Chapter 5

(Major school of thought (Scholars) in Sociology

1. Allama Ibn e Khuldoon (Al Muqadimmah& Al Asabiyyah Theories)

2. August Comete(Comtean Positivism, Law of Three stages & Religion of Humanity)

3. Herbert Spencer (Social Evolution, Organic Analogy & Militant / Military Society Vs
Industrial Society)

4. Emile Durkheim (Theory of Suicide)

5. Karl Marx (Conflict Theory & Labor Theory)

6. Max Weber (Theory of Bureaucracy)

7. Robert Martin (Strain Theory)

8. Talcott Parsons: Structural Functionalism

9. CH Cooly (Self Looking Glass)

1. ALAMA IBN E KHALDOON

Early life: Ibn Khaldoon was born in Tunisia in 732 A.H. to a fairly well-to-do family who had
earlier migrated from Seville in Muslim Spain. His lineage goes to Yemen which land our hero's
family had left in the company of the army that conquered Spain.

Intellectual life: During his childhood in Tunis, Ibn Khaldoon must have had his share in his
family's active participation in the intellectual life of the city, and to a lesser degree, its political
life, the household in which Ibn Khaldoon was raised was frequented by the political and
intellectual leaders of Western Islam (i.e. North Africa and Spain), many of whom took refuge
there and were protected against angry rulers.
Active political life: Ibn Khaldoon led a very active political life before he decided to write his
well-known masterpiece on history. He worked for rulers in Tunis and Fez (in Morocco),
Granada (in Muslim Spain) and Baja (in Tunisia) successively. At the age of forty-three, Ibn
Khaldoon finally succeeded in crossing over once more to Muslim Spain, not with ambitious
designs of his youth, but as a tired and embittered man with no purpose save escaping the turmoil
of North Africa." Unfortunately, the ruler of Granada caused Ibn Khaldoon's friend, Ibn Al-
Khateeb, to flee to North Africa. When he learnt of Ibn Khaldoon's attempts to help his friend, he
was expelled from Granada. So he went back to North Africa to spend four years in seclusion to
do some thinking in peace.
Great Scholar: Intellectually, Ibn Khaldoon was well-educated, having studied (in Tunis first
and Fez later) the Quran, Hadeeth and other branches of Islamic studies such as dialectical
theology, Sharee'ah (Islamic Jurisprudence). He also studied Arabic literature, philosophy,
mathematics and astronomy. But we can safely say that Ibn Khaldoon learnt very much from the
school of life in which he actively participated, moving from place to place and from one royal
court to another, sometimes at his own will, but often forced to do so by plotting rivals or
despotic rulers.
Intellectual gatherings with other scholars: Ibn Khaldoon learnt much from his meetings with
all sorts of rulers, ambassadors, politicians and scholars, he came in contact with in North Africa,
Muslim Spain, Egypt and other parts of the Muslim World. All of these circumstances and
experiences seem to have contributed to the formation of his views on history, culture and
society, neatly expressed in his book on history and concisely summed up in his well-known
master-piece “Al-Muqaddimah (‘Prologue’).”

A) The Muqaddimah:
1) Chapter I: Human civilization in general
2) Chapter II: Bedouin civilization, savage nations and tribes and their conditions
of life, including several basic and explanatory statements
3) Chapter III: On dynasties, royal authority, the caliphate, government ranks, and
all that goes with these things. The chapter contains basic and supplementary
propositions
4) Chapter IV: Countries and cities, and all other forms of sedentary civilization.
The conditions occurring there. Primary and secondary considerations in this
connection
5) Chapter V: On the various aspects of making a living, such as profit and the
crafts. The conditions that occur in this connection. A number of problems are
connected with this subject
6) Chapter VI: The various kinds of sciences. The methods of instruction. The
conditions that obtain in these connections. The chapter includes a prefatory
discussion and appendices
7) Concluding Remarks

Who Should Read “The Muqaddimah”? And Why?

 If you are history lover, or eager to study the process of evolution from another
standpoint, then this is the book for you.

 The ability of thinking.

 Teaching is a Craft
  The ability to plunge into a discussion, interact, and think of solutions distinguish us
as human beings from other species. That’s the basis of survival that aided the
humankind for centuries and continues in the same fashion.

 Introduction to history, he discussed historical method and provided the necessary

criteria for distinguishing historical truth from error

 Considered one of the most phenomenal works on the philosophy of history ever
written where he related the social impact of community or event

 An important role in providing conceptual and paradigmatic frameworks as well as

an epistemological foundation of the study of human society.

 This impressive document is a gist of his wisdom and hard earned experience.

 Use his political and first had knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate
many of his ideas.

 Discussion of Tribal societies and social forces would be the most interesting part of
his thesis.

 His theories of the science of Umran(sociology) are all pearls of wisdom

Ibn Khaldun starts the Muqaddimah with a thorough criticism of the mistakes regularly
committed by his fellow historians and the difficulties which await the historian in his work. He
notes seven critical issues:
"All records, by their very nature, are liable to error...

1. ...Partisanship towards a creed or opinion...

2. ...Over-confidence in one's sources...
3. ...The failure to understand what is intended...
4. ...A mistaken belief in the truth...
5. ...The inability to place an event in its real context
6. ...The common desire to gain favor of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading
their fame...
7. ...The most important is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of human
society."
Against the seventh point (the ignorance of social laws) Ibn Khaldun lays out his theory of
human society in the Muqaddimah.
Sati' al-Husri suggested that Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah is essentially a sociological work,
sketching over its six books a general sociology; a sociology of politics; a sociology of urban
life; a sociology of economics; and a sociology of knowledge.

Scientific method.
Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data."
As a result, he introduced the scientific method to the social sciences, which was considered
something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science" and developed his
own new terminology for it.

His historical method also laid the groundwork for the observation of the role
of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, leading to his
development of historiography.

Historical method:
In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun warned ofseven mistakes that he thought that historians
regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of
interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim that the cultural difference of another
age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles
according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for
experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past. Ibn Khaldun
often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data.
"As a result, he introduced a scientific method to the study of history, which was
considered something "new to his age", and he often referred to it as his "new science",
now associated with historiography. His historical method also laid the groundwork for the
observation of the role of state, communication, propaganda and systematic bias in history, and
he is thus considered to be the "father of historiography or the "father of the philosophy of
history".

Ibn Khaldun' makes the following comments on his scientific historical method in
his Muqaddimah:

1. "History is a science"
2. "History has a content and the historian should account for it"
3. "The historian should account for the elements that gather to make the human history"
4. "He should also work according to the laws of history"
5. "History is a philosophical science"
6. "History is composed of news about the days, states and the previous centuries. It is a
theory, an analysis and justification about the creatures and their principles, and a science
of how the incidents happen and their reasons"
7. "Myths have nothing to do with history and should be refuted"
 8. "To build strong historical records, the historian should rely on necessary rules for the
truth comparison"
The revolutionary views of Ibn Khaldoon have always attracted not only Arab scholars’
attention but the attention of many a Western thinker as well. In his study of history Ibn
Khaldoon was a pioneer in subjecting historical reports to the two basic criteria of (1) reason and
(2) social and physical laws. He considered the following four points worthy of consideration in
studying and analyzing historical reports:

1) Relating events to each other through cause and effect.

2) Drawing analogy between the past and the present.
3) Taking into consideration the effect of the environment.
4) Taking into consideration the effect of inherited and economic conditions.
But Ibn Khaldoon's work was more than a critical study of history. It was, in fact, a study of
human civilization in general, its beginning, factors contributing to its development, and the
causes of its decline. Thus, unwittingly, Ibn Khaldoon founded a new science: The science of
social development or sociology, as we call it today.
B) Asabiyyah:
`Asabiyya or asabiyyah (Arabic: ‫ )عصبيّة‬refers to social solidarity with an emphasis on unity,
group consciousness and sense of shared purpose, and social cohesion, originally in a context of
"tribalism" and "clanism".

It was a familiar term in the pre-Islamic era, but became popularized

in Khaldoon’s Muqaddimah where it is described as the fundamental bond of human society and
the basic motive force of history.

`Asabiyya is neither necessarily nomadic nor based on blood relations; rather, it resembles
philosophy of classical republicanism.

In the modern period, the term is generally analogous to solidarity. However, it is often
negatively associated because it can sometimes suggest loyalty to one's group regardless of
circumstances, or partisanship.

Ibn Khaldun also argued that `Asabiyya is cyclical and directly related to the rise and fall of
civilizations: it is strongest at the start of a civilization, declines as the civilization advances, and
then another more compelling Asabiyyah eventually takes its place to help establish a different
civilization

 Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of cohesion among humans
in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any level of civilization,
from nomadic society to states and empires.
 Asabiyyah is most strong in the nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization
advances. As this Asabiyyah declines, another more compelling Asabiyyah may take its
place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes these cycles of Asabiyyah as
they play out.
 Ibn Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its
own downfall. He explains that ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of
great empires and use the much stronger `Asabiyya present in those areas to their
advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership.
 First barbarians but later on……This implies that the new rulers are at first considered
"barbarians" by comparison to the old ones. As they establish themselves at the center of
their empire, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful,
and more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the center of the
empire—i.e., their internal cohesion and ties to the original peripheral group, the
`Asabiyya, dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a
political unit. Thus, conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the
 periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the
cycle anew.

Ibn Khaldun also further states in the Muqaddimah that "dynasties have a natural life span like
individuals", and that no dynasty generally lasts beyond three generations of about 40 years
each.
 In the first generation, the people who established the civilization are used to "privation
and to sharing their glory (with each other); they are brave and rapacious. Therefore, the
strength of group feeling continues to be preserved among them".
 In the second generation, when the dynasty moves from "privation to luxury and plenty",
the people "become used to lowliness and obedience ... But many of the old virtues
remain" and they "live in hope that the conditions that existed in the first generation may
come back, or they live under the illusion that those conditions still exist."
 By the third generation, the people have forgotten the period of toughness "as if it had
never existed ... Luxury reaches its peak among them, because they are so much given to
a life of prosperity and ease. They become dependent on the dynasty ... Group feeling
disappears completely. People forget to protect and defend themselves and to press their
claims ... When someone comes and demands something from them, they cannot repel
him."

Examples
Nomadic invaders have on many occasions ended up adopting the religion and culture of the
civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Circassians, Berber, some of
the Crusades and Mongol invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up
adopting Islamic religion and culture.

According to Khaldun, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern
civilization, whether in China whose dynastic cycles resemble the Asabiyyah cycles described by
Ibn Khaldun, in Europe where waves of barbarian invaders adopted Christianity and Greco-
Roman culture, or in India or Persia where nomadic invaders assimilated into those civilizations.
The very first form and foundation of social evolution was the philosophy of organic society.
Organic society is the prospective that societies are really living organisms that experience cyclic
birth, growth, maturity, decline, and ultimately death due to universal causes that undergo many
of the same stages and developments that animals and humans go through.
The very first of these philosophies can be traced back to the 14th century in the writings of Ibn
Khaldun, an Islamic scholar. Ibn Khaldun uses the term Asabiyyah to describe the bond of
cohesion among humans in a group forming community. The bond, Asabiyyah, exists at any
level of civilization, from nomadic society to states and empires. Asabiyyah is most strong in the
nomadic phase, and decreases as civilization advances. As this Asabiyyah declines, another more
compelling Asabiyyah may take its place; thus, civilizations rise and fall, and history describes
these cycles of Asabiyyah as they play out.
The Asabiyyah cycle described by Ibn Khaldun was true for nearly all civilizations before the
modern era. Nomadic invaders had always ended up adopting the religion and culture of the
civilizations they conquered, which was true for various Arab, Berber, Turkic and Mongol
invaders that invaded the medieval Islamic world and ended up adopting Islamic religion and
culture. Beyond the Muslim world, the Asabiyyah cycle was also true for every other pre-modern
civilization, whether in China whose dynastic cycles resemble the Asabiyyah cycles described by
Ibn Khaldun, in Europe where waves of barbarian invaders adopted Christianity and Greco-
Roman culture, or in India or Persia where nomadic invaders assimilated into those civilizations.

2. AUGUST COMETE:

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the “father of sociology”—
first 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 problems—not 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.
A) Comtean Positivism
B) Law of Three Stages
C) Religion of humanity

Thinkers occupy a prime position in the development of any discipline, especially so in the social
sciences. Sociology 'is no exception to this rule, and in its emergence and develop a plethora of
social thinkers have made their contributions. Systematic study of sociology a science,
particularly, as a separate discipline, originated with Insider Auguste Francois M Xavier Comte
during nineteenth century. It is during this period modern sociology emerged the places like
France, Germany and England. Since then, galaxies of thinkers and writ have contributed to the
development of sociological thought. Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer Emile Durkheim and
Max Weber are the four men who are regarded as the central figures founding fathers and the
great masters of sociological thought in the. Development of mod sociology.'

Auguste Comte, a volatile Frenchman, philosopher, moralist and sociologist, traditionally

regarded as the father of sociology. He coined the term sociology and bee father of sociology. He
tried to create a new science of society, which would not only explain the past of mankind but
also predict its future course. Auguste Comate was born in France the year 1798. He invented a
new discipline which he called at first social physics and changed it to sociology thereafter.
"Auguste Comte may be considered as first and foremost, sociologist of human and social unity"
so writes the French sociologist Raymond Aron. Important works are:

(1) Positive Philosophy (1830-42).

(2) Systems of positive polity (1851 -54)

(3) Religion of Humanity (1856).

His contribution to sociology can be divided into four categories. They are namely: -

(1) Classification and ordering of social sciences.

(2) The nature, method and scope of sociology.

(3) The law of three stages.

(4) The plan for social reconstruction.

(5) Positivism.

LAW OF THREE STAGES:

Auguste Comte was the first person to proclaim Law of Three stages, which became the corner
stone of his thought. Of course, this famous law had been borrowed from R. J. Turgot, Y. B.Vico
and Saint-Simon. The law states that human thought has undergone three separate stages in its
evolution and development. According to him human thought as well as social progress pass
through three important stages. These three stages are the universal law of human progress.
These three stages are common in case of the development of human knowledge as well as social
evolution. Human individual is a staunch believer during childhood, then becomes a critical
metaphysician in adolescence and becomes a natural Philosopher during manhood. A similar
case of development takes place in case of human society. Law of Three Stages not only talks
about the progressive transformation of society but also explain the transformation in minds of
the people. The evolution of human mind goes hand in hand with a typical form of organization
of society. The period of growth and development in society is known as:

(1) Theological or Fictitious stage.

(2) Metaphysical' or Abstract stage.

(3) Positive or Scientific stage.

Comte stated that each succeeding stage is superior to the earlier stage.

1. Theological or Fictitious Stage:

During the primitive stage, the early man believed that all phenomena of nature are the creation
of the divine or supernatural. The primitive man and children do not have the scientific outlook,
therefore it is characterized by unscientific outlook. They failed to discover the natural causes of
various phenomena and hence attributed them to supernatural or divine power. For example,
primitive men saw God everywhere in nature. They supposed that excess or deficiency of rain
due to Godly wrath; such a casual explanation would be in terms of theological or fictitious
explanation. The theological stage of thinking may be divided into three sub-stages such as

a) Fetishism.

b) Anthropomorphism

c) Polytheism.

d) Monotheism.

a) Fetishism was the primary stage of theological stage of thinking. During this period
primitive people believed that there is a living spirit in the nonliving objects. This is
otherwise known as animism. People worshipped inanimate objects like tress, stones, a
piece of wood, etc. These objects are considered as Fetish.

b) Anthropomorphism: At certain stages, man thought that how all non-living objects contain living
objects. They got a doubt about the existence of gods in all non-living organisms.

c) Polytheism means believing in many Gods. Primitive people believed that different Gods
control different natural forces. Each God had some definite function and his scope and
area of action was determined. For example, God of water, God of rain and God of fire,
God of air, etc.

d) Monotheism is the last and the most developed form of theological thinking.
Monotheism means believing in one God or God in one.

Book namely Homo Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind is a book by Yuval Noah
Harari first published in Hebrew in Israel in 2011, and in English in 2014. The book
surveys the history of humankind from the evolution of archaic human species in
the Stone Age up to the twenty-first century, focusing on Homo sapiens. The account is
situated within a framework provided by the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary
biology.
Harari's work situates its account of human history within a framework provided by
the natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology: he sees biology as setting the
limits of possibility for human activity, and sees culture as shaping what happens within
those bounds. The academic discipline of history is the account of cultural change.
Harari surveys the history of humankind from the evolution of archaic human species in
the Stone Age up to the twenty-first century, focusing on Homo sapiens. He divides the
history of Sapiens into four major parts:
1. The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BC, when Sapiens evolved imagination).
2. The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BC, the development of agriculture).
3. The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political
organizations towards one global empire).
4. The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 AD, the emergence of objective science).
2. Metaphysical or Abstract stage: -

Metaphysical stage is an extension of theological stage. During this period, reason and rationality
was growing. Reason replaced imagination. People tried to believe that God is an abstract being.
Soul is the spark of divine power i.e. inform of abstract forces. It is believed that an abstract
power or force guides and determines the events in the world. Metaphysical thinking discards
belief in concrete God. The nature of enquiry was legal and rational in nature. For example;
Classical Hindu Indian society where the principle of transmigration of soul, the conception of
rebirth, notions of pursuant has were largely governed by metaphysical uphill.

Metaphysical -- thought substitutes abstractions for a personal will. Here, causes and forces
replace desires. The world is one great entity in which Nature prevails. And finally Positive -- the
search for absolute knowledge, the first cause, is abandoned. In such a scheme, each stage
corresponds to a specific form of mental development. There is also a corresponding material
development.

Comte believed that historical development revealed a matching movement of ideas and
institutions. In the COURSE OF POSITIVE PHILOSOPHY, Comte attempted to demonstrate
that each science is necessarily dependent on the previous science, that is, science can only be
understood historically as the process of greater perfection. For example, before there can be an
effective physics, there must be astronomy. Furthermore, the history of the sciences reveals the
law that as the phenomenon become more complex, so to do the methods of those sciences. In
contrast to Descartes who saw only one right method of inquiry -- the geometrical method --
Comte believed that each science develops by logic proper to itself, a logic that is revealed only
by the historical study of that science. Comte, of course, claimed to go beyond Descartes -- after
all, hadn’t everybody else done the same thing? Like Vico, Herder, Hegel and Condorcet, Comte
studied the mind historically. The mind can only be explained in terms of what it has done in the
past.

3. Positive or Scientific Stage:

This positive stage is also known a scientific stage. The dawn of 19th century marked the
beginning of this stage. It is characterized by scientific knowledge. In this stage, human mind
gave up the taken for granted approach. At this stage, human mind tried to establish cause and
effect relationship. Scientific knowledge is based on facts. Facts are collected by observation and
classification of phenomena.

The final science which Comte claimed to have discovered and one which had not yet entered its
positive stage was sociology. It was sociology, he claimed, that would give ultimate meaning to
all the other sciences -- it was the one science which held the others together. Only sociology
would reveal that man is a developing creature who moves through three stages in each of his
sciences. With this profound assertion, Comte argued that we could finally understand the true
logic of mind. And in the 47th lesson of the fourth volume of the Course of Positive Philosophy,
Comte proposed the word sociology for this new science rather than the current
expression, physique sociale (or social physics).
Positivism is a purely intellectual way of looking at the world. Positivism emphasizes on
observation and classification of data and facts. One can observe uniformities or laws about
natural as well as social phenomena. Positivistic thinking is best suited to the need of industrial
society.

Criticisms:

The concept rational doesn't have universal meanings, what is rational to one society may not be
to society another.

Max Weber advocates that the nature of progress of society should not be studied by the
preconceived philosophical outlines rather they should be studied form objective and empirical
stand point.

C) RELIGION OF HUMANITY

Comte’s “theory of religion of humanity "though can considered one of his contribution to the
realm of social thought, it is only an insignificant place in the study of sociology or sociological
thought. Comte after successfully establishing the intellectual supremacy of positivism in his
earlier works, devoted his later writing to moral and religious consideration rather than to
scientific and sociological inquiries.

Religion of Humanity as a product of Comte’s Idealistic Imaginations.

Comte purported to establish a new religion a “Scientific Religion” or a “Religion of Humanity”.

Comte sincerely believed that he was to establish such a religion on a firm scientific foundation.

The “Theory of Religion of Humanity” Represent a Radical Change in the Development of

Comte’s Rational Thinking.

Comte a great champion if science or positivism could transform himself into an advocate of a
new religion, a religion of humanity. Comte says that a scientist requires the thirst for knowledge
and not the divine grace. Some biographical accidents did play an important role in this
transformation in his thinking

SOME SALIENT FEATURES OF COMTEAN RELIGION OF HUMANITY

 A Religion Without God: Comte’s “Religion of Humanity” is based on morality and

religion and upon a belief in a divine force. The main slogan of the Comtean Religion
thus reads “We should have religion but not God.

 New Religion Destined to a New Epoch: Comte claimed himself to be the high priest of
this new religion committed to “institute a reign of harmony, justice and equity
  A Social Religion Based Upon Morality. Comte considered himself primarily founder of
a new religion that promised salvation for all the ailment of mankind. Comte thus tried to
create a purely “social religion”.

 Comte Not in Favor of Traditional Christianity. Comte did not see in Christianity a social
keynote. Hence he attempted to create a purely social religion.

Comtean Religion is virtually a Religion of Human Unity. Comte is the sociologist of

human unity and he wanted men to be united by common conviction and by a single
object of their love.

CRITICAL COMMENTS

1. Comte Religion of Humanity is widely criticized Christian Scholars say that the religion
of humanity is nothing more than a mixture of science and catholic religion
2. Some have commented that it is not at all a religion but primarily a code of morality.
3. J.S. Mill rightly remarked that Comtean ideas of religion, instead of protecting his
mental health made him lead an isolated life and develop strange thoughts
4. Thomas Huxley called Comte’s religion “Catholicism minus Christianity.

Conclusion:Overall it is concluded that comate religion is based on humanity. It means to say

that the main them is to combine and help each other on the basis of humanity. Therefore, it will
not be said that it more based on morality.

3. HERBERT SPENCER:

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857)—often called the “father of sociology”—
first 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 problems—not 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.

A) Social Evolution
Social Evolution Theory: Two of the main books written by Spencer namely, (i) “The Study of
Sociology “, (ii) “The Principles of Sociology”, provide us more details about his “theory of
social evolution.” Just as “the theory of organic evolution” analyses the birth, development,
evolution and finally death of the organism, in the same manner “the theory of social evolution”
analyses the genesis, development, evolution and finally the decay (?) of the society.

Spencer was of the opinion that the evolutionary principle could be applied to the human society
for he treated human society as an organism. Both the organism and the society grow from
simple to complex and from homogeneous to heterogeneous.

As Abraham and Morgan have pointed out “Spencer’s Theory of Evolution” involves two
essential but interrelated trends or strains of thought:

(i) Change from simplicity to complexity or movement from simple society to various levels of
compound societies; and

(ii) Change from military society to industrial society.

(i) Change from Simplicity to Complexity, or Movement from Simple Society to

Various Levels of Compound Society:
As Spencer repeatedly argued all phenomena in all fields proceed from simplicity to complexity.
Societies also undergo evolutionary stages of development. Spencer identified four types of
societies in terms of stages of their evolutionary development – simple, compound, doubly
compound and trebly compound.

a) Simple Society: This is the most primitive society without any complexities and
consisting of several families.
b) Compound Society: A large number of above mentioned simple societies make a
compound society. This is clan society.
c) Doubly Compound Society: These consist of several clans compounded into tribes or
tribal society.
d) Trebly Compound Society: Here the tribes are organized into nation states. This is the
present form of the world.

The master trend in this process of universal evolution is the increased differentiation of social
structures which leads inevitably to better integration and adaptation to environment.

(ii) Change from Military [Militant] Society to Industrial Society:

According to Spencer, evolution proceeds from military society to industrial society. The type of
social structure depends on the relation of a society to other societies in its significant
characteristics.

(i) Thus while the military society is characterized by compulsory co-operation, industrial soci-
ety is based on voluntary co-operation.

(ii) While the military society has a centralized government, the industrial society has a
decentralized government.
(iii) Military society has economic autonomy whereas it is not found in industrial society.

(iv) There is the domination of the state over all other social organizations in the military society
whereas in the industrial society the functions of the states are very much limited;

Some Observations Relating to Spencer’s “Theory of Social Evolution”:

1. No modern sociologist subscribes to the “theory of social evolution” in its original form as put
forward by Spencer. His attempt to equalize evolution with progress is totally rejected. But its
modified form known as “Theory of Neo-Evolutionism” advocated by the anthropologists like,
Leslie A. White, V. Gordon Childe and others, is getting some publicity in the anthropological
circles.

2. Bargardus is unhappy with Spencer’s theory of social evolution for it underestimates the
importance of man. He writes: “The emphasis upon ‘man’ as a primary unit neglects the
importance of the ‘group’ in the social evolutionary process. Moreover, Spencer underrated the
intellectual nature of primitive man; he denied to early man the qualities involving exclusiveness
of thought, imagination, and original ideas.”

3. Spencer had spoken of uniformity in the process of evolution. He “did not realize that societies
at the same stage of evolution do not necessarily possess identical politics, ethics, art and
religion.”

4. “While Spencer believed that social part exists for the social whole, today, society is believed
to exist for the welfare of the individuals.

B) Organic Analogy
Organic Analogy
Spencer is popularly known for his treatment of the organic analogy. The evolutionary doctrine
was no doubt the foundation of Spencer’s sociological theory. He, however, presented the
organic analogy, as a secondary doctrine which also played a vital role in his thought system.
“He established the hypothesis that society, is like a biological organism and then proceeded to
defend it against all objections with great logical force.” But his logic proved to be his
sociological downfall, for it spoiled his scientific insight.
Herbert Spencer came to sociology via biology. Therefore, he drew analogy between the society
and the biological organism. “So completely is society organized on the same system as an
individual that we may perceive something more than an analogy between them, the same
definition of life applied to both [biological and social organism]
Spencer believed that the social structure is a living organism. He took great pains to elaborate in
great detail the organic analogy which is the identification of society with a biological organism.
Indeed, he regarded the recognition of similarity between society and organism as a major step
towards a general theory of evolution.
He concentrated on bringing forth wonderful parallels between organic and social evolution,
between similarities in the structure and evolution of organic and social units. In fact, biological
analogies occupy an important role in all of Spencer’s sociological reasoning.
Similarities between Biological and Social Organism – As visualized by Spencer:
Spencer wanted to explain the nature of social structure by the help of the organismic theory. He
observed some similarities between biological and social organisms.
1. Similarity in Visible Growth: Both society and organism are distinguished from inorganic
matter by means of their visible growth. Thus both society and the organism are subject to
growth. Example: A child grows up to be a man; a tiny community becomes a metropolitan area;
a small state becomes an empire, and so on.
2. An Increase in the Complexity of Structure: As both society and organisms grow in size they
also increase in complexity of structure. Primitive organisms [like amoeba] are simple whereas
the highest organisms [like the mammals] are very complex. Primitive community was very
simple whereas the modern industrial society is highly complex.
3. Differentiation of Structure Leading to Differentiation of Functions: In societies and in
organism’s progressive differentiation of structure is accompanied by progressive differentiation
of functions. It is quite obvious. The primitive living organism was a unicellular creature; but
with the increase in the cells, differentiation of organs resulted, at the highest levels of evolution
the structure of the body is quite complex.

Similar is the case with society. In the case of an organism that has very complex organs, each
organ performs a specified function. Similarly, in the case of complex society subdivided into
many different organizations, each organization carries on a specified function.

4. Change in Structure Leads to Change in Functions: When change takes place in the struc-
ture of organs and communities, there results a change in their functions. The function becomes
more and more specialized. This applies to the body of a living creature as well as to the society.

5. Differentiation as well as Harmony of Organs: Evolution establishes for both societies and
organisms, differences in structure and function that make each other possible. Evolution leads to
development of greater differentiation of the organs of society as also that of an individual.
Along with this differentiation there is also the harmony between various organs. Each organ is
complementary to the other and not opposed. This holds true both in the body of a living
organism and society.

6. Loss of an Organ does not necessarily Result in the Loss of Organism: Both society and
the individual are organisms. It is common to both that a loss of one organ or the other does not
necessarily result in the death of an organism. For example, if an individual loses his leg he does
not necessarily meet with his death. Similarly, in society if some association or a political party
disintegrates it does not invariably lead to the decay of the society.
7. Similar Process and Methods of Organization: In discussing the organic analogy further
Spencer compared —

(i) The alimentary system of an organism to the productive industries, or the

sustaining system in the society.

(ii) There is a strong parallelism between the circulation system of an organism and
the distributing system in society with its transportation lines and with its
commercial classes and media of exchange.

(iii) In both the cases there are developed regulating systems. In society, there is the
social control mechanism to fulfill the regulative function. In an organism there
are dominant centers and subordinate centers, the senses, and a neural apparatus
to perform the tasks of the regulating system.

These parallelisms throw only a small measure of light upon the nature of society. But they
become ridiculous when carried to an extreme.

Differences between Organism and Society – As Visualized by Spencer:

Spencer had recognized important differences between societies and organisms. He said, “The
parts of an animal form a concrete whole, but the parts of society form a whole which is discrete.
While the living units, composing the one are bound together in close contact; the living units
composing the other, are free, are not in contact, and are more or less widely dispersed.” In
simple words, the organism is a concrete, integrated whole whereas society is a whole composed
of discrete and dispersed elements.

The main differences between the society and a living organism which cannot be overlooked
were noted by Spencer. They are listed below:

1. Organs are organized, but Parts of Society are Independent: As Spencer has observed
various organs of the body are incapable of independent existence, whereas various parts of
society can exist independently.

Example:
Limbs of the organism such as legs, hands, face, etc., cannot have existence outside the physical
body of the organism. But the parts of society such as family, school, army, police, political
parties, etc., are relatively independent and are not organically fixed to the society. The
movement of the parts is relatively free here.

2. Society does not have a Definite Form as does the Organism: Unlike organisms, societies
have no specific external form, such as a physical body with limbs or a face. Organisms have an
outward form or shape [for example, dog, donkey, monkey, deer and so on] whereas societies
such as Indian society or American society do not have any definite and externally identifiable
form. Society is only a mental construct. It is abstract and exists in our mind only in the form of
an idea.

3. Manner of Difference in the Dependence of Organs or Parts on the Organism or Society:

According to Spencer, parts or organs of the body [such as legs, hands, nose, eyes, head, etc.] of
the organism are dependent upon the body itself. They exist for the sake of the body. On the
other hand, in the case of society the parts [such as individuals, families, groups, etc.] are more
important than the society.

In fact, society exists for the benefit of its parts, that is, individuals. Spencer as a champion of the
philosophy of individualism very strongly felt that the state and society exist for the good of the
individual and not vice versa.

4. Difference Regarding the Centrality of “Consciousness”: In an organism, there exists what

is known as “consciousness” and it is concentrated in a small part of the aggregate. The parts of
the body do not have this. But in the case of the society consciousness is diffused throughout the
individual members.

5. Differences Regarding the Structure and Functions: In the case of organism each of its
parts performs a definite and fixed function. The parts perform their functions incessantly. This
certainty relating to the functions of the parts, we do not find in society. Functions of the parts of
society such as institutions often get changed. Some of the functions of family, for example, have
changed. On the contrary, the eyes, heart, nerves, ears, tongue and other organs of the organism
cannot change their functions.

It is quite interesting to note that Spencer made an elaborate effort to establish the similarities
and differences between organic and social life. He persistently endeavored to establish the
organic analogy as the central theme of the second part of his “Principles of Sociology.” But at
one stage he denied that he held to this doctrine of organic analogy.

Replying to critics he made statements such as the following: “I have used analogies, but only as
a scaffolding to help in building up a coherent body of sociological induction. Let us take away
the scaffolding: the induction will stand by themselves.”

Critical Comments:
a) Spencer used his organic analogy in a ridiculous manner when he compared the King’s
Council to the medulla oblongata, the House of Lords to the cerebellum, and the House
of Commons to the cerebrum He failed to understand the limitations of his analogy.

b) Spencer used his analogy in a very dogmatic manner, but later referred to it as merely
scaffolding for building a structure of deductions. He actually proceeded as if the
scaffolding were the real building. “Unfortunately, he consistently and conspicuously
used the terminology of organisms.
 c) The organic analogy was used by thinkers in their discussions even prior to Spencer. But
Spencer was the first to give to that analogy the value of scientific theory. But he was
very definitely taken a prisoner by the ghost he had evoked.

d) If a society is like an organism, it experiences a natural cycle of birth, maturity, old age,
and death. But the death of a society does not come with organic inevitableness. A
society need not die.

e) Whether we accept or reject Spencer’s comparisons between the human society and the
organism, we are bound to acknowledge the fact that he popularized the concept of
“system” in our sociological discussion. Present-day sociology profusely uses Spencer’s
concept of “system”, of course, in a modified form.

C) Militant or Military Society Vs Industrial Society

Essay on Types of Society – Classification and Comparison – Spencer’s clear conception of the
nature of society helped him develop models to classify and compare societies. Two models
which he followed could be identified from this analysis.

A. Classification of Societies on the Basis of the “Degree of Composition”: Spencer’s

evolutionary law suggested that societies could be classified on the basis of their “degree of
composition.” On this basis he classified societies into four types.

1. Simple Society,
2. Compound Society,
3. Doubly Compound Society,
4. Trebly Compound Society.

B. Classification Based on the Method of constructing priests:

“Models” or “Types” of Society:

According to Ronald Fletcher, Spencer also classified societies into (i) Military Society, and (ii)
Industrial Society, on the basis of the relative preponderance of one or the other of the
“Regulating”, “Sustaining” and “Distributive” systems.

Military Society and Industrial Society: Spencer thought of constructing two extremely
dissimilar “types” or “models” to classify societies into two categories. He called the types as
“militant societies” and “industrial societies.” The first was a type in which the “Regulating
System” was dominant over all the other aspects of society.

The second was one in which the “Sustaining System” was emphasized, and all the other aspects
of society were subordinated to its service. Spencer developed the construction of “two polar
types” mainly for the sake of a clear understanding of societies which possessed a relative
preponderance of one or other of the two systems.

Spencer described his “two types” of society as follows:

A. The Militant [Military]

Society: Military Society is any form of society in which the military exerts a dominant or
pervasive role. Its main characteristics may be noted below:

1. Organization for Offensive and Defensive Military Action: The militant society is a type in
which organization for offensive and defensive military action is predominant. It is the society in
which the army is the nation mobilized and the whole nation is regarded as a silent army. Here,
the entire structure of society is molded into military structure. It reflects a military organization.

2. Centralized Pattern of Authority and Social Control: Here the military head is also the political
head. He has a despotic control over life and property of all his subjects. Absolute control of the
ruler makes necessary a clear, precise and rigid hierarchy of power throughout society. The
officials at each level are completely subservient to that above. Spencer wrote: “All are slaves to
those above and despots to those below.

3. Rigid Social Classes: This rigid hierarchy of power necessarily involves a rigid grading of
social statuses. Hence it gives rise to rigid social classes in economic life. The distribution of
property, and the distribution of material rewards in society, is meticulously linked with the order
of social ranks.

4. Religious Beliefs and Doctrines relating to the Hierarchical Power of Gods: This authoritarian
and hierarchical nature of the society is also reflected in the prevailing system of ideas and
beliefs. There exists a set of doctrines, myths, and rituals which portray a supernatural authority
and government. The gods are also pictured in terms of a hierarchy of power.

The religion itself is a hierarchical organization, and the Ecclesiastical Head himself possesses
supreme, despotic authority. In such a society, the despotic head is, at the same time, not only the
military and political head, but also the Ecclesiastical one. His central power over government,
army, and all civil and economic affairs, is sanctified and given justification by religion.

Here, the societies are normally in antagonism with other societies. Thus Spencer said: “Ever in
antagonism with other societies the life is a life of enmity and the religion a religion of enmity.”

Life is Subject to Rigorous Discipline: The whole tenor of life in a military society is
characterized by rigorous discipline. Virtually there is no difference between the public life and
the private life. No element of the private life of the citizen is closed to the state. The state can
invade and interfere in the private lives of citizens whenever it is felt necessary or desirable to do
so. There is the lack of individual rights in the relationship between individual and the state.
Thus the prevailing belief is – “that its members exist for the benefit of the whole and not the
whole for the benefit of its members. The loyalty of the individual to the state has to be
unquestioning.

Human Relationship Based on Compulsory Co-operation: Human relationships are characterized

in this kind of society by a state of “compulsory co-operation.” Spencer, however, has not
elaborated this point much.

It is clear from the above description that Spencer’s “Militant type” of society could be used as a
basis of interpretation not only to the despotic societies of the ancient world, but also to the
totalitarian societies in the contemporary world. As Ronald Fletcher says, as a “type”, the
“militant society” could be seen to be of wide use for the purpose of comparative societies. It is
relevant to the societies of both the past and the present.

B. The Industrial Society: The concept of “Industrial society” refers to “that form of society or
any particular society, in which industrialization and modernization have occurred. The general
term “industrial society” originates from Saint Simon who chose it to reflect the emerging central
role of manufacturing industry in 18th century Europe, in contrast with the previous pre-
industrial society and agrarian society.

Spencer’s “Industrial Society” is one in which military activity and organization exists but it is
carried on at a distance. It takes place in the periphery of the society and the greater part of the
social organization is peaceful. It concentrates upon the increase and improvement of all aspects

The characteristics of “industrial society” in this way contrast strongly with those of the “militant
type.” They are briefed below.

1. Recognition of Personal Rights: In the industrial society the members hold “personal rights”
as citizens of the community. There is also an active concern on the part of the members for the
maintenance of these rights. Hence they insist upon an effective means of representative
government. Any dispute or mutual claims and counter-claims relating to the rights are to be
resolved here through an impartial procedure or institutional arrangement.

2. “Sustaining System” Possessing a Large Degree of Freedom: In this society, the “sustaining
system” possesses a large degree of freedom from the “regulatory system.” Here the control and
governance of the economic affairs is deliberately separated from the political government.

It is assumed here that the intelligent individuals concerned with their own economic activities
are more capable of making their own decisions than the administrative officials. They are not
only allowed, they are actively encouraged, to do so.

3. Opportunity for the Growth of Free Associations and Institutions: The growth of agriculture,
commerce and industrial manufacture within a fixed geographic territory is given military
security. The peaceful atmosphere leads to the growth of free associations and institutions. In all
such associations, forming committees, laying down rules and procedures, conducting elections,
etc. become a common practice.
4. A Less Rigid Class Structure: “These factors bring about a much less rigid and less tyrannical
class structure……….” [Ronald Fletcher – 285]. In this type of class structure human
relationships become contractual and free. Further, the gradations of status and rank are less
precisely marked. As Spencer puts it “There is a growth…………. of “combinations of workmen
and employers “to resolve, particular disputes, quite separately from central authority of law.”

5. In the Industrial Society, Religious Organizations and Religious Beliefs Lose their Hier-
archical Structure and Power: Individual faith and sectarian discrimination, enters into religion.
Religion instead of working as a means of social control remains only as a matter of individual
faith and commitment. Religious institutions and practices become more and more secular in
nature.

6. Here the Members of the Society do not exist for the Good of the State; but the Well-being of
the Individuals becomes the Supreme Objective of the Government: The doctrine that the
members of the society exist for the good of the state slowly disappearing. The idea that the will
and the well- being of the individual citizens which is of supreme importance in the society,
prevails upon the previous one. Hence all forms of governmental control exist merely to manifest
their wishes and to serve them.

7. Awareness of the Duty to Resist Irresponsible Government: In such a society the despotic
government is considered to be irrelevant and wrong. It becomes a positive duty on the part of
the citizens to resist the irresponsible government. “There is always a tendency to disobedience
amongst minorities and individuals, and such a critical tendency is positively encouraged.”

8. Dominance of Free and Contractual Type of Human Relationships: It is clear from the above
explanation that the “Human relationships in the industrial society are, therefore, wholly
different from those in the militant society. Free, responsible, contractual relationships between
individuals require voluntary co-operation, not the compulsory co-operation which characterizes
relationships in the militant type.

Characteristics of Military and Industrial Societies: A Contrast

Concluding Remarks:
It must be noted that “Spencer did not believe that societies actually existed in the world with the
sharp clarity of distinction that he described in drawing these “models.” [Ronald Fletcher – 286].

Spencer was aware that he was presenting those two “models” to help comparison of societies.
Spencer was of the opinion that this mode of classification would help to interpret and
understand some of the crucially important trends of social evolution. These trends, according to
him were of great importance as the traditional societies get radically transformed by the process
of industrialization.

This mode of classifying societies helped Spencer in undertaking a very detailed comparative
study of each major social institution within each “type” of society. “This gave him a picture of
what, in the whole field of social institutions had actually occurred in the past, and what was
happening in the present.”

In this classification of societies, it appears that Spencer was too optimistic about the industrial
society. Bargardus thus points out: “In the coming industrial order Spencer foresaw an era in
which the main business of society will be to defend the rights of “Individuals.” Spencer forecast
an epoch of industrial states which have abolished war. Experience would tell us that the wars
have not yet become the things of the past.

Bargardus further writes: “Spencer’s industrialism, however, had fundamental weaknesses. It

implies that social organization is more important than social process. It neglects to provide
sufficiently for inherent psychical changes. It assumes that an industrial society, as such, will be
peaceful. It underestimates the importance of socializing motives” [Bargardus]

A Word about Spencer’s Contributions:

 Spencer’s contributions to social thought are not negligible, but recognizable. Unlike
those of Comte, Spencer’s views were widely accepted during his lifetime. They
dominated the minds of many scholars and others from 1865 to 1895. During the three
decades the leading thinkers and philosophers of the West had come under the influence
of Spencer.

 Spencer’s theories had a special appeal because they catered to the two needs of the day,
(a) the desire for unifying knowledge, and (b) the need for scientific justification for the
“laissez-faire” principle.

 Spencer emphasized the laws of evolution and natural causation. He described social
evolution as a phase of natural evolution.

 He strongly supported the principle of “individualism “, for he himself was

individualistic. He attacked the idea that the State is a master machine to which all the
citizens must submit automatically.

 Spencer formulated an integral theory of all reality. “His law of evolution is a cosmic
law. His theory is, therefore, essentially philosophical not sociological. Strictly speaking,
philosophers should check its validity” – L.A. Coser.

 Spencer’s organismic theory highly influenced the later sociologists like Paul
VonLilienfeld, Jacques Novicow, Ward, Sumner and Giddings.

 Spencer in his organic analogy suggested likenesses and differences between biological
organisms and human society.

 He made the role of social structures, or institutions stand out distinctly.

 In conclusion, it could be said that “…… Spencer spoke in his writings to the needs
of his time.

Times have changed, but once again his work seems to commend itself to our age as it searches
for answers to age-old questions about how to live in community while maintaining
individuality.

The Contrast Between Militant and Industrial Societies

Characteristic Militant Society Industrial Society
Dominant function Corporate defensive and offensive Peaceful, mutual rendering of
or activity activity for preservation and individual services
aggrandizement
Principle of social Compulsory cooperation; regimentation Voluntary cooperation;
coordination by enforcement of orders; both positive regulation by contract and
and negative regulation of activity principles of justice; only
negative regulation of activity

Relations between Individuals exist for benefit of state; State exists for benefit of
state and restraints on liberty, property, and individuals; freedom; few
individual mobility restraints on property and
mobility
Relations between Private organizations
state and other All organizations public; private encourage
organizations organizations excluded

Structure of state Centralized Decentralized

Structure of social Fixity of rank, occupation, and locality; Plasticity and openness of
stratification inheritance of positions rank, occupation, and locality;
movement between positions
Type of economic Economic autonomy and self- Loss of economic autonomy;
activity sufficiency; little external trade; interdependence via peaceful
protectionism trade; free trade
Valued social and Patriotism; courage; reverence; loyalty; Independence; respect for
personal obedience; faith in authority; discipline others; resistance to coercion;
characteristics individual initiative;
truthfulness; kindness

4. 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.

A) THEORY OF SUICIDE
Essay on Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide – Durkheim’s third famous book “Suicide” published in
1897 is in various respects related to his study of division of labor. “Suicide”, the act of taking
one’s own life, figures prominently in the historical development of sociology because it was the
subject of the first sociological data to test a theory.
Durkheim’s theory of suicide is cited as “a monumental landmark in which conceptual theory
and empirical research are brought together.

Durkheim’s book “Suicide” is an analysis of a phenomenon regarded as pathological, intended to

throw light on the evil which threatens modern industrial societies, that is, “anomie.” Suicide is
an indication of disorganization of both individual and society. Increasing number of suicides
clearly indicates something wrong somewhere in the social system of the concerned society.
Durkheim has studied this problem at some length.

Durkheim’s study of suicide begins with a definition of the phenomenon. He then proceeds to
refute the earlier interpretations of suicide. Finally, he develops a general theory of the
phenomenon.

Definition of Suicide:

According to Durkheim, suicide refers to “every case of death resulting directly or indirectly
from a positive or negative death performed by the victim himself and which strives to produce
this result.”

It is clear from the definition of Durkheim that suicide is a conscious act and the person
concerned is fully aware of its consequences. The person who shoots himself to death, or drinks
severe poison, or jumps down from the 10th story of a building, for example, is fully aware of
the consequences of such an act.
Brief Evaluation of Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide Comments in Appreciation of the
Theory:

1. As L.A. Coser stated, Durkheim’s study of “suicide” could be cited as a monumental land
work study in which conceptual theory and empirical research are brought together in an
imposing manner.”

2. As Abraham and Morgan have said “the larger significance of suicide lies in its demonstration
of the function of sociological theory in empirical science”.

3. A successful attempt is made in this theory to establish logically the link between social
solidarity, social.

4. Durkheim has thrown light on the various faces of suicide. He is, indeed, the first person in
this regard.

Two Main Purposes behind this Study:

Durkheim used a number of statistical records to establish his fundamental idea that suicide is
also a social fact and social order and disorder are at the very root of suicide. As Abraham and
Morgan have pointed out, Durkheim made use of statistical analysis for two primary reasons.
They are stated below:

(a) To refute theories of suicide based on psychology, biology, genetics, climate, and
geographic factors,

(b) To support with empirical evidence his own sociological explanation of suicide.

Durkheim Displays an Extreme Form of Sociological Realism:

Durkheim is of the firm belief that suicide is not an individual act or a private and personal
action. It is caused by some power which is over and above the individual or “super-individual.”
It is not a personal situation but a manifestation of a social condition. He speaks of suicidal
currents as collective tendencies that dominate some vulnerable persons. The act of suicide is
nothing but the manifestation of these currents. Durkheim has selected the instance or event of
suicide to demonstrate the function of sociological theory.

Durkheim Chooses Statistical Method to Know the Causes of Suicide:

Durkheim wanted to know why people commit suicide, and he chooses to think that explanations
focusing on the psychology of the individual were inadequate. Experiments on suicide were
obviously out of question.

Case studies of the past suicides would be of little use, because they do not provide reliable
generalizations, about all suicides. Survey methods were hardly appropriate, because one cannot
survey dead people. But statistics on suicide were readily available, and Durkheim chose to
analyze them.

Durkheim Rejects Extra-Social Factors as the Causes of Suicide:

Durkheim repudiated most of the accepted theories of suicide.

(1) His monographic study demonstrated that heredity, for example, is not a sufficient
explanation of suicide.

(2) Climatic and geographic factors are equally insufficient as explanatory factors.

(3) Likewise, waves of imitation are inadequate explanations.

(4) He also established the fact that suicide is not necessarily caused by the psychological
factors.

Social Forces are the Real Causes of Suicide: Durkheim:

Suicide is a highly individual act, yet the motives for a suicide can be fully understood only by
reference to the social context in which it occurs. In his attempts to substantiate this fact he came
to know that the incidence of suicide varied from one social group or set up to another and did so
in a consistent manner over the years.

Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics; people in large cities were more
likely to commit suicide than people in small communities; people living alone were more likely
to commit suicide than people living in families.

Durkheim isolated one independent variable that lay behind these differences: the extent to
which the individual was integrated into a social bond with others. People with fragile or weaker
ties to their community are more likely to take their own lives than people who have stronger
ties.

Durkheim’s Threefold Classification of Suicide:

Having dismissed explanations of extra-social factors, Durkheim proceeds to analyse the types of
suicide. He takes into account three types of suicide:

(a) Egoistic Suicide which results from the lack of the integration of the individual into his social
group.

(b) Altruistic Suicide is a kind of suicide which results from the over-integration of the
individual into his social group.

(c) Anomie Suicide results from the state of normlessness or degeneration found in society.

Having analyzed the above mentioned three types of suicide, Durkheim concludes that “suicide
is an individual phenomenon whose causes are essentially social.”
Suicide – An Index to Decay in Social Solidarity:
Durkheim has established the view that there are no societies in which suicide does not occur. It
means suicide may be considered a “normal”, that is, a regular, occurrence. However, sudden
increase in suicide rates may be witnessed.

This, he said, could be taken as “an index of disintegrating forces at work in a social structure.”
He also came to the conclusion that different rates of suicide are the consequences of differences
in degree and type of social solidarity. Suicide is a kind of index to decay in social solidarity.

Three Types of Suicide:

On the basis of the analysis of a mass of data gathered by him on many societies and cultures,
Durkheim identified three basic types of suicides. They are as follows:

(i) Egoistic Suicide

(ii) Altruistic Suicide

(iii) Anomic Suicide.

According to Durkheim, all these occur as an expression of group breakdown of some kind or
the other. These three types of suicide reveal different types of relations between the actor and
his society.

1. Egoistic Suicide:
Egoistic suicide is a product of relatively weak group integration. It takes place as a result of
extreme loneliness and also out of excess individualism. When men become “detached from
society”, and when the bonds that previously had tied them to their fellow beings become loose –
they are more prone to egoistic suicide.

According to Durkheim, egoistic suicides are committed by those individuals who have the
tendency to shut themselves up within themselves. Such individuals feel affronted, hurt and
ignored. Introversive traits gain upper hand in them.

Egoistic persons are aloof and cut off from the mainstream of society and do not take full interest
in social matters. Such persons get alienated and find it difficult to cope with social alienation
and feel impelled to commit suicide.

Durkheim’s belief is that lack of integration of the individuals into the social group is the main
cause for egoistic suicide. Durkheim studied varying degrees of integration of individuals into
their religion, family, political and national communities.

He found that among the Catholics suicides were comparatively less than among the Protestants.
He also found that Catholicism is able to integrate its members more fully into its fold.

On the other hand, Protestantism fosters spirit of free inquiry, permits great individual freedom,
lacks hierarchic organizations and has fewer common beliefs and practices. It is known that the
Catholic Church is more powerfully integrated than the Protestant church.
It is in this way the Protestants are more prone to commit suicide than the Catholics. Hence,
Durkheim generalized that the lack of integration is the main cause of egoistic suicide.

2. Altruistic Suicide:
This kind of suicide takes place in the form of a sacrifice in which an individual ends his life by
heroic means so as to promote a cause or an ideal which is very dear to him. It results from the
over- integration of the individual into his group. In simple words, altruistic suicide is taking off
one’s own life for the sake of a cause. It means that even high level of social solidarity induces
suicide.

Examples:
(i) In some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes place.

(ii) Japanese sometimes illustrate this type of suicide. They call it “Harakiri.” In this practice of
Harakiri, some Japanese go to the extent of taking off their lives for the sake of the larger social
unity. They consider that self-destruction would prevent the breakdown of social unity.

(iii) The practice of “sati” which was once in practice in North India is another example of this
kind.

(iv) The self-immolation by Buddhist monks, self-destruction in Nirvana under the Brahmanical
influence as found in the case of ancient Hindu sages represent other variants of altruistic
suicide. Wherever altruistic suicide is prevalent, man is always ready to sacrifice his life for a
great cause, principle, ideal or value.

3. Anomie Suicide:
The breakdown of social norms and sudden social changes that are characteristic of modern
times, encourage anomie suicide. When the collective conscience weakens, men fall victim to
anomie suicide. “Without the social backing to which one is accustomed, life is judged to be not
worth continuing.”

Anomie suicide is the type that follows catastrophic social changes. Social life all around seems
to go to pieces. According to Durkheim, at times when social relations get disturbed both
personal and social ethics become the causalities. Values of life come down and outlook of some
persons changes radically. There are then certain dangerous developments in the society.

A sudden change has its vibrations both in social life and social relationship, which paves way
for suicide. If the change is sudden, adjustment becomes difficult and those who do not get
adjusted to changes commit suicide.

It is this social disruption which leads to suicide. According to Durkheim, not only economic
disaster and industrial crisis but even sudden economic prosperity can cause disruption and
deregulation and finally suicide.

Critical Comments:
1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide. In doing so, he has neglected
the role of other factors, especially the psychological. Hence this is a one-sided view.

2. The theory is based upon a very small sample of data concerning suicide.

3. As criminologists have pointed out, economic, psychological and even religious factors may
lead to suicide. But Durkheim did not give any importance to these factors.

Concluding Remarks:
These three kinds of suicide understood as social types also correspond approximately to
psychological types. “Egoistic suicide tends to be characterized by a kind of apathy, an absence
of attachment to life; altruistic suicide, by a state of energy and passion; anomie suicide is
characterized by a state of irritation or disgust” – Raymond Aron.

Raymond Aron pointed out that Durkheim in his study of “suicide” has been successful in
establishing a social fact that there are “specific social phenomena which govern individual
phenomena. The most impressive, most eloquent example is that of the social forces which drive
individuals to their deaths, each believing that he is obeying only himself.”

B) ORGANIC SOLIDARITY AND MECHANICAL SOLIDARITY

Key Difference – Mechanic vs Organic Solidarity

Mechanic and Organic Solidarity are two concepts that emerge in the field of sociology between
which a key difference can be identified. These concepts were first introduced by Emilie
Durkheim, a key figure in Sociology. Durkheim was a functionalist who was rather optimistic
about the division of labor in the society. His view is captured in the book titled ‘The division of
labor in society’ which was first published in 1893. In this book, he presented two concepts
known as mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity. The key difference between mechanic and
organic solidarity is that while mechanic solidarity is visible in pre-industrial societies,
organic solidarity is visible in industrial societies.

What is Mechanic Solidarity?

The concept of solidarity is used in sociology to highlight the agreement and support that exists
in a society where people share their belief systems and work together. Durkheim uses the term
mechanic solidarity to refer to societies governed by similarities. Most of the pre-industrialized
societies such as hunting and gathering societies, agricultural societies are examples of mechanic
solidarity.

The key characteristics of such societies are that people share common belief systems and work
with others in cooperation. Communal activities are at the heart of such societies. There is a lot
of homogeneity among people in their thought, actions, education and even in the work that they
perform. In this sense, there is very little room for individuality. Another feature of mechanic
solidarity is that there exist repressive laws. Also, there is very little interdependence among
people as all are involved in similar types of work.

What is Organic Solidarity?

Organic solidarity can be seen in societies where there is a lot of specialization which leads to
high interdependence among individuals and organizations. Unlike in mechanic solidarity, where
there is a lot of homogeneity among the people, a contrasting image can be seen in organic
solidarity. This is visible in industrialized societies such as many of the modern societies, where
people have specific roles and specialized work. Since every individual is engaged in a special
role, this leads to a high level of interdependence because a single individual cannot perform all
tasks.

Some of the key characteristics of organic solidarity are high individuality, constitutional and
organizational laws, secularization, high population and density. Durkheim points out that
although there is a high division of labor in organic solidarity, this is necessary for the
functioning of the society because the contribution that each individual makes to the society
enables the society to function as a social unit.

What is the difference between Mechanic and Organic Solidarity?

Definitions of Mechanic and Organic Solidarity:

Mechanic Solidarity: Mechanic solidarity to refer to societies governed by similarities.

Organic Solidarity: Organic solidarity can be seen in societies where there is a lot of
specialization which leads to high interdependence among individuals and organizations.

Characteristics of Mechanic and Organic Solidarity:

Focus:

Mechanic Solidarity: Mechanic solidarity focuses on similarities.

Organic Solidarity: Organic solidarity focuses on differences.

Individuality:

Mechanic Solidarity: There is little room for individuality.

Organic Solidarity: Individuality is promoted.

Laws:
Mechanic Solidarity: Laws are repressive.

Organic Solidarity: Constitutional, organizational laws can be seen.

Division of Labor:

Mechanic Solidarity: Division of labor is low.

Organic Solidarity: Division of labor is very high as specialization is at the heart of organic
solidarity.

Beliefs and Values:

Mechanic Solidarity: Beliefs and values are similar.

Organic Solidarity: There is a great variety of beliefs and values

5. 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 (1818–1883),
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
“class‐free” 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.
A) Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value
Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value
Outline
Introduction
Theory of surplus value
Explanation of the theory of surplus value
• Labor
• Understanding labor under capitalism
• Meaning of Surplus Value
Impacts
Karl Marx Theory of surplus value in the contemporary affairs Conclusion

Karl Marx theories and the books revolutionized the world. His concepts on the equality for all
gave birth to a new system of governance.

Introduction:
Heinrich Karl Marx was a renowned sociologist of the 19th century (1818-1883). He presented
several theories, books and essays which later led to socialism. Marx was exponent supporter of
creating a balance between the 'Petit bourgeoisie' and 'Lumpen Proletariat'. Thus, he
overwhelmingly objected the capitalism. His work like The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital
and political economy revolutionized the whole world. Communist were all Marxist in nature.
The theory of Surplus Value is part of political economy, written by Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s
theory of class conflict, theory of alienation and theory of surplus value are interrelated as all
these theories speak against the capitalism or market economy. The further detail will only
illustrate the Marx theory of surplus value and its validity in the contemporary affairs.

THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE

The price of commodity produced is determined by the labor involved in that commodity. In the
complex capitalist environment laborer provides his services to his boss in order to produce a
commodity but in response to it he just gets a small chunk of the profit. The remaining profit
goes to the boss or who is responsible to conducting that business. The theory of surplus value
says that this laborer, his efforts are helpful, meaningful to the owner of that business as the
surplus amount goes to the boss instead of that laborer who is actually responsible for carrying
out the whole business. Thus, Karl Marx is of the view that a laborer and the person who is
carrying out the business be treated on the equal grounds but the capitalist economy does not
take care of this fact.

Explanation of the theory of surplus value

Labour
Labour is a domain between a man and the nature. The content of labour may remain the same at
different stages of man's history but the character of labour, however, undergoes revolutionary
changes whenever one mode of production is superseded by another. Therefore, objectively to
man's vital activity, labour is his eternal companion. Labour is a most important factor in the
evolution of world civilization.

Understanding labour under capitalism

This means that the means of production are owned by the capitalist and the labour will have an
association with the production of the commodity only. Furthermore, the product of the labour is
capitalist property by all means. He is just contributing his efforts for the well-being of the
capitalist.

Meaning of Surplus Value

 To understand the importance of value, it is important to brief about Marx's theory of
Surplus Value. According to this theory, the main postulates emphasized by Karl Marx
are:
 Commodity production is the outcome of a specific division of labour: “Only such
products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different
kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private
individuals.”

The value of commodities expresses what private labors have in common: it is a socially
necessary quantity of labour.

Impacts
Karl Marx criticized this concept of dividing the class between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. In the
Marx theory of class conflict he enunciated the impacts of theory of surplus value. Surplus value
generates a handsome income for the 'owner' however it gives the diminishing returns to the
labour. Hence, this gives birth to petit bourgeois and lumpen proletariat. The former are those
who are rich, wealthy and influential in the society and the latter are those who are weak, poor
and remain at the discretion of the influential persons. Therefore, surplus value generates a class
conflict between the different strata of the people.

Secondly, surplus value gives birth to alienation. This means that a person who is capable and
talented yet, he cannot impart his full abilities to the work, led him to alienation. The reason
behind is that the boss is just concerned about his product regardless of the talent in the labour
and on the other hand, the labour being at the mercy of poor environmental conditions, he is
supposed to do the work under the wage system. The poor laborer does not have any other option
to make his livelihood.

Thirdly, the theory of alienation, class conflict and surplus value give birth to the polarization in
the society. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. Thus, such kind of
exploitation paralyses the society. So polarization creates a sense of deprivation amongst the
members of the society.
Fourthly, according to Marxist, surplus value gives birth to wars and arm conflict. The reason is
that the additional amount or profit earned by the big cartels is utilized on the wars. Thus, gives
birth to chaos and anarchy. Therefore, the Marxist school of thought believes in the closed
economy.

Karl Marx theory of surplus value in the contemporary affairs Karl Marx theories and the books
revolutionized the world. His concepts on the equality for all gave birth to a new system of
governance, i.e. communism. However, the communist could not refrain themselves from
aggressive design as Marxist believe that the surplus money in the capitalism is utilized for
fighting wars. But, history shows that the Russians also had an aggressive ideology. “Only such
products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of
labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals.”
Another point is that Marxist totally negates the liberalization of the economy. It talks about the
closed economy however; the capitalist economy is based upon the opening up the market for all.
Globalization is the essence of the capitalist economy. In doing so, it is noteworthy that China is
second largest economy of the world. The growth rate of China is 8%. She has surpassed
Germany. It is a well-established fact that China was never been able to reach such an apogee
prior to abolishing socialism. Now Chinese economy is open for the entire world.

Similarly, Indian economy was also a closed economy prior to bringing economic reforms by the
then finance minister Manmohan Singh. Now, the country is making rapid progress in the
economic field. America wants to capture the Indian market. Therefore, the future of the world
lies in the globalization. One cannot remain aloof from the entire world.

Conclusion
In a nutshell, Karl Marx theories are right in the sense of giving relief to the labour. This was
also good during that century. Russian and the Chinese who were the greatest exponent of the
communism also failed to convince the people for that economic system. Competitive markets
have made a rapid progress in the economic field. The competitive markets are making the things
cheaper for the people. This is also a good example of the market economy. The 21st century is
facing many other challenges to make this planet a peaceful place to live. World has pledged to
reduce poverty, improve maternal conditions and enhance global trade in the Millennium
Development Goals during World Summit. This can only be achieved by globalization.

B) LABOR THEORY
Karl Marx's labor theory of value asserts that the value of an object is solely a result of the labor
expended to produce it. According to this theory, the more labor or labor time that goes into an
object, the more it is worth. Marx defined value as "consumed labor time", and stated that "all
goods, considered economically, are only the product of labor and cost nothing except labor".
The labor theory of value is the fundamental premise of Marx's economics and the basis of his
analysis of the free market. If it is correct, then much of Marx's critique of capitalism is also
correct. But if it is false, virtually all of Marx's economic theory is wrong.
Here is an example of how the labor theory of value works: A worker in a factory is given $30
worth of material, and after working 3 hours producing a good, and using $10 worth of fuel to
run a machine, he creates a product which is sold for $100. According the Marx, the labor and
only the labor of the worker increased the value of the natural materials to $100. The worker is
thus justly entitled to a $60 payment, or $20 per hour.
If the worker is employed by a factory owner who pays him only $15 per hour, according to
Marx the $5 per hour the factory owner receives is simply a rip-off. The factory owner has done
nothing to earn the money and the $5 per hour he receives is "surplus value", representing
exploitation of the worker. Even the tools which the factory owner provided were, according to
Marx, necessarily produced by other workers.
According to the labor theory of value, all profits are the rightful earnings of the workers, and
when they are kept from the workers by capitalists, workers are simply being robbed. On the
basis of this theory, Marx called for the elimination of profits, for workers to seize factories and
for the overthrow of the "tyranny" of capitalism. His call to action has been heeded in many
countries throughout the world.

DURKHEIM & WEBER THEORIES:

COMPARISON AND RELEVANCE TODAY Introduction Classical, seminal sociological
theorists of the late 19th and early 20th century such as Durkheim and Weber were greatly
interested in religion and its effects on society. Like those of Plato and Aristotle from ancient
Greece, and Enlightenment philosophers from the 17th through 19th centuries, the ideas posited
by these sociologists continue to be examined today.
Durkheim and Weber had very complex and developed theories about the nature and effects of
religion. Of these, Durkheim and Weber are often more difficult to understand, especially in light
of the lack of context and examples in their primary texts. Religion was considered to be an
extremely important social variable in the work of these two.
Emile Durkheim: Emile Durkheim was a French sociologist with a background in anthropology,
and became known as ‘the father of sociology’. He lived from 1858-1917 and was educated in
both France and Germany. Durkheim viewed religion as an essential part of one’s social life and
went as far as to say that without religion society could not possibly exist cohesively. Religion,
as ‘the cement of society’, is entirely a social concept.
Durkheim’s method in studying religion was based on the scientific method. It does not take into
account specific beliefs or the origins of religions. Matters regarding the truth of religion are not
accounted for, nor is there any such thing as a false religion. The fact that a religion has survived
for so long gives the religion meaning, and that is central to the social dimension of religion.
Unlike most other sociologists of religion, Durkheim did feel that religion was real, and will
survive. There was nothing illusion or deceptive of religion, and a strong religion will simply
ensure social solidarity.
Max Weber: Max Weber was a German sociologist, economist, and political scientist. He lived
during the same time frame as Durkheim, from the late 19th to the early 20th century. Weber
saw religion as fulfilling self-interest. Although not to the same extent at Marx, Weber did feel
that religion was something that arose out of an individual need for life to have meaning. Unlike
Durkheim, society was not central, but rather what was important to study is how different
individuals of a religion relate to one another.
Weber’s method was groundbreaking at the time because he refuted all previous understandings
of history dealing with religion, particularly those of Marx, and of course, Durkheim.
Nonetheless, he did share some similarities with his French colleague. Like Durkheim, he used a
strict scientific outlook when studying the field, which helped to establish the field of sociology
as an academic discipline.
Comparison of Durkheim &Weber : In comparison studies, unlike Durkheim, who compared
social entities, Weber used the notion of the individual and ideal-types. From his studies, Weber
hypothetically created an ideal form, from whose characteristics can be taken from various
individuals or events. Weber argued that no scientific process can account for every issue
regarding his studies of sociology of religion.
Along with the use of ideal-types, Weber’s goal of sociology of religion was to understand the
individual impact of religion. While Durkheim stressed how religion caused society to remain
interconnected and moral, Weber did not feel it was necessary to delve into the social function of
religion. The personal role of religion and its individual meaning was much more crucial. He
refuses to allow the importance of religion to be reduced to something merely social. Max Weber
believed that religions provided meaning for individuals who aspired it. Religious beliefs are an
example of these self-interests. As far as Durkheim’s society theory relates, Weber believed that
the study of society and religion for that matter should be the study of the interrelation between
individuals.
Weber did not disagree with Durkheim regarding the reality of religions or its future. Weber and
Durkheim were in the minority of sociologists who believed that religion was real and sacred.
They also agreed that religion did have a future, albeit for different reasons. While Durkheim
thought religion was necessary for the society to exist, Weber believed that individuals who were
religious would be influenced to take part in so called worldly affairs, and succeed, such as
capitalist Protestants.
Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were not only the two founders of sociology, but also the
founders of sociology of religion. These two men, from roughly the same time period and
geography, approached their field with due scientific processes. However, while Durkheim
viewed religion to simply the basis and entity of social function, while Weber refused reduce
religion to a single theory, but saw the importance of religious ideas in the personal realm and
the influences it could have not only to oneself but to other surrounding individuals. Both
Durkheim and Weber attempted to interpret religion and its social composition, and understood
the nature of its utmost real importance and role it would have in the future of humanity

C) CONFLICT THEORY
Marx's Theory of Social Class and Class Structure

For Marx, the analysis of social class, class structures and changes in those structures are key to
understanding capitalism and other social systems or modes of production. In the Communist
Manifesto Marx and Engels comment that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history
of class struggles. (Bottomore, p. 75).

Analysis of class divisions and struggles is especially important in developing an understanding

of the nature of capitalism. For Marx, classes are defined and structured by the relations
concerning (i) work and labour and (ii) ownership or possession of property and the means of
production. These economic factors more fully govern social relationships in capitalism than
they did in earlier societies. While earlier societies contained various strata or groupings which
might be considered classes, these may have been strata or elites that were not based solely on
economic factors – e.g. priesthood, knights, or military elite.

Marx did not complete the manuscript that would have presented his overall view of social class.
Many of his writings concern the class structures of capitalism, the relationship among classes
the dynamics of class struggle, political power and classes, and the development of a classless
society, and from these a Marxian approach to class can be developed. Note that Hadden does
not discuss class in any detail, although the class structure of capitalism is implicit in the labour
theory of value and can be derived from this theory.

1. Classes in Capitalism

The main classes in capitalism are the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. However, other classes
such as landlords, petty bourgeoisie, peasants, and lumpenproletariat also exist, but are not
primary in terms of the dynamics of capitalism.

a. Bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie or capitalists are the owners of capital, purchasing and
exploiting labour power, using the surplus value from employment of this labour power to
accumulate or expand their capital. It is the ownership of capital and its use to exploit labour and
expand capital are key here. Being wealthy is, in itself, not sufficient to make one a capitalist
(e.g. managers in the state sector or landlords). What is necessary is the active role of using this
wealth to make it self-expansive through employment and exploitation of labour.

Historically, the bourgeoisie began cities of medieval Europe, with the development of traders,
merchants, craftsperson’s, industrialists, manufacturers and others whose economic survival and
ability to increase wealth came from trade, commerce, or industry. In order for each of these to
expand their operations, they needed greater freedom to market products and expand economic
activities. In the struggle against the feudal authorities (church and secular political authorities)
this class formed and took on a progressive role. That is, they helped undermine the old
hierarchical and feudal order and create historical progress. For a segment of this class, wealth
came by employing labour (industrial capital), for others it came through trade (merchant
capital), banking and finance (finance capital), or using land in a capitalist manner (landed
capital). It was the industrial capitalists who employed labour to create capital that became the
leading sector of the bourgeoisie, whose economic activities ultimately changed society. In
Britain, this class became dominant politically and ideologically by the mid-nineteenth century.
By employing workers, industrial capital created the surplus value that could take on the various
forms such as profit, interest and rent.

b. Proletariat. The proletariat are owners of labour power (the ability to work), and mere owners
of labour power, with no other resources than the ability to work with their hands, bodies, and
minds. Since these workers have no property, in order to survive and obtain an income for
themselves and their families, they must find employment work for an employer. This means
working for a capitalist-employer in an exploitative social relationship.

This exploitative work relationship recreates or reproduces itself continually. If the capitalist-
employer is to make profits and accumulate capital, wages must be kept low. This means that the
proletariat is exploited, with the surplus time (above that required for creating subsistence)
worked by the worker creating surplus products. While the worker produces, the products
created by this labour are taken by the capitalist and sold – thus producing surplus value or profit
for the capitalist but poverty for workers. This occurs each day of labour process, preventing
workers from gaining ownership of property and recreating the conditions for further
exploitation.

The antagonistic and contradictory nature of this system is evident as capitalists attempting to
reduce wages and make workers work more intensively, while workers have exactly the opposite
set of interests. Work and the labour process in the capitalist mode of production are organized
so that workers remain property less members of the proletariat. The surplus products and value
created by workers turns into capital, which is accumulated.

Historically, the proletariat emerged as the aristocracy began to suffer financial difficulties in the
later middle ages. Many of those who were supported by working for the aristocracy lost their
livelihood – the "disbanding of the feudal retainers and the dissolution of the monasteries."
Using enclosures, changing the conditions of production in agriculture, and denying peasants
access to common lands and resources, landowners transformed land into pasture land for raising
sheep, or sold land to farmers who began to develop grain and livestock production. People who
had subsisted on the land were denied the possibility of making a living on the land, and they
become property less. Population growth was also considerable, and in some areas forced labour
(slavery, indentured servants, poor, prison) was used. While some people subsisted in rural
industry and craft production, factory production began to undermine these as well in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Together these changes created a large class of landless and
property less people who had no choice but to become members of the proletariat – many
working in factories. These people became free wage laborers, free from feudal ties and free
from a source of livelihood. Today we still talk of free labour markets and the dual meaning is
much the same.

While the relationship between workers and capitalists, or between labour and capital may
appear to be no more than an economic relationship of equals meeting equals in the labour
market, Marx shows how it is an exploitative social relationship. Not only is it exploitative, it is
contradictory, with the interests of the two partners in the relationship being directly opposed to
each other. Although at the same time, the two opposed interests are also partners in the sense
that both capital and labour are required in production and an exploitative relationship means an
exploiter and someone being exploited.

This relationship is further contradictory in that it is not just two sets of interests, but there is no
resolution of the capital-labour contradiction within the organization of capitalism as a system.
The contradictory relationship has class conflict built into it, and leads to periodic bursts of
strikes, crises, political struggles, and ultimately to the overthrow of bourgeois rule by the
proletariat. Class conflict of this sort results in historical change and is the motive force in the
history of capitalism.

c. Landlords. In addition to the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, Marx discussed a number of
other classes. First, Marx mentions landowners or landlords as a class in Britain. While these
were historically important, and many still retain their wealth even today (e.g. the Royal Family),
they were considered by Marx to be a marginal class, once powerful and dominant but having
lost their central role in production and the organization of society. In order to retain their wealth,
some of these landowners were able to transform their wealth in land into landed capital. While
this constituted a somewhat different form than industrial capital, this meant that the land was
also used as capital, to accumulate. Labour may not be directly employed by landowners, but the
land is used as a means by which capital can be expanded.

d. Petty Bourgeoisie and Middle Class. The lower middle class or the petty (petite) bourgeoisie
(the bourgeoisie was sometimes called the middle class in this era), constitutes "the small
manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant" (Giddens and Held, p. 24). The
characteristic of this class is that it does own some property, but not sufficient to have all work
done by employees or workers. Members of this class must also work in order to survive, so they
have a dual existence – as (small scale) property owners and as workers. Because of this dual
role, members of this class have divided interests, usually wishing to preserve private property
and property rights, but with interests often opposed to those of the capitalist class. This class is
split internally as well, being geographically, industrially, and politically dispersed, so that it is
difficult for it to act as a class. Marx expected that this class would disappear as capitalism
developed, with members moving into the bourgeoisie or into the working class, depending on
whether or not they were successful. Many in this class have done this, but at the same time, this
class seems to keep recreating itself in different forms.

Marx considers the petite bourgeoisie to be politically conservative or reactionary, preferring to

return to an older order. This class has been considered by some Marxists to have been the base
of fascism in the 1920s and 1930s. At other times, when it is acting in opposition to the interests
of large capital, it may have a more radical or reformist bent to it (anti-monopoly).

Note on the Middle Class. The issue of the middle class or classes appears to be a major issue
within Marxian theory, one often addressed by later Marxists. Many Marxists attempt to show
that the middle class is declining, and polarization of society into two classes is a strong
tendency within capitalism. Marx's view was that the successful members of the middle class
would become members of the bourgeoisie, while the unsuccessful would be forced into the
proletariat. In the last few years, many have argued that in North America, and perhaps on a
world scale, there is an increasing gap between rich and poor and there is a declining middle.
While there have been tendencies in this direction, especially among the farmers and peasantry,
there has been no clear long run trend toward decline of the middle class. At the same time as
there has been polarization of classes, there have been new middle groupings created. Some of
these are small business people, shopkeepers, and small producers while others are professional
and managerial personnel, and some intellectual personnel. Well paid working class members
and independent trades people might consider themselves to be members of the middle class.
Some segments of this grouping have expanded in number in recent years. While it is not clear
that these groups hold together and constitute a class in any Marxian sense of being combined in
opposition to other classes, they do form a middle grouping. Since Marx's prediction has not
come true, sociologists and other writers have devoted much attention to explaining this middle
grouping – what is its basis, what are the causes of its stability or growth, how it fits into the
class structure, and what are the effects of its existence on proletariat and bourgeoisie.

e. Lumpenproletariat. Marx also mentions the "dangerous class" or the social scum. Among the
members of this group are "ruined and adventurous offshoots of the bourgeoisie, vagabonds,
discharged soldiers, discharged jailbirds, pickpockets, brothel keepers, rag-pickers, beggars" etc.
(Bottomore, p. 292). This is the lumpenproletariat. He does not consider this group to be of any
importance in terms of potential for creating socialism, if anything they may be considered to
have a conservative influence. Other writers and analysts have considered them to have some
revolutionary potential. One of the main reasons for mentioning them is to emphasize how
capitalism uses, misuses and discards people, not treating them as humans. Today's
representative of this class of lumpenproletariat are the homeless and the underclass.

f. Peasantry and Farmers. Marx considered the peasantry to be disorganized, dispersed, and
incapable of carrying out change. Marx also expected that this class would tend to disappear,
with most becoming displaced from the land and joining the proletariat. The more successful
might become landowners or capitalist farmers. With respect to family farmers as a group, much
the same could be said. However, Marx was not really very familiar with these as a group, and
had little to say about these. The various analyses of the role of farmers in the Prairies constitute
a more adequate view of what may be expected from this group. They could be considered to
form a class when they act together as a group. In the early days of Prairie settlement, farms were
of similar size, farmers had generally similar interests, and the farm population acted together to
create the cooperative movement and the Wheat Board. More recently, Prairie farmers are often
considered to be split into different groups or strata, dependent on type of farming, size of farm,
and whether or not they employ labour. Farmers have not been able to act together as a class in
political and economic actions in recent years. Lobbying by some farm groups have been
successful, but these do not usually represent farmers as a whole.

2. Features of Marx's Analysis

a. Group Basis. For Marx, classes cannot be defined by beginning observation and analysis
from individuals, and building a definition of a social class as an aggregate of individuals with
particular characteristics. For example, to say that the upper class is all families with incomes of
$500,000 or more is not an adequate manner of understanding social class. The latter is a
stratification approach that begins by examining the characteristics of individuals, and from this
amassing a view of social class structure as a whole. This stratification approach often combines
income, education, and social prestige or status into an index of socioeconomic status, creating a
down-gradation from upper class to lower class. The stratification approach is essentially a
classification, and for Marx classes have meaning only as they are real groups in the social
structure. Groups mean interaction among members, common consciousness, and similar types
of behavior that are connected in some way with group behavior. Categories such as upper class,
middle class and lower class, where those in each category may be similar only in the view of the
researcher are not fully Marxian in nature.

Classes are groups, and Marx discusses the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, not individual
capitalists and individual workers. As individuals, these people may be considered members of a
class, but class only acquires real meaning when it the class as a whole and the social
relationships defining them that are considered. For example, "The bourgeoisie ... has put an end
to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. ... " (Giddens and Held, p. 21). Here the bourgeoisie is
historically created and is an actor in politics, economics and history.

In terms of individuals as members of classes, they are members of a class as they act as
members of that class. For example, Marx notes that burghers or members of the bourgeoisie in
early capitalist Europe:

the class in its turn achieves an independent existence over against the
individuals, so that the latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and
hence have their position in life and their personal development assigned to them
by their class, become subsumed under it. (Giddens and Held, 20).

To the extent that individuals are considered in the social system, they are defined by their class.
For Marxists, class structures exist as objective facts, and a researcher could examine class and
membership of a class, but would have to understand the nature of the whole social and
economic structure in order to do so. To the extent that these members act in society, they act as
representatives of their class, although Marx would leave some room for individual freedom of
action.

b. Property and Class. Classes are formed by the forces that define the mode of production, and
classes are an aspect of the relations of production. That is, classes do not result from distribution
of products (income differences, lender and borrower), social evaluation (status honour), or
political or military power, but emerge right from relationship to the process of production.
Classes are an essential aspect of production, the division of labour and the labour process.
Giddens notes:

Classes are constituted by the relationship of groupings of individuals to the

ownership of private property in the means of production. This yields a model of
class relations which is basically dichotomous [since some own and others do not,
some work and others live off the fruits of those who labour]: all class societies
are built around a primary line of division between two antagonistic classes, one
dominant and the other subordinate. (Giddens, p. 37).
In describing various societies, Marx lists a number of classes and (antagonistic) social
relationship such as "freeman and slave, ... lord and serf, ... oppressor and oppressed" that
characterize different historical stages or modes of production. While Marx also mentions
various ranks and orders of society, such as vassals and knights, the forms of struggle between
classes are primarily viewed as occurring around control and use of property, the means of
production, and production as a whole, and the manner in which these are used. The basic
struggle concerns who performs the labour, and who obtains the benefits from this labour.

An elite is not necessarily a class for Marx. Examples of elites are military elites, priests or
religious leaders, and political elites – these mays may very powerful and oppressive, and may
exercise formal rule at a certain time or place. An elite could form a class, but a political or
military elite is not necessarily a class – an elite may be based on recruitment (rather than
ownership) and may not have much ultimate say in determining the direction of society. Or the
elite may be based on religious, military, political or other structures. This would especially be
the case in pre-capitalist or non-capitalist societies. For Marx, and especially in capitalism,
domination came from control of the economy or material factors, although it was not confined
to this. Thus, the dominant class was the class which was able to own, or at least control, the
means of production or property which formed the basis for wealth. This class also had the
capability of appropriating much of the social surplus created by workers or producers. An elite
may have such power, but might only be able to administer or manage, with real control of the
means of production in the hands of owners.

c. Class as Social Relationship – Conflict and Struggle. At several points, Marx notes how the
class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. Referring to the
emergence of the burghers or bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Marx notes how

The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a
common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with
each other as competitors. (Giddens and Held, p. 20).

Both competition and unity can thus characterize a class; there can be very cut-throat
competition among capitalists, but when the property relations and existence of the bourgeois
class is threatened, the bourgeoisie acts together to protect itself. This becomes apparent when
rights of private property or the ability of capital to operate freely comes under attack. The
reaction of the bourgeoisie may involve common political action and ideological unity, and it is
when these come together that the bourgeoisie as a class exists in its fullest form. In commenting
on France, Marx notes that the French peasantry may be dispersed and lacking in unity, but

In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that

separate their mode of life, their interests and their culture from those of the other
classes, and put them in hostile opposition to the latter, they form a class.
(Giddens, p. 37)

It is when the peasantry as a group is in opposition to other classes that the peasantry form a
class. These quotes do not provide an example of the same with respect to the proletariat, but in
his other writings Marx noted that the proletariat is a true class when organized in opposition to
the bourgeoisie, and creating a new society.

Class, for Marx, is defined as a (social) relationship rather than a position or rank in society. In
Marx's analysis, the capitalist class could not exist without the proletariat, or vice-versa. The
relationship between classes is a contradictory or antagonistic relationship, one that has struggle,
conflict, and contradictory interests associated with it. The structure and basis of a social class
may be defined in objective terms, as groups with a common position with respect to property or
the means of production. However, Marx may not be primarily interested in this definition of
class. Rather, these classes have meaning in society and are historical actors only to the extent
that they do act in their own interests, and in opposition to other classes. Unlike much other
sociology, Marx's classes are defined by class conflict.

6. Max Weber
The German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920) disagreed with the “objective evidence only”
position of Durkheim. He argued that sociologists must also consider people's interpretations of
events—not 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 (vûrst 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.

A) Theory of Bureaucracy

THE THEORY OF BUREAUCRACY:

The theory of bureaucracy is attributed to the German sociologist Max Weber. His theory
described the modern organizational structure, defined by salaried workers in hierarchical
structures carrying out specialized and differentiated tasks. His model of bureaucracy is
considered the most accurate prediction to come from the social sciences. While Marx’s socialist
revolution never materialized, and neither Keynes nor Friedman predicted economic systems that
led to prosperity, Weber was undoubtedly correct that the bureaucracy would be the defining
institution of the modern age.

We live our lives in bureaucracies. We are born in a bureaucratic hospital, and go on to attend
bureaucratic schools. We then find employment in bureaucracies, consume products created and
sold by bureaucracies, and are governed by bureaucracies.

The bureaucratic model is the original paradigm of public administration. Early public
administrators, who popularized the field in the early twentieth century, sought to deliver better
government through the power of bureaucracy. Coupled with authoritarian management
practices borrowed from industry, known as Taylorism or scientific management, public
administrators believed that well run public bureaucracies could deliver efficient and effective
public services. Key to this perspective was the idea that bureaucracies could achieve political
neutrality; the founding paradigm of public administration was known as the politics-
administration dichotomy, which separated the legislative and policy making functions of
government from the politically neutral execution of policy by public bureaucracies.

Over time the key paradigms of public administration evolved from the bureaucratic model.
Frank analysis revealed that public bureaucracies are not politically neutral, but contribute to the
political and policy-making process. Other insights revealed that authoritarian management
styles are sometimes ineffective and inefficient, and theorists began advocating for a humanizing
of workplace human resource policies. Insights from economics contributed to the understanding
of rational decision-making processes within bureaucracies, and formalized our understandings
of public opinion and organizational behavior.

Modern public administration recognizes the centrality of bureaucratic structures to modern day
public sector organizations. Those who examine the role of modern bureaucracies are often
focused on deriving insights into effective management practices. This field of inquiry is known
as public management, and is often closely aligned with organizational behavior research in
other fields. These theorists generally test hypotheses about various management practices with
formal statistical and econometric models. This formal analysis of bureaucracy is highly
influential in modern schools of public administration.

What is Bureaucracy?
It is a form of administrative system used by both public and private institutions. Simply put, it is
a government body that is composed of non-politicians but who are appointed to help in policy-
making and be in charge of administrative tasks in government agencies.

In government, bureaucrats implement policies, write rules and regulations and administer them
on people, among others. In organizations, bureaucracy structure is divided into different levels,
from frontline employees up to the upper management. While there are countries doing well with
this kind of structure, there are also groups not in favor of this system. Here are some of the
views about this controversial issue:

The German sociologist Max Weber was the first to formally study bureaucracy and his works
led to the popularization of this term. In his 1922 essay Bureaucracy, published in his magnum
opus Economy and Society, Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration,
government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public or private, is
characterized by:

 hierarchical organization
 formal lines of authority (chain of command)
 a fixed area of activity
 rigid division of labor
 regular and continuous execution of assigned tasks
 all decisions and powers specified and restricted by regulations
 officials with expert training in their fields
 career advancement dependent on technical qualifications
 qualifications evaluated by organizational rules, not individuals
Weber listed several preconditions for the emergence of bureaucracy, including an increase in
the amount of space and population being administered, an increase in the complexity of the
administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a
more efficient administrative system. Development
of communication and transportation technologies make more efficient administration possible,
and democratization and rationalization of culture results in demands for equal treatment.
Although he was not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber saw bureaucratization as the
most efficient and rational way of organizing human activity and therefore as the key to rational-
legal authority, indispensable to the modern world. Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in
the ongoing rationalization of Western society. Weber also saw bureaucracy, however, as a
threat to individual freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of
icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless
"iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control. Weber's critical study of the
bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work. Weber Many
aspects of modern public administration are based on his work, and a classic, hierarchically
organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".

List of Advantages of Bureaucracy

Advantages of Bureaucracy
1. Specialization: A bureaucratic organization provides the advantages of specialization because
every member is assigned a specialized task to perform.

2. Structure: A structure of form is created by specifying the duties and responsibilities and
reporting relationships within a command hierarchy. Structure sets the pace and framework for
the functioning of the organization.

3. Rationality: A measure of objectivity is ensured by prescribing in advance the criteria far

decision making in routine situations.

4. Predictability: The rules, regulations, specialization, structure and training import

predictability and thereby ensure stability in the organization. Conformity to rules and roles in
the structural framework bring about order to cope with complexity.

5. Democracy: Emphasis on qualifications and technical competence make the organization more
democratic. Officials are guided by the prescribed rules, policies and practices rather than by
patronage or other privileged treatment.
Disadvantages of Bureaucracy

1. Rigidity: Rules and regulations in a bureaucracy are often rigid and inflexible. Rigid
compliance with rules and regulations discourages initiative and creativity1. It may also provide
the cover to avoid responsibility for failures.

2. Goal Displacement: Rules framed to achieve organizational objectives at each level become an
end to themselves. When individuals at lower levels pursue personal objectives, the
overall objectives of the organization may be neglected.

3. Impersonality: A bureaucratic organization stresses a mechanical way of doing things.

Organizational rules and regulations are given priority over an individual’s needs and emotions.

4. Compartmentalization of Activities: Jobs ore divided into categories, which restrict people
from performing tasks that they are capable of performing. It also encourages preservation of
jobs even when they become redundant.

5. Paperwork: Bureaucracy involves excessive paperwork as every decision must be put into
writing. All documents have to be maintained in their draft and original forms. This leads to
great wastage of time, stationery and space.

6. Empire Building: People in bureaucracy tend to use their positions and resources to perpetuate
self interests. Every superior tries to increase the number of his subordinates as if this number is
considered a symbol of power and prestige.

7. Red Tape: Bureaucratic procedures involve inordinate delays and frustration in the
performance of tasks.

Proposed Civil Services Reforms priorities in Pakistan:

The limited progress on civil service reform in Pakistan has not been due to a lack of knowledge
about what needs to be done. Over the course of the past sixty years there have been more than
twenty studies on administrative reform prepared by various government committees or
commissions (including six since 1996), that have clearly identified the most serious
problems.8 Instead, the lack of progress is due primarily to political factors and ineffective
political strategies for pushing through reforms. The following section briefly examines some of
the major civil service reform priorities in Pakistan and describes some of the political factors
that have contributed to the lack of progress in addressing them.
1. Reducing the Politicization of the Bureaucracy
2. Reversing the Militarization of the Bureaucracy
3. Recruiting, Training and Retaining “The Best and the Brightest”
4. Greater accountability
5. Enhanced efficiency and transparency
 6. Rightsizing
7. Reform of the cadre system

Conclusion
A bureaucracy structure might be considered ineffective by critics but there are also valid
arguments posited by supporters. Other countries run well with bureaucrats but there are also
obvious flaws within the structure which make others critical about it. But the fact still remains,
bureaucracy exists and is here to stay.

7. C.H. Cooly
A) Self Looking Glass
The looking-glass self is a social psychological concept introduced by Charles Horton Cooley in
1902 (McIntyre 2006). The concept of the looking-glass self describes the development of one's
self and of one's identity through one's interpersonal interactions within the context of society.
Cooley clarified that society is an interweaving and inter-working of mental selves. The term
"looking glass self" was coined by Cooley in his work, Human Nature and the Social Order in
1902.
The looking-glass self has three major components and is unique to humans (Shaffer 2005).
According to Lisa McIntyre’s The Practical Skeptic: Core Concepts in Sociology, the concept of
the looking-glass self-expresses the tendency for one to understand oneself through their own
understanding of the perception which others may hold of them. This process is theorized to
develop one's sense of identity. Therefore identity, or self, is the result of learning to see
ourselves as others do (Yeung & Martin 2003).
The looking-glass self begins at an early age, continuing throughout the entirety of one's life as
one will never stop modifying their self unless all social interactions are ceased Some
sociologists believe that the effects of the looking-glass self-wane as one ages. Others note that
few studies have been conducted with a large number of subjects in natural settings
Symbolic Interaction: In hypothesizing the framework for the looking glass self, Cooley stated,
"the mind is mental" because "the human mind is social." From the time they are born, humans
define themselves within the context of their social interactions. The child learns that the symbol
of his/her crying will elicit a response from his/her caregivers, not only when they are in need of
necessities such as food or a diaper change, but is also a symbol that signals to caregivers that the
child is in need of attention. Schubert references in Cooley's On Self and Social Organization, "a
growing solidarity between mother and child parallels the child's increasing competence in using
significant symbols. This simultaneous development is itself a necessary prerequisite for the
child's ability to adopt the perspectives of other participants in social relationships and, thus, for
the child's capacity to develop a social self."

George Herbert Mead described the creation of the self as the outcome of "taking the role of
the other," the premise for which the self is actualized. Through interaction with others, we begin
to develop an identity of our own as well as developing a capacity to empathize with others. As
stated by Cooley, "The thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical
reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon
another's mind." (Cooley 1964)

Three Main Components: There are three main components that comprise the looking-glass
self (Yeung, et al. 2003).

1. We imagine how we must appear to others.

2. We imagine and react to what we feel their judgment of that appearance must be.
3. We develop our self through the judgments of others.
 1. Step One:

 We imagine how our personality and appearance appears to others

 Attractive/unattractive, heavy/slim, friendly/unfriendly

2. Step Two:

 We imagine how other people judge the appearance we think we present in

step one
 How do we think they feel about us

3. Step Three:

 We develop a self-concept based on how we feel we are judged in step two

 If we are judged in a good way, we have a favourable self-concept
 If we are judged in a bad way, we have an unfavourable self-concept

Conclusion: Everyone is the society has self looking glass concept and people normally adopt the
behaviour according to the concept.

8. Robert Martin
A) Strain Theory

Robert Merton: Strain Theory

Back in the 1950s as criminologists began to more seriously explore the sociological causes
behind crime, Robert K. Merton put forth his perspective through strain theory. Merton argued
that mainstream society holds certain culturally defined goals that are dominant across society.
for example: In a capitalist society, the dominant goal that most people aim for is accumulating
wealth.

Matron argued that people adopt deviant behavior when then cannot achieve socially approved
goals be legitimate way. Deviance is result of strain. Society may be set up in a way that
encourages too much deviance In other words, whether you got rich via conventional/legal
means, or via unconventional/illegal means, it didn’t matter, as long as you got your coin. For
Merton then, there was anomie (normlessness) regarding the means.

Merton furthered this perspective by providing a framework by which sociologists could

typologies criminals and non-criminals – strain theory. Strain theory argues that one must
consider if an individual rejects or accepts (1) society’s cultural goals (wanting to make money),
as well as (2) the institutional means by which to attain those goals.
Merton also classified people into five general categories with regards to their relationship to
culturally accepted goals and the means to achieving those goals:

1. Conformists: are people who believe in both the established cultural goals of society as
well as the normative means for attaining those goals. They follow the rules of society.
Everyone wanted to be doctor but not possible. (CSS Officers, Doctor, Engineer, Pilot,
Teacher, Professor etc
2. Ritualists: Common among lower middle class people who lower their success goals so
that they can more easily achieve success. These people are usually hard workers. These
are individuals who do not believe in the established cultural goals of society, but they do
believe in and abide by the means for attaining those goals.
3. Innovators: Largely found among lower class people who have learned to accept the
success goal but reject the use of legitimate means in favor of illegitimate means. Those
individuals that accept the cultural goals of society but reject the conventional methods of
attaining those goals. These people usually have a blatant disregard for the conventional
methods that have been established in attaining wealth and are generally those we regard
as criminals. Goals of success are accepted but individual use illegitimate means to
achieve them. Example: dealing drugs or stealing to achieve financial security. Trying to
get material wealth illegally
4. Retreatants: The Retreatants withdraws from society and does not care about success.
These are individuals who reject both the cultural goals and the accepted means of
attaining those goals. They simply avoid both the goals and means established by society
without replacing those norms with their own counter-cultural forces. Individual give up
on achieving goals, but have internalized the means and so carry on following the rules for
their own sake. (Drug addiction, alcoholics, vagrant and homeless person etc)
5. Rebels: attempt to change the existing system of success and replace it with a new one.
The new system includes new goals and new ways to achieve them. They may reject the
pursuit of fame and fortune and the cutthroat nature that is needed to obtain success. They
not only reject both the established cultural goals and the accepted means of attaining
those goals, but they substitute new goals and new means of attaining those goals.
Violence

Merton's Paradigm of Deviant Behavior

Attitude to Goals Attitude to Means Modes of Adaptation
accept accept Conformity
accept reject Innovation
reject accept Ritualism
reject reject Retreatism
reject/accept reject/accept Rebellion
Criticism
Strain Theory has received several criticisms such as:

1. Strain Theory best applies only to the lower class as they struggle with limited
resources to obtain their goals.
2. Strain Theory fails to explain white collar crime, the perpetrator of whom have many
opportunities to achieve through legal and legitimate means.
3. Strain Theory fails to explain crimes based in gender inequality.
4. Merton deals with individuals forms of responses instead of group activity which
crime involves.
5. Merton's Theory is not very critical of the social structure that he says generate the
strains.
6. Strain Theory neglects the inter- and intra-personal aspect of crime.
7. Strain Theory has weak empirical evidence supporting it.

Conclusion: Each society has goal but it is not necessary that each person can understand goal.

According to strain theory, deviants are not pathogenic individuals, but the products of society.
Robert Merton's social strain theory holds that each society has a dominant set of values and
goals along with acceptable means of achieving them. Not everyone is able to realize these goals.
The gap between approved goals and the means people have to achieve them creates what
Merton terms social strain.