French sociologist and philosopher, Émile Durkheim, was one of the most influential contributors to the social sciences as his evaluations and conclusions formally built the principle foundations of historic and current of sociology. Utilizing his implications coming from Durkheim’s perspective, there will be a comparison and contrast in three fundamental theories studied throughout the course: Merton’s Strain Theory, Hirschi’s Social Control Theory, Becker’s and Cohen’s Labelling Theory. In saying that this evaluation will be from Durkheim’s perspective, it is being understood that Durkheim focused more on the moral order, as he concluded that it is more fundamental than the economic aspect of society. This separation between the moral order and economic order of society is how Durkheim separated the two types of mental attitudes that each citizen pertain to; (1) social self or the aspects that looks to society and is a product of socialization and cultivation of human potentials (2) egotistic self or the primal self that is incomplete without society and that is full of impulses knowing no natural limits. (Lily 97) Durkheim states how a person that is socialized by society and bounds themselves within the constraints of society, are more of sane and rational individual. He then regards those that are led with their egotistic attitude are full of impulses knowing no limits. These impulses are assumed that they are acts of deviancy against the collective agreement and
The theoretical works of Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber still influence sociological theory. Though their works are decades old they still are a major part of what sociology is today. Though their theories can seem very different, there are some similarities. To become a great sociologist one most learn and understands how to use all sociological perspectives. To do this one must understand and use the different theoretical perspectives created by Marx, Durkheim, and Weber.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) was a French sociologist who strongly influenced the discipline of sociology. It was apparent to Durkheim that since the French Revolution, the nation had been wracked by conflict and moral crisis (Stones, 2008). At the individual level, rising suicide rates reflected a growing sense of malaise. Durkheim’s goal was to develop a sociology that would help France overcome this continuing moral crisis. By tracing the influences on Durkheim to his predecessor August Comte and the German scholars of experimental psychology, it is possible to understand how Durkheim came to the conclusion that society is greater than the individual, and how his idea of a collective
After determining what resulted from modernization, Durkheim unlike Marx was interested in reforming not eliminating modern society. In analyzing Durkheim’s theory of modern society, I will begin with the focal point of it, namely solidarity.
Many sociological theorists who were relevant over a century ago are also still applicable to today’s society. Whilst parts of the theory and the context of the theories may have quite dated, some parts do still reign true. Some theories however, like Marx’s ideas of a capitalist society, have become more influential in today’s economic climate. Perspectives like Durkheim’s theories of suicide, Marx’s theories on Capitalism and changes to economic status, Weber’s input on Capitalism and his influential work on Religion. The ideas this essay will be focusing upon are the ‘iconic’ theories, that the previously mentioned sociologists are known for and showing how these theories have progressed through the time.
Please describe the impact Marx, Durkheim, & Weber had on sociology as prominent contributors of the discipline.
As I read Émile Durkheim’s classic piece, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, I experienced a whirlwind of thoughts, expressing agreement, disagreement, and complete puzzlement over the details of his logic and conclusions. As far as my essay goes, I will attempt to put these thoughts in a neat, coherent order like the one mentioned above.
Durkheim brings out many characteristics that relate to poverty in society. Durkheim expanded upon the idea that big factors affect the little parts of society, which led to Durkheim coming up with the idea of social facts. Social facts are institutions that affect the way people behave. This concept ties into the perception of poverty because Durkheim gives several examples in our textbook such as, religion, crime, beliefs and etc., which all three of these factors help to explain poverty in some way. When looking at crime and how we shifted from local community based programs to larger government based programs, you can see poverty still is a factor. Durkheim includes this in his thoughts that crime has always been a factor in history and is still today. This ties into poverty programs because the people that tend to be in poverty are known to be the ones committing crimes. The government is more focused on who shouldn’t be getting the assistance than those that truly could benefit from the assistance.
Durkheim was one of the most influential sociologists in relation to the functionalist theories which stated society consisted of a structural consensus with a collective conscience of shared norms and values. He argued in order to establish the meaning of society one must understand the structures and social facts. He highlights changes in society from traditional societies which were linked with mechanical solidarity consisting of small scale ties with little division of labour. This in turn created a strong collective conscience of unity in comparison to modern society where differences amongst groups are promoted in turn weakening social solidarity. This is due to rapid changes within society in which Durkheim emphasises is due to a complex division of labour. Durkheim then argues that due to the combination of enlightenment notions and a capitalist society a collective conscience of individualism and greed is created. (Jones, Bradbury and Boutillier, 2011, pp.62-64)
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were full of evolving social and economic ideas. These views of the social structure of urban society came about through the development of ideas taken from the past revolutions. As the Industrial Revolution progressed through out the world, so did the gap between the class structures. The development of a capitalist society was a very favorable goal for the upper class. By using advanced methods of production introduced by the Industrial Revolution, they were able to earn a substantial surplus by ruling the middle class. Thus, maintaining their present class of life, while the middle class was exploited and degraded. At this time in history, social
statistics displayed that some categories of people were more prone to take their own lives,
“Treat social facts as things” is an expression that epitomises the works of Emile Durkheim. This essay focuses on four main sociological concepts proposed by the functionalist Emile Durkheim; the division of labour; mechanical and organic solidarity; anomie and suicide, and examines their relevance in contemporary society.
The second type of society is modern society. We evolved from the primitive society structure and functionality. A highly differentiated social structure is said how modernity is to be characterized. (Seidman, 1998) There are specialized social institutions that differentiate individuals in the social structure (e.g., the economy, family, education, welfare, military, polity) and regulate the behaviour of the individual. Individualism is the public religion in this culture. The beliefs and morals held in common among individuals are to be highly general and abstract unlike how it is the primitive society. There are two social forces that are powerful in promoting individualism. The first is how advance the division of labor that the individual is required to have more freedom to control their institutional behaviour. The second is the given in a differentiated society the state or the church has any right to impose their social rules to dictate institutions, it is only up to the individual in their social roles in those institutions. This is a clear indication of how society has developed and how Durkheim has explained this transformation in relation to the growth of modernity.
Emile Durkheim was French sociologist. He was born on April 15, 1858 in Epinal, France. Epinal is located in the Eastern French Province, Lorraine. His father, Moise was the Chief Rabbi of Epinal, Vosges, and Haute-Marne, while his mother, Melanie, worked as an embroiderer. Durkheim was the youngest of their four surviving children.
The division of labor is a complex phenomenon that is characterized by varying aspects of an individual’s social connection to the society in which they reside. The Division of labor is a broad process that affects and influences many aspects of life such as political, judicial, and administrative functions (Bratton & Denham, 2014). Two of the main sociological theorists, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim, had different understandings of the notion about the division of labor. This topic has been contested and debated by many theorists but this paper is going to focus on how Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx views this topic. Karl Marx views the division of labor as a process that alienates the individual from their work (Llorente, 2006). Marx also views the division of labor as a way for the capitalist bourgeoisie to take advantage of the wage labor of the proletariat. Emile Durkheim identifies with Marx in the economic sense that the division of labor furthers the rationalization and bureaucratization of labor, but differs in that the division of labor provides individuals in society with social solidarity and ensures their connection to society. This paper is going to reflect on some of the aspects in which Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx view the division of labor, while showing some of the similarities and differences between the two theorists conception of the topic.
Durkheim’s theory of anomie and Marx’s theory of alienation have had a very strong influence on the sociological understandings of modern life. Critically compare these two concepts.