SOC 2100 Classical Sociological Theory PDF

SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday September 5, 2024 Class One SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas OVERVIEW ❑Course essentials ❑Key words ❑Key events ❑Questions about theory ❑Different approaches to theorizing ❑Social science paradigms ❑Arguments for and against critical...

SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday September 5, 2024 Class One SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas OVERVIEW ❑Course essentials ❑Key words ❑Key events ❑Questions about theory ❑Different approaches to theorizing ❑Social science paradigms ❑Arguments for and against critical theory PURPOSE OF THE COURSE Jonathan Turner in his book “The Structure of Sociological Theory,” states that “Theory is a “story” about how and why events in the universe occur.” Sociological theory attempts to explain how and why humans behave, interact and organize themselves in certain ways. PURPOSE CONTINUED This course introduces students to an examination of those core traditions in pre-modern sociological theory, formulated during the 1800’s and early 1900’s. This period which is usually described as the CLASSICAL period of sociological theory, witnessed an unprecedented development in sociological knowledge. PURPOSE CONTINUED The aim of the course is to make students fully aware of the contribution of sociologists who are regarded as the ‘founding fathers” of the subject: Auguste Comte; Herbert Spencer; Karl Marx; George Simmel; Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Throughout the course, emphasis will be placed on assessing the analytical utility of the theories advanced by these six (6) famous sociologists, in an attempt to explain the aspects of the structure and dynamics of our world. LEARNING OUTCOMES At the end of this course participants should, specifically, be able: ▪to highlight the origins and structure of classical sociological theory ▪to speak and write clearly on the major concepts and theorists covered in this course ▪to evaluate classical sociological theories and apply them to social phenomena. KEY POINTS Communication with the lecturer Tutorial time Assessments Plagiarism/use of artificial intelligence KEY WORDS Concept Theory Society Sociology History Context QUESTIONS Discuss the words assigned to your group. Have you seen these words before? Can you agree on what they mean? WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘CONCEPT’? ‘Concepts are constructed from definitions. A definition is a system of terms, such as the sentences of a language, the symbols of logic or the notation of mathematics, that inform investigators about the phenomenon denoted by a concept. For example, the concept conflict has meaning only when it is defined. One possible definition might be this: Conflict is interaction among social units in which one unit seeks to prevent another from realizing its goals. Such a definition allows us to visualize the phenomenon that is denoted by the concept. A definition enables all investigators to “see the same thing” and to understand what it is that is being studied. CONCEPTS Thus, concepts that are useful in building theory have a special characteristic: They strive to communicate a uniform meaning to all those who use them’ (Turner, 2003 p. 5). WHAT IS THEORY? ‘Theory is a mental activity revolving around the process of developing ideas that explain how and why events occur. Theory is constructed with several basic elements or building blocks: (1) concepts, (2) variables, and (3) statements/formats’ (Turner, 2003, p. 5). WHAT IS THEORY? (CONT’D) ‘Theories are built from concepts. Most generally, concepts denote phenomena; in so doing, they isolate features of the world that are considered, for the moment at hand, important. For example, notions of atoms, protons, neutrons, and the like are concepts pointing to and isolating phenomena for certain analytical purposes. Familiar sociological concepts would include production, power, interaction, norm, role, status and socialization. Each term is a concept that embraces aspects of the social world that are considered essential for a particular purpose’ (Turner, 2003, p. 5). WHAT IS SOCIETY? ‘Human society is a system of social interaction that includes both culture and social organization. Within a society, members have a common culture even though there may be great diversity within. In society, people think of themselves as distinct from other societies, maintain ties of interaction, and have a high degree of interdependence. The interaction they have, whether based on harmony or conflict, is one of the elements of society. That is, social interaction is how human beings communicate with each other, and in so doing they form a social bond’ (Andersen & Taylor, 2001, p. 89). WHAT IS SOCIOLOGY? ‘Sociology is the study of human behavior in society. Sociologists are interested in the study of people and have learned a fundamental lesson: All human behavior occurs in a societal context. That context – the institutions and culture that surround us – shapes what people do and think’ (Andersen & Taylor, 2001, p. 3). WHAT IS SOCIOLOGY? ‘Sociologists explain human behavior as arising not only from individual motives and attitudes, but as stemming from the social context in which people live. Thus, sociological inquiry extends to the largest unit of all, society itself (Andersen & Taylor, 2001, p. 3). QUESTIONS ABOUT THEORY 1. What is a theory useful for? 2. Can a theory be perfect? 3. Can a theory be understood without referring to the place and time in which it was developed? 4. Can a theory be non-political? THEORY AND SCIENCE What is meant by a scientific approach to theory? THE PURPOSE OF THEORY Theories are used to explain how and why things occur. They are sometimes used for prediction, but that is not their primary purpose. CAN A THEORY BE PERFECT? It should always be kept in mind that theory is a man- made product. It is therefore as flawed as the human beings who have devised it. No theory is perfect and all theories can be critiqued. All theories are also influenced by the time and place (context) in which they were produced. KEY EVENTS Imperialism/Colonialism (1400s -1970s) The French Revolution (1794 -1799) The Industrial Revolution (1760 -1840) The First World War (1914 -18) The Russian Revolution (1917 - 1923) The Second World War (1939 - 1945) The Great Depression (1929 – 1939) The Cold War (1947-1991); see also McCarthyism in the US (1950-1954) The Women’s/Feminist Movement (1960s – present day) The War in Vietnam (1955-1975) The Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) QUESTION What does the word ‘ideology’ mean? IDEOLOGY Ideology is: ‘The attempt to organize conceptions of authority and shared social commitments in order to deal with social, economic, and political problems. The justification of a political order’ (Ashley & Orenstein, 1998, p. 37). OR PUT ANOTHER WAY… Ideology involves a particular way of looking at the world. This way of looking attempts to make sense of power and those who have it and those who have not. An ideology can provide the basis for action. Such action can either be devoted to keeping the organization of society the way it is, or finding ways to change it. CAN THEORY BE SCIENTIFIC? COMTE AND POSITIVISM What does it mean to be scientific? This debate is present at the very beginning of sociology as a discipline, with Comte’s wish to make sociology the preeminent science. Those who agree with Comte that sociology should aspire to be a science in the way in which the natural sciences are sciences approach both sociological theory and research differently to those who do not believe that it should attempt to mimic the way the natural sciences approach theory and research. SCIENTIFIC THEORY CONT’D: AGAINST POSITIVISM Those who do not follow Comte’s approach of positivism may still believe in an ordered approach to research and to the production of theory, but instead of beginning with theory, they end with it. SCIENTIFIC THEORY CONT’D: AGAINST POSITIVISM A key element to remember is that in the scientific approach to the study of society, theories are always being tested. What is known is known only at this point in time, and is subject to change’ (Turner, 2003, p. 2). WHY ARE THERE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO BEING SCIENTIFIC? The differences are underpinned by divergent views of what the world is like, and how it should be known. The words ontology and epistemology are key here: there are different views of the nature of the world and how it should be known. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO THEORIZING Some theories begin with a view of the social world as a place that exists apart from human beings, and that therefore can be approached as a place to be measured and comprehended objectively. Others begin from the standpoint that the world can only be understood as it is experienced subjectively by human beings. MEANINGS: ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY Ontology – The branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being (The Oxford Modern English Dictionary 1992, p. 745). Epistemology is the science of knowing (Babbie, 2001, p. 18). DIFFERENT PARADIGMS What does ‘paradigm’ mean? SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMS ‘A scientific paradigm is a whole system of thinking. It includes basic assumptions, the important questions to be answered or puzzles to be solved, the research techniques to be used, and examples of what good scientific research looks like’ (Neuman, 2006, p. 81). However, it can be noted that some argue that social science research does not have paradigms in the sense that research in the natural sciences has paradigms. SOCIAL SCIENCE PARADIGMS Three primary paradigms Positivist social science Interpretive social science Critical social science. THE POSITIVIST PARADIGM Posivitism has a long and influential history within sociology. It is associated with quantitative approaches to research. Positivism is concerned with that which can be observed and documented, and it strives to be like the ‘natural’ sciences which have laws and hypotheses which can be tested (Ashley & Orenstein 1998; Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2000). POSITIVISM CONT’D Positivism involves a commitment to empiricism. ‘Empiricism is a doctrine that assumes, for example, that when we receive information about something external to us by being able to touch it, we gain knowledge about external reality – that is, about the way the world really is, independently of our knowing it’ (Ashley & Orenstein, 1998, p. 52). THE INTERPRETIVE PARADIGM Interpretive theory sees human society as being constructed by the interactions and relationships among persons who live together. Reality is subjective. Research strives first to understand how persons see the world – to see from their perspective. There is no striving for objectivity or neutrality. They do not believe that universal laws can be found that apply to all societies everywhere. THE INTERPRETIVE PARADIGM CONT’D The anti-positivist movement in sociology is represented by three schools of thought – phenomenology, ethnomethodology and symbolic interactionism. A common thread running through the three schools is a concern with phenomena, that is, the things we directly apprehend through our sense as we go about our daily lives, together with a consequent emphasis on qualitative as opposed to quantitative methodology (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, p. 22). THE CRITICAL PARADIGM This is about change. Critical theorists are not content to simply analyse the social world, they wish to change it. ‘Critical theory, however, attempts to give us knowledge not about means to fixed ends but about the ends of action themselves. In other words, it tries to answer the question of how we should live… Critical theory is always a critique of authority’ (Ashley & Orenstein, 1998, p. 52). THE CRITICAL PARADIGM ‘Critical theory is an analysis of how domination and authority are institutionalized within modes of communicative interaction. Methodologically, critical theory is a rigorous form of self-reflection’ (Ashley & Orenstein, 1998, p.49). IDEOLOGY, THEORY AND THE GROWTH OF CRITICAL THEORY Should theory have an ideological component? Many sociologists don’t believe in value-free theory. This brings us to ‘critical theory’ - ‘whose goal is to criticize existing conditions and to advocate potential alternatives’ (Turner, 2003 p. 4). ARGUMENTS FOR CRITICAL THEORY  It is impossible to exclude ideology. It is inherent in us as members of society that we will have interests, and these interests will guide both what we select for study and also how we study them. We inevitably see things already in existence as being the way they ought be, and this prevents us from seeing alternatives. There are no laws for human organization, because we humans can change how we live – we can alter reality. ARGUMENTS AGAINST CRITICAL THEORY ❖ If careful attention is paid to potential sources of bias, it can be overcome. ❖The forces that structure the world are always there and studying them will not cause the present to become the standard by which the future is measured. These forces will transform the present into the future the same way that the past became the present. ARGUMENTS AGAINST CRITICAL THEORY ❖There is no way that human beings can change the forces that structure the social world. ‘For example, humans can change the way they produce things, but they cannot eliminate production as a basic force necessary for the survival of the species; people can change political regimes, but they cannot eliminate power in social relations’ Turner, 2003, p. 4). RECAP Purpose of the course Learning outcomes Key words Key events Questions about theory Different approaches to theorizing Social science paradigms Arguments for and against critical theory  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday September 19, 2024 Class Two SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas RECAP OF LAST WEEK ❑The purpose of theory ❑Theory as a product: the importance of context ❑Different approaches to theorizing ❑Social science paradigms ❑Arguments for and against critical theory OVERVIEW ❑Resistance to theory ❑Imperfections in theorizing; political processes; erasure of women ❑Theory as a product ❑Sociological theory over time OVERVIEW ❑The life of Auguste Comte ❑The work of Auguste Comte ❖Key arguments ❖Structure of his thought ❖Ideas on the purpose of sociological theory OVERVIEW ❖ Methods of Inquiry ❖ Social statics and dynamics ❖ The relationship between the parts and the whole ❖ The elementary unit of society QUESTION Is theorizing a harmless activity? RESISTANCE TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIZING Many persons have good reason for not wanting certain things to be clearly understood. Ignorance is profitable. Sometimes persons don’t want to reduce what they see as lovely human relationships to cold analysis of reciprocity. For example, love and marriage can be examined as exchange relationships. RESISTANCE TO SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIZING CONT’D People are invested in a certain notion of their identities as being natural and clean-cut and they don’t want these identities being questioned. (For example, exploitation within different class/religious groups might be taking place, but persons don’t want to look at how their identities as part of these groups make them a part of the exploitation). This naturalness would be extended to the nation-state as well, and notions of patriotism. Persons don’t want this to be questioned – either the goodness of the nation-state or the goodness of patriotism (Calhoun et al. p. 21) IMPERFECTIONS IN THEORIZING We need to be aware that social theorizing is not a perfect process for various reasons. Some theorists are quite undisciplined – don’t study the work of predecessors. They don’t always carefully collect data that bear on their theories. Their work is not always reviewed rigorously prior to publication – they allow their personal experiences to distort their theories and so on. POLITICAL PROCESSES IN THEORIZING  The work of those who studied with the acknowledged masters of sociological theory, people (historically, men) who came to occupy leadership positions within the discipline, is more likely to be seen as important than the work of those who lacked notable and powerful mentors. Works reflecting some political orientations are more likely to become part of the canon than those done from other perspectives (see functionalism and Marxism). POLITICAL PROCESSES IN THEORIZING Theories that lead to clear hypotheses that can be tested empirically are more likely to be accepted, at least by mainstream sociologists, than those that produce grand, untestable points of view. Theories produced by majority group members (i.e. white males) are more likely to become part of the canon than those created by minorities. Taken from Ritzer (2010, p. 6). ERASURE: EARLY WOMEN SOCIOLOGISTS The work of the early women sociologists was often overlooked and sidelined. These women included Harriet Martineau (1802-1876); Jane Addams (1860-1935); Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935), Anna Julia Cooper (1858-1964); Florence Kelley (1859-1932); Beatrice Potter Webb (1858-1943), Marianne Weber (1870-1954) and Ida B. Wells-Barnett (1862-1931). THEORY AS A PRODUCT Classical sociological theory (like sociology itself) is the product of a particular time and place. If we examine those who were responsible for its shaping – who were they, where were they from? Educated white men, primarily from Europe and the USA. No persons of colour, no women, no working class people. This is something that should always be remembered when examining any theory – what are its possible omissions, caused in part because of those who were theorising. SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY OVER TIME Sometimes key aspects of a theorist’s work are not known to others who do not speak the language s/he works in until a translation is done. This happened with some of the German critical theorists, and it also happened with Simmel. It is also important to realize that these works (discussed in this course) now represent very early classical sociological theory, because now that we are in 2024, even sociological theory from the middle of the twentieth century may now be considered classical (Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff & Virk, 2012). AUGUSTE COMTE His life and work AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) Comte was born in Montpellier, a town in the south of France on 19th Jan 1798. His father was a fervent Catholic and discreet Royalist. Comte senior adored order. Young Comte was a good, but rebellious student. In August 1814 he brought fourth in the entrance exam for Ecole Polytechnique – it was not an easy institution to enter. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) He became the secretary to Henri Saint-Simon in 1817. In 1824 they fought and separated. Saint-Simon wanted immediate action on various social issues – Comte wanted to establish a theoretical foundation first.  He got married to Caroline Massin in February 1825, owner of a bookstore and also a streetwalker (some disagree about this). He refused to work as a chemical engineer, preferring to support himself by offering private lessons. He also wrote for journals. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) He tried to disseminate his ideas via a course of lectures, but was only able to deliver three of them (April 1826) before he collapsed. He became depressed and attempted suicide. By August 1828 he was better. The lectures resumed in 1829. 1830- 1842 he eked out a living by working three positions. He could not gain an established position anywhere. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) He stopped reading current literature. In 1838 he decided to read only fiction and poetry. In his last days he read only the Imitation of Christ. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) He gained admirers in England – including John Stuart Mill. Mill arranged for him to be sent money. His book, Course of Positive Philosophy was finished around 1842, and shortly after that, his wife left him. He made himself difficult and lost his job as examiner with the Ecole Polytechnique in 1844. He lost his other post in 1851. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) In 1844, he fell in love with a young woman named Clothilde de Vaux. It was an unconsummated passion. She died from tuberculosis about a year after the start of the affair. He stated in his writing that he believed in “the primacy of emotion over intellect, of feeling over mind” (Coser, 1977, p. 19). He now proclaimed himself the High Priest of the Religion of Humanity. AUGUSTE COMTE (1798-1857) In the process, he lost many of his former supporters and friends. He gained disciples instead. The revolution of June 1848 led to Comte’s support for Napoleon III and a passion for order and formed part of the enthusiasm for the Religion of Humanity. He died of cancer on 5 September 1857. (Drawn from Coser, 1977, pp. 13-20) COMTE’S WORK ❖Key arguments ❖Structure of his thought ❖Ideas on the purpose of sociological theory COMTE’S KEY ARGUMENTS The biological comparison: He was the first one who compared societies to biological organisms (Turner, 2003, p. 23). COMTE’S KEY ARGUMENTS The biological comparison – developed: He thought that the social organism is composed of families – which are cells. Classes or castes comprise the tissues and cities and communes form the organs. COMTE’S KEY ARGUMENTS Sociology as the ‘queen’ of the sciences: He attempted to legitimize sociology by constructing a hierarchy of the sciences, with sociology at the top – as ‘the queen’. But an important part of his effort was his borrowing of terms and concepts from the biological sciences. COMTE’S KEY ARGUMENTS In Comte’s view sociology was at the top – the most complex of the sciences. Biology proceeds from a study of wholes, and in this regard sociology is most like it. We need to study the whole in order to understand society – not just its parts. COMTE’S KEY ARGUMENTS ‘Sociology was thus initiated and justified by appeals to the biological sciences – which helps explain why functionalism was sociology’s first and, until the 1970s, most dominant theoretical orientation’ (Turner, 2003, p. 24). QUESTION Can you explain why functionalism was the most dominant theoretical orientation in sociology until the 1970s? (At least in the United States.) RECAP: THEORY Resistance to theory Imperfections in theorizing; political processes; erasure of women Theory as a product Sociological theory over time RECAP The life of Auguste Comte The work of Auguste Comte Key arguments  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday September 26, 2024 Class Three SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas RECAP ❑Resistance to theory ❑Imperfections in theorizing; political processes; erasure of women ❑Theory as a product ❑Sociological theory over time RECAP ❑The life of Auguste Comte ❑The work of Auguste Comte ❖Key arguments OVERVIEW ▪Structure of his thought ▪Ideas on the purpose of sociological theory ▪ Methods of Inquiry ▪ Social statics and dynamics ▪ The relationship between the parts and the whole ▪ The elementary unit of society OVERVIEW ▪The Law of the Three Stages ▪Comte’s contributions and criticisms of his work ▪Spencer’s life ▪Spencer’s influences ▪Similarities and differences between organic and superorganic bodies AUGUSTE COMTE Arguments and Ideas COMTE’S KEY ARGUMENTS Science can be used to improve the world: ‘Comte felt that human evolution in the nineteenth century had reached the “positive stage” in which empirical knowledge could be used to understand the social world and to create a better society’ (Turner, 2003 p. 23). THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT ▪Social science must seek laws ▪Tradition is not the absolute authority ▪Respect for science should form the basis for authority ▪The scientific method is more important than any opinion THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT Social science must seek laws: He began from the standpoint that social progress is possible once the laws that relate to human social evolution are known. Human beings needed to move past their belief in God or gods or in luck or chance. THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT In cases where there was no knowledge of the laws regarding order and development people would clash with each other and, “a Hobbesian model of society, in which only power and the willing acceptance of power permit a semblance of order” would seem the only appropriate model for society (Coser, 1977, p. 4). THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT The knowledge of the laws would temper human ambition, knowing that they needed to preserve society’s functioning. Persons would also be able to use knowledge of laws to enable change by modifying the operation of the laws. The movement would be towards acting relatively, and not absolutely – there would always be an awareness of the constraints imposed by social order. THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT ❑Comte was against tradition being the absolute authority. Nothing was absolute except the relative. We will keep on learning more, and the scientific process is always about discovery. THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT ❑He believed that respect for science should form the basis for authority: an opinion should hold no weight unless it could be backed up by scientific evidence. Persons should not believe that they had a right to pronounce on matters of scientific fact. THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT ❑He did not believe that opinions should be placed above the scientific method. “Freedom of personal opinion makes no sense in astronomy or physics, and in the future such freedom will be similarly inappropriate in the social sciences. THE STRUCTURE OF COMTE’S THOUGHT It is an insufferable conceit on the part of ordinary men to presume that they should hold opinions about matters of scientific fact. The intellectual reorganization now dawning in the social sciences ‘requires the renunciation by the greater number of their right of individual inquiry on subjects above their qualification’” (Coser, 1977, p. 5). THE PURPOSE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ▪To be concerned with the laws, not with the causes of things. ▪It should not be absorbed in looking at the consequences of the various parts for the social whole. ▪Theory should be concerned with looking for the most fundamental laws – the most abstract and universal. THE PURPOSE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY ‘First, sociological theory is not to be concerned with causes per se but, rather, with the laws that describe the basic and fundamental relations of properties in the social world. THE PURPOSE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Second, sociological theory must reject arguments by ‘final causes’ – that is, analysis of the results of a particular phenomenon for the social whole. The disavowal is ironic because Comte’s more substantive work helped found sociological functionalism, a mode of analysis that often examines the functions or final causes of phenomena. THE PURPOSE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Third, clearly the goal of sociological activity is to reduce the number of theoretical principles by seeking only the most abstract and only those that pertain to understanding fundamental properties of the social world’ (Turner et al., 2007, p. 27-28). METHODS OF INQUIRY Observation needed to be preceded by a theory. Experimentation took place “whenever the regular course of the phenomenon is interfered with in any determinate manner” (Coser, 1977, p. 6). METHODS OF INQUIRY Comparisons are important – not just human to animal – which helps us to understand the differences between us/them, but also gives us an indication of how social relations begin. When human societies are compared, especially those at different stages of development, a good deal is learned, and we can also learn about societies that no longer exist. METHODS OF INQUIRY Historical analysis: Sociology must be informed by a sense of comparing human societies over time. SOCIAL STATICS AND DYNAMICS For Comte, social statics (also known as morphology) was the study of social order and social dynamics the study of social progress and change (Turner et al., 2007, p. 32). SOCIAL STATICS AND DYNAMICS Turner et al. (2007) speculate that his division of social physics into statics and dynamics has to do with the legacy of the French Revolution (1789-1799). The Revolution had brought about great instability. SOCIAL STATICS AND DYNAMICS “‘The statical study of sociology consists in the investigation of the laws of action and reaction of the different parts of the social system – apart, for the occasion, of the fundamental movement which is always modifying them.’ SOCIAL STATICS AND DYNAMICS It studies the balance of mutual relations of elements within a social whole. There must always be a ‘spontaneous harmony between the whole and the parts of the social system.’ When such harmony is lacking, we are confronted by a pathological case” (Coser, 1977, p. 10). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTS AND THE WHOLE Comte raises the questions of functionalism: What is the function of a structure for the body social? That is, what does a structure “do for” the social whole? THE ELEMENTARY UNIT OF SOCIETY Comte did not view individuals as the elementary parts of a social system. He viewed families as the elementary unit. Other social units evolve from family and kinship groups. STAGES OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT The human mind and the individual mind have developed in parallel. Three stages – believer, metaphysician and natural philosopher. Phylogeny, the development of human groups or the entire human race, is retraced in ontogeny, the development of the individual human organism. LAW OF THE THREE STAGES The theological or the fictitious – priests and ruled by military men. The family is the prototypical social unit. The metaphysical or abstract – Middle Ages and Renaissance – churchmen and lawyers. The social unit is the state. The scientific or the positive – industrial administrators and scientific moral guides. The human race is the operative unit. LAW OF THE THREE STAGES “In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the essential nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects… supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings. LAW OF THE THREE STAGES In the metaphysical state… the mind supposes … abstract forces, veritable entities (that is personified abstractions) … capable of producing all phenomena… In the final, the positive state, the mind has given over the vain search after Absolute notions, the origin and destination of the universe and the causes of phenomena, and applies itself to the study of their laws – that is, their invariable relations of succession and resemblance” (Comte as quoted in Coser, 1977, p. 7). LAW OF THE THREE STAGES Each stage grows out of the next. “Although Comte focused mainly on stages in the development and progressive emancipation of the human mind, he stressed that these stages correlated with parallel stages in the development of social organization, of types of social order, or types of social units, and of the material conditions of human life. All these, he thought, evolved in similar manner as the changes in progressive mental developments” (Coser, 1977, p. 7). LAW OF THE THREE STAGES He recognised that the transition from one stage to the next would be accompanied by upheavals because there would be conflict between the elements of the old stage and the new stage. He also recognized that progress would not necessarily be linear – there could be some movement backwards. LAW OF THE THREE STAGES He also recognised that population growth/density was one of the drivers of evolution in society as that in turn brought about the division of labour in society. COMTE Contributions and criticisms COMTE’S CONTRIBUTIONS “First, theories must be abstract, seeking to isolate and explain the nature of the fundamental forces guiding the operation of society. Second, theories must be explicitly and systematically tested against the empirical world, using a variety of methods. COMTE’S CONTRIBUTIONS Third, collecting data without the guidance of theory will not contribute greatly to the accumulation of knowledge about how the social universe operates. Finally, sociology should be used to rebuild social structures, but these applications of sociology must be guided by theory rather than by ideologies and personal biases” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 38). CRITICISMS OF COMTE’S WORK “He never really developed any substantive theory, aside from the relationship between social differentiation and new modes of integration. Most of Comtean sociology is a justification for sociology and a very good one at that, but he did not explain how the social universe operates. CRITICISMS OF COMTE’S WORK He thought that his ‘law of the three stages’ was the equivalent of Newton’s law of gravity, but Comte’s law is not so much a law as a rather simplistic view of the history of ideas. It made for an interesting way to justify the emergence of positivism and its queen science, sociology, but it did not advance sociology’s understanding of the dynamics of the social universe” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 39). GROUP DISCUSSION Do you agree with the criticism of the law of the three stages? HERBERT SPENCER His life and work HERBERT SPENCER (1820-1903) He was born in Derby, England. He was home schooled, first by his father, then by his uncle. He spent only three months of his life in normal school. He was at home with his parents until the age of 13, then he moved to live with his uncle in Bath. He received a solid grounding in mathematics and science. SPENCER His early career was in philosophy - “a grand project for uniting ethics, natural science, and social science” (Turner, Beeghley & Powers, 2007, p. 40). The project was published as Synthetic Philosophy. Late in his career he turned to sociology (between 1873 and 1896). SPENCER It was his unusual early beginning that set the tone for his life and career. He would become someone who published books even though he did not read. He would employ holders of PhDs to do his research. His books sold very well though, and he was also left a good inheritance by his uncle (Coser, 1977). SPENCER He worked as a journalist early in his career – he served as a subeditor for the London Economist in 1848. He left it in 1853 when he received his inheritance. SPENCER He published Social Statics in 1851. “In this work he championed the cause of laissez-faire-free trade, open markets and non-intervention by government. He asserted that individuals had the right to do as they pleased, as long as they allowed others to do the same” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 43). SPENCER A list of his notable works: Principles of Psychology – 1854 First Principles – (first of Synthetic Philosophy) – 1862 Principles of Biology (1864-1867) The Principles of Sociology – 1874 SPENCER’S INFLUENCES Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) Unlike Malthus, Spencer believed that competition would lead to a good outcome, via ‘survival of the fittest’. War and conflict could lead to the evolution of societies. Karl Ernst Von Baer (1792-1876) The idea that biological forms develop from undifferentiated, embryologic forms to highly differentiated structures revealing a physiological division of labour. SPENCER’S INFLUENCES Charles Darwin (1809-1882) They influenced each other. Spencer influenced Darwin on evolution and his ideas influenced Spencer to think about ‘speciation’ – how different groups adapted to varying environmental conditions. SPENCER’S INFLUENCES ❖He believed in universal laws for each domain of reality. There were also laws or first principles that cut across all domains of reality. ❖He drew a great deal on the physics of his time – notions of force, indestructibility of matter, persistence of motion. RECAP The elementary unit of society The Law of the Three Stages Comte’s contributions and criticisms of his work Spencer’s life Spencer’s influences Similarities and differences between organic and superorganic bodies  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday October 3, 2024 Class Four SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas RECAP ▪The Law of the Three Stages ▪Comte’s contributions and criticisms of his work ▪Spencer’s life ▪Spencer’s influences OVERVIEW Spencer’s influences Societies and growth Functional requisites Types of societies Consciousness in the social organism Spencer as individualist The role of the state The social scientist and objectivity SPENCER Influences and ideas SPENCER’S INFLUENCES Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) Unlike Malthus, Spencer believed that competition would lead to a good outcome, via ‘survival of the fittest’. War and conflict could lead to the evolution of societies. Karl Ernst Von Baer (1792-1876) The idea that biological forms develop from undifferentiated, embryologic forms to highly differentiated structures revealing a physiological division of labour. SPENCER’S INFLUENCES Charles Darwin (1809-1882) They influenced each other. Spencer influenced Darwin on evolution and his ideas influenced Spencer to think about ‘speciation’ – how different groups adapted to varying environmental conditions. SPENCER’S INFLUENCES ❖He believed in universal laws for each domain of reality. There were also laws or first principles that cut across all domains of reality. ❖He drew a great deal on the physics of his time – notions of force, indestructibility of matter, persistence of motion. SPENCER AND COMTE 1864 – He published an article titled: ‘Reasons for Dissenting from the Philosophy of M. Comte.’ The main points of his disagreement with Comte are summarized below. That societies pass through three stages That causality is less important than relations of affinity in building social theory SPENCER’S INFLUENCES That government can use the laws of sociology to reconstruct society That the sciences have developed in a particular order Psychology is merely a subdiscipline of biology SPENCER’S INFLUENCES Spencer acknowledged that the organismic analogy had been reintroduced by Comte (though he argued that Plato and Thomas Hobbes had made similar analogies), and he also agreed that knowledge comes from experiences or observed facts and that there are invariable laws in the universe. SPENCER’S INFLUENCES Two ideas from Comte can be observed in Spencer’s work. 1. Social systems reveal many properties of organization in common with biological organisms, and thus some principles of social organization can be initially borrowed (and altered somewhat) from biology. SPENCER’S INFLUENCES 2. When viewed as a “body social,” a social system can be analysed by the contribution of its various organs to the maintenance of the social whole (Turner, Beeghley & Powers, 2007, p. 49). SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES: SOCIETIES AND ORGANISMS KEY ELEMENTS IN SPENCER ❖A belief in evolution ❖The need to examine arrangements within societies from the perspective of their usefulness to the society in which they emerged. Some things emerge unintentionally. SIMILARITIES – SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS As organic and superorganic (societal) bodies increase in size, they increase in structure. That is, they become more complex and differentiated. Such differentiation of structures is accompanied by differentiation of functions. Each differentiated structure serves distinctive functions for sustaining the “life” of the systemic whole. SIMILARITIES – SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS Differentiated structures and functions require in both organic and superorganic bodies integration through mutual dependence. Each structure can be sustained only through its dependence on others for vital substance. SIMILARITIES – SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS Each differentiated structure in both organic and superorganic bodies is, to a degree, a systemic whole by itself (that is, organs are composed of cells, and societies are composed of groupings of individuals); thus, the larger whole is always influenced by the systemic processes of its constituent parts. SIMILARITIES – SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS The structures of organic and superorganic bodies can “live on” for a while after the destruction of the systemic whole. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS There are great differences in the degree of connectedness of the parts, or structures, in organic and social wholes. In superorganic wholes, there is less direct and continuous physical contact and more dispersion of parts than in organic bodies. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS There are differences in the modes of contact between organic and superorganic systems. In the superorganic, there is much more reliance on symbols than in the organic. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIETY AND ORGANISMS There are differences in the levels of consciousness and voluntarism of parts in organic and superorganic bodies. All units in society are conscious, goal seeking and reflective, whereas only one unit can potentially be so in organic bodies. These are taken from Turner (2003) – and are based on ideas found in Spencer’s Principles of Sociology published in 1897. SOCIETIES AND GROWTH SOCIETIES AND GROWTH Societies can grow through population increase or by groups coming together (by choice or by force). These processes do not have to be consecutive or separate – they can be simultaneous. SOCIETIES AND GROWTH When societies grow they become more complex in structure and hence the parts become more mutually dependent. This leads to what Spencer called “the physiological division of labour” (Coser, 1977, p. 92). SOCIETIES AND GROWTH One implication of this is that larger societies are more fragile and vulnerable than smaller ones. This leads in turn to the need for a regulating system to both defend and coordinate. REQUISITE FUNCTIONALISM REQUISITE FUNCTIONALISM This concept addresses what organic and superorganic bodies need in order to adapt to an environment. These requisites exist for all organic and superorganic systems. REQUISITE FUNCTIONALISM Close study of the facts shows us another striking parallelism. Organs in animals and organs in societies have internal arrangements framed on the same principle. Differing from one another as the viscera of a living creature do in many respects, they have several traits in common. REQUISITE FUNCTIONALISM Each viscus contains appliances for conveying nutriment to its parts, for bringing it materials on which to operate, for carrying away the product, for draining off waste matters; as is also for regulating its activity (Spencer, Principles of Sociology, quoted in Turner, 2003, pp. 25-26). BASIC FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES OF SOCIETIES: Each superorganic body Has a set of agencies which bring the raw material…; it has an apparatus of major and minor channels through which the necessities of life are drafted out of the general stocks circulating through the kingdom…; FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES it has appliances… for bringing those impulses by which the industry of the place is excited or checked; it has local controlling powers, political and ecclesiastical, by which order is maintained and healthful action furthered (Spencer, Principles of Sociology, quoted in Turner, 2003, p. 26).  FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES There are four classes or needs that could be assigned under three labels: Needs for operation Production and reproduction Needs for regulation Need to coordinate and control members of a population through the use of power and symbols Needs for distribution Movement of people, information and resources among members of the population FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES Societies grow and differentiate along these axes. So first production (gathering of resources and their conversion into usable commodities) and reproduction (generating new members for the society) become evident and distinct from each other. FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES Then these become differentiated from regulating structures, such as centers of power (government) and centres of ideology like the church. FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES Finally, distinctive, distributed structures (markets, ports, roads) and other systems for distributing people, information and resources become separate from operative and regulatory structures. Thus, as societies grow, they differentiate between and within operative, regulatory, and distributive structures. FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES You can distinguish between simple and complex systems. In simple systems, needs are met by each element of the system, but when structures begin to grow and become more complex, they are met by distinctive types of structures that specialize in meeting one of these general classes of functions. FUNCTIONAL REQUISITES As societies become highly complex, structures become even more specialized and meet only specific subclasses of these general functional needs. (Drawn from The Structure of Sociological Theory by Jonathan Turner, pp. 25-26) TYPES OF SOCIETIES TYPES OF SOCIETIES Spencer employed various terms to do this – simple, compound, doubly compound and trebly compound. Simple societies had no head, then you had those with occasional headship and then those with stable headship. TYPES OF SOCIETIES He also ranked them according to their modes of settlement – nomadic, semisettled or settled. The key idea was that societies passed through these stages in order. (But apparently he changed his mind about this over the course of his life.) He also distinguished between societies on the basis of their internal regulation – namely militant and industrial societies. TYPES OF SOCIETIES It is rooted in a theory of society that states that types of social structure depend on the relation of a society to other societies in its significant environment. Whether this relation is peaceful or militant affects the internal structures of a society and its system of regulations. TYPES OF SOCIETIES With peaceful relations come relatively weak and diffuse systems of internal regulations; with militant relations come coercive and centralized controls. Internal structure is no longer dependent, as in the first scheme, on the level of evolution, but rather on the presence or absence of conflict with neighbouring societies (Coser, 1977, p. 93). TYPES OF SOCIETIES The dominant feature of militant societies is compulsion and the dominant feature of industrial societies is voluntary cooperation. The nature of progress: Over time, Spencer came to believe that there would not just be progress or movement from one stage to another, but that there could also be retrogression (Coser, 1977, pp. 96-97). INTEGRATION AND CONSCIOUSNESS IN SOCIETY HOW IS SOCIETY HELD TOGETHER? ‘The medium of language enables societies, though formed of discrete units, to exhibit a permanence of relations between component parts’ (Coser, 1977, p. 99). CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE SOCIAL ORGANISM In the (biological organism) consciousness is concentrated in a small part of the aggregate. In the [social organism] it is diffused throughout the aggregate: all the units possess the capacity for happiness and misery, if not in equal degree, still in degrees that approximate. CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE SOCIAL ORGANISM: IMPLICATIONS As, then, there is no social sensorium, the welfare of the aggregate, considered apart from that of the units, is not an end to be sought. The society exists for the benefit of its members; not its members for the benefit of society (Coser, 1977, p. 99). SPENCER’S VIEWS: THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE SPENCER AS INDIVIDUALIST He was an individualist, and wanted society to be for the individual. Societies came about because there are more advantages to be had together than apart. The quality of a society depended on the quality of the individuals who comprised it. THE ROLE OF THE STATE The discovery of natural laws should lead to ideas about how not to act collectively. The whole is too complex and actions might lead to too many unforeseen consequences. The state should not interfere. DUTIES OF THE STATE Protection of the rights of individuals and Collective protection against outside enemies THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE Individuals should be free to enter into contracts with each other to pursue their interests. ‘Whenever the state intervenes in these contractual arrangements, whether for reasons of social welfare or any other, it either distorts the social order or leads to a retrogression from the benefits of industrial society to early forms of tyrannical and militant social order’ (Coser, 1977, p. 100). THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE He was a disciple of Malthus. But unlike Malthus he thought that increases in population would lead to an increase in intelligence in the general population. For the human race to progress it was essential that governments not intervene in order to keep the deficient alive (Coser, 1977, p. 101). THE SOCIAL SCIENTIST AND OBJECTIVITY Spencer believed that there was need for objectivity. The social scientist has to try to free himself from biases (towards to race, country and citizenship). RECAP Spencer’s influences Societies and growth Functional requisites Types of societies Consciousness in the social organism Spencer as individualist The role of the state The social scientist and objectivity  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday October 10, 2024 Class Five SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas  OVERVIEW ❖Marx’s life ❖Conflict theory: An overview ❖Grand theory ❖Marx’s assumptions about human nature ❖Marx on the characteristics of societies ❖Theoretical methodology OVERVIEW ❖Dialectical materialism ❖The nature of capitalism ❖Social stratification ❖Alienation ❖Workers in the capitalist system ❖The road to revolution SPENCER’S VIEWS: THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE SPENCER AS INDIVIDUALIST He was an individualist, and wanted society to be for the individual. Societies came about because there are more advantages to be had together than apart. The quality of a society depended on the quality of the individuals who comprised it. THE ROLE OF THE STATE The discovery of natural laws should lead to ideas about how not to act collectively. The whole is too complex and actions might lead to too many unforeseen consequences. The state should not interfere. DUTIES OF THE STATE Protection of the rights of individuals and Collective protection against outside enemies THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE Individuals should be free to enter into contracts with each other to pursue their interests. ‘Whenever the state intervenes in these contractual arrangements, whether for reasons of social welfare or any other, it either distorts the social order or leads to a retrogression from the benefits of industrial society to early forms of tyrannical and militant social order’ (Coser, 1977, p. 100). THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE He was a disciple of Malthus. But unlike Malthus he thought that increases in population would lead to an increase in intelligence in the general population. For the human race to progress it was essential that governments not intervene in order to keep the deficient alive (Coser, 1977, p. 101). QUESTION Who are libertarians? What is ‘Social Darwinism’? THE SOCIAL SCIENTIST AND OBJECTIVITY Spencer believed that there was need for objectivity. The social scientist has to try to free himself from biases (towards to race, country and citizenship). KARL MARX 1818-1883 KARL MARX (1818-1883) He was born to Heinrich and Henrietta Marx on May 5, 1818 in Trier, in the Rhineland of Germany. His father was a lawyer who converted to Lutheranism in 1817 to protect his position (Turner, Beeghley & Powers, 2007, p. 90). Marx learned of Voltaire and Rosseau from his father. KARL MARX He went to Trier gymnasium (high school) and then to the University of Bonn in 1835 (aged 17). He left after a year to go to the University of Berlin. After he completed his doctorate there, Marx became a writer for and then the editor of the Rhineland News (Rheinisch Zeitung). He frequently clashed with the censors and after six months the paper was shut down. KARL MARX Marx married Jenny von Wesphalen , and moved to Paris in 1843, aged 25. He stayed there until forced to leave in 1845 for Brussels. He went to Paris in 1849 for a brief period, before being forced to leave again, this time for England. He was about 30 years old. KARL MARX During this period, Marx studied and wrote. His works included Notebooks, The Theory of Surplus Value, and A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Capital: Volume 1 appeared in 1867, when Marx was 49 years old. KARL MARX His wife died in 1881, his daughter in January 1883, and on March 14 1883, Marx himself died. (Based on Turner et al., 2007, pp. 90-96) CONFLICT THEORY CONFLICT THEORY “Conflict theory emphasizes the role of coercion and power, a person or group’s ability to exercise influence and control over others, in producing social order. Whereas functionalism emphasizes cohesion within society, conflict theory emphasizes strife and friction. CONFLICT THEORY Derived from the work of Karl Marx, conflict theory pictures society as fragmented into groups that compete for social and economic resources. Social order is maintained not by consensus, but by domination, with power in the hands of those with the greatest political, economic, and social resources. CONFLICT THEORY When consensus exists, according to conflict theorists, it is attributable to people’s being united around common interests, often in opposition to other groups (Dahrendorf, 1959; Mills, 1956). CONFLICT THEORY …Whereas functionalists find some benefit to society in the unequal distribution of resources, conflict theorists see inequality as inherently unfair, persisting only because groups who are economically advantaged use their social position to their own betterment. CONFLICT THEORY Their dominance even extends to the point of shaping the beliefs of other members of the society, by controlling public information and having major influence over institutions such as education and religion. From the conflict perspective, power struggles between conflicting groups are the source of social change. CONFLICT THEORY Typically, those with the greatest power are able to maintain their advantage at the expense of other groups” (Andersen & Taylor, 2001, pp. 18-19). CRITICISMS “Conflict theory has been criticized for neglecting the importance of shared values and public consensus in society while overemphasizing inequality and social control. Like functionalist theory, conflict theory finds the origins of social behavior in the structure of society, but it differs from functionalism in emphasizing the importance of power” (Andersen & Taylor, 2001, p. 19). GRAND THEORY A NOTE ON GRAND THEORY Grand theory, as its name implies, is large in scope. Examples of these are Marxism and functionalism – two of the major theories that will be examined over the next two semesters. Many of the early sociologists thought about society on a large scale and tried to construct frameworks that could encompass everything about society. A NOTE ON GRAND THEORY CONT’D Grand theories still exist in the sense that there are a few theorists in recent decades who have attempted to encompass the world in their explanations, but they are not as popular. Persons believe that the endeavour is not a productive one, since many grand theories are difficult to test empirically (see Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000, pp. 11-12). MARX’S ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE MARX’S ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE In capitalistic and precapitalistic societies, people are unable to fulfill their human potential, for varying reasons. In precapitalistic societies, persons are too busy just trying to survive. Looking after housing, food and protection take a great deal of energy. MARX’S ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE Humans have the ability to think and plan – in precapitalism much energy devoted to survival. Under capitalism, energy is devoted to owning things and not enough to fulfilling human potential. MARX’S ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HUMAN NATURE Capitalism provided the technological and organizational innovations needed to create a communist society, where the goal would not be ownership of things. Persons would finally be able to fulfill their potential (Ritzer, 2010, p. 23). MARX: CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL SOCIETIES MARX’S VIEWS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL SOCIETIES Humans produce sustenance from the environment to live and thereby make history. People create new needs over time (processes of production and consumption always feed back on each other in a cumulative fashion so that as one set of needs is satisfied, new ones emerge). MARX’S VIEWS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL SOCIETIES Work serves not only to satisfy needs but also to express a uniquely human creativity. But people are unable to express themselves in this way because the exploitation and alienation inherent in the division of labour prevent it. MARX’S VIEWS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL SOCIETIES Production is based on a division of labour. Nonowners cannot control either the work they do or the products produced. Exploitation and alienation are features of all societies characterized by private ownership of the means of production. MARX’S VIEWS ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL SOCIETIES Ideas and values emerge from the division of labour. Ideologies usually justify the status quo. “‘Ideologies” are systematic views of the way the world ought to be, as embodied in religious doctrines and political values. This is where he got his view of religion as “the opium of the masses” from. Religious values justify social inequality (Turner et al., 2007, pp. 118- 121). MARX: THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY MARX’S THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY Marx rejected Hegel by grounding social theory in the real world, where people must satisfy their physical and psychological needs. The term materialism denotes this. Having rejected the substance of Hegel’s idealism, however, Marx continued to use the Hegelian method of analysis. The term dialectical denotes this. CHARACTERISTICS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM Society is a social structure or system. There are interrelated parts that form a whole. You cannot speak of one part without speaking of the other. Class relations are reflected in all arenas of social behavior: the economy, kinship, illness and medical treatment, crime, religion, education and government. CHARACTERISTICS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM “Although Marx emphasized the primacy of economic factors, especially ownership of the means of production, his work is not narrowly economic; it is, rather, an analysis of how social structures function and change” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 122). CHARACTERISTICS OF DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM Social change is inherent in all societies as people make history by satisfying their ever-increasing needs. There are contradictions inherent in every society, which make the opposites develop. Feudalism led to capitalism. In the view of dialectical materialism, revolution is the outcome of this process of change. THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM There are two classes in capitalism. The capitalists or bourgeoisie are the ones who own the means of production and are in a position to exploit workers. The proletariat do not own the means of production. They must sell their labour time to the capitalists in order to get access to means of production. THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM The means of production includes things such as tools, machinery, raw materials, and factories. In capitalism the worker is paid a subsistence wage. This wage is just enough to live on and have a family so that when the worker dies he can be replaced by one of his children. In return the worker gives his labour/time. THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM According to Marx, only labour had value – the labour theory of value. The capitalist might invest, plan, manage, scheme and so on – but to Marx that had no value. He associated value with producing things out of raw material. He also spoke of use value and exchange value. The value of commodities is determined by the labour time necessary to produce them. THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM This is what produces a system of exploitation. Surplus value is the difference between the value of the product when it is sold and the value of the elements consumed in production of the product (including the worker’s labour). THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM False consciousness: Neither capitalist nor worker is aware of the exploitation. Workers think they are being treated fairly – capitalists think they are being rewarded for their cleverness/investment. Capitalists will never realise the nature of their existence. However, the proletariat have the opportunity because eventually they will be so exploited that they must realise that they are being exploited. This will lead to revolution. RECAP ❖Marx’s life ❖Conflict theory: An overview ❖Grand theory ❖Marx’s assumptions about human nature ❖Marx on the characteristics of societies RECAP ❖Theoretical methodology ❖Dialectical materialism ❖The nature of capitalism  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday October 17, 2024 Class Six SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas  RECAP ❖Marx’s life ❖Conflict theory: An overview ❖Grand theory ❖Marx’s assumptions about human nature ❖Marx on the characteristics of societies ❖Theoretical methodology ❖Dialectical materialism OVERVIEW ❖The nature of capitalism ❖Social stratification ❖Alienation ❖Workers in the capitalist system KARL MARX The nature of capitalism THE NATURE OF CAPITALISM False consciousness: Neither capitalist nor worker is aware of the exploitation. Workers think they are being treated fairly – capitalists think they are being rewarded for their cleverness/investment. Capitalists will never realise the nature of their existence. However, the proletariat have the opportunity because eventually they will be so exploited that they must realise that they are being exploited. This will lead to revolution. MARX: CLASS CONFLICT AND STRATIFICATION MARX’S MODEL OF CLASS CONFLICT AND STRATIFICATION ‘A class exists when a grouping of individuals have in common a specific relationship to productive forces’ Ashley & Orenstein, 2001, p. 197). His view was that all social action is conditioned by, and reciprocally related to, the type of productive activity that exists. The options of individuals are shaped by the nature of the society. MARX’S MODEL OF CLASS CONFLICT AND STRATIFICATION Structure of stratification emerges in all societies based at least in part on control of the means of production. Marx also asked: ‘Who benefits?’ This question is useful in analyzing many social benefits. He spoke about the worship of machines and products in capitalist societies –‘fetishism of commodities’. MARX’S MODEL OF CLASS CONFLICT AND STRATIFICATION He could speak of the bankers, the lower middle classes or the lumpenproletariat (very poor) when he chose. However, for him the primary classes were the bourgeoisie and proletariat. MARX’S MODEL OF CLASS CONFLICT AND STRATIFICATION In Marx’s view awareness of opposing interests leads to revolution. It does not in the course of history because the classes are tied to one another in a variety of ways. Citizenship, nationalism, religion, ethnicity, language tie persons together (Turner et al., pp. 135-138) ALIENATION ALIENATION Work is good, in Marx’s view. But work under capitalism is not good. “In the circumstance (communism) where people achieve their human potential there is a natural interconnection between people and their productive activities, the products they produce, the fellow workers with whom they produce those things, and with what they are potentially capable of becoming. ALIENATION Alienation is the breakdown of these natural interconnections. Instead of being naturally related to all of these things, people are separated from them” (Ritzer, 2010, p. 24) WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM Workers have their activities determined by the capitalists. Capitalists also own the products. The production process separates workers from each other in various ways. WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM Finally, instead of expressing their human potential in their work, people are driven further and further from what they have the potential to be. They perform less and less like humans and are reduced to animals, beasts of burden, or inhuman machines. WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM Consciousness is numbed and ultimately destroyed as relations with other humans and with nature are progressively severed. The result is a mass of people who are unable to express their essential human qualities, a mass of alienated workers. (Based on Ritzer, 2010, pp. 24-25) RECAP ❖Dialectical materialism ❖The nature of capitalism ❖Social stratification ❖Alienation ❖Workers in the capitalist system ❖The road to revolution  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday October 24, 2024 Class Seven SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas RECAP ❖The nature of capitalism ❖Social stratification ❖Alienation OVERVIEW ❖The end of capitalism ❖Marx and communism ❖Marx’s contributions ❖Simmel’s life ALIENATION ALIENATION Work is good, in Marx’s view. But work under capitalism is not good. “In the circumstance (communism) where people achieve their human potential there is a natural interconnection between people and their productive activities, the products they produce, the fellow workers with whom they produce those things, and with what they are potentially capable of becoming. ALIENATION Alienation is the breakdown of these natural interconnections. Instead of being naturally related to all of these things, people are separated from them” (Ritzer, 2010, p. 24) WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM Workers have their activities determined by the capitalists. Capitalists also own the products. The production process separates workers from each other in various ways. WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM Finally, instead of expressing their human potential in their work, people are driven further and further from what they have the potential to be. They perform less and less like humans and are reduced to animals, beasts of burden, or inhuman machines. WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM Consciousness is numbed and ultimately destroyed as relations with other humans and with nature are progressively severed. The result is a mass of people who are unable to express their essential human qualities, a mass of alienated workers. (Based on Ritzer, 2010, pp. 24-25) GROUP DISCUSSION Are Marx’s ideas about alienation relevant today? Are they relevant to Guyana? Give reasons for both your answers. THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION ON THE WAY TO REVOLUTION Marx predicted an increase in size of the proletariat. He predicted that even those in professions such as medicine, law, science and art would increasingly become wage labourers. The fact that the proletariat was becoming more urban would aid communication amongst the group. They would gradually develop class consciousness. WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM The proletariat often competed amongst themselves – for jobs, for food, clothing and shelter. However, over time, improvements in education might make them better educated and they may become more politically aware. But in the past, they often directed their attacks against the instruments of production rather than the capitalists. And they often served the interests of the bourgeoisie. These would delay the coming of revolution. THE END OF CAPITALISM “First, capitalism is inherently unstable. Periods of economic growth and high employment are followed by economic decline and unemployment. Too many goods produced for demand for them leads to unemployment. The capitalists can try to avoid it by destroying older product, or they may try to eliminate competitors or they may seek new markets” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 127). THE END OF CAPITALISM The proletariat will also become more and more exploited and miserable. Marx predicted that they would become more class conscious over time. As capitalism becomes more competitive, more businesses are driven out of operation. The proletariat will become larger as a class and the bourgeoisie will become smaller. This will enable the revolution to happen easily. THE END OF CAPITALISM However, the revolution needs concrete action or praxis for it to happen. People need to take to the streets. This is not necessarily about violence. ON THE WAY TO REVOLUTION Marx predicted an increase in size of the proletariat. He predicted that even those in professions such as medicine, law, science and art would increasingly become wage labourers. The fact that the proletariat was becoming more urban would aid communication amongst the group. They would gradually develop class consciousness. WORKERS’ POSITION UNDER CAPITALISM The proletariat often competed amongst themselves – for jobs, for food, clothing and shelter. However, over time, improvements in education might make them better educated and they may become more politically aware. But in the past, they often directed their attacks against the instruments of production rather than the capitalists. And they often served the interests of the bourgeoisie. These would delay the coming of revolution. THE END OF CAPITALISM “First, capitalism is inherently unstable. Periods of economic growth and high employment are followed by economic decline and unemployment. Too many goods produced for demand for them leads to unemployment. The capitalists can try to avoid it by destroying older product, or they may try to eliminate competitors or they may seek new markets” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 127). THE END OF CAPITALISM The proletariat will also become more and more exploited and miserable. Marx predicted that they would become more class conscious over time. As capitalism becomes more competitive, more businesses are driven out of operation. The proletariat will become larger as a class and the bourgeoisie will become smaller. This will enable the revolution to happen easily. THE END OF CAPITALISM However, the revolution needs concrete action or praxis for it to happen. People need to take to the streets. This is not necessarily about violence. GROUP DISCUSSION Why hasn’t the revolution happened in most capitalist countries? Could it still happen? Why or why not? MARX AND COMMUNISM MARX AND COMMUNISM: IDEAS ABOUT THE FUTURE Marx did not really theorize about communism. He left his ideas for that system very undeveloped. ”Thus, communism is a system that permits people to express the thoughtfulness, creativity, and sociability that have always been a possibility but inhibited or destroyed by previous social systems (e.g., feudalism, capitalism). MARX AND COMMUNISM: IDEAS ABOUT THE FUTURE Communist society would utilize and expand upon the technological and organizational innovations of capitalism, but otherwise get out of people’s way and allow them to be what they always could have been, at least potentially” (Ritzer, 2010, p. 30). The major goal of communism would be to abolish private property. MARX AND COMMUNISM: IDEAS ABOUT THE FUTURE “He recognized that in all periods of turmoil and change, some inevitably desire to return to times past or to invest in fantastic utopias as the way to solve humankind’s ills. He believed that such dreams were, at best, a waste of time, and, at worst, a vicious plot on the part of reactionaries” (Turner et al., 2007, p. 131). WAITING FOR THE REVOLUTION Marx and capitalism WHY HASN’T REVOLUTION HAPPENED? Marxist ideas about conflict: rooted in the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. It was on this basis that Marx predicted revolution. Yet it did not occur in most states. Why not? WHY HASN’T REVOLUTION HAPPENED? Capitalism is associated with the rise of political democracies – the poor do have some influence. Persistent crises force the state to seek agreements between capitalists and labour over wages and working conditions. WHY HASN’T REVOLUTION HAPPENED? Labour unions have made changes in the conditions of workers. Labour shortages have arisen, workers have gained political power and the price of technology/investments have meant that capitalists are forced to bargain with workers rather than leave machines idle. Marx did not foresee the rise of the middle classes. Skilled white collar workers are in a better bargaining position than early industrial workers. WHY HASN’T REVOLUTION HAPPENED? Marx also did not foresee that government would become a large employer and thus disrupt his formulation of capitalists against proletariat. Marx also did not anticipate that joint stock companies would arise. Workers would now have a stake in companies(Turner et al., 2007, pp. 148-150). MARX’S CONTRIBUTIONS “Marx saw, more than any other scholar of the last century, that the economy is the driving force of society, and he predicted that capitalism would spread or, in today’s vocabulary, become a global force. He understood that economic power and political power are highly correlated and that those with power could disproportionately influence the formation of ideologies and the other elements of culture. MARX’S CONTRIBUTIONS He explained the incredible wealth-generating capacities of free markets, but this dynamism is tempered by the inequalities, exploitation and alienation generated by such a system, as well as by the inherent tendency of the system to cycle in and out of ever-deeper recessions and depressions. MARX’S CONTRIBUTIONS Moreover, he even anticipated the power of big capitalism to standardize activities, to impoverish small businesses and artisans and to destroy old cultures in the relentless drive to make production more efficient and to penetrate all markets” (Turner et al., 2007, pp. 150-151). RECAP ❖The end of capitalism ❖Marx and communism ❖Marx’s contributions ❖Simmel’s life  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday November 7, 2024 Class Eight SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas RECAP ❖The end of capitalism ❖Marx and communism ❖Marx’s contributions OVERVIEW Simmel’s life Simmel’s influences Society according to Simmel Forms Types OVERVIEW The dialectical approach Simmel on groups The individual and society over time Social differentiation GEORG SIMMEL (1858 – 1918) GEORG SIMMEL (1858 – 1918) He was born on March 1,1858 in Berlin. His father was a Jewish businessman who converted to Christianity for the sake of avoiding discrimination. He died while Simmel was still young. A friend of the family’s was appointed his guardian. Simmel was not close to his mother, who was described as a domineering figure. SIMMEL Simmel studied history and philosophy at the University of Berlin. He received his doctorate in philosophy for a thesis entitled “The Nature of Matter According to Kant’s Physical Monadology” (1881). He had knowledge across several fields including history, philosophy, psychology and other social sciences. SIMMEL He decided to stay at the University of Berlin and become a Privatdozent (an unpaid lecturer dependent on student fees). He began doing this in 1885 and continued for 15 years. SIMMEL Simmel was awarded the rank of ausserordentlicher Professor (Extraordinary professor)in 1901, but this was an honorary title, and he remained an outsider in the academic community. During this period he worked very hard and published a great deal – six books and more than seventy articles. SIMMEL However, his attempts to obtain a more permanent position in the university – and at other universities – failed. He also had prominent supporters, including Max Weber. It was not only anti-Semitism that caused this failure. Persons found his approach to academia unsettling. The way that he just moved from subject to subject was thought unbecoming. SIMMEL His extensive knowledge was threatening. Simmel also appealed to the wrong kind of people. He lectured to non-academic persons and did not present his publications in conventional academic style (with extensive footnotes). SIMMEL Simmel was active in the intellectual and social life of the capital – attending many salons and taking part in various cultural circles. Along with Weber and Toennies he was a founder of the German Society for Sociology. He had friends in literary circles, including Rainer Maria Rilke. However, he never really became involved in the social and political life of Germany. SIMMEL He did not have to worry about money because he was given a considerable fortune by his guardian. He married in 1890. His wife Gertrud was a philosopher who published on topics such as the philosophy of religion and sexuality. She used a pseudonym – Marie-Luise Enckendorf. SIMMEL He got a full professorship at the University of Strasbourg – but then war broke out (1914) and he was unable to actually lecture. He was not able to secure a chair at Heidelberg – he died on September 28, 1918 – just before the end of the war (November 11,1918). He had cancer of the liver. (Drawn primarily from Coser, 1977, pp. 194-197) SIMMEL’S INFLUENCES SIMMEL’S INFLUENCES He was originally influenced by Spencer and Darwin in his early works. ‘Simmel argued, for example, that marriages engaged in for the sake of money lead to genetic mixtures, which biology has recognized as the cause of direct and deleterious racial degeneration’ (Coser, 1977, pp. 200-201). SIMMEL’S INFLUENCES He was also influenced by Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Schopenhauer, and finally by vitalistic philosophy (Ashley & Orenstein, 2001; Coser, 1977). Simmel was also influenced by Marx and Weber. SIMMEL ON SOCIETY SOCIETY ACCORDING TO SIMMEL ‘In his view, society consists of an intricate web of multiple relations between individuals who are in constant interaction with one another: “Society is merely the name for a number of individuals, connected by interaction.” SOCIETY ACCORDING TO SIMMEL The larger superindividual structures – the state, the clan, the family, the city, or the trade union – are only crystallizations of this interaction, even though they may attain autonomy and permanency and confront the individual as if they were alien powers. The major field of study for the student of society is, therefore, sociation, that is, the particular patterns and forms in which men associate and interact with one another’ (Coser, 1977, p. 178). SOCIETY ACCORDING TO SIMMEL The forms of association or interaction ‘serve to link people to one another. They are continually being created, worked out, dropped, and then replaced by other forms of association’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 46). SIMMEL AS SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIST Simmel was interested in what came to be known as microsociology. However, he also believed that there were laws to be discovered: ‘For example, the process of competition or other forms of conflict can be examined in many different social contexts at different times: within and among political parties, within and among different religious groups, within and among businesses, among artists, and even among family members (Turner, Beeghley & Powers, 2007, p. 227). SIMMEL ON FORMS He was interested in the similarities between what might seem like unrelated places and events. A corporation and the court of a king. (conflict/cooperation/subordination and superordination; centralization and decentralization) GROUP DISCUSSION How does a corporation resemble the court of a king? SIMMEL ON FORMS Forms: Patterns imposed on the bewildering array of events, actions, and interactions in the social world both by people in their everyday lives and by social theorists’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 46). Modern terms such as status, role, norms and expectations are close to the conceptualizations he used. SIMMEL ON FORMS ‘It is through such abstraction from concrete social content that the building of a theory becomes possible’ (Coser, 1977, p. 181) SIMMEL ON TYPES Types: ‘Patterns imposed on a wide range of actors by both laypeople and social scientists in order to combine a number of them into a limited number of categories’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 46). The stranger, the mediator, the poor, the adventurer, the man in the middle and the renegade are examples of types discussed by Simmel. SIMMEL ON TYPES The idea is that each type is shaped by the reactions and expectations of others. ‘The type becomes what he is through his relations with others who assign him a particular position and expect him to behave in specific ways’ (Coser, 1977, p. 182). THE DIALECTICAL APPROACH Sociation always involves both positive and negative emotions. Every close relationship will have several sets of emotions. You always need to consider actions in relation to each other. He rejected what he called ‘the fallacy of separateness’. You can only understand superordination in relation to subordination. SIMMEL ON GROUPS SIMMEL ON GROUPS Dyad: needs two members for it to live – but only one for it to die. It is very clear where responsibilities and blame should be assigned – each can only blame the other – not the group. SIMMEL ON GROUPS Triad: ‘The triad is the simplest structure in which the group as a whole can achieve domination over its component members; it provides a social framework that allows the constraining of individual participants for collective purposes. SIMMEL ON GROUPS The dyad relies on immediate reciprocity, but the triad can impose its will upon one member through the formation of a coalition between the two others. Thus the triad exhibits in its simplest form the sociological drama that informs all social life: the dialectic of freedom and constraint, of autonomy and heteronomy’ (Coser, 1977, p. 187). DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS: SMALL GROUPS i. Opportunity to interact directly with each other. ii. Greater involvement with the group, in part because of frequency of contact. iii. May subject the individual to greater control and scrutiny. iv. Individuals have an immediacy of participation. LARGE GROUPS Interactions must be mediated by formal arrangements. There must be officers, status positions must be differentiated and there is delegation of tasks and responsibilities. They become ‘societies of unequals’ (Coser, 1977, p. 188). Unity is expressed through group organs and political notions and ideals, but there is great distance between these and the individual (Coser, 1977). LARGE GROUPS Individual members may not feel so tied to larger groups. It may seem that the group can exist without its members. However, larger groups can be liberating for individuals precisely because they are larger. In larger groups the constraints of formal arrangements restrain members but they do so only partially. LARGE GROUPS ‘However, individuals become subject to other kinds of control in large societies, as exemplified by the soon-to-be-discussed tragedy of culture. Furthermore, masses are more subject to being controlled by one idea, the simplest idea. LARGE GROUPS The physical proximity of a large number of people, especially in the modern city, makes them suggestible and more likely to follow simplistic ideals and to engage in mindless, emotional actions’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 50). SIMMEL: THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY – OVER TIME In the past – in premodern societies, humans lived in a very limited number of relatively small social circles. These circles also tended to be not functionally specific or limited to clearly articulated purposes. And subordination involved domination over the entire personality of the subordinate. THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY – OVER TIME In the modern world – there is different organization. No one circle controls the total personality of an individual. There is separation into different spheres. The personality is segmented. Religious membership is not the same as neighbourhood makeup or even the same as one’s family ties. THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY – OVER TIME Unlike the feudal world, there is no total domination of the individual. Domination is limited to particular places and times. This connects Simmel to Spencer and Durkheim – the move from mechanical to organic solidarity (Coser, 1977). THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY – OVER TIME In the past – in premodern societies, humans lived in a very limited number of relatively small social circles. These circles also tended to be not functionally specific or limited to clearly articulated purposes. And subordination involved domination over the entire personality of the subordinate. THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY – OVER TIME In the modern world – there is different organization. No one circle controls the total personality of an individual. There is separation into different spheres. The personality is segmented. Religious membership is not the same as neighbourhood makeup or even the same as one’s family ties. THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY – OVER TIME Unlike the feudal world, there is no total domination of the individual. Domination is limited to particular places and times. This connects Simmel to Spencer and Durkheim – the move from mechanical to organic solidarity (Coser, 1977). SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION Social differentiation argues that the basis of membership in groups changes from organic to rational criteria. It is no longer based on birth, but instead becomes grounded in reasonable and logical criteria. People can belong not only to primary groups but also to secondary groups (which may be larger and more formal). There is a movement that expands memberships from family and village to nation (Turner et al., 2007, p. 232). SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION Role conflict may arise. ‘Sometimes these duties lead to hard choices; this happens, for example, when obligations to one’s employer compete with obligations to one’s family. Usually, Simmel says, people try to balance their competing responsibilities by keeping them spatially and temporally separate. Nonetheless, the impact of conflicting expectations can lead to psychological stress and, hence, influence behavior’ (Turner et al., 2007, p. 233). SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION ‘Ironically, then, modernity not only produces role conflict and psychological stress but also creates the conditions under which individuality emerges’ (Turner et al., 2007, p. 234). Empathy may also emerge as a result of this. Individuals can identify with and understand another person’s situation and motives (Turner et al., 2007, p. 234). SIMMEL ON CONSCIOUSNESS ‘He operated with the assumption that people engaged in action on the basis of conscious processes. In their interaction, people have various motives, goals and interests; they engage in creative consciousness. He also believed that people were able to confront themselves mentally, to set themselves apart from their own actions. In other words, people can take in external stimuli, assess them, try different courses of action, and then decide what to do. SIMMEL ON CONSCIOUSNESS SIMMEL ON CONSCIOUSNESS Because of these mental capacities, people are not enslaved by eternal stimuli or external structures. However, the mind also has the capacity to endow these stimuli or structures with a separate and real existence; in sociological terms the mind has the capacity to reify these phenomena. SIMMEL ON CONSCIOUSNESS Thus, humans also have the capacity to create the conditions that constrain them. Through their mental processes people can free themselves, constrain themselves, or more likely, do some combination of both things’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 48). CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL ‘Simmel’s treatment of cultural objectifications, or of objective culture, is identical to Hegel’s. He views human institutions and organizations as humanly produced and as an expression of human energy and will. At the same time, he notes that objective culture can develop “a mind of its own.” CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL For example, individuals sustain bureaucratic organizations because, as far as subjects are concerned, these organizations have attained an impersonal, inhuman, and apparently independent existence from them. Individuals cannot ignore bureaucracy: but neither can they view it as an expression of their own subjectivity, creativity or freedom’ (Ashley & Orenstein, 2001, p. 266). CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL ‘Objective culture involves those objects that people produce (art, science, philosophy, and so on). Individual culture refers to the capacity of the individual to produce, absorb, and control the elements of objective culture. CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL The tragedy of culture stems from the fact that over time objective culture grows exponentially while the individual culture and the ability to produce objective culture grow only marginally. Over time, peoples’ ability to be creative has increased little, if at all. Yet the sum total of what they have produced has exploded’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 52). CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL Specialization means that persons become more immersed in their special part of the scheme of things – total culture. Persons begin to feel more and more their own insignificance. RECAP Simmel’s influences Society according to Simmel Forms Types The individual and society over time Social differentiation Consciousness Culture and the individual  SOC 2100: CLASSICAL Thursday November 21, 2024 Class Nine SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY Lecturer: Dr J Thomas RECAP Simmel’s influences Society according to Simmel Forms Types RECAP The dialectical approach Simmel on groups The individual and society over time Social differentiation OVERVIEW Culture and the individual Conflict Durkheim’s life Durkheim’s influences SIMMEL Culture and the individual CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL ‘Simmel’s treatment of cultural objectifications, or of objective culture, is identical to Hegel’s. He views human institutions and organizations as humanly produced and as an expression of human energy and will. At the same time, he notes that objective culture can develop “a mind of its own.” CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL For example, individuals sustain bureaucratic organizations because, as far as subjects are concerned, these organizations have attained an impersonal, inhuman, and apparently independent existence from them. Individuals cannot ignore bureaucracy: but neither can they view it as an expression of their own subjectivity, creativity or freedom’ (Ashley & Orenstein, 2001, p. 266). CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL ‘Objective culture involves those objects that people produce (art, science, philosophy, and so on). Individual culture refers to the capacity of the individual to produce, absorb, and control the elements of objective culture. CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL The tragedy of culture stems from the fact that over time objective culture grows exponentially while the individual culture and the ability to produce objective culture grow only marginally. Over time, peoples’ ability to be creative has increased little, if at all. Yet the sum total of what they have produced has exploded’ (Ritzer, 2010, p. 52). CULTURE AND THE INDIVIDUAL Specialization means that persons become more immersed in their special part of the scheme of things – total culture. Persons begin to feel more and more their own insignificance. GROUP DISCUSSION Do Simmel’s arguments about culture make sense to you? Why or why not? SIMMEL ON CONFLICT CONFLICT An entirely harmonious group could not exist in real life. It would be incapable of change and development. Many social relations require a safety valve – so conflict is good. ‘[C]onflict is a vehicle by which individuals achieve their purposes in innumerable social contexts such as marriage, work, play, politics, and religion. As such, conflict reveals certain common properties in all contexts, and hence it can be viewed as a basic social form. CONFLICT Moreover, conflict is nearly always combined with cooperation: people agree on norms that regulate when, where, and how to fight with one another, and this is true in marriage, business, games, war, and theological disputes’ (Turner et al., 2007, p. 236). CONFLICTS WITHIN GROUPS Conflicts in which the opposing parties possess common personal qualities. These are disputes that can be very inflammatory. The parties see each other as whole persons. Conflicts in which the opposing parties perceive each other as a threat to the existence of the group. CONFLICT WITHIN GROUPS Conflicts in which the opposing parties recognize and accept each other as legitimate opponents: Opponents are seen to have a right to strive for the same goal; conflict is pursued mercilessly yet nonviolently. Norms to regulate the conflict are often developed. This is often the nature of competition, and it is useful. It promotes solidarity within groups and can lead to affiliations with other groups. CONFLICTS BETWEEN GROUPS It increases the degree of centralization of authority within each group It increases the level of social solidarity within each group. At the same it decreases the level of tolerance for deviance and dissent. It increases the likelihood of coalitions among groups having similar opponents. (Turner et al., 2007, pp. 236-243). EMILE DURKHEIM 1858 - 1917 EMILE DURKHEIM (1858-1917) He was born at Epinal, Lorraine (eastern France) on April 15, 1858. He was originally going to become a Rabbi – following in the family tradition. As part of his preparation he studied Hebrew, the Old Testament and the Talmud. However, he had an experience just after his Bar Mitzvah which led to him being briefly interested in Catholicism. In the end he became an agnostic. DURKHEIM Durkheim was a very good student at the College d’Epinal. He transferred to Lycee Louis-Le-Grand, one of the most famous high schools in France. He wished to attend the Ecole Normale Supererieure. He tried three times before finally passing the exam to enter that institution in 1879. DURKHEIM Durkheim was not very happy at the Ecole. ‘He was an intensely earnest, studious, and dedicated young man, soon nicknamed “the metaphysician” by his peers’ (Coser, 1977, p. 144). He felt that the curriculum was not serious enough – not enough philosophy and science – too much literature and aesthetics. He was almost at the bottom of the graduating class when he graduated in 1882. DURKHEIM He was influenced by at least two of his teachers – Fustel de Coulanges (historian) and Emile Boutroux (philosopher). ‘He later dedicated his Latin thesis to the memory of Fustel de Coulanges and his French thesis, The Division of Labor, to Boutrox. What he admired in Fustel de Coulanges and learned from him was the use of critical and rigorous method in historical research. DURKHEIM To Boutroux he owed an approach to the philosophy of science that stressed the basic discontinuities between different levels of phenomena and emphasized the novel aspects that emerged as one moved from one level of analysis to another. This approach was later to become a major mark of Durkheim’s sociology’ (Coser, 1977, p. 144). DURKHEIM Durkheim wished to devote himself to a discipline that would provide practical as well as moral guidance to the society. However, since at that time sociology was not a subject taught at school or university, he first taught philosophy. DURKHEIM For five years (1882-1887) he taught in various schools around Paris, but also took one year of further study in Paris and in Germany. He went to the laboratory of Wilhem Wundt. His academic work was recognized with an appointment to the University of Bourdeaux in 1887. A social science course was created for him there. DURKHEIM He taught pedagogy – he wanted to do so – he felt he could make a difference through teaching in education. He married Louise Dreyfus around 1887 and they had two children (Marie and Andre). ‘His wife seems to have devoted herself fully to his work. DURKHEIM She followed the traditional family pattern of taking care of family affairs as well as assisting him in proofreading, secretarial duties, and the like. Thus, the scholar- husband could devote all his energies to his scholarly duties’ (Coser, 1977, p. 146). DURKHEIM He wrote and published several major works over the next few years. These included The Division of Labor, The Rules of Sociological Method and Suicide (by 1897). He founded L’Annee Sociologique in 1898. Durkheim was appointed a professor in social science in 1896. He would then go on to work at the Sorbonne in 1902. He was appointed a Professor in 1906. DURKHEIM During the Paris years he was very much a public figure. He served on university committees, advised the Ministry of Education and helped to introduce sociology into school curricula. When the First World War came, he helped the war effort by writing various documents. His son Andre died in Bulgaria just before Christmas 1915. It was a great loss for Durkheim and he would die on November 15, 1917. DURKHEIM’S CENTRAL ISSUES ‘What forces integrate society, especially as it undergoes rapid change and differentiation? Durkheim believed that integration will always involve a “morality” or set of values, beliefs, and norms that guide the cognitive orientations and behaviors of individuals’ (Turner, Beeghley & Powers, 2007, p. 256).. DURKHEIM’S INFLUENCES Montesquieu He based his Latin doctoral thesis on Montesquieu’s work The Spirit of Laws. He was influenced by Montesquieu in his belief that the social world could be studied as ‘thing’; that it is best to develop typologies; that it is important to view law as an indicator of broader social and cultural forces and that it is wise to employ both causal and functional analyses. DURKHEIM’S INFLUENCES Jean Jacques Rousseau From Rousseau, he took concepts such as anomie, egoism and the forced division of labour. Rousseau also had ideas that a strong state and common values and beliefs integrate society. His work inspired Durkheim to work through education to spread sociology’s influence. DURKHEIM’S INFLUENCES Auguste Comte Comte’s belief in science/data and that laws should be generated influenced Durkheim. In Comte’s work there was a concern for social integration and for the role played by ideas in this process that would also be seen in Durkheim’s work. Like Comte, Durkheim believed that science should be used to improve society. DURKHEIM’S INFLUENCES Alexis de Tocqueville ‘Durkheim viewed social structure as integrated when (1) differentiated s