Name: Ma. Christina B.

Tolcidas Socio 1 (TTh 10:30-12)

Herbert Spencer

The 19th‐century Englishman Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) compared society to a living organism
with interdependent parts. Change in one part of society causes change in the other parts, so that
every part contributes to the stability and survival of society as a whole. If one part of society
malfunctions, the other parts must adjust to the crisis and contribute even more to preserve society.
Family, education, government, industry, and religion comprise just a few of the parts of the
“organism” of society.

Spencer suggested that society will correct its own defects through the natural process of “survival of
the fittest.” The societal “organism” naturally leans toward homeostasis, or balance and stability.
Social problems work themselves out when the government leaves society alone. The “fittest”—the
rich, powerful, and successful—enjoy their status because nature has “selected” them to do so. In
contrast, nature has doomed the “unfit”—the poor, weak, and unsuccessful—to failure. They must
fend for themselves without social assistance if society is to remain healthy and even progress to
higher levels. Governmental interference in the “natural” order of society weakens society by wasting
the efforts of its leadership in trying to defy the laws of nature.

Karl Marx

Not everyone has shared Spencer's vision of societal harmony and stability. Chief among those who
disagreed was the German political philosopher and economist Karl Marx (1818–1883), who
observed society's exploitation of the poor by the rich and powerful. Marx argued that Spencer's
healthy societal “organism” was a falsehood. Rather than interdependence and stability, Marx
claimed that social conflict, especially class conflict, and competition mark all societies.

The class of capitalists that Marx called the bourgeoisie particularly enraged him. Members of the
bourgeoisie own the means of production and exploit the class of laborers, called the proletariat,
who do not own the means of production. Marx believed that the very natures of the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat inescapably lock the two classes in conflict. But he then took his ideas of class conflict
one step further: He predicted that the laborers are not selectively “unfit,” but are destined to
overthrow the capitalists. Such a class revolution would establish a “class‐free” society in which all
people work according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.

Unlike Spencer, Marx believed that economics, not natural selection, determines the differences
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. He further claimed that a society's economic system
decides peoples' norms, values, mores, and religious beliefs, as well as the nature of the society's
political, governmental, and educational systems. Also unlike Spencer, Marx urged people to take an
active role in changing society rather than simply trusting it to evolve positively on its own.

Vilfredo Pareto

Pareto is best known for two concepts that are named after him. The first and most familiar is the
concept of Pareto optimality. A Pareto-optimal allocation of resources is achieved when it is not
possible to make anyone better off without making someone else worse off. The second is Pareto’s
law of income distribution. This law, which Pareto derived from British data on income, showed a
linear relationship between each income level and the number of people who received more than that
income. Pareto found similar results for Prussia, Saxony, Paris, and some Italian cities. Although
Pareto thought his law should be “provisionally accepted as universal,” he realized that exceptions
were possible; as it turns out, many have been found.
Pareto is also known for showing that the assumption that the utility of goods can actually be
measured is not necessary to derive any of the standard results in consumer theory. Simply by being
able to rank bundles of goods, consumers would act as economists had said they would.
In his later years Pareto shifted from economics to sociology in response to his own change in beliefs
about how humans act. He came to believe that men act nonlogically, “but they make believe they are
acting logically.”
Born in Paris to Italian exiles, Pareto moved to Italy to complete his education in mathematics and
literature. After graduating from the Polytechnic Institute in Turin in 1869, he applied his prodigious
mathematical abilities as an engineer for the railroads. Throughout his life Pareto was an active critic
of the Italian government’s economic policies. He published pamphlets and articles
denouncing protectionism and militarism, which he viewed as the two greatest enemies of liberty.
Although he was keenly informed on economic policy and frequently debated it, Pareto did not study
economics seriously until he was forty-two. In 1893 he succeeded his mentor, Leon Walras, as chair
of economics at the University of Lausanne. His principal publications are Cours d’économie
politique (1896–1897), Pareto’s first book, which he wrote at age forty-nine; and Manual of Political
Economy (1906).
A self-described pacifist who disdained honors, Pareto was nominated in 1923 to a senate seat in
Mussolini’s fledgling government but refused to become a ratified member. He died that year and was
buried without fanfare in a small cemetery in Celigny.

PART 2
Comte’s approach is considered baseless or groundless because it is first based on theology.
Questioning his assumptions about his new social science, philosophers have pointed out that,
although he possessed no observable evidence, he was convinced that the positivist stage is the last
in human development. Echoing one of Mill's criticisms, other scholars have pointed out that Comte
neglected to consider psychology in the formulation of his theories, leading to many unanswered
questions regarding morality and ethics. Historians have also found errors of fact as well as
unsupported assertions in his works. In addition, his writing style has come under attack, with several
scholars finding him a poor writer who elaborated excessively and obsessed over detail. Regardless
of the conceptual or stylistic censures of his work, Comte's positive philosophy and his ideas on
ordering society are nevertheless recognized as greatly contributing to and influencing the course of
philosophy and sociology.
SOURCES:
https://www.enotes.com/topics/auguste-comte/critical-essays

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/sociology/the-sociological-perspective/the-founders-of-sociology

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Pareto.html
PART III.
SOCIOLOGIST THEORY/IES
August Comte The Law of Three Stages
Emile Durkheim His theories were founded on
the concept of social facts,
defined as the norms, values,
and structures of society.
Functionalism and Division of
Labor
Max Weber  Became one of the most
important sociologists in
history.
 Theories: Iron Cage,
Social Class, and
Protestantism and
Capitalism
Karl Marx  society's exploitation of
the poor by the rich and
powerful
 Societal harmony and
stability
Herbert Spencer Society is like a living organism
with interdependent parts
Vilfredo Pareto A Pareto-optimal allocation of
resources is achieved when it is
not possible to make anyone
better off without making
someone else worse off. The
second is Pareto’s law of
income distribution.
PHILIPPINE SOCIETY
We developed socially through
the help of science and
technology as we can see
Filipinos also adapt to the trends
of society
Filipinos are really ground on
norms and values, especially
being hospitable and respectful.
Filipinos are also trained to help
in the house hold chores to
promote division of labor
As we observe here in the
Philippines only the rich are
getting richer especially the
businessmen and politicians.
While the workers work so hard
in order for them to provide for
their family. In reality some of
the Filipinos earned less than
the minimum wage, so it is
expected that they have less for
their family
Based on Philippine context we
have harmony and stability but
we also have crimes that disrupt
that harmony and stability so it
is safe to say that it is difficult to
achieve it. We can’t also deny
that sometimes we look down to
people who are poorer than us.
They are the ones who get
exploited easily because they
will do everything just to survive
In Philippine Society we can
compare it to our government
which has many parts and the
Filipinos depend on them if the
President makes bad decision
then the Filipinos have to adjust.
Some of the Filipinos are not
paid enough to support their
family, thus worsened their
situation and making their
employers better off. So the law
of income distribution is affected
because one of them has better
income