Compare and contrast the analysis of law by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber.
The analysis of law provided in the works of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber is greatly influenced by their theories. According to Marx, laws are designed to serve the interests of capitalism and the ruling class of capitalists. They use these laws to oppress the working class. Every law that regulates society is created to increase the gap between the ruling class and working class. Working people become poorer as they produce more because capitalists take their surplus value. Laws allow capitalists to obtain profits from companies, while working people are unable to change them due to a lack of power.
Marx’s views on law can be understood in two ways: from a positivist perspective and an objective perspective. The positivist approach suggests that laws are created to reflect the subjective interests of the capitalist class. Capitalists have their own perceptions of society, and they use laws to put their views into action. They strive to ensure that laws regulate society according to their preferred pattern. Alternatively, Marx’s views on law can be interpreted from an objective perspective, which also acknowledges that law serves the interests of capitalists but as a result of an objective process. Capitalists dominate society, so legislation trends that serve their interests are objectively determined. It is reasonable for legislation to reflect the interests of the ruling class; hence this process is entirely objective.
Max Weber has different views on law compared to Marx. According to Weber, law does not reflect the subjective interests of the capitalist class or the objective characteristics of capitalist society. There is no class that determines legislative features; all people in society are parts of the same machine that functions only when all parts are in order. As Weber states, modern society determines the ruling law in society. Bureaucracy determines all elements of regulation in modern society, and it characterizes all levels of organizations.
In bureaucratic organizations, decisions are made by management and then forwarded to the lower-level employees. All of the individuals working for such organizations are similar to parts of a machine. They must fulfill specific functions and responsibilities, without which the entire machine will fall apart. Employees are generally unable to make decisions on their own because they mostly have to follow management’s instructions. Creativity is not encouraged, and employee empowerment is prohibited.
All bureaucratic organizations function according to a peculiar system of laws that are common among them. All decisions made in companies are fully rational, leaving no room for subjective opinions because rationality rules the society. Personalization is also absent in such a society, where every person is just a part of the machine and not an individual. Therefore, all people are considered similar to one another and capable of functioning according to the same rules.
According to Max Weber, in a society ruled by bureaucracy, there is no room for emotions in legislation. In feudal societies, rulers could rely on their emotions when making decisions such as executing someone. They could change their standards and rely on instincts depending on the person involved. However, in modern society, emotions have been completely removed from the legislative process. Individuals working in courts or social institutions must make decisions based solely on rules and guidelines set by society.
For example, when a person applies for a loan at a bank, the loan officer cannot make a decision based on personal impressions. Instead, they must follow rules that determine whether or not to grant the loan. The loan officer cannot approve or deny a loan based on personal preferences. They must analyze the financial situation of both borrowers and make decisions based solely on financial information. Emotional appeals such as tears or sad stories about family tragedies cannot influence their decision-making process. The loan officer must remain impartial and consistent in their approach to all applicants, following guidelines set by managers who introduce new policies according to general principles in society.
Bureaucratic organizations do not prioritize the quality of services they provide to society. Instead, their employees are more concerned with adhering to guidelines rather than serving customers. These organizations also engage in constant competition with one another for dominance in society. For instance, the FBI competes with police and other similar organizations, and their employees prioritize the success of their own organization when fulfilling responsibilities. Unfortunately, there are instances where the interests of these organizations intersect, yet instead of cooperating and carrying out mutually agreed-upon decisions, they act solely in their organization’s interest.
According to Weber, bureaucratic rules and guidelines are not efficient for society. The depersonalization that is common in such a society can be very harmful. While Marx argued that law reflects the interests of the ruling class, Weber stated that it reflects the interests of colorless members of society who all have to behave according to the same pattern. Despite their differences, all people are forced to act according to this same pattern.
Durkheim offers a different interpretation of law compared to Marx and Weber. He believes that law is an expression of the collective conscience and a measure of morality. Durkheim connects the concept of law with his idea of social solidarity, stating that a society can only be characterized by solidarity when it has laws regulating all aspects of interactions between its members. Law can thus be seen as a symbol of social solidarity among people. To some extent, Durkheim agrees with Marx’s interpretation because he acknowledges that different societies are characterized by diverse legal systems.
Durkheim also argues that there are two types of law: repressive” and “restorative”. The former imposes penalties on those who do not comply with the law, while the latter only regulates certain spheres of life (such as civil law).
2. Compare and contrast Marx’s notion of alienation” with Durkheim’s concept of “anomie,” and provide examples to illustrate.
Marx’s concept of alienation and Durkheim’s concept of anomie are similar in many ways, but they also have significant differences. According to Marx, people in capitalist societies are estranged from the results of their work. They are forced to work, but unfortunately, they do not benefit from the products they create. The owners of factories where employees work are the ones who benefit from these products. Marx argued that such a society is characterized by alienation because workers cannot take advantage of the results of their own labor. A society based on this concept is destined to fail because at some point, its established relations will cease to function.
Emile Durkheim discussed why societies often fail and came up with his own term to describe the phenomena. According to Durkheim, societies can have both mechanic and organic solidarity. In societies with mechanic solidarity, people perform simple functions and do not require sophisticated relationships. The work done by members is similar, so control systems are not necessary. However, in more complex societies where members have complicated functions, control is crucial. These societies have a firm system of norms that regulate them. If the society becomes deregulated for any reason, anomie occurs – people are no longer regulated by societal norms and live according to their own rules. Anomie is similar in sudden changes where new norms cannot be established quickly enough. Societies cannot function normally during anomie because people lose their ties of solidarity.
The similarities between the two concepts of alienation” and “anomie” can be grouped as follows:
Durkheim and Marx both condemn economic individualism. Both Durkheim and Marx agreed in the fact that individuals do not determine any events taking place in the society. As Durkheim mentioned, people are greatly influenced by the society in all of their actions. If the society rejects them, they are capable of even committing suicide. Durkheim argued that all of the people in the society are tied to one another with very strong relationships based on the division of labor. If in primitive societies people did not have any complicated functions and it was possible for them to conduct their work on their own, the realities of the present society completely reject individualism. Marx also condemned economic individualism. According to him, all of the workers represented a working class which was destined to deliver surplus value to the society. Economic individualism could not exist in the society which Marx was discussing.
Both Durkheim and Marx offer a collectivist definition of man. Similar to the previous category, both authors agreed that there was no individualist definition of men. In the modern era, people are destined to live in the society. They are greatly influenced by various norms and laws of the society. As Durkheim marked, every individual is now unable to work by himself, without being a part of the society. He would simply be unable to achieve anything by working on his own without interacting with other society members. In the state of anomie, every person would be able to do whatever he liked to do, but this would cause chaos in the society. Marx also agrees with the fact that men need a collectivist definition. Alienation which occurs in the society is common for all of the members of the working class, not just every individual by himself.
Both Marx and Durkheim attack dominant institutions and values of modern society. As Durkheim states, current dominant institutions in the society do not lead people to right decisions. For example, they give messages which are either difficult to interpret or contradictory ones. People are unable to decide which values are actually important for the society. When the state of anomie in the society occurs, people are no longer capable to determine which norms they should be using from now on. They are completely lost/ Marx agrees with Durkheim in the fact that dominant institutions in the society are incapable to provide adequate support to the classes of the society. Even if some of the norms are generally considered very favorable, in reality they are favorable only for the dominant class. The working class does not receive the benefits which he deserves from the society due to alienation from the results of his work.
Both Marx and Durkheim are critical of state/government. Marx argues that the government only serves the interests of the capitalists and does not offer anything to the working class. In order to be really efficient, the government would have to introduce new legislation which would enable the working class to participate in the profits which they create by their hard work. Durkheim criticizes government for another reason. According to him, government needs to introduce efficient norms which would help individuals to learn patterns of behavior in various situations. Durkheim mentions that currently the government employs the policy of “laissez-faire” in many issues, and members of the society thus do not get enough regulation in many aspects of their lives which needed to be regulated.
Even though the concepts which were offered by Marx and Durkheim are similar in some ways, they are certainly not identical. The differences of the two concepts of “alienation” and “anomie” can be grouped in the following way:
Karl Marx was a philosopher and economist.
Questions of legitimacy arise in social control, as Karl Marx suggests that it should be tailored to the needs of the working class. Those who produce surplus value should have a say in society’s interests.
On the other hand, Marx argues that capitalism and the state dominate power, resulting in government regulation over people’s lives. Unlike Durkheim, Marx believes that adequate regulation can be provided by the government if it considers the working class’s interests.
Emile Durkheim.
According to Durkheim, the state’s lack of intervention causes anomie.” He argues that the government does not regulate society enough, which has a negative impact on individuals. Without adequate regulation, people need norms to regulate their lives. If this regulation is lacking, “anomie” can easily occur.
The importance of moral constraints in society for its stability is significant. While Marx primarily linked his concept of alienation” to the existence of classes in society, Durkheim offered a distinct explanation for his concept. According to Durkheim, “anomie” in society was not caused by the presence of antagonist classes (as argued by Marx). Instead, Durkheim explained problems in modern society through ethics and morality. He believed that people always require moral values adopted by society to know how to behave appropriately. If different members have varying attitudes towards moral issues, some individuals may become alienated from others. Additionally, Durkheim stated that suicide often results from a lack of understanding of moral principles among different social groups.
3. Discuss how Durkheim and Weber would approach the examination of:
The development of the sex worker industry in Hong Kong.
When discussing the development of the sex worker industry in Hong Kong, Durkheim would apply his concept of anomie” to describe this phenomenon. He believed that the lack of norms in society is the major reason for the rapid growth of this industry. Moral values that were accepted many years ago are no longer accepted by some members of society. Since the government does not regulate this sphere effectively, it is no wonder that the sex industry in Hong Kong has experienced such rapid growth in recent years.
In order to put an end to it, the government would have to adopt different policies that would entirely prohibit these types of services in the country. However, since many members of government are users themselves, they are unlikely to adopt firm rules on this matter and instead allow for continued growth within this industry.
Weber would connect the reasons for the mentioned phenomenon with bureaucracy in government organizations, which prevents them from functioning efficiently. In order to regulate the sex industry, laws must pass through many hands and be approved by numerous members of government and policy-makers. In a bureaucratic world, it is impossible to reach important decisions because government bureaucratic organizations are too slow to respond to negative developments in society. To bring an end to the sex worker industry in Hong Kong, Weber would suggest assigning this task to non-governmental organizations that are more interested in achieving the goals set by society.
Regarding gambling in Hong Kong, it is a popular activity among locals and tourists alike. However, the government strictly regulates it to prevent illegal activities such as money laundering and organized crime. Despite this, there are still many legal options for gambling in Hong Kong, including horse racing and the lottery.
Durkheim would consider gambling in Hong Kong as a part of the nation’s culture that has developed over many years. Gambling has been present in Hong Kong for a long time and is deeply ingrained in the nation’s psychology. Durkheim would have a controversial view of gambling; on one hand, since it is a part of the nation’s culture, it should not be avoided because many members of society cannot imagine their lives without it. On the other hand, gambling is considered immoral by many people from different cultures and religions such as Protestant and Catholic religions which do not encourage true Christians to take part in games of chance. The universal rule of ethics cannot be efficiently applied here as even if gambling is enjoyed by many members of society in Hong Kong, many Christians would oppose such games.
Durkheim would note that, in such cases, it is up to the government to decide what policy regarding gambling will be implemented. It is commonly known that gambling can become like a drug for some people; therefore, their interests need to be taken into consideration.
Weber would regard the issue of gambling in relation to the culture and religion of members of Hong Kong society. As Weber noted in his Protestant Ethics, religion determines people’s attitudes towards many issues in life, including gambling. While some may find it unacceptable, others find it interesting and thus it is impossible to dictate what they should do. Gambling is a part of Hong Kong’s culture and has the right to remain so for many years because it is widely accepted by its people.
Murder-suicides in Hong Kong.
Suicide is one of Durkheim’s major fields of interest, and thus he would be the best expert to examine the issue. He would start by discussing murder-suicides in Hong Kong in relation to social problems that exist within society. As Durkheim always mentioned, it is impossible to consider suicide as a result of only psychological problems that are common for individuals. When an individual commits suicide, it is certainly possible to connect its causes with some psychological problems they had. However, most psychological problems have their roots in general social issues. It’s very possible that people committing murder-suicides in Hong Kong are forced to do so because they feel misunderstood by society or they don’t think they can continue living in such a society any longer.
Weber believed that murder-suicides were a phenomenon caused by society. He thought that individuals who committed murder-suicides in Hong Kong might be motivated by their culture and interactions with other members of society.
The development and existence of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is significant.
Emile Durkheim would regard the development and existence of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) as a very positive phenomenon in society. Modern society is characterized by large amounts of corruption, making it essential to regulate them adequately. Organizations like ICAC are vital for modern society because they establish principles and norms for members of the community. This enables people to understand what is considered illegal and act accordingly in the future. Without ICAC, people may believe that corruption is not prohibited, leading them to act based on their own interests and needs.
According to Max Weber, ICAC would be considered just another bureaucratic organization that is unable to bring any benefit to society. Despite being formed to prevent corruption in modern society, there are no visible results from its work. Many governments remain highly corrupt, and there is little hope for change in their activities. Bureaucratic organizations like ICAC rarely achieve their long-term goals because they do not function efficiently. Although the staff may want to fight against corruption, top management is always too slow with decisions. Employees lack empowerment and must wait for instructions from above; therefore, most actions are significantly delayed in such organizations.
Emergence and problem of illegal immigration into Hong Kong from China.
According to Durkheim, the problem of illegal immigration from China into Hong Kong is caused by the government’s inability to regulate the migration process between the two countries. If the government were to adopt firmer regulations concerning illegal immigrants, it would be very possible to put an end to illegal immigration. However, the government decides to have minimal interference in these affairs and is therefore forced to deal with a large number of illegal immigrants. To combat this negative trend, Durkheim would suggest strengthening government control in all aspects of immigration and making it very difficult for individuals to achieve illegal immigration.
Max Weber would connect the problem of illegal immigration into Hong Kong from China with the inability of government organizations to achieve their goals. Due to extreme bureaucracy, they are unable to react to the problem of illegal immigration and are forced to cope with its consequences. However, it appears challenging for the Hong Kong government to conduct adequate immigration control.
4. Choose a current social issue and analyze how two of the following four theorists, Marx, Durkheim, Weber or Mead, would approach it. Which one provides a more comprehensive understanding of the problem? Why?
The problem of teen pregnancies is a significant issue worldwide. Many people are concerned about the increasing number of premarital relationships that young girls engage in. In the past, it was expected that girls would wait until marriage to have sex. However, nowadays, many girls are not interested in committing and simply want to enjoy life and do what makes them happy without worrying about their parents or relatives’ opinions.
Emile Durkheim offers a brilliant description of this type of behavior. If he were analyzing this issue in his time, he would immediately relate it to the norms that exist in society. In the past, girls were expected to remain virgins until marriage. If a girl did not follow this rule and had a premarital relationship, she was ostracized from society and her family was no longer considered respectable. Her sisters could no longer expect to marry well because the family’s reputation was lost within society.
Of course, in such a situation, every girl would have to weigh her decisions carefully before getting involved in any kind of relationship. She was forced to remain pure until marriage due to societal pressure. The society established norms that everyone had to follow if they wanted to remain part of it.
Durkheim believed that the regulations offered by society at that time were favorable. Everyone had to follow the same rules and knew how they should behave in different situations without exceptions or double standards present within society’s code. Everything was easy for people to understand without loopholes existing within societal norms.
Durkheim would have greatly approved of the system of norms present within old-time societies.
Currently, society does not offer any firm norms for the issue of virginity. Some people believe that girls should remain virgins until marriage, while others hold the opposite view. Durkheim would argue that people become confused when there are no clear norms in place. How can a young girl make an informed decision when she hears conflicting opinions from various sources?
For example, a girl may be told by her parents to be cautious in her relationships so as not to bring shame upon the family. They will likely disapprove of any sexual activity before marriage. However, the girl also attends school and has friends and relatives who may have different views on sex. At school, she will receive sexual education from teachers who will stress the importance of abstinence before marriage. Nevertheless, there is an exception to this rule. The teachers may also demonstrate how to use a condom and emphasize its importance for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
As Durkheim would say, the most important problem of modern society is here: it identifies something as bad but also suggests what can be done to mitigate its negative effects. In this case, a girl may start thinking that having sex is not necessarily bad as long as a condom is used. Even though the teachers did their best to convey an adequate message to the students, they failed to set a firm standard of no sex.” Instead, they came up with a mid-standard – “sex with a condom” – which could work just as well. For a young girl, both standards would be equal and she would consider “sex with a condom” an appropriate option for herself. The girl may never have considered sex before but after hearing that it was not dangerous with protection from condoms, she might think it was worth trying at some point.
Durkheim would see another negative message that the girl could possibly receive. She may feel pressure from her friends to have sex, with some of her girlfriends calling her old-fashioned and her boyfriend threatening to abandon her if they do not have sex. In such a situation, it is very difficult for a young girl to make the right decision.
Durkheim would argue that whenever norms are flexible in society, it is impossible to expect people to behave ethically. Ethical standards cannot exist if there are double standards. Some people may view having sex as normal, but these same people might argue that the number of teen pregnancies has reached an alarming level. While these same individuals advocate for condom use, by allowing young girls access to condoms they send a message that premarital sex is acceptable.
Those girls who would otherwise be hesitant about taking such an important step might find themselves willing to try if flexible norms are suggested by society. However, Durkheim would argue that norms need to be firm in order for them to be perceived by people.
Max Weber would agree with Durkheim’s view on the problem, but he would also suggest some of his own ideas on the question. Firstly, Weber believed that the values which exist in modern society are largely determined by culture. According to Weber, every society is greatly influenced by religion.
Teen pregnancies are currently common in many countries, including the United States, Canada, China, Russia and many others. However, people who are religious still hold firm values. For example, girls who truly believe in God and are Catholic will not get involved in any premarital relationships leading to pregnancies; they will remain virgins because their religion requires it.
Of course, those girls who do not truly believe in God will act as they choose for themselves. However, as Weber would argue: only religion can determine a girl’s behavior in this or that situation.
Weber would suggest remembering all of the principles suggested by him in Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism to better connect religion and moral norms that exist within society. For Protestants it was important to work hard and reach high societal status to be able to go to heaven; for Catholics instead there was no need for that- they were rather recommended to stay poor so as not be tempted by material possessions.
In the same way religion determines how girls regard premarital sex: those whose religious beliefs argue for virginity until marriage will stay that way while those who are not religious will most likely choose having sex before marriage because they have no limitations. They consider it much better to enjoy life and do what makes them happy than follow ethical norms.
Besides religion, Weber also emphasized the need for government organizations to get involved in order to put an end to social problems. He believed that the inability of governments to regulate these issues causes major problems. For example, if many members of society oppose the increasing number of teen pregnancies, they need adequate regulation from the government. However, Weber acknowledged that it would be difficult for society to offer adequate regulation due to the bureaucratization of its institutions. Instead of finding solutions for burning issues like teen pregnancy, many social institutions are involved in discussions about less important matters.
Weber pointed out that bureaucracy is one of the major reasons why sociological problems exist today.
To learn more about social issues and their impact on society, check out this list of essay topics.
Out of the two authors, Durkheim offers a better analysis of the reasons for teen pregnancies than Weber. Emile Durkheim spent much more time analyzing societal norms and standards, allowing him to suggest universal principles that aid in interpreting vital issues in sociology.
Bibliography.
1. Ritzer, G. Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1992.
