Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx perhaps contributed more than all other 19th century philosophers combined to the way in which the nature of the social came to be viewed as phenomenon in the twentieth century. Each of these now widely ready thinkers eventually developed philosophical constructs that places locates the center of the social fabric as a defining phenomenon in the relationship between individuals and their economic conditions; specifically, that quickly growing component of economics that has come to be known as the division of labor. That the effect the forces of labor and economics have on the way societies are both shaped and evolved should not be surprising considering that all three developed their ideas in the midst of the industrial revolution.
Despite the fact that each of these highly influential social observers witnessed a world in which capitalism grew to become the dominant and controlling system of economics, all three men developed separate and for the most part unique explanations for how on how individuals react to the social contexts of economics, and how societies form around those reactions. 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 their constructs developed is the same. The division of labor between those who own and those who work is the centerpiece of all theories relating to the nature of the social in the works of Marx, Durkheim and Weber. From this one can extrapolate a very important fact: the disagree-ments that arise between these three is not located in the idea that a division does exist; rather the theoretical variances spring from how society both responds and reacts to this division.
In order to fully understand the nature of the social as applied to the Durkheim and Weber, it is first immensely important to understand the theories of Karl Marx. Marx essentially saw in the division of labor the origins of all conflict throughout history. On the other hand, Emile Durkheim views the division as a normative state without which society could not function effectively, while Max Weber adopts the view that the competition that is inherent in a capitalist system is the key to not only societal progress, but individual progress as well. The nature of the social for all three, therefore, lies buried somewhere in the relations of production, but that nature is not the same for all three.
Before attempting to analyze how Emile Durkheim and Max Weber came upon their theories regarding the nature of the social and how it corresponds to economic determinism, one should first understand the Marxist theories that precede and reference it. Karl Marx views the division of labor as an unnatural occurrence that must be made to seem natural. 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. In other words, the division of labor into those who own and those work should not be viewed as any more the natural state of economic affairs than a feudal system, yet because it is constantly being reproduced it has become normalized in most countries to a state of unquestioned status quo. 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 natural 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. Although the idea belongs to Karl Marx, it is the neo-Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser who may have best illustrated how the Marxian idea of reproduction works. Althusser’s theory of Ideologial State Apparatuses works by inculcating within citizens a specific manner of thinking about their relations to the ideology; schools, churches, movies, music, television shows, book and every other method of delivering information reproduce the concept that capitalism is natural and every 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 and Althusser 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. It may also seem as if Althusser is talking about Durkheim’s theory of the Social Fact when he writes about ideological coercion. Or, alternatively, Durkheim’s definition of a Social Fact as something formed externally may stand as a perfect example of blindly accepting a false consciousness.
Emile Durkheim’s view of the division of labor 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. Durkheim’s division of labor is much more naturalized 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. Marx’s economic vision is one that essentially sees a labor force in which a woman blessed with a great talent for acting is forced to work a string of menial jobs throughout her life because her lower class birth simply doesn’t give her access to the educational or occupational advantages necessary to achieve her dream, whereas a woman like Paris Hilton, with no discernable acting talent, is given the opportunity to star in movies and television shows. Durkheim’s economic vision views the same situation as an integrated, functioning organism that serves to maintain the social order.
The natural organic solidarity that Durkheim views can be contrasted with both Marx and Max Weber. Karl Marx and Max 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 Max Weber is also keenly aware of the danger of such freedom. Like Karl 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.
Of course, Karl Marx and Max Weber share a significant belief in the influence of the actions of humans on the development of the social as expressed not only in its structure, but also how that structure undergoes change and transformation. The human action that Marx considers vital for change, not surprisingly, are those involving group activities rather than individual activities. The kind of human action Marx speaks of would be things like unions, organizations, lobbyist groups and even something as large as a political party. In fact, the social as a dynamic at large for Marxists is really not particularly relevant regarding individual activities, except as these actions take place within the larger framework of groups.
Max Weber, on the other hand, views the both the individual action and the group action as being dynamically important to social evolution. In fact, Weber writes extensively of the importance to sociological analysis of coming to a finer understanding of how the actions of both groups and individuals play a role in the shaping of history. For Weber much more than Marx or even Durkheim a true revelation of the nature of the social can only be arrived at by systematic research that attempts to uncover the how social interaction is defined by the interplay of individuals and their response to social factors.
Because understanding motivation is so central to Weber’s methodology and because both group and individual interactions are play in constructing motivation, it is important to fully grasp the significant of economic determinants. To find a meaning behind social interaction is not merely to apprehend motivation, but to be cognizant that the division of labor and economic circumstances are major players in the creation of limitations within the social milieu. Limitations and constraints imposed by economic conditions and the relations of production create social pressures that can be realized in human actions, which in turn construct the social milieu. In essence, it’s back to the game of capitalist reproduction of itself in order to survive.
The primary lesson wrought by the research of Max Weber may be that the nature of the social is arrived at differently in the field of sociology that in the natural sciences. Subjectivity is not possible in those fields, but is a vital necessity in the field of sociology. The division of labor creates not just economic status but also individual responses to that division. These responses are entirely subjective and not dependent in any way upon cold, objective data. So subjective is the response to the division of labor, in fact, that quite often many people react to their place within the strata of economic status by assuming a position entirely at odds with their own best interest. The nature of the social, therefore, cannot be measured quantitatively because quite often the human action is in open rebellion with the statistical arguments.
The nature of the social then, according to Marx, Durkheim and Weber, is quite clearly influenced overwhelmingly by economic factors, especially those to which the division of labor contributes. All three men express theories that would probably not have been constructed in quite the same way if they had not been born during the transformation from society based on feudal economics to one based on the need for society to change rapidly due to modernization and industrialization. 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. Their theories on the evolution and nature of the social may not yet be proven necessarily prescient, but 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.
