2006-50445

SOC 112 – D
15 January 2010

Take Home Exam 1

Essay 1:
Marx, Weber, and Durkheim provided significant theoretical frameworks and concepts which laid down
the foundation for political sociology. Compare and contrast their approaches and identify at least three
important concepts (of each sociologist) which contribute the most in developing a scientific socio-
political analysis. Elaborate each concept and discuss its relevance in relation to political sociology.

The French Revolution and the Industrial revolution in the late eighteenth century brought about
drastic changes in the history of the social sciences. Social class, kinship, monarchy, etc., characterized
the destabilization of the social order and contributed to the many changes in the ideological, political and
social realm. Social sciences, such as sociology, has taken its full flight during the nineteenth century and
sociologists Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim were among the few that provided for the
people a new set of ideologies and philosophies.
Karl Marx used the concept of historical materialism as his main approach to political sociology.
Through time, change is an inevitable process and for Marx, it is rooted on the material conditions and the
mode of production. Historical materialism means that the social relations of production in a given
society determine the ideological, political, and social character of the people. Moreover, changes in the
mode of production results to the changes in the relationship of the people in a given society. In relation
to his historical materialism, Karl Marx had also provided concepts that contribute to political sociology. I
thought that the three concepts best incorporated in political sociology are class, exploitation, and
ideology.
A social class is a group of individuals that exist independently in the society. They are people
with conflicting interests because they are either the owners or the non-owners of the means of
production. A class would also mean an inequality of the distribution of wealth and power. The separation
of classes is not just an economic battle but also a political battle. In my opinion, the upper class are more
likely to run for office because first, they wanted power, second, they have the means to rule, and third,
they wanted to protect their property. Moreover, they wanted to be in position so that they could be able
to establish a social reality that seems to benefit the society but in reality, it is only beneficial for them.
When in position, the ruling class can have its full control of the state and their task is to ‘govern’ the
subordinate class. The ruling class owns the means of production and they provide labour for the
subordinate class, in return, the lower class accepts the labour to supposedly support the state that
‘governs’ them. In reality, the state only serves and protects the interest of the ruling class. The will of the
ruling class to protect its property and interest consequently exploits the subordinate class. Summarizing
the theory of Marx on capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production brought about the
exploitation and alienation of the proletariat.
Exploitation, for Marx, happens when workers do not receive the right amount of payment for
their labour. In a political sense, the ruling class is exploiting the subordinate class if it does not provide
for them their necessary needs and benefits. Moreover, exploitation happens when the ruling class cannot
provide enough labour for their working class to be able to sustain and maintain a stable life. To justify
the exploitation of the subordinate class, the ruling class promoted ideologies that could justify their
exploitative behaviours.
Ideologies are sets of ideas that govern the people. For Marx, the ideas of the ruling class are
always the ruling ideas. The control of material production controls all aspects of life including
intellectual or mental production. The ruling class controls mental production, they have the capacity to
control the minds of the subordinate class because they do not have the capacity for mental and
intellectual production. In the same way that politicians provided the lower class population with
highfaluting statements that are perplexing, the ruling class express their ideologies in a way that is
incomprehensible to the subordinate class so that they cannot do nothing but accept it.
Max Weber, on the other hand used his concept of ideal type and interpretative analysis in
understanding political sociology. Weber argued that the task of sociologists is to develop precise and
relevant concepts to understand social relationships. Weber’s interpretative sociology is concerned with
understanding the different societies based on their differences in beliefs, practices, and social
relationships including political life. In my opinion, Weber’s contributions to political sociology can be
explained in his concepts of rationality, authority, and political party.
Rationality means being able to identify the best option to apply for the greater efficiency and
productivity of means and ends. For Weber, one classic example of rationalization is bureaucracy. A
bureaucracy is an ideal type of organizational structure in that somehow sets a standard pattern for a
society’s political structure. A bureaucratic type of political structure encourages democracy and this is
considered the best type of government.
Authority, on the other hand, describes the willingness of the people to comply with the directives
of a superior. The main source of authority is power. With power, you can control anything. Politics is a
battle for power, and people, no matter what their ideals are, they should subject to this authority to
balance the social relations in the society.
 Political parties are formal voluntary associations with a primary goal of influencing relations of
authority within a state. Political parties can be as influential as the authority leading it. In so much as the
political party protects and supports an authority, this authority should return the favours given to them by
the political party. It is important to have a political party because political parties can serve as framework
for their political career.
Emile Durkheim’s main approach to political sociology is Sociological functionalism or the study
of social facts in order to maintain social order in the society. Social facts, according to Durkheim, are
things external to, and coercive of the individual. It means that through time, a society has formed beliefs
and ideas that are out of their control, yet those ideas and beliefs hold control over them. An example is
the law, the people have no control over it and hence, it forces us to behave in a particular way. Durkheim
also relates his concepts of social solidarity, anomie, and collective conscience in the study of political
sociology.
Social solidarity is the set of beliefs that holds a society together. There are two types of society
according to Durkheim. First is the mechanical solidarity that operates on the primitive societies. It is a
society integrated based on similar sentiments, values, and beliefs. The second type is the organic
solidarity, which operates on modern societies. This society based its integration based on functional
interdependence. The difference between mechanical and organic solidarity accounts for understanding
the social norms under the division of labour in a society. In politics, it is important to determine the
norms of the society especially when dealing with political movements and revolution. Moreover, by
understanding what binds society together, we can determine what social actions a society needs in order
to stabilize order.
The concept of anomie means a state of normlessness, a state of social disorganization wherein
the guides for conduct are unclear. Under anomie, several norms are disregarded, which caused inferior
groups to practice deviance especially in participating in the political activities. The government accounts
for maintaining the status quo, and when norms become unclear, government credibility is lessened.
Collective conscience is the totality of the common beliefs of the individuals of the same society
that forms a system that has a life of its own (sui generis). It is an entirely different thing from individual
consciences although it is realized through them. When a collective conscience affects the people, it
becomes a social fact. In politics, it is important that one knows the general belief of the society in order
to have followers. Moreover, it is best to know the collective conscience of a particular society to be able
to understand their political sentiments, beliefs, and attitudes.
Marx, Weber, and Durkheim each presented a system of ideas that describe, explain, and analyze
the sociology of politics. Although Marx’s ideas were too radical in nature, I think it is the best that
captures the sociology of politics. His concept of historical materialism, exploitation, and the ownership
of production have brought about social changes and realizations in social reality.
Although Durkheim captures the idea of having a collective conscience, his concept of solidarity
in politics seems unclear for me. The traditional societies cannot be compared to modern societies in ways
that relationships in the traditional society cannot be applied to modern societies.
Weber’s concept provides an idealistic approach. However, the problem with ideal types is that it
is too idealistic that it seems to provide the perfect perspective while disregarding the other perspectives.
Moreover, the concept of bureaucracy is too democratic, and that having such society can result to chaos.

Essay 2:
Evaluate Marx’s concept of history as dialectic. Based from your discussion, provide an analysis and
critique of his concept of class and the formation of classes and structures of the society. Analyze the
relation between structural change and class conflict.

Marx borrowed Hegel’s concept in understanding the history. Dialectic simply means
interrelatedness of things. The dialectic is both a way of thought and visualization. It is a way of thinking
that focuses on a dynamic, rather than a static worldview. It is also a view that the world is made up of
dynamic structures. While Hegel focused on the dialectic of ideas, Marx is more concerned in material
conditions affecting social relationships. Dialectic historical materialism analyses the society’s mode of
production in relation to its social relations. The transformation of the society brought about by the
changes in the mode of production changes the relationship of people in a given society. It is necessary
for man to change his social behaviour when changes to the means of production occur. For example, the
conditions of the workers under a capitalist society forced them to work together to become more
productive and efficient. Their position in the society determines the way they think and their way of life.
Moreover, the workers could either feel suppressed or exploited, thus a revolution will be born; or the
workers would create unions and labour groups that would support the needs of each other.
For Marx, change in the social relations is grounded on the material conditions, particularly the
ownership of the means of production, which brought about the division of classes in the society. There
are two types of classes, the owners and the non-owners of the materials and tools of production. Marx
further analysed the relationships of people within and between the two classes. The bourgeoisie gets the
private ownership of the means of production and therefore taking control over the different structures of
the society. The bourgeoisie controls the economic, political, as well as intellectual aspects of the
proletariats lives. On the other hand, the private ownership of the means of production led to the
exploitation of the proletariats, when they receive insufficient payment for their labour. The establishment
of classes brought about social inequality and conflict between classes.
Although Marx has said that a revolution is a possible thing to do to be able to overthrow the
ruling class, he does not eliminate the fact that the proletariats have to work hard to achieve and probably
win the revolution. However, the capitalists have forced the working class to be happy with what they
have and to do not aim for more. The continuous conflict produced by the capitalism on the two classes
will elevate the struggle between the proletariats and the bourgeoisie. Marx identified the concept of a
socialist community wherein there is an equal treatment of every man. Proletariats will vanish if they can
put an end to the exploitation. In a socialist community, there would be a common ownership of the
means of production, a commonly shared property, and a one-to-one correspondence of the products.
Simply put, the producers can own their products.
In my opinion, the analysis of class and the formation of classes and structures of society really
capture social reality. The earlier societies such as the hunting and gathering society had a government
and equal ownership of the means of production. There are hunters and gatherers, as well as chieftains
and elders, but exploitation and class conflict is absent. Although there are division of classes, i.e. the
elders and the members, a harmonious relationship binds their existence. As the society progresses with
technology, innovations were developed and absorbed, thus producing social change. An innovation, for
example, would result to thinking that a man needs to have more to be able to do more. As a result, man
will fight over for resources, and eventually for power. During the course of history, tools for production
brought about positive and negative results to the people. The result is a change in the social, intellectual
and political way of thinking. People became more individualistic and dependent on change. Material
things – wealth, jobs, power, etc., drive people nowadays – without them realizing it.
In relation to politics, when people associate themselves in a given class, they are more likely to
be identified as such. This class position will determine your position in the political realm. A bourgeoisie
for example, would run for office for wanting power and material wealth. However, a proletariat would
run for position, so that they may outrun the old politics of the bourgeoisie class. The proletariats or the
working class are more likely to revolt than the bourgeoisie class because they wanted equal access to the
means of production.
Marx is right in saying that in a capitalist society, classes will exist. However, he did not mention
the middle class, those who are intellectually capable but do not have the enough means to become a
bourgeoisie. The analysis of the middle class is important because even though they are more likely to be
resistant to change, they can be influential for both the bourgeoisie and the proletariats. When dealing
with people, middle class are the hardest to convince because they are accustomed to do so. The middle
class can be a powerful tool especially because the middle class compromises the large portion of the
population.
Marx also disregarded the idea that social, intellectual, political, and moral beliefs and practices
of people vary not by class but by individual experiences that they obtain from the relations of
production. In real life, we cannot come up with a generalization that a particular class has these
ideologies, and the other class has its own set of ideologies. Such thing would eliminate the actors’
individual insights on the society. Nowadays there are politicians who are in some ways sincere in
helping the others.
In sum, through the course of time, social reality is a reality that covers the interests of the
dominant class. These dominant ideas are the tools to preserve order in the society. Ideas are important
tools to understand the realities of the social and political world and since then dominant ideas have
flourished while the subordinate ideas are neglected. The continuous conflict between the bourgeoisie and
the proletariats has brought about structural changes in the society through time. The structural changes
are necessary for a society because it determines growth and development. Moreover, the changes in the
society shape and predict the behaviour of the people in it.

Essay 3:
The notion of legitimacy is very much important in Weber’s conceptualization of domination. What is the
nature of legitimacy according to this conceptualization? How does legitimacy operate in relation to
state power and domination?

Domination is the possibility that a group of persons will obey a specific content of a command
by power or by influence. Domination will only exist if there is a presence of a person or group of persons
issuing orders over the other people. The rule over a number of people may require a specific group of
authority that can be trusted to generate policies and laws, as well as implement specific commands in
relation to the policies and laws. The people under the rule are more likely to obey or comply with the
authority not because they wanted to, but because their own interests forced them to do so. Personal
interests include customs (the way you behave in a given society), personal advantages (authority
provides expansion of networks and connections), material interests, solidarity, etc. These personal
interests are important in domination; however, the belief in legitimacy is the ultimate source and basis
for domination.
Legitimacy happens when the people legally elect an authority. According to Weber, there are
three pure types of authority or legitimate domination: rational, traditional, and charismatic. An authority
that rests on rational grounds rests on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of the authority
to issue commands. Legal authority obtains legitimacy by virtue of public appeal. The public chooses
their leaders in a voting system, and whichever is elected, will represent as the leader. People in this type
of leadership are governed with formal laws, subject to compliance. Incompliance of the law has
corresponding consequences and disciplinary actions. People submit their freedom to the authority in the
belief that the authority will take care of their needs. Rational-legal leaders are those obeyed by the
people not because of their personality or fame, but because of their capacity to implement laws, maintain
order, promote development, and govern the people.
The purest form of rational authority is the ideal-type bureaucracy, which Weber considered as
‘the purest type of exercise of legal authority’. The ideal-type bureaucracy is too ideal and its purpose is
to understand structures of government and organization based on comparison. In a bureaucratic system,
democracy is exercised with high standards. Compliance to the authority rather than power is important.
Power is exercised in minimal forms and that the relationship of the people in the society is harmonious.
Authority based on traditional grounds rests on established beliefs in old-age rules and memorial
traditions and the legitimacy of the authority under the system. Traditional leaders are more personal than
the rational-legal. Personal loyalty rather than authority operates in this type of system. Examples of
leaders under traditional authority are elders, clan leaders, chieftains, patriarchs, and monarchs. In
traditional authority, obedience is exercised on a leader who occupies the traditional and legitimate
position, and should be bound be the traditions. Those under the traditional authority are subject to
customs, agreements, and settlements rather than law. This provides the leaders enough freedom to do
whatever they want as long as they do not violate traditions and customs. Moreover, their legitimacy is
not a public approval, rather a legitimacy born out of inheritance of power. Although this type of
authority operates in some societies, I thought that it lacks the hold of power and therefore people would
lack obedience to the law. The people obey the authority because they regard the person and not because
they obey the law. If everything will be negotiable in the system, there would be no need to use a law that
would govern people’s actions and therefore the world will be in chaos.
Charismatic leaders rest on the characteristic of an individual who is not quite ordinary.
Charismatic leaders are somehow ‘different’ from the ordinary people and they are believed to possess
exceptional powers unattainable to ordinary men. Charismatic leaders are ‘charismatically’ qualified
leaders obeyed by the people because of his charisma, which is believed to be found as extraordinary.
Charismatic domination involves neglecting all connections from external orders and submitting oneself
to the leader. The followers’ obedience solely rests on the personal level of the leader. It means that
people obey the orders simply because they come from the leader. Charismatic leadership requires no
staff and thus results to political instabilities. Since laws are not clearly established, a wrong decision of a
leader will result to confusions in the members’ credibility.
The nature of legitimacy in domination is that the legitimacy of an authority is the main basis for
domination. The public must first consider a leader as legitimate before he can exercise power. In
Philippine settings, legitimization of an authority is the task of the Commission on Elections. The
ComElec analyses a leader’s capabilities before considering one a legitimate candidate for office. This is
important because before entrusting your freedom, you must first believe in your authority. A truly
bureaucratic type of system, in my opinion, cannot work for all societies. It is not the democracy and
equality that causes changes and improvements in the political system, rather what is important is to have
good leaders, as well as good followers of the law.
Legitimacy is directly proportional to state power. The depth and strength of the state power is
highly dependent on the level of legitimacy of the people under rule. Legitimacy is a constant thing
present in state power because without legitimacy, authorities would not be established. Without
authorities, a formal state power cannot also be established. To be able to attain full state power, the
people must consider the state as legitimate in taking control of the peoples’ social actions and
behaviours. It is never the subordinate class’ duty to prove their worth in the social class; rather it is the
ruling class’ duty to do good, to build a status, and to establish a legitimate self, so that in time they have
invested in the people a legitimate power to support them given they run for position.