About Karl Marx

• Karl Marx (born May 5, 1818, Prussia

[Germany] can be understood as a
revolutionary, sociologist, historian, and
economist.

• He published (with Friedrich Engels) The

Communist Manifesto, the most celebrated
pamphlet in the history of the socialist
movement.

• He also was the author of the movement’s

most important book, Das Kapital. These
writings and others by Marx and Engels
form the basis of the body of thought and
belief known as Marxism.

About Karl Marx

• exploring the relationship between the economy and the
people working within the economic system.
• Marx’s theory was strongly based on the struggles of the
working class during the Industrial Revolution in Europe.
He explained how there are power relationships between
the capitalists and the workers, which are exploitative
and would eventually cause class conflict.
• According to Marx, the workers are those from a low
social class, which he termed the proletariat, whereas
those few in charge, the wealthy bosses, owners, and
managers, are what he termed the bourgeoisie.
• The proletariat are the individuals who perform labor that
is then taken and sold by the bourgeoisie so that they
themselves receive profit while the workers receive
minimal wages.

1 / 47
 CLASS STRUGGLE
• Marx argued that there were two social classes; the working-class labourers, known as the proletariat, and the wealthy bourgeoise, who
controlled the workers. Marx argued that there is a struggle between the social classes. While the bourgeoisie is concerned with the
means of producing via the labourers, those who conduct the labor, the proletariat, want to end this exploitation.
• Marx explained that there is a constant conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. While the bourgeoisie aims to make as
much profit as possible by exploiting the labor of others, the proletariat is dissatisfied with this exploitation and wants to end it.
• Class tensions are thought to increase with the opposing desires of those who want bigger profits and the workers who defend their right
to fair pay and working conditions.
• Competition in the market and the desire for bigger profits compels the bourgeoisie to further exploit their workers, who defend their
rights and working conditions. These opposing desires of pushing the rate of exploitation in opposite directions create class tensions.
• Over time, there is a broader division of labor and increased use of machinery to complete the labor. Marx and Engels argued that with
this came an increase in the burden of toil, whether by the work hours getting longer, an increase in the amount of work in a given time,
or by the increased speed of the machinery. The workers are viewed as slaves of the bourgeoisie and the machine, given wages for their
labor that is the minimum subsidence so they can just about survive while also depending on their labor (Marx & Engels, 2019).
• The struggle between social classes was initially confined to individual factories. However, as capitalism has matured, personal
struggles have become generalized to coalitions across factories and eventually manifested at societal levels (Rummel, 1977).
• Marxists believe that the division between classes will widen with the exploitation of the workers deteriorating so severely that the
social structure collapses and transforms into a proletarian revolution . A classless society will pursue erasing any exploitation or
political authority (Rummel, 1977).

Concept of Class
• Class is central concept in Marx’s writing to understand society as a whole. Class results from the relations of production which creates different
positions. “A group of people sharing the same position in the process of production”
• TWO BROAD CLASSES
> Haves
They are the owners of forces of production and are dominant in society.
> Have Nots
They are the class who are exploited and does not own any forces of production.
• FORMATION OF CLASS
> As mankind progressed from Primitive Communism, surplus started to emerge and some men started to control the forces of production.
> Now unequal relations of production emerged.
> This lead to first class formation.
> Polarization will occur with increasing exploitation and will also be accompanied by class antagonism or class struggle.
• CLASS IN ITSELF AND CLASS FOR ITSELF
> Class in itself
It is only an analytical construct to Marx inorder to stratify position.
It is by virtue of people having a common relationship to the means of production.
For example, proletariats are class in itself because they have some common attributes like lack of ownership of production and being deprived of
fruits of production.
> Class for itself
A class in itself becomes a class for itself when the contradiction between the consciousness of its members and the reality of their situation ends.
Members become aware of the exploitative situation.
It is only when workers become class for itself that they will be in a position to unite against the capitalist.
It is a phase which is a precondition for the change of mode of production to Socialism.
Final translation of class in itself to class for itself occurs only in Communism.

2 / 47
 Modes of Production
• Marx said that in the social production that men carry on, they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and
independent of their will. These relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material
powers of production.
• The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which
rises the legal and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
• These modes of production in material life determine the general character of social, political and spiritual processes of
life. At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production come into conflict with the existing
relations of production and with that which is but a legal expression of the same thing, the property relations within which
they had worked before.
• From forms of development of the forces of production, these relations turn into fetters, then comes the period of social
revolution.
In this definition Marx talks about two things:
> Forces of production. (FoP) Labour, skill, capital, technology and raw materials.
> Relations of production. (RoP) Made up of the technical division of labour and the relations of control over the
workplace.
• Marx further says that the nature of relations of production depends on the level of development of the forces of
production. Also, these FoP and RoP together make what Marx calls the economic base or modes of production in society.
Marx once famously said, the windmills gave the feudal lords, it is the steam engine that gave the capitalists.

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
• Marx’s general ideas about society are known as his theory of historical
materialism. Materialism is the basis of his sociological thought because
for Marx material conditions or economic factors affect the structure and
development of society.
• Marx’s theory of historical materialism is historical. It is historical
because Marx has traced the evolution of human societies from one stage
to another. It is called Materialistic because Marx has interpreted the
evolution of societies in terms of their material or economic bases.
Materialism simply means that it is matter or material reality, which is
the basis for any change.

3 / 47
 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
• Marx proposed a theory of historical materialism in which he describes stages or epochs that societies pass through.
These are primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, and advanced communism. Marx used
historical materialism to attempt to explain where society has come from, why it is the way that it is, and where it is
heading.
• Primitive communism was a time when society was free of social class divisions, and there were simply hunters and
gathers who obtained enough food for survival. Since there was not a surplus of production, there was no exploitation.
• Slave society is thought of as the first stage of exploitation. This is when there was a division between the wealthy
aristocrats and those who were slaves. This epoch gave way to more advanced productive forces, with the means of
production being by the people who were the property of the slaveowners.
• Feudalism was a dominant social system in medieval Europe in which society was divided into landowners and land
occupiers. It was a system in which people were given land and protection by the nobles, who had to work and fight
for them in return. Essentially, in feudalism, the landowners exploited the land occupiers.
• Marx proposed that the current society is a capitalist one in which there are private property owners who exploit the
labor of their workers, whom they pay as little as possible to obtain high profits. This epoch is viewed as the
wealthiest in society exploiting the poorest.
• Marx’s prediction for the next epoch of society is that it will be an advanced communist one. In a communist society,
there would be shared resources and wealth and no exploitation. This was Marx’s idea of a utopia in which the system
benefits most people in society rather than a small minority.

HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
• Historical Materialism holds that all the important changes that have occurred in the course of history have
occurred because of economic changes in society, changes in the modes of production and exchange. Historical
materialism also deals with the further changes in social structure, the emergence of classes and their subsequent struggle
against each other.
• Historical materialism was the synthesis of two prominent thoughts of the 19th century:
> Hegelian Idealism. (Thesis + Anti-thesis = synthesis) Hegel’s idealism was all about the superiority of the human spirit
(Geist) and how its evolution led to change in society
> 18th century Materialism. Materialism, on the flip side maintained that the world is made up of matter and humans are
just passive recipients of the vagaries of this material nature.
• Marx synthesised these two streams of thought and said it was not the consciousness of men that determines their being,
rather it was their social being that determines their consciousness
• Marx said that neither of the original theses (Idealism and Materialism) were correct and that man (a highly evolved form
of matter) exists in an active relationship with matter around him. Man is a creative being and transforms his
surroundings to suit his needs. He does this through labour, which Marx calls production. In the process of transforming
nature, man gets transformed himself.
• As old needs are satisfied, new needs emerge, thus change is a fundamental part of society. Marx here borrows Hegel’s
idea of change. He says that change is a dialectic process .

4 / 47
 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
• Historians recorded history in the manner it is found. But Marx had a vision for future, how is history
taking man through time. Each stage sows the seeds of its own destruction. One will go and other will
come. Such precision and succession will continue till the ultimate i.e. communism is reached.
• Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism states that all objects, whether living or inanimate are subject to
continuous change. The rate of this change is determined by the laws of dialectics. Marx says that new
developments of productive forces of society came in conflict with existing relations of production.
• When people become conscious of the state of conflict, they wish to bring an end to it. This period of
history is called by Marx the Period of Social Revolution. The revolution brings about resolution of
conflict. It means that new forces of production take roots and give rise to new relations of production.
• Thus we can see that for Marx it is the growth of new productive forces which outlines the course of
human history. The productive forces are the powers society uses to produce material conditions of life.
So for Marx, human history is an account of development and consequences of new forces of material
production. This is the reason why his view of history is given the name of Historical Materialism.

Modes of Production
• Marx in his writings alluded to the economic
substructure and the superstructure of the state, made
up of social, political and spiritual beliefs. He held
that the superstructure was influenced by the base
alone. That is, it was a one way influence.
• Marx’s idea was that the superstructure is in place to
preserve the base. When the base outgrows the
superstructure a period of struggle would emerge,
(dialectic process of change) eventually leading to
social revolution. A new superstructure would emerge
which would aim to preserve the new base by
crafting new laws, societal norms, religious
guidelines.
• Marx further said that revolution would not arise till
the time the deprived classes don’t develop
a subjective awareness of the objective realities. That
is to say they become a class for itself

5 / 47
 Modes of Production
• Asiatic mode of Production:
> The concept of Asiatic mode of production refers to a specific original mode of production. This is distinct
from the ancient slave mode of production or the feudal mode of production. It is characterised by primitive
communities in which ownership of land is communal. These communities are still partly organised on the
basis of kinship relations. State power which expresses the real or imaginary unity of these communities
controls the use of essential economic resources and directly appropriates part of the labour and production
of the community.
> This mode of production constitutes one of the possible forms of transition from classless to class
societies. It is also perhaps the most ancient form of this transition. It contains the contradiction of this
transition, i.e. the combination of communal relations of production with emerging forms of the exploiting
classes and of the state.
> The concept of Asiatic mode of production is inadequate because there was no class; no concept of private
property. The entire property is owned by the society. So that no individual has access to it—so no clashes of
classes. Resources were low and there was low population.
> Gradually towards the end of primitive communism there were certain group of people who were
physically strong and so towards its end the concept of private property came into being. So primitive
communism could not survive and there emerged a different type of society.

Modes of Production
• Ancient mode of Production:
> According to Marx, every part of history has its end point. So primitive communism was to go and slavery came into
being. People who had physical, political and material strength had authority over others. So two classes were found and
this is where the concept of private property emerged. There were two classes—the owning class, they are the masters,
and non-owning class, they were the slaves.
> Marx has tried to suggest that in course of time different people grabbed certain plots of land as a result of which there
was grabbing and as a result of which a large number were left wretched. So they had to depend on these owners in order
to make a living and it went on rising and so when they would not pay their debts they were sold and engaged under the
so called masters.
> Slaves were mere chattels. They had no right and were used like commodities and they could be bought and sold. So
individuals were slaves and it went on resulting in a family of slaves and masters were masters. So it became very
heinous of people worked without any voice, even if the torture was unbearable. Slaves were made to work under
stringent physical conditions. They were engaged in agricultural, menial and physical labour.
> If the society has experienced heinous system at any point of time, it is slavery. So it was to go and another stage was to
come. So, towards its end, a sort of internal struggle was found so that the slaves, peasants started a revolution against the
masters so as to release certain slaves from the clutches of the masters. Slavery is called the stage of initial agriculture.
> So agricultural capitalism was to come. Agricultural innovations would take place. Technology was applied to
agriculture. People started to understand the dignity of labour and the stage came, i.e. Feudalism or Agricultural
capitalism

6 / 47
 Modes of Production
• Feudal Mode of Production:
> At this stage as Marx said throughout the pages of history we find two classes.
They were feudal lords and serfs. Lords owned the land in their favour and their
job was to lease land and employ agricultural labour in their lands. The owners
who were leased had to pay certain taxes and the labourers were given wages.
> This is even a heinous system and the lords exploited by not paying the labour
its due. So Marx said that this stage was also exploitative in character. Heavy
taxes were imposed on serfs. This stage could not grow much as industries were
growing and people sought their job in industries and in cities. So the serfs
fought against the lords. With the spreading of industries, urbanization grew, so
emphasis was on industries and came the next stage, i.e. Industrial capitalism.

Modes of Production
• Capitalist Mode of Production:
> Marx was very much bothered about this stage because this represented the most heinous and
migration was found from rural to urban areas. Those who worked in agricultural lands shifted to
industries. There were two classes— the working classes, the proletariats and the bourgeoisie.
> Marx wanted to champion the cause of proletariat and he wanted that the exploitative character
must go and equality be established. So Marx was Futuristic. Socialism is the stage where the
society is classless and it is based on the principle of equality. Marx had experienced socialism
and there was spread of socialism based on his ideas.
> Communism is the ultimate final stage where there is prevalence of equality among all.
Everybody works according to his capacity and gets according to his due, when capitalism goes
and communism comes into being there are some elements found in some form or other of
capitalism in socialism.
> As per Marx, socialism is the initial communism and communism is the later socialism because
everybody is equal and can stand in the same queue and communist society is thoroughly equal
and no concept of private property ownership.

7 / 47
 Modes of Production
• Capitalist Mode of Production:
> Marx was very much bothered about this stage because this represented the most heinous and
migration was found from rural to urban areas. Those who worked in agricultural lands shifted to
industries. There were two classes— the working classes, the proletariats and the bourgeoisie.
> Marx wanted to champion the cause of proletariat and he wanted that the exploitative character
must go and equality be established. So Marx was Futuristic. Socialism is the stage where the
society is classless and it is based on the principle of equality. Marx had experienced socialism
and there was spread of socialism based on his ideas.
> Communism is the ultimate final stage where there is prevalence of equality among all.
Everybody works according to his capacity and gets according to his due, when capitalism goes
and communism comes into being there are some elements found in some form or other of
capitalism in socialism.
> As per Marx, socialism is the initial communism and communism is the later socialism because
everybody is equal and can stand in the same queue and communist society is thoroughly equal
and no concept of private property ownership.

Alienation
• Alienation literally means ‘separation from’.
• There is an inherent relationship between labour and human nature and this relating is perverted
in capitalist mode of production. He calls this perverted relation as alienation.
• Alienation is an example of the sort of contradiction that Marx’s dialectical approach focused
on.
• It occupies a central role in Marxian understanding of exploitation. He dwells on it in his work
Economic and Political Manuscripts 1844.
• He argued that workers are treated as commodities under this system. The theory of alienation
argues that workers are disenchanted with their work because it is controlled and supervised by
hierarchies of managers and supervisors. Alienation is a feeling of estrangement and
disenchantment from a group, a situation society and even with oneself. It refers to a situation
of powerlessness isolation and meaninglessness experienced by the people when they confront
social institutions which they cannot control and consider oppressive. Primitive man felt
alienated with nature as nature was too overpowering.
•

8 / 47
 Alienation
• Man devised Means of production and Forces of production to overpower
nature but alienation is transferred from natural sphere to social sphere.
• As man goes from one mode of production to another, alienation increases.
Man becomes a slave of production and his individuality is lost.
• An individual is essentially creative and his true consciousness is defined by
his being. Man in a mode of production is identified by his social being which
is based on his work. But his creativity is objectified as he loses control over
what he produces.
• Work is considered central in the life of an individual. It is an expression of
creative being of men. So alienation of labour is the key to alienation of human
beings. When man feels unable to find expression of his creativity, he feels
alienated.

Alienation
• The capitalist system reaps tremendous profits but gives meager wages to its workers.
Marx also believed that alienation resulted in workers being suspicious of each other
due to the competitive nature of capitalism.
• Karl Marx argued that alienation was a natural consequence of capitalism because of
several reasons. This is because the workers are manipulated by the forces of
capitalism in order to increase productivity and output.
• The results are that the workers will ultimately lose hope and determination. This is
because the capitalists strive to ensure that the work activities of the workers are
oriented towards specific goals and objectives.
• The desire of organizations is to ensure that workers can be exploited to attain the
maximum surplus value. The worker is considered to be an instrument which leads to
the loss of personal identity. It can lead to frustration and resentment since the modes
of production are privately owned.

9 / 47
 Alienation & its Four Types
• Alienation from the process of production
Process of production in capitalism is defined irrespective of individuality of workers. It is fixed and workers cannot change it.
Workers lose control over production and feels alienated. Marx believed that the capitalist system encouraged mechanical and
repetitive work patterns that do not create any intrinsic value for the workers. The power of workers is transformed into a
commodity which is manifested in the form of wages. Capitalism controls the destinies of the workers by supervising and
directing their work activities. This creates serious resentment among the workers who feel deprived of their destinies.
• Alienation from the product
Product doesn’t belong to those who produce it but to capitalist. Workers don’t have any control over quantity, quality or nature
of the product. The same product has to be purchased by the worker fr the market leading to a sense of alienation. Marx argued
that the capitalist system seeks to create an illusion that workers are adequately compensated for the work that is performed. In
essence, the capitalist system seeks to control the workers by deriving the benefits from the work activities of the latter.
• Alienation from fellow workers
Worker gets no time to interact with others. The communal or social element of the work is lost in the capitalistic mode of
production. It leads to feeling of alienation among fellow workers as well. Marx argued that human beings have the capability to
develop dynamic thinking through the pursuit of multiple endeavours.
• Alienation from oneself and one’s potential
Work is not a choice but a compulsion. Work is external to the worker and it is not a part of his nature. He loses control over his
own thoughts also as none of his thoughts can’t be transformed into reality. He gets alienated from his thoughts also and here
alienation is at its peak.

Alienation & Criticisms

• Goldthorpe and Lockwood suggests that work is just a means towards an
end, i.e, better standards of living.
• C W Mills proves that white-collar workers also feels alienation. Fake
smiles, Artificial politeness alienated them from their true self.
• Karl Popper says that alienation can be breeding ground for creative
ideas. People may rebel and innovate when they feel alienated.
• Durkheim highlighted that anomie and alienation can be corrected by
existing structures and there is no need of overhaul of the system in the
form of utopian communism.

10 / 47
 Food for Thought
• Critically examine the dialectics involved in each mode of production as
propounded by Karl Marx.

• Marx laid out a radical view of society, but his theories lacked pragmatic
outlook. Comment on the wake failings of communism around the world.

• Critically assess the Marxian theory of ‘Alienation’.

• Evaluate Marx’s ideas on Mode of production.
• Discuss the relationship between base and superstructure in Marxist theory.
• Communism of Marx remains utopian, but the romanticism associated with it
has kept the ideology alive. Comment in the wake of limitations of today’s
capitalistic societies.

11 / 47
 EMILE DURKHEIM
Émile Durkheim (15 April 1858 – 15 November 1917) was a French sociologist.
Durkheim formally established the academic discipline of sociology and is
commonly cited as one of the principal architects of modern social science, along
with both Karl Marx and Max Weber

Durkheim's conception of the scientific study of society laid the groundwork for
modern sociology, and he used such scientific tools as statistics, surveys, and
historical observation in his analysis of suicides in Catholic and Protestant groups.
His first major sociological work was The Division of Labour in Society, 1893,
followed in 1895 by The Rules of Sociological Method, the same year in which
Durkheim set up the first European department of sociology and became France's
first professor of sociology.

Durkheim hails from a long lineage of devout French Jews. As his father, grandfather,
and great-grandfather had all been rabbis,[10]: 1 young Durkheim began his education
in a rabbinical school. However, at an early age, he switched schools, deciding not to
follow in his family's footsteps. Many of his most prominent collaborators and
students were Jewish, some even being blood-related. Marcel Mauss, a notable social
anthropologist of the prewar era, for instance, was his nephew.

Durkheim entered the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) in 1879, at his third attempt.
At the same time, he read Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer, whereby Durkheim
became interested in a scientific approach to society very early on in his career. This
meant the first of many conflicts with the French academic system, which had
no social science curriculum at the time. Durkheim published influential works on a
number of topics. He is most well known as the author of On the Division of Social
Labor, The Rules of Sociological Method, Suicide, and The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life.

When Durkheim began writing, sociology was not recognized as an independent field
of study. As part of the campaign to change this he went to great lengths to separate
sociology from all other disciplines, especially philosophy.

The Idea of Sociology

One of Durkheim’s major contributions was to help define and establish the field of
sociology as an academic discipline. Durkheim distinguished sociology from
philosophy, psychology, economics, and other social science disciplines by arguing
that society was an entity of its own.

He argued that sociologists should study particular features of collective or group life
and sociology is the study of social facts, things which are external to, and coercive

12 / 47
of, individuals. These social facts are features of the group, and cannot be studied
apart from the collective, nor can they be derived from the study of individuals.

Some examples are religion, urban structures, legal systems, and moral values such as
family values. Durkheim argued that these are “features of collective existence …
which are not reducible to features of the atoms, individuals, which make it up”

Durkheim considers the beliefs, practices, and consciousness of the collective to be

coercive on individuals as actors. In this sense, Durkheim has a structuralist
approach, considering the social structures to exert a strong influence on social
action.

Sociology can be distinguished from psychology in this way – noting that

psychologists study individuals and their mental processes, whereas sociologists are
concerned with the structures that influence social action and interaction. It is this
study of society as a whole, individuals in their social relationships with other
individuals, and the connections of these social relationships to society, that
constitutes the subject matter of sociology.

Durkheim’s Perspective

Durkheim had a socially deterministic perspective. He ascribed the social reality to

the group rather than the individual, going decidedly for structure and not agency. He
believed that as soon as individuals came together to form a collective, something
more than a mere aggregate resulted. This was social reality (principle of emergence).
His approach can be broadly divided into two aspects:
> Reality ascribed to society rather than the individual. Society is Sui generis and
exists at multiple levels. (No free will)
> His approach to functionalism, though more crystallised but in essence same as
those of Comte and Spencer. He held the view that society is made up of social facts.

These “facts” can be known by external observation and patterns of interconnection

can be discovered. Thus, he claimed that a positive science of society is possible.

One of the pioneers of the discipline of Sociology, Founder of functionalist tradition

in Sociology, Laid a scientific foundation for the new discipline
Individual is subordinate to society and is also governed by it. Defined the subject
matter of Sociology and attempted to develop a science of society.
He often used methods of multivariate analysis.
According to him, a social science should
> Deal with specific subject matter and not total knowledge that is around.
> Aim at identifying general types rather than describing individual types.
> Study objective reality.
> Yield general principles or laws.
> Use methods similar to natural sciences.

13 / 47
Social Facts

According to Durkheim, Sociology is the scientific study of social facts. Durkheim

defined a social fact as: “Those shared ways of acting, thinking and feeling which are
capable of exercising external constraint on the individual, are generally diffused in
society, and which have a life of their own.”

In short, it can be understood as a theory developed by sociologist Emile Durkheim to

describe how values, culture, and norms control the actions and beliefs of individuals
and society as a whole.

In his book, “The Rules of Sociological Method,” Durkheim outlined social fact, and
the book became one of the foundational texts of sociology.

He defined sociology as the study of social facts, which he said were the actions of
society. Social facts are the reason why people within a society seem to choose to do
the same basic things; e.g., where they live, what they eat, and how they interact. The
society they belong to shapes them to do these things, continuing social facts.

Tried to understand society in terms of some universal laws.

Social facts are visualised as akin to natural facts.
Just as behaviour of matter in nature can be regarded as a reaction to natural stimuli,
behaviour of men can also be seen as a response to the external constraints of such
social facts.
Task of sociologist is to study social facts as things as we study things in the natural
world.

Basic characteristics
> Externality – social facts exist outside the individual. They are sui-generis.
> Constraining – exercise constraining influence over the individual action.
> Generality – He rejects the study of exceptions and focuses upon identification of
the general types.
> Independence – social facts are independent of the will of the individuals and
individuals cannot change the social facts.

Social facts should be studied as things.

Rules of Classification
• Institutional social facts – includes religion, division of labour, rate of suicide, etc
• Non-institutional social facts – may rise spontaneously and may not sustain like
crowd behaviour or social currents.
Social facts are considered normal when they are present in their original form and
fulfill functions for society.
They can be considered dysfunctional in their pathological state.

14 / 47
Common Social Facts

Durkheim used many examples to demonstrate his theory of social facts, including:
> Marriage: Social groups tend to have the same ideas toward marriage, such as the
appropriate age to get married and what a ceremony should look like. Attitudes that
violate those social facts, such as bigamy or polygamy in the Western world, are
regarded with disgust.
> Language: People living in the same area tend to speak the same language. In fact,
they can develop and pass on their own dialect and idioms. Years later, those norms
can identify someone as being part of a particular region.
> Religion: Social facts shape how we view religion. Different areas have different
religious strongholds, with faith being a regular part of life, and other religions are
considered foreign and strange.

CRITICISMS

• Social Heildleman considers that Durkheim is more concerned about making

a society rather than describing a methodology for it.
• Merton discarded the universalistic and general theories and recommended
middle range theories.
• Stephen Lukes condemns that Durkheim has glorified empiricism and
neglected individual subjectivity.
• Weber says that social facts lie inside an individual and their influences are on
the basis of individual’s own interpretation of the social fact.

DIVISION OF LABOUR IN SOCIETY

• Emile Durkheim’s De la division du travail social (The Division of labour) is

a classic of intellectual analysis. This was the first published book of Emile
Durkheim in 1893. The Division of labour explains the relation between
individuals and the collectivity and the manner in which the multiplicity of
individuals achieve the social coherence. Division of labour he postulates as
the basis of social solidarity.

• Solidarity means the unity of the organization. It is the characteristic trait of a

society. The concept of solidarity explains social differentiation or the division
of labour in society.

• It makes individuals interdependent and effects social integration among

them. This sociological analysis of Durkheim is based on his interest in social
fact; on his acceptance of the functional character of society and of the
supremacy of the whole on the part.

15 / 47
• Durkheim studied division of labour as a social institution and not as an
economic institution as it generally taken to be. He took it to be an institution
which produces morality in and of itself by subjecting individuals to the
duties of their specialized existence.

• The moral effect of the division of labour he indicated is felt when people
complement each other when dissimilar join hands and unity comes out of
diversity. It is felt in friendship patterns and in the development of the family.
It brings about social co-ordination and leads to solidarity.

• In Division of Labour Durkheim reacted against the view that modern

industrial society could be based simply upon agreement between individuals
motivated by self-interest and without any prior consensus. He agreed that the
kind of consensus in modern society was different from that in simpler social
systems.

• But he saw both of these as two types of social solidarity. The measurement of
social solidarity is the intensity of collective conscience. It is the sum total of
belief and sentiment common to the member of society. Collective conscience
persists through successive generations and keeps them united.

• In the “Division of labour” in society, Durkheim employs his evolutionary

functionalism to examine the changing bases of social solidarity. According to
him, the primitive society is characterised by mechanical solidarity based
upon the conscience collective and the advanced society is characterised by
organic solidarity based upon division of labour.

Mechanical Solidarity

The difference between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity is due to the
nature of social differentiation. Durkheim felt that the intensified struggle for
existence produced the specialization and division of labour which permit the some
resources to support more people.
• Society undergoes structural and functional differentiation, as different
individual activities are grouped into different institutions specializing in their
respective functions. Individuals and institutions relate to one another on the
basis of the complementary differences which make them mutually dependent
on one another. The collective conscience becomes weaker and more abstract,
permitting the development of greater individuality and freedom. Social
existence means collectivity.

• A society characterised by mechanical solidarity is unified because all people

are generalists. The bond among people is that they are all engaged in similar
activities and have similar responsibilities. Mechanical solidarity is solidarity

16 / 47
 of resemblance. As a member of the same group or same collectivity they
resemble each other, feel the same emotion, cherish the same values.

• According to Durkheim, the mechanical solidarity prevailed to the extent that;

“ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society are greater in
number and intensity than those which pertain personality to each member.”

• This prevails mostly in primitive societies. In mechanical solidarity

Repressive law prevails. It prevails at its core underlie the harsh justice and
severe punishments which perpetuate the similarities underlying mechanical
solidarity.

ORGANIC SOLIDARITY

• In contrast to mechanical solidarity in a heterogeneous society where the

likeness and the resemblance is missing, the coherent unity of the collectivity
is expressed by differentiation; the solidarity that exists is organic solidarity.
Such a society is characterised by an advanced form of division of labour.
According to Durkheim, increasing density of population is the major key of
development of division of labour.

• Organic solidarity emerges with the growth of division of labour. This is

especially witnessed in the modern Industrial societies. The individuals are no
long similar. They may be differentiated in terms of thinking, emotions and
values. They have no collective conscience. The organic solidarity is
characterised by specialization and individualism.

• It is also characterised by the weakening of collective conscience and

repressive law. The collective conscience becomes weaker and more abstract,
permitting the development of greater individuality and freedom. Repressive
law is largely replaced by restitutive law which calls not for revenge but
rather for the return of things to the conditions which would have prevailed
had the legal offences not occurred.

• The two forms of solidarity correspond to two extreme forms of social

organisation. Archaic societies are characterised by the predominance of
mechanical solidarity. Whereas modern industrial societies characterised by
complex division of labour are dominated by organic solidarity.

• In sum, the course of social evolution is marked by a transition from small,

simple, homogeneous tribal societies integrated by likenesses and a powerful
concrete collective conscience to large, modern differentiated industrial
societies integrated by the interdependence of individuals and structures
created by the division of labour.

17 / 47
• One difference between mechanical and organic solidarity lies in the impetus
to interaction: similarities versus differences. Another is the change in
morality embodied in the changing nature of the collective conscience and the
transition from repressive to restitutive law. Beyond these differences the
causal chains are the same, and both mechanical and organic solidarity are
proportional to rates of interaction and therefore the strength of the moral
rules which integrate society.

18 / 47
• According to Durkheim, division of labour can only be explained in terms of
three social factors the volume, the material density and the moral density of
the society:
> Volume of society: refers to the size of population.
> The material density: refers to the number of individuals on a given ground
surface.
> Moral density: refers to the intensity of communication between
individuals.

• With the formation of cities and the development of transport and

communication, the condensation of society multiplies intra-social relations.
Thus the growth and condensation of societies and the resultant intensity of
social intercourse necessitate a greater division of labour.

• Durkheim’s concept of division of labour includes an original or mechanical

solidarity that sub-ordinates the individuals. The concept moves on to
describe the supplanting of this subordination by the use of voluntary or
organic solidarity in which the individual is influenced by a comprehension of
social values. It is also true that society is characterised by an increasing
degree of functional organisation.

• “Social harmony comes essentially from the division of labour. It is

characterised by a co-operation which is automatically produced through the
pursuit by each individual of his own interests. It suffices that each individual
consecrate himself to a special function in order by the force of events, to
make himself solidary with others.”

FUNCTIONS & DYSFUNCTIONS OF DOL

FUNCTIONS

• Greater efficiency with increasing resources.

• Society is now based upon heterogeneity of relationships.
• Supreme value is attached to the individual.
• Solidarity is based on differences and dependency.
• Division of labour is a peaceful solution to the needs created by the increase
of population, in size and density.
• Laws become more reformative.

19 / 47
 DYSFUNCTIONS

• Unchecked division of labour and rapid expansion of industrial activity

leads to Anomie as social controls are weak.

• Self-interest and individualism can be a threat to social unity.

• Symptoms of Anomie are high rates of suicide, marital breakup, industrial

con icts, etc.

SUICIDE

• Durkheim in his Le Suicide,1897 defines Suicide as any case of death caused

by directly or indirectly, positive or negative action of the victim himself
which he knows will produce this result.
• He examined a seemingly personal phenomenon in a sociological way & used
the scientific methodology in Sociology for the first time.
• Rejecting most of the accepted theories of suicide, Durkheim on the basis of
his monographic studies claims suicide as primarily a social phenomena in
terms of the breakdown of the vital bond of life. Neither psycho-pathic factor
nor heredity nor climate nor poverty, nor unhappy love nor other personal
factors motivate along form sufficient explanation of suicide.
• It is based on data which can be directly observed and measured. This theory
is well known for the pragmatic approach of Durkheim in understanding
social problems
• He took data from police records from various regions of Europe. He also
reviewed the existing literature on suicide.
• He rejected the existing explanations which linked suicide to factors like
imitation, stress and modernity. He proved that suicide cannot be explained
through psychological, geographical, climatic, hereditary factors, etc.
• He elaborated the sociological causes of suicide by correlating suicide rates
with various social factors. This was done by using statistical techniques and
found concomitant relation between suicide rate and different social variables.
The variables are marital status, locality, religious orientation, male or female,
etc.

• Those who have a higher tendency of committing suicide are less integrated
into society in one way or the other. Thus, he concluded that suicide is a social
phenomenon.

20 / 47
fl
 • Identified two types of bonds that integrate individual into society:
> Forces of Integration – Over-integration and low integration
• Altruistic Suicide – it is the result of over integration of an individual. Acts
like Sati is an example.
• Egoistic Suicide – it is a result of low integration of individuals in a society.
Examples include suicides resulting from failure and depression.
> Forces of Regulation – Over-regulation and Under-regulation.
• Anomic Suicide – periods of destruction unleash currents of Anomie like
moods of rootlessness and normlessness. Increase in suicides during
economic boom or bust is an example (Under-regulation)
• Fatalistic Suicide – results of excessive (Over-regulation) control of society
over an individual. Suicide of a slave out of hopelessness is an example.

TYPES OF SUICIDE:

Egoistic Suicide

• Individual is detached from society. There is excessive self-reflection on

personal matters.
• The social bonds binding the individuals are slackened and are not
sufficiently integrated in society.
• Egoism thus results from too much individualism and the weakening of
social fabric.
• Common in industrialised societies
• Eg. Durkheim dicovered that unmarried males with less or no connect to
social norms, commit suicide at higher rates

Altruistic Suicide

• It results due to too much integration. Self-sacri ce can be seen as the

de ning trait. Individuals loose sight of their individuality and are willing to
sacri ce their own life for group’s interests

• Obligatory altruistic suicide (eg. sati)

• Optional altruistic suicide (eg. honour or dignity associated with it)

• Acute altruistic suicide (‘joy of sacri ce’ over integration in society)

Anomic Suicide

21 / 47
fi
fi
fi
fi
• There exist an imbalance of means and needs wherein the means were
unable to fulfil the needs
• Traditional institutions like religion, guilds etc. are unable to regulate social
life

Fatalistic Suicide

• Exist at the high extreme of the regulation continuum

• There are over regulated unrewarding lives such as slaves, childless married
women etc.

CRITICISMS

• David Freedman accused Durkheim of committing ecological fallacy as he

tried to analyse an apparent personal phenomenon.
• Durkheim relied on poor quality data as it was taken from police stations
which do not include unreported suicides. Also did not include attempted
suicides.
• Undermined psychological factors for suicide.

RELIGION AND SOCIETY

Durkheim’s major book “The elementary forms of Religious life” (1912) has been
regarded as one of the most profound and most original work upon Religion. The
work used one case study in depth, the Australian aborigines.

Durkheim choose this group because he felt they represented the most basic,
elementary forms of religion within a culture. Durkheim set out to do two things,
established the fact that religion was not divinely or super naturally inspired and was
in fact a product of society. Durkheim also sought to identify the common things that
religion placed an emphasis upon, as well as what effects those religious beliefs had
on the lives of all within a society.

According to Durkheim, religion is something eminently social. Religious

representations are collective representations which express collective reality.
Recognizing the social origin of religion, Durkheim argued that religion acted as a
source of solidarity. Religion provides a meaning for life. Durkheim saw it as a
critical part of the social system. Religion provides social control, cohesion and
purpose for people as well as another means of communication and gathering for
individuals to interact and reaffirm social norms.

22 / 47
Durkheim was influenced by two scholars.

1. W. Roberton Smith, in his book “The religion of semites” (1894) concluded

that ancient religions consisted primarily of institutions and practices that is of
rites and ceremonies and that myths that is beliefs and creeds, were an
outgrowth of these. In fact his ideas later contributed to the formation of
sociological theory of religion.
2. James Frazar, who is famous for his book “Golden Bough”

According to Durkheim, Religion refers to: “A unified system of beliefs and practices
relative to sacred things that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and
practices which unite in one simple moral community called church, all those who
adhere to it.” “Religion is an interdependent system of beliefs and practices regarding
things which are sacred, that is to say, apart forbidden, beliefs and practices which
unite all those who follow them in a single moral community called a church.”

There were two interpretations contrary to Durkheim regarding religion. These two
interpretations which he seeks to refute in the first part of the Book. In animism
religious beliefs are held to be beliefs in spirits, these spirits being the transfiguration
of the experience of men have of their two fold nature of body and soul. As for
naturism it amounts to stating that men worship transfigured natural forces.

The theory of animism is the work of E.B. Tylor and may be found in his “Primitive
culture” first published in 1871. According to Tylor, animism is essentially a belief in
the spirit of the dead. Tylor argued that early men had a need to explain dreams,
shadows, hallucinations, sleep and death. Tylor considered the belief in spirit or
invisible soul or ‘self as almost an inevitable result of a universal phenomenon such
as dreams. Very commonly the view is held that spirit visits a man in sleep, that too
when he is experiencing dreams. Tylor asserted that the primitive man could hardly
explain a dream in which he had certain actual experiences.

Naturism amounts to state that men worship transfigured natural forces. Naturism
simply suggests that this is the type of religion which has emerged out of people’s
abstract forces of the nature. Believing worship of the nature as supernatural or
transcendental is called Naturism.

Rejection of Animism & Naturism by Durkheim

> Because he felt that they failed to explain the universal key distinction between the
sacred and the profane;
> Because they tended to explain religion away by interpreting it as an illusion. That
is the reductionistic fallacy. Moreover to love spirits whose unreality one affirms or to

23 / 47
love natural forces transfigured merely by man’s fear would make religious
experience a kind of collective hallucination.

The explanation of religion which Durkheim is about to provide amounts according

to him to save the reality of religion. For if man worships society transfigured, he
worships an authentic reality; real forces. Religion is too permanent, too profound an
experience not to correspond to a true reality; and this true reality is not God, then it
must be the reality so to speak, immediately below God, namely society.

The Sacred & The Profane

According to Durkheim, Religion is a division of the world into two kinds of

phenomena.

The sacred refers to things human beings set apart; including religious beliefs, rites,
deities or anything socially defined as requiring special religious treatment. Profane is
just the opposite of Sacred, which is not sacred that is called profane.
On one hand, the sphere of sacred is the area that pertains to the numerous, the
transcendental, the extra-ordinary. On the other hand, the sphere of the profane refers
to the realm of everyday utilitarian activities. When a number of sacred things
maintain relations of co-ordination and sub-ordination with one another so as to form
a system of the same kind, this body of corresponding beliefs and rites constitutes a
religion. Objects and behaviors deemed sacred were considered part of the spiritual or
religious realm. They were part of rites, objects of reverence or simply behaviors
deemed special by religious beliefs.

Those things deemed profane were everything else in the world that did not have a
religious function or hold religious meaning. But while these two categories are
rigidly defined and set apart, they interact with one another and depend on each other
for survival. The sacred world cannot survive without the profane world to support it
and give it life and vice versa. In general, those aspects of social life given moral
superiority or reverence are considered sacred and all other aspects are part of the
profane.

Society creates religion by defining certain phenomena as sacred and others as

profane. Those aspects of social reality that are defined as sacred that is that are set
apart and deemed forbidden—form the essence of religion. The rest are defined as
profane-the everyday, the common place, the utiliarian, the mundane aspects of life.
The Sacred brings out an attitude of reverence, respect, mystery, awe and honour. The
respect accorded to certain phenomena transforms them from the profane to the
sacred. The differentiation between sacred and profane is necessary but not sufficient
conditions for the development of religion.

24 / 47
Other Conditions Required
1. Religious beliefs
2. Religious rites
3. Church

There must be the development of a set of religious beliefs; a set of religious rites and
a church. The religious beliefs are “the representations which express the nature of
sacred things and the relations which they sustain, either with each other or with
profane things.” The religious rites are “the rules of conduct which prescribe how a
man should comport himself in the presence of these sacred objects.”

A religion requires a church, or a single overarching moral community. The

interrelationships among the sacred beliefs, rites and church led Durkheim to give the
definition of religion. Beliefs and rites or practices unite people in a social
community by relating them to sacred things. This collective sharing of beliefs,
rituals etc. is essential for the development of religion.

According to Durkheim, there are three types of ritual practices, following from
specific sets of beliefs namely positive, negative and piacular practices or rites and
practices of expiation. Positive practices refer to those which people are obliged to
follow. Negative practices are reverse to positive. It refers to those practices which
people are obliged not to follow or practise. Piacular practices refer to the practice of
awarding punishment to those who have deviated from the norms and dictates of
established beliefs. It is otherwise known as punitive practice.

Durkheim has used the term church here in a symbolic sense. It does not refer to the
place of worship. It is symbolic and does not contain its original beliefs. It is added to
the concept of the sacred and to the system of beliefs in order to differentiate religion
from magic which does not necessarily involve the consensus of the faithful in one
church. Religion hence presupposes first the sacred; next the organisation of beliefs
regarding the sacred into a group ; finally rites or practices which proceed in a more
or less logical manner from the body of beliefs.

Durkheim’s Theory of Religion

Durkheim’s book “Elementary forms of Religious life” is devoted to elaborating a

general theory of religion derived from an analysis of the simplest, most primitive
religious institutions. This general theory of religion is otherwise known as his theory
of totemism. Instead of Animism or Naturism Durkheim took the totemism among
the Australian tribes as the key concept to explain the origin of religion.

25 / 47
According to him, Australian totemism is the most primitive and simple form of
religion known to us today. He studied the Australian aborigines called ‘Arunta’
tribes. All the conclusions which Durkheim presupposes the principle that one can
grasp the essence of social phenomena, by observing it in its most elementary form.
To Durkheim, totemism reveals the essence of religion in its most elementary form.

According to Durkheim totemism is the simplest religion. The essence of totemism is

the worship of an impersonal anonymous force, at once immanent and transcendent.
This anonymous diffuse force which is superior to men and very close to them is in
reality society itself. The principal notions utilized by Durkheim are those of clan and
totem. The clan is a group of kindered which is not based on ties of
consanguinity. The clan is a human group, the simplest of all, which expresses its
identity by associating itself with a plant or animal, with a genus or species of plant
or animal.

In the Australian tribes studied by Durkheim the totem is represented in various ways.
Each totem has its emblem. In almost-all clans there are objects, pieces of wood or
polished stones, which bear a figurative representation of the totem. Ordinary objects,
which are referred to as ‘Churinga’ are transfigured once they bear the emblem of the
totem. They share the sacred quality that is associated with the totem. Durkheim
writes:

“Totemism is the religion, not of certain animals or of certain men or of certain

images, but a kind of anonymous and impersonal force which is found in each of
these beings, without however being identified with any one of them.

None possesses it entirely, and all participate in it. So independent is it of the

particular subjects in which it is embodied that it precedes them just as it is adequate
to them. Individuals die; generations pass away and are replaced by others.

But this force remains ever present, living and true to itself. It quickens today’s
generation just as it quickened yesterday’s and as it will quicken tomorrows. Taking
the word in a very broad sense one might say that it is the god worshipped by each
totemic cult; but it is an impersonal god, without a name, without a history abiding in
the world, diffused in a countless multitude of things.”

CRITICISMS

> Durkheim’s Sociology of religion was purely speculative. According to

Goldenweiser, Durkheim’s theory is one sided and psychologically untenable. He

26 / 47
argued that a “society possessing the religious sentiment is capable of accomplishing
unusual things, but it can hardly produce that sentiment out of itself.”
> According to some philosophers, by making the social mind, or collective
representations the sole source of religion, Durkheim resorted to something quite
mysterious in itself and hence failed to give a satisfactory explanation.
> In coming to the view of the universal distinction of the sacred and the profane,
Durkheim believed he had validated his theory of moral authority. But, as the focal
point of Durkheim’s definition of religion is concerned, the distinction of the sacred
and the profane is applied to substantiate the view that religion has nothing to do with
the existence of Gods and spirits.
> Many anthropologists today no longer accept that totemism is a form of religion at
all, but see it as a form of ritual and kinship organisation, which can co-exist with a
series of religious institutions.
> It has been criticized that some of the features of Central Australian totemism to
which Durkheim gave particular prominence; such as the regularized ceremonial
activities are either absent or exist in quite different from elsewhere.
> There is no evidence at all that Australian totemism is the earliest form of
totemism.
> Durkheim’s emphasis on figured representations of the totems is questionable,
since most of the totems are not so represented.
> According to Evans-Pritchard, Sacred-Profane dichotomy is not universal. Sacred
and the Profane are not always antithetical. Totemism is not necessarily a clan
religion. Totem of the clan need not be the totem of the individual. Durkheim held
that the origin and cause of religion lie in social domain and have nothing to do with
sentiments of the individual. In his theory Durkheim failed to give the weight-age to
individual and emotional aspects of religion.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

• Explain whether Durkheim’s theory of Division of Labour is relevant in the

present day context?

• What are the problems in observing social facts in Durkheim’s views?

• Does scientific method make sociology a science? Illustrate your answer with
Durkheim’s method.

• Compare Karl Marx with Emile Durkheim with reference to the framework of
‘division of labour’

27 / 47
• Durkheim argued that society is more than the sum total of individual acts.
Discuss

• Explain Durkheim’s basic arguments of suicide. Can you analyse high suicide
rates of contemporary Indian society with Durkheim’s theory.

• Give an assessment of Durkheimian notion of ‘sacred’ and ‘profane’ in

sociology of religion

28 / 47
Max Weber was born in Erfurt, Prussia (present day Germany) in April 21, 1864.
Weber’s father was greatly involved in public life and so his home was constantly
immersed in both politics and academia. After his release from the military, Weber
finished his studies at the University of Berlin, earning his doctorate in 1889 and
joining the University of Berlin’s faculty, lecturing and consulting for the
government. In 1894, Weber was appointed professor of economics at the University
of Freiburg and then was granted the same position at the University of Heidelberg in
1896. His research at the time focused mainly on economics and legal history. After
Weber’s father died in 1897, Weber became prone to depression, nervousness, and
insomnia, making it difficult for him to fulfill his duties as a professor. He finally
resigned his professorship in late 1903. Also in 1903, Weber became the associate
editor of the Archives for Social Science and Social Welfare where his interests lied
in more fundamental issues of social sciences. Soon Weber began to publish some of
his own papers in this journal, most notable his essay The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism, which became his most famous work and was later published as
a book.

Coming from a very different philosophical background from that of Marx, Weber
was allied to the Neo-Kantian rather than the Hegelian tradition in German thought.
Neo-Kantians were philosophers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
who followed the teachings of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant saw human beings
as existing only partly in the world of natural causality, and partly in a realm of
freedom, governed by moral rules rather than causes. Consequently, human. beings
could not be understood entirely by natural science; the study of their moral and
spiritual life would have to be pursued by other means. Nevertheless, Weber shared
some of Marx’s key assumptions and also his core concern with the nature of
capitalism. However, he held very different conceptions of the nature of history, and
also of the methodology of historical and sociological studies.

Social Action
According to Weber, sociology as a science is concerned with interpretive
understanding of social action.

An action occurs when the acting individual attaches meaning to his behaviour, be it
c/overt. Any action is social if its subjective meaning takes account of the behaviour
of others and is thereby oriented in its course. No objective meanings exist in the
world. Meaning is found only in the consciousness of the individual and action (as a
subjectively understandable orientation) exists only as a behaviour of one or more
individuals. Max Weber defined sociology as an interpretative understanding of social
action. Max Weber continued to speak of social as having two qualities : one, while
doing such an action, the actor must take into account the presence of another actor
and wholly or partially be guided by it and two, the actor must attach a subjective
meaning to it.
Weber was supportive of using the positive science method, but maintained that in the
study of society explanations must be causally and meaningfully adequate. Thus,

29 / 47
Weber said that while generalisations were possible, they would only be limited
generalisations.

Weber then defined the four basic types of social action (ideal type). While doing this
he maintained that reality was infinitely complex, but these four are the building
blocks of all social action. The types:

1. Goal-Rational Action. Oriented towards practical goals, means chosen for

efficiency. Instrumentally rational (zweckrationål), that is, determined by
expectations as to the behavior Of objects in the environment and Of Other
human beings; these expectations are used as "conditions"; or "means"; for the
attainment Of the actor's own rationally pursued and calculated ends
2. Value-Rational Action. Goals not rationally chosen, means chosen for
efficiency. value-rational (wertrational), that is, determined by a conscious
belief in the value for its own sake of some ethical, aesthetic, religious, or other
form of behavior, independently of its prospects of success;
3. Traditional Action. Aim is to maintain continuity with the past, determined by
ingrained habituation.
4. Affective Action. Sole meaning is to express emotions. A cathartic release.
Affectual (especially emotional), that is, determined by the actor's specific
affects and feeling states

Methodoloy
Weber’s methodology consisted of 4 elements:

Verstehen (Interpretive understanding)Build an empathetic link with the actor and

develop a sequence of motives in order to trace the course and effect of social action.
In this way sociological explanation would be causally and meaningfully adequate.
With this method Weber provides a solution to the structure vs. agency debate as this
method is applicable to both macro and micro studies. There are two steps for
application of this method:

• Direct observational understanding.

• Sociologist looks at social phenomenon from the outside and attributes natural
meanings to what is observed.
• Understanding motives/assigned meanings.
• This involves establishing an empathetic link with the actor in order to
interpret the meaning and motives that might have driven the actor. Weber said
you don't need to be a Caesar to understand Caesar.

Ideal Type

30 / 47
The ‘ideal type’ is one of Weber’s best known contributions to contemporary
sociology. It occupies a very important place in his methodology. Weber believed, it
was the responsibility of sociologists to develop conceptual tools. The most important
of such conceptual tool is the ideal type. It is a mental construct which is formed by
the one-sided accentuation of one or more PoVs and the synthesis of many diffused,
discrete or concrete individual phenomena arranged into a unified analytical
construct. Ex. Marx’s class society, Weber’s 4 types of social actions etc.

Causal Pluralism
Weber understood that mono-causal explanations were strictly ideal type in nature,
thus inherently incomplete.

Value Neutrality
Weber said that pursuit of sociological knowledge should not be biased by the values
of the sociologist. Even though the choice of topic may be value guided but the
sociologist must maintain value neutrality towards data and interpretation of the
data.Steps for being value neutral:

• Avoid ideological assumptions if possible, otherwise be value frank.

• Avoid evaluative judgement on data.
• Indifference to moral implications of research.
• Research should not be done to propagate personal values.
In addition, value neutrality refers to the dis-junction between facts and values.
Weber says it's impossible to derive moral truths from empirical observations. An
empirical science cannot be a moral science. As in, it can never advise anyone what
he should do though it may help him to clarify for himself what he can or wants to
do.
An ideal type is formed by the one-side accentuation of one or more points of view
and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and
occasionally absent, concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to
those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct. In its
conceptual purity, this mental construct…. cannot be found empirically anywhere in
reality.”

In-spite of the above definition, Weber was not totally consistent in the way he used
the Ideal type. At its most basic level, an Ideal type is a concept constructed by a
social scientist on the basis of his interests and theoretical orientation, to capture the
essential features of some social phenomenon. The Ideal type, one of the most
important concepts of Weber represents the logical conclusion of several tendencies
of Weberian thought.

• It is related to the notion of comprehension. In that every Ideal type is an

organization of intelligible relations within a historical entity or sequence of events.

31 / 47
• Moreover, the Ideal type is related to a characteristic of both our society and our
science, namely the process of rationalization. The construction of Ideal type,
Raymond Aron writes, “is an expression of the attempt; characteristic of all
scientific disciplines to render subject matter intelligible by revealing or
constructing its internal rationality.

Construction of Ideal Type:

Ideal types are formulated by the abstraction and combination of an indefinite

number of elements which though found in reality, are rarely or never discovered in
specific form. Therefore Weber does not consider that he is establishing a new
conceptual method. He emphasizes that he is making explicit what is already done in
practice. For the construction of Ideal types, the sociologist selects a certain number
of traits from the whole which is otherwise and obscures, to constitute an intelligible
entity.

Ideal types are to be constructed and used with care, says Weber. Max Weber cautions
that the Ideal type is to be constructed and used with great care.
According to Weber:

• The Ideal types are not hypotheses.

• Ideal types do not state or imply an ethical ideal.

• They do not state an average type.

• They do not exhaust reality, i.e., they do not correspond exactly to any empirical
instances.
Ideal types are not formed out of a nexus of purely conceptual thought, but are
created, modified and sharpened through the empirical analysis of concrete problems.
This in turn, increases the precision of that analysis. Ideal type, a key term in Weber’s
mythological essays has been used by him as a device in understanding historical
configurations or specific historical problems.

For this he constructed Ideal types that are to understand how events had actually
taken place and to show that if some antecedents or other events had not occurred or
had occurred differently, the event we are trying to explain would have been different
as well.

AUTHORITY

Max Weber’s theory of power and authority is one of the most important
contributions to sociology. This contribution of Weber was influenced by his father’s

32 / 47
bureaucratic background. However, he tried to explain power and authority in the
most systematic manner.

Power:
Weber defined power as the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own
will in a communal action even against resistance by others. Hence, According to
Weber power refers to the ability to overcome resistance by others.

Max Weber discerns the three types of authorities- Traditional, Legal-Rational, and
Charismatic; each of which correspond to a form of leadership that operate in a
contemporary society. The one thing which is common in all the three authorities is
“legitimacy.” A legitimate authority is justified by both the ruler and the ruled.

Traditional Authority:

Traditional authority can be defined as the power legitimized by respect for long-
established cultural patterns. It comes from unwritten rules that are maintained over
time. The leader is a dominant personality and the existing order in the society
entrusts him the mandate to rule. Traditional leadership is reflective of everyday
conduct and routine. People respect traditional authority because “It has always been
that way.”

Drawbacks of traditional authority:

• Traditional authority is based on some dominant power.
• According to Max Weber, all forms of authorities exhibit some kind of
domination.
• A traditional leader might exploit or rely on prevailing practices.
• A traditional authority may suffer from the lack of moral regularity in the
creation of legal standards.

Charismatic Authority

Charismatic authority can be defined as the power legitimized by exceptional,

unusual, and extraordinary personal abilities which inspire devotion and obedience.
Weber identified this extraordinary attribute as ‘Charisma. Charismatic leaders are
seen as people who are inspired by God or by lofty unsocial principles. The charisma
of these leaders is enough and adequate to inspire their followers and make their
authority seem legitimate.

Drawbacks
• Charismatic authority is inherently unstable and mostly short lived.

33 / 47
 • A charismatic leader holds a mission to unite his people amidst differences and
adversities to attain an insurmountable goal.
• It has no rules or traditions to guide or monitor conduct; as it is based on the
unique characteristics of an individual.

Legal-Rational Authority

Legal authority can be defined as a bureaucratic authority, where power is legitimized

by legally enacted rules and regulations such as governments. This form of authority
is the one that is grounded and clearly defines laws with explicit procedures that
define the obligations and rights. Contemporary societies depend on this form of
authority; as the complexities require the emergence of bureaucracy that embodies
systematization and order.

Drawbacks

• Legal-Rational authority manifests the power of bureaucracy over individuals.

• Bureaucracy may not be able to completely address the concerns or problems
of everyone.
• Modern societies depend on legal-rational authority to figure out a common
ground to achieve consensus, but consensus based on agreements lack
flexibility which embodies the dominance of bureaucratic mentality for which
the government services are often accused.

Criticisms:

• He is criticized for the anomaly in ideal types of social action and ideal types of
authority. There are four types of social action and only three types of authority.
• Michel Foucault has argued that authority and power don’t lie with particular
institutions and persons but is highly dispersed in society.
• Robert Dahl state that authority is situational. One may be in a controlling position
in one instance and may be controlled by others in another instance.

BUREACUCRCY

It was Max Webber who propounded the bureaucratic theory of organisation and
management. Bureaucracy is an administrative system designed to accomplish large-
scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinating the work of many
individuals.

Features of bureaucracy:
1. Administrative Class:
Bureaucratic organisations generally have administrative class responsible for
maintaining coordinative activities of the members. Main features of his class are

34 / 47
 as follows:
(i) People are paid and are whole time employees,
(ii) They receive salary and other perquisites normally based on their positions,
(iii) Their tenure in the organisation is determined by the rules and regulations of
the organisation,
(iv) They do not have any proprietary interest in the organisation,
(v) They are selected for the purpose of employment based on their competence.

2. Hierarchy
The basic feature of bureaucratic organisation is that there is hierarchy of
positions in the organisation. Hierarchy is a system of ranking various positions
in descending scale from top to bottom of the organisation. This hierarchy serves
as lines of communication and delegation of authority.

3. Division of Work:
Work of the organisation is divided on the basis of specialisation to take the
advantages of division of labour. Each office in the bureaucratic organisation has
specific sphere of competence. This involves:
(i) a sphere of obligations to perform functions which has been marked off as part of
a systematic division of labour;
(ii) the provision of the incumbent with necessary authority to carry out these
functions;
(iii) the necessary means of compulsion are clearly defined and their use is subject to
definite conditions.

4. Official Rules
A basic and most emphasised feature of bureaucratic organisation is that
administrative process is continuous and governed by official rules. Bureaucratic
organisation is the antithesis of ad hoc, temporary, and temporary and unstable
relations. A rational approach to organisation calls for a system of maintaining rules
to ensure twin requirements of uniformity and coordination of efforts by individual
members in the organisation.

5. Impersonal Relationships:
A notable feature of bureaucracy is that relationships among individuals are governed
through the system of official authority and rules. Official positions are free from
personal involvement, emotions and sentiments. Thus, decisions are governed by
rational factors rather than personal factors.

6. Official Record:
Bureaucratic organisation is characterised by maintenance of proper official records.
The decisions and activities of the organisation are formally recorded and preserved
for future reference. This is made possible by extensive use of filling system in the
organisation.

35 / 47
Benefits of Bureaucracy:
> The rules and procedures are decided for every work it leads to, consistency in
employee behaviour. Since employees are bound to follow the rules etc., the
management process becomes easy.
> The duties and responsibilities of each job are clearly defined there is no question
of overlapping or conflicting job duties.
> The selection process and promotion procedures are based on merit and expertise.
It assists in putting right persons on right jobs. There is optimum utilisation of human
resources.
> The division of labour assists workers in becoming experts in their jobs. The
performance of employees improves considerably.
> The enterprise does not suffer when some persons leave it. If one person leaves
then some other occupies that place and the work does not suffer.

Drawbacks of Bureaucracy:
> This system suffers from too much of red tape and paper work.
> The employees do not develop belongingness to the organisation.
> The excessive reliance on rules and regulations and adherence to these policies
inhibit initiative and growth of the employees. They are treated like machines and not
like individuals. There is neglect of human factor.
> The employees become so used to the system, they resist to any change and
introduction of new techniques of operations.

PROTESTANT ETHIC & SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM

The book “Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism” 1904 is widely known for its
use of scientific methods in Sociology. It shows his idea of causal pluralism or
probabilism. He factored in political, economic and religious factors in the rise of
capitalism.Weber put more emphasis on ideas leading to an economic system. His
main question was ‘Is there any correlation between protestantism and capitalism’
Weber developed ideal types of capitalism and protestant ethics.

Weber located a positive relationship between the protestant ethics and the spirit of
capitalism. Western capitalism according to weber, assumed its shape because it was
supported by a certain belief system, namely the “protestant ethic”. Weber argued that
the protestant ethic is closely associated with the spirit of capitalism. In order to bring
out this inter-relationship, Weber constructed ideal types of both, the protestant ethics
and the spirit of capitalism.

As far as capitalism is concerned Weber says it is a huge historical movement in a

specific geographical and cultural area. The desire for wealth or profit is as old as
human history. Wealth has long been regarded as a symbol of power, status and
prestige. But never before in human history did the desire for wealth assume the
organised and disciplined form that it did in modern or rational capitalism. It is this
rational capitalism that Weber wanted to study.

36 / 47
According to Weber, the capitalists desired wealth not for enjoyment or luxurious
living. They wanted it so that they could use it to make more wealth. The thirst for
money-making for its own sake is the very essence of modern capitalism. Capitalism
is an economic system which aims at the unlimited accumulation of profit through the
rational organisation of production.

Hard work and efficient work was an end in itself. Weber contrasted this work-ethic
with another type which he termed traditionalism. Here, workers prefer less work to
more pay, relaxation to exertion. They are either unable or unwilling to take up new
work method and techniques. In capitalism, the worker is regarded by the capitalist as
a means to an end. But under traditionalism, the worker-employer relationship is
informal, direct and personal. Traditionalism hampers the growth of capitalism.
Capitalism stresses individualism, innovation and the relentless pursuit of profit.

The Protestant Ethic

Protestantism, as the name suggests, it is a religion of protest. It arose in the 16th
century in Europe in the period known as the “Reformation”. Its founding fathers like
Martin Luther and John Calvin broke away from the Catholic Church. They felt that
the church had become too immersed in doctrines and rituals. It had lost touch with
the common people. The protestant sects that sprang up all over Europe tried to
recapture the lost spirit of the church. They stressed simplicity, austerity and
devotion. Calvinism, founded by the Frenchman John Calvin was one such sect. The
followers of Calvin in England were known as the Puritans.

The brand of capitalism that weber was most interested in was Calvinism. If we study
the main features of Calvinism, it would show us how there is the link between
religion and economy.

About Calvinism:
> Calvin’s Image of God: God said Calvin was all powerful, transcendent. His divine
will was unknowable. It would be foolish of any human being to try to understand
God’s will. It could not be understood simply because it was God’s will.

> Doctrine of Pre-destination: At the core of Calvinism is the belief that, certain
persons are chosen or ‘elected’ by God to enter Heaven (Salvation), while the rest are
damned (damnation). The chosen will reach Heaven no matter what they do on earth.
We cannot bribe God to give us a place in Heaven through prayers and sacrifice. As
this will is unknowable, we cannot change it. We can imagine the insecurity of the
follower of this stern religion.

> Calvinism and this-worldly asceticism: By “asceticism” we mean strict self-

discipline, control and conquest of desires. In Protestantism, particularly Calvinism,
Weber detected this-worldly asceticism. It stressed rigorous self-discipline in order to

37 / 47
master the environment. A simple, frugal life-style along with hard work was
recommended.

> The notion of calling:: This idea emerged from the Calvinist doctrine of pre-
destination. Since everyman is anxious to know if he is marked for salvation or
damnation; he should select a calling, a vocation hard work at it and be successful.
According to Calvinist Ethic, all works are important and sacred and these should be
performed with devotion and sincerity. Max Weber described the strong relationship
between the spiritual vision of the world and a certain style of economic activity. This
relationship is conspicuous among the Calvinists.

In short;
• There exists an absolute transcendent God who created the world and rules it, but
who is incomprehensible and inaccessible to the finite minds of men.
• This all powerful and mysterious God had predestined each of us to salvation or
damnation, so that we cannot by our works alter a divine decree which was made
before were born.
• God created the world for his own glory.
• Whether he is to be saved or damned, man is obliged to work for the glory of God
and to create the kingdom of God on earth.
• Earthly things, human nature and flesh belong to the order of sin and death and
salvation can come to man only through divine grace.

Plurality of Causes:
> In this protestant theory, dual variables were expressed in the form of spirit and
substance.
> Spirit was provided by the protestant ethics.
> Substance was already present in the form of new factory system, new techniques
of accounting, newly invented tools and machines, democratic political system for
stable governance, etc.

Criticisms:
> He concentrated on certain aspects of religion only and ignored the others, so his
ideal type is erroneous.
> Doctrine of calling was already present among the catholics and not particular to
protestants.
> Took selective elements out of Hinduism for his analysis.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

• ‘Ideal Types’ of Max Weber are mental constructs, they do not correspond to the
reality. Give your views.

38 / 47
• Which concepts did Weber use to analyse the forms of legitimate domination?
• Examine Max Weber’s method of maintaining objectivity in social research.
• Elaborate Weber’s ideal; types using his theory of Bureaucracy?
• Explain how Weber’s characterisation of capitalism is different from that of Marx.
• Using Max Weber’s theory, discuss what ethical and religious ideas produced
capitalism in certain societies and how?

39 / 47
 SOCIOLOGICAL THINKERS
TALCOTT PARSONS

SOCIAL SYSTEMS

The term ‘system’ implies an orderly arrangement, an interrelationship of parts. In the

arrangement, every part has a fixed place and definite role to play. The parts are
bound by interaction. To understand the functioning of a system, for example the
human body, one has to analyse and identify the sub-systems (e.g. circulatory,
nervous, digestive, excretionary systems etc.) and understand how these various
subsystems enter into specific relations in the fulfillment of the organic function of
the body.

Likewise, society may be viewed as a system of interrelated mutually dependent parts

which cooperate to preserve a recognisable whole and to satisfy some purposes or
goal. Social system may be described as an arrangement of social interactions based
on shared norms and values. Individuals constitute it and each has place and function
to perform within it.

Society is a system of usages, authority and mutuality based on “We” felling and
likeness. Differences within the society are not excluded. These are, however,
subordinated to likeness. Inter-dependence and cooperation are its basis. It is bound
by reciprocal awareness. It is essentially a pattern for imparting the social behaviour.

It consists in mutual inter action and interrelation of individuals and of the structure
formed by their relations. It is not time bound. It is different from an aggregate of
people and community. According to Lapiere, “The term society refers not to group
of people, but to the complex pattern of the norms of inter action that arises among
and between them.”

Applying these conclusions to society, social system may be described as an

arrangement of social interactions based on shared norms and values. Individuals
constitute it, and each has place and function to perform within it. In the process, one
influences the other; groups are formed and they gain influence, numerous subgroup
come into existence.

But all of these are coherent. They function as a whole. Neither individual, nor the
group can function in isolation. They are bound in oneness, by norms and values,
culture and shared behaviour. The pattern that thus comes into existence becomes the
social system.

A social system may be defined, after Parsons, a plurality of social actors who are
engaged in more or less stable interaction “according to shared cultural norms and
meanings” Individuals constitute the basic interaction units. But the interacting units

40 / 47
may be groups or organisation of individuals within the system. All social
organisations are, therefore, ‘social system’, since they consist of interacting
individuals. In the social system each of the interacting individual has function or role
to perform in terms of the status he occupies in the system. For example, in the
family parents, sons and daughters are required to perform certain socially recognised
functions or roles. Similarly, social organisations function within the frame work of a
normative pattern. Thus, a social system presupposes a social structure consisting of
different parts which are interrelated in such a way as to perform its functions.

The elements of social system are described as under:

> Faiths and Knowledge:
The faiths and knowledge brings about the uniformity in the behaviour. They act as
controlling agency of different types of human societies. The faiths or the faith is the
result of the prevalent customs and beliefs. They enjoy the force of the individual are
guided towards a particular direction.

> Sentiment:
Man does not live by reason alone. Sentiments – filial, social, notional etc. have
played immense role in investing society with continuity. It is directly linked with the
culture of the people.

> End Goal or object:

Man is born social and dependent. He has to meet his requirements and fulfill his
obligations. Man and society exist between needs and satisfactions, end and goal.
These determine the nature of social system. They provided the pathway of progress,
and the receding horizons.

> Ideals and Norms:

The society lays down certain norms and ideals for keeping the social system intact
and for determining the various functions of different units. These norms prescribe
the rules and regulations on the basis of which individuals or persons may acquire
their cultural goals and aims. In other words ideals and norms are responsible for an
ideal structure or system of the society. Due to them the human behaviour does not
become deviant and they act according to the norms of the society. This leads to
organization and stability. These norms and ideals include folkways, customs,
traditions, fashions, morality, religion, etc.

> Status-Role:
Every individual in society is functional. He goes by status-role relation. It may come
to the individual by virtue of his birth, sex, caste, or age. One may achieve it on the
basis of service rendered.

> Role:
Like the status, society has prescribed different roles to different individuals.
Sometimes we find that there is a role attached to every status. Role is the external

41 / 47
expression of the status. While discharging certain jobs or doing certain things, every
individual keeps in his mind his status. This thing leads to social integration,
organization and unity in the social system. In fact statuses and roles go together. It is
not possible to separate them completely from one another.

> Power:
Conflict is a part of social system, and order is its aim. It is implicit, therefore, that
some should be invested with the power to punish the guilty and reward those who
set an example. The authority exercising power will differ from group to group; while
the authority of father may be supreme in the family, in the state it is that of the ruler.

> Sanction:
It implies confirmation by the superior in authority, of the acts done be the
subordinate or the imposition of penalty for the infringement of the command. The
acts done or not done according to norms may bring reward and punishment.

Characteristics of a Social System:

> System is connected with the plurality of Individual actors:

It means that a system or social system cannot be borne as a result of the activity of
one individual. It is the result of the activities of various individuals. For system, or
social system, interaction of several individuals has to be there.

> Aim and Object:

Human interactions or activities of the individual actors should not be aimless or
without object. These activities have to be according to certain aims and objects. The
expression of different social relations borne as a result of human interaction.

> Order and Pattern amongst various Constituent Units:

Mere coming together of various constituent units that from social system does not
necessarily create a social system. It has to be according to a pattern, arrangement
and order. The underlined unity amongst various constituent units brings about ‘social
system’.

> Functional Relationship is the Basis of Unity:

We have already seen different constituent units have a unity in order to form a
system. This unity is based on functional relations. As a result of functional
relationships between different constituent units an integrated whole is created and
this is known as social system.

> Physical or Environmental Aspect of Social System:

It means that every social system is connected with a definite geographical area or
place, time, society etc. In other words it means that social system is not the same at
different times, at different place and under different circumstances. This

42 / 47
characteristic of the social system again point out towards its dynamic or changeable
nature.

> Linked with Cultural System:

Social system is also linked with cultural system. It means that cultural system bring
about unity amongst different members of the society on the basis of cultures,
traditions, religions etc.

> Expressed and implied Aims and Objects:

Social system is also linked with expressed and implied aims. In other words, it
means that social system is the coming together of different individual actors who are
motivated by their aims and objectives and their needs.

> Characteristics of Adjustment:

Social system has the characteristic of adjustment. It is a dynamic phenomenon which
is influenced by the changes caused in the social form. We have also seen that the
social system is influenced by the aims, objects and the needs of the society. It means
that the social system shall be relevant only if it changes itself according to the
changed objects and needs. It has been seen that change takes place in the social
system due to human needs, environment and historical conditions and phenomena.

> Order, Pattern and Balance:

Social system has the characteristics of pattern, order and balance. Social system is
not an integrated whole but putting together of different units. This coming together
does not take place in a random and haphazard manner. There is an order am’
balance. It is so because different units of the society do not work as independent
units but they do not exist in a vacuum but in a socio-cultural pattern. In the pattern
different units have different functions and roles. It means that there is a pattern and
order in the social system.

Types of Social Systems

1. The Particularistic Ascriptive Type:
According to Parsons, this type of social system tends to be organized around
kinship and sociality. The normative patterns of such a system are traditional and
thoroughly dominated by the elements of ascription. This type of system is
mostly represented by preliterate societies in which needs are limited to
biological survival.

2. The Particularistic Achievement Type:

There is a significant role of religious ideas as differentiating element in social
life. When these religious ideas are rationally systematized that possibility of new
religious concepts emerge. As a result of this nature of prophecy and secondly it
may depend on non-empirical realm to which the porphyry is connected.

43 / 47
3. The Universalistic Achievement Type:
When ethical prophecy and non-empirical conceptions are combined, a new set
of ethical norms arise. It is because the traditional order is challenged by the
ethical prophet in the name of supernatural. Such norms are derived from the
existing relations of social member; therefore they are universalistic in nature.
Besides, they are related with empirical or non-empirical goals, therefore they are
achievement oriented.

4. The Universalistic Ascription Type:

Under this social type, elements of value orientation are dominated by the
elements of ascription. Therefore emphasis is placed on status of the actor, rather
than his performance. In such a system, actor’s achievements are almost values to
a collective goal. Therefore such a system becomes politicized and aggressive.
An authoritarian State example of this types.

Maintenance of Social System: A social system is maintained by the various

mechanisms of social control. These mechanisms maintain the equilibrium between
the various processes of social interaction.
> Socialization
> Social control

Socialization: It is process by which an individual is adjusted with the conventional

pattern of social behaviour. A child by birth is neither social nor unsocial. But the
process of socialization develops him into a functioning member of society. He
adjusts himself with the social situations conforming with social norms, values and
standards.

Social Control: Like socialisation, social control is also a system of measures by

which society moulds its members to conform with the approved pattern of social
behaviour. According to Parsons, there are two types of elements which exist in every
system. These are integrative and disintegrative and create obstacles in the
advancement of integration.

Functions of a Social System

Social system is a functional arrangement. It would not exist if it were not so. Its
functional character ensures social stability and continuity. The functional character
of society, Parsons has discussed in depth. Other sociologists such as Robert F. Bales
too have discussed it.
1. Adaptation,
2. Goal attainment,
3. Integration,
4. Latent Pattern-Maintenance.

44 / 47
> Adaptation: Adaptability of social system to the changing environment is essential.
No doubt, a social system is the result of geographical environment and a long drawn
historical process which by necessity gives it permanence and rigidity. Yet, that
should not make it wooden and inelastic. It need be a flexible and functional
phenomenon. Lack of adaptability, very often has caused the social system to be
challenged. It has caused revolution resulting in the overhauling of the system.

> Goal Attainment: Goal attainment and adaptability are deeply interconnected. Both
contribute to the maintenance of social order. Every social system has one or more
goals to be attained through cooperative effort. Perhaps the best example of a societal
goal is national security. The allocation of members and the allocation of scarce
valuable resources are important, of course, for both adaptation and goal attainment.

> Integration: Social system is essentially an integration system. In the general

routine of life, it is not the society but the group or the subgroup in which one feels
more involved and interested. Society, on the whole does not come into one’s
calculations. During normal times, the spirit of integration is best expressed by not
disregarding the regulative norms. Abiding by them is essential, as otherwise, it will
be the domination of might over right, of self over society, and the spirit of mutuality
which is based on common welfare, will get eliminated. The command and obedience
relation as it exists is based on rationality and order. If it is not sustained, the social
order would break down. This necessitates the need for social control.

> Latent Pattern-maintenance: Pattern maintenance and tension management is the

primary function of social system. In absence of appropriate effort in this direction
maintenance and continuity of social order is not possible. In fact within every social
system there is the in built mechanism for the purpose. Every individual and
subgroup learns the patterns in the process of the internalization of norms and values.
It is to invest the actors with appropriate attitude and respect towards norms and
institution, that the socialization works. It is not; however, merely the question of
imparting the pattern, equally essential is to make the actor to follow it. For this there
is always a continuous effort -in operational terms of social control. Society has the
responsibility, like a family, to keep its members functional, to relieve them of
anxiety, to encourage those who would be detrimental to the entire system. The
decline of societies has been very much because the pattern maintenance and tension
management mechanism has often failed.

> Equilibrium and Social Change: Equilibrium is a state of ‘balance’. It is “a state of

just poise”. The term is used to describe the interaction of units in a system. A state of
equilibrium exists, when systems tend towards conditions of minimum stress and
least imbalance. The existence of balance between units facilitates the normal
operation of system. Community evaluates and recognises the importance of
equilibrium. The equilibrium condition, is a “condition of integration and stability”. It
is sometimes made possible with the development of a certain set of productive
forces such as pressure groups which brings into being an appropriate super structure

45 / 47
of institutions. A social system implies order among the interacting units of the
systems.

PATTERN VARIABLES

According to Parsons, culture is dualistically patterned and thus, meanings derived

from culture are dualistically patterned too, which is demonstrated at 5 levels:
1. Affectivity v. Affective Neutrality
2. Particular v. Universal
3. Quality v. Efficiency
4. Diffuseness v. Specificity (I like you for you vs I like you cause you present well)
5. Collective Orientation v. Self-Orientation

Here the first two pattern variables relate to the modality of the object and the last
two relate to the modality of the actor. Overall the pattern allocations are like
Gameinschaft (left) and Gesellschaft (right). Parsons says that society is moving from
gameinschaft values to gesellschaft values over time. These pattern variables thus
become culturally limiting range of choices for the actor. The actor only has freedom
to the extent of choosing from culturally defined options.

CRITICISMS
• In Parsons’ theory everything contributed towards order in society. He said that
explanation of order was more important than explanation of conflict.
• Ralf Dahrendorf says that conflict is present in every society so management of
conflict is an essential part of society and thus, Sociology. But Parsons over
glorified integration hence his theory is not realistic.
• CW Mills said that Parsons theory is teleological and tautological.
• Critics also said that he ignored the exploitative side of inequality when he said
that it strengthened value consensus.
• Anthony Giddens said that his conception of a system is flawed. He said that
Parsons just assumed the organismic analogy, saying that the system was self-
equilibrating and ascribed everything to equilibrium without testing anything.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

• Do you think Talcott Parsons gave an adequate theory of social change? Justify
your answer.
• Critically analyse Talcott Parsons’ conception of ‘Pattern Variables’.
• Describe the functional prerequisites of social system as given by Talcott Parsons.
Examine in the context of a university as a social system.
• How is social equilibrium maintained in Parsonian framework.

46 / 47
47 / 47