. Many scholars credit Simmel with pioneering the structural
approach to studying social life.

8.2.2 ‘The web of group -affiliations’:

In ‘The web of group -affiliations’, Simmel explains that
individuals in premodern, preindustrial times tended to come into contact
with a relatively small number of the same other people wherever they
went. Group affiliati ons could be characterized by a pattern of concentric
circles, as groups (family, neighborhood, church) were relatively few in
number and consisted of most of the same people. These circles could be
seen as structurally subsumed within one another, collaps ing into a single,
not-very-diverse, whole. Both technological and cultural factors were at
play – people could not easily travel great distances or contact distant
others, and correspondingly there was limited need or desire to do so. As a
result, the ind ividual ‘was wholly absorbed by, and remained oriented
toward, the group’, and, importantly, ‘was treated as a member of a group
rather than as an individual’.

With ever -accelerating industrialization, however, came sufficient
advancement of transportatio n and communication technology that one
could belong to multiple groups that consisted of numerous, diverse,
sometimes far -flung others. Now, people could (and did) participate in
many family, friendship, occupational and interest -oriented groups, some
of which were independent of one another and others of which would
intersect. These social circles began to overlap and proliferate in intricate
ways and patterns, eventually spanning ‘an infinite range of
individualizing combinations’.

The structure of any society, Simmel writes, ‘provides a
framework within which an individual's non -interchangeable and singular
characteristics may develop and find expression’ ( 1955 , p. 150). Th e
internet and digital technology provide frequent and multiple opportunities
for the expression of the characteristics of the self. Indeed, the abundant,
near-continuous expression of unique characteristics and ‘peculiarities’ (as
Simmel refers to human q uirks in the also -groundbreaking ‘The
metropolis and mental life’ that emerge in online and digital spaces can be
seen as a hallmark of the internet age. Simmel also contends that as our
group affiliations and modes of self -expression increase, every indiv idual
will find ‘a community for each of his inclinations and strivings’. munotes.in

Page 71

71
Of the many metaphors currently used to represent internet - and
digitally enabled structures (network, net, platform, cluster, even
‘facebook’), the ‘web’ is perhaps the most common ly invoked. Simmel's
work describes the development of sprawling weblike societal structures
with elegance and precision. But it would be incorrect to affirm that he
actually used the word ‘web’ in describing the shape that such structures
can take.

Thoug h it is unclear the extent to which Simmel's vision was
exactly that of a ‘web’, it is clear that Simmel's work – and this essay in
particular – maps onto and depicts the morphology and structural
development of the internet and the ‘World Wide Web’ brilli antly.

8.2.3 Death and Legacy :

Simmel wrote prolifically throughout his career, penning more
than 200 articles for various outlets, both scholarly and non -academic, as
well as 15 very highly regarded books. He passed away in 1918, after
succumbing to a battle with liver cancer.

Simmel's work laid the foundation for the development of
structuralist approaches to studying society, and to the development of the
discipline of sociology in general. His works proved especially inspiring
to those who pioneered the field of urban sociology in the Uni ted States,
including the Chicago School of Sociology's Robert Park.

Simmel's legacy in Europe includes shaping the intellectual
development and writing of social theorists György Lukács , Ernst
Bloch, and Karl Mannheim , among others. Simmel's approach to studying
mass culture also served as a theoretical foundation for members of The
Frankfort School .

Even though he left no established school of thought or direct
disciples, Simmel greatly influenced the development of
both sociology and philosophy . His ideas, dispersed through the different
areas in which he wrote, left their mark on the future generations of
scholars.

Simmel’s study of group s and group -behavior has gained some
important insights that would later be used in social
psychology and sociology .

8.3 CONCLUSION

George Simmel is undervalued and underrated among the great
classical theorists. His work provides theoretical and analytical tools upon
which such critical perspectives as social network analysis have been
built. It outlines how group affiliations and social interacti ons develop and
impact both the individual and the society. And it presages a world in munotes.in

Page 72

72
which the finding and forming of social connections via digital technology
is constant and ubiquitous, with rampant consequences, many of which we
are just beginning to discern. But while his influence is widely
acknowledged in sociological circles (albeit not widely enough for my
taste), his salience to the fields of communication, information, and
technology studies is acknowledged far too irregularly.

8.4 SUMMARY

The Philosophy of Money :
Probably considered Simmel's greatest work. Simmel saw money as a
component of life that helped us understand the totality of life. I t demands
to be read today and for years to come as a stunning account of the
meaning, use and culture of money.

Money and Value :
Simmel believed people created value by making objects, then separating
themselves from that object and then trying to overcome that distance. He
found that things that were too close were not considered valuable and
things that were too far for people to get were also not considered
valuable. It was also considered in determining value was the scarcity,
time, sacrifice, and difficulties involved in getting the object.

Negative Effects :
As money and transactions increase , the value of the individual decreases
and everything becomes about what the individual can do instead of who
the individual is. Another negative effect of money is the effect it has on
people's beliefs. Everything boils down to dollars and cents instead of
emotional value.

In this book, Simmel is concerned with money as a symbol , and
what some of the effects of this are for people and society. In modern
society, money becomes an impersonal or objectified measure of value.
This implies impersonal, rationa l ties among people that are
institutionalized in the money form. For example, relations of domination
and subordination become quantitative relationships of more and less
money -- impersonal and measurable in a rational manner. The use of
money distances individuals from objects and also provides the means of
overcoming this distance. The use of money allows much greater
flexibility for individuals in society -- to travel greater distances and to
overcome person -to-person limitations.

Legacy :

Simmel's wo rk laid the foundation for the development of
structuralist approaches to studying society, and to the development of the
discipline of sociology in general. His works proved especially inspiring
to those who pioneered the field of urban sociology in the U nited States,
including the Chicago School of Sociology's Robert Park. munotes.in

Page 73

73
Simmel's legacy in Europe includes shaping the intellectual
development and writing of social theorists György Lukács, Ernst
Bloch, and Karl Mannheim , among others. Simmel's approach to studying
mass culture also served as a theoretical foundation for members of The
Frankfort School .

Even though he left no established school of thought or direct
disciples, Simmel greatly influenced the development of
both sociology and philosophy . His ideas, dispersed through the different
areas in which he wrote, left their mark on the future generations of
scholars.

Simmel’s study of groups and group -behavior has gained some
important insights that would later be used in social
psychology and sociology .

8.5 UNIT END QUESTION

1. Explain Simmel’s philosophy of money.

8.6 REFERENCES

 Ashley, David and D. M. Orenstein, Sociological Theory: Classical
Statements (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1990), second edition.
 Chyko, Mary. (2015). The first web theorist? Georg Simmel and the legacy of ‘The
web of group -affiliations’ . Information Communication and Society Reviews; Vol
18, 2015 –https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1042394
 Frisby, David , ed. (2004) Georg Simmel: the philosophy of money. Routledge,
London, UK. ISBN 9780415341738
 Prakash, D. (2010). Sociological Thought. New Delhi: Global Publications.
 Ritzer, George, Sociological Theory (McGraw -Hill, New York, 1992), third edition.
 Simmel, Georg, The Philosophy of Money (Routledge, London, 1990), second
edition. HG 221 S5913 1990.
 Simmel, G. (1908 ). Soziologie . Leipzig : Duncker and Humblot . [Google Scholar]
 Simmel, G. (1903/1950 ). The metropolis and mental life . In K. Wolff (Ed.), The
sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 409–426). London : The Free Press . [Google
Scholar]
 Simmel, G. (1955 ). Conflict and the web of group -affiliations . New York, NY : Free
Press . [Google Scholar]
 Simmel, G. (1908/2009 ). Sociology . Leiden : Koninklijke Brill . [Google Scholar]
 Simmel, Georg. 2004 [1900]. The Philosophy of Money (3rd enlarged ed.) , edited by
D. Frisby, translated by D. Frisby and T. Bottomore. London: Routledge. – via Eddie
Jackson.
 Wolff, Kurt, The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1950).
HM 57 S482
 https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Georg_Simmel
 https://www.grin.com/user/677140 - Review of the attitudes of Georg Simmel in his
work "The Philosophy of Money"
***** munotes.in

Page 74

74
MODEL QUESTION PAPER
PAPER 1
CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY


Total Marks : 60 Duration : 2 Hours

N.B:
1) Attempt All Questions
2) All Questions carry equal marks

Q1. Explain “Human Nature” from a Marxian Perspective 15 marks
Or
What are the Historical Stag es in the 15 marks
Development of States ?
Q2. Explain the Concept of Social Fact . 15 marks
Or
Explain Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide 15 marks

Q3. Analyse Weber’ s Contribution to Social Action . 15 marks
Or
Discuss the Role of Protestan t Ethics i n the Development
of Capitalism . 15 marks

Q4. Give a brief account of Simmel’s areas of concerns. 15 marks
Or
Explain the Legacy of Simmel Today . 15 marks




**** *
munotes.in