. Marx, Weber and Durkheim Provide Accounts of the Individual Which Starts from a Specific Theory of Modern Society. Compare and Contrast Two of Their Accounts.

1. Marx, Weber and Durkheim provide accounts of the individual which starts from a specific theory of modern society. Compare and contrast two of their accounts.

Accounting for the individual, sociologists Karl Marx and Eric Durkheim give definite, yet disparate theories of how modern society is the proprietor of individual actions and motives. Although contrasting, both believe that such personal concepts as self interest and free will are not determinate of the individual but are a result of the society the individual lives in. It is in the way in which how a society affects the individual which greatly differs between Marx and Durkheim and as such they account differently for the individual’s actions in a particular society. For Marx it is the relationships between socioeconomic classes which account for the self, whereas Durkheim believes that the self’s reasoning and actions can be completely justified by the pre established society an individual comes from. From both these theories stem the arguments behind alienation and anomie, respectively, which the individual suffers. While comparing the two theories it’s important to realize which theory is more applicable to ‘modern society’, i.e., today’s society. If the theories are incongruent with real society then they have little merit. Therefore by contrasting and comparing these accounts we will discuss which sociologist’s theories are more applicable to current society.

The specific theories on how Durkheim and Marx present society is similar in that both believe that a society is built upon certain ‘bases’ which are outside the control of the individual. That is, the society pre-existed the individual, will outlast the individual and will change without the consent of the individual and regardless of any personal protest from the individual. For Durkheim this lies in the presence of social facts. Social facts are a “social phenomena that were external to the individual yet constrained his or her actions” (Abercrombie 1994:386). In any given society, according to Durkheim, there are social facts which will limit the individuals in that society in what they can and cannot do. It is not, however, because those ideals are forced onto the man or woman, only that those principles exist outside the individual;
“the system of signs I use to express my thoughts, the system of currency I use to pay my debts, the instruments of credit I utilize in my commercial relations, the practices followed in my profession, etc., function independently of my own use of them. And these statements can be repeated for each member of society. Here, then, are ways of acting, thinking, and feeling that present the noteworthy property of existing outside the individual consciousness” (Durkheim 1938:2).
Alternately, Marx believes that society is stemmed from the presence of class systems and where a person is placed in those classes decide how that individual will interact in society;
“those who own and control the means of production, are able to take the profit, form one class and those depending on their own labour alone form another” (Abercrombie 1994:252).
As such it is from a pre-existing socioeconomic structure which determines how a person will invariably interact in that society, varying for all societies. For example, Marx believes that the relationship between a capitalist individual in a capitalist regime and their workers will depend on the control the capitalist has over the production and product (Abercrombie 1994:151). In this sense both sociologists have a similar theory of how the structure of society affects the individuals inside it. However, unlike Durkheim, Marx, in regards to the interaction between people in the society, only explains the interactions between classes in the medium of labour and management, and this creates a broad range of socially inapplicable situations covered by Marxist beliefs. These include interactions between classes, the interactions with those outside of the community, and even the everyday social interactions and social duties which expand outside the realms of work and economy, such as daily life and paternal duties. Durkheim, in his broadest sense, explains his theories using the pre-existing social conditions, including reference to currency and economy, as well as the previous examples how the individual is completely contrived by the society. As such Durkheim’s ‘modern society’ seems more realistic as he accounts for how the society controls the individual.

As Durkheim presents society as a cumulous of social facts which cannot be reduced to the actions of individuals, and every individual’s action is a reaction to the social facts from the society they lived in, it is society which is accountable for the presence of ‘anomie’. This state of anomie happens to an individual when “the norms governing social interaction are broken down” (Abercrombie 1994:252). Developing from a pre-modern society (mechanical solidarity), to a modern society (organic solidarity), according to Durkheim, results in higher urbanization, higher social mobility, lower religiosity, higher geographical mobility, higher division of labour and a higher sense of self and individuality, all of which allow the individual to become more sacred and protected by society. However, this can lead to the breakdown of community values, lack of regulation due to social change, or a state of confusion of not knowing what is good or bad for the individual which can create the feeling of anomie (White 2011:slide 8- 14). However, as Durkheim reiterates, the anomie is due only to the changing of the pre-existing society and not due to an individualized personality outside the system. As such, instances such as suicide can also be attributed to the society the individual lives in. The act of suicide therefore can be explained by the fact the individual himself is sad, or whatever the reason for suicide, he is sad not because of his personal life, but because of the external forces from whichever group he belongs, so that “nothing cannot serve as an occasion for suicide” (Durkheim 1951:300). This is different to the Marxist approach to ‘alienation’, a similar despondency from an individual in the society. For Marx, alienation comes from the separation of man from his creativity. Marx believes that to take away the creativity of an individual and separate a man’s worth from the goods that he creates is the source of alienation in society; that the labour is “exterior to the worker” and “does not belong to his essence” (Marx 1985:81). Marx reassures this point by describing:
“the external character for worker shows itself in the fact that it is not his own but someone else’s, that it does not belong to him, and he does not belong to himself in his labour but someone else.” (Marx 1985:79)
By this, Marx describes how although an individual may work for personal gain, that is to earn money, it is only at the exploit of his creativity and production, which although emerged from the individual, does not belong to the individual, but instead belongs to their employer. In this sense the individual’s actions are alienated as they are judged by what they are able to produce and not the producers themselves:
“The product of the labour is labour that has solidified itself into an object, made itself into a thing, the objectification of labour.” (Marx 1985:79)
Therefore, modern society is also to blame for the alienation of the individual in Marx’s account; the individual alienates himself because he has no choice, being part of a capitalist society where is the presence of class systems, which causes the alienation. As such, Marxists believe as an evolutionary process, that as alienation spreads and the working class become poorer there will be a revolt to bring society to a stage of communism; an inevitable natural process. However, as there is lack of proof that this Marxist view occurs it is again Durkheim’s omnipresent society forces which seem the more acceptable and reflective image of real society.

For both Marx and Durkheim the grounding forces from which societies have control of the individual are varied, yet both result in the manipulation of the people. Both theologists feel that the actions and feelings of the individual are not the result of personal will and consciousness but a mere puppetry and a dictated result from the society they live in. As such is it important to consider that without a society there would be no individual, as it is from the society where the ‘individual’ comes. However, the difference in Marx’s claims and that of Durkheim’s is that Marx’s are much more narrowed, relating to only socioeconomic factors and their relations within each other, while Durkheim’s theory of a society which exists outside the individual expands over all aspects of the society. Therefore, if we were to choose which ‘modern society’ reflects best that of the real society then Durkheim’s theory is much more applicable and much harder to disprove.

References:

Abercrombie, Hill, Turner (1994) Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd edition London: Penguin books

Durkheim, E. (1938) The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. pps xii-lx; pps 1-13.

Durkheim, E. (1951) Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press. pps 297-325.

Marx, K. (1985) Alienated Labour in MacLellan, D. (ed) Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pps 77-87.

White, K. (2011) Week 2: Durkheim, PowerPoint slide, Australian National University, slides 8-14

References: Abercrombie, Hill, Turner (1994) Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd edition London: Penguin books Durkheim, E. (1938) The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. pps xii-lx; pps 1-13. Durkheim, E. (1951) Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Free Press. pps 297-325. Marx, K. (1985) Alienated Labour in MacLellan, D. (ed) Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pps 77-87. White, K. (2011) Week 2: Durkheim, PowerPoint slide, Australian National University, slides 8-14