Free sociology papers, essays, and research papers. Marx, Durkheim, Weber and Sociology - The theoretical works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max
A Commentary on Malthus" 1798 Essay as Social Theory · Industrializing America Karl Marx (1818-1883) is a difficult theorist to write about. A good deal of the problem . Marx, K. 1964. Selected Writings in Essays About Karl Marx Sociology Sociology and Social Philosophy.
Karl Marx essaysThe most influential socialist thinker from the 19th century is Essays About Karl Marx Sociology Karl Marx. Karl Marx Essays About Karl Marx Sociology can be considered a Essays About Karl Marx Sociology great philosopher, social scientist,
Additionally, responsibilities and powers to this type of authority are clearly outlined (Pugh, 2007).
Weber revealed state definition which had become essential to social thought of the western world.
Sociology Essay - Karl Marx (1818 - 1883) and Max Weber (1864 - 1920) have often been regarded as the founding fathers of interpretive sociology.
Weber recommended what he called a comparative historical approach to thestudy of social phenomena. His procedure required the application of an ideal type to thehistory of a particular society, comparing a specified area of action over varying periodsto the rational construct of that same action. The objective was to assess the deviationof the actual from the ideal; that is, from the fully "rational". In addition,he sought to relate social institutions -- which he viewed as meaningful action complexes-- within a society.
Durkheim, on the other hand, had tried to transfer the focus in socialscientific analysis from or purpose to or consequence. Likethat of Weber, his procedure was implied by his definition of explanation. His method alsoinvolved determining the degree to which the actual action being studied deviated from aparticular abstraction. But it was deviation from the mean, rather than from aself-devised logical construct, that concerned him. His emphasis on behavioral norms meantthat patterns or regularities could be identified among social events in a way similar tothe procedures of natural science. He recognized that statistics could then be applied tothe measures of these -- as they could not be to the singular events assessed by Weber'sideal types -- in order to allow for comparisons on the basis of degree of deviation fromthe mean. His comparative study of suicide is a masterful pioneering example of theapplication of this procedure, regardless of how crude it may seem today. By this means hewas able to explain suicide in terms of the social facts impinging on individuals, ratherthan merely by exploring the intent registered in the psyche of the actor.
He is mostly famous for his sociological and economic studies, in which the researcher tries to understand the Western world and the unique way of its development (Weber, 2009).
Objectivity was an intractable problem for Weber because of the subjectivenature of his "meaningful act", and the similarly subjective nature of his"ideal types." How could one achieve objectivity in the midst of an object ofstudy and an investigative procedure that were the very stuff of value judgments? He hadhoped the ideal-type construct would do it for him, in that he had emphasized that the"ideal" in it referred to rather than to . But hecould scarcely have avoided the suspicion that its content was dangerously subject to thepreconceptions of the sociologist creating it. And, at some level, he must have been awarethat the subjectively acknowledged motivations to be investigated by his sociology are bytheir very nature partial and likely to be biased in favor of the actor's desires. Weberdecided that the way out lay in the direction of a particular morality to be stipulatedfor the social scientist; he would have to assume the cloak of "valueneutrality"!
Sociology has suffered immeasurably for at least a century from anunwillingness or inability on the part of its practitioners to face up to the lack oflogical consistency and empirical reliability in its foundations, and to forge new rootson more soundly scientific ground. There will be no quick and easy resolution of thefragmenting internal conflicts within this troubled discipline. The disagreement betweenMarxists and non-Marxists is well known. Less widely recognized, however, is thephilosophical incompatibility of those sociologists who follow the trail blazed by EmileDurkheim and those who march to the drum of Max Weber. And even less likely to beacknowledged is the persistence of dialectical thinking within sociology -- that habit ofthought which lends credibility to periodic "synthesizing" projects aimed atobscuring fundamental logical contradictions such as those outlined above. Perhaps auseful first step is to identify -- for Marxist as well as for Weberian and Durkheimiantheory -- their historical sources, philosophical premises and implications for research.I would hope that the discussion in this essay might move sociology a little way in thatdirection.
For the argument that Durkheim was far moreinfluenced by Dewey's ideas than most sociologists have recognized, see Dominick Lacapra,Emile Durkheim: Sociologist and Philosopher (Ithaca: Cornell U. Press, 1974) and Pat DuffyHutcheon, (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier U. Press, 1996), 228-57.
It is evident that Weber was caught up in the Platonic notion of adualistic reality comprising observable and variable surface "phenomena" and theunderlying absolute and ultimate "essence" of being. He thought that the naturalsciences were actually capturing bits of this essential reality in their concepts -- whichhe equated to facts. Obviously unfamiliar with Hume, and with the subsequent refinementsof Dewey's Pragmatism, Weber was unaware that others had grappled long before him with theproblem posed by the fact that concepts are necessarily abstract mentalconstructions. What, for instance, could be more abstract than the formulae of physics?