Auguste Comte was a French philosopher who founded sociology, or the

scientific study of society. He believed in positivism, which is the idea that

only scientific truth is the real truth.
Another early figure, he is largely credited with founding the discipline. He is
also considered one of the first philosophers of science and one of the first
positivists ‘ all of which is a pretty big burden for one man to bear.
Furthermore, most of his life’s work went into concept of religion of humanity,
a kind of secular replacement for religion about celebrating humanity coming
together as one but without the superstition. The idea further went on to
influence the modern movement of humanism ‘both human and religious ‘that
grew through the 19th and 20th centuries.

Émile Durkheim was a French sociologist whose major contribution was

establishing sociology as a major science. Along with Max Weber and Karl
Marx, Durkheim is responsible for establishing social science and social
psychology as an academic discipline within the college setting.
In 1887 at the University of Bordeaux, É mile Durkheim was reluctantly given
the title “Chargéd'un Cours de Science Sociale et de Pédagogie,” which loosely
translates to Professor of Social Science. It was under this guise that sociology
first entered the French university system. The mostly “humanist” faculty at
Bordeaux preferred the traditional views of history, law and philosophy and
was not happy about Durkheim’s presence. Durkheim aroused fears of “social
imperialism.” During Durkheim’s tenure at Bordeaux from 1887 to 1902, his
main job was to lecture on the theory, history and practice of education. He
also held Saturday morning lectures on social science for the public and
covered topics such as incest, totemism, suicide, crime, religion, socialism, law,
family and kinship. Durkheim wrote four major works during his lifetime. The
first, “The Division of Labor in Society” was published in 1893. “The Rules of
Sociological Method” was published in 1895. “Suicide," his third major work,
was published in 1897, and “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life” was
published in 1912.
Karl Marx's contributions to sociology include the concepts of dialectical
materialism and alienation. Along with Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, Marx
is seen as one of the three founders of the social sciences. Marx's theories,
which have come to be grouped under the term Marxism, centered on the
intersection of society, economics and politics.

Max Weber:

Max Weber was born in 1864 in Germany. In the beginning, he studied law.
Later, he shifted to the study of social sciences. His Ph. D. thesis was on the
“History of Commercial Societies in the Middle Ages ‘. In 1896, he became
professor of economics. In addition to his scholarly concerns, Weber also
pursued his political interests.

It appeared that he will be a major figure in German intellectual life. In 1897,

Weber had a clash with his father and after a month his father died. Shortly
thereafter, Weber suffered a complete breakdown and did not recover for
more than five years. He travelled a great deal especially to Switzerland and
Italy. Then almost unexpectedly in 1903, his intellectual forces were gradually
restored.

He became the editor of a leading German Social Science Journal. He again

resumed a full writing career but returned to teaching only in the last few
years of his life. In the last three years of his life i.e. 1918 to 1920, he again
took active part in politics and wrote a number of newspaper articles and
papers on politics of the hour. Weber died in June 1920.

Social Action:

In the field of sociology, Weber’s point of departure is the distinction between

four types of actions, which are as follows:

Zweck rational action

Wert rational action

Affective action

Traditional action

A brief description of these four types of actions is as follows:

Zweck rational action:

This is a rational action which is performed in relation to a goal. It

corresponds to Pareto’s logical action. For example, action of the engineer,
who is building a bridge or army general who wants to win a war? In such
actions an actor clearly knows his goals and selects specific means to attain
these goals. However, Weber defines rationality in terms of knowledge of the
actor.

Wert rational action:

This type of action is also rational action but in relation to values, for example,
a brave captain goes down with his sinking ship. His action is rational not
because it seeks to attain a definite and external goal; but because to abandon
the sinking ship would be regarded as dis-honorable.

Affective action:

This type of action is emotional and is dictated primarily by the state of mind
of the actor, for example, the slap which the mother gives her child because of
his bad behavior. In this case, the action is not oriented to a goal or a system of
value; rather it is determined by an emotional reaction of the actor in a given
set of circumstances.

Traditional action:

This type of action is dictated by beliefs and customs which become habitual.
In this case, the individual performs the action according to the customs or
traditions which have become a part of his personality because of
conditioning.
According to Weber, the subject matter of sociology is social action, n
sociology; an effort has to be made to understand the meanings which an
individual attaches to his conduct.

The classification of action into various types by Weber is governed to a

certain extent by interpretation of the contemporary period of history.
According to him, the major characteristic of the modern world is
rationalization, which is expressed in the sphere of Zweck rational actions.

Concept of ideal types:

The main concern of Weber was to define generalized categories for the
analysis of social phenomena. He developed the concept of ideal types for such
an analysis. In the words of Shils and Finch, “An ideal type is formed by the
one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a
great many diffuse, discrete,’ more or less present and occasionally absent
concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-
sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct”. Thus an
ideal type is a methodological tool that serves the investigator as a measuring
rod to ascertain similarities as’ well as deviations in concrete cases.

According to Weber, there are two types of meaning of an action—(a) actually

existing meaning to a concrete individual action and (b) a theoretically
conceived pure type of subjective meaning. The second type of meaning is the
principle which is known as the ideal type. The ideal type is not merely an
abstraction but a specific type of abstraction.

The ideal type presents a pattern which may not exist in reality, but is
constructed by the sociologist for comprehending the meaning of social
actions. The ideal type is the methodological tool which enables the
sociologist to analyze and comprehend the social actions.

This ideal type does not describe concrete course of action, but under normal
conditions an ideal course of action. It does not describe an individual course
of action but a typical one. Thus ideal type is a generalized concept and by
using it, the sociologist can classify a large number of cases in a few categories.
For example, the typology of social action and authority presented by Weber
is an ideal type which concentrates attention on extreme or polar types.

Weber defines ideal types negatively i.e. by describing what it is not.

According to him (a) it is not a hypothesis in the sense that it is a proposition
about concrete reality, which is verifiable, (b) It is not a description of reality
or existing process, (c) It is not average in the sense what we say that the
average man weighs 70 kgs. (d) It is not a formulation of concrete traits
common to a class of concrete things.

According to Weber, it is necessary for the sociologist to construct pure ideal

type of actions in order to give precise meaning to them. He points out that the
case is similar to a physical reaction which is carried forward on the
assumption of an absolute vacuum. In case of sociology also, the theoretical
analysis is possible only in terms of such pure ideal types.

According to him, the ideal type serves its methodological function in a better
way if it is more and more abstract and unrealistic. Ideal type is mentally
constructed. It is constructed by exaggeration or accentuation of one or more
elements or points of view observable in reality. The type thus constructed
may be called ideal because it exists only as an ideal.

It is a tool or a method of analysis for the comprehension of concrete events or

situations. Weber made extensive use of ideal type method in the sociological
analysis. The formulation of ideal types is based on an extensive study of a
large number of social phenomena and he seems to select the traits to be
included in an ideal type, rather intuitively.

Types of authority:

According to Weber, authority relations refer to those relations of men

whereby some men feel that they have a legitimate right to expect willing
obedience from other people to their command. Weber has constructed the
typology of authority as an ideal type.

He distinguished three main types of authority which are as follows:

(a) Rational-Legal Authority:

This type of authority is based -on rational grounds and justified by laws,
rules and regulations. It is generally found in modern society. The hierarchical
relationships are governed by this type of authority. The rational legitimacy
rests on a belief in the legality of rules and the right of those having legal
authority to issue commandos.

(b) Traditional:

This type of authority is based on domination of past customs or traditions. It

is generally found in pre-modern societies. The traditional authority is based
on belief in the sacred quality of the traditions and legitimacy o thoughts.

This type of authority is exercised by persons who have either inherited it or

have been granted this authority by a hip he authority. In the present age, in
those countries, which still have monarchy, traditional domination persists
symbolically but ne actually. The traditional legitimacy rests on an established
belief in the sanctity of past traditions and the legitimacy of the statue of those
exercising authority under them.

(c) Charismatic authority:

This type of authority is based on an extraordinary devotion to the sacred

quality or exemplar character of a person and of the order created by him. For
example, Mahatama Gandhi exercised authority which cans t called
Charismatic.

This type of authority is neither based on the rationality of rules and

regulations nor on long standing tradition but on the devotion of men for
certain other persons who a able to influence them on the basis of their
character, virtue honesty.

Bureaucracy:

Max Weber was the first to give an elaborate account of t development of

bureaucracy as well as its causes and consequences.

He attributed the following characteristics bureaucracy:

1. The principle of fixed and official jurisdictional are which are generally
ordered by rules. The regular activities associated with each status are
distributed in fixed way official duties. The structure of authority is clearly
laid down and strictly delimited by rules.

2. The principle of office hierarchy and levels of graded authority with a firmly
ordered system of super-ordination and subordination in which there is a
supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.

3. A division of labour based on specialized functions and responsibilities.

4. A system of written documents (the files) defining the procedure as well as

the rights and duties of people in all positions.

5. Office management based on thorough and expert training.

6. Selection for employment and promotion based on technical competence,

specialized knowledge or skill.

7. Office—holding as a ‘vocation’. Official work is no longer a secondary

activity but something that demands the full working capacity of the official.

8. Provision for pecuniary compensation as a fixed salary.

9. Appointment of employees by higher officials, rather than by election.

10. The system of tenure for life. Normally the position of the bureaucrat is
held for life as specified by contract.

11. A clear distinction between the sphere of office and that of the private
affairs of the individual. The bureaucratic official is not an owner of the
enterprise and therefore, not entitled to the use of official facilities for
personal needs except as defined by strict rules.

12. The practice of performing specialized administrative functions .according

to purely objective considerations and the official discharge of business
according to calculable rules and ‘without regard for persons’.
According to Weber, the most important factors contributing to the
development of modern bureaucracy are as follows:

(a) The development of money economy which guaranteed a constant ^come

for maintaining bureaucracy through a stable system of taxation; it also
encouraged a pecuniary compensation for the officials and a purely economic
conception of the office as a source of the official’s private income.

(b) The quantitative development of administrative tasks, especially in the

field of politics where “the great state and mass party are the classic soil for
bureaucratization”.

(c) Qualitative changes of administrative tasks. Among purely political factors

the demand for order and production and for the so called welfare state, and
among essentially technical factors, the development of modern means of
communication especially the railroads and the mass media, operate in the
direction of bureaucratization.

(d) The purely technical superiority of bureaucracy over any other form of
organization.

(e) The complicated and specialized nature of modern culture that demands
“the personally detached and strictly objective expert, in lieu of the master of
older social structures, who was moved by personal sympathy and favour, by
grace and gratitude”.

(f) The rational interpretation of law on the basis of strictly formal conception
of a ‘equality before the law’ and the demand for legal guarantees against
arbitrariness.

(g) The concentration of the material means of management in the hands of

the master as exemplified in the development of big capitalist enterprises and
the giant public organizations such as the modern state or army.
(h) The leveling of economic and social differences and the corresponding rise
of modern mass representative democracy in contrast to the old democratic
self-government of small homogenous communities.

Although Weber emphasizes the virtues of bureaucracy and its

unquestionable advancement in modern society, he also conceded the vices of
bureaucracy viz., the inevitable de-personalization of human relationship in
government and industry.

He refers to the formalism and the rules bound character of bureaucratic

organization and increasing concentration of the materials of management.
According to Weber, bureaucracy is inevitable, irrepressible and inescapable.

Sociology of Religion:

Weber’s essay ‘Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’ is considered as

the classical study in the field of sociology of religion. In this work, Weber
sought to demonstrate that economic factors do not represent a constant and
independent variable to which all others stand in dependence.

In the opinion of Weber, the treatment of economic factor as a determining

factor was the major weakness of Marx and the ultimate failure of his
theoretical formulation. Weber emphasized that economic factors are, as
Abraham puts it, “one variable, a very important one, in close relationship
with others, affected by them as in fact it in turn can affect them”.

Weber analyzed the relationship between the religious values and economic
interests. He noticed that Protestants, particularly of the Calvinist sect, were
the chief captains of industry and possessed more wealth and economic
means than other religious groups, notably Catholics.

Therefore, he wanted to ascertain whether there is an essential harmony

between the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. He also sought to
find out whether and to what extent a cluster of values in the religions of
India, China and Middle East facilitated or hindered the development of
capitalism.
In order to overcome the methodological problem of defining capitalism and
Protestant ethic, Weber made use of the concept of ideal type. Protestant ethic
does not refer to any particular theological doctrine but a set of values and
belief systems that make up a religious ideal.

Capitalism, in its ideal type, is thought of by Weber to be chat complex activity

designed specifically to maximize profit through the careful and intentional
exercise of rational organization and management of production.

Weber identified the following values embedded in Protestantism which are

in harmony with the spirit of capitalism:

1. The shift from ritualistic and other:

Worldly orientation to down-to-earth pragmatism: The finite mind of man

cannot comprehend the infinite mind of God who created the world for His
own glory. Therefore, there is no point in indulging in mysticism; rather man
should seek to understand the natural order. This is essentially anti-ritualistic
attitudes that favour the development of science and rational investigation.

2. Changed attitude toward work:

Protestant ethic proclaims work as virtue, something not only good and
desirable but contributing to the glory of God as well.

3. The concept of calling:

This idea emerged from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination according to

which every soul is predestined at birth for heaven or hell and that nothing an
individual does in his life can change his ultimate fate. But there are signs by
which God indicates to every individual whether he is among the elect,
success in life being the most important one.

Since every man is anxious to know if he is marked for salvation or

damnation, he should select a calling, a vocation, work hard at it, and be
successful. The new doctrine encourages people to seek gainful enterprises,
accumulate wealth and prove their destiny.

4. The new attitude toward the collection of interest on loans:

The theological doctrine of Catholicism proscribed the collection of interest on
loans. However, according to Calvinism, there is no restriction on the
collection of interest on loans. This Calvinistic ethic led to a spurt of economic
activity: establishment of lending houses, new investments and new floating
capital.

5. Structures on alcoholism:

Protestant ethic prohibits the consumption of alcoholic beverages; there is no

comparable theological doctrine in Catholicism.

6. Encouragement of literacy and learning:

Protestant ethic emphasized that every man should read his own Bible rather
than depend on priestly interpretations. This led to the development of mass
education and of specialized skills.

7. Rejection of holidays:

The Catholic Calendar is full of holy days and almost every holy day is a
holiday. However, according to Protestant ethic, work contributes to the glory
of God and thus there is no need for celebrations on holy days.

8. Protestant Asceticism:

Protestant ethic emphasizes the notion that earthly things and flesh belong to
the order of sin and death and therefore, one should abstain from the
pleasures of the world. Thus, on the one hand, Protestant ethic encourages
people to accumulate wealth and on the other hand, it forbids the use of
wealth for enjoyment. The wealth should be used for producing more and
more, undoubtedly a condition par excellence for the development of
capitalism.

After establishing the essential harmony between Protestant ethic and the
spirit of Capitalism, Weber turned to other religions to see if there is a
discernible cluster of values in them comparable to Protestant ethic that is
favorable to the rise of capitalism.
He found a variety of non-religious social and economic conditions conducive
to the development of capitalism in China and India but the ethical system of
Confucianism and the doctrine of Karma in Hinduism were not particularly
favorable.

Moreover, the combination of religious values that constituted the Protestant

ethic was unique: an unusual blend of two apparently inconsistent notions,
namely, limitless accumulation of wealth and abstention from enjoyment.

It would be wrong to assume that Weber replaced a one-sided economic

determinism with one-sided ideological determinism. He considered a variety
of factors—social, economic and political— but the confluence of values
inherent in religion played a central role in the matrix of inter-relationships.

Karl Marx:

Karl Marx lived from 1818 to 1883. He initially studied law and later he
turned to the study of philosophy. In 1841, at the age of 23, he received the
doctorate degree. After completing his studies, he began writing for a radical
left-wing paper in Cologne and became its editor in 1842. After the closure of
the paper, Marx travelled to Paris.

During his stay in Paris, he met Friedrich Engels and the friendship between
the two was immediate and eternal. Both of them wrote a number of classic
works together. The major works of Karl Marx include. The Communist
Manifesto, Contributions to a Critique of Political Economy, the Class Struggle
in France, and the classic three volumes work. Das Kapital.

Hegel and Marx:

Georg F.W. Hegel was a German philosopher who dominated the intellectual
climate of his day. While Marx was living in Berlin he became young Hegelian
by virtue of Hegel’s thought. The basic idea of Hegel’s philosophy is that the
essence of reality is reason, but the spirit of reason manifests itself only
gradually, revealing more and more facets of itself during the course of time.

The most important idea, which Marx adopted from Hegel, was that of
‘dialectics’. According to Hegel, each statement of truth or thesis has its
opposite statement or antithesis which may be reconciled on a higher level of
synthesis. But this is not the end for the dialectical process; the chain
continues as the synthesis becomes a new thesis with its antithesis and so on.

The adoption of dialectical method is the only similarity between Marx and
Hegel. Hegel perceived truth in ideas, but for Marx, ideas are not the realm of
truth but rather matter is. Accordingly, Hegel’s conception could be called
‘dialectical idealism” whereas the conception of Marx can be considered as
“dialectical materialism”.

Marx like Hegel was also interested in the analysis of the truth of history but
Hegel advocated an idealistic approach to history whereas Marx emphasized
the materialistic approach. Therefore, it is generally remarked that Marx
turned Hegel upside down.

The shift from Hegelian idealism to historical materialism led Marx to believe
that the motivating factor in human existence was not ideas about religion
and society but a materialistic realism having to do with survival. This
survival, the necessity to produce the means of subsistence was fundamental
to human life and human action in community and society. In the words of
Marx, “the first historical act is the production of material life itself. This is
indeed a historical act, a fundamental condition of all history”.

According to Marx, “Men begin to distinguish themselves from animals as

soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence…… In producing
their means of subsistence men indirectly produced their actual material life”.
This stage occurs within the framework of a progressive historical evolution.
Just as Comte distinguished three phases of human evolution, on the basis of
ways of thinking, Marx identified four stages of human history on the basis of
modes of production: primitive communism, ancient slave production,
feudalism and capitalism.

Primitive communism signifies communal ownership; ancient mode of

production was characterized by slavery; the feudal mode of production by
serfdom and the capitalist system by the bourgeois exploitation and wage
earners. Each of these stages, except primitive communism constituted a
distinct mode of man’s’ exploitation by man and his struggle for freedom.

Dialectical materialism:

As explained above, Marx turned from Hegelian idealism to materialism. Marx

made good use of the dialectical method in what came to be called ‘dialectical
materialism’ or ‘historical materialism’. Hegel was an idealist who asserted
the primacy of mind whereas Marx was a materialist who asserted the
primacy of the matter. According to Marx, matter is not a product of mind; on
the contrary, mind is simply the most advanced product of matter.

Larson has outlined the basic postulates of Marxian dialectical method as

follows:

(i) All the, phenomena of nature are part of an integrated whole

(ii) Nature is in a continuous state of movement and change;

(iii) The developmental process is a product of quantitative advances which

culminate in abrupt qualitative changes; and

(iv) Contradictions are inherent in all realms of nature— particularly human

society.

This methodology perceived history as a series of stages based on a particular

mode of production and characterized by a particular type of economic
organization. Because of the inherent contradictions each stage contained the
seeds of its own destruction.

In the words of Stalin, “the dialectical method holds that the process of
development should be understood not as a movement in a circle, not a simple
repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward and upward
movement, as transition from an old qualitative state to a new qualitative
state, from the lower to the higher”.
Marx believed that society may be functioning quite efficiently but it is
destined to face revolution until the final breakdown of all class divisions.
According to him, “even when a society exemplifies the best that mankind can
establish in terms of harmony and cooperation, in time the established order
becomes an obstacle to progress, and a new order antithesis) begins to arise.
A struggle ensues between the class representing the old order and the class
representing the new order.

The emerging class is eventually victorious creating a new order of production

that is synthesis of the old and the new. This new order, however, contains the
seeds of its eventual destruction and the dialectical process continues”. The
inevitability of the continuing struggle is related to the emergence of the
division of labor within society, for it is this phenomenon of labor
differentiation which forms antagonistic classes that, in turn, become the
center of competition and struggle against nature as well as against other
elements within society.

The use of the dialectic in the analysis of society and history became a major
characteristic of Marxism. According to Lenin, materialism in general
recognizes objectively real being (matter) is independent of consciousness,
sensation experience…. Consciousness is only the reflection of being, at best
and approximately true (adequate, ideal) reflection of it”.

A further clarification is provided by Stalin on materialism in the following

words, “Marx’s philosophical materialism holds the world is by its very nature
material, that the multi-fold phenomena of the world constitute different
forms of matter in motion, that interconnection and interdependence of
phenomena, as established by the dialectical method, are a law of the
development of moving matter and that the world develops in accordance
with the laws of movement in matter and stands in no need of a universal
spirit”.

Economic infrastructure and socio-economic superstructure:

Although Marx did not constantly argue for a crude economic determinism, he
left no doubt that he considered the economy to be the foundation of whole
socio-cultural system. Throughout their study Marx and Engels emphasized
the primacy of economic factor in human relationship and the centrality of the
economic dimension in the political structures. The economic system of
production and distribution, or the means and relations of production in the
Marxian sense, constitute the basic structure of society, on which are built all
other social institutions, particularly the state and the legal system.

According to Engels, “the production of immediate material means of

subsistence, and consequently, the degree of economic development attained
by a given people or during a given epoch, forms the foundation upon which
the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the ideas on art, and even on
religion, of the people concerned have been evolved”.

Marx’s economic interpretation of history and social change is amply clear

from the following quotation from Marx, “in the social production which men
carry on, they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and
independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a
definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The sum
total of these relations of production’ constitutes the economic structure of
society—the real foundation on which rise legal and political superstructures
and which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

The mode of production in material life determines the general character of

the social, political and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of
men that determines their existence but, on the contrary, their social
existence determines their consciousness”. According to Marx, human
thought, human awareness and human consciousness were not self-
originating but were derivatives of the economic principles.

And it is in the arena of political economy that governments and religions

must be controlled and human consciousness brought under dominance;
particularly when it comes to the governance of the material world, men must
realize that the social environment is dependent upon the economics of the
situation; and the classes; if they are to cease their competitiveness and
potential destruction of society, must be abolished by the removal of
structures which nurture class division.

As Doyle Johnson reminds us, “Marx may have overstated his case to establish.
His point against competing viewpoints, but Marx’s economic interpretation
of history provides a note of hard realism that is sometimes lacking in more
idealistic theories of society”.