Page |1

Sociological thought for B.G 2nd SEM

August Comte

1. Law of three stages

2. Positivism
3. Social statics & social dynamics
4. Hierarchy of Sciences

Introduction:

Having grown up during the aftermath of the French revolution, August Comte was the first to
use the term sociology as a way of studying the world in terms of society. Along with industrial
revolution in England during the 18 th century & the rise of urbanization and mass social change
(which compelled people to leave agriculture & they moved to cities to find factory jobs, by
which new social problems emerged), thinkers such as Comte, Durkheim and K. Marx began to
realize the need to study society in all its dynamic nature. This period of history is often
described as “the great transformation”, which led to the emergence of Sociology.

Comte looked at the extensive changes brought about by the French and the industrial
Revolution and tried to make sense of them. He felt that the social sciences that existed at the
time, including political science and history couldn’t adequately explain the chaos and upheaval
he saw around him. He decided an entirely new science was needed. He called this science
Sociology (coined it in 1839 in his book ‘course de philosophy’ or ‘positive philosophy’ 1830-
1842) which comes from the Latin word ‘Socius’ means ‘Society’ & Greek word “logos” means
‘Study/Science’. So, Sociology simply means the scientific study of society.

The law of three stages:

August Comte was a French philosopher. He was a founder of the discipline of sociology and of
the doctrine of positivism. He may be regarding as the first philosopher of science in the modern
sense of the term. He studied and analyzed the effects of French Revolution, Industrial revolution
and renaissance, & found the lack of a social science that studied about society. Therefore, he
coined the term ‘sociology’ in 1839 as a social science to study scientifically about society.

Comte formulated the law of three stages, one of the first theories of the social evolutionism.
According to Comte each branch of our knowledge passes successively through the different
theoretical conditions. It is known as the ‘law of three stages’. The main aim of this principal is
that it provides the basis of sociological thinking.

Comte believed that the individual mind, human activity and society pass through
successive stages of historical evolution leading to some final stage of perfection. Being true
science sociology is in search of laws. Then, these Social laws to be applied to society so that
society’s past can be understood & future predicted. August comte considered the law of three
 Page |2

stages based on the belief of social evolution to be important, societies develops from primitive
religious to more advanced philosophical idealism to modern scientific mentalities.

The three stages are;

1. The theological or fictitious stage: -

Universe explained in terms of:
- Gods
- Demons
- Mythological Beings
According to Comte in this stage, “all theoretical conceptions, whether general or special
bear a supernatural impress”. Unable to discover the natural causes of the various
happenings, the primitive man attributed them to imaginary or divine forces (means man
supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings).
This stage is also divided into three sub-stages as (a) Fetishism (b) Polytheism and (c)
Monotheism.
(a) Fetishism: - During this sub- stage, man accepts the existence of the spirit or the
soul. It did not admit priesthood.
(b) Polytheism: - During this sub- stage, man begins to believe in magic and allied
activities. He then transplants or imposes special god in every object. Thus they
believed in several gods & created the class of priests to get the goodwill and the
blessings of these gods.
(c) Monotheism: - During this sub- stage of the theological stage, man believes that
there is only one centre of power which guides & controls all the activities of the
world. Thus, man believed in the superhuman power of only one God.
2. Metaphysical or abstract stage: -
Reality explained in terms of abstractions:
- Essence
- Existence
- Substance
- Accident
This stage being an improvement upon the earlier stage started about 1300 AD and was a
short period. In the metaphysical state…….the mind supposes…abstract forces capable
of producing all phenomena. In this era, man had a sense of cause & effect, but was not
able to clearly understand the causes. This led to a better situation than in the theological
stage, but still relied heavily on superstition. However, in this stage the natural laws were
also recognized to operate in the physical world and discards belief in concrete god.

3. Scientific or Positive Stage: -

According to Comte, the metaphysical stage was just ending, giving way to the final, or
positive stage, in which explanations are based on scientific laws discovered through…
 Page |3

- Experimentation
- Observation
- Logic
The dawn of the 19th century marked the beginning of the positive stage in which
“observation predominates over imagination” and all theoretical concepts become
positive. This stage is dominated by industrial administrators and scientists. The nature of
human mind has given up the vain search for absolute notions and origins but seeks to
establish scientific principles governing phenomena.

Corresponding to the three stages of mental progress there are three stages of society. The
theological and metaphysical stages are dominated by military values, conquest and the defense.
The positive stage heralds the advent of the industrial society. According to Comte the first two
are dying and the scientific stage is emerging. In the scientific industrial society, priests were
replaced by scientists who represent by the new moral, rational and intellectual power.

To conclude we can say, Comte believed that the new scientific industrial society will become
the society of all mankind. The positive or scientific stage is the ultimate stage in a series of
successive transformations the human race goes through & each stage is superior to the previous
one.

POSITIVISM

The principle of Positivism is that all knowledge comes from 'positive' information of observable
experience. Scientific methods are the best way of achieving this. Positivism seeks empirical
regularities, which are correlations between two variables. This does not need to be causal in
nature, but it does allow laws to be defined and predictions made.

No social fact can have any scientific meaning till it is connected with some other social facts. If
it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts cannot
be observed without the guidance of some theory. No real observation of any phenomena is
possible, except in so far as it is first directed, and finally interpreted, by some theory.

The first characteristic of Positive Philosophy is that it regards all phenomena as subject to
invariable natural Laws. Our real business is to analyze accurately the circumstances of
phenomena, and to connect them by the natural relations of succession and resemblance.

For it is only by knowing the laws of phenomena, and thus being able to foresee them, that we
can set them to modify one another for our advantage. Whenever we affect anything great it is
through knowledge of natural laws, From Science-com-Prevision or from Prevision-com-Action
(The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte).
 Page |4

The new science was to be of real benefit to mankind. It would provide the knowledge that
would help us reform society. It would establish the natural laws that governed human affairs,
establish institutions that would maintain order and guide us in social change.

We shall find that there is no chance of order and agreement but in subjecting social phenomena,
like all others, to invariable natural laws, which shall, as a whole, prescribe for each period, with
entire certainty, the limits and character of social action.

The focus of science is not to govern, but to modify phenomena; and to do this it is necessary to
understand their laws.

In order to transform the natural world to our purposes, human beings first had to discover
natural law through science. Once sociology discovers the laws governing social evolution, we
can use this knowledge to make a better world. In order to change society for the better, we must
first know how the various parts of society fit together and how they change.

Societies impose limits on human behavior. A science of society will help discover what these
limits are so that we will know what is possible and what is not. Personal opinion without the
discipline of study and science are as invalid in understanding society as they are in
understanding the natural world.

Ordinary men should hold no opinions about matters of scientific fact. The intellectual
reorganization in the social sciences requires the renunciation by the greater number of their right
of individual inquiry on subjects above their qualifications.

The methodology of sociology is the same as it is for the natural sciences:

1. Observation
2. Experimentation
3. Historical Method
4. Comparison

1. Observation: By observation Comte means the direct observation of human behavior,

guided by a preliminary theory of what you expect to observe.

2. Experimentation: Formal experimentation is not really applicable in the study of many

social phenomena. For example, we cannot study the effects of mother love by taking infants
away from their mothers and comparing this to infants that were coddled.

However, Comte points out, Experimentation takes place whenever the regular course of the
phenomenon is interfered with in any determinate manner. Pathological cases are the true
scientific equivalent of pure experimentation"

3. Historical Method: But, the chief method for the social scientist consists in a comparison
of the different co-existing states of human society on the various parts of the earth's surface—
 Page |5

these states being completely independent of each other. By this method, the different stages of
evolution may all be observed at once.

4. Comparison: The historical comparison of the consecutive states of humanity is not only
the chief scientific device ...it constitutes the substratum of the science...Sociology is nothing if
not informed by a sense of historical evolution. Comte reasoned that different parts of the world
were at different stages of development. A comparison of these different social systems would
therefore enable us to better understand social order and social change

Q2. Social Statics and Social dynamism;

According to Comte, sociology is a very wide discipline. In order to make an orderly study of the
subject, Comte divided sociology into two divisions. The divisions were known as Social Statics
& Social Dynamics. The Social Statics is concerned with the present structure of the society. It
studies the current Laws, rules and present structure of the society. In social statics it is observed
as to how the present social laws are affecting the society. It also does the evaluation of the
social structure. The social statics also studies the correlation between various social facts. The
other branch of sociology is known Social Dynamics. Under social dynamics we study as to how
the processes of social change are taking place.

The subject-matter of social statics & social Dynamics is quite separate. The social statics studies
the structure of the society. The social dynamics studies the social change and social progress. In
order to study sociology it is necessary to study the subject matter of social statics and social
dynamics comparatively.

Comte divided sociology into two major parts—static and dynamic. This division was taken over
from Biology, which was known at that time as Physiology. According to Comte, “the statically
study of sociology consists in the investigation of the laws of action and reaction of the different
parts of the social system. Social dynamics, on the other hand, is the study of continuous
movements in social phenomena through time.”

He wrote in his book, ‘Positive Philosophy’ that the distinction between the two is a distinction
between two aspects of theory. It corresponds with the double conception of order and progress:
for order consists in a permanent harmony among the conditions of social |existence and progress
consists in social development. Both static and dynamics are essential for the study of society.

According to Comte, social statics is concerned with the analysis of the structure of society at
any given movement as well as the analysis of elements, which at any given moment determine
the consensus. The social static is essential for understanding the nature of social order. On the
other hand, social dynamics must be subordinated to social statics.
 Page |6

Social dynamics consists of a description of various stages for the development of mind and
society with the help of historical analysis. Social dynamics is history, which is not concerned
with individual names, rather it is history of a scientific nature in search of abstract social laws
operative in mind and society. Comte believed that social dynamics is concerned with human
development and social progress. Progress is observable in all aspects of society—physical,
moral, intellectual and political.

Hierarchy of Sciences

Comte’s second best known theory, which is the theory of hierarchy of sciences, is intimately
connected with the Law of Three Stages. Just as mankind passes through determinant stages,
scientific knowledge also passes through similar stages of development. But different sciences
progress at different rate. Any kind of knowledge reaches the positive stage early in proportion to
its generality, simplicity, and independence of other departments. He put forth a hierarchical
arrangement of the sciences in a way which coincided with:

1. The order of their historical emergence and development

2. The order of dependence upon each other (each rests on the one which precedes it, and
prepares the way for the one that follows it)

3. Their decreasing degree of generality and the increasing degree of complexity of their subject
matter, and

4. The increasing degree of modifiability of the facts which they study.

The serial order of sciences on the basis of their emergence and increasing complexity were:

1. Mathematics,
2. Chemistry,
3. Astronomy,
4. Physics,
5. Biology, and
6. Sociology.
From the above classification it becomes clear that Mathematics, according to Comte, is the
simplest science while Sociology is the most complex science. In Comte’s view, Mathematics
was the first science to reach positive stage, followed by Astronomy, Physics and Chemistry, and
after these sciences had reached the positivistic stage, thought organic phenomena could become
more positivistic. The first organic science to move from the metaphysical to the positive stage
was biology, or physiology. This paved the way for Sociology which could move away from the
metaphysical speculations of the 17th and 18th century towards a positivistic mode of thought.
Sociology has been the last to emerge because it is the more complex and because it had to wait
for the other basic sciences to reach the positive stage.
 Page |7

Sociology was the most complex social science because it had to study society, the most
complex matter. The other sciences concentrated on comparatively simpler subjects than society.
Sociology thus emerged because human beings recognized a new set of objective facts
concerning their society like social disorganization, development of slums, poverty etc. which
they could not explain, but which they needed to explain in order to deal effectively with them.
When Comte spoke of Sociology to crown the hierarchy of sciences, he had the general unifying
nature of science in his mind. He did not claim that Sociology is superior to all other sciences.
He only felt that with the growth of positive knowledge all sciences can be brought into
relationship with each other.

According to Comte, all science passes through the three stages, the theological, the
metaphysical and the positive. But the individual sciences do not move through these three
stages simultaneously. In fact, the higher a science stands in the hierarchy, the later it shifts from
one stage to the other. With the growth of positive knowledge he also advocated the use of
positive methods for Sociology.

Key Words:

(1) Dynamic: - It is any mass or object or force which is in a state of motion. In society it
corresponds to the notion of social change.

(2) Metaphysical: - Metaphysical literally means that branch of philosophy which investigates
the first principles of nature and thought. For Comte, it is a stage of development of mind in
which the mind explain phenomenon by invoking abstract entities or forces like “nature”. In this
stage human beings explain the meaning of the world in terms of “essences”, “ideas”, etc.

(3) Science: - Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation.
Scientific knowledge can be tested, verified or proved.

(4) Static: - Any mass or object or force which is at an equilibrium, i.e. which does not move. In
society it corresponds to the notion of the structure of society.

(5) Theological: - Theology is the study of religion. For Comte it is the first stage of
development of mind. In this stage mind explains phenomenon by ascribing them to beings or
forces comparable to human beings. Here explanations take the form of myths concerning spirits
and supernatural beings.
 Page |8

Emile Durkheim

1. Division of Labour
2. Social facts
3. Religion & society
4. Suicide concept and its types

Introduction:

Emile Durkheim was born in France in 1858, studied social & political philosophy in Paris and
took great interest in the work of Montesquieu & Rousseau.

Durkheim acknowledged Comte as his master. On a sociological perspective when Comte &
Spencer were considered as the founding fathers of sociology Durkheim is considered as the
modern father and the systematic approach to study the society began with him.

E. Durkheim, through his major works, carved out a special field of study for sociology,
established a sound empirical methodology and laid the foundation of structural functionalism
which is one of the dominant schools of sociological theory today.

After establishing sociology as a new field of interest to a wider public Durkheim also wanted to
set up a scholarly journal entirely devoted to the new discipline, Accordingly he founded ‘L’
Anne sociologique’ in 1898, the first social science journal in France. Besides this he published
many articles and books.

Theory of Division of Labour

The Division of Labour in Society is a book written, originally in French (De la division du
travail social), by Emile Durkheim in 1893. It was Durkheim’s first major published work and
the one in which he introduced the concept of anomie, or the breakdown of the influence of
social norms on individuals within a society. In the book, he discusses how the division of labour
is beneficial for the society because it increases the reproductive capacity, the skill of the
workmen, and it creates a feeling of solidarity between the people. The division of labour goes
beyond economic interests. It also establishes social and moral order within a society. The theme
of this book is the relationship between individuals and society or the collectivity. It is indeed a
classic study of social solidarity. In this book he 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 the simpler social systems. But he saw both of these as two types of social
solidarity. He has also tried to determine the social consequences of the division of labour in
modern societies.

Meaning of Division of Labour

 Page |9

The concept of division of labour has been used in three ways:

1. In the sense of the technical division of labour, it describes the production process;

2. As the sexual division of labour, it describes the social divisions between men and women;

3. Durkheim’s social division of labour refers to differentiation in society as a whole.

In a general sense, the term division of labour involves the assignment to each unit or group a
specific share of a common task. As used by the early classical economists, like Adam Smith, the
term describes a specialization in workshops and the factory system, and explains the advantages
accruing in terms of the increased efficiency and productivity from these new arrangements.

Durkheim’s View of Division of Labour

The theory of division of labour had several key aims. Firstly, Durkheim wanted to make a
distinction between ‘the social division of labour’ and ‘the economic division of labour’. Second,
he wanted to study the social links that connects individuals with society and the social bonds
which connect individuals to each other. Third, he wanted to examine the origin of the social
links and bonds to see how they are related to the overall system of social cohesion in society,
and the extent to which this cohesion was formed within the different social groups he studied.
Fourth, he wanted to see how the system of social links change as the structure of society
becomes more complex and subject to changes in the division of labour.

The term ‘the division of labour’ refers to the process of dividing labour among individuals in a
group so that the varieties of economic and domestic tasks are performed by different people for
collective maintenance of society. The process of division of labour begins as soon as individuals
form themselves into groups. They cooperate collectively by dividing their labour and by
coordinating their economic and domestic activities for the purpose of survival. Durkheim
believed that division of labour emerged out of collective choice. It is not the result of the private
choices of individuals or the result of organic traits that emerged during the process of evolution.

Durkheim makes a distinction between the ‘social division of labour’ and what Adam Smith
called ‘the economic division of labour’. Smith describes the process of economic division of
labour as the division of labour during the manufacturing in the production process which
increases productivity. The process of dividing labour tends to accelerate the rate of production.
However, the social division of labour, as used by Durkheim describes the social links and bonds
that develop between the individuals of a society who enter into cooperation for carrying out
joint economic and domestic tasks. Smith’s use of division of labour referred only to the process
of dividing up labour to increase the rate of production. Whereas, Durkheim’s use of division of
labour referred to the principle of social cohesion that develops in societies whose social links
and bonds result from the way individuals relate to one another when their labour is divided
along economic and domestic tasks. Durkheim observed that the social division of labour led to
 P a g e | 10

the formation of social links and bonds that attach individuals to the wider society and different
individuals with each other. These links and bonds formed a system of attachments to society
which Durkheim referred to as ‘social solidarity’.

Social Solidarity and Social Cohesion

According to Durkheim, social solidarity refers to the system of social bonds which link
individuals directly to the wider society. He also used the term solidarity to identify a system of
social relations linking individuals to each other and to society as a whole. Without these social
links, individuals would be separate and unrelated. Durkheim opines that social solidarity and
cohesion describes the level of intensity that exists in the social attachments linking individuals
to the collective structure of society. He thought that social cohesion acts as ‘social cement’
which creates attachments between individuals in a society and these attachments exercise an
emotional hold over them by making their attachment more intense and cohesive. Social
solidarity and social cohesion manifest themselves in two very broad and distinct ways and these
two broad systems of social solidarity are ‘mechanical solidarity’ and ‘organic solidarity’.

Characteristics of Mechanical Solidarity

According to Durkheim, societies characterized by mechanical solidarity depict social cohesion

based on common roots of identity and similarity. Here, an individual is linked directly to society
through various points of attachment which bind the members together collectively. There is no
distinction between individual conscience and collective conscience. Social rules and practices
are religious in nature and encompass all aspects of social life and activity. Religion is the
predominant social institution and religious ceremonies and periodic rites form the basis of their
common social attachments. The division of labour is rudimentary. Individuals perform
economic and domestic tasks for achievement of common social goal. Here the members are
obliged towards each other. There is a common system of beliefs and practices rooted in
religious life and this common system of beliefs bind them together. Because their system of
beliefs is primarily religious in nature, the common conscience is rooted in religious law. As a
result, offences against common beliefs and social practices are punished by repressive sanctions
and physical punishment based on penal law. Individual differences are subordinated by group
solidarity. There is no private life and no individual autonomy. The social cohesion of the group
is intense and the links binding the individual to the social whole are strong and unified.

Durkheim pointed out that these societies are made up of groups called ‘segments’ consisting of
many homogeneous clans who together form a ‘tribe’. These people are confined to a territory,
live in close proximity and are united together in a confederation of people, as the native tribes in
North America. Segmental societies take their basic form from the family and political unit.
These societies have a rudimentary economy based on hunting and gathering with some
agriculture. This leads to a simple division of labour where tasks are performed collectively.
There is no private property and the tools of maintenance are shared by everyone collectively.
 P a g e | 11

Social bonds exert an emotional hold over the individuals and these bonds link one individual
with the other individuals and with the entire society. Of these attachments, family and religious
institutions form the most intense relations. There are common customs and social rules which
provide cohesion to the entire society. Their solidarity is mechanical because they share
underlying beliefs and practices which unify them as a common people, and because they act in
unison and have their personality defined by their religious personality. Their social links and
bonds tie the individual directly to society without private life or other forms of social separation.
Here, individuals are more dependent on society as a whole and the collective personality is
invested with unusually strong powers.

Characteristics of Organic Solidarity

In societies with organic solidarity, individuals are grouped according to the role they play in the
occupational structure. As the people are divided on the basis of their occupation, they begin to
lead their own lives different from others and this leads to private life and separation of the
family and religious systems. Societies with organic solidarity have larger populations spread out
over a broader geographical area. The economy is industrial in nature and a complex division of
labour patterns the social activity. People perform separate and specialized occupational and
economic functions, and work separately from each other rather cooperating collectively.
Organic solidarity is characterized by an increase in the density of society due to the expansion
of the population, the growth of cities and the development of means of transport and
communication. The cooperation among the people is indirect and patterned through the division
of labour which satisfies their economic needs by performing separate occupational tasks. The
institutional structure extends beyond the family and tribe and economy replaces religion as the
dominant form of social institution. Bonds of society created by religious solidarity begin to
deteriorate. Separate institutional organs develop to cater to the individual needs of the people. In
the social division of labour, individual is linked to the society through the specialized
occupational roles they perform. It increases the mutual dependency of one individual over the
other since they are unable to perform other occupational functions while performing their own.
Their social cohesion thus takes place through the division of labour rather than directly through
the immediate social cooperation.

As the density of population increases in these societies, personal bonds become weak and rare.
Mutual obligation of one individual towards the other disappears. The social reliance between
the individuals increases their dependency on each other since they are unable to produce
products that others produce. Hence, their solidarity is ‘organic’. Bonds of obligation are
replaced by bonds of contract and contractual obligation. Restitutive sanctions emerge where
judicial laws redress the social deviances. At this stage, individual has more autonomy and
becomes the object of legal rights and freedoms. Autonomous social organs develop in which
political, economic and legal functions become specialized. The collective conscience is less
resistant to change and becomes weaker.
 P a g e | 12

Social Facts

In sociology, social facts are the values, cultural norms, and social structures which transcend the
individual and are capable of exercising a social constraint. For Durkheim, sociology is nothing
but the study of social facts and social facts must be considered as things. The task of the
sociologist is to search for correlations between social facts in order to reveal laws of social
structure. Having discovered these, the sociologist can then determine whether a given society is
‘healthy’ or ‘pathological’ and prescribe appropriate remedies. Within social facts, Durkheim
distinguishes between material social facts and non material social facts. Material social facts
deals with the physical social structure which influence the individual and non material social
facts are the values, norms and conceptually held beliefs.

Meaning of Social Facts

Durkheim introduced the term ‘social fact’ in his phenomenal work “The Rules of Sociological
Method”. He defines social facts as “ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to the
individual and endowed with power of coercion by reason of which they control him”. To
Durkheim, society is a reality ‘sui generis’. Society comes into being by the association of
individuals. Hence society represents a specific reality which has its own characteristics. This
unique reality of society is distinct from the other realities studied by the physical or biological
sciences. Social reality has an independent existence of its own, which is over and above the
individual. Therefore, the reality of society must be the subject matter of sociology.

Social fact is that way of acting, thinking or feeling which is more or less general in given
society. Durkheim treated social facts as things. They are real and exist independent of the
individual’s wills and desires. They are external to individual and are capable of exerting
constraint upon them. In other words, they are coercive in nature. Social facts exist in their own
right and are independent of individual manifestations. The true nature of social facts lies in the
collective or associational characteristics inherent in society. Legal codes and customs, moral
rules, religious beliefs and practices, language etc. are all social facts.

Types of Social Facts

1. Structural or Morphological social facts- they make up the substratum of the collective life.
These are the facts relating to the overall density and the size of the population of society and the
complexity of its social and institutional structure. In these category of social facts are included
the distribution of population over the surface of the territory, the forms of dwellings, nature of
communication system etc.

2. Institutionalized social facts- they are more or less general and widely spread throughout the
society. They represent the collective nature of society as a whole. Under this category fall the
legal and moral rules, religious dogma and established beliefs and practices prevalent in a
society.
 P a g e | 13

3. Non-institutionalized social facts- these social facts have not yet been crystallized by the
society and fall beyond the institutionalized norms of the society. These facts do not have an
independent existence and their externality to and ascendancy over the individuals is yet not
complete. For example, sporadic currents of opinion generated in a specific situation, enthusiasm
generated in a crowd etc.

All these above mentioned social facts form a continuum and constitute social milieu of society.

Durkheim also makes a distinction between normal and pathological social facts. A social fact is
normal when it is generally encountered in a society of a certain type at certain phase of its
evolution. Every deviation from this standard is a pathological social fact. According to
Durkheim, for example, crime is a normal social fact. However, an extraordinary increase in the
rate of crime is pathological.

Characteristics of Social Facts

The main characteristics of social facts are- externality, constraint, independence and generality.

Social facts exist outside individual conscience. Their existence is external to the individuals.
For example, civic or customary obligations are defined externally to the individual in laws and
customs. Religious beliefs and practices exist outside and prior to the individual. Social facts are
already given in a society and remain in existence irrespective of the birth and death of an
individual. For example, language continues to function independently of any single individual.

Social facts exercise a constraint over the individual. Social facts are recognized because it
forces itself over the individual. For example, the institutions of law, education, beliefs etc. are
commanding and obligatory for all. The social facts are endowed with a power of coercion by
reason of which they exert control.

Social facts are general throughout the society and diffused within the group. It is independent
of the personal features of individuals and individual attributes of human nature. Examples are
the beliefs, feelings and practices of the group taken collectively.

In sum, the social fact is specific. It is born of the association of individuals. It represents a
collective content of social group or society. It differs in kind from what occurs in individual
consciousness. Social facts can be subjected to categorization and classification.

Externality and Constraint

A. There are two related senses in which social facts are external to the individual.

1. Every individual is born into an ongoing society, which has a definite structure or
organization. There are norms, values and belief in the society which exists before the birth of
the individual and these are internalized by the individual through the process of socialization.
 P a g e | 14

Since these social facts exist prior to the individual and have an objective reality, they are
external to the individual.

2. Social facts are external to the individual in the sense that any one individual is only a single
element within the totality of relationships, which constitutes a society. Durkheim argued that
social facts are distinct from individual or psychological facts.

B. Social facts exercise a moral constraint over the individual. When the individual attempts to
resist social facts they assert themselves. The assertion may range from a mild ridicule to social
isolation and moral and legal sanctions.

Durkheim adds that social facts cannot be defined merely by their universality. Thus a thought or
movement repeated by individuals is not thereby a social fact. What are important are the
collective aspects of the beliefs, tendencies and practices of a group that characterize truly social
phenomena. These social phenomena are transmitted through the collective means of
socialization.

Thus social facts can be recognized because they are external to the individuals on the one hand,
and are capable of exercising coercion over them on the other. Since they are external they are
also general and because they are collective, they can be imposed on the individuals who form a
given society.

Rules for the observation of social facts

According to Durkheim, social facts must be considered as things. Social facts are real. Social
facts have to be studied by the empirical method and not direct intuition; and also, they cannot be
modified by a simple effort of the will. While studying social facts as ‘things’ the following three
rules have to be followed in order to be objective.

1. All preconceptions must be eradicated. Sociologists must emancipate themselves from the
common place ideas that dominate the mind of the layperson and adopt an emotionally neutral
attitude towards what they set out to investigate.

2. Sociologists have to formulate the concepts precisely. At the outset of the research the
sociologists are likely to have very little knowledge of the phenomenon in question. They must
study those properties that are external enough to be observed. For example, in Division of
Labour the type of solidarity in a society can be perceived by looking at the type of law-
repressive or Restitutive, criminal or civil- which is dominant in the society.

3. When sociologists undertake the investigation of some form of social facts, they must study it
from an aspect that is independent of their individual manifestations. The objectivity of social
facts depends on their being separated from individual facts. Social facts provide a common
standard for members of the society. Social facts exist in the form of legal rules, moral
 P a g e | 15

regulations, proverbs, social conventions etc. It is these that sociologists must study to gain an
understanding of social life.

Rules for distinguishing between the normal and pathological

Durkheim explains that the social fact is considered to be normal when it is understood in the
context of the society in which it exists. A social fact is ‘normal’ for a given society when it has
its utility for that societal type. Durkheim illustrates the example of crime. Durkheim argues that
even though crime involves the deviation of individual behaviour from the approved set of social
behaviors, it cannot be considered abnormal. First, crime as a social fact exists in all type of
societies. Second, if there would be no deviation, there will be no change in the human behaviour
and no modification of the existing social norms. To show that crime is normal Durkheim cites
the example of Socrates, who according to the Athenian law was a criminal, his crime being the
independence of his thought. His crime rendered a service to his country because it served to
prepare a new morality and faith, which the Athenians needed.

Durkheim applied the method used by the study of medicine to study social facts. He considered
crime and punishment to be normal. When the rate of crime exceeds what is more or less
constant for a given social type, then it becomes an abnormal or pathological social fact.
Similarly, suicide is a normal social fact. But the sudden rise in the suicide rate in the Western
Europe during the 19th century was a cause for concern for Durkheim and one of the reasons
why he decided to study this phenomenon.

Rules for the explanation of social facts

There are two approaches used for the explanation of social facts- the causal and the functional.

A. Why- It explains why the social phenomenon in question exists. The causes, which give rise
to a given social fact, must be identified separately from whatever social functions it may fulfil.
Knowledge of the causes, which bring a phenomenon into being, can under certain
circumstances allow us to drive some insight into its possible functions.

B. How- Durkheim’s next concern is to determine the method by which they may be developed.
The nature of social facts determines the method of explaining these facts. Since the subject
matter of sociology has a social character, it is collective in nature; the explanation should also
have a social character. According to Durkheim, explanation of social facts in terms directly in
terms of individual characteristics or in terms of psychology would make the explanation false.
Therefore in the case of causal explanation “the determining cause of a social fact should be
sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of the individual
consciousness”. In the case of functional explanation “the function of a social fact ought always
to be sought in its relation to some social end”.
 P a g e | 16

The final point about Durkheim’s logic of explanation is his stress upon the comparative nature
of social science. To show that a given fact is the cause of another “”we have to compare cases in
which they are simultaneously present or absent, to see if the variations they present in these
different combinations of circumstances indicate that one depends on the other”. The
comparative method is the very framework of the science of society for Durkheim.

Religion and society by Emile Durkheim:

Religion is a faith in divine or supreme power away from society & is expressed through prayer
and worship and other means of devotion.

Religion is a faith which binds the followers with a divine power. Every follower remains
devoted to his religion. Each individual lives with uncertainties of life, hence he prays for the
grace of God. Through the medium of religion he prays for the well being of himself & his
family to the divine power.

In the 19th century the sociology of religion was concerned with the main questions, how did
religion began? And ‘How did religion evolve? This voluntary approach was influenced by
Darwin’ ‘on the origin of species’ published in 1859. Just as Darwin attempted to explain the
origin and evolution of species so sociologists tried to explain the origin & evolution of social
institutions and society. In terms of religion, two main theories Animism and Naturism were
advanced to account for its origin.

Animism means the belief in spirits. E. B Taylor believes this to be the earliest form of religion.
Naturism means the belief that the forces of nature have supernatural power. M. Muller believes
this to be the earliest form of religion.

Evolutionists such as Taylor & Muller attempted to explain religion in terms of human needs.
Taylor saw it as a response to man’s intellectual needs; Muller saw it as a means of satisfying
man’s emotional needs. But Emile Durkheim changes the emphasis of religion from human
needs to society’s needs.

E. Durkheim began by refuting the then existing theories of the origin of religion. He rejected
Taylors theory of ‘Animism’ and Max Muller’s theory of ‘naturism’ on the grounds that they
failed to explain the main difference between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’, two kinds of
phenomena which are the essence of the religion and considered ‘Totemism’ as the key concept
to explain the origin of life.

In 1912 Emile Durkheim published an influential book,

“The Elementary forms of Religious life’, in which he tried to identify the elements common to
all religions. After surveying religions around the world, Durkheim concluded that there is no
specific belief or practice shared by all religions. He did find, however that all religions
regardless of their name or teaching separate the sacred from the profane. By sacred Durkheim
 P a g e | 17

referred to aspects of life having to do with the supernatural that inspire awe, reverence, deep
respects even fear. By profane, he meant aspects of life that are not concerned with religion but
instead, are part of the ordinary aspects of everyday life. Durkheim also found that all religions
develop a community around their practices and beliefs. He summarized his findings as follows.

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things. That is to say
things set apart and forbidden beliefs & practices which unite into one single normal community
called a church, all those who adhere to them.

Thus, he argued a religion is defined by three elements:

1. Belief: - Beliefs that some things are sacred (forbidden, set off from the profane).
2. Practices: - (rituals) centering on the things considered sacred.
3. A moral community: (a church) resulting from a groups beliefs and practices.

Durkheim used the word church in an unusual sense to refer to any moral community centered
on beliefs & practices regarding the sacred. In Durkheim’s senses church refers to Buddhists
bowing before a shrine, Hindus dipping in the Ganga’s river and Confucianists offering food to
their ancestors. Similarly, the moral community is simply people united by their religious
practices.

Durkheim started with a study of ‘Totemism’ a primitive and simple religion of the
‘Arunta’ tribe of Australia. He believed that the simplest form of religious life provides the
simplest examples of the essential elements of life. Totemism is a system of beliefs and rites
centered on a totem. The totem may be a plant or animal with which the members of a group feel
a strong yet mysterious relationship. It is sacred to them. Thus the totem represents the spirit of
the group as well on the basis of this fact; Durkheim offers his theory that religion is the shield of
society.

Thus, religion functions to find society’s members by promoting them to affirm their common
values and beliefs on a regular basis. Durkheim predicted that religions influence would decrease
as society modernizes. He believed that scientific thinking would likely replace religious
thinking with people giving only minimal attention to rituals and ceremonies. He also considered
the concept of ‘God’ to be on the verge of extinction. Instead he envisioned society as promoting
civil religion in which, for example, civic celebrations, parades and patriotism take the place of
church services. If traditional religion were to continue however, he believed it would do so only
as a means to preserve social cohesion and order.

Suicide: Concept & types:

Durkheim book ‘Suicide’ is one of his important works. In this book, he takes the suicide rates as
an example of social fact and attempts to explain scientifically the variations in it. He defined
 P a g e | 18

suicide in these words; ‘suicide is that positive or negative act of an individual which he knows
will directly or indirectly lead to the destruction of his body’.

Durkheim’s theory of ‘suicide’ is related in various ways to his study of the ‘Division of labour’.
It is also linked with the theory of social constraint. Durkheim has established the view that there
are no societies in which suicide does not occur, rejecting most of the accepted theories of
suicide as primarily social phenomena in terms of the breakdown of the vital bond of life.
Durkheim in his classical study of “Le suicide’ which was published in 1897 demonstrates that
neither psychopathic factor nor hereditary nor climate nor poverty nor unhappy love nor other
personal factors motivate along form sufficient explanation of suicide. According to Durkheim,
suicide is neither an individual act nor a personal action. It is caused by some power which is
over and above the individual or it is society which compels the individual to commit suicide. He
concludes that suicide is the result of social disorganization or lack of social integration or social
solidarity.

Durkheim is the first sociologists to adopt statistical method to study suicide. He considers
suicide to be a social fact, as it is external and compelling. Durkheim analyses suicide under the
following headings;

Types of Suicide:

On the basis of analysis of mass data gathered on many societies and cultures. Durkheim
identified four types of suicide.

1. Egoistic type: - This type of suicide occurs when an individual feels isolated from the
grouper where the degree of social integration is low. Egoism occurs because the tie
binding the individual to others is slackened (to gradually decrease). He gives too much
importance to himself and is not properly integrated in society. Thus, the rate of egoistic
suicide increases as a result of the weakening of the bonds of solidarity in the family,
religions and political organizations. Individuals who are strongly integrated into family,
religious group etc are less likely to encounter these problems e.g. the suicide rates are
high among bachelors & the widowed but lower among the married because they are well
integrated into a family group.

Altruistic: - There are many people in the world who sacrifice their lives for the sake of their
community. These are called altruistic suicides.

2. Altruistic Suicide: - This type of suicide occurs where individuals and the group are too
close & intimate. So he is controlled completely by the group with no regard to himself.
For example sati system among Hindus, Soldiers, freedom fighters, Dannie’s etc. behind
these suicides the aim is religious norms.
3. Anomic Suicide: - Anomic means normlessness. This type of suicide is due to certain
breakdown of social equilibrium such as suicide after bankruptcy or after winning a
 P a g e | 19

lottery. In other words anomic suicide takes place in a situation which has cropped up
suddenly.
4. Fatalistic Suicide: - Fatalistic suicides occur because of an excessive degree of
regulation and an overly developed regime. For example Durkheim cited the suicide of
slaves who seeing no alternative to enslavement under their master take their own lives.

Durkheim’s theory of suicide has contributed much for the understanding of the phenomenon
because of, his stress on social rather than on psychological biological or personal factors. The
main drawback of the theory is that he has paid too much stress only on one factor, namely social
factor and has forgotten other factors, there by raping his theory defective.

Key Words

Clan: - Descent from a common ancestry; common ancestor signifies a relationship through
blood. Hence, marriages within the same clan are prohibited.

Collective Conscience: - A set of beliefs and customs, which on an average is common in a

society and forms a determinant system which has its own style of life.

Social Solidarity: - The condition within the group in which there is social cohesion and
cooperation, and the collective action is directed towards the achievement of group goals and in
which social organization is shown by permanency. These conditions are changeable according
to the social conditions.

Sui Generis: - That which generates itself; that which exists by itself; that which does not
depend upon on some other being for its origin or existence.

Religion: according to Durkheim, beliefs & practices that separate the profane from the sacred
and unite its adherents in to a moral community.

Animism: the belief that all objects in the world have spirits, some of which are dangerous and
must be outwitted.

Anomic: Durkheim’s term for a condition of society in which people become detached, cut loose
from norms that usually guide their behavior.
 P a g e | 20

KARL MARX

1. CLASS AND CLASS CONFLICT

2. Dialectical Materialism
3. HISTORICAL MATERIALISM

Class & Class Conflict:

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a socialist theoretician and organizer, a major figure in the history of
economic and philosophical thought, and a great social prophet. He basically predicted that man
would someday create a paradise on earth, that we all would someday live in brotherhood,
sharing our talents and our wealth.

CONCEPT OF CLASS:

The status of all individuals has never been equal in any human society; there have always been
differences in them on one basis or another. In the earlier societies distinctions of high and low
were made on the basis of Age, Sex, Dynasty, Tradition, personal power. In the growing
complexities of the developed society the divisions became more personal at various levels, and
the feeling of high and low became more pronounced which at present is called as Class System.

CLASS THEORY BY MARX:

According to Marx, ‘social class refers to all those people who share a common relationship to
the means of economic production or a group of people who share a common economic status’.

Marx said the formation of classes is based on the means of production. Any change in means of
production is reflected in society by origin of a new class. Before the industrial revolution people
were divided in two main classes – Landlords & Tenants. But industrial revolution brought with
it new social structure. As a result of increased importance to money and emphasis of people
shifted from agriculture to production of other goods, two new classes emerged – the Capitalists
(owners of the means & mode of production like industries) and labour class (Slaves, who have
nothing except their labour to sell). These classes can be generally classified as the oppressor &
the oppressed, owners of the means of production and those benefit of these means.

In industries the workers were interested in raising their wages improving their work condition &
standards of living & ultimately ending the gap of exploitation. But capitalists were interested
more in making the profit thus, increasing the gap by appropriating the surplus value created by
the workers; thus exploiting the labour.

Though the capitalist system has resulted in tremendous progress in science & technology, but
the tendency to exploiting the workers has resulted in conflict between the Bourgeoisie and
Proletariat.
 P a g e | 21

Marx has emphasized that workers must organize themselves to fight the injustice and
exploitation tendencies in order to bridge the gap.

Class struggle constitutes the central theme of Marx’s theoretical scheme which is based on the
following assumptions;

1. The history of all so far existing society is the history of class struggle’;
Freeman & slave, lord & serfs, guild master & journeyman, in the other words exploiter
& exploited stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted
fight – sometimes open, sometimes latent – each time ending in a revolutionary
restructure of society at large.
2. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their
social being determines their consciousness. This means that the social standing makes a
man aware of himself.
3. The ideas of ruling class are in every age the ruling ideas; i.e. the class which is the
dominated material force in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual force. It
means that powerful class makes the law & sees that others follow them.

Marx says that feudalism gave the way to the emergence of capitalism each stage, after its
completion leads to other stage which determine different ways of life.

The main ingredients of Marx’s theory of class & class conflict may be summarized as follows;

1. The development of proletariat: the capitalist economic system transformed the masses
of people in to two groups – one is Bourgeoisie (the capitalist) & the other – workers or
Proletariat & created for them a common situation and inculcated in them an awareness
of common interest. Through the development of class consciousness, the economic
conditions of capitalism united the workers & constituted them into a class for itself i.e.
proletariat.
2. Pauperization: ‘poverty of the proletariat grows with increasing exploitation of labour’.
One capitalist makes many others poor and the wealth of haves is increased by large
profits with corresponding increase in the mass of poverty. Thus to Marx, poverty of the
result of exploitation, not of scarcity.
3. Alienation: Marx insists that the mode of capitalism produces alienation among the
workers. He prefers to say that workers are forced to work under some inhuman
conditions. Workers are neither given any right over their tools with which they work or
any freedom to determine their own place, nor share in profit. This creates powerlessness,
meaninglessness & sense of isolation which together produce the loss of attachment to
the work.
4. Class Solidarity & Class Antagonism: with the growth of class awareness, the
crystallization of social relations into two groups gets set and the classes tend to become
internally homogenous and the class struggle becomes more intensified and violent.
 P a g e | 22

5. Revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat: at the peak of the class war, a violent
revolution breaks out which destroys the structure of capitalist society. This revolution is
most likely to occur during economic crises. According to Marx, when the workers get
sufficiently united, they can take over the means of production, remove the bourgeoisie &
become owners on their own.

After the bloody revolution, capitalistic society with the increase of proletariat will rule the
economic system of society and will inaugurate the communist society. Abolition of private
property will eliminate class system and thereby the causes of social conflict. All the members
will unitedly hold the property & distribute the profits equally among themselves.

Dialectical Materialism;

Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism, synthesizing Hegel's dialectics, which proposes

that every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while simultaneously
developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its systemic decay.
Dialectical materialism is the philosophy of Marxism, which provides us with a scientific and
comprehensive world outlook. It is the philosophical bedrock - the method - on which the whole
of Marxist doctrine is founded. Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of
dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical
materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history.

Dialectics comes from the Greek ‘Dialego’, to discourse, to debate. In ancient times dialectics
was the art of arriving at the truth by disclosing the contradictions in the argument of an
opponent and overcoming these contradictions. There were philosophers in ancient times who
believed that the disclosure of contradictions in thought and the clash of opposite opinions was
the best method of arriving at the truth. This dialectical method of thought, later extended to the
phenomena of nature, developed into the dialectical method of apprehending nature, which
regards the phenomena of nature as being in constant movement and undergoing constant
change, and the development of nature as the result of the development of the contradictions in
nature, as the result of the interaction of opposed forces in nature. In its essence, dialectics is the
direct opposite of metaphysics.

Marx was not satisfied with Hegelian idealism but Hegal’s use of the dialectical methodology
did grab Marx’s imagination, by turning from idealism to materialism. Marx was able to make
good use of the dialectic in what come to be called dialectical Materialism or historical
materialism. Hegal was an idealist who asserted the primacy of ‘mind’ whereas Marx was
‘materialist’ who asserted primacy of ‘matter’.

Larson has very nicely outlined the basic postulates of Marxian dialectical method as follows;

1. All the phenomenon of nature is part of integrated whole

2. Nature is in a continuous state of movement and change.
 P a g e | 23

3. The development process is a product of quantitative advances which culminate in

abrupt qualitative changes.
4. Contractions are inherent in all realms of nature but particularly human society. This
methodology perceives history as a series of stages based on a particular mode of
production & characterized by a particular type of economic organization.

Because of the inherent contradictions, each stage contained the seeds of its own destruction.

Marx believed that no matter how well a society functions in terms of its own order and
structure, it s destined to turmoil and revolution until the final breakdown of all class division.

The inevitability of the continuing struggle is related to the emergence of the division of labour
with society, for it is the phenomenon of labour differentiation which forms antagonistic class
that in turn become the centre of competition and struggle as well as against nature other within
society.

The use of dialectic in the analysis of society & history became a major characteristic of
Marxism.

The principal features of the Marxist dialectical method are as follows:

1. Nature Connected and Determined

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard nature as an accidental agglomeration of

things, of phenomena, unconnected with, isolated from, and independent of, each other, but as a
connected and integral whole, in which things, phenomena are organically connected with,
dependent on, and determined by, each other.

2. Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and Change

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that nature is not a state of rest and immobility,
stagnation and immutability, but a state of continuous movement and change, of continuous
renewal and development, where something is always arising and developing, and something
always disintegrating and dying away. The dialectical method therefore requires that phenomena
should be considered not only from the standpoint of their interconnection and interdependence,
but also from the standpoint of their movement, their change, their development, their coming
into being and going out of being.

The dialectical method regards as important primarily not that which at the given moment seems
to be durable and yet is already beginning to die away, but that which is arising and developing,
even though at the given moment it may appear to be not durable, for the dialectical method
considers invincible only that which is arising and developing.

3. Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change

 P a g e | 24

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics does not regard the process of development as a simple
process of growth, where quantitative changes do not lead to qualitative changes, but as a
development which passes from insignificant and imperceptible quantitative changes to open'
fundamental changes' to qualitative changes; a development in which the qualitative changes
occur not gradually, but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another;
they occur not accidentally but as the natural result of an accumulation of imperceptible and
gradual quantitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development should be understood not
as movement in a circle, not as a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an
onward and upward movement, as a transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative
state, as a development from the simple to the complex, from the lower to the higher:

4. Contradictions Inherent in Nature

Contrary to metaphysics, dialectics holds that internal contradictions are inherent in all things
and phenomena of nature, for they all have their negative and positive sides, a past and a future,
something dying away and something developing; and that the struggle between these opposites,
the struggle between the old and the new, between that which is dying away and that which is
being born, between that which is disappearing and that which is developing, constitutes the
internal content of the process of development, the internal content of the transformation of
quantitative changes into qualitative changes.

The dialectical method therefore holds that the process of development from the lower to the
higher takes place not as a harmonious unfolding of phenomena, but as a disclosure of the
contradictions inherent in things and phenomena, as a "struggle" of opposite tendencies which
operate on the basis of these contradictions.

Historical Materialism by K. Marx;

In Marxist theory the most important human activity is economic activity, the production of
material goods. In a speech at Marxist grave side, Engels said that ‘mankind must first of all eat,
drink, have shelter and clothing before it can posses polities, science, art, religion, etc.

Marx was not satisfied with Hegelian idealism but Hegal’s use of the dialectical methodology
did grab Marx’s imagination by turning from idealism to materialism. Marx was able to make
good use of the dialectic in what comes to be called dialectical materialism or historical
materialism. Hegal was an idealist who asserted the primacy of ‘mind’ whereas Marx was a
materialist who asserted primacy of ‘Matter’..

K. Marx’s general ideas about the society are known as the theory of historical materialism.
According to Marx, material condition or economic factors affects the structure and development
of society. Marx’s theory of historical materialism is historical because Marx has traced the
 P a g e | 25

evolution of societies from one stage to another. This theory of history and society is called
historical materialism. Historical materialism is the application of Marxist science to historical
development. The fundamental proposition of historical materialism can be summed up in a
sentence: 'It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence; but on the contrary,
it is their social being that determines their consciousness.

There are two dimensions of historical materialism as propounded by Marx. The first is the
statement of premises of materialistic interpretation of history and the second is the identification
of various stages of development of studies. Marx & Engels stated their theoretical position with
regard to what is now called materialist interpretation of history. It is worthwhile to state their
premises.

First, all societies that have existed or do exist today exhibit one of five different ways of
organizing production. There different ways of producing goods Marx called ‘modes of
production’. The five are (in chronological order) the primitive communist, ancient, feudal
capitalist and communist / socialist modes.

So on this base Marx has divided the whole human history in these parts;

1. Primitive Communal society: - Primitive communal society was the first stage of social
history. In this the means of production were underdeveloped like tools of stones; arrow
bow etc. to produce essential commodities joint labour was used. So for this every one
economic exploitation and there was also no class difference.
2. Slave society: - Second stage of social history was slave society. With the development
of agriculture, cattle rearing and tools of metal the production system and relations started
to change and slave system was started. With developed means of production the concept
of private property came into being and different classes of slaves & slave masters also
came into being. In this way class struggle came into being as well. According to Marx,
class struggle was started in this society because the masters started to exploit slaves.
3. Feudal society: - In this stage means of production i.e. land came under occupation of
some land owners /feudal lords. Large number of landless half slaves becomes farmers.
The concept of private property also strengthened in this age. We can see the remains of
this society even today in the developing country like India and in underdeveloped
countries. In this stage two classes of farmers & feudal lords were made.
4. The capitalist mode of production: - This stage came after the death of feudal society in
1789 (French revolution). Production now took on a new class character.

So capitalism developed in British before industrialization. Agricultural goods were

produced first of all in a capitalistic way. It was only later when factors were built and
industrial machines were developed, that industrial capitalism became established and an
urban proletariat emerged. In capitalist society, the Bourgeoisie is the dominant class
 P a g e | 26

because, like the masters in slave societies and the lords in feudal societies own the
productive wealth, & the means of production.

With the development of science education increased & labours were working with each
other in large industries they got organized and gradually class consciousness was developed.
Today exploited class is not ready to be exploited by other class. Class struggle is at its best.
This is the last system based on exploitation as per K. Marx. Today the destruction of
capitalism has started. Human society is proceeding towards socialism in a rapid speed.
Example of this is the Russia, China & other countries.

In Marx’s words “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”.

Critical Remarks:

Irrespective of its optimistic stand, the dialectical materialism of Marx is not free from criticism.
Though out and out it was supported by post-Marxist scholars, the anti-Marxists and non-
Marxists found the inherent difficulties associated in the theory.

A). the theory if dialectical materialism was never the original contribution of Marx. People like
Heraclitus long gave back the idea that the society is an on-going process with flock of events,
whereas the post-Marxist scholars glorified it as the original contribution of Marx.

b). the non-Marxists viewed the theory of dialectical materialism as more and more temporary
because development cannot be smooth as predicted by Marx. In many instances, development
becomes sporadic and retarded. Secondly, Marx talked about only the indigenous factors of
development, but development is also affected by extraneous factors. Thirdly, Marx talks of
matter as a mechanism of change. But matter itself cannot change without being coupled with
individual effort.

c). All societies’ moves through dialectic phase, as suggested by Marx, but the archaic societies
did not have witnessed such dialectical development such as India, which moved from feudalism
to socialism directly.

d). Marx suggested development occurs due to inner contradictions and spontaneously. But
without the interventions of individuals, institutional development cannot take place in the
society. It is the political organization that stimulates development and determines its course of
action and, therefore, Marx seems to remain mum about the particular subject.

Key Words

i) Bourgeoisie: - The class of capitalists who, in all developed countries, are now almost
exclusively in possession of all the means of consumption and of all the raw materials and
instruments (machines, factories necessary for their production (Engels in Principles of
Communism, 1827).
 P a g e | 27

ii) Capitalist Mode of Production: - Refers to a production system where the owners of means
of production, capitalists, extract surplus labour from the proletariats in the form of profits.

iii) Capitalists: - The ruling class in capitalism who control the means of production.

iv) Class: - When people share the same relationship to the means of production and also share
the similar consciousness regarding their common interest, they constitute a class.

v) Class-conflict: - When two classes having basic antagonism of class interests struggle or
clash in order to safeguard their class interests then it is called class conflict.

vi) Class Consciousness: - Awareness of the objective class position vis-à-vis others and an
awareness of its historic role in the transformation of society.

vii) Feudal Mode of Production: - Refers to a production system where the lords appropriate
surplus labour from the serfs in the form of rent.

viii) Forces of Production: - Refers to the material technical aspect of production as well as the
corresponding labour power and its competencies required in the production process.

ix) Infrastructure: - According to Marx, the materialistic structure or economic structure is the
foundation or base of society. In other words, it is also called the infrastructure. The
superstructure of society rests on it. Infrastructure includes mode of production and hence forces
of production and relations of production.

x) Mode of Production: - A mode of production is the relationship between the relations of

production and the forces of production. Modes of production can be distinguished from one
another by different relationships between the forces and relations of production.

xi) Proletariat: - These people are also known as ‘Have-nots’ and these are the people who do
not own any means of production except their own labour power. Hence all the landless peasants
or agricultural labourers in feudal societies and industrial workers in capitalist societies are the
proletariat.

xii) Relations of Production: - Refer to social relationships that arise directly out of the process
of production. These social relationships include the relationships between the owners and non-
owners of the means of production. These relationships decide and even determine the control
and the capacity to possess the product.

xiii) Revolution: - It is the sudden, total and radical change in society brought in by the matured
conditions of class conflict.

xiv) Superstructure: - All social, political and cultural institutions of societies excepting
economic institutions constitute the superstructure of a society.
 P a g e | 28

xv) Alienation: Marx’s term for workers lack of connection to the product of their labour;
caused by their being assigned repetitive tasks on a small part of a product.

xvi) Capitalist class: the wealthy who own the means of production and buy the labour of the
working class.

Xvii) Class System: a form of social stratification based primarily on the possession of money or
material possessions.

xviii) Dialectical process: Each arrangement, or thesis, contains contradictions, or antithesis,

which must be resolved; the new arrangement, or synthesis, contains its own contradictions, and
so on.
 P a g e | 29

Max Webber (21 April 1864- July 14-1920)

1. Social Action; Concept & types

2. Religion & Capitalism
3. Characteristics of ideal form of Bureaucracy

Introduction

The German political economist and sociologist Max Webber is one of those scholars who was
not only famous in Germany but whose contribution to social thought is recognized all over the
world. He achieved extraordinary success at a very early age and his whole life was extremely
brilliant. Talcott Parsons writes that max Webber had a multi- dimensional personality and his
greatest achievements can be seen in his scholarly works. This scientific attitude, intellectual
discoveries and vast researches place him at that level from where he has become the most
influential scholar in the contemporary sociological thought.

Social Action:-

The concept of social action has a significant place in the sociology of Max Webber. He defined
sociology as a science which aims at interpretative understanding (verstehan) of social action in
order to gain explanation of its causes, its course and its effects’. While defining sociology, M.
Webber has laid stress on ‘social action’ in his words. Action is social in so far as, by virtue of
the subjective meaning attached to it by acting individual or individuals, it takes account of the
behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course. In other words, the concept of action
describes all human behavior to which the actor attaches a subjective meaning. An action is
social when it is oriented or directly to others in society. Social action according to Webber
possesses the following characteristics.

1. Relationship with the action of others: - No action shall be called a social action unless
it has relationship with the present, past or future behavior of others. Others are not
necessarily known persons. They may be unknown individuals as well.
2. Social Action is not isolated: - Social action in order to be really social has to be
oriented to the behavior of other animate things as well. Worship before an idol or
worship in a lonely place is not a social action. It has to be oriented to the behavior of
animate beings as well.
3. Results of cooperation & struggle between individual & members of the society: -
Mere contact with human beings is not a social action. It should deal with the cooperation
and struggle between various individuals. A crowd that may collect at a place does not
necessarily indulge in the social action unless it starts behaving with one another.
4. Mere contact with others or actions in relation to others are not a social action. Social
action should have a meaningful understanding with the social action of others. Webber
argued that to explain an action we must interpret it in terms of its subjectively intended
meaning. For Webber it is important that action is defined in terms of meaningfulness
 P a g e | 30

and sociological analysis must proceed by identifying the meaning that actions have for
actors.

Types of Social Action:

According to Max Webber social action like other social forms has been classified into four
types.

1. Goal- Rational Action (Zweck-rational action):- The actor determines the practical
goal (rational and quantifiable) and chooses his means purely in terms of their efficiency
to attain the goal (Please note that in reality there is no pure goal rational action). But the
meaning involved in action tends to be predominantly goal rational).

For example an engineer constructing a bridge is good example of it. This action is
corresponding to Pareto’s logical action.

2. Value- Rational Action (Wert rational-action):- Value rational action is the one where
the means are chosen for their efficiency but the goals are determined by value. The
action of a captain who goes down with the sinking ship or that of a soldier who allows
himself to be killed rather than yield in a war are examples of such action. It is for the
sake of certain values like owner and patriotism.
3. Affective or Emotional Action: - In certain situations the sole meaning involved in
people’s behavior is to give expression of their emotional state. Here emotion or impulse
determines the ends and means of action. Such an action is termed as affective or
emotional action. For example the case of a mother who like huge her child, embracing
an old friends etc.
4. Traditional Action: - Traditional actions are those where both ends and means are
determined by custom. Here, the meaning involved is that of maintaining a continuity of
the tradition. Rituals, ceremonies and practices of traditional fall in this category e.g.
doing pranam or Namaskar to the elders are examples of this type of action.

Thus, according to Weber, sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretative
understanding of social action. For Weber, social action is the basic limit of social life & hence
the subject matter of sociology. Thus, as a sociologist, one must look at human behavior as social
action.

Critique of Weber’s Social Action Theory:

1. It limits the study for sociologists. According to him, social is that which has meaning for
individuals. Therefore, individual behavior activities, which lack meaning, are not a subject
matter of sociology. Also such behavior should be oriented towards others. Therefore, solitary
prayer is not a social action.
 P a g e | 31

2. According to Weber, human beings are rational and conscious in interpreting the world. Thus,
he excludes much action as irrational. These include impulsive acts and emotions like anger,
pride, jealousy etc.

3. Weber’s action theory studies only individual action. Group or collectivities are not his
primary focus.

4. He mentions little about conflict. He does not consider disagreements and misunderstandings.

5. According to Weber, actions of individuals must be analyzed to determine their

consequences. That is casual approach. But there may be unintended consequences. Outcomes of
social action cannot be predicted from meanings of action.

6. According to C.W Mills, Weber laid greater emphasis on mental processes but spent a little
time on them.

Theory of Religion
The protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism

The protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism is the classic study of Max Weber. In this study
Weber sought to demonstrate that economic factors do not represent a constant and independent
variables to which all others stand in dependence. He observed a close connection between
religious and economic forces. His concept of religion is more ethical than theological. Weber
wanted to examine its influence on the life of people.

He traced the impact of ascetic Protestantism-primary Calvinism- on the rise of the spirit of
capitalism. Weber undertook a massive study of the major world religions and the societies in
which they were found and concluded that the answer lay in specific religious beliefs say,
Calvinism and other forms of Puritanism.

The investigation of the relationship between religious values and economic interests was
triggered by a number of factors. In the first place Weber noticed that protestants, particularly
protestant of certain sects, were chief captains of industry and possessed more wealth and
economic means than other religious groups, notably Catholics. Therefore, he wanted to
ascertain whether there is an essential harmony between protestant ethic and the spirit of
capitalism.

Now, in order to overcome the methodological problem of defining Capitalism and Protestant
ethics, Max Weber made use of concept of ideal type. Protestant ethic does not refer to any
particular theological doctrine but a set of values and belief systems that make up a religious
ideal. Capitalism, in its ideal type is thought of by Weber to be that complex activity designed
specially to maximize profit through the careful and intentional exercise of rational organization
and management of production. But capitalism as a economic enterprise designed to maximize
 P a g e | 32

profit existed all over world. Weber drew a religion economics under this analytical spell
believing, as he did that the relationship was complex and multidimensional.

Weber identified a number of values embedded in Protestantism which are in harmony with the
spirit of capitalism.

1. The shift from Ritualistic and other-Worldly Orientation to Down to Earth Pragmatism:
This is anti-attitude which favours the development of science and rational investigation.

2. Changed Attitude towards work: protestant ethic proclaims work as virtue something not
only good and desirable but contributing to glory of God as well. The protestant ethic not only
encourages gainful enterprise but also insists that work is a virtue in itself since it contributes to
the glory of God.

3. The concept of calling: This idea emerged from Calvinist’ doctrine of pre-destination.
Every person should select a calling (vocation) work hard at it and be successful. This new
doctrine exhorts men to seek gainful enterprises, accumulate wealth and prove their destiny.

4. The New Attitude towards the collection of Interest on Loans: The theological doctrine of
Catholicism proscribed the collection of interest on loans. This prompted a spurt of economic
activity, establishing of lending houses, new investments and new floating capital.

5. Structure on Alcoholism: Protestant ethic prohibits the consumption of alcohols.

6. Encourage of Literacy and Learning: Protestant ethic place great emphasis on literacy and
learning which led to the increase in education.

7. Rejection of Holidays: The Catholic calendar is full of holy days and almost every holy
day is a holiday. This is consistent with Catholic belief that one needs leisure to honour God with
ritualistic celebration. However, since work contributes to glory of God, there is no need of holy
days and celebrations. One should work all seven days in week.

8. Protestant Asceticism: On the one hand, protestant ethic exhorts people to accumulate
and on the other hand, it forbids the use of wealth for enjoyment. This means a ceaseless pursuit
of profit, not for the sake of enjoying for the pleasure of life, but simply for satisfaction of
producing more and more, undoubtedly a condition par excellence for development of
capitalism.

Thus, protestant ethics influence capitalism. The Max Weber tried to establish relationship
between religion and capitalism. He was subjected to criticism that he overlooked functionalism,
super naturalism in his analysis. Working day and night and not enjoying fruits of labour seems
irrational. There are other religions where people did good in economy, that are not necessarily
favoring capitalism, another thing is that may be the tenets of capitalism had affected emergence
of protestant ethics but it is hard to support this view because most of capitalist societies of
 P a g e | 33

America and Britain are influenced by Christianity. However, it seems that Weber tried to even a
link between religion and economy; it is true to say that religion had some effect on economic
life of people but it is not correct to say that religion as protestant ethics only is responsible for
development of capitalism.

Q. Characteristics OF ideal form of Bureaucracy:

In the words of American sociologist Amitari Etzioni, our society is an organizational society”.
We are born in hospitals, educated in schools, employed by business firms & government
agencies; we join trade unions & professional associations & are laid to rest in churches. In
sickness & in health, at work & at play, life in modern industrial society is increasingly
conducted in organizational society Bureaucracy.

The term Bureaucracy was first coined by Vincent de Gourney a French economist in 1746. In
French the word ‘Bureau’ means a desk. Thus Bureaucracy means desk government.

The classical writings on Bureaucracy come from Karl Marx, Max Webber, Robert Michel’s etc.
however M. Webber was the first social scientist who made a systematic study of Bureaucracy
and its characteristics.

Max Webber never defined Bureaucracy. He only described its characteristics. According to
him, Bureaucracy is an administrative body composed of appointed officials. It is a type of social
organization in hierarchical order. In this each person has some power and authority. Its aim is to
run the administration of the state. He has prepared an ideal type of Bureaucracy on the basis of
his extensive study of bit which has the following fathers.

Ideal characteristics of Bureaucracy

Max Webber described characteristics of Bureaucracy which includes both structural &
behavioral.

(1) Rules: - The Bureaucratic setup is strictly governed by rules and regulations. These rules
and regulations are impersonal. This tends permanency & continuity to the bureaucratic
functioning.
(2) Division of labour: - All tasks necessary for the accomplishment of goals are divided
into highly specialized jobs. Each task is broken down into smaller tasks and different
people work on different parts of the tasks.
(3) Hierarchy: - A Bureaucracy is setup with clear chairs of command so that everyone has
a boss i.e., each lower office is under the control & supervision of a higher one. Power
flows downward.
(4) Complex and specialized work in modern bureaucracy:- Since the work in modern
Bureaucracies is complex & specialized, it requires properly trained personal.
 P a g e | 34

(5) Rationality: - Bureaucracy is considered to be the most rational means of achieving

imperative control over human beings. Rationality is reflected by the relatively easier
means of calculating of results in the organization.
(6) Impersonality: - The Bureaucratic form has no place for personal sentiments officials
activity is conducted in a businesslike manner with a high degree of operational
impersonality.
(7) Neutrality: - Bureaucracy is supposed to be a political & neutral in its orientation &
support to the political regime it serves. It is also supposed to be value neutral and
committed only to the work it meant to perform.

Other features of bureaucracy are as under;

1. Bureaucracy is an expert system of administration based on detailed documentation &

record keeping.
2. The operation of Bureaucracy is governed by a legalistic framework of formal rules &
regulations.
3. Decisions are made through the application of specific procedures designed to eliminate
subjective judgments.
4. The legitimacy of Bureaucracy and of bureaucrats is based on a strict separation of
individual personality from the task being done.
5. Authority is a characteristic of the post not of the post holder.
6. Bureaucracies have a rigidly hierarchical organizational structure with clear lines of
communication & responsibility.
7. It is not possible to become a bureaucrat with the correct formal qualifications &
credentials.

Max Webber says that Bureaucracy has developed because of democratic system of
administration and in this respect Bureaucracy and democracy are closely related. In a
democracy there is equality & each person has the right to rise to the highest position on the
basis of merit. These circumstances have proved beneficial for the birth & growth of
Bureaucracy.

In strictly practical terms there is nothing unexpected about these developments since the
application of Bureaucracy is entirely rational in the sense that it offers the best technical
solution to the problem of organizing large quantities of information. Bureaucracy is widely
perceived as a legitimate way of making decisions & of running things because the personal
interests of bureaucrats are kept separate from the decisions they make.

Key Words:

1. Authority: - Legitimate power that is institutionalized.

 P a g e | 35

2. Bureaucracy: -A system of administration based on the division of labour, specialization,

hierarchy of officials, formal body of rules to govern, written documents, impersonal relations,
recruitment and promotion on the basis of ability and separation of private and official income
etc.

3. Charismatic Authority: - In this type of authority, commands are obeyed because followers
believe in the extraordinary character of the leader.

4. Power: - One’s capacity to impose his or her will on others.

5. Rational-Legal Authority: - This involves obedience to formal rules established by regular

public procedure.

6. Reason: - An explanation or justification of an act, idea etc.

7. Value: - An idea about what is good, right, wise or beneficial.

8. Charisma: Literally, an extra-ordinary gift from God; more commonly, an outstanding,

‘magnetic’ personality.