Scope of sociology

There are two schools of thought with different

viewpoints regarding scope and subject matter of
sociology- formal school and synthetic school.
According to formal school sociology was conceived
to be a social science with a specifically defined
field. This school had George Simmel, Ferdinand
Tonnies, Alfred Vierkandt and Leopord Von Wiese as
its main advocates. On the other hand the synthetic
school with Durkheim, Hobhouse and Sorokin
advocated a synthesis in form of coordination among
all social sciences.
Formal School of Sociology
Formal school argued in favor of giving sociology a
definite subject matter to make it a distinct
discipline. It emphasized upon the study of forms of
social relationships and regarded sociology as
independent. According to Simmel sociology is a
specific social science which describes, classifies,
analyses and delineates the forms of social
relationships or in other words social interactions
should be classified into various forms or types and
analysed. Simmel argued that social interactions
have various forms. He carried out studies of such
formal relationships as cooperation, competition,
sub and super ordinate relationships and so forth. He
said however diverse the interests are that give rise
to these sociations; the forms in which the interests
are realized may yet be identical. He emphasized on
the process of abstraction of these forms from
human relationship which are common to diverse
situations. Vierkandt maintained that sociology
should be concerned with ultimate forms of mental
or psychic relationship which knit the people
together in a society. According to Von Wiese there
are two kinds of fundamental social processes in
human society. Firstly the associative process
concerning contact, approach, adaptation etc and
secondly disassociate processes like competition
and conflict. Apart from these two processes a
mixed form of the associative and disassociative
also exists. Each of these processes has sub-classes
which in totality give approximately 650 forms of
human relationships. Sociology should confine itself
to the discovery of the fundamental force of change
and persistence and should abstain from a historical
study of concrete societies. Tonnies divided
societies into two categories namely Gemeinschaft
(community) and Gesellschaft (association) on the
basis of degree of intimacy among the members of
the society. He has on the basis of forms of
relationship tried to differentiate between
community and society.Max Weber also makes out a
definite field for sociology. According to him the aim
of sociology is to interpret or understand social
behaviour. But social behavior does not cover the
whole field of human relations. Indeed not all human
interactions are social. Sociology is concerned with
the analysis and classification of types of social
relationships.
Criticism of formal School
Formal school has been criticized on the issue that it
has emphasized on merely abstract forms and
neglected the concrete contents of social life.
Abstract forms separated from concrete relations
cannot be studied. Ginsberg says that a study of
social relationships would remain barren if it is
conducted in the abstract without the full knowledge
of the terms to which in concrete life they relate.
Sociology doesn't alone study the forms of social
relationship. Political science, International law also
studies forms of social relationship. The conception
of pure sociology is not practical as no social
science can be studied in isolation from other social
sciences.
Synthetic School of Sociology
Synthetic school wanted sociology to be synthesis of
the social sciences and thus wanted to widen the
scope of sociology. According to Durkheim,
sociology has three principal divisions' namely-
Social morphology, social physiology and general
sociology. Social morphology is concerned with
geographical or territorial basis of life of people such
as population, its size, density and distribution
etc.This can be done at two levels -analysis of size
and quality of population which affects the quality of
social relationship and social groups. Secondly the
study of social structure or description of the main
forms of social groups and institutions with their
classification. Social physiology deals with the
genesis and nature of various social institutions
namely religion, morals, law and economic
institutions etc.In general sociology the main aim is
to formulate general social laws. Attempt is made to
find out if there are links among various institutions
which would be treated independently in social
physiology and in the course to discover general
social laws. Hobhouse perceived sociology as a
science which has the whole social life of man as its
sphere. Its relations with the other social sciences
are considered to be one of mutual exchange and
mutual stimulation. Karl Mannheim's divides
sociology into two main sections-systematic and
general sociology and historical sociology.
Systematic sociology describes one by one the main
factors of living together as far as they may be found
in every kind of society. The historical sociology
deals with the historical variety and actuality of the
general forms of society. It falls into two sections-
comparative sociology and social dynamics.
Comparative sociology deals mainly with the
historical variations of the same phenomenon and
tries to find by comparison general features as
separated from industrial features. Social dynamics
deals with the interrelations between the various
social factors and institutions in a certain given
society for example in a primitive society. Ginsberg
has summed up the chief functions of sociology as it
seeks to provide a classification of types and forms
of social relationships especially of those which
have come to be defined institutions and
associations. It tries to determine the relation
between different parts of factors of social life for
example the economic and political, the moral and
the legal, the intellectual and the social elements. It
endeavors to disentangle the fundamental conditions
of social change and persistence and to discover
sociological principles governing social life.

Conclusion
Thus on the basis of viewpoints of different
sociologists we can get a general outline of the
scope of sociology. Firstly the analysis of various
institutions, associations and social groups which
are results of social relationships of individuals
should be the concern of sociology. Secondly the
links among different parts of society should be
studied. This objective is dealt with justice by
functionalist school of sociology and Marxist school
also gives importance to this viewpoint. Thus social
structure should be given adequate importance in
subject matter of sociology. Thirdly sociology
addresses itself to the factors which contribute to
social stability and social change. Fourthly sociology
should also explain the trend of the changing pattern
and the aftermath of the changes in the society.

Sociology And Political Science

The two distinct disciplines of social science

sociology and political sciences do converge
often as the subject matter is men and the
convergence is on the increase. A beginning
was made with the works of Marx.
According to him political institutions and
behavior are closely linked with the economic
system and social classes. Provoked by this
thinking some thinkers by the end of the 19th
century pursued the matter in more detail like
studies of political parties, elite, voting
behavior, bureaucracy and political ideologies
as in the political sociology of Michels, Weber
and Pareto.By then another development
occurred in America known as behavioral
approach to political phenomena. This was
initiated by the University of Chicago. In the
30s attempts were made by various scholars
to create a scientific discipline of behavioral
politics.
In another area there is c lose relationship
between the two. Both functionalism and
social system have been adopted into politics.
There is a renewal of interest in Marxist
sociological ideas. It is interesting to note that
there is a renewal of Marxist sociological ideas
because of revolutions in developing countries,
as studied by political scientists, sociologists
and even anthropologists. The forces at work
and the changes that are taking place in
peasant, tribal or caste societies belong more
to the sphere of sociologists and
anthropologists rather than to that of the
political scientist. Moreover, the fields into
which Michaels, Max Weber and Pareto led
sociology by the end of the 19th century are
still being pursued. A new feature of these
studies is that they are comparative. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
political science from political sociology.
There are a number of Marxist studies having
Marxist socialist ideas as their hypothesis.
Also, as modern State is increasingly getting
involved in providing welfare amenities,
sociological slant to political activity and
political thinking is gaining more and more of
acceptance.

Sociology And Psychology

Sociology studies the social systems while

psychology studies mental systems. The nature of
relationship between sociology and psychology still
remains controversial and the study of social
psychology in relation to both is still unsettled.
There are two extreme views: J.S.Mill believed that a
general social science could not be considered
firmly established until its inductively established
generalizations can be shown to be also logically
deductible from laws of mind. Thus he clearly sought
to establish primacy of psychology over all other
social sciences.Durkheim on the other hand made a
radical distinction between the phenomena studied
by sociology and psychology respectively. Sociology
was to study social facts defined as being external
to individual mind and exercising the coercive action
upon them, the explanation of social facts could only
be in terms of other social facts not in terms of
psychological facts. Society is not simply an
aggregate of individuals; it is a system formed by
their association and represents a specific level of
reality possessing its own characteristics. Thus
sociology and psychology are totally separate
disciplines.
Most sociologists however have adopted various
intermediate positions. According to Ginsberg many
sociological generalizations can be more firmly
established by being related to general
psychological laws. Similarly Nadel argued that
some problems posed by social enquiry can be
illuminated by a move to lower levels of analysis viz
psychology and biology. German scholars like Weber
came to believe that sociological explanations can
be further enriched if an attempt is made to
understand social behavior in terms of underlying
meanings. Such understanding was conceived in
terms of common senses psychology but Weber was
not opposed to the development of a scientific
psychology in broad sense and Weber was even
sympathetic to some of the Freud's ideas. Similarly
the interdependence of sociology and psychology for
the study of human behavior is given still greater
prominence.
The divergence between sociology and psychology
can be illustrated from various studies. In the study
of conflict and war there have been mutually
exclusive sociological and psychological
explanations. In the studies of stratification and
political behavior the two disciplines have remained
divergent. According to Bottomore in almost every
field of enquiry it can be shown that psychology and
sociology continue for the most part and two
separate universes of study. However some attempts
have been made to bring them together. One of the
most valuable works is of Gerth and Mills. According
to them the study of social psychology is an
interplay between individual character and social
structure and it can be approached either from the
side of sociology or from the side of biology. They
have even suggested the concept of role to bridge
the gap between the two sciences. Social role
represents a meeting point of the individual
organism and the social structure and it is used as a
central concept and social structure in the same
terms. Yet in spite of these efforts sociology and
psychology continue to offer alternate accounts for
behavior and if they are to be brought closer
together, it will be necessary to work out more
rigorously the conceptual and theoretical links
between them.
 Sociology and Social Anthropology

Sociology and social anthropology had quite different

origins. Sociology originated from philosophy of
history, political thought and positive sciences while
anthropology has descended from biology. In the
earlier periods of their periods of their growth the
two disciplines grew up in close cooperation with
each other in terms of the concepts used, areas of
interest and their methods of study as can be seen in
the works of founders which cannot easily be
assigned exclusively to either one of the disciplines.
The early convergence was followed by a period of
extreme divergence in terms of their universe of
study, areas of interest, methods of study and even
the concepts employed. Social anthropologists tend
to closely study small societies which are relatively
unchanging and lacking in historical records such as
Melanesia; on the other hand, sociologists often
study parts of an existing society like family or
social mobility. The methods employed by
sociologists are loaded with values, and hence their
conclusions are tinged with ethical considerations;
on the other hand, social anthropologists describe
and analyze in clinically neutral terms because they
can place themselves as outsiders without being
involved in values. For the social anthropologists the
field is a small self-contained group of community;
whereas, for the sociologists the field could be large-
scale and impersonal organizations and processes.
Social anthropologists generally live in the
community that they study in order to observe and
record what they see. Their analysis is essentially
qualitative and clinical. On the other hand,
sociologists often rely on statistics and
questionnaires and their analysis is often formal and
quantitative. In spite of the obvious differences
between the two in the 19th century, as stated
above, there has been a good deal of convergence in
modern times. The small units of study which the
social anthropologists require are fast disappearing
because of the influence of Western ideologies and
technology. Placed in such a situation, both the
social anthropologists and sociologists are
concerned with the process of economic growth and
social changes. Both the disciplines are equally
useful in studying the African and Asian societies
which are changing under the impact of the West. It
is no longer the prerogative of sociologists to study
advanced societies.
There is an increasing number of anthropological
studies in advanced societies, like the studies of
little community, kinship groups, etc. Some basic
concepts such as structure, function, status, role,
conflict, change and evaluation are used by both
sociologists and social anthropologists. These
feature differences indicate the interdependence of
sociology and social anthropology in understanding
social behavior. The works of Talcott Parsons and
R.K Merton are attempts towards an adaptation of
functionalist approach to study industrial societies
and William White has adopted participant
observation for the study of modern industrial
society. Thus the disciplines are increasingly
merging into each other.

Sociology And History

Both sociology and modern historiography had their

origin in 19th century. The latter established the
concept of historical periods and thus bequeathed to
historiography theoretical ideas and concerns which
were entirely absent from the work of earlier
narrative historians and chroniclers. It bequeathed
to modern sociology the notion of historical types of
society and thus enabled the socialists to build
classification of societies.
The interaction between two disciplines can be
found in their subject matter. Subject matter of
sociology and history overlap to a considerable
extent. The historian frequently provides the
material which sociologist uses.Infact historical
sociology depends upon the data which only a
historian can supply. Even comparative method often
requires historical data. But the dependence is two
fold. Sociological research also provides the
information which the historian's need.Infact the
subject matter of social history overlaps to a very
great extent with sociology in general and historical
sociology in particular. There is evidence of
cooperation by sociologists and social historians.
Historian's account of social structure of 19th
century towns and of the characteristics of the
medieval peasantry or the 18th century nobility and
sociologist's study of social history of a variety of
professions. There is a point of difference between
the two. Radcliffe- Brown provided a clear-cut
though simplistic answer. According to him
'Sociology is nomothetic, while history is
idiographic'. The historian describes unique events,
while the sociologist derives generalizations.
Indeed, there are generalizations in history too, but a
sociologist analyses sociological data with the help
of generalizations. In other words, the historian
examines particular sequences of events; whereas a
sociologist tests a generalization by examining the
sequence of events. To word this particular
difference between history and sociology in a very
simple language: the historian is concerned with the
inter-play between personality and social forces;
whereas, the sociologist is largely concerned with
the social forces themselves. History is primarily
concerned with the past and essentially tries to
account for the change over time while the main
focus of sociology continues to be to search for
recruitment patterns and to build generalizations.
However given such works like Weber's Protestant
Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism and Pitrin Sorokin's
Social and Cultural Dynamics, the line for
demarcation between history and sociology is
becoming increasingly blurred. Yet H.R Trevor-Roper
has tried to make a weak distinction by stating that
historian is concerned with the interplay between
personality and massive social forces and that the
sociologist is largely concerned with these social
forces themselves. However it is becoming
increasingly clear that historiography and sociology
cannot be radically separated. They deal with the
same subject -matter viz men living in societies
sometimes from the same point of view and the
trends that the two shall continue to borrow from
each other extensively.

Sociology and Economics

The battle as to which should be given precedence,

sociology or economics, is present in these two
disciplines also. However attempts have been made
to link the two disciplines .One extreme position has
been adopted by Marxists.
According to them the understanding of the super
structure consisting of various social institutions
can never be complete unless seen in the context of
economic substructure. Thus economic behavior of
man is viewed as a key to understand social
behavior of man or economics is given precedence
over sociology. On the other hand sociologists have
criticized the economic theory as being reductionist
in nature and according to them the economist's
conception of man ignores the role of various social
factors which influence the economic behavior. Thus
various sociologists have tried to show that
economics cannot be an entirely autonomous
science.
A. Lowie considers that two sociological principles
underlie the classical laws of the market: the
economic man and the competition or mobility of the
factors of production. A contemporary of Durkheim
argues that since the first principles of economics
are hypothesis they can be tested only by a
sociological enquiry. In recent times Parsons and
Smelser attempted to show that economic theory is
a part of the general sociological theory. In actual
practice there are a number of sociological studies
which are concerned with problems of economic
theory. Of late, the interaction between two
disciplines has been on the increase. Barbara Cotton
analyses the classical economic theory of Wages
and presents a sociological analysis of the
determinations of wages and salary differences
based on British data. Sociologists have explored the
aspects of economic behavior neglected or treated
in a hurried manner by economists such as Marx,
Max Weber and Hobson.
In recent times there are many studies in the same
field like those of Schimpeter, Strachey, Galbraith,
Gunnar Myrdal and Raymond Aron.Apart from this
contribution; sociologists have also studied
particular aspects of economic organization like the
property system, the division of labor and the
industrial organization. A branch of sociology called
economic sociology deals with the social aspects of
economic life. Economics would lay emphasis on
relations of purely economic variables- relations of
price and supply, money flows, input-output, etc.
Whereas sociology would study the productive
enterprises as a social organization the supply of
labor as affected by values and preferences,
influences of education on economic behavior; role
of caste system in economic development and so on.
Thus sociology and economics meet in a number of
areas of knowledge. The factors that contributed for
this convergence are two. Economists are no longer
interested only in market mechanism but also in
economic growth, national product and national
income and also development in underdeveloped
regions. In all these areas the economist has either
to necessarily collaborate with the sociologist or he
himself has to become a sociologist

Sociology of Law

The beginnings of sociology of law can be traced to

Montesquieu's De l'espirit des lois (1748).
Montesquieu still discussed law partly in terms of
natural law but he also described and compared the
laws of different societies and related the
differences to the diversity of conditions both
geographical and social of these societies.
From the middle of the 19th century with the
emergence of sociology as a distinct discipline the
sociological study of law progressed rapidly although
it assumed diverse forms. Marx and later Marxists
undertook their critique of law as an ideology that
conceals class divisions at the same time as it
promotes the interests of the dominant class. A
major work of Marxist scholar Karl Renner, 'The
institutions of Private law and their social functions,'
examines how the functions of legal norms which
regulate property, contract, succession and
inheritance change with changes in the economic
structure of capitalist society, yet without
necessarily altering the formulation of the legal
norms themselves which thus come to obscure the
significant social relationships of developed
capitalism. Many other sociologists like Comte,
Spencer and Maine were influenced by the German
historical school of jurisprudence founded by
Savigny.
H.S Maine in his Ancient Law made a distinction
between static and progressive societies and argued
that the movement of progressive societies has
hitherto been a movement from status to contract.
He meant that the individual is steadily substituted
for the family as the unit of which civil laws take
account. Maine considered that these changes were
brought about by non-legal factors since social
necessities and social opinion are always more or
less in advance of law and he examined under three
headings legal fictions, equity and legislation the
agencies by which in progressive societies law is
brought into harmony with society.
Emile Durkheim's conception of the development of
law is similar in important respects to that of Maine
for his distinction between repressive and restitutive
law resembles that between status and contract.
Repressive law is characteristic of societies in
which the individual is scarcely distinguished from
the group to which the individual belongs while
restitutive law is typical of modern societies in
which the individual has become a distinct legal
person able to enter freely into contractual
relationships with other individuals.
L.T Hobhouse in conformity with his general
evolutionist approach dealt with the development of
law and justice from private redress and the blood
feud, through the stage of composition for offences
to the stages of civilized justice. Hobhouse records
not only the establishment of the notion of individual
responsibility but also the influence of increasing
class differentiation until recent times. He also
discusses changes in the character of punishment
and examines the relations between law, religion
and morals.
Max Weber's studies of law showed a much clearer
understanding of the nature of law than those of
earlier sociologists and they have had greater
influence in the growth of a sociological
jurisprudence since Weber's conception of law as
being concerned with the adjustment of conflicting
interests. Weber was also interested in the
classification of types of law and in the development
of law in western societies. He conceived this
development as an increasing rationalization of law,
accompanying the general rationalization of life in
industrial societies as a result of the growth of
capitalist economic enterprise and of bureaucracy.
According to Max Weber law is an order the validity
of which is guaranteed by the probability that
deviation will be met by physical or psychic sanction
by a staff specially empowered to carry out this
sanction.
In modern civilized societies laws are enacted by the
state to control the individual. The transition from
custom to law is just a part of the general
rationalization in modern society. Sumner has
defined the term law as codified mores. Kant defined
law as a formula that expresses the necessity of an
action. According to Green law is a more or less
systematic body of generalized rules balanced
between the fiction of performance and the fact of
change governing specifically defined relationship
and situations and employing force or the threat of
force in defined and limited ways. According to
Maclver and Page law is the body of rules that are
recognized, interpreted and applied to particular
situations by the courts of state.
There is a marked disagreement among the scholars
as to what the law is. There is no single definition of
law that will encompass preliterate legal
arrangements like the Code of Hammurabi and law in
modern civilization. As Maclver puts it the law of the
savage is not our law. Those who take juristic view
of law define it as the command of the sovereign or
the dictates of the state. Those taking the
sociological view define law as the rules of right
conduct. The problem here is shall we keep the word
law for the specialized system with their codes; their
apparatus for setting disputes and the penalties for
those who have broken the rules or shall we regard
these as mere specializations of a similar kind of
control which may be found in unorganized forms or
in organized forms but without what we ordinarily
think of as legal sanctions.
Those who hold the former view argue that
jurisprudence makes it convenient to use the word
law in a specialized sense while the advocates of the
latter view hold that primitive people had something
which may be called law and that the rules of
voluntary associations like trade union, club,
university, family as much regulate the behavior of
man as the law of the land. Enactment or
enforcement by the state should not be considered
essential elements of law. Pollock writes if we look
away from such elaborate systems as those of a late
Roman Empire and of modern western governments,
we see that not only law with a great deal of
formality has existed before the state had any
adequate means of compelling its observance and
indeed before there was any regular process of
enforcement at all. This means that two views may
be taken of law. In a wider sense it included all the
rules of conduct observed by men as a matter of
habit. It may mean the body of rules that are
recognized or made by the state and interpreted by
the courts of the land. Custom becomes law when
the state is prepared to enforce it as a rule binding
on citizens. The term law can be interpreted as rules
enacted or at least interpreted and enforced by
special agencies of the state. Main characteristics of
law are

 Laws are the general conditions of human

activity prescribed by the state for its members.
 Law is law only if enacted by a proper law
making authority. It is a product of conscious
thought: planning and deliberate formulation.
 Law is definite, clear and precise.
 Law applies equally to all without exception in
identical circumstances
 The violation of law is followed by penalties
determined by the authority of the state

Herbert Spencer’s Theory of

Social Evolution (Explained with
Diagram)
Article shared by 

The most important contribution of Herbert Spencer

to Sociology is the theory of evolution. He utilized
the principles of physical and biological evolution in
order to elaborate and explain his theory of Social
evolution.

In physical evolution, a movement is from indefinite

incoherent situation to definite and coherent
situation. Besides, the underlying principles of
physical evolution are a movement from simple to
complex and homogeneity to heterogeneity.

In biological evolution only those creatures survive

in the struggle for existence who are able to make
effective adjustment with changing circumstances.
Herbert Spencer utilized these two principles,
physical and biological evolution in order to explain
social evolution.

Physical Evolution:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

Spencer writes, “Evolution is an integration of matter

and concomitant dissipation of motion, during which
the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent
homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity
and during which the retained motion undergoes a
parallel transformation.”
According to Lewis A. Coser, “The very- foundation
of Spencerism is the evolutionary doctrine or the law
of evolution. In his “First Principles” he traced
everything in the world back through causal chains
to two fundamental factors. These are matter and
motion—two aspects of force. According to Spencer,
the law of evolution is the supreme law of every
becoming.

For Spencer, evolution pervaded the inorganic as

well as organic realm. His voluminous work also
treated “Super organic evolution” (Which today we
would term social evolution), and evolution of super
organic products (what we call cultural evolution).
Within the Framework of Universal evolution,
Spencer developed his basic three laws and four
secondary propositions—each building upon each
and all upon the doctrine of evolution.

The Three Basic Laws:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(i) The Law of persistence of force. (Some ultimate

cause that transcends knowledge)

(ii) The Law of the indestructibility of matter.

(iii) The law of Continuity of motion.

Force Tends to Persist:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(1) The First law is energy or force tends to persists.

In the course of evolutionary change there is no
increase in energy or force.

Energy or Force is persistence. It undergoes no

change. Energy or Force is the cause of evolution but
it is unaffected by the evolutionary process.

Matter is Indestructible:
(ii) The Second law is “matter is indestructible”.
Matter as one form or aspect of energy is never
destroyed. It may undergo formal changes. The
changes in the form of matter are responsible for the
evolutionary process. But the fundamental nature of
matter never changes. The basic elements of matter
and energy in the world are neither created, nor
destroyed but conserved.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Continuity of motion:
(iii) The third law is, “motion is continuous and it is
never wholly dissipated”. There are of course,
changes in the form of motion. On account of these
changes, there are stages in the evolutionary
process. There is perpetual continuity of motion in
the world. All things continue in motion.

Four Secondary Propositions:

(i) Persistence of the relationship between the
forces. (Harmony of all laws)

(ii) Principle of formal changes and uniformity.

(iii) Principle of least resistance and greatest

attraction.

(iv) Principle of gradual motion.

Spencer has enumerated four secondary laws of

evolution.

(i) Harmony of all laws:

According to Spencer there must be harmony among
the various laws of evolution. No two laws should
contradict each other. There exists a uniformity or
regularity of relationships among defined phenomena
in the world. The world is an order of elements.

(ii) Principle of formal changes and uniformity:

Matter and motion is not completely destroyed.
These undergo changes in form only. Of course
during formal change the quantum of matter and
motion remains static. The force, the elements of
matter, the motion are never lost in the process of
change. They are merely transformed into the
manifestation of some other event.

(iii) Principle of least resistance or great attraction:

The direction of evolution is always towards the line
of least resistance or greatest attraction. All forces
and elements move along the line of least resistance
and greatest attraction.

(iv) Principle of gradual motion:

For evolution, motion is essential, but it is not
required that motion should be at one level all the
time. It may speed up or slow down. All phenomena
in nature have their own particular rate and rhythm
of movement of duration and development.

Spencer argued that the evolution of human

societies, far from being different from other
evolutionary phenomena. It is a special case of a
universally applicable natural law. It is axiomatic to
Spencer that ultimately all aspects of the universe,
whether organic or inorganic, social or non-social is
subject to the laws of evolution.

All universal phenomena-inorganic, organic, super

organic—are subject to the natural law of evolution.
According to Spencer, all the phenomena of nature—
the stars and planetary systems, the earth and all
terrestrial phenomena, biological organisms and the
development of species, all the psychological and
sociological processes of human experience and
behaviour-follow the definite pattern of change.

Given the persistence of force, the indestructibility

of the basic elements of material substance, the
continuity of motion and the like, Spencer says, “Why
were the changes of phenomena from homogeneous
to the heterogeneous? From the relatively incoherent
to the relatively coherent? From simple to complex?
From the in differentiated to the differentiation of
specialized structure and functions?”

There are the more important factors which he

emphasized:
1. The instability of the homogeneous.

2. The multi-fication of effects.

3. Segregation

4. Equilibrium

5. Dissolution.

1. The instability of the homogeneous:

Spencer argued that the condition of homogeneity is
in-fact a condition of unstable equilibrium.

2. The multi-fication of effects:

According to Spencer, once differentiation and
diversity begins, a cumulative rapidity of increasing
diversity and differentiation is set in motion.
Diversity feeds upon itself. It makes for increasing
complexity.

3. Segregation:
Once differentiation occurs within the units of an
aggregate, a tendency towards the specialization of
parts will develop. Units which are alike will respond
in a similar fashion, whereas units which are
different will respond differently. A process of
internal “selection” or “segregation” of specialized
parts will be set afoot.

4. Equilibrium:
All phenomena according to Spencer are in a
process of adjustment and accommodation until a
moving equilibrium is reached.

5. Dissolution:
Dissolution is the reverse process. It is the undoing
of evolved forms. Every phenomenon must submit to
the process of dissolution. The crux of Spencer’s
theory of physical evolution is that according to
Spencer, in the process of evolution latent becomes
manifest and indefinite passes towards definiteness
and lastly homogeneous mass of matter becomes
more and more differentiated.

Biological Evolution:
Spencer adopted his principle of evolution from
naturalist Charles Darwin. Darwin developed the
concept of evolution in his “Origin of Species” in
1859. Spencer, the sociological giant of the second
half of the 19th Century was enamoured by “Social
Darwinism”.
Spencer believed in the doctrine of the “Survival of
the fittest” as expounded by Darwin. According to
him animal has to struggle to preserve its existence.
The struggle for existence is not confined to any one
aspects of life but pervades whole of life. Spencer
says, only strong creatures survive and evolve; only
strong makes progress. The weak is gradually
eliminated. A strong creature is one who has the
ability to adjust himself with the ever changing
conditions of environment.

Social Evolution:
From the analysis of physical evolution Spencer
convinced that the underlying principles of all
evolution are two:
(i) Movement from- simple to complex.

(ii) Movement from homogeneous to heterogeneous.

From the analysis of biological evolution spencer

utilized the principle, that those creatures survive in
the struggle for existence who are able to make
effective adjustment with changing circumstances.
So Spencer utilized both physical and biological
evolution for his theory of social evolution. Like
physical evolution also in social evolution there is a
movement from simple to complex. The society is
moving from homogeneous to heterogeneous
structure. Society is also moving from indefinite to
definite stage.

Spencer has borrowed the idea from biological

evolution that those cultures survive which are able
to adjust themselves with the changing
circumstances. If a civilization is unable to make
adjustment with the changing circumstances it
caves in and gradually becomes extinct.

Spencer’s theory of social evolution points out to

two stages:
1. The movement from simple to compound
societies.

2. Change from militant society to industrial society.

The movement from simple to compound societies—

This is seen in four types of societies in terms of
evolutionary levels.

1. Simple Society:
Spencer defined the simple society as “one which
forms a single working whole un-subjected to any
other and of which the parts co-operate with or
without a regulating center for certain public ends.”
These societies were predominantly small, nomadic,
and lacking in stable relationship structure. They
had low degrees of differentiation, specialization,
and integration. Examples are the Eskimos, the
Fuegians, Guiana tribes, the new Caledonians and
the Pueblo Indians.

2. Compound Societies:
Compound societies were presented as having
generally come about through either a peaceful or a
violent merger of two or more simple societies. They
tended to be predominantly settled agricultural
societies, although a majority are mainly pastoral,
and tended to be characterised by a division of four
or five social strata and an organised priestly group.
They are also characterised by Industrial structures
that show in advancing division of labour, general
and local. Examples are the Teutonic peoples in the
fifth century, Homeric Greeks, Zew Zealanders,
Hottentots Dahomans and Ashantees.

3. Doubly Compound Societies:

Doubly compound societies were completely settled,
were more integrated and a larger and more definite
political structure, a religious hierarchy, a more or
less rigid caste system and more complex division of
labour. Furthermore, in such societies to a greater
and lesser extent, custom has passed into positive
law and religious observances have grown definite,
rigid and complex. Towns and roads have become
general, and considerable progress in knowledge and
the arts has taken place.” Examples are thirteen-
Century France, Eleventh Century England, the
Spartan Confederacy, the ancient Peruvians and the
Guatemalans.

4. Trebly Compound Societies:

It includes “the great civilized nations” such as the
Assyrian Empire, the modern Great Britain, France,
Germany, Italy and Russia. Spencer does not outline
their traits in detail but points to their increased
overall size, complexity, division of labour, popular
density, integration and general cultural complexity.

Criticisms:
1. According to some social thinkers Herbert
Spencer’s theory lacks practicability. It is not
practical and realistic. Even today there are several
tribes and aboriginals that do not show any sign of
evolution.

2. It also lacks uniformity. It is not possible to have a

uniform pattern of social evolution in all societies.
Because the factors and circumstances responsible
for evolution differ from one another.

3. Mere survival for existence is not enough for man.

In human society qualities like sympathy, sacrifice,
kindness, love etc. are also present. These are quite
different from struggle for existence.

In spite of the above criticisms made by some of the

social thinkers, Spencer’s theory of social evolution
is a master key to the riddles of the universe.

As a structural theory, Functionalism sees social

structure or the organisation of society as more
important than the individual. Functionalism is a top
down theory. Individuals are born into society and
become the product of all the social influences
around them as they are socialised by various
institutions such as the family, education, media and
religion.
 

Functionalism sees society as a

system; a set of interconnected parts which together
form a whole. There is a relationship between all
these parts and agents of socialisation and together
they all contribute to the maintenance of society as
a whole.
 
Social consensus, order and integration are key
beliefs of functionalism as this allows society to
continue and progress because there are shared
norms and values that mean all individuals have a
common goal and have a vested interest in
conforming and thus conflict is minimal.
  
Talcott Parsons viewed society as a system. He
argued that any social system has four basic
functional prerequisites: adaptation, goal
attainment, integration and pattern maintenance.
These can be seen as problems that society must
solve if it is to survive. The function of any part of
the social system is understood as its contribution to
meeting the functional prerequisites.
 
Adaptation refers to the relationship between the
system and its environment. In order to survive,
social systems must have some degree of control
over their environment. Food and shelter must be
provided to meet the physical needs of members.
The economy is the institution primarily concerned
with this function.
 
Goal attainment refers to the need for all societies to
set goals towards which social activity is directed.
Procedures for establishing goals and deciding on
priorities between goals are institutionalized in the
form of political systems. Governments not only set
goals but also allocate resources to achieve them.
Even in a so-called free enterprise system, the
economy is regulated and directed by laws passed
by governments.
 
Integration refers primarily to the ‘adjustment of
conflict’. It is concerned with the coordination and
mutual adjustment of the parts of the social system.
Legal norms define and standardize relations
between individuals and between institutions, and so
reduce the potential for conflict. When conflict does
arise, it is settled by the judicial system and does
not therefore lead to the disintegration of the social
system.
 
Pattern maintenance refers to the ‘maintenance of
the basic pattern of values, institutionalized in the
society’. Institutions that perform this function
include the family, the educational system and
religion. In Parsons view ‘the values of society are
rooted in religion’.
 
Talcott Parsons maintained that any social system
can be analysed in terms of the functional
prerequisites he identified. Thus, all parts of society
can be understood with reference to the functions
they perform.
 
A main supporter of Functionalism is Emile
Durkheim who believes that sociology is a science.
He is a structuralist and positivist and thus
disagrees with empathy, meanings and the social
action theory.
 
Functionalists believe that society is based around a
value consensus and social solidarity, which is
achieved by socialisation and social control.
 
These are two types of social solidarity Durkheim
believed in:
 
Mechanical Solidarity – These societies have people
involved in similar roles so labour division is simple.
Therefore, a similar lifestyle is lived with common
shared norms and values and beliefs. They have a
consensus of opinion on moral issues giving society
a social solidarity to guide behaviour. As there is a
societal agreement, there is pressure to follow the
value consensus, so therefore most do.
 
Organic Solidarity – Industrialisation meant
population grew rapidly with urbanisation occurring.
As society develops, a division of labour occurs. This
is when work becomes separate from the home and
the state organises the education, health care
and criminal justice systems.  A parent back then
would be the teacher, doctor, judge and jury as well
as a parent.
 
Today people have such diverse and specialist roles
that moral codes have weakened and anomie has
occurred (a lack of norms and values and self-
control). Social order is no-longer based on having a
common set of values but rather is enshrined in the
law and highlighted bydeviance.
 
Another in support of Functionalism is Talcott
Parsons. Parsons claims that society is the way it is
as social structures are interconnected and
dependant on each other. Functionalists therefore
see change as evolutionary – change in one part of
society will eventually occur in another. Social ills
e.g. crime and deviance, have disabling effects on
society and gradually effect other parts. They
recognise interconnections between various parts of
society occur due to a value consensus. Parsons
believes that as society changes, it develops and the
pattern variables within it will become more
complex. Change, therefore, trickles throughout
society. Parsons summed this up as the ‘Organic
Analogy’.
 
Functionalists believe that sociological matters
should be explained with scientific facts. This is
otherwise known as Positivism. The founder of
Positivism, Angste Comte, describes it as a method
of study based primary facts, objectively measured,
from which makes it possible to identify issues in
society that effect individuals and leaves room for
innovation in law and establishing new legislation.
An example of this would be statistics. Positivists
believe that sociology should adopt the methodology
of the natural sciences and focus only on directly
observable social facts and correlate them with
other observable social facts.

Social conflict theory is a Marxist-

based social theory which argues that
individuals and groups (social classes) within
society interact on the basis of conflict rather
than consensus. Through various forms of
conflict, groups will tend to attain differing
amounts of material and non-material
resources (e.g. the wealthy vs. the poor). More
powerful groups will tend to use their power in
 order to retain power and exploit groups with
less power.
Conflict theorists view conflict as an engine of
change, since conflict produces contradictions
which are sometimes resolved, creating new
conflicts and contradictions in an
ongoing dialectic. In the classic example
of historical materialism, Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels argued that all of
human history is the result of conflict between
classes, which evolved over time in
accordance with changes in society's means
of meeting its material needs, i.e. changes in
society's mode of production.

Contents
  [hide] 

 1Example
 2Social conflict theories
 3See also
 4References
 5External links
Example[edit]

Consider the relationship between the owner

of a housing complex and a tenant in that
same housing complex. A consensus
theorist might suggest that the relationship
between the owner and the tenant is founded
on mutual benefit. In contrast, a conflict
theorist might argue the relationship is based
on a conflict in which the owner and tenant are
struggling against each other. Their
relationship is defined by the balance in their
abilities to extract resources from each other,
e.g. rent payments or a place to live. The
bounds of the relationship are set where each
is extracting the maximum possible amount of
resources out of the other.
Conflict can take many forms and involve
struggle over many different types of
resources, including status. However, formal
conflict theory had its foundations in the
analysis of class conflict, and the example of
the owner and the tenant can be understood in
terms of class conflict. In class conflict,
owners are likely to have relative advantages
over non-owners. For example, the legal
system underlying the relationship between
the owner and tenant can be biased in favor of
the owner. Suppose the owner wishes to keep
the tenant's security deposit after that tenant
has moved out of the owner's residence. In
legal systems based on English common law,
the owner is only required to notify the tenant
that the security deposit is being withheld. To
regain the security deposit, the tenant must
file a lawsuit. The tenant bears the burden of
proof and is therefore required to prove that
the residence was adequately cleaned before
move-out. This can be a very difficult or even
impossible task.
To summarize the example, conflict theorists
view the relationship between the owner and
tenant as being built primarily on conflict
rather than harmony. Even though the owner-
tenant relationship may often appear
harmonious, any visible harmony is only a
product of the law and other elements of
the superstructure which constrain the
relationship and which are themselves a
product of an even deeper conflict, class
conflict. A conflict theorist would say that
conflict theory holds more explanatory power
than consensus theory in this situation since
consensus theory cannot explain lawsuits
between owners and tenants nor the legal
foundations of the asymmetrical power
relationship between the two.

Social conflict theories[edit]

From a social conflict theorist / marxism point

of view social class and inequality emerges
because the social structure is based on
conflict and contradictions. Contradictions in
interests and conflict over scarce resources
between groups is the foundation of social
society, according to the social conflict theory
(Engels & Marx, 1848). The higher class will try
to maintain their privileges, power, status and
social position - and therefore try to influence
politics, education, and other institutions to
protect and limit access to their forms of
capital and resources. Whereas the lower
class - in contradiction to the higher class -
has very different interests. They do not have
specific forms of capital that they need to
protect. All they are interested in is in gaining
access to the resources and capital of the
higher class. For example, education: the
lower class will do everything to gain access
to the higher class resources based on
democratizing and liberalizing education
systems because these forms of capital are
thought to be of value for future success. The
various institutions of society such as the legal
and political system are instruments of ruling
class domination and serve to further its
interests. Marx believed that western society
developed through four main epochs—primitive
communism, ancient society, feudal
society and capitalist society. Primitive
communism is represented by the societies of
pre-history and provides the only example of
the classless society. From then all societies
are divided into two major classes—master
and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs
in feudal society and capitalist and wage
laborers in capitalist society.
Weber sees class in economic terms. He
argues that classes develop in market
economies in which individuals compete for
economic gain. He defines a class as a group
of individuals who share a similar position in
market economy and by virtue of that fact
receive similar economic rewards. Thus a
person's class situation is basically his market
situation. Those who share a similar class
situation also share similar life chances. Their
economic position will directly affect their
chances of obtaining the things defined as
desirable in their society.[1]
Historical materialism is a methodological
approach of Marxist historiography that
focuses on human societies and their
development over time. This was first
articulated by Karl Marx (1818–1883) as
the materialist conception of history. It is
principally a theory of history according to
which the material conditions of a society's
way of producing and reproducing the means
of human existence or, in Marxist terms, the
union of its productive capacity and
social relations of production, fundamentally
determine its organization and development.
Historical materialism[1] looks for the causes of
developments and changes in human society in
 the means by which humans collectively
produce the necessities of life. Social classes
and the relationship between them, along with
the political structures and ways of thinking in
society, are founded on and reflect
contemporary economic activity.[2]
Since Marx's time, the theory has been
modified and expanded by Marxist writers. It
now has many Marxist and non-Marxist
variants.

Contents
  [hide] 

 1Key ideas
 2Key implications in the study and
understanding of history
 3Marx's materialism
 4The future
 5Marxist beliefs about history
 6Alienation and freedom
 7History
 8Nations as a product of capitalism
 9Warnings against misuse
 10In Marxist thought
 11Recent versions
 12Criticisms
 13See also
 14References
 15Further reading
 16External links

Key ideas[edit]
"In the Marxian view, human history is like a
river. From any given vantage point, a river
looks much the same day after day. But
actually it is constantly flowing and changing,
crumbling its banks, widening and deepening
its channel. The water seen one day is never
the same as that seen the next. Some of it is
constantly being evaporated and drawn up, to
return as rain. From year to year these
changes may be scarcely perceptible. But one
day, when the banks are thoroughly weakened
and the rains long and heavy, the river floods,
bursts its banks, and may take a new course.
This represents the dialectical part of Marx's
famous theory of dialectical (or historical)
materialism."

— Hubert Kay,  Life, 1948[3]

Historical materialism springs from a

fundamental underlying reality of human
existence: that in order for human beings to
survive and continue existence from
generation to generation, it is necessary for
them to produce and reproduce the material
requirements of life.[4] Marx then extended this
premise by asserting the importance of the
fact that, in order to carry out production and
exchange, people have to enter into very
definite social relations, most fundamentally
"production relations".
However, production does not get carried out
in the abstract, or by entering into arbitrary or
random relations chosen at will. Human
beings collectively work on nature but do not
do the same work; there is a division of
labor in which people not only do different
jobs, but according to Marxist theory, some
people live off the fruits of others' labor by
owning the means of production. How this is
accomplished depends on the type of society.
Production is carried out through very definite
relations between people. And, in turn, these
production relations are determined by the
level and character of the productive
forces that are present at any given time in
history. For Marx, productive forces refer to
the means of production such as the tools,
instruments, technology, land, raw materials,
and human knowledge and abilities in terms of
using these means of production.
Writers who identify with historical
materialism usually postulate that society has
moved through a number of types or modes of
production. That is, the character of the
production relations is determined by the
character of the productive forces; these could
be the simple tools and instruments of early
human existence, or the more developed
machinery and technology of present age. The
main modes of production Marx identified
generally include primitive
communism or tribal society (a prehistoric
stage), ancient society, feudalism,
and capitalism. In each of these social stages,
people interact with nature and produce their
living in different ways. Any surplus from that
production is allotted in different ways.
Ancient society was based on a ruling class of
slave owners and a class of slaves; feudalism
was based on landowners and serfs; and
capitalism based on the capitalist class and
the working class. The capitalist class
privately owns the means of production,
distribution and exchange (e.g., factories,
mines, shops and banks) while the working
class live by exchanging their
socialized labor with the capitalist class for
wages.
Marx identified the production relations of
society (arising on the basis of given
productive forces) as the economic base of
society. He also explained that on the
foundation of the economic base there arise
certain political institutions, laws, customs,
culture, etc., and ideas, ways of thinking,
morality, etc. These constituted the
political/ideological superstructure of society.
This superstructure not only has its origin in
the economic base, but its features also
ultimately correspond to the character and
development of that economic base, i.e. the
way people organize society is determined by
the economic base and the relations that arise
from its mode of production.
Historical materialism can be seen to rest on
the following principles:

1. The basis of human society is how

humans work on nature to produce the
means of subsistence.
2. There is a division of labor into social
classes (relations of production) based on
property ownership where some people
live from the labor of others.
3. The system of class division is
dependent on the mode of production.
4. The mode of production is based on the
level of the productive forces.
5. Society moves from stage to stage when

the dominant class is displaced by a new

emerging class, by overthrowing the
"political shell" that enforces the old
relations of production no longer
corresponding to the new productive
 forces. This takes place in the
superstructure of society, the political
arena in the form of revolution, whereby
the underclass "liberates" the productive
forces with new relations of production,
and social relations, corresponding to it.
Marx's clearest formulation of his "materialist
conception of history" was in the 1859 Preface
to his book A Contribution to the Critique of
Political Economy, whose relevant passage is
reproduced here:
In the social production of their existence,
men inevitably enter into definite relations,
which are independent of their will,
namely relations of production appropriate to a
given stage in the development of their
material forces of production. The totality of
these relations of production constitutes the
economic structure of society, the real
foundation, on which arises a legal and
political superstructure and to which
correspond definite forms of consciousness.
The mode of production of material life
conditions the general process of social,
political and intellectual life. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their
existence, but their social existence that
determines their consciousness. At a certain
stage of development, the material productive
forces of society come into conflict with the
existing relations of production or — this
merely expresses the same thing in legal
terms — with the property relations within the
framework of which they have operated
hitherto. From forms of development of the
productive forces these relations turn into
their fetters. Then begins an era of social
revolution. The changes in the economic
foundation lead sooner or later to the
transformation of the whole immense
superstructure. In studying such
transformations it is always necessary to
distinguish between the material
transformation of the economic conditions of
production, which can be determined with the
precision of natural science, and the legal,
political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in
short, ideological forms in which men become
conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just
as one does not judge an individual by what he
thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such
a period of transformation by its
consciousness, but, on the contrary, this
consciousness must be explained from the
contradictions of material life, from the
conflict existing between the social forces of
production and the relations of production. [5]
Perhaps the most influential recent defense of
this passage, and of relevant Marxian and
Marxist assertions, is G. A. Cohen's Karl
Marx's Theory of History: A Defence.[6]

Key implications in the study and

understanding of history[edit]

Many writers note that historical materialism

represented a revolution in human thought,
and a break from previous ways of
understanding the underlying basis of change
within various human societies. As Marx puts
it, "a coherence arises in human
history"[7] because each generation inherits the
productive forces developed previously and in
turn further develops them before passing
them on to the next generation. Further, this
coherence increasingly involves more of
humanity the more the productive forces
develop and expand to bind people together in
production and exchange.
This understanding counters the notion that
human history is simply a series of accidents,
either without any underlying cause or caused
by supernatural beings or forces exerting their
will on society. This posits that history is made
as a result of struggle between different social
classes rooted in the underlying economic
base.
Broadly, the importance of the study of history
lies in the ability of history to explain the
present. John Bellamy Foster asserts that
historical materialism is important in
explaining history from a scientific
perspective, by following the scientific
method, as opposed to belief-system theories
like Creationism and Intelligent Design, which
do not base their beliefs on verifiable facts and
hypotheses.[8]

Marx's materialism[edit]

While the "historical" part of historical

materialism does not cause a comprehension
problem (i.e., it means the present is explained
by analysing the past), the term materialism is
more difficult. Historical materialism uses
"materialism" to make two separate points,
where the truth or falsehood of one point does
not affect the others.
Firstly, there is metaphysical or philosophical
materialism, in which matter-in-motion is
considered primary and thought about matter-
in-motion, or thought about abstractions,
secondary.
Secondly, there is the notion that economic
processes form the material base of society
upon which institutions and ideas rest and
from which they derive. While the economy is
the base structure of society, it does not
follow that everything in history is determined
by the economy, just as every feature of a
house is not determined by its foundations.
Thus, there is the idea that in the capitalist
mode of production the behaviour of actors in
the market economy (means of production,
distribution and exchange, the relations of
production) plays the major role in configuring
society.
The future[edit]

In his analysis of the movement of history,

Marx predicted the breakdown of capitalism,
and the establishment in time of a communist
society in which class-based human conflict
would be overcome. The means of production
would be held in the common ownership and
used for the common good. In the mention of
"human liberation" one should not neglect that,
in the level of production, solely the working
class is the most oppressed. But either way in
the prediction of the future, one shall first
know of the past (i.e. the establishment of
capitalism and the transitional part of
feudalism).

Marx’s Sociology Theory of

Class Struggle
Article shared by 

Marx’s sociology is in fact, sociology of class

struggle. According to Bendex and Lipset, “A
social class in Marx’s terms is any aggregate
of persons who perform the same function in
the organization of production.” According to
Marx, “Class is the manifestation of economic
differentiation.”

The concept of class struggle, though not

originally propounded by Karl Marx, is yet one
of his great contributions to Sociology. To
Marx, “the history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class struggle.” (The
first line of communist manifesto (1848)
reads.) According to Raymond Aron, “the
classes are the principal actors in the
historical drama of capitalism in particular and
of history in general.”

Classes refer to the groups of people having

their own role to play in the relations of
production. Relations of production refer to the
fact that in the process of industrial production
the labour and capital stands in specific
relation to each other. Labour is the capacity
which the working class possesses.

Capital is the instrument invested out of which

profit is derived. Those who possess capital
they are the owners of capital. Those who are
labourers—they are the owners of labour
power. Capital gets profit, labour gets wage.
Labour and capital are interrelated, they are
inseparable. One cannot be thought of without
the other.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Marx says:
Classes are hence the groups of people
identified and distinguished from each other on
the basis of their relations to the economic
means of production. Economic means of
production refers to the economic
infrastructure that few people own as against
many. Few people are capitalists and many are
labourers. Economic infrastructure refers to all
those land, machinery, tools, technology and
the skills that assist the process of production.

The Class Structure:

The word “class” originated from the Latin
term “Classis” a group called to arms, a
division of the people. In the rule of legendary
Roman king, Servius Tullius (678-534 B.C), the
Roman society was divided into five classes or
orders according to their wealth. Subsequently
the word ‘class’ was applied to large groups of
people into which human society came to be
divided.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Marx recognized class as a unique feature of

capitalist societies. Marx has used the term
Social class throughout his works but
explained it only in a fragmented form. The
clearest passages on the concept of class
structure can be found in the third volume of
his famous work Capital (1894). Under the title
of “Social classes”, Marx distinguished three
classes related to the three sources of income.

(i) Owners of simple labour power or labourers

whose main source of income is labour.

(ii) Owners of capital or capitalists whose main

source of income is profit or surplus value.

(iii) Landowners whose main source of income

is ground rent.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

In this way the class structure of modern

capitalist society is composed of three major
classes’ i.e. salaried labourers of workers,
capitalists and landowners. At a broader level,
society could be divided into two major
classes—Haves and Have-not’s. Haves are the
owners of land/or capital often called as
Bourgeoisie and the Have-not’s are those who
own nothing but their own labour power, often
called as Proletariates. According to Marx, “a
social class occupies a fixed place in the
process of production.”

Bendex and Lipset have identified five

variables that determine a class in the Marxian
sense:
1. Conflicts over the distribution of economic
rewards between the classes.

2. Easy communication between the

individuals in the same class position so that
ideas and action programs are readily
disseminated.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. Growth of class consciousness in the sense

that the members of the class have a feeling of
solidarity and understanding of their historical
role.

4. Profound dissatisfaction in the lower class

over its inability to control the economic
structure of which it feels itself to be the
exploited victim.

5. Establishment of a political organization

resulting from the economic structure, the
historical situation and maturation of class-
consciousness.

Criteria for Determination of Class:

A social class has two major criteria:
(а) Objective Criteria

(b) Subjective Criteria.

(a) Objective Criteria:

People sharing the same relationship to the
means of production comprise a class. For
example, all labourers have a similar
relationship with the land owners. On the other
hand all the landowners as a class have a
similar relationship with the land and
labourers. In this way, labourers on one hand
and land owners on the other hand could be
seen as classes.

However, for Marx, this relationship is not

sufficient to determine the class. Because
according to him it is not sufficient for class to
be “Class in itself’ but it should also be “Class
for itself’. Marx means by “Class in itself’ the
objective criteria of any social class. He is not
satisfied with the objective criteria. Hence, he
equally emphasizes upon the other major
criteria i.e. “class for itself’ or the subjective
criteria.

(b) Subjective Criteria:

Any collectivity of human grouping with a
similar relationship would make a category not
a class, if subjective criteria are not included.
The members of any one class not only have
similar consciousness but they also share a
similar consciousness of the fact that they
belong to the same class.
This similar consciousness of a class serves as
the basis for uniting its members for organising
social action. Here this similar consciousness
towards acting together for their common
interest is what Marx class-“Class for itself.” In
this way these two criteria together determine
a class and class structure in any given
society.

Classification of Societies in History and

Emergence of Classes:
Marx differentiated stages of human history on
the basis of their economic regime or modes of
production.

He distinguished four major modes of

production:
1. The Asiatic

2. The Ancient

3. The Feudal

4. The Capitalistic

He predicted that all social development will

culminate into a stage called Communism.
He simplified this classification of societies or
various stages of human history into:
1. Primitive-Communal

2. Slave-owning

3. Feudal

4. Capitalist

5. Communist stage.

1. The Primitive:
Communal system was the first and the lowest
form of organization of people. It existed for
thousands of years. Man started using
primitive tools like sticks and stones for
hunting and food gathering. Gradually man
improved these tools. He learned to make fire,
cultivation and animal husbandry.

In this system of very low level of forces of

production, the relations of production were
based on common ownership of the means of
production. Therefore, these relations were
based on mutual assistance and co-operation.
These relations were conditioned by the fact
that people with their primitive implements
could only withstand the mighty forces of
nature together, collectively.

In such a situation, exploitation of man by man

did not exist because of two reasons. Firstly,
the tools used (means of production) were so
simple that they could be reproduced by any
one. These were implements like spear, stick,
bow and arrow etc. Hence no person or group
of people had the monopoly of ownership over
the tools.

Secondly, production was at a low scale. The

people existed more or less on a subsistence
lord. Their production was just sufficient to
meet the needs of the people provided
everybody worked. Therefore it was a situation
of no master and no servant. All were equal.
Gradually, with time man started perfecting his
tools, his craft of producing and surplus
production started taking place.

This led to private property and primitive

equality gave way to social inequality. Thus,
the first antagonistic classes, slaves and slave
owners appeared. This is how the development
of the forces of production led to the
replacement of primitive communal system by
slavery.

2. Slave-owning:
In the slave-owning society, primitive tools
were perfected and bronze and iron tools
replaced the stone and wooden implements.
Large scale agriculture, live stock raising,
mining and handicrafts developed. The
development of this type of forces of
production also changed the relations of
production.

These relations were based on the slave

owners absolute ownership of both the means
of production and the slave himself and
everything he produced. The owner left the
slave only with the bare minimum necessities
to keep him from dying of starvation. In this
system, the history of exploitation of man by
man and the history of class struggle began.

The development of productive forces went on

and slavery became an impediment to the
expansion of social production. Production
demanded the constant improvement of
implements, higher labour productivity but the
slave had no interest in this as it would not
improve his position.

With the passage of time the class conflict

between the classes of slave owners and the
slaves became acute and it was manifested in
slave revolts. These revolts together with the
raids from neighbouring tribes undermined the
foundations of slavery leading to a new stage,
i.e. Feudal system.

3. Feudal:
The Progressive development of the productive
forces continued under feudalism. Man started
using inanimate sources of energy, i.e. water
and wind, besides human labour. The crafts
advanced further, new implements and
machines were invented and old ones are
improved.

The labour of craftsmen was specialized

raising productivity considerably. The
development of forces of production led to
emergence of feudal relations of production.
These relations were based on the feudal
lord’s ownership of the serfs or landless
peasants. The production relations were
relations of dominations and subjection,
exploitation of the serfs by the feudal lords.

Nevertheless, these relations were more

progressive than in slavery system, because
they made the labourers interested to some
extent, in their labour. The peasants and the
artisans could own the implements or small
parts of land. These forces of production
underwent changes due to new discoveries,
increasing demands for consumption caused
by population increase and discovery of new
markets through colonialism.

All this led to the need and growth of mass

scale manufacture. This became possible due
to advances in technology. This brought the
unorganized labourers at one place, i.e. the
factory. This sparked off already sharpened
class conflict leading to peasant revolution
against landowners.
The new system of production demanded free
labourer whereas the serf was tied to the land;
therefore the new forces of production also
changed the relations of production
culminating into a change in the mode of
production from feudalism to capitalism.

Intensification of Class Conflict under

Capitalism:
Large-scale machine production is the specific
feature of the productive forces of capitalism.
Huge factories, plants and mines took place of
artisan workshops and manufactures. In a
century or two, capitalism accomplished much
more in developing the productive forces than
had been done in all the proceeding eras of
human history. The vigorous growth of the
forces of production was helped by the
capitalist relations of production based on
private capitalist ownership.

Under capitalism, the producer, the proletariat,

is legally free, being attached neither to the
land nor to any particular factory. They are
free in the sense that they can go to work for
any capitalist, but they are not free from the
bourgeois class as a whole. Possessing no
means of production, they are compelled to
sell their labour power and thereby came under
the yoke of exploitation.

Due to this exploitation the relatively free

labourers became conscious of their class
interest and organize themselves into a
working class movement. This working class
movement intensified its struggle against the
bourgeois class.

It begins with bargaining for better wages and

working conditions and cultivates into an
intensified class conflict which is aimed at
over throwing the capitalist system. Marx said
that the capitalist system symbolises the most
acute form of inequality, exploitation and class
antagonism. This paves the way for a socialist
revolution which would lead to a new stage of
society i.e. Communism.

Class Struggle:
The theory of class struggle is central to
Marxian thought. The first line of Communist
Manifesto (1848) reads: “The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggle.” “Freeman and, slave, patricians and
plebian, lord and serf, guild master and journey
man, in a word, oppressor and the oppressed
stood in constant opposition to one another,
carried on uninterrupted now hidden and now
open fight, a fight that each time ended in a
revolutionary reconstitution of society at large,
or in common ruin of the contending classes.”

The perpetual tension, conflict or the

antagonism between the owning and the non-
owning class is called Class struggle. Not only
the classes but also the class struggle is
economically conditioned. Therefore Marx says
that economic relationship is the very basis of
all other types of relationships. i.e., social,
political and legal and these are called the
super structures. Economic relationship
decides, defines and determines all other
forms of relationships; i.e. social, political and
legal. This is what is called the concept of
economic determinism by Marx.

Criticisms:
Marxian theory of class struggle has been put
to various criticisms. This theory is having
propaganda value. The theory of revolution
that Marx presents on the basis of the conflict
of interest between the social classes is not
convincing. There may be revolution due to
causes other than these; and the same may
not involve force or violence.

The technological revolution of 18th and 19th

century, the constitutional changes in the 19th
century England, Arya Samaj movement of
Dayanand Saraswati are illustrations of the
revolutionary changes brought about in the
respective areas, without the use of force. The
abolition of caste system by the legislative
measures is no less revolutionary.

Marx has made many predictions in regard to

the development of the future capitalistic
society especially in regard to its relations
with the proletariat and about the inevitable
struggle between the capitalist and the
proletariat has not come off. Marx has ignored
social conditions. He has failed to distinguish
between the social and economic classes. It
has been said that it is not correct to believe
that all struggle is always a class struggle. He
has not followed the nature of struggle.

The concept of alienation of individual from his

social system is a complete ambiguity. Marx
sociology reduces him to mere zero. There is
however, no change in his position. Karl Marx
leaves him as much hand and foot bound in his
system, as he found him under the established
one. The hope of achieving the total man is
thus completely lost.

Max Weber considered the philosophy of Marx

as “false”; “because it is incompatible with
both the nature of science and nature of
human existence.” Max Weber does not
support that only economic factor can
influence the course of history.

Marxian concept of classless society remains

only as a political instrument in the hands of
the communists. This concept is being
misused for gaining political benefits. It is thus
reduced to the level of a tool of political
propoganda. Marxian theory of classless
society is a kind of Utopian dream. Bogardus
says, “Marxian communism is the result of the
Plato’s communism and Moore’s Utopianism.”
In spite of the above criticisms, shortcomings,
the theory of the classless society, class &
class struggle has, had a tremendous appeal to
the people with a sense of social justice.

Before publishing your articles on this site,

please read the following pages:

1. Content Guidelines 2. Prohibited
Content 3. Plagiarism Prevention 4. Image
Guidelines 5. Content
Filtrations 6. TOS 7. Privacy
Policy 8. Disclaimer 9. Copyright 10. Report a
Violation

Copyright © 2016 YourArticleLibrary.com, All

rights reserved.

At the end of the 19th century, it was German

sociologist Max Weber who was the first to use
and describe the term bureaucracy. This is
also known as the Bureaucratic Theory of
management or the Max Weber theory.

He believed bureaucracy was the most

efficient way to set up an organisation,
administration and organizations. Max Weber
believed it was a better than traditional
structures.

In a bureaucracy, everyone is treated equal

and the division of labour is clearly described
for each employee.

Bureaucracy definition

Bureaucracy definition: “Bureaucracy is an
organisational structure that is characterised
by many rules, standardised processes,
procedures and requirements, number of
desks, meticulous division of labour and
responsibility, clear hierarchies and
professional, almost impersonal interactions
between employees”.
According to the Bureaucratic Theory of Max
Weber, such a structure was indispensable in
large organizations in structurally performing
all tasks by a great number of employees.

In addition, in a bureaucracy, selection and

promotion only occur on the basis of technical
qualifications.

Legal responsibility

According to the Bureaucratic Theory of Max

Weber, three types of power can be found in
organizations; traditional power, charismatic
power and legal power.

He refers in his Bureaucratic Theory to the

latter as a bureaucracy. All aspects of a
democracy are organised on the basis of rules
and laws, making the principle of established
jurisdiction prevail.

The following three elements support

bureaucratic management:
 1. All regular activities within a
bureaucracy can be regarded as official
duties;
2. Management has the authority to
impose rules;
3. Rules can easily be respected on the
basis of established methods.

Management principles

According to the Bureaucratic Theory of Max

Weber, bureaucracy is the basis for the
systematic formation of any organisation and
is designed to ensure efficiency and economic
effectiveness.

It is an ideal model for management and its

administration to bring an organisation’s power
structure into focus.

With these observations, he lays down the

basic principles of bureaucracy and
emphasises the division of labour, hierarchy,
rules and impersonal relationship.
Below is a more detailed explanation of the 6
management principles of a bureaucracy:

1. Task specialisation

Tasks are divided into simple, routine

categories on the basis of competencies and
functional specialisations. Every employee is
responsible for what he/she does best and
knows exactly what is expected of him/her.

By dividing work on the basis of specialisation,

the organisation directly benefits. Each
department has specific powers. As a result,
there is a delineation of tasks and managers
can approach their employees more easily
when they do not stick to their tasks.

Every employee knows exactly what is

expected of him/ her and what his/ her powers
are within the organisation. Every employee
has a specific place within the organisation
and is expected to solely focus on his/ her area
of expertise.
Going beyond your responsibilities and taking
on tasks of colleagues is not permitted within
a bureaucracy.

2. Hierarchical authority

Managers are organised into hierarchical

layers, where each layer of management is
responsible for its staff and overall
performance.

In a bureaucracy, there are many hierarchical

positions. This is essentially the trademark and
foundation of a bureaucracy.

Hierarchy is a system in which different

positions are related in order of precedence
and in which the highest rung on the ladder
has the greatest power.

The bottom layers are always subject to

supervision and control of higher layers.

This hierarchy reflects lines of communication

and the degree of delegation and clearly lays
out how powers and responsibilities are
divided.
3. Formal selection

All employees are selected on the basis of

technical skills and competences, which have
been acquired through training, education and
experience.

One of the basic principles is that employees

are paid for their services and that level of
their salary is dependent on their position.

Their contract terms are determined by

organisational rules and requirements and the
employee has no ownership interest in the
company.

4. Rules and requirements

Formal rules and requirements are required to

ensure uniformity, so that employees know
exactly what is expected of them.

In this sense, the rules and requirements can

be considered predictable.

All administrative processes are defined in the

official rules. By enforcing strict rules, the
organisation can more easily achieve
uniformity and all employee efforts can be
better coordinated.

The rules and requirements are more or less

stable and always formalised in so-called
official reports.

Should new rules and requirements be

introduced, then senior management or
directors are responsible for this.

5. Impersonal

Regulations and clear requirements create

distant and impersonal relationships between
employees, with the additional advantage of
preventing nepotism or involvement from
outsiders or politics.

These impersonal relationship are a prominent

feature of bureaucracies. Interpersonal
relationships are solely characterised by a
system of public law and rules and
requirements.
Official views are free from any personal
involvement, emotions and feelings. Decisions
are solely made on the basis of rational
factors, rather than personal factors.

6. Career orientation

Employees are selected on the basis of their

expertise.

This helps in the deployment of the right

people in the right positions and thereby
optimally utilising human capital.

In a bureaucracy, it is possible to build a

career on the basis of experience and
expertise. As a result, it offers lifetime
employment.

The rigid division of labour also allows

employees to specialise themselves further, so
that they may become experts in their own
field and significantly improve their
performance.
Benefits

Generally speaking, the term bureaucracy has

a negative connotation and is often linked to
government agencies and large organisations.
Nevertheless, the great benefit of a bureacracy
is that large organisations with many
hierarchical layers can become structured and
work effectively. It is precisely the established
rules and procedures that allows for high
efficiency and consistent execution of work by
all employees.

All this makes it easier for management to

maintain control and make adjustments when
necessary. Bureaucracy is especially
inevitable in organisations where legislation
plays an important role in delivering a
consistent output.

Disadvantages

Bureaucracy is characterised by a large

amount of red tape, paperwork, many desks,
certain office culture and slow communication
due to its many hierarchical layers. This is the
system’s biggest disadvantage. It is also
unfortunate that employees remain fairly
distanced from each other and the
organisation, making them less loyal.

Bureaucracy is also extremely dependent on

regulatory and policy compliance. This
restricts employees to come up with
innovative ideas, making them feel like just a
number instead of an individual. Later research
(the human relations theory) demonstrated
that employees appreciate attention and want
to have a voice in decision making.

Problems

Because employees have no opportunity to

voice their opinion or influence decision
making, a bureaucracy may demotivate
employees in the long run.

Moreover, over the course of time, employees

may start to get annoyed at the various rules
and requirements, with the risk that they may
start boycotting and/ or abusing these rules
and standing up to the established order. It is
therefore very important that bureaucratic
organisations properly inform employees well
in advance about their approach to work and
requires them to accept this. Only employees
who agree to this approach are suitable to
work within a bureaucratic organisation.

“It is the destiny of our era, w/ its characteristic

rationalization and intellectualization, and,
above all, the disenchantment of the world, that
precisely the ultimate and most sublime values
have withdrawn from the public sphere.” 

Max Weber (1864 - 1920), famed sociologist, was

the first to term rationalization as a process of
modern society. For Weber, the increasing
rationalization of society, of politics, and of the
affairs of humanity was something unique to
contemporary times. According to Weber,
rationalization is the central problem of the
modern, industrialized world. Whereas for Karl
Marx, the central problem of modernity was the
capitalist structure of domination, and the
ensuing alienation of people in said structure -
for Weber, rationalization is the key to
understanding modern society (in this case
Western, capitalist society) and its effect on the
individual. While on the one end it produces
innumerable benefits in the way of efficiency,
rational calculation and the best reasoning from
means to ends, it is not without its
consequences. The insistence on highly
rationalized ways of conducting organizations
and institutions leads to a twofold problem.
First, through the rationalization process, values
once embedded in a religious/ethical context are
now lost in public life. The motivations for
human action in society and in public affairs
changes from values, emotion, and sympathy to
rational calculation and efficiency. Second, this
loss of values in the public sphere leads to the
fragmentation of all cultural values. They
become separated and disparate from each
other, which in turn petrifies culture and turns it
into an abstract “iron cage” over the individual.
This iron cage, with its insistence on formal
rationality, has turned irrational - irrational
because a humanly created societal
organization has begun to exert dominance over
its creator.  
Let us start from the beginning then, and unpack
what Weber means by rationalization. Through
this analysis, we will see how fundamentally
speaking, rationalization is de-humanizing
society and “disenchanting” the world. To such
an extent that humanity becomes tied fatefully
to the machine-like society they have built for
themselves. 

Rationalization and Bureaucracy 

“It is horrible to think that the world could one

day be filled with nothing but those little cogs,
little men clinging to little jobs and striving
towards bigger ones.”  

The first step in our analysis of the process of

rationalization in modernity is to see how it
relates to bureaucracy. Indeed, any analysis of
rationalization must lead to a discussion of
bureaucracy, for through the process of
rationalization the affairs of society become
ordered in a bureaucratic fashion. Highly
organized networks of hierarchy and command
structure is necessary to run any ordered
society - especially ones large in scope. For
Weber, Western capitalist countries and their
inner workings need bureaucracy to run
efficiently. They allow smooth chain of command
from top to bottom which allows the state and
society to run in an orderly fashion.
Rationalization is the supplanting of values,
emotions and sympathy for efficiency,
calculability and instrumentalization. This shift
from more traditional social forms and values as
motivators for societal organization to rationality
allows the modern bureaucratic state to run. But
this rationalizing of the social order, which leads
to bureaucratic forms of organization, has its
own shortcomings. It becomes stultifying for
individuals, and petrifies culture by replacing
values with efficiency, emotion with rational
calculation, and sympathy with instrumental
reason. The height of bureaucracy and
rationalization found its most modern form in the
Nazi’s - their insistence on efficiency and
calculability rendered what were once men into
machines. This is the case and point example of
rationalization and bureaucracy gone irrational,
for in the rationalization process the dignity of
an individual human life is lost. Men and women
become cogs, abstractions, numbers - instead of
concrete, living and feeling beings. 

In the quotations marked above, we see clearly

Weber’s concern with rationalization and
bureaucratization - and its effect on human
beings and society. We all know the old science-
fiction fear of man becoming slave to his
machines, and in turn becoming a slave himself;
of being one day rendered useless by that which
he creates. Perhaps we don’t have to go as far
as science-fiction to find the artistic expression
of this fear. For we find it in Franz Kafka’s The
Trial - where modernity is characterized by the
loss of traditional values and social ties, and the
attendant isolation that arises from it. Due to the
depth of Kafka’s writing, no analysis of The Trial
will be presented here (although hopefully at a
later date). Suffice to say, Kafka’s The Trial
paints a vivid picture of the negative effects of
bureaucracy and rationalization on the individual
in modernity. 

The problem of rationalization becomes an issue

of the recognition of values and motivation other
than a formal rationality. This form of rationality
becomes antithetical to individuals who have
hearts, minds and feelings. We know that a cold,
calculating rationality is not something we are
particularly fond of in other individuals - and why
should it be any different for our social order and
organization? Yes, efficiency and rational
calculation are beneficial, but at the expense of
making human beings enslaved to the very
social forms which they create? Would we desire
to live in a world where decisions are devoid of
emotions, empathy and sympathy? Where the
decisions between life and death for an
individual is a matter of calculability and
efficiency, instead of being motivated to
decision by shared common values and
recognition of the dignity of persons? There is a
major conflict between
rationalization/bureaucracy and individual
freedom, meaning and cultural values. Let’s
move on to see how the attendant loss of values
in the public realm presents problems for a
highly rationalized society. 

Rationalization and the Loss of Values 

“Specialists without spirit, sensualists without
heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a
level of civilization never before achieved.” 

As was mentioned earlier in the article, the

process of rationalization has led to the
supplanting of values, ethical ideals and
emotions as motivators for action with rational
calculation, efficiency and order. But - why
should we not desire a rationally motivated
society? Why would we want a social order that
is anything but highly efficient, orderly and
calculative? Yes, we must assent to the idea
that rationalization and bureaucracy are
necessary for modern society and the state to
run smoothly. But to base all criteria of human
action on rationality and calculation would be to
remove the heart from the brain, the body from
the mind. Just as individuals cannot exist
optimally without a link between reason and
emotion, calculation and feeling - so to can a
method of social organization fail if rationality is
taken to its extreme, and thus becomes
irrational in its consequences. And the alarming
movement towards complete rationality in the
social sphere has rendered values obsolete in
the public realm. Values have lost their
ethical/religious significance with growing
secularization and rationalization. Furthermore,
all cultural values have suffered from
fragmentation as a result. Therefore, science,
art, religion, morality, law and politics all
become hyper-specialized and disparate from
one another. With no universality across cultural
values, culture stagnates and petrifies; thus
becoming the “iron cage” of which Weber
speaks. What does this loss of shared cultural
values mean for the individual and for society at
large? 

For the individual, this means that the loss of

values in the public sphere leads to the
transition of society into the “iron cage”. That is,
human beings find themselves in a society
organized by formal rationality to an irrational
extent. The very irrationality of the “iron cage” is
its radical insistence on efficiency and
rationality at the expense of emotions, values,
and ethical ideals. This loss of values
dehumanizes and depersonalizes the individuals
who find themselves in the society; for they no
longer reason according to human feelings and
values, but rather by abstractions and
calculations. This is an extremely difficult
position, for it renders decisions made at the top
of bureaucratic organizations obsolete of feeling,
in the interests of rule-following and
abstractions. They will reason about the most
efficient means to a given ends, rather than
based upon the respect and dignity for persons.  

This perspective on the motivation for social

action could and should remind us of policies
made regarding drone strikes. Instead of
realizing the magnitude of devastation that
drone strikes might have on innocent, concrete
individual lives, decisions are motivated by
efficiency, predictability and outcome. The
example does not have to be as extreme. We
can see the much the same happening in large
organizations with hierarchical structures. The
CEO at the top of the corporation makes
decisions that affect thousands, if not millions of
individual lives. But when he or she looks at the
sheet to fire “John Smith, Employee #212” - he
sees a number, an abstraction. When he signs
the dotted line to deforest a whole rainforest, he
sees dollar signs - not the displacement of
indigenous indigenous peoples nor
environmental catastrophe. 

Real social concrete phenomena are confused

with abstract and formal rules of action. And
based on this, we see a disconnect between
bureaucratic leadership and the people whose
interests they supposedly represent. The loss of
value in the public realm means that the social
order is conducted, not on common values and
emotions, but impersonal, abstract criteria. 

Conclusion: Rationalization and Our World 

As we have seen, rationalization is the central

problem of contemporary society; at once a leap
of progress and step towards regression. Once
again, we see the contradictions inherent in
progress, and in a society which bases its whole
method of action on it. The highly organized and
hierarchical structure of society is necessary for
such large and developed Western, capitalist
societies. They could not exist without it. But as
we all should know by now, every step in
progress leads to one step back regressively.
The highly efficient and bureaucratic model of
society has led to calculability, results and
predictability in the affairs of the world. But,
with the increasing rationalization and
bureaucratic organization of society has come
the loss of shared values in the public realm. Not
only that, it has led to the development of the
iron cage and modern humanity’s entrapment
within it and the threat of increasing
dehumanization and depersonalization in
individuals and in whole societies. What does
this spell for the future of our world?

Well, we see the effects of hard line rationality

of the Enlightenment project running into its
antithesis in the form of societal irrationality and
the loss of common values. As many a
philosopher and sociologist has lamented, the
Enlightenment project, although grounded in the
fundamental aspiration for human dignity and
equality in the social and political sphere, does
have some problems associated with it. The
rationalization and bureaucratization of the
Western capitalist world has led to great
progress in the scientific and technological
spheres - only to have little carry over into the
public and social realms.

What Weber’s diagnosis of modernity shows us

is that even rationality has seeds of irrationality
in it - and that truly, we cannot have one without
the other. The greater the rationality of the
social structure and organization of a society,
the greater the irrationality, which exists
underneath the surface and grows and festers.
Are we perhaps seeing this irrationality finally
come to the surface in the sphere of politics -
where rarely candidates share common values?
Or perhaps in the rise of ISIS and its ideology,
which is appealing to those who feel outcast by
Western, capitalist ideology, and thus seek the
most irrational means of warring against it? In a
future post, I hope to track the progress of the
project started out in the Enlightenment, and
trace the seeds of irrationality and the
destruction of values, emotions and sympathy
found within it. Suffice it to say now, Weber’s
analysis of rationalization in modern society is a
piercing insight into the nature of our
contemporary world in the West. We would do
best to heed what he has to offer us.