BASIC CONCEPTS from Sociology and Anthropology - Tools to think with.

SOCIETY: humanly created organization or system of interrelationships that connects individuals in a

common culture. All the products of human interaction, the experience of living with others around us.
Humans create their interactions, and once created the products of those interactions have the ability or
power to act back upon humans to determine or constrain action. Often, we experience society
(humanly created organization) as something apart from the individuals and interactions that create it.
PRODUCTS OF HUMAN INTERACTION
COMPONENTS OF SOCIETY CULTURE: sets of traditions, rules, symbols that shape and are enacted
as feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of groups of people. Referring primarily to learned behavior as
distinct from that which is given by nature, or biology, culture has been used to designate everything
that is humanly produced (habits, beliefs, arts, and artifacts) and passed from one generation to
another. In this formulation, culture is distinguished from nature, and distinguishes one society from
another.
LANGUAGE: a system of verbal symbols through which humans communicate ideas, feelings,
experiences. Through language these can be accumulated and transmitted across generations.
Language is not only a tool, or a means of expression, but it also structures and shapes our
experiences of the world and what we see around us.
VALUES: preferences - ideas people share about what is good, bad, desirable, undesirable. These are
usually very general, abstract, cut across variations in situations.
NORMS: concepts and behaviors that constitute the normal. Behavioral rules or standards for social
interaction. These often derive from values but also contradict values; sometimes derives from
statistical norms but often not. Serve as both guides and criticisms for individual behavior. Norms
establish expectations that shape interaction.
Source: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/anthropology/21a-245j-power-interpersonal-organizational-andglobal-dimensions-fall-2005/study-materials/basic_conc.pdf
Symbols are cultural representations of reality.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/culture-and-societies/symbols-andlanguage-in-human-culture
Types of Societies
Although humans have established many types of societies throughout history, sociologists and
anthropologists (experts who study early and tribal cultures) usually refer to six basic types of societies,
each defined by its level of technology.
Hunting and gathering societies
The members of hunting and gathering societies primarily survive by hunting animals, fishing, and
gathering plants. The vast majority of these societies existed in the past, with only a few (perhaps a
million people total) living today on the verge of extinction.
To survive, early human societies completely depended upon their immediate environment. When the
animals left the area, the plants died, or the rivers dried up, the society had to relocate to an area where
resources were plentiful. Consequently, hunting and gathering societies, which were typically small,
were quite mobile. In some cases, where resources in a locale were extraordinarily plentiful, small
villages might form. But most hunting and gathering societies were nomadic, moving constantly in
search of food and water.
Labor in hunting and gathering societies was divided equally among members. Because of the mobile
nature of the society, these societies stored little in the form of surplus goods. Therefore, anyone who
could hunt, fish, or gather fruits and vegetables did so. These societies probably also had at least some
division of labor based on gender. Males probably traveled long distances to hunt and capture larger
animals. Females hunted smaller animals, gathered plants, made clothing, protected and raised
children, and helped the males to protect the community from rival groups. Hunting and gathering
societies were also tribal. Members shared an ancestral heritage and a common set of traditions and
rituals. They also sacrificed their individuality for the sake of the larger tribal culture.

Pastoral societies
Members of pastoral societies, which first emerged 12,000 years ago, pasture animals for food and
transportation. Pastoral societies still exist today, primarily in the desert lands of North Africa where
horticulture and manufacturing are not possible.
Domesticating animals allows for a more manageable food supply than do hunting and gathering.
Hence, pastoral societies are able to produce a surplus of goods, which makes storing food for future
use a possibility. With storage comes the desire to develop settlements that permit the society to
remain in a single place for longer periods of time. And with stability comes the trade of surplus goods
between neighboring pastoral communities.
Pastoral societies allow certain of its members (those who are not domesticating animals) to engage in
nonsurvival activities. Traders, healers, spiritual leaders, craftspeople, and people with other specialty
professions appear.
Horticultural societies
Unlike pastoral societies that rely on domesticating animals,horticultural societies rely on cultivating
fruits, vegetables, and plants. These societies first appeared in different parts of the planet about the
same time as pastoral societies. Like hunting and gathering societies, horticultural societies had to be
mobile. Depletion of the land's resources or dwindling water supplies, for example, forced the people to
leave. Horticultural societies occasionally produced a surplus, which permitted storage as well as the
emergence of other professions not related to the survival of the society.
Agricultural societies
Agricultural societies use technological advances to cultivate crops (especially grains like wheat, rice,
corn, and barley) over a large area. Sociologists use the phrase Agricultural Revolution to refer to the
technological changes that occurred as long as 8,500 years ago that led to cultivating crops and raising
farm animals. Increases in food supplies then led to larger populations than in earlier communities. This
meant a greater surplus, which resulted in towns that became centers of trade supporting various
rulers, educators, craftspeople, merchants, and religious leaders who did not have to worry about
locating nourishment.
Greater degrees of social stratification appeared in agricultural societies. For example, women
previously had higher social status because they shared labor more equally with men. In hunting and
gathering societies, women even gathered more food than men. But as food stores improved and
women took on lesser roles in providing food for the family, they became more subordinate to men.
As villages and towns expanded into neighboring areas, conflicts with other communities inevitably
occurred. Farmers provided warriors with food in exchange for protection against invasion by enemies.
A system of rulers with high social status also appeared. This nobility organized warriors to protect the
society from invasion. In this way, the nobility managed to extract goods from the lesser persons of
society.
Feudal societies
From the 9th to 15th centuries, feudalism was a form of society based on ownership of land. Unlike
today's farmers, vassals under feudalism were bound to cultivating their lord's land. In exchange for
military protection, the lords exploited the peasants into providing food, crops, crafts, homage, and
other services to the owner of the land. The caste system of feudalism was often multigenerational; the
families of peasants may have cultivated their lord's land for generations.
Between the 14th and 16th centuries, a new economic system emerged that began to replace
feudalism. Capitalism is marked by open competition in a free market, in which the means of
production are privately owned. Europe's exploration of the Americas served as one impetus for the
development of capitalism. The introduction of foreign metals, silks, and spices stimulated great
commercial activity in Europe.
Industrial societies
Industrial societies are based on using machines (particularly fueldriven ones) to produce goods.
Sociologists refer to the period during the 18th century when the production of goods in mechanized

factories began as the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution appeared first in Britain, and
then quickly spread to the rest of the world.
As productivity increased, means of transportation improved to better facilitate the transfer of products
from place to place. Great wealth was attained by the few who owned factories, and the masses
found jobs working in the factories.
Industrialization brought about changes in almost every aspect of society. As factories became the
center of work, home cottages as the usual workplace became less prevalent, as did the family's role
in providing vocational training and education. Public education via schools and eventually the mass
media became the norm. People's life expectancy increased as their health improved. Political
institutions changed into modern models of governance. Cultural diversity increased, as did social
mobility. Large cities emerged as places to find jobs in factories. Social power moved into the hands of
business elites and governmental officials, leading to struggles between industrialists and workers.
Labor unions and welfare organizations formed in response to these disputes and concerns over
workers' welfare, including children who toiled in factories. Rapid changes in industrial technology also
continued, especially the production of larger machines and faster means of transportation. The
Industrial Revolution also saw to the development ofbureaucratic forms of organization, complete with
written rules, job descriptions, impersonal positions, and hierarchical methods of management.
Postindustrial societies
Sociologists note that with the advent of the computer microchip, the world is witnessing a technological
revolution. This revolution is creating a postindustrial society based on information, knowledge, and
the selling of services. That is, rather than being driven by the factory production of goods, society is
being shaped by the human mind, aided by computer technology. Although factories will always exist,
the key to wealth and power seems to lie in the ability to generate, store, manipulate, and sell
information.
Sociologists speculate about the characteristics of postindustrial society in the near future. They predict
increased levels of education and training, consumerism, availability of goods, and social mobility.
While they hope for a decline in inequality as technical skills and knowhow begin to determine class
rather than the ownership of property, sociologists are also concerned about potential social divisions
based on those who have appropriate education and those who do not. Sociologists believe society will
become more concerned with the welfare of all members of society. They hope postindustrial society
will be less characterized by social conflict, as everyone works together to solve society's problems
through science.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/culture-and-societies/types-of-societies
Culture and Society Defined
Culture consists of the beliefs, behaviors, objects, and other characteristics common to the members
of a particular group or society. Through culture, people and groups define themselves, conform to
society's shared values, and contribute to society. Thus, culture includes many societal aspects:
language, customs, values, norms, mores, rules, tools, technologies, products, organizations, and
institutions. This latter term institution refers to clusters of rules and cultural meanings associated with
specific social activities. Common institutions are the family, education, religion, work, and health care.
Popularly speaking, being cultured means being welleducated, knowledgeable of the arts, stylish, and
wellmannered. High culturegenerally pursued by the upper classrefers to classical music,
theater, fine arts, and other sophisticated pursuits. Members of the upper class can pursue high art
because they have cultural capital, which means the professional credentials, education, knowledge,
and verbal and social skills necessary to attain the property, power, and prestige to get ahead
socially. Low culture, or popular culturegenerally pursued by the working and middle classes
refers to sports, movies, television sitcoms and soaps, and rock music. Remember that sociologists
define culturedifferently than they do cultured, high culture, low culture, andpopular culture.
Sociologists define society as the people who interact in such a way as to share a common culture.
The cultural bond may be ethnic or racial, based on gender, or due to shared beliefs, values, and

activities. The term society can also have a geographic meaning and refer to people who share a
common culture in a particular location. For example, people living in arctic climates developed different
cultures from those living in desert cultures. In time, a large variety of human cultures arose around the
world.
Culture and society are intricately related. A culture consists of the objects of a society, whereas a
society consists of the people who share a common culture. When the terms culture and society first
acquired their current meanings, most people in the world worked and lived in small groups in the same
locale. In today's world of 6 billion people, these terms have lost some of their usefulness because
increasing numbers of people interact and share resources globally. Still, people tend to
use culture and society in a more traditional sense: for example, being a part of a racial culture within
the larger U.S. society.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/culture-and-societies/culture-and-societydefined
The Founders of Sociology
Each field of academic study has its own cast of characters, and sociology is no exception. Although
countless individuals have contributed to sociology's development into a social science, several
individuals deserve special mention.
Auguste Comte
The French philosopher Auguste Comte (17981857)often called the father of sociologyfirst
used the term sociology in 1838 to refer to the scientific study of society. He believed that all societies
develop and progress through the following stages: religious, metaphysical, and scientific. Comte
argued that society needs scientific knowledge based on facts and evidence to solve its problemsnot
speculation and superstition, which characterize the religious and metaphysical stages of social
development. Comte viewed the science of sociology as consisting of two branches: dynamics, or the
study of the processes by which societies change; and statics, or the study of the processes by which
societies endure. He also envisioned sociologists as eventually developing a base of scientific social
knowledge that would guide society into positive directions.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/the-foundersof-sociology
The Contribution of Auguste Comte to Sociology!
Isidore Auguste Marie Francois Xavier Comte was born in Montellier of Southern France in January 1,
1798 and died in 1857. He was the first thinker who realized the need for a distinct science of human
society. He is regarded as the father of sociology. He is regarded as the father not because of his
significant contributions to the subject but because of creating sociology as a science of society or
science of human behaviour.
Comte first gave the name Social Physics to the science invented by him but later he coined the word
Sociology a hybrid term compounded of Latin and Greek words to describe the new science.
The period during which Comte took his birth in France, was very critical. Because there was chaos in
France as the French World of thought was divided into two parts. One part was dominated by the
revolutionary thinkers while the other part was dominated by the religious thinkers. But Comte opposed
both these ways of thinking and gave emphasis to scientific outlook and scientific analysis. He
organised and classified the social thought prevailing before his times. Comte has many important
works to his credit.
An important work of Comte A Programme of Scientific Work required for the Reorganization of
Society was published in 1822 which contains an outline of his thoughts. He also wrote many books.
1. Positive Philosophy (1830-42)
2. System of Positive Polity (1851 -54)
3. Religion of Humanity (1856)

Comte gave birth not only to a specific methodology of studying knowledge but also analysed the
evolution of human thinking and its various stages. He had developed a unilinear theory of evolution.
According to Comte individual mind and human society pass through successive stages of historical
evolution leading to some final stage of perfection. The principle developed by Comte in the study of
human thinking presumes gradual evolution and development in human thinking and is known as the
law of three stages of thinking.
The Law of Three Stages:
According to Comte it is the universal law of intellectual development. According to him Each branch of
our knowledge passes through three different theoretical conditions; the theological or fictitious; the
metaphysical or abstract; and the scientific or positive. This is known as the law of three stages
because, according to it, human thinking has undergone three separate stages in its evolution and
development.
He opines, The evolution of the human mind has paralleled the evolution of the individual mind. He
focussed mainly on stages in the development and progress of human mind and stressed that these
stages co-related with parallel stages in the development of social order, social units, social
organisation and material conditions of human life.
Comtes evolutionary theory or the law of three stages represents that there are three intellectual
stages through which the world has gone throughout its history. According to him, not only does the
world go through this process but groups, societies, sciences, individuals and even minds go through
the same three stages. As there has been an evolution in the human thinking so that each succeeding
stage is superior to and more evolved than the preceding stage. However, these three stages are as
follows:(a) Theological or Fictitious Stage.
(b) Metaphysical or Abstract Stage.
(c) Positive or Scientific Stage.
(a) Theological or Fictitious Stage:
This stage was the first stage of law of three stages. It characterized the world prior to 1300 A.D.
According to Comte in this stage All theoretical conceptions whether general or special bear a super
natural impress. It was believed that all the activities of men were guided and governed by
supernatural power. In this stage the social and the physical world was produced by God. At this stage
mans thinking was guided by theological dogmas. It was marked by lack of logical and orderly thinking.
Theological thinking is characterized by unscientific outlook.
A natural event was the main subject matter of theological thinking. The usual natural events tend man
towards theological interpretation of the events. Unable to find the natural causes of different
happenings the theological man attributes them to imaginary or divine forces. This kind of explanation
of natural events in divine or imaginary conditions is known as theological thinking. Excess or absence
of rain was believed to be due to godly pleasure or displeasure. Magic and totemism were given
emphasis.
This stage was dominated by priests. It implied belief in another world wherein reside the divine forces
which influenced and controlled all the events in this world. In other words at this theological stage all
phenomena are attributed to some super natural power. The concept of super natural power itself
passes through four sub-stages. In other words Comte had divided the theological stage into the
following four stages.
(i) Fetishism
(ii) Anthropomorphism
(iii) Polytheism
(iv) Monotheism
(i) Fetishism:
It is the first and primary sub-stage in theological thinking stage. In this stage men thought that in every
object or thing God resided. Fetishism is a kind of belief that there exists some living spirit in the nonliving objects.

(ii) Anthropomorphism:
It is the second sub-stage of theological stage. With the gradual development in human thinking there
occurred a change or improvement in the human thinking which resulted in the development of this
stage.
(iii) Polytheism:
With the passage of time human mind develops and there occurred a change in the form of thinking. A
more evolved and developed stage than fetishism and anthropomorphism appeared which is known as
Polytheism. As there were many things or many objects, the number of Gods multiplied. So men were
found to be engaged in the worship of a number of Gods. He believed that each and every God had
some definite function and his area of action or operation was determined. At this stage man had
classified Gods or natural forces.
(iv) Monotheism:
With the passage of time human mind further develops and there occurred a change and development
in the form of thinking. A more evolved and developed stage occurred which was known as
Monotheism. This is the last sub-stage of theological stage. This stage replaced the earlier belief in
many Gods by the belief in one God. Mono means one. It implied that one God was supreme who was
responsible for the maintenance of system in the world. This type of monotheistic thinking marked the
victory of human intellect over irrational thinking.
(b) Metaphysical or Abstract Stage:
This is the second stage which occurred roughly between 1300 and 1800 A.D. This is an improved form
of theological stage. Under this stage it was believed that an abstract power or force guided and
determined all the events of the world. It was against the belief in concrete God. There was
development of reason in human thinking. By this man ceased to think that it was the supernatural
being that controlled and guided all the activities.
So it was the mere modification of the first one which discarded belief in concrete God. According to
Comte, In the metaphysical state, which is only a modification of the first, the mind supposes instead of
supernatural beings, abstract forces, veritable entities (that is personified abstraction) inherent in all
beings and capable of producing all phenomena. At this stage the position of supernatural power of the
first stage is taken over by the abstract principles.
(c) Positive Stage:
The last and the final stage of human thinking or human mind was the positive stage or the scientific
stage which entered into the world in 1800. This stage was characterized by belief in Science. People
now tended to give up the search for absolute causes (God or Nature) and concentrated instead on
observation of the social and physical world in the search for the laws governing them.
According to Comte observation and classification of facts were the beginning of the scientific
knowledge. It was governed by industrial administrators and scientific moral guides. So at this stage the
priests or the theologians were replaced by scientists. The warriors were replaced by industrialists.
Observation predominates over imagination. All theoretical concepts become positive or scientific.
So it may be concluded that in the first stage the mind explains phenomena by ascribing them to
supernatural power or God. The second, metaphysical stage, is a mere modification of the first; in it the
mind suppresses that abstract forces produce all phenomena rather than supernatural beings. In the
final stage man observes nature and humanity objectively in order to establish laws.
Corresponding to the three stages of intellectual development there are two major types of society (i)
Theological military type of society; (ii) Industrial Society.
Criticism:
The theory of law of three stages of Comte is not free from criticisms.
According to Prof. Bogardus, Comte has failed to postulate a fourth thinking stage namely the
specialized thinking stage which would not merely emphasize the use of natural forces.
Source: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/the-contribution-of-auguste-comte-tosociology/6246/

Karl Marx
Not everyone has shared Spencer's vision of societal harmony and stability. Chief among those who
disagreed was the German political philosopher and economist Karl Marx (18181883), who observed
society's exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful. Marx argued that Spencer's healthy societal
organism was a falsehood. Rather than interdependence and stability, Marx claimed that social
conflict, especially class conflict, and competition mark all societies.
The class of capitalists that Marx called the bourgeoisie particularly enraged him. Members of the
bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit the class of laborers, called the proletariat, who
do not own the means of production. Marx believed that the very natures of the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat inescapably lock the two classes in conflict. But he then took his ideas of class conflict one
step further: He predicted that the laborers are not selectively unfit, but are destined to overthrow the
capitalists. Such a class revolution would establish a classfree society in which all people work
according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.
Unlike Spencer, Marx believed that economics, not natural selection, determines the differences
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He further claimed that a society's economic system
decides peoples' norms, values, mores, and religious beliefs, as well as the nature of the society's
political, governmental, and educational systems. Also unlike Spencer, Marx urged people to take an
active role in changing society rather than simply trusting it to evolve positively on its own.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/the-foundersof-sociology
Marx perceived societal progress in human history through the idea of class struggle. The notion of
dialectical materialism focuses, in some sense, on the societal struggle between the ruling economic
class and the subjugated working class. Marx saw this system as untenable and predicted that the
economic apparatus of capitalism would eventually collapse on itself, leading to socialism.
Marx was among the first thinkers to recognize the sociological impact of economics and class
stratification. He investigated the effects of the capitalist system on the lives of workers as well the deep
relationship between class inequality and culture.
Marx wrote extensively about the problem of alienation, in which laborers essentially give up their labor
to the market, seeing little in return small profits and no sense of accomplishment at having actually
made something. Marx argued that this alienation from labor, as well as the alienation of being trapped
in a social class with little control over economic circumstances, amounted to a fundamental
disconnection between humans and their humanity.
Source: https://www.reference.com/world-view/karl-marx-s-contribution-sociology-a0fa6d00677681d7
Emile Durkheim
Despite their differences, Marx, Spencer, and Comte all acknowledged the importance of using science
to study society, although none actually used scientific methods. Not until Emile Durkheim (1858
1917) did a person systematically apply scientific methods to sociology as a discipline. A French
philosopher and sociologist, Durkheim stressed the importance of studying social facts, or patterns of
behavior characteristic of a particular group. The phenomenon of suicide especially interested
Durkheim. But he did not limit his ideas on the topic to mere speculation. Durkheim formulated his
conclusions about the causes of suicide based on the analysis of large amounts of statistical data
collected from various European countries.
Durkheim certainly advocated the use of systematic observation to study sociological events, but he
also recommended that sociologists avoid considering people's attitudes when explaining society.
Sociologists should only consider as objective evidence what they themselves can directly observe. In
other words, they must not concern themselves with people's subjective experiences.

Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/the-foundersof-sociology
Among the contemporary Sociologists Emile Durkheim, the French genius occupies an important place.
He was born in 1858 at Epinal in France. Mostly he was a teacher of sociology in the University of
Bordeaux and Paris. He had some major works which became a dominant force in the development of
Sociology.
In fact, most of his theories were devoted to the study of social order. His opinion was that social
disorders were not the necessary parts of the modern world and could be reduced by social reforms.
Some of the important works of Durkheims are the following.
(i) Le Suicide (The Suicide)-1897
(ii) De La Division du Travill Sociale (The Social Division of Labour)-1893
(iii)Les Forms Elementaries de La-yie Religiouse (The Elementary Forms of religious life)1912
(iv) Education at Sociology (Education and Sociology)-1922.
Let us discuss his theory of Suicide in detail.
The Suicide: Durkheims most important reason for studying suicide was to prove the power of the new
science of Sociology. Suicide is generally considered to be one of the most private and personal acts.
Durkheim believed that if he could show that Sociology had a role to play in explaining such an
individualistic act as suicide, it would be relatively easy to extend Sociologys domain to phenomena.
According to Durkheim suicide is neither an individual nor a personal act. It is a social fact. It should be
studied by acquiring data from outside of our own minds through observation and experimentation. He
was interested in explaining differences in suicide rates but not in the study why any specific individual
committed suicide. Simultaneously he was interested in why are group had a higher rate of suicide than
another. So he assumed that only social facts could explain it. He proceeded to give sociological
classification of suicides by showing all the principal types of suicide which are due entirely to social
causes.
According to Professor Mitchell, Durkheims classification is primarily in terms of group attachment and
group detachment.
Durkheim had explained four major forms of Suicide. They are (a) Egoistic (b) Altruistic (c) Anomic (d)
Fatalistic.
(a) Egoistic Suicide:
Durkheim believed that the best parts of human beings like our morality, values and sense of purpose
etc. come from society. An integrated society provides us with these things and moral support. The
people who have lost group attachment, they commit suicide because of frustration.
Here the individual is not well integrated into the larger unit. This lack of integration leads to a feeling
that neither the individual is part of neither society nor the society is part of the individual. So egoistic
suicide implies that the person commits suicide when he thinks primarily of himself when he is not
integrated into the social group.
Durkheim affirms the importance of social forces in case of egoistic suicide also, where the individual
might be thought to be free of social constraints.
(b) Altruistic Suicide:
This is the second type of suicide given by Durkheim. From the above discussion of egoistic suicide we
come to know that egoistic suicide is more likely to occur when social integration is too weak. But in
case of altruistic suicide, social integration is too strong. More generally, the persons committing
altruistic suicide feel that it is their duty to do so. Durkheim argued that in case of military, altruistic
suicide is most prominent because the degree of integration is so strong that the individual will feel that
he has disgraced the entire group in its failure.
(c) Anomic Suicide:
The third major form of suicide given by Durkheim is anomic suicide. This type of suicide is more likely
to occur when regulation is too weak. It is caused due to extreme frustration of an individual. According

to Durkheim, in anomic suicide, societys influence is lacking basically in the individual passions, thus
leaving them without a check therein. Anomic is a chronic state of affairs in the modern socioeconomic system. It occurs during industrial or financial crises. He showed that there was a high rate of
anomic suicide among the wealthy as well as divorced persons as most of them are not in a positive to
adjust themselves to violent changes in their life system and set up.
(d) Fatalistic Suicide:
There is a little-mentioned fourth type of suicide-fatalistic that Durkheim discussed only in a footnote in
Suicide as said by Bernard. It is more likely to occur when regulation is excessive. Durkheim described
that persons more likely commit fatalistic suicide whose future is pitilessly blocked and whose passions
are violently chocked. The classic example is the slave who takes his own life because of too much
regulation.
Table showing the four types of Suicide:
Low
Egoistic Suicide
Integration
High
Altruistic Suicide
Low
Anomic Suicide
Regulation
High
Fatalistic Suicide
From the above table it is found that Durkheim tried to find out the relation between the types of suicide
and his two social currents. These two social currents are integration and regulation. Integration refers
to the strength of the attachment that we have to society and regulation refers of the degree of external
constraint on people. When integration is high, altruistic suicide takes place. But low integration results
in an increase in egoistic suicide. Anomic suicide is associated with low regulation whereas fatalistic
suicide with high regulation.
Durkheim demonstrated that all religions do not provide the same degree of protection from suicide. His
statistics showed that suicide rates go up for those who are unmarried and less integrated into a family.
In his study of Suicide he tried to find out the reforms what could be undertaken to prevent it. For him,
attempts to convince the individual directly not to commit suicide are futile, since its real causes
From the above table it is found that Durkheim tried to find out the relation between the types of suicide
and his two social currents. These two social currents are integration and regulation. Integration refers
to the strength of the attachment that we have to society and regulation refers of the degree of external
constraint on people. When integration is high, altruistic suicide takes place. But low integration results
in an increase in egoistic suicide. Anomic suicide is associated with low regulation whereas fatalistic
suicide with high regulation.
Durkheim demonstrated that all religions do not provide the same degree of protection from suicide. His
statistics showed that suicide rates go up for those who are unmarried and less integrated into a family.
In his study of Suicide he tried to find out the reforms what could be undertaken to prevent it. For him,
attempts to convince the individual directly not to commit suicide are futile, since its real causes are in
society. It may be concluded that society and social currents are mainly responsible for suicide.
Criticisms:
The theory of suicide of Durkheim is not free from criticisms. Some of the critics say that the society
and the social currents which are solely responsible for suicide is not correct as other factors are there
causing suicide. So it is an one-sided view, some other critics say that the theory of suicide of Durkheim
is incomplete as he has based the theory upon a very small number of sample.
Source: http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/the-contribution-of-emile-durkheim-towardssociology-1198-words/6250/
Max Weber
The German sociologist Max Weber (18641920) disagreed with the objective evidence only position
of Durkheim. He argued that sociologists must also consider people's interpretations of eventsnot just
the events themselves. Weber believed that individuals' behaviors cannot exist apart from their
interpretations of the meaning of their own behaviors, and that people tend to act according to these

interpretations. Because of the ties between objective behavior and subjective interpretation, Weber
believed that sociologists must inquire into people's thoughts, feelings, and perceptions regarding their
own behaviors. Weber recommended that sociologists adopt his method of Verstehen (vrst e hen), or
empathetic understanding. Verstehen allows sociologists to mentally put themselves into the other
person's shoes and thus obtain an interpretive understanding of the meanings of individuals'
behaviors.
Source: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/the-foundersof-sociology
What is Society? What is Society? What institutions are involved in the educational process?
RENE DESCARTES
Throughout his Discourse on Methods, Descartes addresses his readers at the individual level, leading
to the assumption that he adheres to and individualistic or atomistic view of society (Bicknell, 2003, p.
28). As mentioned previously, Descartes emphasizes the importance of gaining knowledge through
questioning supposed truths, and this enlightenment of cogito is individual and personal (Bicknell,
2003, p. 29). Thus, society should be composed of persons on individual quests to examine the
metaphysical world and arrive at the truths of the physical universe.
From his writings, it can also be assumed that Descartes thought that people were classified into two
types. There were those to whom God has bestowed more of his favors" (Smith, 2004, p. 581) and
those who are content to follow existing opinion and practice as the only reliable guide (Smith, 2004,
p. 581). Due to his individualistic thinking, Descartes most likely saw himself as one of the more
intellectually gifted persons and therefore his own guide. Because of his background at the Jesuit
school of La Fleche, Descartes also had ties to the Roman Catholic Church. So, although he was his
own guide throughout life, he wished remain in good standing with the institution and its teachings and
even delayed the publication of some of his writings so that he would not anger the Church, thus
acknowledging the prominent role of religion in society.
In terms of education, however, Descartes thought that the scientific method should be used for each
person to affirm the supposed truths of the universe. Therefore, he would most likely assert that
education is most effective on an internal, individual level and not run primarily by religious institutions
that do not encourage students to question or challenge basic beliefs. After all, religion is a matter of
the will and, according to Descartes, should not be held to the same rational skepticism as all scientific
matters.
Descartes asserts that education, particularly the study of mathematics and science, occurs most
successfully at the individual level as well. He states that just as one can plan and build ones own
house, one can plan and administer ones education (Bicknell, 2003, p.31). In addition, he says that
science, like architecture and town planning, is best accomplished by an individual (Bicknell, 2003,
p.31). However, neither science nor architecture can work alone, leading to the acknowledgement of
the contributions other individuals in some foundational aspect. With this concept in mind, Descartes
did not put a lot of emphasis on the uninitiated (non scientists) because they were unable to teach
anything new to the scientists that would have made them better thinkers (Bicknell, 2003).
Source: http://www.psych.utah.edu/gordon/Classes/Psy4905Docs/PsychHistory/Cards/Descartes.html
CONCEPTS OF SELF
After establishing the reasons behind his radical skepticism, Descartes goes on to ask himself what
he can know. In other words, what new foundations can he replace the old ones with? He quickly
realizes that it is subjective knowledge about his self that is most reliable, and embarks on an
intellectual journey to establish a firmer understanding of this.

He begins with an argument known commonly as the Cogito. He comes to understand that if he is
capable of doubting which is precisely what he is doing then he must exist. He may doubt
everything else, may be deceived about the existence of all other things, but he must necessarily exist.
Cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am. Now, its important to note that Descartes does not actually
phrase his conclusion in this exact manner in the Meditations. It was only later that he came to use the
famous latin sentence to describe his findings. In fact, his phrasing in the meditations might be
preferable, in that he does not structure his thought process in the manner of a syllogism (a premise
followed by a conclusion). The reason for this is simple; the statement I think therefore I am is an
incomplete argument. There is a missing second premise; all thinking things exist. Thus, cogito ergo
sum might actually be doubted in some way. However, Descartes responds to this by claiming that the
Cogito is not, in fact, a syllogism (a stance that is strengthened by the fact that, as said, he does not
present it as such in the Meditations). The conclusion is reached through an intuitive leap, rather than a
reasoned examination of two premises. It is, after all, absurd to say that something can think and yet
not exist at the same time.
After establishing the fact of his existence, Decartes goes on to ask himself what he is. He eventually
comes to describe himself as a thinking thing. But what is a thinking thing? The easiest way to
understand Decartes thoughts here is to look at his ideas regarding substance, the essence of a
substance, and the modes of a substance. A substance is defined as something that is capable of
existing independently of all things besides the sustaining power of God (which Decartes believes is
necessary for anything to exist). Lets look at the mind in terms of these. Clearly, the mind can be
viewed as a substance, since we can see it existing independently (lets not worry about chemicals in
the brain for the nonce). What is its essence, though? Well, according to Decartes, the essence of mind
is thought, which he describes in terms of doubting, affirming, judging, etc. This makes sense a mind
can be seen as something that is defined by thought. The modes of the mind, then, are the various
ways of thinking I just mentioned (doubting, affirming, and so on and so forth).
So, Decartes has established that he is a thing that thinks, and he has achieved at least a sketchy idea
of what that means. He then starts to consider material objects in an attempt to understand his mind
even better, choosing to do this by examining a piece of wax. At first, the wax is hard and solid, smelling
slightly of flowers and tasting slightly of honey. It makes a sound when he taps it with his finger.
However, when its brought close to a flame it starts to melt, changing in shape and size, losing all taste
and smell, and it no longer makes a noise when he hits it (as it has softened). And yet, even though his
senses are perceiving something owning entirely different properties to those the wax had earlier, he is
still conscious of it as a piece of wax. The same piece of wax, even. His senses do not tell him this, so
he reasons that the way he really perceives the wax is through his mind. What does he perceive it as?
An extended substance that is flexible and changeable*. This tells him something important about the
relationship between his mind and the external world, and it also tells him that his senses are only of
limited value. Naturally, without his senses he would not be aware of the wax at all, but without a
judging mind he would only have a very muddled understanding of it.
One of the conclusions that Descartes draws from his examination of the wax is that he can never know
anything better than his own mind. This is because, whenever he comes to understand something
about a material thing, such as its size or shape, he is also becoming aware of the ability of his mind to
perceive and understand that property. Whenever he learns about material objects, then, he learns
about his mind. But he can learn things about his mind without learning anything new about the material
world. Therefore, his mind is more readily known to him than anything else. There is, however, one
problem with this. What he learns about his mind when examining the properties of an object his
ability to perceive said properties is in fact a property of his mind. However, Descartes himself
regards properties as being immaterial it is the essence of a thing that truly matters. So it would seem
that his conclusion here is not entirely solid.
This, then, is what Descartes views as the self; a thinking thing, as outlined above. There are some
further weaknesses to his arguments, but these deal mostly with particulars and I dont want to deal
with them too throroughly here. Suffice it to say that while his main points are mostly sound, not all of

his conclusions should be taken at face value (this can of course be said of virtually everything,
especially when one is dealing with philosophy). To fully appreciate Descartes views on the self,
however, an understanding of his thoughts on dualism another topic he adresses in theMeditations- is
neccessary. Ill be looking at these shortly.
*Extended: something that occupies space. Flexible and changeable: something that can take on
different shapes and sizes
Source: https://poignantboy.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/descartes-concept-of-self/
IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant (1724 1804) examined the idea of human rights within politics in such a way that it is
only a legitimate government that guarantees our natural right to freedom, and from this freedom we
derive other rights. From this basis it can be assumed that Kant looks at the development, creation and
implementation of rights as primarily dependent on the state and how the government within the state
functions. Furthermore, Kant stresses that a society can only function politically in relation to the state if
fundamental rights, laws and entitlements are given and enhanced by the state. As Kant teaches, these
righteous laws are founded upon 3 rational principles:
The liberty of every member of the society as a man
The equality of every member of the society with every other, as a subject
The independence of every member of the commonwealth as a citizen.
An interesting aspect of these principles is that they are not given by the state, but are fundamental in
the creation and acceptance of a state by the people of the state. In this sense Kant believes that these
principles are necessary above all, not only for the founding of righteous laws, but for the state to
function in the first place. This is so because without the acceptance of the people a state would not
exist therefore rights are necessary within states to keep the support of the people of the state.
The first principle under which righteous laws are founded is based upon the idea of the liberty of
individuals. The liberty of individuals is important because the state or commonwealth is not allowed to
dictate the lives of individuals. If it did it would take on the role of a paternal government. Kant
therefore contends that the liberty of individuals can only occur within a patriotic government because
there will be room for the rights of individuals which are also fitted to the scope of the government.
The equality of every member of the society towards each other is the second rational principle under
which rights are created. Equality for each member within the society under the guidance of the ruler of
the state is important for there to be a common basis for everyone within the state. The ruler is
exempted from this equality because as the founder of the commonwealth or state he alone has the
duty to make sure the idea of equality through laws is fulfilled. Everyone needs to have the same rights
within the state so that laws can be evaluated and applied in the same and equal manner for
everyone. Equality therefore is the basis from which rights for every human being originate.
The last rational principle which Kant uses to explain the emergence of rights within a commonwealth is
that of independence of every member as a citizen. Rights develop from this principle because it is up
to the individual to act independently if a right or law should be practiced. If a member of society cannot
act in an independent way without the guidance of the commonwealth, there would be no need for
rights. The leader or ruler would be in a position to determine everything for the member of society, and
this member would not see the need to question or want to practice his rights because the
commonwealth appears to be right in how it directs the citizens. Independence causes the formation
of rights within the political context. This way the leader or government also has more power to grant
rights to individuals which correspond with the nature of the state.
Under these three principles it is clear how rights and righteous laws develop in a natural way.
Furthermore, the role of freedom within a state and commonwealth is emphasized because it is the
foundation from which, under Kants theory, all rights emerge.
Source: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~gerla22f/classweb/Human%20Rights%20Theories%20%20Modern%20Perspectives.html

Contribution of Max Weber and Karl Marx towards Sociology!

Max Weber:
Max Weber was born in 1864 in Germany. In the beginning, he studied law. Later, he shifted to the
study of social sciences. His Ph. D. thesis was on the History of Commercial Societies in the Middle
Ages . In 1896, he became professor of economics. In addition to his scholarly concerns, Weber also
pursued his political interests.
It appeared that he will be a major figure in German intellectual life. In 1897, Weber had a clash with his
father and after a month his father died. Shortly thereafter, Weber suffered a complete breakdown and
did not recover for more than five years. He travelled a great deal especially to Switzerland and Italy.
Then almost unexpectedly in 1903, his intellectual forces were gradually restored.
He became the editor of a leading German Social Science Journal. He again resumed a full writing
career but returned to teaching only in the last few years of his life. In the last three years of his life i.e.
1918 to 1920, he again took active part in politics and wrote a number of newspaper articles and
papers on politics of the hour. Weber died in June 1920.
Social Action:
In the field of sociology, Webers point of departure is the distinction between four types of
actions, which are as follows:
Zweck rational action
Wert rational action
Affective action
Traditional action
A brief description of these four types of actions is as follows:
Zweck rational action:
This is a rational action which is performed in relation to a goal. It corresponds to Paretos logical
action. For example, action of the engineer, who is building a bridge or army general who wants to win
a war? In such actions an actor clearly knows his goals and selects specific means to attain these
goals. However, Weber defines rationality in terms of knowledge of the actor.
Wert rational action:
This type of action is also rational action but in relation to values, for example, a brave captain goes
down with his sinking ship. His action is rational not because it seeks to attain a definite and external
goal; but because to abandon the sinking ship would be regarded as dis-honourable.
Affective action:
This type of action is emotional and is dictated primarily by the state of mind of the actor, for example,
the slap which the mother gives her child because of his bad behaviour. In this case, the action is not
oriented to a goal or a system of value; rather it is determined by an emotional reaction of the actor in a
given set of circumstances.
Traditional action:
This type of action is dictated by beliefs and customs which become habitual. In this case, the individual
performs the action according to the customs or traditions which have become a part of his personality
because of conditioning.
According to Weber, the subject matter of sociology is social action, n sociology; an effort has to be
made to understand the meanings which an individual attaches to his conduct.
The classification of action into various types by Weber is governed to a certain extent by interpretation
of the contemporary period of history. According to him, the major characteristic of the modern world is
rationalization, which is expressed in the sphere of Zweck rational actions.
Concept of ideal types:
The main concern of Weber was to define generalized categories for the analysis of social phenomena.
He developed the concept of ideal types for such an analysis. In the words of Shils and Finch, An ideal
type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a
great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual

phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified
analytical construct. Thus an ideal type is a methodological tool that serves the investigator as a
measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases.
According to Weber, there are two types of meaning of an action(a) actually existing meaning to a
concrete individual action and (b) a theoretically conceived pure type of subjective meaning. The
second type of meaning is the principle which is known as the ideal type. The ideal type is not merely
an abstraction but a specific type of abstraction.
The ideal type presents a pattern which may not exist in reality, but is constructed by the sociologist for
comprehending the meaning of social actions. The ideal type is the methodological tool which enables
the sociologist to analyze and comprehend the social actions.
This ideal type does not describe concrete course of action, but under normal conditions an ideal
course of action. It does not describe an individual course of action but a typical one. Thus ideal type is
a generalized concept and by using it, the sociologist can classify a large number of cases in a few
categories. For example, the typology of social action and authority presented by Weber is an ideal
type which concentrates attention on extreme or polar types.
Weber defines ideal types negatively i.e. by describing what it is not. According to him (a) it is not a
hypothesis in the sense that it is a proposition about concrete reality, which is verifiable, (b) It is not a
description of reality or existing process, (c) It is not average in the sense what we say that the average
man weighs 70 kgs. (d) It is not a formulation of concrete traits common to a class of concrete things.
According to Weber, it is necessary for the sociologist to construct pure ideal type of actions in order to
give precise meaning to them. He points out that the case is similar to a physical reaction which is
carried forward on the assumption of an absolute vacuum. In case of sociology also, the theoretical
analysis is possible only in terms of such pure ideal types.
According to him, the ideal type serves its methodological function in a better way if it is more and more
abstract and unrealistic. Ideal type is mentally constructed. It is constructed by exaggeration or
accentuation of one or more elements or points of view observable in reality. The type thus constructed
may be called ideal because it exists only as an ideal.
It is a tool or a method of analysis for the comprehension of concrete events or situations. Weber made
extensive use of ideal type method in the sociological analysis. The formulation of ideal types is based
on an extensive study of a large number of social phenomena and he seems to select the traits to be
included in an ideal type, rather intuitively.
Types of authority:
According to Weber, authority relations refer to those relations of men whereby some men feel that they
have a legitimate right to expect willing obedience from other people to their command. Weber has
constructed the typology of authority as an ideal type.
He distinguished three main types of authority which are as follows:
(a) Rational-Legal Authority:
This type of authority is based -on rational grounds and justified by laws, rules and regulations. It is
generally found in modern society. The hierarchical relationships are governed by this type of authority.
The rational legitimacy rests on a belief in the legality of rules and the right of those having legal
authority to issue commandos.
(b) Traditional:
This type of authority is based on domination of past customs or traditions. It is generally found in premodern societies. The traditional authority is based on belief in the sacred quality of the traditions and
legitimacy o thoughts.
This type of authority is exercised by persons who have either inherited it or have been granted this
authority by a hip he authority. In the present age, in those countries, which still have monarchy,
traditional domination persists symbolically but ne actually. The traditional legitimacy rests on an
established belief in the sanctity of past traditions and the legitimacy of the statue of those exercising
authority under them.
(c) Charismatic authority:

This type of authority is base on an extraordinary devotion to the sacred quality or exemplar character
of a person and of the order created by him. For example, Mahatama Gandhi exercised authority which
cans t called Charismatic.
This type of authority is neither based on the rationality of rules and regulations nor on long standing
tradition but on the devotion of men for certain other persons who a able to influence them on the basis
of their character, virtue honesty.
Bureaucracy:
Max Weber was the first to give an elaborate account of t development of bureaucracy as well as its
causes and consequences.
He attributed the following characteristics bureaucracy:
1. The principle of fixed and official jurisdictional are which are generally ordered by rules. The regular
activities associated with each status are distributed in fixed way official duties. The structure of
authority is clearly laid down and strictly delimited by rules.
2. The principle of office hierarchy and levels of graded authority with a firmly ordered system of superordination and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.
3. A division of labour based on specialized functions and responsibilities.
4. A system of written documents (the files) defining the procedure as well as the rights and duties of
people in all positions.
5. Office management based on thorough and expert training.
6. Selection for employment and promotion based on technical competence, specialized knowledge or
skill.
7. Officeholding as a vocation. Official work is no longer a secondary activity but something that
demands the full working capacity of the official.
8. Provision for pecuniary compensation as a fixed salary.
9. Appointment of employees by higher officials, rather than by election.
10. The system of tenure for life. Normally the position of the bureaucrat is held for life as specified by
contract.
11. A clear distinction between the sphere of office and that of the private affairs of the individual. The
bureaucratic official is not an owner of the enterprise and therefore, not entitled to the use of official
facilities for personal needs except as defined by strict rules.
12. The practice of performing specialized administrative functions .according to purely objective
considerations and the official discharge of business according to calculable rules and without regard
for persons.
According to Weber, the most important factors contributing to the development of modern
bureaucracy are as follows:
(a) The development of money economy which guaranteed a constant ^come for maintaining
bureaucracy through a stable system of taxation; it also encouraged a pecuniary compensation for the
officials and a purely economic conception of the office as a source of the officials private income.
(b) The quantitative development of administrative tasks, especially in the field of politics where the
great state and mass party are the classic soil for bureaucratization.
(c) Qualitative changes of administrative tasks. Among purely political factors the demand for order and
production and for the so called welfare state, and among essentially technical factors, the
development of modern means of communication especially the railroads and the mass media, operate
in the direction of bureaucratization.
(d) The purely technical superiority of bureaucracy over any other form of organization.
(e) The complicated and specialized nature of modern culture that demands the personally detached
and strictly objective expert, in lieu of the master of older social structures, who was moved by personal
sympathy and favour, by grace and gratitude.
(f) The rational interpretation of law on the basis of strictly formal conception of a equality before the
law and the demand for legal guarantees against arbitrariness.

(g) The concentration of the material means of management in the hands of the master as exemplified
in the development of big capitalist enterprises and the giant public organizations such as the modern
state or army.
(h) The leveling of economic and social differences and the corresponding rise of modern mass
representative democracy in contrast to the old democratic self government of small homogenous
communities.
Although Weber emphasizes the virtues of bureaucracy and its unquestionable advancement in
modern society, he also conceded the vices of bureaucracy viz., the inevitable de-personalization of
human relationship in government and industry.
He refers to the formalism and the rules bound character of bureaucratic organization and increasing
concentration of the materials of management. According to Weber, bureaucracy is inevitable,
irrepressible and inescapable.
Sociology of Religion:
Webers essay Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism is considered as the classical study in the
field of sociology of religion. In this work, Weber sought to demonstrate that economic factors do not
represent a constant and independent variable to which all others stand in dependence.
In the opinion of Weber, the treatment of economic factor as a determining factor was the major
weakness of Marx and the ultimate failure of his theoretical formulation. Weber emphasized that
economic factors are, as Abraham puts it, one variable, a very important one, in close relationship with
others, affected by them as in fact it in turn can affect them.
Weber analyzed the relationship between the religious values and economic interests. He noticed that
Protestants, particularly of the Calvinist sect, were the chief captains of industry and possessed more
wealth and economic means than other religious groups, notably 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 whether and to what extent a cluster of values in
the religions of India, China and Middle East facilitated or hindered the development of capitalism.
In order to overcome the methodological problem of defining capitalism and Protestant ethic, Weber
made use of the concept of ideal type. Protestant ethic does not refer to any particular theological
doctrine but a set of values and belief systems that make up a religious ideal.
Capitalism, in its ideal type, is thought of by Weber to be chat complex activity designed specifically to
maximize profit through the careful and intentional exercise of rational organization and management of
production.
Weber identified the following values embedded in Protestantism which are in harmony with the
spirit of capitalism:
1. The shift from ritualistic and other:
Worldly orientation to down-to-earth pragmatism: The finite mind of man cannot comprehend the infinite
mind of God who created the world for His own glory. Therefore, there is no point in indulging in
mysticism; rather man should seek to understand the natural order. This is essentially anti-ritualistic
attitudes that favour the development of science and rational investigation.
2. Changed attitude toward work:
Protestant ethic proclaims work as virtue, something not only good and desirable but contributing to the
glory of God as well.
3. The concept of calling:
This idea emerged from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination according to which every soul is
predestined at birth for heaven or hell and that nothing an individual does in his life can change his
ultimate fate. But there are signs by which God indicates to every individual whether he is among the
elect, success in life being the most important one.
Since every man is anxious to know if he is marked for salvation or damnation, he should select a
calling, a vocation, work hard at it, and be successful. The new doctrine encourages people to seek
gainful enterprises, accumulate wealth and prove their destiny.
4. The new attitude toward the collection of interest on loans:

The theological doctrine of Catholicism proscribed the collection of interest on loans. However,
according to Calvinism, there is no restriction on the collection of interest on loans. This Calvinistic ethic
led to a spurt of economic activity: establishment of lending houses, new investments and new floating
capital.
5. Structures on alcoholism:
Protestant ethic prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages; there is no comparable theological
doctrine in Catholicism.
6. Encouragement of literacy and learning:
Protestant ethic emphasized that every man should read his own Bible rather than depend on priestly
interpretations. This led to the development of mass education and of specialized skills.
7. Rejection of holidays:
The Catholic Calendar is full of holy days and almost every holy day is a holiday. However, according to
Protestant ethic, work contributes to the glory of God and thus there is no need for celebrations on holy
days.
8. Protestant Asceticism:
Protestant ethic emphasizes the notion that earthly things and flesh belong to the order of sin and death
and therefore, one should abstain from the pleasures of the world. Thus, on the one hand, Protestant
ethic encourages people to accumulate wealth and on the other hand, it forbids the use of wealth for
enjoyment. The wealth should be used for producing more and more, undoubtedly a condition par
excellence for the development of capitalism.
After establishing the essential harmony between Protestant ethic and the spirit of Capitalism, Weber
turned to other religions to see if there is a discernible cluster of values in them comparable to
Protestant ethic that is favourable to the rise of capitalism.
He found a variety of non-religious social and economic conditions conducive to the development of
capitalism in China and India but the ethical system of Confucianism and the doctrine of Karma in
Hinduism were not particularly favourable.
Moreover, the combination of religious values that constituted the Protestant ethic was unique: an
unusual blend of two apparently inconsistent notions, namely, limitless accumulation of wealth and
abstention from enjoyment.
It would be wrong to assume that Weber replaced a one-sided economic determinism with one-sided
ideological determinism. He considered a variety of factorssocial, economic and political but the
confluence of values inherent in religion played a central role in the matrix of inter-relationships.
Karl Marx:
Karl Marx lived from 1818 to 1883. He initially studied law and later he turned to the study of
philosophy. In 1841, at the age of 23, he received the doctorate degree. After completing his studies, he
began writing for a radical left-wing paper in Cologne and became its editor in 1842. After the closure of
the paper, Marx travelled to Paris.
During his stay in Paris, he met Friedrich Engels and the friendship between the two was immediate
and eternal. Both of them wrote a number of classic works together. The major works of Karl Marx
include. The Communist Manifesto, Contributions to a Critique of Political Economy, the Class Struggle
in France, and the classic three volumes work. Das Kapital.
Hegel and Marx:
Georg F.W. Hegel was a German philosopher who dominated the intellectual climate of his day. While
Marx was living in Berlin he became young Hegelian by virtue of Hegels thought. The basic idea of
Hegels philosophy is that the essence of reality is reason, but the spirit of reason manifests itself only
gradually, revealing more and more facets of itself during the course of time.
The most important idea, which Marx adopted from Hegel, was that of dialectics. According to Hegel,
each statement of truth or thesis has its opposite statement or antithesis which may be reconciled on a
higher level of synthesis. But this is not the end for the dialectical process; the chain continues as the
synthesis becomes a new thesis with its antithesis and so on.

The adoption of dialectical method is the only similarity between Marx and Hegel. Hegel perceived truth
in ideas, but for Marx, ideas are not the realm of truth but rather matter is. Accordingly, Hegels
conception could be called dialectical idealism whereas the conception of Marx can be considered as
dialectical materialism.
Marx like Hegel was also interested in the analysis of the truth of history but Hegel advocated an
idealistic approach to history whereas Marx emphasized the materialistic approach. Therefore, it is
generally remarked that Marx turned Hegel upside down.
The shift from Hegelian idealism to historical materialism led Marx to believe that the motivating factor
in human existence was not ideas about religion and society but a materialistic realism having to do
with survival. This survival, the necessity to produce the means of subsistence was fundamental to
human life and human action in community and society. In the words of Marx, the first historical act is
the production of material life itself. This is indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all
history.
According to Marx, Men begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to
produce their means of subsistence In producing their means of subsistence men indirectly
produced their actual material life. This stage occurs within the framework of a progressive historical
evolution. Just as Comte distinguished three phases of human evolution, on the basis of ways of
thinking, Marx identified four stages of human history on the basis of modes of production: primitive
communism, ancient slave production, feudalism and capitalism.
Primitive communism signifies communal ownership; ancient mode of production was characterized by
slavery; the feudal mode of production by serfdom and the capitalist system by the bourgeois
exploitation and wage earners. Each of these stages, except primitive communism constituted a distinct
mode of mans exploitation by man and his struggle for freedom.
Dialectical materialism:
As explained above, Marx turned from Hegelian idealism to materialism. Marx made good use of the
dialectical method in what came to be called dialectical materialism or historical materialism. Hegel
was an idealist who asserted the primacy of mind whereas Marx was a materialist who asserted the
primacy of the matter. According to Marx, matter is not a product of mind; on the contrary, mind is
simply the most advanced product of matter.
Larson has outlined the basic postulates of Marxian dialectical method as follows:
(i) All the, phenomena of nature are part of an integrated whole
(ii) Nature is in a continuous state of movement and change;
(iii) The developmental process is a product of quantitative advances which culminate in abrupt
qualitative changes; and
(iv) Contradictions are inherent in all realms of nature particularly human society.
This methodology perceived history as a series of stages based on a particular mode of production and
characterized by a particular type of economic organization. Because of the inherent contradictions
each stage contained the seeds of its own destruction.
In the words of Stalin, the dialectical method, holds that the process of development should be
understood not as a movement in a circle, not a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as
an onward and upward movement, as transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative state,
from the lower to the higher.
Marx believed that society may be functioning quite efficiently but it is destined to face revolution until
the final breakdown of all class divisions. According to himself, even when a society exemplifies the
best that mankind can establish n terms of harmony and cooperation, in time the established order
becomes an obstacle to progress, and a new order antithesis) begins to arise. A struggle ensues
between the class representing the old order and the class representing the new order.
The emerging class is eventually victorious creating a new order of production that is synthesis of the
old and the new. This new order, however, contains the seeds of its eventual destruction and the
dialectical process continues. The inevitability of the continuing struggle is related to the emergence of
the division of labour within society, for it is this phenomenon of labour differentiation which forms

antagonistic classes that, in turn, become the center of competition and struggle against nature as well
as against other elements within society.
The use of the dialectic in the analysis of society and history became a major characteristic of Marxism.
According to Lenin, materialism in general recognizes objectively real being (matter) is independent of
consciousness, sensation experience. Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best
and approximately true (adequate, ideal) reflection of it.
A further clarification is provided by Stalin on materialism in the following words, Marxs philosophical
materialism holds the world is by its very nature material, that the multi-fold phenomena of the world
constitute different forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of phenomena,
as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the development of moving matter and that the
world develops in accordance with the laws of movement in matter and stands in no need of a universal
spirit.
Economic infrastructure and socio-economic superstructure:
Although Marx did not constantly argue for a crude economic determinism, he left no doubt that he
considered the economy to be the foundation of whole socio-cultural system. Throughout their study
Marx and Engels emphasized the primacy of economic factor in human relationship and the centrality
of the economic dimension in the political structures. The economic system of production and
distribution, or the means and relations of production in the Marxian sense, constitute the basic
structure of society, on which are built all other social institutions, particularly the state and the legal
system.
According to Engels, the production of immediate material means of subsistence, and consequently,
the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, forms the
foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the ideas on art, and even on
religion, of the people concerned have been evolved.
Marxs economic interpretation of history and social change is amply clear from the following quotation
from Marx, in the social production which men carry on, they enter into definite relations that are
indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage
of development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relations of production
constitutes the economic structure of societythe real foundation on which rise legal and political
superstructures and which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political and
spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence but, on the
contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness. According to Marx, human thought,
human awareness and human consciousness were not self originating but were derivatives of the
economic principles.
And it is in the arena of political economy that governments and religions must be controlled and
human consciousness brought under dominance; particularly when it comes to the governance of the
material world, men must realize that the social environment is dependent upon the economics of the
situation; and the classes; if they are to cease their competitiveness and potential destruction of society,
must be abolished by the removal of structures which nurture class division.
As Doyle Johnson reminds us, Marx may have overstated his case to establish. His point against
competing viewpoints, but Marxs economic interpretation of history provides a note of hard realism that
is sometimes lacking in more idealistic theories of society.
Source: http://www.sociologydiscussion.com/max-weber/contribution-of-max-weber-and-karl-marxtowards-sociology/2366