Society is possible through social facts.
According to Emile Durkheim the term social "consist
of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external
to the individual, which are invested with a coercive
power by virtue of which they exercise control
over him" (Durkheim 1982, p. 50).
Thus, traditions, norms, customs
handed down from generations to generation and
which dictates the way individuals live and act
in collectivity are all social. Similarly, social
also entails the collective activities of commercial
endeavors, education as well as religious and
legal entities. All these activities are possible
and followed by society because it reflects the
acceptance of the majority.
Collectivity according to Durkheim
means the collection of the parts of individual
beliefs and acceptance however it does not really
represent the individual. Furthermore, collectivity
often reflects generalization and hence negates
the inherent qualities of the individual.
For this reason a society is considered
the close knit relationship of that part of individual
that has similar characteristics with other individuals.
People carry out activities such
as norms, traditions, educations, law, codes,
art and crafts, trade etc. with the mind that
it is accepted by the majority and hence form
what is called the social facts of life.
Durkheim, however also puts the
condition that collectivity has certain restraint
or conditions through which individuals can participate
in groups. These constraints basically are not
visible but act against those who resist the current
of flow of the activities mentioned above.
Hence, if an individual resist
to learn from the education handed down from his
predecessors he is penalized by becoming an outcast;
a trade who refuses to use money to pay he is
put to jail or someone who does not share the
beliefs of certain religion is considered an infidel
etc.
Hence these restraints often act
in the negative manner for the individual even
though as an individual only some part of him
represents the whole of society and does not in
any way represent his individuality, he is not
allowed to freely express himself.
In sum, Durkheim defines social
facts through which society is possible as:
"A social fact is any way
of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exerting
over the individual an external constraint;
or: which is general over the whole of a given
society whilst having an existence of its own,
independent of its individual manifestations"
(Durkheim 1982, p. 50).
Reference
Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules
of the Sociological Method, (Ed. by Steven Lukes;
trans. by W.D. Halls). New York: Free Press, pp.
50-59.
How does Marx address
the question: “How does society change?”
By tracing the history of industrial
development, Karl Marx in his analysis of the
society has come to the conception that social
change is brought about by the struggles of the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
In every society, there are degradation
of classes and the resultant revolutions. One
witnesses these in the form of social struggles
of one class to have authority over the other.
The relationship of the oppressor and the oppressed
is therefore not new, whose history can be traced
to ancient civilizations such as the Romans and
the Middle Ages etc.
In modern society too there are
two extreme classes which have given rise to the
social change that one witness today: the industrialist
and the working class. The rapid development in
production during the feudal age has given rise
to the modern day industrial age whereby owners
of machineries and industries are the dominating
entities while those who work in these industries
are the working class.
Almost all aspects of the modern
society are dictum of this revolution. The dominating
class or the bourgeoisie is the one responsible
for the formation of colonies, increasing exchange
of commodities and goods, of forming more industries
in foreign land as well as developing social systems.
Change in social relationships has
also taken place in the form of monarchy being
replaced by the "urban public" and the
political system adopted new laws to serve the
concerns of the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, the
bourgeoisie has also brought about change in religious
sentiments as those who are in this class believe
in the power of "money" rather than
emotional ties such as social relationships or
family values.
In fact they are keener on the
expansion of markets, the increase in industrial
value such as property and estates as well as
how instruments of productions can be improved
to satisfy the demands of these new markets.
In this process the new bourgeoisie
has also given rise to social ills whereby the
kingdoms have been replaced by rules of towns
and cities, slums and suburbs and the dependence
of one nation over the other for their ends. Marx
writes of this class, "We see, therefore,
how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product
of a long course of development, of a series of
revolutions in the modes of production and of
exchange" (Marx, The Communist Manifesto,
2004).
Furthermore, the dominance of the
bourgeoisie and its struggle to achieve higher
production have reduced the working class to mere
mechanical beings working as means to meet the
bourgeoisie's own ends. The worker has developed
little regards for his family or relations; he
has no respect for social obligations nor does
he pay much attention to the ethics of work as
long as he gets the monetary returns for his work.
As Marx writes "...the proletarian
is without property; his relation to his wife
and children has no longer anything in common
with the bourgeois family relations; modern industrial
labor, modern subjection to capital, the same
in England as in France, in America as in Germany,
has stripped him of every trace of national character"
(Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 2004).
As more and more specialized industrial
machineries are developed, the value of the individual
has become reduced even further so that the tradesmen,
handicrafts and shopkeepers etc. feel threatened
by this globalization of the bourgeoisie. For
this reason there emerge another social revolution
that follows the bourgeoisie’s rise - namely
the political and class struggle by the proletariat.
Hence, it could be said that social
change is brought about by the exploitation of
the oppressed by the oppressors.
Reference
Marx, K. (Accessed on 26-9-2004). The Bourgeois
and the Proletarians. From The Communist Manifesto.
Available from: http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Marx/COMMMAN.HTML
How does Weber address
the question: “What makes capitalism possible?”
Capitalism according to Max Weber
is the result of honest dealings and the endeavor
not to waste. Weber takes the approach to the
topic by first defining what constitute the spirit
of capitalism. Spirit of capitalism, as depicted
by Benjamin Franklin is inherent in the spirit
of the individual to work to meet his needs in
an honest and fair manner.
This could be in the form of labor
or in the form of accumulating wealth utilizing
it to create more wealth. There is a traditionalist
approach to do this as well as a modern approach,
the latter of which depends on the former for
its basis. Hence, according to Weber, capitalism
is the result of honest dealing of individual
and the recognition of the value of credit.
He explains by way of Franklin’s
ethos that honesty allows individual to acquire
more credit because it guarantees his prompt and
punctual return of the borrowed amount. Weber
notes "It shows, besides, that you are mindful
of what you owe; it makes you appear a careful
as well as an honest man, and that still increases
your credit" (Weber 1958, p. 47). This respect
for time and money is the traditional approach
to capitalism.
Similarly, Weber also sets forth
to explain the same notion in the light of honesty
and diligence in one's own profession. If one
were honest with one's professional conduct that
is work according to the desire of the employers
then, it guarantees economic freedom but it does
not by anyway guarantees he/she becomes free from
the profession he is in.
Weber also writes that the desire
to earn enough for one's keep does not increase
unless the labor is educated according to the
need of the trade. Hence a labor will not be inclined
to earn more through harvesting unless he is taught
to harvest as well as manage other laborers working
under him; a machinist is not inclined to work
extra except for on the machine on which he is
fluent with.
Instead both of these individuals
will only be inclined to work more if the conditions
of work, that is, the environment induce learning
and progressive opportunities, one that is characteristic
of modern day capitalism.
On the other hand from the entrepreneur’s
point of view, the imbalance comes about when
the entrepreneur changes tactics for selling his
goods. This means that he would employ more people
for increasing productivity; he goes out of his
way to meet with his customers to identify their
needs and decrease the price of the goods.
It is this competitiveness that
tends to drive the economies around the world
towards modern capitalistic systems. For this
reason "...we provisionally use the expression
spirit of (modern) capitalism [22] to describe
that attitude which seeks profit rationally and
systematically...” (Weber 1958, p. 47) But
it does not in anyway describe the true nature
of modern day capitalism because it is governed
by additional influences such as politics, religious,
social and economical factors.
Reference
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribner's Press,
pp. 47 - 78.
How does Simmel address
the following question: “What is the nature
of urban life?”
In his analysis of the metropolis, Simmel identifies
the individual relationship with urban life as
psychical and economical in nature. In Simmel's
view, urban life differs from rural life in that
urban life has more influence on the individual's
mind through stimulation than compared to the
habitual and less stimulated rural life.
The metropolis life therefore heightens individual
awareness of the self as well as the environment
in which he/she lives, and in the process also
heightens his/her individuality and freedom from
emotional ties. "Metropolitan life, thus,
underlies a heightened awareness and a predominance
of intelligence in metropolitan man" (Simmel
2004).
Another factor that Simmel considers to be inherent
in the nature of metropolitan life is money. People
live with the knowledge that money resolves every
social obligation and also is the objectivity
of human behavior.
Therefore people in urban areas tend to be governed
by the doctrine of "how much" rather
than emotional interrelationships with other individuals.
This impersonality has resulted in the blasé
attitude. "The blasé attitude results
first from the rapidly changing and closely compressed
contrasting stimulations of the nerves" (Simmel
2004).
With this stimulation emerge another kind of
reaction to the society, namely discrimination.
Discrimination characterizes the urban life because
of the fact that the blasé attitude stimulates
the nervous system of those who have the highest
achievement monetarily. Furthermore, Simmel also
observes that the urban individual tend to be
impersonal and reserve because of the distrust
in competition among individuals.
The tendency to compete for better gain keeps
individuals separate form each other and hence
form an indifferent attitude towards fellow mankind;
it forms a kind of barrier between individuals
making it difficult to interact with others by
curtailing the freedom of expression.
To sum, in Simmel's opinion the urban life is
more impersonal and concentrate on monetary values
rather than on the emotional and intellectual
capacity. For this reason, people tend to be reserve
and distrustful of those elements existing outside
their consciousness.
Reference
Simmel, G. (1950). The Metropolis and Mental
Life. Adapted by D. Weinstein from Kurt Wolff
(Trans.) The Sociology of George Simmel. New York:
Free Press, 1950, pp.409-424
How does Heywood’s
explanation of the state relate to Marx’s
or Weber’s ideas in addressing the question:
“How is the state possible?
The state is the result of "necessary association"
as termed by Andrew Heywood. According to him,
the state is needed to govern and provide the
service of a "watchman" over the various
components of the society and therefore act as
a "sovereign and coercive authority"
(Heywood 1994, p. 84).
It must also be noted that the state does not
interfere in the lives of citizens in civil society.
Instead, it is the civil society that chooses
to set up the state voluntarily to act as an autonomous
body following the codes and constitution mutually
agreed by the society. The state therefore is
a representative and neutral power working for
the interest of the citizens.
There are different views on this concept of
the institution of the state and how it differs
from the government. Heywood's views differ from
the classical Marxist as Marx foresees the state
as the power that works in the interest of the
oppressed and curtail exploitation of the oppressed.
The state therefore is autonomous and has the
authority to respond against the ruling class
should it violate the civil society. Heywood's
view on the other hand puts the state in a neutral
position with the power vested in the civil society.
Heywood's views are also different from Weber
in that it gives the authority to the citizens
whereas Weber is of the belief that the state
not only has the right to force the citizens towards
obedience but it can also use "ultimate violence"
(Heywood, 1994, p. 76) to do so. In this sense
the state has more sovereignty as compared to
the Marxist view as well as the Heywood view.
Reference
Heywood, A. (1994). Political Theory. 2nd Ed.
|