OverviewOverview

►Big IdeasBig Ideas PositivismPositivism Anti-positivismAnti-positivism

►History of the development of modern History of the development of modern societysociety

►How modern societies operateHow modern societies operate►The role of religionThe role of religion

PositivismPositivism

►Both Marx and Durkheim (especially Both Marx and Durkheim (especially Durkheim) were of the positivist schoolDurkheim) were of the positivist school This meant that they felt that society This meant that they felt that society

could be analyzed using the same could be analyzed using the same methods employed in the natural sciencesmethods employed in the natural sciences

►Weber had a different approach to the Weber had a different approach to the study of societystudy of society He felt that because of its very nature He felt that because of its very nature

(that is, being comprised of individuals) (that is, being comprised of individuals) societies must be studied in a different societies must be studied in a different mannermanner

Development of Modern Development of Modern SocietiesSocieties

►All three of them saw societies as All three of them saw societies as progressing from a more “primitive” progressing from a more “primitive” state to a more modern onstate to a more modern on All of them were concerned that this shift All of them were concerned that this shift

in modernity was having negative in modernity was having negative consequences for the members of these consequences for the members of these societiessocieties►The origins of and solutions to these problems The origins of and solutions to these problems

were very different among these writers, were very different among these writers, howeverhowever

►For Marx, the history of society was one For Marx, the history of society was one of changing modes of production (from of changing modes of production (from hunter gatherer to pastoral to fuedal to hunter gatherer to pastoral to fuedal to capitalism and ultimately to communism)capitalism and ultimately to communism)

►Durkheim also saw things as a Durkheim also saw things as a progression to more differentiated progression to more differentiated division of labor. He was not concerned division of labor. He was not concerned with the “relationship to the mode of with the “relationship to the mode of production” but rather with the production” but rather with the individual’s relationship with the rest of individual’s relationship with the rest of societysociety

►Weber drew on Marx’s notions but added Weber drew on Marx’s notions but added to them the concepts of social and to them the concepts of social and political powerpolitical power

Marx v. DurkheimMarx v. Durkheim► Marx assumed an immanent commencement in the Marx assumed an immanent commencement in the

relationship between human beings and society and relationship between human beings and society and the value of freedom from constraint the value of freedom from constraint

► Durkheim favored a transcendental conception and Durkheim favored a transcendental conception and the value of constraint. the value of constraint.

► Marx was interested in problems of power and Marx was interested in problems of power and change, change,

► Durkiem in problems of maintenance and order. Durkiem in problems of maintenance and order. ► Marx's key issue of alienation was class legitimacy of Marx's key issue of alienation was class legitimacy of

social control, and his key focus was power and social control, and his key focus was power and social change. social change.

► The implication of this was the transformation of The implication of this was the transformation of society whilst Durkheim’s key issue was adequacy of society whilst Durkheim’s key issue was adequacy of social control and the focus was on maintenance of social control and the focus was on maintenance of order, this had the implication of moral education for order, this had the implication of moral education for the individual. the individual.

Marx V. WeberMarx V. Weber

►Marx saw the social hierarchy as Marx saw the social hierarchy as divided into two groups: those who divided into two groups: those who own the means of production and own the means of production and those who do not.those who do not.

►Weber saw society as organized on Weber saw society as organized on three planes: Class (ala Marx), Status three planes: Class (ala Marx), Status (social connections), and Party (social connections), and Party (political clout), each influencing and (political clout), each influencing and being influenced by the otherbeing influenced by the other

Durkheim v. WeberDurkheim v. Weber

►Weber’s conceptualization, while not Weber’s conceptualization, while not Marxist per se, still dealt with the Marxist per se, still dealt with the hierarchical arrangement of societyhierarchical arrangement of society

►Durkheim was more concerned with Durkheim was more concerned with maintaining social order whereas Weber’s maintaining social order whereas Weber’s ideas were not intended for these ideas were not intended for these purposespurposes It should be noted, however, that Weber It should be noted, however, that Weber

didn’t advocate for revolution the way Marx didn’t advocate for revolution the way Marx did eitherdid either

ReligionReligion

►Marx- Religion is a drug utilized to Marx- Religion is a drug utilized to numb the pain of exploitationnumb the pain of exploitation

►Durkheim- Religion is the a major Durkheim- Religion is the a major component of the glue that holds component of the glue that holds society togethersociety together

►Weber- Religion affects the way in Weber- Religion affects the way in which a given society’s economic which a given society’s economic system developssystem develops