Introduction
Emile Durkheim was a great French sociologist who lived from 1858 to 1917. He believed that the main role of any sociologist was to explain the causes of social phenomena and their functions in society. According to Durkheim, society should not be explained by individuals, but rather individuals should be explained based on their particular society.
The reason behind this is that people’s behavior is often influenced by external forces, such as collective conscience or societal concerns. According to the author’s opinion, an individual’s actions should never be solely attributed to their personal characteristics.
Karl Marx, a renowned sociologist who lived from 1818 to 1883, argued that individual attributes are the result of cumulative behavior. He further explained that society determines individuals’ actions. Marx’s study on the division of labor and suicide demonstrated the significant social cohesion present in European societies (Clark 36). His main interest was to understand the major changes occurring in Europe during his time and develop a scientific theory for society.
He formulated the theory that explains the workings and transformations of capitalistic societies. This is known as the theory of class conflict or Marxist theory of stratification (Blumenberg 2000). These two classical theories have many similarities in their theoretical perspectives. However, it is important to note that they also differ on other issues regarding their theoretical perspectives and explanations of social phenomena.
This paper provides a concise overview of the theories of two classical sociologists, Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx, and compares their respective ideas.
Emile Durkheim
In his theory of suicide, Emile Durkheim identified four major types of suicides: Altruistic, Egoistic, Anomie, and Fatalistic. He explained that in societies with strong social integration, there is a high rate of extrusive suicide. This is because individuals in these societies feel obligated to commit suicide for the collective good. They believe it is their duty to do so.
The egoistic form of suicide mainly occurs in societies where individuals are not integrated into larger social units. They experience a sense of meaninglessness after realizing the impacts of their actions, and in order to escape embarrassment or punishment, they end up committing suicide.
The anomic suicide, as Durkheim puts it, is likely to occur in a society where the regulation of power is disrupted. This disruption creates a normless state as seen in times of war, and some people may commit anomic suicide as a result. On the other hand, fatalistic suicide is usually committed due to excessive regulation in society.
Those who are likely to commit crimes are often those whose futures have been pitilessly blocked and whose passions have been suppressed by oppressive discipline, such as prisoners or slaves. In an effort to reduce rates of suicide, Schneider sought ways to bring about cohesion and solidarity among members of society.
In his theory of division of labor, Émile Durkheim identified two phases in a chronological manner depending on human history in labor activity: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Under mechanical solidarity, individuals are more alike to each other in society, creating a society of resemblance. They share the same feelings, values, and culture. In other words, they are not only mentally homogenous but also morally homogenous.
In organic solidarity, cooperation is primarily based on consensus, or what can be referred to as the unity of the collective. This leads to specialization in areas where individuals feel they excel, resulting in a division of labor. Similarity is not a requirement for cooperation. An example of organic solidarity is modern industrialized society.
According to him, some societies have more advanced forms of division of labor compared to others. He further explained that social phenomena can be explained based on three important factors: volume, material density, and moral density. The type of solidarity determines which type of law is used in a particular society. Repressive law and Restitutive law are the two types of laws used. Communities with little division of labor are held together by strong bands of intimate groups (mechanical solidarity), while those with great division of labor have weak bonds among intimate groups (Schneider 194-196).
Karl Marx and the Theory of Class Conflict
According to Marx, progress without conflict is just a dream. In other words, conflict is a normal condition in social life. For him, both conflict and social change can never be separated. He explains that economic production is the substructure upon which any society rests upon, while the rest of the society is what he calls superstructure.
The social institutions are highly dependent on the economic mode of production in society. Any variations or changes in other social institutions result from variations or changes in economic production. He emphasized the deterministic aspect of the economy and stressed the influence of material forces to such an extent that his theory was referred to as a materialistic interpretation of history. He explained that human society evolved through various stages.
Each of these stages has its own unique and well-organized systems. According to him, technological development determines the mode of production and the relationships, as well as the institutions that constitute the economic system. Social order is, in turn, determined by the set of relationships. During evolution, any conflict between two given stages results in a preceding stage (Brym, Lie 11).
The economic factor is the primary factor in society. The struggle between different social classes can lead to the overthrow of the existing system, resulting in change (Brym, Lie 11-12).
From the theories of both Emily Durkheim and Karl Marx, we can observe similarities. They both believed that society evolves through various stages with the aim of protecting it. However, these theorists offer different stages through which evolution occurs.
Both theorists believe that society is dynamic, but they differ on the issue of conflict and change. Marx believes that conflict is inevitable if social change is to take place, while Durkheim believes that conflict is not necessary for social change. Karl Marx goes further to explain that militant action is essential to overthrow poor governance as a way to bring about change in society (Koschman, Hall, Miyake 234).
Both theorists emphasize that the division of labor will result in increased production. However, they differ in their views on whether the division of labor may have a negative impact on society. Max views it negatively, while Durkheim sees it as the most appropriate approach.
Marx believes that most people are highly exploited by the owners of the means of production and that the division of labor will worsen this situation. The workers will have no power over the products they produce from their labor, which ultimately leads to them being deskilled (Schneider 195).
Even though both believe that progress is healthy for any society, Max introduces a new variable upon which he says the rest of society is built – economic production. He gives it more weight while Emile Durkheim overlooks it. Marx gives a precise and definite form to this concept he introduces as economic life by referring to it as a major factor in human society (Brym, Lie 11-12). These social theorists emphasize individuals’ relationship in society as an important factor in sustaining the society.
However, they disagree in that while Durkheim observes society to be harmonious, Marx believes that there is a continuous struggle between classes (Turner 258). Both envision a perfect society in the future where communism will prevail. However, they differ in their explanations of how this stage will be achieved. Marx believes it will result from the proletariat overthrowing the capitalistic bourgeoisie, while Durkheim explains that it will be a harmonious process resulting from consensus (Carlton 7-9).
Conclusion
It should be noted that these two theorists represent both the conflict perspective and the positivist perspective. Emile Durkheim represents the positivists, while Karl Marx represents the conflict perspective. They both analyze similar social phenomena, but their sociological views are highly determined by these two schools of thought. As sociologists, they deal with social issues, which is why their theories have a lot of similarities.
Works Cited
- Clark, Emile Durkheim: A Critical Assessment, Taylor & Francis, 1999
- Turner, Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Moralist, Routledge, 1993
- Engel, The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, Penguin Classics, 2002
- Schneider, The Theory of Praxis: A Sociological Guide by Bourdieu and Wacquant, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2006
- Brym and Lie’s Sociology: Your Compass for a New World,Thomson Wadsworth; Fifth Edition (2005)
- Koschmann et al.’s CSCL2: Carrying Forward the Conversation (Routledge International Studies in the Philosophy of Education), Routledge; Reprint edition (November 28th ,2002)
