Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber all analyzed the way in which society is constructed in great part from its relationship to economic conditions; specifically the division of labor. That the effect the forces of labor and economics have on the way societies are shaped and the way they evolve should be of primary interest to all three should not be surprising considering that all three developed their ideas during the period of history marked by the industrial revolution. Despite the fact that each of these three great thinkers witnessed the rise of capitalism as the controlling and dominant economic theory, each developed a unique theory on how individuals react and societies are formed. Modernization and the subsequent emphasis on materialism played a tremendous part in the formation of their theories on socialization. A close examination of the works of each of these writers reveals that the very cohesiveness of society depends in great part upon the construction of the labor mechanism.
A certain irony may felt from the fact that although the theoretical constructs of these three major thinkers diverge greatly, the locus from which those constructs develop is very similar. The relations of production between those who own and control the marketplace and those who must sell their labor in order to enjoy the fruits of that labor is a centerpiece of all the theories about society from Marx, Durkheim and Weber. The disagreements between them is not to be found in the acceptance that a division does exists, but rather in how society both acknowledges and reacts to this division. Karl Marx sees in this division the genesis of all social conflict throughout history, Emile Durkheim views the division as a normative state without which society could not function effectively, while Max Weber sees the competition that is inherent in a capitalist system as the key to not only societal progress, but individual progress as well.
The nature of society from a Marxist point of view is one in which unnatural systems of power must be made to seem as though they are a natural and organic outgrowth of the progress of civilization. When Marx is discussing how consciousness is formed, he is invoking a definite sense of economic determinism that leaves real consciousness shrouded in a veil (Marx 34-42). In other words, the capitalistic division of labor into those who own the means of production and those who must work should not be viewed as any more the natural state of economic affairs than was the feudal system that preceded it, yet because it is constantly being reproduced it has become rationalized across of the globe today to the point of unquestioned normalization. The economic system shapes every aspect of society as it attempts to coerce or enforce the acceptance of the system as not just the best method of doing things, but the only rational method as well. In order to continue reproducing this idea all other components of society from education to entertainment to even religion adopts this belief and shapes its message in such a way as to conform to the prevailing ideology.
Exploitation on the individual is the driving force behind this effort at consistently reproducing capitalistic society. The exploitation is effected by inculcating within the individuals of a certain society a specific manner of subconscious rationality in their thinking about their own relationship to the ideology; schools, churches, movies, music, television shows, book and every other method of delivering information reproduce the concepts that not only is capitalism is natural, but that any other economic system is a threat to the continued cohesiveness of society.
One might be tempted to say that Emile Durkheim would agree with Marx that reproduction of the prevailing ideology does exist, but where Marxists see the coerced acceptance of a divisive ideology as leading to conflict that ultimately may result in violent revolution; Durkheim sees it as a necessary tool for a system to continue functioning. At times one may even easily confuse Marx’s idea of false consciousness when thinking about Durkheim’s theory of the Social Fact; at least when he writes about ideological coercion. An alternative point would be to consider Durham’s definition of a Social Fact as something formed externally as a perfect example of willing acceptance of a false consciousness.
Emile Durkheim’s viewpoint of the effect of the division of labor and how economic conditions define society is definitively different than Karl Marx’s. For Marx, the division is enforced for the benefit of the owners so that they can exploit the working class for their own means, and this exploitation trickles down to effect every single aspect of society. Durkheim’s division of labor is much more rationalized than Marx and proceeds from the concept that the division is an organic outgrowth of a society in which different people have different interests and skills. Modernization and specialization is an expected and welcome product of that outgrowth and serves to shape society by offering choices based on individual desires. Marx’s reply to this might be that a person may have the theoretical opportunity to pursue a dream, but the limit of that pursuit would be defined by economic necessities; for instance, a poor but infinitely more talented actress must defer her dream because she doesn’t have the economic resources at her disposal that a non-talented person like Paris Hilton does. The net effect being that Hilton is cast in movies and the talented woman is working for minimum wage. Durkheim’s theories view the same situation as an integrated, functioning organism that serves to maintain the proper stratification within the social order.
The natural organic solidarity that Durkheim views can be contrasted with both Marx and Max Weber. Marx and Weber share in common one particular aspect of labor and its relationship to society: that of the importance of competition on the formation of society. But whereas Marx views competition as just another aspect of the unnatural need to reproduce the system, Weber considers multiple societal factors as they relate to competition. There is an ethical constituent to capitalism in Weber’s view that does not exist within the Marxian theoretical construct. For Weber, the effect of the rise of capitalism on society has been a transformative one that serves an evolutionary purpose. The separation between work and leisure prior to modernization had been ill-defined and Weber views the casting off of the feudal system as beneficial to societal development. Whereas Marx views the division of labor in the capitalist mode as the cause for further and deepening stratification between classes, Weber theorizes that capitalism has relaxed that stratification. Economic evolution has resulted in the very language of work being redefined; master and peasant have been replaced by boss and employee. For Marx, of course, this would be merely semantics, but Weber extends the language to relationship as well.
Despite this positive view, however, Weber still finds elements of the economic conditions resulting from modernization to view with suspicion. The rise of materialism is, of course, a key point for all of Weber’s sociological theories. Whereas Marx considers economic acquisition in terms of a deviant fetishism, Weber contends that it contains an element of the spiritual. The rise of materialism has changed society from one that worships abstractions into one that worships concrete goods. The comparison should not be to the contemporary model which sees the shopping mall as the replacement for the church. Rather the spiritualism that Weber saw in capitalism was what one might term the entrepreneurial spirit. Capitalism presented for the first time the promise of freedom from oppression that had previously been the domain of the afterlife. But Weber is also keenly aware of the danger of such freedom. Like Marx he intuits that such a system works only by means of rationalization and like Durkheim he expresses concern over how societies will react to a change in values as it moves away from traditional morals codified by religious beliefs. Unlike Durkheim’s sense of anomie, however, what Weber is most concerned with is the determinant quality of capitalism. The economic condition left uncritically challenged presents the danger of self-replicating itself. Unlike Marx’s view that capitalism must consistently reproduce itself in order to exist, Weber’s fear is with the individual’s response. The rationalization inherent in the capitalist mode contains definite threats toward traditional values. Lifestyle choices, for instance, can be rationalized by the individual as a response to societal demands. As Weber so eloquently put it, the difference today is that the religious man of centuries past wanted to be called to devotion to their religion, whereas the man of today has no choice in the matter.
According to all three men society is heavily influenced by economic factors. If they had been writing just a century earlier, it is highly likely they would have held different theoretical constructs. The industrial revolution and the resulting modernization and materialism quite obviously influenced each man’s view on how society is constructed and what causes it to evolve. History has yet to prove that any one particular theory can be considered 100% accurate, yet the violence that has resulted from worker inequality indicates that Karl Marx was correct in his conclusion that the relations of production could certainly alienate workers enough to result in revolution. Both Durkheim and Weber, on the other hand, quite rightly focused on the adverse effects on morality and values that capitalism might have on society.
