Unit-IV (Sociological Thinkers)

KARL MARX

Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism

Dialectics and Social Change

Hegel’s Idea of dialectics

Hegel used the idea of dialectic as reason and process. In broad sense the notion of
dialectics as a logical process and more narrowly as a generator or motor of logical
process.

Hegel maintains that God or the Absolute comes to self knowledge through human world.
In a narrow sense Hegel conceived dialectics as grasping of opposites in their unity. A
process which brings out implicit from the explicit i.e. each development is a product of
previous less developed phase. Thus for Hegel history as progress in the consciousness of
freedom.

Marx criticized Hegel for deducing laws of dialectics from consciousness instead of
material existence, and propounded ‘dialectical materialism’, were in contradiction to
Hegel. He said it the ‘matter’ which is supreme and not the consciousness and idea.

Laws of Dialectics
In dialectical materialism, Karl Marx provide abstract laws for natural and social change.
Contrary to Metaphysics, it behaves in nature; thing that are interconnected, interrelated
and determined by each other.

This law of change is law of reality. There is constant transformation in inorganic nature
and human world. There is nothing eternally static. These transformations are not
gradual, but there is evident, revolutionary shift.

Three major laws of dialectical materialism by Engels.

1. The law of Unity and Conflict of Opposites.
2. The law of negation of the negation
3. The law of transition of Quantity into Quality.

[Extra: Thus Dialectical materialism, which forms philosophical base of Marxian, is a

fusion of Hegel’s ‘dialectics’ and Feuerbach’s ‘materialism’.

Materialism claims that matter precedes thought, and establishes the primary of material.

1
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
It holds that world is material, that all phenomenon in universe consist of matter in
motion, wherein, that all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop in
accordance with natural law, that the world exist outside us, and independently of our
perception of it, and that thought is a reflection of the material world in our brain, and the
world is in principle, knowable.

Karl Marx says, ‘The ideal is nothing but the material world reflected by human mind,
and translated into forms of thought. (Capital, Vol I)

Dialectics: It is the science of most general laws of development of nature, society and
thought. Its principle features are:
1. The universe is an integral whole, wherein ‘things are mutually dependent.
2. Nature is in state of motion.
3. Development is a process by which insignificant and imperceptible (impossible or
difficult to perceive by the mind or senses) quantitative changes lead to
fundamental, qualitative changes. The latter occur not gradually, but rapidly and
abruptly, in the form of one state to another.
4. All things contain within themselves contradictions, which are the primary causes
of motion, change and development in the world.]

The Law of Unity and Conflict of Opposites

The world in which we live is a unity of contradictions – light–darkness, heat–cold,
birth–death, capital–labour, electron–proton, etc. “everything contains two mutually
incompatible, and exclusive, but nevertheless equally essential and indispensable parts or
aspects”.

This inseparable interconnections of these opposing tendencies are the cause of unity of
opposites. Such contradictions are universal in nature, they co-exist and constitute the
object.

But this co-existence is not a co-operative one, rather a conflicting one. The mutually
exclusive character necessarily causes struggle between them. Thus there is conflict of
the opposites; - new versus old, emergent vs absolute etc. The unity of opposites is thus a
pre-condition for their conflict.

This contradiction, conflict of opposites is the cause of development of matter and

consciousness. More often one opposite tries to maintain the status-quo, while the other
tries for radical change.

Thus there is continuous conflict, causing minor gradual change and when conditions are
mature, a qualitative leap happens with emergence of a new phenomena, matter and
thought. This new phenomena is thus the negation of old, and in turn possesses the seeds

2
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
of conflict with internal contradiction. Thus further negation happens, i.e. negation of
negation.

Thus conflict is eternal, and development is essentially a negation of previous order.

The law of “Negation of Negation”

Karl Marx criticized Hegel’s notion of negation in its idealistic sense, and gave
materialistic interpretation of negation. Marx work, ‘In no sphere can one undergo a
development without negating ones previous mode of existence.

Thus everything is a negation of something previously existed. Raymond Aron puts it,
Capitalism is negation of feudalism, Socialism is negation of Capitalism, and thus a
negation of negation.

Negation is not something brought out from outside. It is due to the objects internal
development, the conflict of the opposites. Thus negation is a process of self-evolution.
This negation is a continuity, Thesis – Antithesis, - Synthesis — Antithesis. But the new
never completely overtakes old rather it becomes a synthesis of old and new.

Thus succession of developmental stages is progressive. Although no stage completely

re-occur, some attributes of previous stages becomes a part of the new stages. Thus
communism of privative-communism could form a part of negation of capitalism.

Thus for Marx and Engels, developments is nothing but a countless number of successive
negations, and an endless replacement or overcoming of old by the new.

The law of “Transformation of Quantity into Quality”

In nature everything is in continuous motion and change. Certain thing are born, certain
are growing, certain are decaying while certain other are dying. All these are change. But
there is difference between quantitative and qualitative changes. Qualitative changes are
when something that existed is no more, or something which exist today was not there
yesterday. Thus birth and death are qualitative changes while others are quantitative.
Marx argued quantitative changes keep on happening due to conflict of opposites, these
changes which are gradual, will lead to a qualitative leap, which would be abrupt,
revolutionary to a new phenomenon, which further undergoes gradual quantitative
changes.

Application of Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism.

When the laws of dialectical materialism is applied to history of society, it takes the
shape of historic materialism. Thus Marx has traced the evolution of societies in terms of
material bases. Historical materialism, though based on the philosophical strand of
dialectic materialism, can be independently interpreted as a sociological theory of human
history. It contains both a scientific explanation and an instigation of revolution within it.

3
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Marx view on Human society
i) Society as an interrelated whole: i.e. social groups, institutions, beliefs and
doctrines are integrally related. Thus he studies society as a whole in integration,
rather than, history, polity, religion, law, education etc separately.

ii) Changeable nature of society: Internal contradictions and conflict, constantly

bring about changes in society. These changes can be studied in general and
postulated. Societies are inherently mutable.

iii) Human nature and social relationship: According to Marx, there is no

permanent persistence of human nature. Neither is it evil or permanently good.
Human nature is potentially revolutionary. Human will is not a passive reflection
of events, but contain the power to rebel against circumstances in the prevailing
limitations of ‘human nature.”

4
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Historical Materialism
(Economic interpretation of European/human history)

The phrase ‘historical materialism’ was never used by Marx. This phrase was used by
PLEKHANOV who was Lenin’s mentor. He coined this term referring to what Marx did
say, that was ‘materialistic interpretation of history’. But what Marx actually refereed to
material interpretation of history was the changes due to economic forces. After his death
Engels and Plekhanov popularized this term.

Materialistic interpretation of history:

History is change that takes over time. This change is what he wanted to study. He tried
to understand these change w.r.t.(with respect to) economic forces of society. This
signifies a different methods a different way of looking at things. Historical materialism
is simultaneously an embodiment of Marx perspective and methodology. Historical
materialism had two elements.
(a) Basic assumptions that Marx had about human societies.
(b) Based on assumption attempt to explain change in society in terms of economic
forces.

Marx in his book “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” (published in

1859), writes, “ It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on
the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.

According to Marx, labour distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animals. Thus
human being must eat, drink, sleep, have shelter and cloth, and hence must work, before
they can think politics, religion or law.

Thus economic structure is the base of society and all other aspects, legal, political,
religious, family, are all super structures built on this economic base. Thus the process of
socio-political–intellectual life is conditioned by the mode of production of material life.
New developments in forces of production bring about conflict with relations of
production. When people become conscious of state of conflict, they wish to bring an end
to it. This period is period of social revolution. Revolution brings about temporary
resolution to conflict, new forces of production arise and give risk to new relations of
production. Thus the growth of forces of production outlines human history. Hence his
theory is historical materialism.

Karl Marx’ historical materialism can be outlined as:

1) Social development is based on the development of forces of production, which is
material.
2) Man is inevitably involved in production relations as his most basic social
relationship.
3) The relations of production follows the progress in forces of production.
4) The Production forces and relations progress independently of mans will.
5
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
5) When production relations become a fetter to the progress of production forces,
revolution occurs.
6) Economy forms the infrastructure, and the superstructures, ideological forms is
the product of production relations.
7) Every type of a state is a power organization of ruling class; the state is the
institution of oppression which one class uses to oppress other classes. Therefore
shifting of power from one class to another has to follow a change in the relations
to production and can be achieved only through revolution.

Marx applies historic materialism, and traces the evolution of human history. He
identified following stages of development:
(i) Primitive Communism
(ii) Ancient Society
(iii) Feudal Society
(iv) Capitalist Society
(v) Communism

(i) Primitive Communism (Primitive Communal form of Society).

This term refers to primitive i.e. food gatherers and hunters and communism i.e. a system
of equality (or community owned system). This is the first stage of human history in
which the man was food gatherer and hunter. In this stage, man was unable to produce
(‘surplus’).

Since the means of production were primitive and control over nature was insignificant,
man produced less than the requirement and hence the society was devoid from surplus
production. Production was a community affair and in the absence of surplus production
there was no such class like rich and poor. It was an egalitarian society.

Growth and quantitative changes in forces of production continued. As production

improved, communal nature broke, and changed into family units. Private property arose
and families started to own means of production. Contradiction between communal
forces and exploiting classes, led to qualitative changes - into ancient mode of
production.
Thus there was a conflict of opposites which resulted in negation of primitive communal
societies, into a new form, slave or ancient societies.

(ii) Ancient (or Slave) Societies.

In this stage, a new mode of production i.e. animal husbandry and horticulture started.
This new mode of production gave birth to a new form of society which Marx called
‘ancient society’. Only in this stage, first time ever society produced surplus.

To get control over surplus production, society had the conflict in which one emerged
winner (haves) and another the loser (have-nots). This way first time ever two unequal
economic classes came into being. Marx called it masters and the slaves.

6
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
The master had absolute control over the slaves. They can buy, sell and even kill their
slaves. On the other hand, slaves were the means of production for their masters who
were deprived from all the rights. They had no right of property, family etc. Hence Marx
believed that the surplus production and control over it by one class was the main cause
of the emergence of unequal society in history.

Contradiction between slaves and slave-owners. When condition matured, slaves

revolted and resulted in feudal societies. (This can be considered qualitative change,
though there are quantitative interpretation.)

(iii) Feudal Societies

As human beings learned the art of using the animal for agriculture, a new mode of
production emerged in which land and animals became the significant aspect of means of
production and hence the slaves became irrelevant. In this new setup, two new classes
feudal Lords and Serfs came in existence. The ‘lords’ had the control over a piece of land
as a political arrangement with the state. In this, lords (feudal) had to support the state
through their personal army and the king/state used to give absolute control over a piece
of land.

Marx believed that though masters were replaced by the lords and slaves by serfs,
technically serfs were free from the lords but practically they were under the control. This
way again two unequal economic classes – lords and serfs existed in this new society.

At the mature stage, they came to know the inanimate sources of energy like water, wind
etc. Towns begin to emerge, trade, commerce and industry started to flourish. Serfs
opposed feudal lords, and started working with industries, which meant negation of
feudalism and emergence of capitalism.

(iv) Capitalist Society

Agriculture was replaced by the factory system as a new mode of production. This new
mode of production was different than the previous in many ways.

For the first time ever the production was done for the profit and not for consumption and
family was replaced as a unit of production by the factory system.

Secondly, the relation between the capitalist and the workers was based on ‘cash nexus’.
Other to this, means of production had shifted from man to machine, consequently, mass
production took place. Thus capital became most significant in the means of production.

Marx believed that this new mode of production was completely different than the
previous mode of production which gave birth to two new economic classes –
bourgeoisie and proletariat.

The relationship between the bourgeoisie and proletariats was highly estranged based on
anonymity and tense because nature of capitalist society in itself is highly exploitive.
7
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Contradiction: Social character of production and private character of appropriation.
This basic economic contradiction gives rise to economic crises and unemployment,
causes fierce battle between bourgeoisie and proletariats – these are quantitative change.

The working class would bring about a socialist revolution, where capitalistic production
relations would be abolished and a new communist socio-economic order would usher –
qualitative changes.

(v) Communism
Communism passes through two stages, socialism and communism. In socialism stage
there will be no private ownership, or private property. All production will have public
ownership. Proletariat would jointly own the means of production, distribution will be to
satisfy the needs of people. This is the stage of dictatorship of proletariat.

Later, state will wither away, making communism possible. In communism, society will
be without any contradiction between relations of production. Here dialectic will unfold
(stretch) itself, and the contradiction would once again become with human beings and
nature, and with higher technology, human beings would be able to exploit nature more
efficiently.

Conclusion: This way Marx identified that matter or capital is the engine of all histories
which takes society from one stage to another. He believed means of production and
relation of production together make mode of production which changes it from one form
to another which subsequently changes other aspect of the society.

As human beings act upon environment and transform it, in the process they themselves
get transformed. This transformation is rejected in form of new needs and once again he
acts on environment to satisfy those needs. This is how it is a continuous process of
production. This is how man and environment are in a state of flux unlike other animals
who exists as parasites. This is nothing but idea of social PRAXIS (translating an idea
into action) in which man and environment are continuously changing.

Hence, Marx identified the cause of change in society from one stage to another and
because of his belief and analysis that ‘matter determines the course of history’, this
theory is known as theory of ‘historical materialism’.

Criticism:
1. The interpretation of history by Marx is wrong interpretation. History follows facts,
dates and other objective method while explaining the history, Marx defied it because he
has not mentioned the periods of different stages and neither he has given any factual
evidences. According to Robertson, ‘it is more like a story than the history’.

8
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
2. According to Max Weber, Marx identified only two classes in all the ages of Europe,
except primitive communism, but the presence of middle class in industrial society was
ignored, which is a lacuna in the theory of historical materialism.

3. Marx’s theory is considered as an economic deterministic theory which believes that

economy changes the society, but social change in itself is a complex phenomena which
is determined by many factors like political, geographical, technological etc.

9
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Mode of Production
Production is a cooperative enterprise. Also production can’t be carried in isolation. This
is how production becomes logical basis for humans to cooperatively exist.

Here Marx comes up with concept of modes of production. He answers how society is
made up of and what is nature of society.

CONCEPT OF MODES OF PRODCUTION

His concept of modes of production is ‘a contribution to critique of political economy’.
He defines - “In the social production, which men carry on, they enter into definite
relations that are indispensable’ and ‘independent of their will. There relations of
production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of
production. The sum total of their relation of production, constitute the economic and
structure of society- the real foundations on which rise legal and political super structures
and to which corresponds definite forms of social consciousness. There modes of
production in material life, determines the general character of the social, political and
spiritual process in life. At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of
production in society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or what
is but a legal expression for the same thing with the property relations and within which
they had been at work before from forms of development of the forces of production.
These relations turn into their fetters. Then comes the period of social revolution”

Here Marx tells two things.

(1.) How is society constituted?
(2.) How does dialectics unfold within society leading to conflict and change?

(1.) How is society constituted?

Production by very nature is a social activity. Basis of society is production. For sake of
production, men have to enter into ‘relations of production (R.O.P)’, because cooperation
is necessary and indispensable.

At same time they are not dependent on free choice of relations. The kinds of relations of
products correspond with material powers of production which Marx calls as ‘forces of
production (F.O.P)’. So production demands forces of production particularly
technology, skills, capacity to perform labor, capital etc. so, as forces of production
changes, and so relations of production. Forces of production are dynamic in nature. So,
it is not free will of independent, rather different kinds of forces of production will shape
relations of production.

Marx said, “Wind mill gave feudal lord”

“Steam engine gave capitalist”

10
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
So, if capital, raw material technology are changing, if forces of production are changing,
relations of production are also changing. So, the change from feudal lord to capitalist is
change in relations of production.

So F.O.P. + R.O.P combined with exchange constitute the economic structure of society.
This economic structure of society is also known as modes of production. Modes of
production constitute the real foundation upon which socio, political, legal, spiritual
aspects of social life rests.

So, all aspects of superstructure are so developed to suit these modes of production.
Technical D.O.L and relations of economic control comes out of nature of relation of
production. At the same time he uses R.O.P. for relation of economic control which in
turn dependant property relations.

He defines R.O.P as “It is a technical arrangement; the way different tasks are allotted
“He uses R.O.P. to refer to who exercises control over whom. In 19th century it was
Bourgeoisie, who controlled. So, people who control determine the right to earn, etc.

For Marx right to control was crucial, because those who exercise control over R.O.P use
that power for their own interest. This shapes the interest of the people. And people who
don’t control will oppose. That is why clash of interests develops for exercising control.

Marx concept of R.O.P and F.O.P and superstructure was, misunderstood as his writings,
were unorganized. Later he himself gave an explanation.

When he says modes of production determine general character of superstructure, it

means that super structure reflects the interests of dominant class, the class that exercises
economic control.
(1) Law tries to protect and promote their interests even
(2) Value system justifies that group, also
(3) Political power will be with them because; ownership class will become the ruling
class. So, those who control economy also control political sphere.

Ownership class also controls means of intellectual production. Intellectual production

means dominant idea of the time. So, ideas tend to support and legitimize the ownership
class. For example: - caste system Manus work provides legitimization of inequality and
hierarchy. So, to do work physically, according to Manu is to be inferior. So, value
system and religion tend to justify existing hierarchy so that existing order looks natural
and just.

For same kind of economic structure there can be many super structures. So, role of
economic structure are restrictive but not prescriptive.

-There was yet another aspect. The early Marxists tended to take a simplistic view of
economic production. They saw Marxian theory as unidirectional mono causal economic
11
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
determinism for example, economic organization shapes everything. Weber criticized this
was not approved even by Marx. But based upon limited knowledge they took that view.
But in later writings Engels classified this misinterpretation.

In his work grand rises (The outline of political economy), Engels admitted that there can
be reciprocal relations and that superstructure can influence base.

Marx said man is engaged in creative relation in which he is the creative being. When
new need arises, he needs to transform the existing relations. So, as F.O.P are dynamic
and because R.O.P are dependent on F.O.P, change in F.O.P will lead to an inevitable
change of R.O.P. This change in F.O.P and R.O.P will again lead to change in super
structure.

-Marx had identified different stages of society characterized by different kind of

relations depending upon different forces of production.

In the most primitive simple societies, forces of production were simple and man was a
parasite dependent upon nature. Man’s ability to produce was very little i.e. - subsistence
production i.e. - no surplus was generated. There was no institution of private property.
The exercise of control was communally met. (Everybody was similarly related to
F.O.P.)

This stage Marx called as ‘Primitive communism’, over a period of time, new kind of
F.O.P developed. Domestication of plant and animal developed the initial F.O.P after
primitive communism. Dog was the first domestic animal. Later man domesticated cattle
also. Ploughing technology developed. Man seized to be a parasite. Along with ploughing
technology harvesting started. This made man producers. Man’s capacity for production
also increased for production. As production increased because of advancement of F.O.P,
it leads to agriculture. So, surplus was created. After this man started to control surplus.
And from these happenings an idea also emerged to control privately by acquiring
surplus proportionately. This is how institution of private property developed. Once
institution of private property developed, access to F.O.P became unequally distributed.
Some people had the right to control to the exclusion of others. This facilitates D.O.L and
trading. So the society was divided over on the basis of right to property.

That is how owners and non-owners of production developed. Such members of groups
were known as classes.

C1- Ownership class

C2- Non-ownership class

12
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Based on these class divisions he identified various stages. They are
Bourgeoisie
Capitalists
Evolution Proletariat …
of society
Lords
Feudal society
Serf
Master
Ancient Society
Slave

Primitive Communism

Except for the first stage human beings were divided all along. Marx was trying to
explain the kinds of classes. The interests of the classes are mutually opposed so, this is
how human societies have evolved.

How did these changes occur?

This change is nothing but unfolding of ‘dialectics’. According to Marx, there are two
ways by which dialectic unfold.

Way 1:
‘At a certain stage of their development - R.O.P come into conflict with F.O.P. - there
relations turn into letters. Then comes period of revolution.”

We know that man is continuously improvising on F.O.P to enhance his capacity for
production. Also F.O.P are dynamic. So, initially social relation of production is initially
created to suit F.O.P. which are dynamic. So, while F.O.P. are dynamic, R.O.P. are
resistive.

R.O.P tends to be resistive because existing value system of superstructure over a period
of time legitimizes and socializes the existing relations that it is the natural way to exist.
It is the natural way to exist because, it suits their interest. So, super structure tends to
preserve the existing R.O.P.

So, conflict develops between the existing R.O.P and the new F.O.P. The dominant class
tends to protest the existing R.O.P.

Marx says that the only way to bring in the new R.O.P is by overthrowing the dominant
class by the emerging class. This is by a revolution. Changes in R.O.P are intermittent
and revolutionary but changes in F.O.P are gradual and evolutionary.

When will the revolution happen?

13
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Marx says the conflict will surface sooner or later. So, it dependence on the speed of
development of F.O.P.

Now in capitalistic societies the revolution will be soon because R.O.P changes very
fastly because of class consciousness. As technology gets advances new F.O.P will
demand new R.O.P. But in feudal societies, as the nature of F.O.P is gradual and
evolution, new F.O.P’s were not able to come. So, proletariat lived under false
consciousness.

C1 dominant class, C2 proletariat

R1 Old, R2 new
F1 old, F1 new
C1
F1OP R1 OP

Now C1 (dominant class) tries to preserve existing R1OP. But due to advancements in
technology new F2.O.P. emerge which will demand new R2.O.P. The demand will be
done by C2 (proletariat, emerging class) which will arise due to F2.O.P.

So, F2OP will cause C2 to demand R2.O.P. But C1 will try to preserve R1.O.P as it suits
them. C2 will try to overthrow R1OP as it exploits them. So, C2 demands change and C1
tries to preserve.

So, C1and C2 fight for each own cause. This conflict will persist unless R1OP is destroyed
by R2OP.
F1OP R1OP Dominant class
Fight
F2OP R2OP C2 (proletariat, emerging class)

So, C1 uses state organizations to fight C2. State violence will make C2 to resist with
violence. This result is revolution which ultimately brings victory of C2 over C1

Due to this property relation change as new F.O.P will bring in new R.O.P. Due to this
state is abolished. According to Marx French revolution is a conflict between C1 and C2.
C1 was the nobility and C2 was bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie is the French government started
to buy offices. Most important offices were captured by them. So, real control was white
bourgeoisie. So when they gained enough power they overthrew the king. So, they
change the existing superstructures created a new one by changing R.O.P and F.O.P. So,
Marx says conflict between minorities was the main reason for transformation of French
society from feudalism to capitalism.

2nd way
Due to the institution of private property, society got divided into classes. This was a
contradiction because ownership class by virtue of its control over F.O.P. used this
control to promote their interests at cost of interest of non-ownership class denying the
14
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
legitimate interest of powerless and non-owners. So, this is how contradiction exists and
there by dialects unfold in society.

Marx have explained the change from feudalism to capitalism briefly. But he didn’t
explain how capitalistic societies would change over a period of time. So, in French
revolution only the emergent class had over thrown the entrenched class.

Till now, in capitalist societies, conflict was between two kinds of classes i.e. the
bourgeoisie and nobility. The majority of non-owners remain passive due to false
consciousness as F.O.P. evolves gradually.

This is how dialectics unfold in first place. So, here due to the conflict, superstructure
gets changed by changes F.O.P and R.O.P. But to create a classless society, dialectics
have to unfold in society. That is how it unfolds in 2nd way.

The conflict now is between owner and non-owner. The contradiction which always
exists manifests in form of conflict. It existed, ancient societies; it is a conflict between a
majority of non-owners and a minority of owners. This conflict doesn’t arise as long as
the subjective awareness about objective reality is not there. Subjective awareness here is
the class consciousness and objective reality is that they are being exploited.

In feudal societies serfs were the exploited class, but they didn’t have the realization of
this fact. Because they always thought lord as their protector, helper and as a father
figure. That is why serfs of one lord were ready to fight with serfs of another lord. So,
serfs of all lords though, are being exploited didn’t have the feeling of owners which is
class consciousness. Rather they had false consciousness.

Marx says this subjective awareness of objective reality comes only in capitalist societies.
Unless the subjective awareness comes, class antagonism can’t be articulated. However
Marx believes that in capitalistic society this class consciousness will develop. Subjective
awareness amongst deprived will come inevitably and class conflict will arise.

In capitalist society while production becomes increasingly socialized control becomes

increasingly individualized. Because fruits of production are appropriated by capitalistic.
So fundamental contradictions would achieve and lead to class conflict. Conflict is
between old entrenched and newly emergent class.

In capitalism we need not wait for a new class, rather contradictions which already exists
would become evident and leads to change. This is how historic materialism is a
methodology. He first defines nature of society, secondly explains how contradiction
occurs and thirdly explains how dialectics unfolds and result into conflict and change.

15
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Alienation
The word alienation is derived from the Latin word ‘alien’ which means “estranged
man”. Thus, alienation can be defined as a social-psychological condition of an
individual in which they lose interest in themselves and respond subconsciously to their
biological and social needs.

The literal meaning of alienation is estrangement from the self. In every stage, there
were the cases of alienation which was interpreted from the point of view of theology or
psychology.

Hegel found alienation due to estrangement from the truth. He believed that materialistic
orientation is the reason of alienation.

Erich Fromm believed that alienation lies in unnatural behavior and presentation of
oneself. Over the period, individual gets detached from true nature which leads to
estrangement from the self.

David Riesman in his book ‘The Lonely Crowd’ identified the miserable lifestyle in the
western society. It is so busy and uncomfortable life that for the sake of their career, they
are estranged from the human being. Though living in crowd, everyone is suffering from
loneliness. Sharing and suffering in their loneliness which causes alienation.

Thomas Hobbes believes that in those societies where individual freedom has been
hijacked by the state on the name of security of life and property causes alienation.
Durkheim’s fatalistic suicide is nearby this concept.

Marx criticized all the above mentioned theories by calling it abstract and subjective.
Marx believed that though alienation is found in all societies but it is at its maximum in
industrial society. It has two reasons –
1. De objectification of labor
2. Exploitation

(i) De-objectification of Labour – In pre-industrial society, man used to be a

creative being. Through their creativity they used to realize their identity. Their labour
converted into objects.

But in industrial society, the creativity has been taken away by the machines and the man
is detached from their creativity. They are working but not creating anything, thus they
never feel attached to the objects on which they work i.e. alienation from process of
production.

(ii) Exploitation – In pre-industrial society since production was meant for

consumption, hence it belongs to the producer but in capitalist society, the product is

16
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
made for the market for the profit reason. Hence, it is independent from the control of the
producer. This is exploitation, hence it leads to alienation from the product.

Marx believed that capitalist society is a competitive system. For some promotion and
extra incentives, workers use to complete and conspire against each other. In this process,
they lose their feeling of camaraderie ('komu'roduree – good fellowship) and
belongingness, thus it causes alienation from coworkers and colleagues.

Alienation from self’ that is because of cumulative reasons. Marx said that all the
diversities, adversities and sufferings in all quarters of life among the proletariats finally
causes alienation from the self.

This way Marx identified four stages of alienation in capitalist society –

(i) From the process of production – due to de-objectification of labour.
(ii) From the product - due to exploitation
(iii) From the co-workers - due to competition
(iv) From the ‘self’ - due to cumulative reasons

Further, Marx saw two important characteristics of industrial society. The mechanization
of production and further specialization of division of labour as contributing factor to the
alienation of the workforce. However, he stresses that the capitalist economic system
rather than industrialization as such is the primary source of alienation. Marx argued that
the mechanization of production reduces the physical effort involved in the work, but the
lightening of the labour even become a sort of torture since machine does not free the
labourer from work but deprives it from all interests.

Mechanization and associated mass production reduces the need for skill and intelligence
and removes from work all individual character and consequently all charm for the
workman. He becomes an appendage of the machinery and it is only the most simple,
most monotonous and most easily acquired knack that is required of him.

Industrial society also involves a further extension of division of labour. Men are trapped
in their occupational roles since they must specialize in a particular activity in order to
earn their living. In Marx’s words, ‘Each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity
which is forced upon him which he cannot escape. Freedom and fulfillment are not
possible when man is imprisoned in a specialized occupation since only a limited part of
him can be expressed in one job.” Thus, alienation is inevitable in such socio-economic
system.

Marx finally reached to the conclusion that the alienation among the proletariats lies in
the capitalist society (like social fact of Durkheim) and unless and until the capitalism is
not abolished alienation cannot be removed from the society.

Criticism/Others views

17
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
After the theory of alienation given by Marx, a general experiment, observation, research
and study has been conducted by various researchers in their respective areas and fields
and almost all agreed that non-creativity and alienation do have equally proportional
relation.

Max Weber – He believed that non-creativity and alienation do have a relationship but
he also said that alienation would be found highest among the bureaucrats because of
over-abidance with the rule book. With its emphasis on discipline and strict rules a man
becomes a machine in such a system. He loses his creative powers, his freedom and thus
experience alienation.

C.W. Mills – He identified the maximum alienation among the service sector employee.
In service sector, he believes that “capable objects have been replaced by the capable
subjects” which leads to alienation because the man is a man when they carry their
emotion of love, hatred, tear etc. In service sector, they are detached from these natural
characters.

In a study of American Middle classes entitled ‘White Collar’, [Link] Mills applies
Marx’s concept of alienation to non-manual workers. Mills states that the expansion of
the tertiary sector of the economy in advanced capitalist societies had led to shift from a
‘skills with things’ to ‘skills with persons’. Just as manual worker become like
commodities by setting their ‘skills with things’ a similar process occurs when non-
manual worker sell their ‘skills with persons’ (personality marketing) in the open market.
In ‘skill with persons’, a market value is attached to personality characteristic and as a
result people sell pieces of their personality.

Therefore, managers and executive are employed not simply because of their academic
qualifications and experience but for their ability to get on with (manipulate) people.
Since it is a personality market, so aspects of personality are bought and sold like any
other commodity individuals are alienated from their true selves.

Herbert Marcuse - He believed that non-creativity leads to alienation but he criticized

Marx for merely favoring the proletariats. He believed that alienation will occur among
the capitalist also because of the non-creativity of their work.

Robert Blauner – He tried to relate alienation to technology. He studied various

industrial setups from cottage to small scale and large scale industries and revealed his
study – through “U – curve”
Autonation Alienation

18
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
He found that alienation is less in cottage and small scale industries than large scale
because of the degree of automation. In assembly line production, he found that
alienation is highest. He agreed with Marx.

Melvin M. Seeman – He did not agree with Marx. He believed that alienation is an
insdividualistic phenomena rather than depending upon the system. He tried to broaden
the scope of the term alienation. He included anomie as manifestation of alienation. He
identified five reasons of alienation i.e.
(i) Normlessness
(ii) Meaninglessness
(iii) Powerlessness
(iv) Isolation
(v) Self-estrangement

Conclusion
The theory of Marx is highly debated concept in industrial society. Almost all the
scholars except Melvin M. Seeman agreed that automation or non-creativity of the job is
responsible for alienation in the industrial society.

If we examine, it cannot be denied that if an individual gets job where his/her minds or
heart resides, the chances of enjoying the job is high than those who have been put due to
some constraints or problems in that job.

In US and UK various studies have been conducted regarding the understanding of

alienation and it has been found that those jobs where targets, monotony and pressure is
attached, the chances of switching the job from one to another is also the highest.

In finance sector of US a study has been conducted among the employees of age – group
25 – 50 and it has been found that on average they switch the job 8-10 times in their
career.

Apart from better wages, one reason was a change which they required. Thus, it cannot
be denied that non-creativity leads to saturation which motivates individual to change
their jobs.

On the other hand, it does not only depend upon the nature of job rather the psychological
makeup of individual also plays pivotal role in determining the enjoyment and
estrangement in what they do because in same job some enjoy and other regret. Hence,
individual cannot be left while understanding alienation.

19
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Class Struggle
(Class and Class Struggle)

Class is a very important conceptual tool used by Karl Marx. It is part of method for
understanding and explaining certain aspects of society. Marx uses this concept broadly
in two different ways.
(a.) In a descriptive sense.
(b.) In a sociological sense.

When he uses class in descriptive sense, it means he uses class as classifying device for
identifying various strata that exists in society. This is normally the way an academic
sociologist would describe social stratification system. But as Marx didn’t see himself as
a sociologist, this sense was seen in two of his writings.

(i) In a pamphlet written aftermath of fated revolution in 1848 titled “Revolution and
Counter revolution in Germany”, he talked of seven different classes. (1) Feudal land lord
(2) Bourgeoisie (3) Petty Bourgeoisie (4) Rich peasants (5) Poor peasants (6) Proletariat
(7) Lumpen Proletariat

Lumpen Proletariat is the worst abuse in Marxian lexicon. According to Marx, Lumpen
proletariats are property less people who are not integrated in social system. They often
lived by petty crimes. He called them ‘dangerous class’, as they could be easily hired by
Bourgeoisie to fight against proletariat.

(ii) In yet another pamphlet that he wrote aftermath of Paris commune of 1870 titled
“uprising class and class conflict in France” he talks of rise of different classes. Although
he generally emphasized on two different kinds of classes- ownership and non-ownership
class is capitalist society and lord and serf in feudal societies, he admitted that feudal
society had a very complex hierarchy of structures.

So, Marx was aware in reality that social structure is characterized by a large number of
classes. Even while using class in sociological sense, he restricts himself only to 2 classes
i.e. Owner and non-owner and Bourgeoisie and proletariat.
Owner and non-owner
Bourgeoisie and proletariat
Why he restricts?
Sociological usage of concept of class is primarily intended to explain ‘concept of
conflicts’ and ‘change in society’. Two classes are one that shall demand changes and the
other who resist changes. As these both have opposing interests, conflict arises. As a
society cannot live in perpetual conflict, resolution of conflict brings change.

Marx was not aware of the fact that reality is rather complex. But still he talks only of
two fold development, where class is being used as a conceptual tool, as a part of method
to explain how conflict and change occur.

20
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
So question arises what is a class? The problem is that Marx didn’t present a systematic
definition of class as such. Sometimes he was inconsistently using this term of class. For
example: - he used intellectuals as a parasite class, but they are not a separate class in
owner and non-owner.

Nevertheless in his analysis a certain degree of consistency is found wherein his

definition can be discovered.

Class has to be understood from the point of axis of property. This implies that property
is legally owned by a minority which appropriates profits. The other class does not own
the property and it survives by operating the property owned by the first category.

The first category is the class of owners and is referred to by different terms in different
historical eras. The second category is the class of workers and non-owners. The word
proletariat mean urban industrial labour in Marxian usage. For Marx class was not an
income or occupational category.

A social class in Marx’s term is any aggregate of persons who perform the same function
in the organization of production. It is determined not by occupation or income but by the
position the individual occupies and the function he perform in the process of production.
For example: In Das capital, Marx says income is not basis of class division. A brick
owner and a brick layer, even though they earn same, they belong to different class,
because one is owner of a means of production and another is non-owner. (For example,
two carpenters, one of who is the shop-owner and the other is paid-worker, belong to two
different classes even though their occupation is the same.) Class consists of people who
are similarly related to forces of production and going by this criterion, there are only two
main classes:-
(a) Ownership class
(b) Non-ownership class.

How do classes emerge?

He said, in the earliest stages, which he called primitive communism’, all members of
community would be similarly related to forces of production and they would constitute a
homogenous community, without any class division amongst them.

Class division arises only when surplus generates exists. With generation of surplus,
institution of private property comes to existence to the exclusion of others and this
institution of private property is unequally distributed in society. Thus, some people have
control over forces of production vis-a-vis others. So, others become non-owners.

Due to the emergence of institution of private property, human society has been divided
in all three stages in context of European societies.
(1) Ancient societies (Master-slave)
(2) Feudal societies.(Lord-serf)
21
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 (3) Capitalistic societies.(Bourgeoisies-proletariat)

This is how there has been always two main class division. When class exists they have
mutually opposed interests and this leads to conflict.

Conflict may happen in two ways:-

(a) Clash of interest between owner and non-owner.
(b) Clash of interest between owner of existing private property and those who own
and control emergence of forces of production.

This clash of interest would lead to manifest conflict. This happens when deprived class
acquires a subjective awareness of objective reality.

Based on that it becomes a self conscious group and then resort to political action. Class
antagonism gets articulated in form of class conflict. This is why he distinguishes two
levels at which classes exists.
(a) Class-in-itself
(b) Class-for-itself.

When a member of class who are similarly related to forces of production lack subjective
awareness of their common identity and interest, and lack that conscious to realize a
common interest, such a class is a mere category which is often identified by an observer.
This is class in itself. No conflict will unfold because there is no self-consciousness with
the non-owner group, example, peasants. As long as the conscious doesn’t develop
deprived class suffers from false consciousness.

Once this awareness comes, which he calls ‘class consciousness’, acquire consciousness
of common identity and join hands for collective action to someday, the situation, then
become class-for-itself. Example, Proletariats. In other words, ‘class-in-itself’ and ‘class-
for-itself’ reflects the movement from a class potential self awareness to actual self-
awareness.

While trying to explain the process of change, Marx made a soothing statement (which he
never substantiated), “History of hitherto existing societies is a history of class struggle”.
Change over time that happened in human society is a history of class struggle. He sees
class struggle as a primary vehicle of change.

Marx says feudal societies didn’t develop a conflict between Lord and serf because of
ideology of rural life. The relations between lord and serf were paternalistic. They were
hereditary bonds. In times of famine, serfs had free food to eat from Lords. Because of
this serf couldn’t develop a true class conscious. True characteristics of exploitation were
camouflaged in these paternalistic relations.

But in capitalist societies a new class arose, when new forces of production came up.
Ship building technology, mercantile capitalism etc contributed to development of class.
22
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
With growth of capitalism, Bourgeoisies emerged as a new class. Bourgeoisies felt that
their interests were not protected in feudal system.

At this point of time feudal society was well entrenched and Bourgeoisies was weak. So,
they expressed but as feudal society became decadent, Bourgeoisies led a political action,
which led to a revolution. For example:- French revolution is conflict of classes based on
clashes of interests.

As bourgeoisies was the emergent class, they destroyed feudal order. So, bourgeoisies
played role of progressive class. Feudal lords were the nobility who due to their
conservative nature didn’t approve changes as bourgeoisies wanted to create a new type
of production relations. But to create these change bourgeoisies wanted to change the
super structure and change the means of production. That is why this is a violent, gradual
and evolutionary change.

Then his main focus was analysis of class. How does class concept unfold in society? He
firmly believed that capitalism is bound to destroy self. Capitalism also need not wait for
emergence of new forces of production and a new class. Because once capitalism
develops, contradiction that would develop/surface would be between bourgeoisies and
proletariat. The very nature of capitalistic tends to intensify the exploitation of proletariat
by bourgeoisies.

How very nature of capitalistic is to carry out production for sake of generating surplus.
In a free market economy, where relations are purely contracts and when there is
unlimited right to hold private property, as capitalistic try to generate project on a
sustained basis, as it is not subsistence production, this process will generate certain
contradictions. While production becomes increasingly socialized, control becomes
increasingly individualized due to private property. This is the fundamental contradiction
which would arise.

In capitalistic societies because of free market economy, every capitalist has to compete
with his fellow capitalists for a share in markets. Also there exist forces to continuously
upgrade technology to stay in business. Here, Marx talks of certain variables.

‘S’-Surplus
‘C’-Constant Capital--- money to be used for buying machine, other overhead costs,
utilities etc.
‘V’-Variable capital---- Pay bill of company, money for wages.

As capitalism develops exploitation of workers would be intensified. Raw material has no

meaning till workers work on it. After work is done, it gets an usage value because of
which a market value develops. Inner logic of capitalistic system is to keep or maintain
same level of surplus/rate of surplus.

23
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Rate of surplus= S/(C+V) = Surplus
(constant+ variable) capital

To maintain this ratio, he will have to constantly invest more and more in constant
capital. Quality of products can be increased by investing in constant capital.

If constant capital goes up, rate of profit will fall down, unless variable capital comes
down. Variable capital coming down doesn’t always mean decrease of salary, still he
would be exploited.

250$ 500$ 50% of what he give

500$ 500$ 10% of what he give
Work Production.

Thus, in relation to capitalist, share of worker decrease. This is where exploitation

increases. Thus, there is a built in contradiction. More the constant capital increases, less
would proletariat get even if real wages may increases.

Because of these tendencies, those who cannot compete will be naturally pushed out of
market. So, capitalism has a built in tendency to bring in monopoly capitalists.

As capitalisms irrational system as far as goals are concerned because they are constantly
seeking profit, it tends to end up in over production. Over production also generate a
slump/recession. So, it has boom and slump. In surplus it may lead to boom or slump. In
times of slump, it may lead to extreme chaos.

He identifies three processes here.

(1) PAUPERISATION
Workers are progressively turned to paupers in relation to bourgeoisie or capitalists.
Degree of inequality and disparity is inevitable.

(2) POLARISATION
Marx said that there would be polarization for Marx the middle classes of capitalistic
society is reminiscence of feudal order of 19th century France and Germany. Due to the
exploitative tendencies of the capitalists in capitalistic society sooner or later they would
be forced to join ranks of proletariat. According to this concept the small farmer, small
businessmen and independent professional would gradually be squeezed out. Most of
them forced into the proletariat as employees of large organization owned by a few
wealthy capitalists.

Monopoly capitalists

Middle Class
Proletariats
24
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Thus, on one hand there would be the vast impoverished proletariat and minority
consisting of a monopoly capitalistic. This is how society gets polarized into hostile
groups.

(3) HOMOGENISATION
Further there would be a trend towards homogenization internally. In feudal society, even
amongst proletariat there existed various classes. (For Example: - goldsmith, blacksmith
etc). Marx says there differences would vanish in capitalist society and come under one
roof in the factory sheds. Thus, in terms of physical proximity and class conformity there
would be homogeneity.

This homogenization would facilitate growth of solidarity. There conditions would

facilitate ground for raise of class consciousness, awareness, consciousness of community
and common misery. He goes on to say that, at this stage some members of intelligential
would hasten this process by promoting awareness in workers. Thus, as capitalist’s
mature even the proletariat mature as a class for itself. Then they will resort to political
action and fight against system.

Sometimes this political action may be violent. For example: - people who have to resent
against the government to express grievance may throw the government and capture
power. With power they can destroy capitalism.

Marx diagnosis was quite correct but treatment was wrong. As the sole cause for this
entire problem is inequality, and as inequality is rooted in private property, he said to
abolish private property. And whom it gets destroyed, everyone would work and
production would be need driven and not greed driven and this will lead to creation of a
communist society.

As democracy is a character of bureaucratic society and as hierarchy is inevitable in a

bureaucratic society, he doesn’t subscribe to democracy. Instead, he talks of a classless
society which would be only possible in a communist society. When class is abolished,
proletariat would not fight amongst themselves. Dictatorship and proletariat would
destroy reminiscence of capitalistic and capitalist society. Once capitalism gets destroyed,
state wouldn’t be needed. For Marx, state is an agent of promoting ownership class. So,
state would gradually die out. State would wither away. What we shall have is a classless
and stateless society which would be truly humane society. Man would have a playful
existence. He would do everything becoming anything. The Garden of Eden which was
lost would be regained in communism. This is how class consciousness would unfold in
society.

Critical Evaluation of Marx

What Marx predicted in terms of evolutionary change, it had not happened anywhere on
lines predicted by Marx. The so called socialist revolutions that took place in Russia,

25
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Cuba, China, Vietnam and elsewhere, none of this revolution had proletariat to fight.
Instead of proletariat creating revolution, revolution created proletariat.

In fact Marx theory was modified by Lenin and used. Lenin said when proletariat doesn’t
exist or when proletariat doesn’t develop the class consciousness. Party can act as a
vanguard (leading units) of revolution. For example: - Bolshevik party of Russia
consisting Stalinand Lenin.

So, in these countries, first revolution occurred, then proletariat developed. Later, when
socialist societies went in for massive industrialist ion, proletariat developed. Even when
we consider the other way, even in Marx time, in western class proletariat existed, yet
there was no revolution.

Max Weber was the one who first gave a systematic critique of Marx revolution and
change. Weber says that, classes existed only in capitalistic societies not in all societies.
Class consists of people who share similar market situations. Situations here refer the
ability to draw reward from markets. Because, according to Weber, market situations
determine life character. Life character is chance of acquiring all that is worth in life.

Based on this logic, Weber says, in times of Marx, in capitalistic societies, there are four
classes and not two classes as said by Marx. They are as follows:
(1.) Propertied upper class
(2.) Property less white collar
(3.) Petty Bourgeoisie
(4.) Manual workers.

Weber also sees no possibility of pauperization, polarization and homogenization.

No possibility of polarization because, propertyless white collars will expand as
capitalism matures. Bureaucracy expands with capitalism. He even questions the idea that
there would be homogenization of workers. Later day commentators said manual worker
will shrink with advancement of technology.

Weber admits that Petty Bourgeoisie will face stiff competition but Weber says, they may
not necessarily fall into manual workers, but may join white collars.

So, no polarization. More the automationand mechanization more will be the shrinkage of
manual workers.

As more and more workers gets skilled, more will be fragmentation of workers. Worker
gets fragmented as skilled, semi-skilled and manual workers. In addition to this other
kinds of fragmentation based on ethnic groups etc may emerge. Thus there is no
inevitable homogenization.

26
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Weber sees no possibility of even pauperization. As the more of property less
becomes/enter white collar jobs, though they may be property less, their status difference
in enormous. They will not become paupers, but they will begin to experience nobility.

As said by Jesse Bernard and clackers, this is nothing but “Embourgeoisement” by

workers as bourgeoisie. This makes the worker to become Bourgeoisie. This is the
internal compulsion of capitalism.

In Marxist theory, he says proletariats are paid low, so that capitalists can have high
dividend. Capitalists grow if and only if the purchasing power of proletariat grows. So, it
is in interest of bourgeoisie that proletariat should be paid well and thus are paid well.

As capitalists develop, skills of workers develop because of getting exposed and

acquainted with new technology and machinery. As workers get skilled, their income
levels rises. Skilled labor will start imitating the upper-class. To show their affiliation
with upper-class they become pro conservative then being pro labor. Even if there exists
people who become poor, they want to continue as rich to remain and get recognized as
rich. So, even they not involved in revolution. Thus with advance of capitalism,
Bourgeoisie tendencies have developed in workers themselves.

Gold Thorpe and David Locke conducted a study of affluent workers at factory of wax
hole workers. He found that, although the worker had not become bourgeoisie, but their
attitudes changed. They had no complaints of inequality and accepted it as natural order
of things. Secondly collectivity is not due solidarity but it is due to instrumentalism. Thus
worker doesn’t identify himself with entire class, but rather identify with those issues of
working class which matches and suits his interest. Thus today’s worker went only
instrumental collectivism.

Weber says inequality can exist along three axes:-

(1) Inequality of income
(2) Inequality of owner and property
(3) Inequality of power

Socialist societies can create only equality of income but cannot equality of power and
equality of owner and property.

All socialist societies are industrialized. Bureaucracy is inevitable is an industrialized

society. Also bureaucracy is hierarchical. This is where Gerhard Lenski took Marx to
task. For Marx power was based in wealth. So equal money is equal power for Marx.
Marx said as institution of private property leads to inequality, it needs to be abolished.
His solution was highly simplistic. Lenski says, Marx instead of attributing inequality to
private property, should have probed it.

27
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
According to Lenski the reasons for inequality lies in unequal power. People who were
able to mobilize people got power and through this captured taxes which gave them
wealth. Thus inequality of power led to inequality of wealth.

After revolution, class division developed even in communist societies. They used power
to accumulate wealth. Party, officials, bureaucrats, technocrat’s amassed wealth. When
communism collapsed in Romania and Easten Europe etc, it was found that President of
Romania lived a life of luxury by a massy wealth.

Thus class based inequality didn’t’ develop only due to unequal wealth, but also due to
unequal power. Marx didn’t probe this.

Robert Dahrendorf pointed out that there are plurality of elite. Those who exercise power
are different from those who hold wealth. Thus wealth and power doesn’t overlap as
Marx thought. This will serve interest of capitalists of power was to be exercised by
wealthy; it may weaken solidarity of capitalist class. By keeping them away from power,
capitalist class is serving interest of both. Thus ownership class in not ruling class. This
was said by Poulantzas.

Ralf Dahrendorf has developed criticism of Marxist ideas in context of present day
societies on lines Sumiton to Max Weber, with rejection to class and class conflict in
industrial societies.

Ralph says today’s society is post capitalistic, because today’s societies are different from
Marx time. These ideas are no longer right for late 20th century capital. The following are
the most notable development in post capitalistic societies.
(1.) Decomposition of capital
(2.) Decomposition of labor.
(3.) High social mobility and expansion of middle class
(4.) Rise of welfare state
(5.) Insulation and institutionalizations of conflict.

(1) Decomposition of capital:

In 19th century ownership and control overlap with rise of public limited companies.
Ownership is distributed. But owner doesn’t control, rather manager exercises control.
So, ownership in certain amount is divided.

(2) Decomposition of labor:

Labor as a class instead of homogenous, Danniel says becomes heterogeneous and

fragmented as skilled, semi-skilled and manual workers.

(3) High social mobility and expansion of middle class

28
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Chances of improving life conditions increased. By struggling, climbing social order
becomes possible. So, a revolution is no longer required to improve living conditions.
People prefer immediate change and do not seek to capture everything.

(4) Rise of welfare state:

The rise of welfare state made poverty tolerable. That is why in western societies poverty
is relative. So, with rise in welfare state and due to chances of social mobility, people do
not have revolution fervor.

(5) (a) Institutionalization of conflict:

Inequality does generate conflict but this conflict is now institutionalized. Right to
starker, Board of Arbitration, grievance redressed system do exist to find ways of
solution.

(b) Conflict is insulated:

Strikes are becoming more localized and limited. So, limited conflict remains and get
solved through institutionalization means. So, he says class is to be redefined. In modern
societies ‘Imperatively coordinated Association’. Association is a group of people
together for special interest. There associations are imperatively coordinated because they
have a legitimate authority structure to coordinate. ICA have a hierarchy. Some have
greater authority over other. So, dispute is an authority not an ownership and non owner
conflict. Thus it is an authority based conflict.

Another possibility may be the emergence of factions within ICA. There factions are new
classes E.O. Wright talked of contradictory location of these new middle class. They are
non-owners but yet control that. So, now conflict is concentrated on authority. This is
how new class conflict developed. But yet it is insulated, localized and manageable. This
is how, Marx the prophet failed, but Marx the scientist still remains relevant.

Marx showed how economic forces shape larger social organization. He also shows how
clash of economic interests may generate conflict. Marx works indeed enriches our
knowledge.

But the Marx prophet failed. Whatever Marx predicted, most of it never happened. It is
not capitalism collapsed, rather communism collapsed. Thus communism was the longest
route from capitalism to capitalism.

The so called communism that actually existed in few societies was actually state
capitalism. Communism only developed in those societies where private bourgeoisie
didn’t exist. Here, state took role of transformation from agrarian to industrial society
since done private bourgeoisie took over.

29
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 EMILE DURKHEIM
Division of Labour
Division of Labour (D.O.L.): It is arrangement whereby complex tasks are divided into
number of simpler tasks and allocated among members. Repeated performance of simple
task is specialization.

In his study of ‘Division of Labour’, Durkheim was responding to rise of industrial

societies in Europe looking at both its positive and negative consequence/dimensions. But
he did this in a purely speculative manner. He didn’t go about systematically collecting
data. He was only guided by deductive logic and common sense assumptions.

He was not the first to explore the consequence of D.O.L in society. Even before him the
term was already in use.

Almost 100 years before he started writing on D.O.L, importance of D.O.L was
highlighted by Adam Smith, Ricardo etc. Adam Smith says
1. Modern industrial society is due to increasing D.O.L.
2. Industrial production is efficient as machines are powered not by muscular energy
but due to hydrocarbons which are inanimate sources of energies. Thus a much
greater supply of energy is available. But this is possible only if proper
coordination is maintained.

D.O.L was discovered as sign of progress and sign of prosperity with increasing levels of
consumption. D.O.L was explained by classical economists purely on economic basis.
This mode of thinking persists in economists even today.

Durkheim accepts to what economist say but says that this definition is sociologically
inadequacy. He argues that, unlike what economists argue, ‘division of labour’ is not
peculiar to economic life, but political, administrative, judicial, arts, science… all
functions are becoming more and more specialized.

According to him, cause of D.O.L. is to be seen in preceding social facts and

consequence of social facts is to be seen a society as a whole.

Question that Durkheim raises:

The fundamental question that Durkheim raises is what are consequences of D.O.L for
social solidarity? Solidarity is a feature of whole society while productivity is only
economic. He said as D.O.L increases, individual becomes more autonomous. But the
question, how can an individual be more solidarity and yet individualistic at same time.
Along with this he raised other subsidiary questions.

30
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 (a) What causes a change in D.O.L? If societies based on high D.O.L have to be more
solidarity, why do present day industrialized societies have so much of chaos and
disorganization?
(b) How could this problem be mitigated?

Study of D.O.L is an attempt to answer all these questions.

He doesn’t apply positivist science here, but looks at possibility of applying here. He
gives a logical explanation.

For Durkheim, the question to ask is not whether a solidarity exists but in what form it
exists. He considers the form of law present in the society to be representative of the
social solidarity which is present at collective conscience level and hence not amenable
(willing to comply) to direct measurement. He argues thus that solidarity can be studied
through visible symbol, i.e. law, as law in a society is the very social organization in its
most stable and precise form.

Further, to study different forms of law, he identifies the type of sanction as a measuring
criteria. Thus there can be repressive sanctions, which is often brutal and severe, and
there is restitutive sanctions which are aimed at restoring normalcy or the previous state
of affairs, rather than punishing the perpetrator.

Durkheim in his book ‘Division of Labour’ argued that solidarity is present in modern
society but in a different form and content, compared to simple societies.

Simple societies were marked by mechanical solidarity:

- Based on similarities
- Based on high degree of common values and experience
- All people are more or less self-sufficient, generalist and hence bonded by similar
experiences, responsibilities and values and morality
- Marked by repressive laws as any act against this shared morality is responded to
in strong terms.

Causes of DOL
Durkheim argues that D.O.L. is gradually introduced in simple societies due to three
social facts which are morphological:
(i) Volume of population increases – from the dispersed settlement to
concentrated settlement, where by population gets concentrated, due to
pressure from increased population. Example, from hunting gatherer to
Agricultural settlement.
This increases the density of population, due to increase in population, i.e.
volume and size of population, and social volume.
(ii) Increase in population density (material density) – formation and development
of towns, where the social mass is contracting more strongly than elsewhere,

31
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 where by physical distance between people reduces and the society sheds its
segmentary character.
- and these two lead to;
(iii) Increased interaction (moral density) – increase in the number and speed of
the means of communication and transmission.

(this which he collectively terms as ‘dynamic density’)

Thus concentration of society determines the DOL, and DOL in turn increases the
concentration of society. Not only density, but social volume also plays a determining
role. Durkheim says that, “The division of labour varies in direct proportion to the
volume and density of society and if it progresses in a continuous manner over the course
of social development it is because societies becomes regularly more dense and generally
more voluminous.”

Rather than increased volume and density of societies permitting DOL, it actually
necessitates it. Thus it is not the instrument or means, but the cause itself of DOL.

DOL increases with increased dynamic density

Durkheim quotes Auguste Comte to explain how DOL increases with increased dynamic
density. Thus increased concentration over limited area, means increased competition
between them in the given area. This facilitates social evolution, whereby it either
stimulates individuals to put forth fresh efforts using refined methods, or by acting with
greater energy and persistence in more concerted fashion increasing one’s specialisation.

To elaborate, dynamic density causes more people fighting for limited and scarce
resources. This competition gets transformed to differentiation and specialization, which
converts the competitive interaction to complementary in nature. Further, specialization
makes increased efficiency.

Thus, because each part as it gets more specialized, it gets more incomplete and thus
more interdependent. Basis of unity is ‘we are one, because we need each other! In other
words, here individuals become part producers and full consumers and hence increasingly
interdependent, based on differences develops into a solidarity which he calls organic
solidarity. It is marked by restitutive laws, as offences are not seen as offences against the
collectively held morality, rather seen as against private individuals. Further, common
values and morality is present, albeit (even though) in a much lesser extend and intensity
compared to mechanical solidarity. This is how he demonstrated, with change of DOL,
solidarity moves from mechanical to organic.

Thus Durkheim argues, a society marked with organic solidarity leads to more solidarity
and more individuality, because it has built in mechanism to preserve unity i.e.
interdependence.

32
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Problem with Durkheim’s Conclusion:
Now the conclusion he arrives at creates problems. Facts run counter to conclusion. He
says that societies based on high D.O.L. should have high solidarity because there are
built in mechanism. But Europe in his times, with high D.O.L. there were high chaos and
disorganization.

He answers these using pathological forms of DOL. He says that ideally if high DOL is
normal type, then solidarity is high. But in Europe in his times had high DOL which was
pathological and chaos and conflict. He identifies three abnormal/pathological types of
high DOL.
(1) Anomic DOL
(2) Forced DOL
(3) Lack of Coordination

Anomic DOL: refers to lack of regulation in a society. Durkheim believed that normative
regulation is fundamental to man because unlike lower order animals whose desires are
fixed, human desires have no limit. (This is further developed in his concept of anomic
suicide, where human beings lack sufficient moral restraints.) As a limit has to be put on
human desires only agency that can put a limit is society.

If that normative regulation of mechanism break-down, anomic (normlessness) occurs.

Then human desires tend to become unlimited. For example: capitalism believes in
continuous and progressive increase in profits. Not only capitalists but even workers are
equally bad, because even workers want high wages. Trade unions replace individual
greed with collective greed, there is industrial strife.

According to Durkheim, though DOL normally should lead to increased interaction and
interdependence and hence increased organic solidarity, he argues that in ‘abnormal’
cases the lack of common sentiments (mechanical solidarity) may promote isolation of
individuals as they specialize more and more and hence lead to anomie.

Solution: Solution lies in restoring normative regulation in society. For example,

Industrial production should be replace as corporations where it shouldn’t have more
targets of production; rather it should behave like a community, workers and capitalist
should arrive at commonly shared and accepted norms. There should be a mutual
agreement, voluntarily arrived at. Unlike Marx, Durkheim thought problem of capitalism
can be solved within frame work of capitalism only.

Forced DOL: (Anomie of injustice) - In Anomic D.O.L, not enough norms are there. But
in forced D.O.L., norms are unjust and thus called anomie of injustice.

Societies based on high D.O.L are characterized by principles of social justice which is
equated with equality of opportunity. If society rejects equality of opportunity, these
norms are unjust.

33
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
A society in which rules and regulations regarding division of labour force individuals,
groups and classes to positions for which they are ill-suited. Thus traditions, economic
power, status etc determine who performs what job regardless of talent and qualification.
Here Durkheim takes a Marxian form.

Solution: Marx sees abolition of private property as a solution to this. Unlike Marx,
Durkheim talked differently; Durkheim asked to abolish the law of inheritance. It is
because society has to abolish a system which can make people unequal at birth. Thus
after growth, based on talents, unequal awards can be given. Conflict will vanish as there
would be justice. (In such time, demands of Maoists will die.)

Lack of Coordination: When increased specialization do not result in increased

interdependence but simply in isolation, then DOL will not lead to social solidarity. As
D.O.L increases, coordination of work becomes more and more important because each
part is incomplete and highly dependent on others. Every society has to create a rational
arrangement to coordinate activities of diverse parts.

This is how he talks of conflict in industrial societies and the ways to mitigate it.

Today Sweden, Norway etc. are very close to what Durkheim had said of man, tries to
hand in this direction he will achieve it. To implement this both state and society should
work in tandem with each others.

Criticism:
David Lockwood in his study mentions the lack of clarity in Durkheim’s idea between
levels of integration, which drives into erroneous (wrong) conclusion. Durkheim said that
high division of labour would lead to higher solidarity, Lockwood says, there are two
integrations i.e. system and social.

System integration: When there is high interdependence or any entity which is made up
of interconnected parts. High division of labour is system integration i.e. more dependent
on each other. He says, Durkheim confuses this with social integration.

Social integration: When members feel united as one. This results only when people
have shared beliefs and sentiments, but as specialization occurs diversity of beliefs and
sentiments emerges. Hence, when Durkheim give solution, he suggests alternative basis
of enhancing social and community life. Durkheim is not able to distinguish between
system and social integration.

- Durkheim failed to recognize division of society into classes. He seems to believe

that entire society has common values. The so called Collective Conscience are
actually values which belong to elite, which are indoctrinated and forced upon
subordinate class. He is rather naïve in believing that entire society has common
features.

34
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 - Some sociologists have pointed out that Durkheim’s conclusion are rather naïve,
as far as he generally shows that high division of labour as a sign of human
progress. There are certain problems which are intrinsic to high division of labour.
Therefore, as long as high division of labour is there, problem will exist.

- Karl Marx, Max Weber, Herbert Marcuse highlighted problem of fragmentation

of work, stultification (impairment) of labour i.e. losing interest on work and
leisure. Both work and leisure are robbed-off the meaning. Meaning comes only
with total emersion, the whole relation that emerge out of high division of labour
is sole relation i.e. instrumental. That is why it is dehumanizing (deprive of
human qualities).

Differences between Mechanical Solidarity and Organic Solidarity

Mechanical Solidarity
(i) Marked by repressive law
(ii) Commonness of beliefs and sentiments to all members of society
(iii) Solidarity marked by this commonness of sentiments and the intensity
strength of common ideas and tendencies shared.
(iv) Here solidarity and personality in inverse relationship, as uniqueness of
individual against collective conscience of society, which is external, coercive
and sui generis (constituting a class of its own, unique)
(v) This kind of solidarity reaches the maximum, when the collective
consciousness completely envelops our individual consciousness, i.e. when
individuality is zero. Hence two opposing forces, one centripetal, the other
centrifugal.
(vi) Thus Durkheim argues in such societies the individual social molecules lack
any movement of their own, can only move as a unit, and along it. Thus he
suggests such kind of solidarity as mechanical, as an analogy to inorganic raw
materials cohesion.
(vii) In such societies individual does not belong to himself rather he is at the
‘disposal’ of the society, hence marked by severe, repressive laws.

Organic Solidarity
i) Durkheim argues that situation is entirely different, in case of solidarity that
brings about the DoL. Whereas the mechanical solidarity assume individuals
resemble each other, the organic solidarity assumes that they are different
from each other.
ii) This solidarity is possible only when each individual has a sphere of action of
his own, and consequently a personality.

35
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 iii) Thus Collective Conscience leaves uncovered a certain part of the individuals
consciousness so that there may be established in it those special functions
which it cannot regulate.
iv) Further, the more extensive this free area is, the stronger the cohesion that
arises from this solidarity.
i.e. On the one hand, each one of us depends more intimately upon the society
the more labour is divided up, on the other hand, the activity of each one of us
becomes more and more specialized, making it more personal.
v) Thus here the individuality of the whole grows along the same time as that of
its parts, giving more freedom of maneuverability (directing the course) to
individuals while at the same time maintaining the coherence in direction of
the unit as a whole.
vi) This Durkheim argues resemble that of a higher organism, wherein each organ
has its own special characteristics and autonomy, yet the greater the unity of
the organism, the more marked the individualization of parts, the more
interdependent the parts are. Thus organic solidarity.

36
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Social Facts
Durkheim defined Sociology as essentially the study of social facts and explanation of
such facts in a sociological manner. Thus the subject matter of sociology refers to
attributes of collectivity i.e., social facts.

Fact means something that exists on its own, so it can be known by observation. Thus
they are objective facts. They are social because they deal with collectivity. Finally
objective facts are social facts because they exist at an independent level and are
independent of observer.

In social life there are some facts that are inexplicable (incapable of being explained) in
terms of physical or psychological analysis. There are ways of acting, thinking and
feeling which are external to the individual and are endowed with a power of coercion
over him. These Durkheim chooses to call social facts. For example, maxim of public
morality, family and religious observance (conformity with custom, practice etc.) and
rules of professional behaviour. These realities are Durkheim’s social fact and constitute
the main source of sociological study.

Social Fact as ‘Thing’

Social facts, Durkheim claims should be regarded as ‘things’. He observes that previously
sociology dealt more or less exclusively with concepts not with things. Comte and
Spencer for example devoted large parts of their writings to discuss on the course of
human progress, but progress is a mental conception and not a fact that can be verified by
empirical research. For Durkheim a thing differs from a conceptual idea in the same way
as that which we know from without differs from that we know from within.

Social facts in Durkheim’s view therefore are ‘things’ because they referred to:
(a) An entity possessing certain definite characteristics which are independent of
human observation,
(b) An entity, the existence of which is independent of human volition (will),
(c) An entity, which can be known only through external observation and not by
introspection.

Hence, social facts have three basic characteristics i.e.

- Exteriority
- Constraint, and
- Generality

To explain further to an acting individual, a social fact is exterior in the sense that it is an
independent reality which neither he nor any other individual has created and which
literally forms a part of his objective environment. Example, Moral rules and moral
principles exist by their own.

37
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
The social fact as they are both real and external posses the characteristics of constraint in
that they do not conform to the volition of individuals. On the contrary, they impose
themselves on individuals regulating their behaviour. This is a compelling force.
Example, love is a contingent (a gathering of persons representative of some larger
group) pressure. You are always seeking approval of society.

Further, social facts are generalized picture in which every individual peculiarity is not
included. Social facts are general because they are collective. Shared and deference
feelings. Example, Law, patriotism (Indo-Pak match) etc.

Social facts vary from society to society depending on the manner in which the
constituent parts of society are grouped and the different form of association in a society.
As examples of social facts, one can pinpoint the religious system, political system, moral
system and legal system etc.

According to some commentators like Ritzer, Durkheim distinguish between 2 kinds of

social facts namely
(a) Material social facts
(b) Non-material social facts.

Although Durkheim didn’t classify as such, such a distinction can indeed be found, i.e.
size and density of population which he termed as material volume and material density.
Because of usage of such terms by Durkheim, commentators distinguished in two
categories.

Other attributes like architecture of society is a material social fact. At the same time he
also talks about shared values, beliefs, and sentiments which are non-material. This
distinction though not formally stated, is maintained by him.

Genesis and Development of Social Facts

He also explains how social facts develop. He says when a group of people in a certain
geographical setting which he called morphological factors will give rise to social
currents. They are socially shared ideas and beliefs and sentiments. When social current
becomes institutionalized they turn into social facts. Some social facts die out in the
middle. There are transient social currents like short lived fashion. To a while they are
collectivity shared and to that content they are social. This is how he explains genesis and
development of social facts.

Furthermore, Durkheim has talked about two types of Social Facts i.e. Normal Social
Facts and Abnormal/Pathological Social Facts.

1. Normal Social Facts: Those social facts which contributes and are functional for the
society in its continuity and stability. Durkheim said that even the crime and deviance to
some extent are normal social facts that are good for the society. Occasional crimes or
deviance help society in two ways:
38
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
(i) These crises give a chance for the society to strengthen its solidarity.
(ii) It helps society to identity the causes of the crises so that the corrective measures can
be taken before it can make some bigger damage.

2. Abnormal/Pathological Social Facts: These are harmful or dysfunctional for the

society. Rate of crime, suicide etc. increases beyond a normal rate, it is considered as
pathological and serious measures should be taken, otherwise society leads to
normlessness, anarchy or anomie.

Durkheim believed that society is supreme and not the individual. Individuals born in a
society where norm, values, expectations, laws, rules etc. are already existing which
individual have to accept in their life. These values or norms are coercive because it
represents ‘collective sentiment’ and whenever individual defies it, it is considered as a
challenge given by the individual to the community.

Durkheim believes that while studying social facts researcher must consider social facts
‘external’ to the individual. Durkheim believed that individual follows the prescribed
norms of society throughout their life because it is considered as important for their own
survival. Durkheim also accepts that society tolerates occasional deviance because it
believes that even the most conformist individual may behave or act against the
‘community sentiment’ sometimes.

Thus, Durkheim believed that the subject matter of sociology is social facts i.e. those
aspects of thinking and acting which are independent of individual, coercive and general
in nature.

Criticism:
1. Max Weber – ‘Developing sociology on the line of natural sciences was a blunder on
the part of positivists’. He believes that natural sciences deal with objects whereas
sociology with subjects, hence the rules of natural sciences cannot be applied on society.

2. Nicholas Timasheff – He believes that while developing sociology on the lines of

science, Durkheim became most unscientific by ignoring individual consciousness.
Individual without consciousness is like animals. While studying social fact Durkheim
completely ignores individual capability of independent thinking. A society cannot be
imagined, while undermining the consciousness of individual.

3. George Kathleen – Believes that individual merely do not follow the collective
sentiment rather through their individual efforts, vision, wisdom etc. they change the
norms of society. Social reformers, revolutionaries etc. comes in this category but social
facts does not consider these or accepts these facts.

4. Raymond Aron – Believed that Durkheim’s sociology is an orthodox sociology. He

explained sociology as well integrated parts which he called social physiology. In reality

39
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
cooperation-conflict, love-hate, conformity-deviance all exist together but Durkheim
ignored these things in this perspective.

40
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Suicide
Durkheim studied suicide and rate of suicide, to establish the power of the sociological
method of empirical study of social facts to explain social phenomenon. By studying a
private and personal act such as suicide, he wanted to establish his sociological tradition.
Not interested in why person committed suicide, that Durkheim said belonged to the field
of psychology. Rather he studied ‘rate of suicide’ in different societies and in same
societies over different times. This he said is a social fact, as ‘rate of suicide’ appeared to
have a reality and continuity in every society outside of individual acts of suicide.

Consistency of suicide rate shows that suicide is a social fact because:

(1.) Suicidogenic currents are exterior- exteriority
(2.) Suicidogenic currents compel- constraint
(3.) Suicidogenic currents are diffused throughout society and - generality

As suicide is a social fact, its cause also needs to be social. Thus, Durkheim starts by
looking at various theories explaining suicides, like biological/psychological
/geographical and climate theories and rejects them on empirical counts. He also analysed
Gabriel Tarde’s imitation theory of suicide, and rejects it.

Durkheim’s theory of suicide is marked for its impeccable collection and analysis of data
on suicide from various sources and is an example of inductive (of reasoning; proceeding
from particular facts to a general conclusion) theory building approach. In every country
from which he collected data, he found that:
(1.) Rate of suicide was more in protestants than Catholics,
(2.) Rate of suicide is greater in men than woman,
(3.) Rate of suicide is greater in unmarried than married and he found, amongst
married couples, couples having more children are least prone to suicide.
(4.) Suicide was high during time of peace than at war.

These are the patterns he found in his data. Though they are not related to each other,
common thread by looking beneath the apparent variation showed lack of solidarity and
cohesion.

Protestants- lower cohesion. Protestantism encourages the free enquiry of God as

compared to Catholics who have established systems of beliefs and practices. The greater
concessions a religion makes to individual judgement the less it dominates life.

Men- by nature are loners and individualistic, so low solidarity. Women by nature are
gregarious and group oriented.
Unmarried- They are not part of well knit group, no kinship etc. But for married people,
they are part of well knit group.
Peace- At peace, relations are normal and solidarity is low. But during war patriotism
spring up and collectivity comes. So high solidarity.
41
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Durkheim explains different rate of suicides in different societies on the basis of
collective sentiments they hold as a society. Even when he accepts individual reasons, he
says it only exposes and makes him vulnerable to the social current (suicidal current)
flowing through the society, of which’s nature and intensity is determined by the
collective conscience held by the society.

Durkheim identifies two social facts i.e. integration and regulation, present in the society
as describing the nature of collective conscience and as a link to suicide rates. (i)
Integration is level of attachment of individual to society. (ii) Regulation is degree of
external control on people.

Fatalistic (High Regulation)

Egoistic (Low Integration) Altruistic (High Integration)

Anomic (Low Regulation)

On basis of these two social facts, Durkheim develops his theories of ‘Suicide’, which are
of four types i.e. Egoistic, Altruistic, Anomic and Fatalistic.

1. Egoistic Suicide: Lack (low) of integration. In egoistic suicide individual conscience is

not in harmony with collective conscience. Individual conscience finds nothing
meaningful in life goals prescribed by collective conscience. For individuals, suicide is a
way through which individual conscience asserts its superiority over collective
conscience. That is why Durkheim calls it ‘egoistic suicide’. Example, current of
depression and disillusionment, unmarried men, protestant communities.

2. Altruistic Suicide: Excessive (high) integration. Durkheim found another type of

relationship of the individual with the moral order i.e. excessive binding of the individual
to society which often leads to suicide. This is seen among the societies which impose
ancient forms of obedience. Here, the individual is so rigorously governed by customs
and traditions that there is repeated tendency among individuals to subordinate personal
interests and sacrifice one’s life in order to achieve social ends. Societal goals are more
important than individual, hence Durkheim calls it ‘Altruistic Suicide’. Example, Army

42
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
(soldier), LTTE bombers, fidayeen in Islam, Hara-kiri in Japan, and Kavalya in Jains.
Sati Roop Kanwar in India etc.

3. Anomic Suicide: Lack (low) of regulation. Another pattern he found was, whenever
there are sudden changes in society, suicides rates are high. This type of suicide is called
‘anomic suicide’ It is because normative deregulation exists in society. Anomic means
normlessness or normative deregulations. Norms takes long time to get developed and
internalized. So, conflict between tradition and modernity is example of anomie where
values of modernity oppose values of traditions. But people want modernity with
tradition which is not possible to exist overnight. So anomie result. Example, when Nazis
took over Germany, lot of suicides occurred. Industrial or financial crisis. Sudden
implementation of Mandal commission report which gave reservation for OBC in
Government sector, resulted in many suicides among upper castes as they couldn’t find
jobs. But today OBC reservation doesn’t create suicide as private sector offer jobs.

4. Fatalistic Suicide: Excessive (high) regulation. Another kind of theory, which he

found when he went through historical record, is ‘Fatalistic Suicide’. Where there is over-
regulation and leaving no scope for choice or freedom; where passions and desires are
choked to the extent of being oppressive. Example, ancient Greek and Roman Slaves
societies had high rates of suicide. Earlier, widowhood in India, couple suiciding after
intercaste marriages etc.

Thus, suicide is established as a social fact and suicidogenic impulses as originating from
society itself. Durkheim suggests moral education and higher integration through
occupational growth as social solutions to the social problem of high rate of suicide.

Criticism:
1. J.W. Darwis: Believed that primarily suicide is an individual fact than the social fact.
In any society, human resources are highly valued and no society provokes its individual
to commit suicide. It is a crime in almost all societies.

2. J.B. Doug: In his study says that explaining suicide only in terms of social facts is at
best incomplete in itself. We can’t ignore individual meanings. Infact a successful suicide
is once in a lifetime thing. Such a vital decision being taken without rationality looks
incomplete.

3. Gabriel Tarde: The imitation theory of suicide of Gabriel Tarde also rejects
Durkheim’s theory as a social fact. He believes that there are a lot of cases of suicide
individual hears here and there when they come in a particular situation, they follow one
of it. He found that after the case of suicide of a celebrity in US, lots of people followed
the same for sometime. David Philips in his study found Tarde’s theory true. He found
that whenever there was a celebrity committed suicide, the suicide rates shoot up,
because people identify themselves with celebrities. So, imitations have a role to play.
This is suggestibility that suicide is right thing to do.

43
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
4. Marris: Believed that suicide is mainly a psychological phenomena because accepting
the pressure in unfavourable situations is not same of every individual. He believes that
the psychological or individual reason cannot be ignored.

5. Atkinson: He questions Durkheim claims that, rates of suicide are a factual order
existing by itself as if official statistics are permanently valid. He questions the data itself.
He says officials can’t decide nature of suicide or even say whether it is a suicide or not.
It is just done by attributing common sense meanings/assumptions. Also in poor and
developing countries, official records can be manipulated. So, we can’t claim data to be
infallible. And once data itself is faulty, theory is an obvious fault.

6. Douglas: He also says that there is a built in bias for data in Durkheim’s theory.
Douglas also says that, in Europe suicide is stigmatized. If suppose in a community,
where solidarity is high, they will not report death as suicides, but report it as an accident.
So, in societies of high integration, there is low reporting. But in societies of low
integration, there is high reporting.

So, both Atkinson and Douglas question the veracity (truthfulness) of data.

44
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Religion and Society
Elementary Form of Religious Life
This study was important as a demonstration/manifestation of his functionalist
methodology. Functionalism refers to contribution of parts towards the maintenance and
well being of the whole. This idea came from biology and was also used by Spencer. It
was hinted by Spencer but Durkheim developed this in his study and methodology.

His ‘study of suicide’ is a causal explanation, but his ‘study of religion’ is a functional
explanation and it is the basic method of accounting for basis of stability and order in
society. In Spencer’s work major focus was ‘stability’. But Durkheim shifted focus to
‘change’ due to the social conditions of his time like conflicts etc. his important focus
was on stability restoration in society and this he does through his functional explanation.

Besides being a functionalist, he was also a positivist. His basis of study and
experimentations was empirical data. However he didn’t collect empirical data by
himself. Rather he relied on ethnographic accounts of certain other scholars like Spencer
and Grill.

Durkheim used data from a book named ‘native tribes of south Eastern Australia’ written
by Benjamin Hewitt. This was a similar kind of ethnographic account. As the title
suggests, it was a study of ‘Totem’ worship. {Actually found in Native American
societies}

In the book ‘Elementary Form of Religious Life’, Durkheim addressed three things:
(i) How individual internalized ‘social’, through rituals and collective
effervescence. – This linked social facts to human consciousness
(ii) He put forward a sociology of religion
(iii) He put forward a sociology of knowledge

Totem Worship
It is a particular kind of religious practices found in very simple societies. Totem is an
object which could be animate or inanimate. The groups believe that they have descended
from that object and its mythical ancestors. It is mythical because one couldn’t
empirically find out evolutionary relation between humans and animal there. For
example; Cow is mother in Hindus. But nevertheless they are objects of worship.

Durkheim’s Theory of Religion

Durkheim studied totemism as the primitive religion practised by Arunta tribes of
Australia to come forth with his theory of religion.

He believed modern religion, though essentially performing same functions, is marked by

a myriad (a large indefinite number) of ideologies, and decorations and it would be
difficult to study the primitive religions, which was predecessor to all religions, which
45
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
share only but all essential elements of religion, as it would be easier to study them, as
entire clan had total moral and intellectual conformity to the religion.

In primitive communities religion is an all encompassing collective conscience. But as

society grows more specialized, religion comes to occupy an increasingly narrow
domain. Other collective representations like law, science, political life etc. come to
occupy distinct space in the collective representations of modern society have their origin
in all encompassing religion of primitive society.

Totemism, as performed by Arunta tribe is a religious system in which certain things,

plants and animals, come to be regarded as sacred, and also as emblems of clan.
Durkheim believed totemism to be simplest and most primitive form of religion.

Further they kept these sacred totems apart from the mundane, and utilitarian things of
everyday life, which had no sacredness associated with them and hence profane. Thus,
Durkheim argued religion is all about setting apart of sacred from the profane. Thus on
the one hand, sacred things bring out an attitude of reverence, obligation and awe, and on
the other hand it is this attitude of awe, obligation and reverence that transforms them
from profane to sacred.

Characteristics of Sacred
(1.) Circle of sacred varies from society to society.
(2.) Sacredness is superimposed

(for example: nothing is scared by itself - Empirically what is sacred and profane can’t be
decided. Example, Hindus believe that Ganges is scared, but empirically there is nothing
pure about that. When Ayatollah Khomeini died in Iran, the body was wrapped in a
shroud and kept in coffin.’ There is nothing special about the shroud. But moment it
came to be used on his body, It became object of worship. The riots in Moradabad were
due to a pig which entered inside mosque as pig is considered profane In Islam. But
Tribes of Malingerer believe that they are descendants of pig’s comparison with pig
would be a compliment for them. So sacred and profane are not an empirical basis and
they are superimposed.)

(3.) Sacred is ‘non-utilitarian’: Example: - In Rig-Veda people worshiped cow not

because of its milk. Also cow milk has less cholesterol vis-à-vis Buffalos milk
and then buffalo should have been worshipped. But that was not the case. Also
peepal tree is sacred for Hindus. But there is no use of it.
(4.) Sacred is believed by people of having superiors power: Often there is
ambiguity about sacred. It could be malevolent and benevolent at times. Example:
some year back in Amaranth yatra, terrorists ambushed pilgrims. People said they
are lucky as they died a pilgrimage. But people who escaped were also considered
lucky.
(5.) Conduct of sacred is not amenable to reasons and logic
46
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Example: when a person dies at age of 90, people say because god liked him
more, he protected him for 90 years. At the same time when a young boy dies,
people say, because god loved him more, he took him to his abode early. Both are
contradictory.
(6.) Sacred is supposed to make ethical demands on people:

Example: Tonsure at Tirupati. People believe that if tonsure is done, they would
attract blessing of sacred.

Further he looked into data on Totemism supplied by the studies. Taking Totem as an
example of sacred, he makes a descriptive account of Totem worships.

Durkheim says that, people who worship a common totem identify themselves with a
common name. They behave as if they are related to each other by blood. They also
recognize duties and obligations towards each other which includes participation in
celebration, mourning, vengeance and an obligation of not to marry each other.

Durkheim says Totemic beliefs are real forces. They are seen as forces lying outside
individuals and they have moral authority over individuals. They create moral obligation.
Furthermore, this force is seen as continuous form of individual change.

Based on that he deduces totem acts as an emblem of society. Studying totemism of

Arunta tribes, Durkheim noticed peculiarity of totem. At once it is sacred, to be revered
and at the same time it was also the identity of the clan (emblem of society). Totem
creates a cohesive group creating rights and obligations. Totem acts as an agency of
moral regulations and causal force.

Thus, Kwakatoo clan will have kwakatoo as the totem and nothing else i.e. totem
represents both sacred and society at the same time, from which Durkheim deduces
‘Society is Sacred’. Thus in Durkheim’s theory of religion, society is the source of all
superior moral power which inspires individuals; and Religion symbolically embodies
(represents) society itself.

Religion is the system of symbols by means of which society becomes conscious about
itself. Thus every society had a religion but they had different sets of beliefs. Society is a
power that is greater than we are, it transcends (greater, superior) us, demands sacrifices
and fills us with energy.

To the sacred – profane distinction, a few more conditions are needed to make religion.
(i) Belief : - which express the nature of sacred things and relationship between
sacred things, and sacred things and profane.
(ii) Rituals: - The code of conduct while one is in presence of sacred things.
(iii) Church: - an overarching (dominant) moral community.

47
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
On basis of this, Durkheim defines religion as ‘a religion is a unified system of beliefs
and practices which unite into a single moral community called church, all those who
adhere to them.

Thus, totemism and more generally religion is derived from the collective morality and
becomes itself an impersonal force. [Those who practice religion are neither victims of
illusion or hallucination, but one law abiding citizens of their society. A religion is
nothing but a way of indirectly expressing man’s dependence on society. Both source and
object of religion is society.]

Extra: Good Example - Christianity said, god created man in his own image. But
Durkheim said man created god in his own image. Flag didn’t create Indian, but Indian
created flag. Religion is now only a symbolic representation in society.

Sociology of Knowledge
Durkheim argued that it is through rituals the moral power of society is transformed into
religious symbols which bind individuals to the group.

Next he argues that this moral bond becomes a cognitive bond because the categories of
understanding, such as classification, time, space and causation are also derived from
religious rituals.

Thus Durkheim viewed totemism, as a way of providing a world view, a coherent

understanding of outside world to its members. Totems were a way of classification
rituals provided with a shared understanding of space, time and categories etc.

Thus, he entered into the knowledge debate in philosophy of empiricism and apriorism
(a·pri·o·rism --ey-pree--- the philosophical doctrine that there may be genuine knowledge
independent of experience).

Durkheim differed with both. He argued that human knowledge is not a product of
experience alone, nor are people born with certain mental categories to be applied to
experience. He argues that categories are social creation, they are collective
representations. [Marx had also given a theory of knowledge (Ideology)]

Durkheim presents the origin of six fundamental categories as linked to religion and
social life:
- Time : Rhythms of social life
- Space : Division of space occupied by society
- Classification : from Totemism
- Force : from experiences of social forces
- Causality : from imitative rituals
48
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 - Totality : Society itself

Thus Durkheim sees science as developing out of religion rather than being opposed to
religion. He also explains why certain categories have developed universally despite of
their autonomous development, on the bases that they were essential for social life.

Collective effervescence: The times in history when a collectivity is able to achieve a

new and heightened level of collective exaltation that in turn can lead to great changes in
structure of society. Example, Reformation period, Renaissance period. Thus collective
effervescence are the decisive formative moments in social development.

Religion connects individuals and society, since it is through rituals that social categories
become the basis for individual concepts.

Criticism:
Religion and Society
Durkheim’s theory of religion is primarily a positivist functionalist view. He tried to
study religion as like natural sciences and only explained the functional aspect of
religion. This theory has been criticized on many accounts.

1. Alexander Goldenweiser : He criticized Durkheim’s theory on three grounds:

(a) How Durkheim can claim that Arunta is the most primitive tribe and their religion is
the most ancient religion of world?
(b) In many of the primitive communities, Goldenweiser found that the totem is different
and they are worshipping something else. Thus, it cannot be said that totem is the God.
(c) In simple societies, the distinguishness between sacred and profane can be made
easily but not in complex societies.

2. Edmund Leach: He criticized this theory by calling it an ‘over—functionalist theory’.

Durkheim had never discussed the dysfunctional aspect of religion like superstitions,
exploitations, communal violence on the name of religion. For him, religion is always
functional for the society which is one-sided view.

3. Raymond Firth : He said that origin of religion is a mysterious phenomena whose

evolution cannot be identified by a particular theory. It has lots of reason and
characteristic that a single theory cannot explain its form and origin. Any single claim
cannot be right claim.

Extra:
Goldenweiser saw in totemism three phenomena that could exist singly and actually
coincided only in the rarest of cases. These phenomena were: (1) clan organization, (2)
clans taking animal or plant names or having "emblems" obtained from nature, and (3)
belief in a relationship between groups and their totems. Goldenweiser did not perceive
these phenomena as a unity, since any of them could exist apart from the others.
49
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Goldenweiser in 1915–16 and 1918 criticized Lang, Frazer, and Durkheim and insisted
that totemism had nothing to do with religion; he held instead that man in no way viewed
his totem as superior to himself or as a deified being but viewed it as his friend and equal.
Goldenweiser was of the opinion that all totemistic manifestations do have at least
something of a kind of religion, but he was not inclined to include the guardian spirit
conception within totemism.

Relevance of Durkheim’s Idea on Third World /Industrial Societies

Durkheim’s theory is almost 100 years old. He conducted his study on tribes of Aruntas,
which were simplest and had a single belief. But situation in third world countries and in
Asia, Africa is too complex.

Asia and Africa constitute third world societies. Asian countries are pluralistic societies
or polyglot societies except china. In fact except China, Asian countries never existed as
an unified nations. Present day boundaries emerged after colonial rule.

Ethnically and culturally they are plural. Sense of nationalism among there societies is
also not strong, also partly because they are heterogeneous societies.

Nawab Bugti commented that he is a Pakistani only from 65 years but that he will remain
a Baluchi forever.

So, sub-nationalist tendencies are very strong. Tamil Nadu, people talked of Dravida
Nadu saying that they were victim of exploitation by North Indian Brahmins, even Nagar,
Kashmirs, etc had secessionist tendencies.

Even a well integrated state like Punjab thought of a separate Khalistan and that
sentiment is still alive sub-nationalist tendencies hamper national integration.

These societies are also characterized by extreme form of inequalities and many
communities sections within these nations are marginalized economically and politically.

Thus they have emerged as nations very recently. Even experimentation with Democracy
is very nascent. Also democratic popularity in there nations is reduced to pure populism.

In the context of religion:

These societies have witnessed an attempt to create national solidarity by resorting to
mono culturalism like Hindutva practiced in India. Religion is being used to foster
national identity by imposing religion symbols and ideologies.

Many parties are based on religious ideology like saffron party in India and Jamate-e-
Islam in Pakistan. Durkheim said religion can survive as basis of solidarity and to that
50
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
extent such attempts can be explained as to why mono culturalism in being imposed on
plural societies.

Further these countries have also witnessed rapid revivalization. Being plural societies
urban migrants tend to be ethnically diverse and plural and these migrants seek a
community to belong. This gives rises to religious revivalism because religion becomes
an over arching identity which is otherwise ethnically diverse.

This phenomenon can also be understood in terms of Durkheim’s study of religion.

Further, third world societies in general are undergoing a period of rapid urbanization
which is overwhelming dominated by western culture. Along with modernity,
consumerist culture and new liberal ideas are spreading.

They are in turn leading to weakening of traditional customary norms creating what
Durkheim called anomie. For example, people celebrate both Valentine day and Rama’s
birthday. This moral vacuum is leading to revival of religion. This change towards
western consumerism is being termed as moral decay. Thus religious revivalism is an
attempt to restore supremacy of traditional values over modern values and Durkheim
didn’t anticipate it.

Durkheim thought secular ideas would replace religion. But even in societies like
Malaysia, Japan etc, various kinds of religious movements are emerging.

Religious revivalism is a consequence of high modernity. High modernity creates and

state of confusion, uncertainty and loss of identity. Einstein calls this relativity of
knowledge; Freud says that we don’t know ourselves.

Uncertainty creates psychological unease and we look for certainty in religion. Individual
is cast adrift, so that acute sense of isolation breeds this question.

Durkheim says goal of life is increasingly becoming secular, which is true, but religious
revivalism is also taking place simultaneously. Real relations are becoming unsustainable
and so we get into new relations to have certainty.

In West the process of modernization was gradual spread over 3 centuries. But in Asian
countries this growth was very rapid. All Asia countries, after decolonization, embarked
on rapid modernization for nation building.

In Europe this process involved both cognitive change of norms, values and also
technological modernity. So, a consensus regarding cognitive component emerged in
Europe. In Asia, values have not percolated yet. Rational humanistic outlook is not yet
found prevalent.

51
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
But technological aspect of modernity is accepted without reservation. It is because
cognitive aspect gives identity to people they are eternal. But people look at technological
modernity in utilitarian sense.

Thus modernity generates conflict. As a result conflict develops. And one response of
that conflict is religious revivalism being manifested as fundamental Durkheim has not
anticipated this.

In course of transition, new problems emerge including exploitation or marginalization of

certain groups of society. Groups which experience deprivation seeks an instrument to
protest. Ideology becomes a rallying point for organizations to mobilise people to protest
earlier in third world countries, nationalism has emerged as an ideology for protest.

Freedom struggle was also a protest against varying forms of injustice and beneficiaries
didn’t join.

Later on communism developed as protest ideology of aggrieved. But at the end of first
decade of 21st century both these concepts are on passé/way-out we are already
transcending national boundaries.

Nationalism is being diluted in Western Europe. Borders are becoming porous. Nation
states are melting. Nationality is waning i.e., E.U.

After the failure of communism in Russia and china, people are looking for new solution.
John Kenneth Galbraith said in capitalism Man exploits man, and in socialism, it is other
way round. In fact in communist state, Lenin and Stalin were new Russian czars. No
difference in nature of rule except of Labels.

It was accepted as an ideology when it gave a dream, but as communism was the longest
route from capitalism to communism, it got rejected.

So, both communism and nationalism are on way-out as it shattered their dreams and
because goals were not realized.

In these scenarios of ideological vacuum, with existence of problems, religion has

become ideology of protest. Example, Protest marchers in Iraq says “No to USA and yes
to Islam’. (recent ISIS attack has religious fervor.)

Religion has taken a new role which was never anticipated.

Moplah revolution was actually a revolution landless tenant against land lords. It just so
happened that many were Muslim. It was not communal in character. Thus it was only a
means of articulating their protest. Grievance was economic, for which Durkheim didn’t
account.

52
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Durkheim studied religion only where there was single religion. Third world countries
are plural. Thus religion can also play a divisive role as pointed by Merton. This revival
of religion is only in transitional phase and after this a new ideology may come up or
religion may come up in new forms compatible to 21st century.

Durkheim on Education
Education was defined by Durkheim as the process by which the individual acquires the
physical, intellectual and moral tools to function in a society. He had said that relation of
Sociology to education is that of theory to practice.

Schools as the institution provide a social foundation for modern morality. He argued
through collective effervescence in the small classroom society, morality can be
inculcated into individuals.

He identified the functions as :

(i) To provide individuals with discipline they need to restrain the passions that
threaten to engulf them.
(ii) To develop a sense of devotion to society and its its moral system
(iii) To develop an autonomy, in which discipline is freely desired and attachment
is voluntaristic.

Durkheim identified, occupational associations and schools as institutions of regulation

and integration.

On conflict between managers and workers, he rejected Marxian thesis of inherent

contradiction and argued that this due to lack of common morality. He found out
occupational associations as an integrating institution which was social and professional
at the same time.

53
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 MAX WEBER

Social Action Theory (Weber’s View of Subject Matter)

From the outset Weber was obsessed with the possibility of analyzing human actions and
relationship scientifically. He recognized that a scientific approach to human behaviour
must enter into the subject matter for an authentic analysis. Society consists of qualities
of ‘objective facticity’ as explained by Durkheim and is unquestionably constituted of
activities which express ‘subjective meaning’. It is precisely the dual character of society
in terms of ‘objective facticity’ and ‘subjective meaning’ that makes it in reality.

Social action is defined as the behaviour by which human beings react to external forces
after cognizing (knowing), understanding and interpreting them. In this sense all actions
is behaviour although all behaviour does not fall in the category called ‘action’. Example,
the flight of a moth towards a candle which is simply a mechanistic response to light
stimulus is an example of behaviour but not of action. Suppose for a moment a moth
approaches the flame with the following reasoning; what a pretty light, I would like to be
close to it. The behaviour becomes action.

Also, an action is primarily, defined by its meaningfulness, it must be interpreted from

the actor’s subjective point of view. It is not out of context to quote Alex Inkeles,
‘winking is a social act, blinking is not’.

Weber’s Social Actions have following characteristics:

(i) At least two individual are needed
(ii) Individual’s action should be intended towards others
(iii) It is meant to affect others
(iv) For the individual that social action must have some significance

For Weber the combined qualities of ‘action’ and ‘meaning’ were the central facts for
sociologists’ scientific analysis. Weber defined sociology as ‘a science which attempts
the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal
explanation of its course and effects.’

The technical category of action described in Weber’s word is all human behaviour to
which an actor attaches subjective meaning. Weber explain that the action is social by the
virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual. It takes account of
the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course. For example, man and
woman lightening candle in a room.

What made Weber curious was the actually assigned reasons for identification of
behaviour given by actors themselves. In the absence of assigned meanings by the
individuals, the actions are meaningless and thus outside the purview of sociology. Social
54
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
action is basic unit of social life. And social action is a meaningful response to external
action, if meanings different the nature of action also changes. So, social action is
essentially a meaningful response. Weber identifies four pure types of social action based
upon pure types of meanings.

PURE TYPE
Existential reality is infinitely complex and the actual meanings that are found to be in
our behavior are complex and variable, but all the meanings can be finally reduced to
four types. Because in their pure form they are not found in reality, but all that found is
found in reality is made up of their four types.
R/G/B: - Primary colors
Pure colors
Blue color: - pure
Diff shades of blue- reality

In reality single pure type of meaning is never present. But all that is present in reality is
a combination of the four meanings. Similarly, all the infinite number of meanings can be
reduced to these four types. This is how he creates a classification of social actions into
four types.

(a) Zweck rational Action (or Goal Rational Action)

Goal oriented rational action. It is an increasingly efficient utilization of mean for
practical goals. It means, that kind of behaviors in which goal is purely practical. Goals
like happiness and success are not practical rather non-utilitarian. So, those kinds of goal
which are delimited, defined, measured and evaluated come under this category. So, a
cost-benefit analysis can be performed here.

Thus they can be evaluated in a rational way. Means are chosen primarily on basis of
efficiency. Business administration, science and technology operate on goal rational
action of behavior. Behavior as science is guided by goal rational action. But in reality
there is nothing which is purely goal rational. Goal rational component is most rational.
[Modern societies moving towards zweckrationality] Example, to become an IAS
individual is preparing for civil services.

(b) Wert rational action (or Value Rational Action)

Value oriented rational action. Goals are not rationally chosen, but dictated by values, but
means are rationally (efficiency) chosen. Values are those expected behaviour of an
individual which are beneficial for the society. [Those actions which are guided by values
or benefits of the society are wert rational SA.] The action of a captain who goes down
with the sinking ship or that of a gentle man who allows himself to be killed rather than
give up in a dual are examples. (Harakiri) [LTTE suicide squads - Their goal is to die for
Elam. It is not rationally decided, but they are committed for its cause due to their values.
But their means is to use Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) which is most efficient way to
commit suicide.]
55
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
(c) Affective or Emotional action
Here emotion or impulse determines the ends and means of action i.e. those social actions
which are guided by the emotions of love, hate, tear, favour are affective SA. Example, a
mother who slaps her child or a player who throws a punch at a partner in a game,
abusing, hugging etc.

(d) Traditional action

Those habitual actions which are the outcome of imitations of the ancestors, which carry
forward generation to generation continuously, are traditional. Example, touching the feet
of elders in Indian society, festivals, customs, rites and rituals etc.

Weber said that all the social actions come in the periphery of these four social actions.
Hence, whenever individual act consciously towards others it is either for achievement of
goals or conforming the values or showing their emotions or following their ancestors. A
real action may have a very complex set of meanings involving two or more of these
types.

Criticism:
1. Parsons – He believed that social actions do not require two individuals. It may be
performed singularly when it is performed in a socially defined situation.

2. A Cohen – He said that freak (lose one's nerve) action is also a social action which
was not mentioned by Max Weber in his analysis.

3. Vilfredo Pareto – He had talked about illogical actions which are very much integral
part of social life which has not been mentioned by Weber. (Copernicus)

56
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Sociological Methodology of Weber
METHODOLOGY
There are four basic elements of social science methodology as suggested by Weber. As
we are aware he said, reliance upon natural science methodology alone would be a
serious mistake. So, he didn’t want sociology to rely upon positivist approach alone.

Component of his methodologies:

(1.) Verstehen
(2.) Ideal types
(3.) Causal pluralism (Causation and Probability)
(4.) Value neutrality.

1. VERSTEHEN (interpretative understanding)

Neo Kantians emphasized that social science need to understand human behavior through
its meaning and motives: positivist points out they tried to arrive at causal generalizations
opposed by Neo Kantians. Neo Kantians felt no such generalizations can be possible.

Weber responds to Neo Kantians agreeing that human behavior has to be explained in
terms of underlined meanings and motives, but disagreed to Neo Kantians that
generalization is not possible.

Even in social science, according to Weber, should move towards generalizations. To that
extent he agreed with positivists. However he said, while we should discover
generalizations, we can’t be successful in discovering general theories, because only a
limited degree of pattern is to be discovered in human behavior.

There is a pattern because, persons are cultural beings, but behavior is not entirely
patterned because human beings can land to meanings through deliberate stance and
deviation only limited generalization at best can be assured. They can’t be called laws or
theories. They could at best be called thesis, a kind of tendency statement or explanatory
statements explaining a trend or tendency or likely pattern, if such and such conditions
are present.

In this manner they are not precise causal laws but are limited laws, which can be called
tendency statements.

Borrowing this from Dilthey he suggested verstehen as a method. Verstehen is nothing

but an interpretative understanding of social action through empathetic liaisons, in order
to build a sequence of motives through which we must trace the course and effect of
social action.

Empathetic liaison here means that, as an observer we should establish an empathetic

contact with actor and through this empathy we should understand interpret meanings and
57
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
motives and those motives should be placed in a sequence to trace the course and effect
of social action.

Course is meandering and what consequences it may produce due to this has to be seen.
Through this way he says explanation will be simultaneously causally and meaningfully
adequate. He further goes on to identify the steps involved in verstehen methodology.

The following are the steps suggested by him.

(1.) Direct Observational Understanding

It is nothing but carrying out a careful and detailed observation of study and based on this
we attribute (assign) natural meanings to things.

(2.) Motivational Understanding

In second stage we establish empathetic liaison by imaginative placing of ourselves in

place of actors and try to interpret motives and find consequences. We do not need to be a
Caesar to know Caesar. So, we can understand motives of another even at a distance and
even a historical being, by positioning of ourselves.

This is how novelist writes a novel. Barbara Cartland who wrote hundreds of love stories,
was not in love hundred times. Agatha Christie portrayed murders without even killing
any one.

Going by that through empathetic liaison (understanding and entering into another's
feelings/states), we should try to interpret groups that are under study. The only place
where he applied verstehen was in his study of protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism,
where he tried to explain how conduct of protestant and belief in protestant contributed to
spirit of capitalism.

Here the effect was spirit of capitalism. Thus he tried to build a sequence of motives in
protestant ethics and he linked it. He traced the course of social action and its effects.

But in this study he didn’t look at unique meanings and motives of actors, but looked at
generally shared meanings of protestant community on a whole. There meanings were
shaped by beliefs, idea of Protestantism implied meanings culturally shaped. Thus he was
looking at meanings to the extent they are culturally shaped and then found the sequence.

That is why Parsons interpreted Weber meanings being culturally shaped. Durkheim also
talks of meaning being shaped by collective conscious. In fact Durkheim, Parsons, Weber
all talk of same thing. If we go solely by the way Weber applied verstehen in his study, it
shows no difference between Weber study and Durkheim Study of suicide. Both are
positivist in nature. So, in practice Weber did preciously what Durkheim, Parsons did?
This is how there developed a confusion, regarding his study. Durkheim and Parsons

58
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
never suggested verstehen so we can directly interpret by looking at culture according to
them.

How to resolve this problem?

In recent times this confusion has been resolved by giving benefit of doubt to Weber.
Perhaps going through the fact that he took to sociology so late in his career and due to
his health he had no time or inclination to clarify the issue.

The definition was left unexplained. But if we look at, Weber actually did two things.
Weber said, there is need to interpret unique meanings of actors, but at same time we
should also look at culturally shaped meanings. But there are both mutually exclusive.
Contemporary sociologists like Gidden explained out that, actually Weber has resolved
structure in Agency debate.

Structure means patterns of relation. These patterns develop due to culture.

Agency refers to seeing of human behavior, it is to be seen as following established

pattern or is to be seen as a creative response.

So if human behavior only follows establish patterns, then human actors are passive,
mindless followers of norms, obedient and conformist.

If human behavior is seen on a creative response, then they modify norms as per existing
situation. So, how do we look at human behavior? Structure or Agency?

So, Weber said both, though he didn’t clarify so, as far as behavior confirm to structure
they are conformist and when behavior gets modified it is deviance. So, he referred both,
but didn’t clarify.

At the same time Weber referred to two different levels of reality. Macro level reality and
Micro level reality.

In Macro level reality we look at meanings as far as they are culturally shaped. In micro
level reality, he shows how particular individual and groups probe into unique meanings
and motives of actions. Thus there is reinterpretation of cultural norms and values. Even
Theodore Abel says to the same thing by referring to behavioral maxims.

Thus in a single stroke Giddens gives credit to Weber, for introducing the macro-micro
level dichotomy and as well putting rest the structure vs. agency debate.

Giddens says that Weber’s is superior than that of Durkheim and Parsons. Durkheim and
Parsons approach is only suitable for macro level approaches. Weber’s approach is
comprehensive in nature. That is how Weber in a single stroke has resolved dichotomy
and debate.

59
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 2. IDEAL TYPES
Weber pointed out that social reality is infinitely complex. But human mind is finite. The
entire social reality cannot be comprehended by human mind simultaneously at same
time selectivity becomes unavoidable. So, for Weber ideal types are a method or a way
in exercising selectivity.

In Weber’s words “An ideal type is formed by the one sided accentuation of one or more
points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffused, discrete, more or less
present and vocationally absent concrete individual phenomenon, which are arranged
according to those one sidedly emphasized viewpoints into an unified analytical
construct. In its conceptual purity, this mental construct cannot be found empirically
anywhere in reality”

Reality is infinitely complex and selectivity is unavoidable. So, reality is looked from a
certain point of view. Then we select at those aspects of reality ignoring others. These
may not be always in reality get selected because of its relevance from its point of view.

Based on that a model of reality is constructed including all that selected. Such a model
of reality is an ideal type. It would never be replicated in reality. Reality would
approximate to it varying degrees. Such kind of one sided accentuations are considered.

Example:
Even Karl Marx referred to ideal types without referring to it. No, other societies except
capitalistic societies had classed. So, Marx just tried to predict what may happen in
capitalistic society. This model an ideal type can be used to study what is happening now.

In India, after the period of economic reforms, inequalities grew because of increasing
social disparities and more particularly due to failures of reforms in agriculture. Under
these conditions, there was conscientization (as means of awakening the consciousness)
of deprived, who manifested or appeared as Maoist movements. The Naxalaite
disappeared in 1980; but the Maoist emerged in 1990, due to economic reforms, which
didn’t reform their interest. {Can also be used for Mark application to India}

Thus in context of India, to a limited degree Marx model was right. But, it will never be
completely right that this will lead to a classless society. So it is not wholly replicated in
reality, but replicated in varying degrees.

So, first we need to exercise selectivity. Then we need to build a model as one sided view
of reality as it is too complex to be subjected by human mind. Then we need to apply
verstehen.

60
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Thus, when Weber talks of Protestants and Capitalist he constructs an ideal type of both
these and establishes a causal linkage. So, verstehen is not applied to ideal type but to
model of ideal type.

Characteristics of Ideal type Model:

(1.) Ideal type is not an exhaustive description of reality.
(2.) No case of reality wholly resembles it, but all within the analytical degree,
resembling it to various degrees.
(3.) Ideal type is a constructive type and not a destructive type. Ideal types are
constructed in means to end relationship. We have purpose in mind. With purpose
means are chosen, and only those are chosen which can be linked to goals. This is
how it is deliberately chosen means. It is ideal because it exist in realism of ideas
and not in reality.
(4.) It is not ideal in ethical sense. Thus it is not average type of model. Like
Durkheim norms, social facts were not ideal types, most commonly found in
reality. Ideal type has only those which are relevant, which may or may not exist.

Weber has talked about Three Types of Ideal Types

1. Ideal type of historical particularism (unique phenomenon) – Those phenomena

happened in the past which are unique and one of its own kind like, rise of capitalism in
the west, the Protestant Ethic etc.

2. Ideal type related with the abstract element of social reality – This ideal type studies
those phenomena or social reality which are found in many societies. (that may be found
in a variety of historical and cultural contexts.) By picking some of its aspects, researcher
studies how it is different than the other part of society. Example, bureaucracy and
feudalism.

3. Ideal type of economic motivation – This ideal type investigates why some individual,
groups or communities are more economically ambitious than others.

Weber believed that ideal type is a perfect investigating tool for social science which can
reduce the abstractness in social science and can give concrete understanding of abstract
social phenomena.

Schills and Finch in their book ‘Max Weber on the Methodology of Social Sciences’
wrote that though Ideal Type is an exaggerating tool but it is capable of understanding the
social reality.

Criticism:

61
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
1. Walter believed that Weber could not resist himself to be under the influence of
positivism. Though he called positivist attempt a blunder but he himself tried to develop
sociology on the line of sciences.

2. Ideal Type may be able to understand the reality approximately but not in its accuracy.
Exaggerations, deliberations etc. take reality far from the truth. Ideal type is not capable
enough for scientific understanding.

3. Science studies phenomena in its totality and not in exaggeration or elimination. It

studies phenomena as it is.

4. Ideal type is the brainchild of the researcher which cannot be freed from their own
values and prejudices. Hence, the outcome through the ideal type largely depends upon
the researcher.

Conclusion: Before Max Weber, social science especially sociology were heavily
dependent on natural science for its methods. Weber realized that social science should
have their own method and in this process he developed Ideal Type.

METHODOLOGICAL UTILITY:
(1.) Weber pointed out that social reality is infinitely complex. But human mind is
finite. The entire social reality cannot be comprehended by human mind
simultaneously at same time selectivity becomes unavoidable. Thus, ideal type is
a method or a way of exercising selectivity which is unavoidable.

(2.) Ideal type is an analytical construct which serves as measuring rod, whereby it is
compared with reality to identify similarities and differences. In this role it can be
a source of hypothesis to generate further research. This is why an ideal type will
be always different from reality. Ideal type is to be judged whether it actually
conveys the meaning or not. It is not supposed to mirror reality.

(3.) Ideal types act as a classificatory device. Classification is an important part of

methodology. Ideal type are pure type.

Ideal other additional reality

type elements facts
pert reality,

(4.) It acts as a social science equivalent of what experimentation is to natural science.

So, what experiment is to physics, ideal type is to sociology? Ideal type is a
mental experiment in social science as experiments cannot be done on human

62
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 beings. Experiment is a closed and controlled system, where limited number of
variables operates and other are excluded. So are ideal types.

(5.) Ideal types also help in building logical interconnections between different social
constellations. Constellations are nothing but cluster forms. Social reality also
exists as a cluster. When number of things exists together it is called a cluster.
Example: capitalism is not a single entity but a cluster of private property, market
economy, contractual relations; monetization, which completes capitalism. So the
purpose of ideal types is to establish causal and logical inter connections between
different constellations. The problem arises as to which aspect of one
constellation can be logically connected with another aspect of constellation. For
example, Weber connected the wealthy aspects of protestants to his study of
capitalism and excluded others.

(6.) Ideal type can serve as to a limited degree as a prediction. So, trend or tendency
can be indicated i.e.; - Even before Manmohan Singh entered as Finance minister,
there were talk of economic reforms. Numbers of people were giving ways. Along
with this there was rise of red corridor by Maoists. IT, laws order, education, and
population control are a success in south India; Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya
Pradesh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Rajasthan are a symbol of backwardness. States of
south contribute more, yet they receive same as non-performing states. There are
two kinds of conflict here. It is inequality due to reforms and also due to class.
This was a Marxist model. Backwardness of states is due to lack of FDI at same
time poverty increases, so there is automatic backwardness. Also because of class
there is backwardness.

LIMITATIONS OF IDEAL TYPES

(1.) As Weber calls it, ideal type is an one sided accentuation of reality, at best a
partial model.
(2.) While exercising selectivity there is a great deal of merit in saying that personal
choices of researcher may influence. So, there is no yardstick for judging the
appropriateness and adequacy of ideal type. So, they tend to be guided by
personal choice.
(3.) Talcott Parsons said that ideal types are not derived from any general theory.
There is a great deal of subjectivity as part of researcher while building an ideal
type.
(4.) Hample criticized ideal type as type atomism. He said ideal types are atomized
types. It is nothing but small isolated part not connected with other.
(5.) Ideal type is not a method. It is just the way human mind works. Here, Weber
only formally lays down the process of selectivity in ideal types.
63
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
3. CAUSAL PLURALISM (Causation and Probability)
It was dictated partly by methodological touch of ideal types and partly because of
critical response of Weber to Marx as mono causal economic determinism. Marx relied
on only single cause i.e. economic forces. Weber doesn’t say that this is incorrect. But
Weber says that, social reality is so complex, that it can never be adequately accounted
for in terms of single causes. Though Marx is not wrong, when Weber identifies role of
Marx, Weber is only surrounding Marx rather than rejecting him.

We should look for plurality or multiplicity of causes. That is why he developed

methodological principle of causal pluralism.

According to Weber sociology must not only interpret social phenomenon

comprehensively but it must also explain them causally. Weber distinguished two types
of causal enquiry i.e. historical causality and sociological causality.

Historical causality determines the unique circumstances that have given rise to a given
event. Sociological causality assumes the establishment of a regular relationship between
two phenomenon, which need not take the form “‘A’ makes ‘B’ inevitable”, but may take
the form ‘A is more or less favourable to B’. The former explains how a set of historical
social situations have brought about a particular event. For example, trying to determine
the causes of World War I or the Russian revolution would be a quest for historical
reality. Sociological causality on the other hand seeks to establish a regular connection
between a set of phenomenon.

Thus, instead of identifying the specific causes of World War I or Russian revolution,
sociological causality seeks to single out factors that trigger a war or a revolution. The
causal explanation express in terms of probability simply states that a set of antecedents
(a preceding occurrence or cause or event) are likely to have produced a given historical
event.

Using sociological causality, Weber sought to explain how a set of values that constituted
the Protestant ethic favoured the emergence of modern capitalism.

To determine sociological causality, Weber argues, requires operating within a

probabilistic framework. This type of generalization attempts to establish for example –
the emergence of capitalism required a certain type of personality largely shaped by the
preachments of Calvinist. The proof of the arrangement comes when either through
mental experiment or through comparative study in other cultures, it is established that
modern capitalism could probably not have developed without such personalities.
Therefore, Calvinism must be considered a cause though emphatically not the cause of
the rise of capitalism.

64
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
In establishing the right approach to the effective utilization of causation analysis, Weber
insisted upon the comparative method. He says that the best one can do is to follow a
variety of causal chains that have helped determine the object under study.

Probability is here taken to mean that in all likelyhood men involved in a certain context,
which orient their behaviour in terms of normative expectations. But this is always
probable and never certain because it can also be assumed that for some actors the chain
of causality peculiar to the unique social relationship will lead to a departure from the
expected probability.

4. VALUE NEUTRALITY, VALUE RELEVANCE and VALUE

FRANK

Social research should be unbiased. Process of collection of data and analyation of data
shouldn’t be contaminated by personal prejudices or due to cultural bias of social
scientist. Having said, he realized that total value neutrality is not possible. So, he made a
distinction between areas of value relevance and area of value neutrality.

Area of Value Relevance

The very choice of topic of research is guided by personal preference. Even while
carrying out research, which data is relevant which is irrelevant has to be seen. Scientists
should try to exclude ideological assumptions from research. If some amount of ideology
creeps in, then it should be said explicitly. So, there would be minimum value
contaminate in by being value frank.

Value Frank
As a researcher we cannot pass evaluative judgments on facts. A researcher has to only
faithfully report on facts. Research shouldn’t try to judge or destroy data because it may
affect public morality, suppression of facts should never be there. Thus research
shouldn’t be an opportunity for propagation of values of personal choice.

65
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Authority and Bureaucracy
(Weber’s Political Sociology : Authority and Bureaucracy)

Power:
Weber was perhaps the first sociologist to present a systematic definition of power.
Power refers to chance of an individual or a group to realize its will through communal
action, in case of resistance by others.

Power means ability by which individuals/groups realize their will by overcoming

resistance of others. The implicit assumption here is that society is characterized by
sectional interest and so other sections offer resistance. This is conflict view of power. It
is in this situation that power as a resource comes into play for overcoming resistance.

Sociologists often distinguish between two forms of power i.e. authority and coercions.
Authority is that form of power which is accepted as legitimate i.e. as right and just and
therefore obeyed on that basis. Thus if member of Indian society accept that the
parliament has the right to make certain decision and they regard those decisions as
lawful, parliamentary power may be defined as legitimate authority.

Coercion is that form of power, which is not regarded as legitimate by those subject to it.
Thus from the point of view of some Kashmiris in JandK (Chechnya of Russia), the
power of the Indian government may be defined as coercion.

If power is to be effectively used for realizing goals on sustained basis, this kind of power
must be voluntarily accepted by those on whom it is exercised. When they believe that
such an exercise of power is justified, such a belief is called legitimacy and such power is
legitimate power. When power is legitimized it gives rise to authority. So, authority
results in an established order where incumbent authority is to issue command and expect
those commands to be obeyed develops. This is how authority is different from power
Weber called it Herrschaft – or Authority/domination.

Fundamental defining feature of authority is legitimate manner in which legitimacy is

gained, shapes character of authority. He constructed three ideal types of authority.
Authority can be of 3 kinds, based upon which legitimacy is acquired. These three kinds
are linked to three types of social action.

The three kinds he takes into account are traditional action, goal rational action (Zweck
rational), Affective action. Weber himself admits that he couldn’t suggest an authority
corresponding to value rational action (Wert rational).

TRADITIONAL AUTHORITIY (Based On Traditional Type of Action):

This is a society that is predominantly characterized by traditional action. Basis of
legitimacy is conformity to traditional action and system. Weber says “in traditional

66
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
authority eternal yesterday governs today”. He classifies traditional authority into two
types.
(a) Patriarchalism
(b) Patrimonialism

PATRIARCHIALISM
This is the simplest kind of all traditional societies. Authority exists at domestic levels
(eg.: nomadic, joint family), where in eldest male member of group exercises authority.
They follow gerontocracy. Authority is exercised as a joint right. Eldest male member
exercises authority. There are no clear defined administrative staffs. In such person
exercises his authority in accordance with the customary principles, but he has no ability
to enforce his will. The power of incumbent depends on peoples consent. They are seen
as co-consent and not as subjects. There are no formal apparatus for enforcement of rules.
Authority is exercised purely according to traditional obedience in personal.

PATRIMONALISM
In relatively advanced societies there emerges another variant of traditional authority. For
example: -In chiefdoms and kingdoms (monarchy). Weber says the Ottoman emperor of
Turkey represented patrimonalism in its best form.

Authority is based on individual who exercises on hereditary principles, example,

lineage. There does exist an administrative staff. They are selected on the basis of loyalty
and are personally committed to the authority. The authority is exercised in an arbitrary
fashion, limited place for customs, although it is more or so respected.

Rewards for administrative staff are not clearly defined. It could be money or promotions
or both.
 Officers are acquired by customary rules.
 Customary rule is principle of inheritance.(for example:- Saudi Arabia, siblings
take over)
 Administrative staff consists of personal staff and kin
 Loyalty is personal.
 No demarcation between official and personal staff.
 Demarcation as far as custom makes the distinction.
 Administrative staff consists of a hierarchy of inherited officers.
 There is no clear cut boundary or well defined rules except for traditional rules.
Where ever traditional rules are silent, king enjoys unlimited freedom. ‘King can
do no wrong!
 Commands are obeyed because right to issue commands is inherited in office.
 Also there are no rational systems of awards for administrative staff.

67
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
LEGAL RATIONAL AUTHORITY (Based on Goal Rational Action)
In contemporary industrial societies, the basis of legitimacy is rational rules. Orders or
decisions are made on the basis of rules. This kind of authority is legal-rational authority.

Bureaucracy is an ideal type model of legal rational authority. Bureaucracy is a large

scale organization rationally designed to coordinate activities of many individuals in
pursuit of organizational goals.

Bureaucracy is nothing but institutionalized form of ‘goal-rational action’. In

Bureaucracy, work is organized in the form of offices. Activities to be performed are
designated as official duties. These offices are arranged in a hierarchy, which acts as a
chain of command.

Decision making is made by people at top of hierarchy and execution is done at bottom
level. Basis of decision making are general and rational rules. In fact every decision is an
application of a general rule to a specific case. In the course of decision making, the
functionaries are supposed to act with an attitude of formalistic impersonality. He must
adhere to formal rules and keep his personal prejudices, predictions apart. This is nothing
but carrying an attitude of formalistic impersonality.

Recruitment is made on the basis of merit and technical competence. There is a rational
system of awards and rewards, salaries, perks and promotion. There is a clear distinction
between sphere of personal and official competence. Work in bureaucracy is a career.

Characteristics of Bureaucracy:
Weber defined bureaucracy as a system of administration containing the following
characteristics:
1. Hierarchy: Each official has a clearly defined competence and is answerable to a
superior.
2. Impersonality: The work is conducted according to set rules without arbitrariness
or favouratism and a written record is kept of every transaction.
3. Continuity: The office constitutes a full-time salaried occupation with security of
tenure and the prospects of regular advancement.
4. Expertise: Officials are selected on merit, are trained for their function and
control access to the knowledge stored in the files

These characteristics, Weber argued, together maximize administrative efficiency and

makes bureaucracy inescapable for complex industrial societies.

Weber believed that bureaucratic organizations are dominant institutions of industrial

societies. He believes that rational action had become the dominant mode of action in
modern industrial society. A legal rational organization has a clearly defined goal. It
involves precise calculations of the means to attain the goal and systematically eliminates

68
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
those factors which stand in the way of the achievement of its objective. Bureaucracy is
therefore rational action in an institutional form.

Criticism:
1. R. K. Merton – He called bureaucrats as ‘ritualists’ (those who follow the means but
ignores the goals/end). Merton believes that in bureaucracy rules are so much emphasized
that goals are often ignored.

2. James Vander Zenden – He accused bureaucracy by calling it ‘specialist without spirit’

because they are completely detached from human values. This is also known as
‘dehumanisation’.

3. Tom Burns – He studied 20 electronics companies of Britain and Scotland and found
that with excessive written and formal rules, bureaucracy is unable to take quick decision
in market economy. The late decisions always cost companies because they have to
follow the formal process of decision.

4. Peter Blau – In his book ‘Informal Structure of Bureaucracy’ wrote that formalities are
a lot attached with bureaucracy which decreases its efficiency. Some informalities can
increase its efficiency.

5. Alvin Ward Gouldner – He partially agrees with Peter Blau and believed that the
element of formality or informality depends upon the nature of the organization. He
suggested formalities for army and police whereas informalities in construction, mining
etc.

6. Peter Selznick – In his book ‘Problems of Controlling the Bureaucracy’ found that
sometimes bureaucracy becomes so powerful that it undermines the democratic
authorities also. He studied Tennensy Valley Authority, Washington DC and found that
sometimes bureaucracy becomes very powerful and tough to be controlled.

7. Seymour Lipset – He studied the state bureaucracy in a province of Canada

(Saskatchenwan) and found that bureaucracy successfully prohibited the implementation
of socialist policies of the new government.

CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY (Based on Affective Action)

It is derived from the Greek term charisma. It means ‘extra-ordinary power’,
‘uncommon’ and ‘super human capability.’

In Weber’s own words ”A certain quality of an individual personality, which is

considered extra ordinary and treated by others as endowed with super natural,
superhuman or exceptional powers.”

Analysis:

69
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Why are there no charismatic leaders in western world on the contrast, the 3rd world
countries are full of charismatic leaders. For example: - Castro, Gandhi, etc. Even Europe
of earlier centuries had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther king.

It is because charisma is a product of crisis. The third world countries are full of crisis.
As Gita says, “Whenever there is a moral crisis, god takes an incarnation to save” this
incarnation is charisma. Charismatic authority comes into existence when the existing
system either traditional or legal rational fails to deliver. Western Europe countries no
longer have crisis. They have established system to deliver.

What is the basis of charismatic Authority?

Because of faith or belief in extraordinary powers of leaders, there develops devotion
amongst the people for leader. The type of action involved here is Affective/Emotional
action. By virtue of this devotion, followers come to recognize a felt duty to obey the
leader. Devotions and commitment to leader is unquestioned there is a spontaneous
response to leaders call. Administrative staff does exist but it is not constituted by
technically trained people. They are chosen on varying degree of charisma. (i.e. Bapu-
chacha-sardar).

There is no well defined hierarchy and no formal rules. So, charismatic authority has a
high degree of flexibility. They are only tasks entrusted by a leader. There are no formal
rules and thus sphere of competence is not clearly demarcated. There is no career and
thus no rational system of rewards. As charismatic authority is not rule bound, so they
have the capacity to repudiate/renounce the past. They can act in totally unconventional
way without confirming to rules and customs. Because of these characteristics,
charismatic authority has a unique ability to transform society or bring revolution.

In fact all revolutionary changes have been presided by charismatic authority. For
example Napoleon – France, Lenin - U.S.S.R, Gandhi - India, Mao – China, Fidel Castro
–Cuba, Mandela - South Africa, Ayatollah Khomeini –Iran.

Charismatic authority by its very nature has a revolutionary potential. But at the same
time charismatic authority is unstable and short lived phenomenon. It can’t be enduring
and long lasting. Charismatic authority comes to an end whether the leader fails/succeeds.
In either case it comes to an end people obey due to leaders’ extra ordinary abilities. This
is done by tiding over the crisis. But if leaders can’t tide over/cant establish proof of his
capabilities, then charismatic authority fails. For example: - Hitler, Mussolini, Garibaldi
etc are discredited charismatic leaders.

At same time success is equally bad. Once crisis is over no one needs a charismatic
leader. INC had forsaken Gandhi by 1937. Because by 1937, it had become evident that
freedom is round the corner.

What was relevant after 1937 was share of power. Gandhi didn’t favor INC contesting
1937 election, but INC did. Even the quit India movement of 1942 was not Gandhi
70
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
movement. Rather Gandhi joined it, to make the best out of bad position to minimize
violence. To avoid excursive repression by British, he thought, he should join.

Even, during the partition, when the holocaust was there, Gandhi alone was applying
balm and others were only grabbing for office. So, Gandhi seized to hold control over
INC.
That is what, it happened even in England. Public were thankless to Winston Churchill
who was a war hero. Winston Churchill was the war hero but lost in the election. Without
him, the conduct of war would have been different. Yet he lost. Clement Attlee who was
a non-entity became PM of England. So, once crisis is over, leader is left alone.

Why?
After crisis is over, the authority has to come to term with pragmatic routine tasks. No
heroic act is to be performed anywhere. Charismatic authority has no stable system of
income and rewards.

So, once crisis is over charismatic authority has to grapple with day-to-day routine.
Charismatic authority also needs a stable system of funds and financers. For all this to be
done, charismatic authority is not well suited. So, once crisis is over, charismatic
authority gets converted to traditional authority or legal-rational authority. This is called
routinisation of charismatic.

So, charismatic leaders may still survive. i.e. - Castro, Nehru, Mao etc. But how did they
do it? They did it by participating in the transition or by occupying the office in
bureaucracy that exists. So, a charismatic leader has to show another quality of adapting
to routine and successful being about their transition. Then the leader will survive. This is
routinisation of charisma.

Mao survived as chairman of communist party, Fidel Castro as ruler of Cuba and Nehru
as PM of India. They existed by occupying a formal office and by formal procedure. At
the same time, charismatic helps them to win. Nehru never went to his constituency for
canvassing, yet he won. So, much was his popularity. Charismatic helped, but he was not
ruling because of charismatic, but because he had majority in INC.

Charisma created automatic and unquestioned obedience. Sometimes they may resort to
deliberate charismatic building. Today they rely on man-made media to project a
larger than life image of himself.

[In china, to ensure that Mao’s authority didn’t weaken and to repose faith of younger
generation, there used to be total control of press. Press occasionally used to come out
with super human capabilities. Mao was sometimes called as a great healer. In reality
this great healer Mao died of an incurable sexually transmitted disease. His fourth wife
became crazy with Mao’s obsession with womanizing. He was refused by doctor for
treatment.

71
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
In china, Taoism was the belief of the lower classes. In Taoism, there was a belief that if
old men have sexual interests and involve in sexual interwork then it will add to their
longevity. Mao indulged in all kinds of womanizations. But people do not come to know
the real image. Only their false image is deliberately constructed.]

Another problem of Charismatic authority is the problem of succession. Also,

Charismatic leaders are not readily available. People can be trained to become experts but
cannot be trained to become genius. Charisma can be systematically nurtured. But once
Charisma is acquired, it can be sustained.

One of the ways, it is done is by designation of leader himself. Sometimes they claim
various kinds of resemblance with charismatic leader. Successor remains a continuing.

So, through this study Weber contributed to his theory of social action where he talks
about change. His study of protestant ethics was also a study of change. Here he
highlights role of ideology as an independent cause of change and along with ideology
there is also the role of leader in creating changes.

Bureaucracy and Developing Societies

Max Weber studied bureaucracy through Ideal Type method and over the period various
analyses, counter analyses, criticism, relevance etc have been done over the theory.

Except few logical criticisms, it is almost accepted that bureaucracy has been able to
fulfill the expectations of Western societies, especially the capitalist regimes. Since this
theory was created by keeping Western society in mind, hence we can say that Weber’s
theory is highly valid and relevant in the Western capitalist society.

But if this theory is examined in the developing societies like South Asia, Africa, Latin
America, it is always a matter of contention whether bureaucracy has been a capable
institution or not.

In developing societies, bureaucracy has been criticized for its dysfunctional aspects like
corruption, nepotism, redtapism, insensitive governance, ritualism etc.

Many thinkers believe that it is the Ideal Type characteristics of bureaucracy which has
led to all forms of dysfunctions and demerits in the bureaucracy.

But if we examine these dysfunctions in South Asian societies, we cannot deny that
corruption, nepotism, redtapism are integral part of these bureaucracies.

72
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
But to understand these problems, one should always keep the nature and characteristics
of these societies in the mind because these problems are largely inherent in the
background of the society and not in the bureaucracy.

But on the other hand, bureaucracy cannot be completely freed from the above-
mentioned problems.

Despite of various Administrative Reform Committees (ARC), pay hike, increase of

facilities and social securities, it seems that the developing societies are still at the same
level of dysfunctional system of bureaucracy which can be called as ‘culture of
corruption’.

On the index of corruption, these societies are at the top and organizations like Regional
Development Agencies, DDA, Municipal corporations etc. are one of the top corrupt
offices on the index of corruption. Hence, the bureaucracy in these societies cannot be
given cleanchit because the mentality of greed and fearlessness from punishment, legal
hassles, and the problem of transparency are some of the reasons of corruption in
bureaucracy.

Various ARCs suggested measures to increase the efficiency of bureaucracy but still it is
far from the fact that it can be made at par with the Western societies. Strict, transparent
and effective policy of ‘carrot and stick’ can be introduced so that the bureaucracy can
get to the same level of efficiency in governance like the Western societies.

Measures to improve efficiency of bureaucracy in developing societies:

1. Effective training for hospitality and services and not for the governance. The
democratic training should replace colonial training.
2. Bureaucracy is required to be accountable like the private sectors. Time bound
promotions and efficiency and punishment and dismissal in case of inefficiency is
required to be introduced.
3. Target-centric approach. In this system, every individual or official should be
given a rational target according to the salaries and facilities they get. It should be
mandatory and it must be added in their service book.
4. Job insecurity is essential in improving the quality of administration. In
government jobs, there is a tendency of feeling secure which discourages to work
efficiently. Accordingly, the action of termination, suspension should be taken.
5. ‘Onus of proof’ against corruption, nepotism, irregularities should be on the
bureaucrat.
6. In developing societies, bureaucrats should be trained on the pattern of Western
bureaucracy training pattern of Western societies can help in changing the culture
of bureaucracy like private sector.

73
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
What Makes Bureaucracy most Efficient?
Weber believed Bureaucratization is inevitable in wake of rise of industrial capitalized
societies. Industrial capitalist society is an instance of rationalization process. And
bureaucracy is nothing but institutionalized form of rational action. Rational here implies
as most efficient. He considered bureaucracy to the most efficient means of achieving
organizational goals.

Technical superiority of bureaucracy lies in the fact that,

(1.) As a bureaucrat, one is guided by solely rational rules. They have an attitude of
formalistic impersonality. Personal prejudices, predictions and idiosyncrasies are
kept apart.
(2.) Bureaucrats themselves are recruited on basis of technical competence, not on
loyalty basis.

For both these reasons, bureaucracy is most efficient way of achieving organizational
goals. Bureaucracy is a great instrument of power and indispensable in modern industrial
societies although it doesn’t mean that he didn’t see nothing wrong with bureaucracy. He
did make a critical evaluation.

Due to bureaucracy over emphasis on rule bound behavior, bureaucrats develop a trained
incapacity to act on creativity. It tends to discourage creativity/innovation
/limitation/imagination. For bureaucrats innovation appears to be a threat for disorder.
They are supposed to act in an impersonal manner. So, they can’t mobilize people and
show leadership qualities.

How To Make It Responsive and Control Bureaucracy?

Empirical studies have been conducted on Weber’s study. There has been a study in
Canada province of ‘Saskatchewan’, conducted by Seymour Lipset. Earlier there was a
right wing party ruling that province. After the left wing party took to power, the
government initiated pro-poor policies. Lipset saw how successful politicians were
motivating bureaucracy to implement.

Bureaucracy for a long time have been used to be pro rich. Bureaucracy had shown
cynical attitude of policies. Political heads were ineffective in controlling bureaucracy.
Reason is that the bureaucrat was a specialist as far as the department was concerned.
Citing various rules they can scuttle new policies. Bureaucrats are able to erect a stone
wall.

Even in India I.A.S officers association is considered to be the most powerful trade
union. Also there are cases where bureaucracy could be made effective.

74
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
In India, land reforms have been a near total failure in most of the states except West
Bengal, Kerala and Haryana. The reason is considered to be nexus between bureaucracy
and landlord (owners).

Weber himself was concerned about the control of state bureaucracy administration. He
saw two main dangers, if this control was left in the hands of bureaucrats themselves.

Firstly, particularly in time of crisis, bureaucratic leadership would be ineffective.

Bureaucrats are trained to follow order and conduct routine operations, rather than to
make policy decision and take initiatives in response to crisis.

Secondly, in capitalist society top bureaucrats may be swayed (influenced) by the

pressure of capitalist interests and tailor their administrative practices to fit the demands
of capitalists.

Weber believed that these dangers could only be avoided by strong parliamentary control
on the state bureaucracy. In particular, professional politicians must hold the top position
in the various departments of state.

This will encourage strong and effective leadership, since politicians are trained to take
decisions. In addition, it will help to open the bureaucracy to public view and reveal any
behind the scene wheeling and dealing between bureaucrats and power interests.
Politicians are public figures open to public scrutiny and the criticism of opposition
parties. They are therefore accountable for their actions.

Other to this, proactive civil society can build pressure for proper function of bureaucracy
and implementation of programmes. Kerala was very successful in implementing literacy
programmes of government.

(Add few points from - Measures to improve efficiency of bureaucracy in developing

societies)

EXTRA NOTES ON – BUREAUCRACY::

STUDY OF TENESSE VALLEY AUTHORITY

This authority was created to help poor farmers positions in the company were held by
agricultural students who were trained in the agricultural colleges run by rich agricultural
farmers. So, farm education itself they were trained to be pro-rich. So, bureaucracy was
in favor of vested interests. So, it was not responsive to needs of poor.

Is this kind of bureaucracy must for efficiency?

Weber’s ideal type model represents government civil service the most. This is why
government civil service is called Bureaucracy. But Weber didn’t restrict meaning of

75
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
bureaucracy only to government sector. But his ideal type model resembled government
the most.

This model is a formalistic one. It is based on rigid hierarchy, clear-cut task

specialization, emphasis on formal rules etc. Weber seemed to claim that such a model is
the most effective one. But numbers of empirical researches were conducted to check its
efficiency.

R.K. Merton was the first to challenge Weber on this issue. According to Merton, the
Webarian rule bound model/system can be efficient when it comes hardly to routine
tasks. But whenever emergent situations arise for which there are no precedent rules,
these bureaucratization tends to be ineffective/inefficient. So, if in future new situations
emerge, bureaucracy doesn’t know how to respond.

In all literature about civil services Indian civil service (ICS) is glorified as steel frame of
empire of British in India. But same structure, in post independence era is a flogging
horse. In India, for every failure of policy bureaucracy is blamed. What made staff of ICS
as steel frame and why IAS today is being blamed, though both were and are governed
through the same rules.

It is because today there is a change in nature of task to be performed. Today IAS is

called to do many tasks which are complex. The entire developmental process which calls
for change in people’s attitude is laid in an IAS. But it is still the colonial structure which
is being asked to bring these changes.

But bureaucracy culture today discourages initiative and creativity. That is why it is being
criticize for failing socio-economic transformation of country. He was once only a
collector to collect tax. Today he is the linking pin between grass root democracy and
upper levels and democracy. This is where Merton proves to be right.

Also the attitude of impersonality highlighted by Weber renders bureaucracy

dysfunctional. Today public demands sympathetic response from bureaucrat. What they
see is a cold kind of response.

Apart from Merton criticisms, there were empirical studies conducted by Peter Blau,
Alvin Gouldner and Burns and Stackers.

Blau and Gouldner study conducted in gypsum plant reveals that organistic model of
organization structure are more efficient than mechanistic structure. Mechanistic structure
has low efficiency and formal structure. This was also convened by Burns and stackers.

Arbido and Alberga, show that, by combining both formal and informal structure,
organization proves to be more successful only through this the Japanese management
creates a over-committed worker. R.P. Dose an American researchers says that the firm
in Japan acts as an extended family.
76
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
VIEWS OF NARAYAN SETH (Former Director of IIM-A)
He conducted an empirical study in Rajkot (Gujarat). He found that workers efficiency
was much higher in organizations having informal structure. The worker was identified
with company his goals were high. For new recruitment existing workers were asked to
give views about the qualities required to work among them. As a result
(a) Existing workers felt important of their existence
(b) No alienation or impersonality among workers.

VIEWS OF [Link]’S
He criticized Weber regarding his views on legal rational authority particularly w.r.t
(with reference to) legitimacy. Haber says that Weber confuses legality with legitimacy.
In modern industrial capitalism there is a perpetual crisis of legitimacy and that is built in
the system because of mutually opposed tendencies obsessed with growth, there are
certain values that have crystallized during enlightenment era, which has now become
universal.

For example: - growth and equity. If one is met the other gets ignored. So is
egalitarianism and social injustice. If one is met the other gets ignored. For example: - In
India the neoliberal policies contributed for development of only 20% of population. Rest
80% are ignored and deprived. So, legitimacy is not mere legality.

VIEWS OF ALVIN TAUFFLER:

He wrote ‘The Third way’ ‘Future shop’ and ‘Power shift’. He says that formal structure
is in the pass/way-out. Future organization of globalized world is short of temporary
associations of workers who would be hierarchal. He calls them abhor companies or
project based organization. Also organizations are moving towards one man and virtual
organization. Webern’s ideal type is not most efficient form.

77
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism
‘Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism’ is one of the most famous study of Weber in
sociology. It is the only study where all aspects of Weber’s methodology are applied.
This study has been often said as an attempt by Weber to present a corrective analysis to
Marxist analysis which Weber criticized as mono causal economic determinism.

Marx and Engels had explained emergence of capitalism in terms of economic factors.
They said that advances in technology led to generation of surplus. This led to
monetization of economy. This led to breakdown of feudal society. Breakdown of feudal
society led to contractual establishment to law and order. The cumulative effect of all
these led to growth of commerce and mercantile capitalism. This brought capitalistic
transformation of agriculture. Finally it took the shape of industrial capitalism.

Weber, while accepting that economic conditions did play a role in rising of industrial
capitalism, also says that these alone are not sufficient to account for rise of modern
capitalism. Many of the economic conditions which Marx says were there at elsewhere
too nascent capitalism developed in Babylonia, china, India etc.

For example: - In India during Mughal period, there was political centralization, effective
laws and order. There were remarkable advances in technology in the Kharkhanas that
were established under patronage of Nobles. There was monetization and growth of trade.
Yet modern capitalism never developed in India.

In China, the advances were greater than India. The availability of Mercantile class,
abundant availability of monetization, technological breakthroughs (gunpowder, paper,
printing, Marine compass) were there, even a centralized authority existed, there was
bureaucracy, separation of permanent and political executive.

But, while these technological changes reached Europe, they contributed to capitalism.
But in china where it originated it didn’t.

So, Weber didn’t consider economic causes alone as the factor to contribute for modern
capitalism. So, he felt Marx theory inadequate and insufficient in explaining how
capitalism evolves, but doesn’t deny it.

In the first place modern capitalism was only found to be in Western Europe. Then how
does modern capitalism differ from early capitalism. Accumulation of wealth even
existed in India. Nagar Seths and Jagat Seths were financers of kings as they accumulated
lot of wealth. Yet we don’t call India as modern capitalism.

Modern capital is a rational system where pursuit of wealth is institutionalized as a way

of life and that the pursuit of need is not driven by greed, rather there is integration of
wealth with economy and ethical regulation of conduct in pursuit of wealth exist.

78
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
In modern capitalism hard work and accumulation of money is treated as a virtue. It is
not just the greed. Because modern capitalism was to be found only in Western Europe,
there should be some factors which are special to Western Europe that played its part in
rise of modern capitalism.

India Economic condition No modern capitalism

China Economic condition No modern capitalism
Western Europe Economic condition Modern capitalism and Ethos

Ethos, were the unique elements that were there in Western Europe. It was not found
elsewhere. There ethos were world affirmation ethos. It didn’t develop in china, India etc
due to world rejection ethos. So, ethos played an independent causal role, contributing to
rise of modern capitalism. He goes about searching for ethos; because modern capitalism
is characterized by gain spirit. Gain spirit is nothing but rational age of conduct or ethical
regulation of conduct.

In order to identify this ethos, he carried out a survey of historical records. On the basis
of historical data, he found that in 16th and 17th centuries, in Germany the areas or regions
that were wealthy, relatively prosperous, were overwhelmingly protestant and regions
particularly the rural areas which were backwards and poor, were overwhelmingly
Roman Catholic. So, on basis of this historical survey, he correlates Protestantism and
capitalism. This is just like any other positivist approach. This is first stage of versthen.

Now he proceeds to next stage to establish a causal link/chain. The correlation simply
means that Protestant and capitalism are simply connected. In fact that was not his idea at
all. Even Engels had voted this before. Even Engels had described rise of Protestantism
with growth of capitalism. So, even Engels admitted that they are correlated.

He says Protestantism to be a consequence of early capitalism.

So, according to Engels, capitalism and protestant ethos are dependent variables. But
Weber disagrees to this. He says that role of protestant ethos is also an independent
variable. Then he proceeds to demonstrate the causal chains. For this purpose he
constructed ideal types.

After surveying the entire doctrines of protestant sects, he goes on to build an ideal type.
There are large sects of Christianity which are commonly called as Puritans Protestants.
Methodists in U.K, Lutherans and Calvinists in Switzerland etc developed. His purpose
of study here was to establish a link between Protestantism and Capitalism and to
demonstrate the link conventionally. For early demonstration of causal linkage, he
selectively picks.

Here, he found that Calvinism, Methodism’s petition were best suitable to demonstrate
the linkage. Even amongst these he felt Calvinism to be the most suitable, which also
happened to be his mother’s religion.
79
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Even in case of Calvinism, he doesn’t take into account all the doctrines, but selectively
chooses and builds a sequence. This is how he exercises, reflectivity in building an ideal
type.

Similarly he goes on about developing an ideal type about capitalism. According to

Weber, Protestantism and capitalism are two social constellations. Capitalism is of
different kinds, different of variety and different phases in its development. He selects
that variety of capitals where the links could be established.

Early entrepreneur type of capitalist is what he selects. This capitalism is different from
late financial capitalism. Today, to establish an industry bank can find your project if it is
viable. We can hire a consultancy firm to run enterprises and get profit. This was not the
case in early entrepreneurial type of capitalism. Here he, constructs the ideal types as well
as constructs a model based on it by exercising selectivity.

Now he goes on to demonstrate the causal link. Sequences of motives have to arranged to
establish the link.

Protestants had rejected role of priest and did away with priestly class. The Protestantism
teachers asked to approach each individual’s class directly without aid of priest.
Previously, the Church and priest were important source of security and support. This
developed an acute sense of anxiety and insecurity, if people will get salvation or not
Now, Calvin, the founder of Calvinism solve this problem of protestants with this theory
of Doctrine of predestination.

Doctrine of predestination says that salvation is predestined. So, this implies that priest
can’t give salvation to an individual. Calvin said that there are two kinds of people in
eyes of god (a) Elected (b) Damned. Calvin said that, only elected attains salvation and
damned remains like that. He further says that, priest can’t aid an individual, for getting
elected and that the people who are elected are predestined.

This view of Calvin created even more anxiety in people, as to what is to be done, if they
were elected or damned.

Further Calvin says two things.

(a) Ways of god cannot be known.
(b) God’s decision cannot be altered either. So, then how does know if he is elected
or damned.

Calvin starts with the assumption that salvation is obligatory. Calvin suggested a method.
(a) Begin with an assumption that you are elected.

80
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 (b) If you want proof of that, then treat your vocation in your life as a calling i.e. as a
god given duty. So, life must be devoted to god’s purpose or to demonstrate glory
of god.

God has only two purposes (a) demonstrate good of god. (b) Human welfare. Life
shouldn’t be wasted in seeking pleasure of flesh. So, life is to be totally devoted to god’s
purpose and to demonstrate glory of god, it lies in the success of your endeavors. God
will not bestow success upon damned, only elect can demonstrate glory of god.

Protestantism asks all Protestants to lead a life of self-demean, ascetics living, working
efficiently. Imperfection and inefficiency can’t be tolerated. Efficient/traditional
/organization of work, frugal livings, profits that are earned on manifestation is elected.
Profits that are attained should be reinvested for further success. The symbol of profit
shows that he is elect. Thus, this was his sequence of motives in Protestantism and its
course was as said. The effect was spirit of capitalism, a particular kind of entrepreneurial
mindset.

The ideology, contributed to spirit of capitalism which in turn contributed for rise of
capitalism. This is how he constructed the causal chain. Thus this explanation is adequate
at level of meanings and causality.

Thus Protestantism acted as a bridge between mundane and the spiritual. Pursuit of
wealth was no longer a greed driven actively. So, the work they were doing and pursuit of
wealth was god driven and it has to be done in most efficient way.

Weber in his study was not substituting Protestantism with capitalism. He was saying that
protestant ethos contributed to one element of capitalism, which is entrepreneurial
capitalism, which is the spirit of capitalism.

Criticism:
(i) Goldner, Mauller and Wallerstein didn’t agree with Weber’s conclusion. They believe
that colonialism is responsible for rise of capitalism in West. West in form of colonies got
huge market in Asia, Africa and America and simultaneously got cheap labour and raw
materials. The cost of production was low and demand was high which led to
accumulation of wealth and hence capitalism.

(ii) Peter Sombart believes that it isn’t true that the capitalist were only Protestant
believers. The capitalist came from all ranks and files of society like peasants, artisans,
landlords etc.

(iii) Weber thesis can only explain to us the rise of early capitalism. At best it can tell us
the initial stimulus for increasing production. Weber emphasizes on hard-work, frugal
living, risk taking which takes care of supply side of modern capitalism.

81
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
But if massive recession/slump takes place, growth declines. Then there would be
demand side problems. Weber doesn’t explain demand side problems; if suppose
everybody is ascetic, this orientation is likely to produce demand side problems.
Capitalism in early stages requires asceticism, but later capitalism requires hedonism,
which is more than capitalism.

Capitalism operates on consumerist ethos. It says that the more you consume, the more
better u are. So, entire capitalism or focus of capitalistic society is an encouraging
consumerist values. Consumerism operates on hedonism not asceticism. So, ethos of
asceticism partly explains supply side problems, but couldn’t account for demand side
problems.

EXTRA NOTES (To be studied)

Merton in his study found that, every scientist in Britain was a protestant including
Newton. Thus science and capitalism are two sides of a same coin. While Catholicism
emphasized good work, Protestantism emphasized hard work. So, Protestantism was
good work full of hard work which is found as evidence in many writings protestant
reformers.

Benjamin’s Franklin in his book titled ‘Advice to young trade men’ wrote the following.
 Money befits money’s its offspring more of it.
 He that murders time would destroy a lot.
 Good paymaster is lord of another’s purse.
 Punctuality, honesty, hard work, frugal living, ethical regulation of conduct were
propagated as features of Protestantism.

Weber further attempted a comparative study. The goal is to arrive at a generalization. So

far he has given an explanation which is meaningfully and causally adequate. To arrive at
generalization, he went for a comparison of all World religions. He divided religious into
two kinds. One is ascetic and another is mystic.

Ascetic religion: Emphasis in ascetic religion is to control and regulate human behavior,
because man is seen as an instrument of god’s will. The entire emphasis of religion is to
regulate, control and channelize them.

Mystical religion: Mysticism tries to attain states akin to divinity. Man is treated as
vassal of lord.

Based on above two types of religion, he looked into permutations (replacements) and
combination and arrived at the following
Ascetic Inner-worldly
Mystical Outer worldly

82
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Religion can either be inner worldly (Parsons calls it world affirmation ethos). Here,
religion provides sanctity to goals of this world.

Religion can also be outwardly. Religion gives sanctity to goals outside this world. This
is nothing but world rejection ethos.

Thus an ideology based on inner world asceticism; will contribute to rationalization of

social life. Industrial capitalism is nothing if there is no capitalism. Rationalization is a
process of transition from agrarians to industrial societies. All other combinations cannot
produce rationalization.

Further Weber goes on to says that protestant ethos had the character of inner worldly
ascetism and that is why it contributed to rise of capitalism, by injecting rationality in
mindset and by creating a new entrepreneurial society.

To further affirm his commitment to causal pluralism, he explains rise of capitalism in

terms of various facts. His argument was, only spirit of capitalism developed due to
Protestantism.

Jonathan Turner has shown as flow chart diagrams to demonstrate entire causal chain.
Here he says Catholicism was there initially in Western Europe. Due to the Protestants
movements again Catholicism, Lutheranism came. Lutheranism further contributes to rise
of Ascetic Protestantism which included within its fold, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptism,
Pietism etc. This contributed to spirit of capitalism. Along with this the structural
conditions in market economy further enhanced the spirit of capitalism. The spirit of
capitalism led to development of modern capitalism. It was a joint effort of structural
condition and spirit of capitalism for contribution to modern capitalism.

THE RISE OF MODERN CAPITALISM-JONATHAN TURNER

CATHOLICISM LUTHERANIS ASCETISM SPIRIT OF MODERN

PROTESTANTS CAPITALIS CAPITALIS
PROTESTANTISM M M
CALVANISMS
METHODISTS STRUCTURAL CONDITION
BAPTISM  NEW TECHNOLOGY
Reinforces
PIETISM  CONTRACTUAL
protestant ethos
 WAGE LABOUR
RELATIONS
 FREE MARKET
 POLITICAL
CENTRALISATION
 UNIVERSAL and
83
RATIONAL LEGAL
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
SYSTEM
 JOINT STOCK
COMPANY
Also the structural conditions reinforce the protestant ethos. This was accepted even by
Weber himself. Weber pointed out that many businessmen converted to Protestantism to
further promote their business interests.

Later on modern capitalism also contributed to spirit of capitalism. Those who are not
protestants also adopted this spirit. For example, Hindus. All this has today, become a
part of secular ethos and a way of life.

Thus what we see here is a multi-causal dialectical process. It is not monocausal and co
determinism as said by Marx that contributed to development of modern capitalism,
though Weber doesn’t’ disapprove Marx. The multi causal factors are here ethos and
spirit.

Weber seems to be admitting what Marx said that, there is justification in Engels view
that Protestantism developed after nascent capitalism. Historically it is true because in
Europe capitalism in its nascent stages was there right from 14th century. Protestantism
was a 16th century phenomenon. So, when Protestantism started growing, it contributed to
spirit of capitalism. Protestantism was largely urban, that is why modern capitalists
operated from towns.

REFLECTIONS OF WEBER’S THOUGHTS ON OTHER

SOCIETIES
In ancient India, when commerce and trade started, there developed a protest against the
orthodox Brahmin class. This protest contributed to development of Buddhism and
Jainism. Weber himself admits that, Jainism and Zoroastrianism were the two religions of
the oriental world which have same elements of Inner worldly ascetic religions and thus
has elements of Protestantism. The fact that Indian business dominated till 1980’s by
people of Gujarat, Maharashtra show that influence of Jainism in their areas and gives
acceptance to Weber study.

At this stage it is futile to argue whether Protestantism caused capitalism or capitalism

caused Protestantism. There is a great deal of merit in arguing that early capitalism
developed Protestantism. But once Protestantism developed it became an independent
cause and thus it contributed to modern capitalism. Don Manton Dayce says “Absolutely,
no doubt that both reinforced each other”

Weber thesis further created an interest in study of the rise of capitalism, though Marx
had already initiated this debate earlier.

Werner Sombart who wrote “The study of modern capitalism” divided capitalism of
Western Europe into three stages.

84
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 (a) Early capitalism
(b) High capitalism
(c) Late capitalism.

Till around mid of 18th century it was early capitalism. The late 18th to 19th century it was
a stage of high capitalism. From late 19th century to early 20th century it was a stage of
late capitalism.

Sombart accepted both Weber and Marx arguments. He accepts that economic, structural
conditions and ideologies contributed to rise of modern capitalism. Like Weber he also
harped a great deal on entrepreneurial class. He says that early entrepreneurs were drawn
from all classes.

Along with this Sombart gave historical account to rise of modern capitalism. He says
that colonization of Latin Americans played a very important role. Because Europe didn’t
have at that point of time any precious metals like gold or silver. Without silver and gold
they couldn’t trade with east. So they became net importers rather than exporters. But
after colonization of Latin America, Europeans began to trade and this again follows
what Weber says.

Sombart also highlights role of Jews. He says that initial banking system was created by
Jews only. As Catholics, according to their religious norms were not allowed to
accumulate money, give and collect interest, Jews landed on the shore, one famous Jew
was shylock and Venice. Even now most famous banks of Europe are owned by Jews. As
enough money was there this again led to the spirit capitalism.

Weber never said that he exhausted all facts. He said that more can always be added.
Particularly later day Marxists inspired by Lenin like Anthony Ginder Frank who wrote
“Development of underdeveloped” and others like Wallenstein etc emphasized role of
capitalism.

There was net outflow of capital from colonies to metropolitan countries. There countries
were a source of cheap raw material. Also there countries acted as a captive for finished
products. This is how colonial rule further contributed to growth of capitalism.

In fact England was able to prevent a revolution due to its colonies. Never did works of
England was subjected to the inhospitable conditions of works elsewhere. All parts of
Western Europe had revolutions, because this labors were treated badly.

But British showed its un-British characteristic in colonies. This didn’t arouse
revolutionary tendencies in England. At the same time capitals in large amounts were
also being transferred. Also Wages of workers were raised in England after 1860’s. As
workers experienced upward mobility; they too became conservative in character. This
suppressed revolutionary tendencies.

85
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Thus colonial colonies played a very important role. Also surplus man power was
transferred to other colonies From Canada to Australia, entire globe was colonized. This
is how later day scholars supplemented Weber.

ROLE OF OTHERS RELIGION FOR EMERGENCE OF SPIRIT OF

CAPITALISM

Was it only protestant ethos that contributed to rise of modern capitalism. Weber
classified religion into four types.
(a) Inner worldly Ascetic
(b) Out worldly Ascetic
(c) Inner worldly mystical
(d) Out worldly mystical

Amongst these only inner worldly ascetic ideologies contribute to rationalization process.
For him rise of modern capitalism is a case of rationalization or rational transformation of
social life.

If religion has elements of inner worldly asceticism, it will contribute to modern

capitalism. These elements are there in varying degrees. Weber cited Jainism and
Zoroastrianism. Jainism and Zoroastrianism had certain elements of inner worldly
asceticism.

Other scholars also tried to probe this. Kennedy made a study of Zoroastrianism. He
looked at life of Jain. He found that Jainism had remarkable similarities with
Puritanism in U.K. For example: Tata was renowned for his honesty and was never seen
as an avaricious money manager. At the same time he was believed to be prudent. His
son was compelled everyday to give a full account of time every day.

Kennedy further shows five similarities of Jainism with protestant ethos.

(1.) Desire to maximize material prosperity.
(2.) Rational and prudent management of money.
(3.) Careful rational accounting procedures.
(4.) Belief that hard work is intrinsically good
(5.) Scientific rationally. Belief in efficacy of science to solve human problems.

There was also a study conducted by Neves Kan about Jainism.

Actually Mahavira emphasized on certain goals that Jain monks have to take.
 Never to destroy any living thing/being.
 Never to steal
 Chastity of men
 Truthfulness
 Detachment from any personal thing.
86
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Most of Jains happened to be honest men who are skilled artisans or successful business
men. Jain spiritand ethical conduct was there in their business.

Wealth was not used for displaying or for self indulgence. Surplus that the produced
became profit and they reinvested money and didn’t use the extra money for conspicuous
consumption. According to him Jain beliefs came close to Quakers.
 Both Jain’s and Quakers avoided.
 Both were to be found in trade, business and commerce.
 Both emphasized on pacificism.

According to Pieris, Puritanism and Sikhism had lot of similarities.

(1.) Rejected caste based restrictions and opportunities.
(2.) Stressed virtues of hard work and emphasized austere style of living.
(3.) Strikingly positive attitude towards entrepreneurship and worldly success goals.

This is how to the extent other religion has inner worldly asceticism; they contributed to
rise of modern capitalism.

CLIFFORD GEERTZ STUDY ON JAVA MUSLIMS

He conducted filed work in Muslims communities of Java. He says that even Islam
contributed to generation of wealth though it is not inner worldly ascetic. But he says in
special circumstance he says even these communities had elements of protestant ethos.

Before Islamisation of Java, people of Java either belonged to Hindus or primitive tribes.
Initially java was ruled by the Chola kings who were Hindus. So, even after conversion to
Islam, they continued with pre-Islam practices.

Sukarto’s daughter name was Sukarnoputri Megawati showing Hindu influence in their
lives. These developed and Islamisation process in Indonesia, to adapt a truly Islamic life.
Condition was to visit. Haj once in a life time. So, to go to Haj everyone worked had; in
the process they took to trade, commerce, practiced frugal living. Even after they returned
from Haj; there habits continued and they ended up being efficient.

That’s how it contributed to rise of modern capitalism though it is not an inner worldly
ascetic religion.

STUDY OF [Link] IN 3rd WORLD COUNTRIES

He says that nationalism emerged as an alternative to protestant ethos in third world. So,
what protestant ethos did to Western Europe, nationalism had done to third world
societies after independence. As a result of it modern capitalism had developed in third
world societies, even though there was no protestant ideology.

87
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
State bureaucracy played a very important and active role in this process. Even Weber
admits that idea of inner worldly asterism needn’t always be religion. It can also be
secular ethos. Nation building became another name for industrial capitalism.

Weber also discussed about china and India in detail. He also explained why modern
capitalism failed to develop in these societies, although many of structural conditions
which existed in Europe were found to be in china and India.

CHINA
Firstly there was a great deal of trade and commerce principle of equality of opportunity
came to be institutionalized for more than 1000 years for recruiting civil servants for
administration.

This was political centralization and effective enforcement of law and order which was
an important pre requisite for rise of modern capitalism.

Many urban centers also developed; there were rather very few restricted economic
activities. So, there was a great deal of freedom for pursuit of economic deals.

Technical advancements were remarkable. Till medieval time’s china was the most
technologically advanced country of the world.

After Marco polo established trade links, along with trade, there was also transfer of
technology.

In spite of all the existence of structural conditions, Weber says modern capitalism didn’t
develop though there was, availability of precious metals in china, monetary system
didn’t develop. Cities didn’t enjoy the autonomy which they did in Europe which could
have facilitated trade and commerce. Principle of equality before law never developed.
Chinas bureaucracy had classically learnt men rather than trained experts.
Commerce was always seen as inferior and lowly activity. Chinese religion, particularly
amongst dominant class were followers of Confucianism “unlike, protestant ethos which
emphasized a need for controlling world and transforming it Confucianism accepted
world as it is and emphasis was on behaving prudently in being harmony with it. So,
rationalization as a way of life didn’t develop.

INDIA
In medieval times, there were remarkable advances in India. Karkhanas had artisans
whose technical skills were of higher order, due to which India was a net exporter unlike
china’s there was monetization in India. Even trades commerce existed. Political stability
was also there in India for a long period. Akbar ruled India for a period of 55 years.
Irony is when Akbar reign started, India was ahead of Europe, which at that time was
being ruled by Queen Elizabeth. By the time Akbar’s reign ended, India lagged behind
England. Both of them were not devoutly fanatic. Both were tolerant and tactful. Yet in
India modern capitalism didn’t arrive.
88
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Why?
(1.) Hinduism in its dominant ideologies, as it was prevalent during medieval times,
ended to look at this world as illusion and laid emphasis on transcendence of this
world. Highest goal was Moksha. Same was even with Islamic ideology as it was
a other worldly religion.

Hawkins, who visited court of Jahangir presented and printed Bible to him.
Jahangir asked his men to keep in museum. That was the insular mentality of the
rulers. Jahangir could have imported that technology printed books would have
made a world of difference in providing mass education. Mass education could
have produced skill labor. This is how it was insular and other worldly.

(2.) Structural Conditions like caste system discouraged any trend towards
rationalization, because a person’s station in social life is furred rewards he is to
get an occupation he has to fulfill is determined by birth. So, there was no
incentive for efficiency and hard work. That is why there was no improvement
even in agriculture sector.

(3.) Although condition was very propitious for rise of modern capitalism, during
Mughal period and even before that, there was no respect for institution of private
properties. Wealth of an individual could be confiscated by emperors, if he faith
out of the good books of king. There was no law which ensured sanctity of private
property. This was not the case in Western Europe.

Nobility and aristocrats who accumulated fabulous wealth, never thought of reinvesting
it, rather involved in luxury consumption. Kharkhanas catered to luxury needs of upper
class. Taxation was so high, that there was no surplus left with peasants. So, there was no
middle class in society.

Enormous amount of revenue which was collected was squandered in wars of conquest.
Mughal emperors had an obsession with Pan-Indian Empire. Aurangzeb nearly succeeded
in doing it yet, most of his agricultural income was spent on their wars. Also, Mughals
maintained huge standing armies. Trade also didn’t develop due to restriction of business
only to luxurious goods.

Same money could have been used for digging wells, constructing canals and laying
roads. After Ashoka, only Shershah Suri was the only notable king who laid emphasis
on development of basic amenities to people. Road could have linked rural and urban
areas. Trade and business would have developed. Also goods would have reached remote

89
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
parts. At same time middle class would have ground. Poverty was age old in India only
thing was that, it reached its peak during British rule.

If all this would have been happened, India would have been in a different position now.
Because of its outer worldly natures, modern capitalism never developed.

90
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 TALCOTT PARSONS
Social System
Talcott Parsons attempted to develop and perfect a general analytic model suitable for
analyzing all types of collectivities. Unlike the Marxists, who focused on the occurrence
of radical change, Parsons explored why societies are stable and functioning. His model
is ‘AGIL’, which represents the four basic functions that all social systems must perform
if they are to persist.

According to Parsons ‘a plurality of social actions, meaningfully related gives rise to a

social system. The methodological tool that he suggests here for the analysis of system is
known as “the systematic approach”.

A systematic approach is that, a system for the purpose of analysis can be broken down
into unit acts to establish a relationship. Now, every unit act can be treated as a system
and is endless. For Parsons, social system is not a reality, it is only a conceptual tool for
the analysis of society.

The concept of system involves three basic requirements:

(a) Concept of structure – A relationship exist between various parts of a system.
(b) Notion of function – All the parts of a system carry out their requisite duties.
(c) Internal dynamics – Every system undergoes a system of change over time. There are
self propelled evolutionary forces in every system contributing to change.

Concrete social system are interlinked in already established large social relationship.
Parsons examines this relationship at two levels:
Parsons begins by stating that all social systems developed within the boundary of an
already established socio-cultural system, which to a great extent is responsible for the
definition of roles, normative standards and system goals. For example, when two people
marry, they form a new family, but they do not invent the institution of family. Off
course each couple has to workout its own final set of mutual adjustments in which the
socially prescribed roles are modified in various ways.

The second way in which social systems are seen as embedded in a larger social
boundary, that is, smaller systems are usually the components of larger ones, which in
turn are components of still larger ones. For example, the mother-child dyad is a sub-
system within a family. The family within a community and so on.

Thus Parsons’ conception of the social system begins at the micro level; later on after the
fifties (1950s) he concentrated on complex forms of social system (macro level).

91
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Structural Functional Analysis of Social System
According to Parsons the social system attempts to demonstrate that consensus on shared
values is essential to maintain social order. Here, he states that the normative pattern
which becomes institutionalized for any particular type of relationship tends to be
relevant to the effective functioning of that type of system. For example, families
performs a set of functions different from those of business firms, government agencies,
religious organizations etc.

On the basis of the above concept Parsons formulated his structural functional analysis.
Now, Parsons examines the postulates of structural functional analysis.

First it is about needs or imperative of an individual or those of a particular social cultural

system or the society as a whole. The formula for deciding whether a thing is a need or
not is that if it is not present, some dysfunctional consequences will follow, disturbing the
system. ‘Needs’ can be divided into two major categories:
(i) First category of needs are those which are universal, all system, if they have to
survive as systems, must fulfill these needs. These are called ‘functional pre-requisites’ or
imperative.

(ii) Second category of needs is those which are unique to each system. They are called
‘derived needs’ or secondary needs. They originate from circumstances peculiar to a
given system.

Functional Pre-requisites
Parsons considers that social systems, while maintaining social order experience
functional problems, fulfillment of functional pre-requisites help sort out the problems.

Functional pre-requisites refer to a complex of activities directed towards meeting the

needs of a system. These functional pre-requisites can be divided into two categories:
(i) One set of functional pre-requisites consist of those activities which are related to the
system-environment (external) relations, and

(ii) Second consist of a set of activities which are related to the internal organization of
the system itself.

Thus, inside a system of action are to be found functions or complex of activities some
dealing with system with its external environment and other with its internal
organizational needs.

Parsons identifies four needs which he calls as functional pre-requisites of any social
system. They are – ‘AGIL’:

92
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Adaptation Goal Attainment
A G
(Economy) (Polity)

L I
(Fiduciary) (Societal
Community)
Latency (PMTM) Integration

According to Parsons, at any moment in the life of a system of action, the ‘unit acts’
which compromise it are related to one or the other of these four functional pre-
requisites.

Adaptation: The first functional pre-requisite is adaptation. It refers to the relationship

between the system and its external environment. In order to survive social systems must
have some degree of control over their environment to provide food and shelter to meet
the physical needs of their members.

The economy is the sub-system that performs the function of society of adapting to the
environment through labour, production and allocation. Through such work, the economy
adapts the environment to society’s needs, and helps society adapt to these external
realities.

Goal Attainment: Parsons puts in this category, all actions which serve to define the
goals of the system and which seeks to mobilize resources and efforts to attain these
goals. The polity (or political system) performs the functions of goal attainment by
pursuing societal objectives and mobilizing actors and resources to that end.

Integration: It refers to primarily to the adjustment of conflict. It is concerned with co-

ordination and mutual adjustment of the various parts of the social system. The unit-act
related to this need aims at establishing control, inhibit deviant tendencies and maintain
coordination between parts. The integration function is performed by the societal
community, for example, the law or judicial system.

Latency (Pattern Maintenance and Tension Management – PMTM): This refers to

maintenance of the basic pattern of values institutionalized in society. This (fiduciary)
system (for example, the schools, the family, religion) handles the latency function by
transmitting culture (norms and values) to individuals and allowing it to be internalized
by them.

Integration and latency, relate to the second category of needs, that is, those needs which
are related to internal of a system.

93
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Parsons maintains that any social system can be analysed in terms of functional pre-
requisites he identified. He refers to these four functions by the abbreviations ‘AGIL’.

The analysis of the four functional problems is true of any social system. AGIL scheme
represents the four functional problems which all social system must meet if they are to
exist and maintain themselves.

Criticism:
(i) Critics have charged that Parsons system of concepts does not corresponds to events in
the real world. Dahrendorf compares Parsons’ social system with utopia. The absence of
change and the existence of universal consensus.

(ii) Buckley also says that Parsons social system is a vaguely conceptualized amalgam of
mechanistic and organismic models placing excessive emphasis on integration, consensus
and stability and devaluing change, conflict and strife.

(iii) Percy Cohen sees the problem in social system that all the elements of a society are
seen as reinforcing one another as well as the system as a whole. This makes it difficult to
see how these elements can also contribute to change.

(iv) I.L. Horowitz says that Parsons tend to see conflict as necessarily destructive which
is wrong assumption.

94
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Pattern Variables
To make social system more clear Parsons deals with cultural variables or Pattern
Variables. He considers that there is a huge amount of diversity across social system, and
so there is need to arrive at a common set of variables by which they can be analyzed.
Those variables should be valid for all types of social systems. These are called pattern
variables.

Further, Parsons says that culture is patterned and institutionalized, but culture is not
patterned in a monolithic way, rather it is dualistically patterned. This duality of cultural
patterns offers us the range of choice either this or that. This duality confronts the actors
as dilemma, which the actor has to resolve through a culture. According to Parsons this
duality exists at multiple levels. He identified five levels of this duality. The five levels at
which duality is manifested, Parsons called them Pattern Variables.

The levels are:

(i) Particularism Vs Universalism
(ii) Quality Vs Performance
(iii) Affectivity Vs Affective Neutrality
(iv) Diffuseness Vs Specificity
(v) Collective-orientation Vs Self-orientation

(i) Particularism Vs Universalism

This is the dilemma of categorization of social objects. When the actor has to evaluate
and judge, there are two possible ways in which it can be judged. For example, A man
may consider his son intelligent simply because he is his son, but if he is a member of a
recruitment board, he has to follow an objective criterion in judging intelligence.

Whether someone is a good doctor or a beautiful are matters to be determined by our

universalistic ground. But while certain modes of behaviour might be evoked towards
beautiful women in general, when one’s own life is involved, one is committed in many
special ways regardless of beauty. On the other hand the choice of a doctor not on the
basis of his competence but because he is a friend, is an example of giving precedence to
particularistic criteria over universalistic one.

(ii) Quality Vs Performance (Ascription vs Achievement)

This is yet another dilemma. It is to be judged in terms of what it is or what it does. The
above two are pattern variables of modality of objects. For example, Is an actor expected
to give importance to the achieved or to the ascribed? Sex, age, family and caste are
ascribed; merit and success are achieved.

(iii) Affectivity Vs Affective Neutrality

Here the actor has to make a choice between two situations. The choice is whether to let
emotions dominate behaviour or to keep emotions apart. For example, A husband should

95
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
be affectively involved with wife, but a doctor is not supposed to be with his patient.
Social system of a family is different from that of medical care. The roles of the same
person as a doctor and as a husband are different.

Affective or emotional relationship are found in family or peer groups, here emotions
dominate over behaviour. But in occupational groups like soldier, civil servant etc.
relationship is instrumental, task-oriented and not to be enjoyed in its own right. In other
words, action is not for self-gratification but to achieve the goal of large organization.

(iv) Diffuseness Vs Specificity

Here the dilemma is to participate in a relation as a total person (diffuse) or participate in
a specific capacity (specificity). For example, the marriage relationship (Husband-Wife)
may serve as a prototype of diffuse relationship i.e. ego orients to alter as a total
personality. But as a boss he should have job-specific relationship with his secretary.

(v) Collective-orientation Vs Self-orientation

Here the dilemma is between collective and private (personal) interest. The concern is
primacy of moral standards in an evaluative procedure. For example, a man as a husband
or a father is expected to think for his family, i.e. to be collective oriented but as a
salesman he has to think of profits for himself i.e. to be self-oriented.

According to Parsons, all social system can be described in terms of these five pattern
variables. These pattern variables represent dilemmas of choices of orientation
(socialization) which have to be resolved before an action is performed. All these levels
are subsumed under natural and rational will.

Thus there is no unlimited freedom. Later he says for most part culture itself answers the
questions. For example, be particularistic in private and universalistic in family, which is
culturally accepted way.

Criticism:
(i) Parsons did not take into account clash of interests across sections, clashes or roles
(role conflict) in a society. In modern society there is an interchange of personnel
between systems so there is great potential for conflicts in standardized norms and values.
Parsons has ignored this dilemma.

(ii) C.W. Mills considers that an institution is a set of roles graded in authority. For
example, in doctor-patient relationship, doctor wants to maintain distance from a normal
patient, vice-versa if the patient is VIP he tries to develop closeness.

(iii) Devereux considers Parsons list of pattern variables inadequate. He mentions that
Parsons at one time entertained the idea of introducing long run versus short run as a
variable. He didn’t included it at the end. If he would had included it as well as influence
of power in relationship, his theory would had contained more merit.

96
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 ROBERT K. MERTON

Manifest and Latent Functions

(Merton’s – Functional Paradigm)

Merton’s work is noted for the close connections between theoretical issues and empirical
evidence. In his book “Social Theory and Social Structure” he has dealt with ‘functional
paradigm’ including ‘Manifest and Latent’ functions. Functional paradigm of Merton is
an attempt at modification and codification of functional analysis. (When various
practices exist informally in society, and when they are formally shaped in form of a law,
it is called codification. For example, IPC.)

Prior to Merton most thinkers used functional approach. Durkheim in his study of
religion was actually influenced by Radcliffe Brown and Malinowski. These both
inspired Parsons also. Their method was called functionalism, Radcliffe Brown in order
to sound different called it structural-functionalism.

Functional analysis as practiced by these people starting from 1913 till 1950, their
approach was considered as a conservative ideology. Merton arrived on the stage when
Parsons was being heavily criticized for his status quoits ideology. Merton was
influenced by Parsons though he had important difference with him. Merton’s role was
that of an insider who wanted to set the house in order. So, he goes about probing on
classical functional approach and to why it is being criticized as conservative and also to
modify it.

He wanted to avoid confusion about how this methodology is to be applied. He gave

procedural steps to apply functional analysis, which is nothing but codification. In fact,
he did a thorough examination of the structural functional approach and offered
correctives to them. In a way he attempts to refine and develop functional analysis.

Merton criticized the three basic postulates of functional analysis as developed by

Malinowski and Radcliffe Brown. He questioned the three assumptions and their utility;
which should have been tested and suitably modified.
(i) Postulate of Functional Unity
(ii) Postulate of Universal Functionalism
(iii) Postulate of Functional Indispensability

(i) Postulate of Functional Unity

He said that this assumption is found very explicitly in works of Radcliffe Brown, though
implicitly present in Parsons and Malinowski’s work.

This assumption states that any part of the social system is functional for the entire
system. All parts of society are seemed to work together for the maintenance and
97
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
integration of society as a whole. According to Radcliffe Brown, every social system
should have minimum functional unity.

Merton agrees to this statement of Radcliffe Brown, as some degree of functional unity is
required otherwise it will break apart. But if functional unity is to be arrived at
empirically, we also observe functional disunity along with it. For example, In pluralistic
society, with a variety of faiths religion may tend to divide rather than unite.

Thus, when we look at a social system, assumptions of both unity and disunity are to be
taken into account. By not accounting for functional disunity, functionalists have become
unsuitable for studying modern Industrial societies.

(ii) Postulate of Universal Functionalism

This assumption states that all standardized social or cultural forms has positive
functions. According to Malinowski, every cultural item satisfies some vital needs. Thus
every item is functional.

Merton disagrees to this view. He suggests that functionalist analysis should proceed
from the assumption or dysfunctional (harmful) or non-functional (irrelevant). For
example, caste was functional in simple agrarian Indian society but in contemporary
society it is dysfunctional. (Coccyx bones at lower end of spinal cord were useful till
human had tail (functional) but now it is dysfunctional.)

In addition, the units for which a particular part is functional must be clearly specified.
These units may be individual, groups or society as a whole.

(iii) Postulate of Functional Indispensability

This postulate arises out of postulate of universal functionalism. This makes every item
necessary. They ended up arguing nothing should be changed, as every part has positive
consequences.

This postulate leads to the idea that all structures and functions are functionally necessary
for society. No other structures and functions could work quite as well as those that are
currently found within society. Functionalists have often seen religion in this light. For
example, Davis and Moore claims that religion plays a unique and indispensable part in
society. This makes functionalist status quoist.

Merton calls for modification of this postulate. He says that we must at least be willing to
admit that there are various structural and functional alternatives or equivalents to be
found within society.

This idea was there in Durkheim study of religion. Durkheim said that in modern
industrial societies, religion will not be functional and secular ideologies will replace
system. Thus, according to Merton, to account for change, to be progressive, functional
alternatives are a must.
98
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Merton argues that the postulates of the functional unity, universal functionalism and
indispensability are little more than articles of faith. These functional postulates rely on
non-empirical assertions based on abstract, theoretical systems. At a minimum, it is the
responsibility of the sociologist to examine each empirically.

[Merton’s belief that empirical tests, not theoretical assertions, are crucial to functional
analysis led him to develop his ‘paradigm’ of functional analysis as a guide to the
integration of theory and research.]

Manifest and Latent Function

According to Merton the term ‘function’ in its simplest meaning means the extent to
which some parts or process of a social system contributes to the maintenance of the
system. In Merton’s approach it is very clear that function does not mean purpose or
motivation but the extent to which a given activity promotes or interferes (function or
dysfunction) with the maintenance of a system.

Further, Merton makes a distinction between two forms of function and introduced the
concepts of manifest and latent functions. These two terms have also been important
additions to functional analysis.

Manifest functions are objective consequences for some persons or social or cultural
system, which contributes to its adjustment and they were also intended, as for example,
enforcement of law and order by the police.

Latent function are consequences which contribute to adjustment but were not intended,
as for example, incest taboo.

In simple terms, manifest functions are essentially the official explanation of a given
action. Latent functions are the sociological explanation of a given action.

Even this idea is not new and implicitly found in the works of Durkheim and Malinowski.
Durkheim while discussing study of religion pointed out differences between what people
think and what actually happens. When people worship, they don’t think of solidarity to
take shape, though objectives are different, at end of it they only obtain well being. So,
finally what obtains is solidarity, though what they seek is different.

Malinowski also talks of the tribes of Trobriand Islander, believing that evil will be
driven away by following some customs. But what actually was driven away is anxiety
and this gives confidence to them.

In the same way, Merton also considers that maintain distinctions between manifest and
latent functions help us to understand why irrationally many things continue to happen.
He cites an example of his own empirical study. Amongst the Hopi Indian, who are the
Red Indian tribes, there was a practice of rain making ceremony. Belief is irrational, yet it
99
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
is continuing, though rain may not fall. This is in practice because, what they are exactly
getting there is solidarity. This solidarity brings them together again, which is both latent
and observable. But this function cannot be sustained by facts. Thus, scope of knowledge
increases when we search into latent.

To conclude, Merton made an effort to counteract the rigidity of previous functional

theories by suggesting a number of paradigms for functional analysis, which among other
things, stressed the need to consider dysfunctions as well as functions. Attacked the
conservative implication that any item was indispensable to the operation of a given
social structure by highlighting the twin notions of functional alternatives and
dysfunctions. Merton banished Panglossian optimism that all was always to the best in all
possible words.

Criticism:
(i) This theory is against the goals of objectivity in sociology, since latent functions are
not observable and cannot be proved. It completely depends upon the researcher what
latent function he/she is identifying out of that particular manifest function.

(ii) Colin Campbell considers that, Latent function can be used as a tool to justify many
wrongdoings in the society which primarily signifies orthodoxy, evil customs etc.

(iii) Functionalism was criticized as a status quoist theory. Merton wanted to make it a
dynamic one but his purpose remained unfulfilled through this theory.

100
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Conformity and Deviance
In his famous essay ‘Social Structure and Anomie’, Merton developed his theory of
deviance while analysis of the relationship between culture, structure and anomie. He
offered a theory of deviance on the basis of social structure i.e. in terms of uneven effects
of norms and values on the individuals differently placed in a structure.

When members of society consciously try to follow the norms, such kind of behavior is
called conformist behavior. It is not by chance, but it is due to a deliberate attempt that a
person follows norms. So, any behavior which follows the norm is called conformist
behavior and any behavior which fails to do or deviates from norms is called deviance.

No behavior ever confirms in totally. In most cases there is always a degree of deviance,
but this deviance is mostly within tolerant limit of society. This stage is also referred
within ambit of conformity. When deviation is beyond tolerance level, it is deviance.
Level of tolerance varies from society to society. Society also may respond differently.

According to sociologists a deviant is a normal person in an abnormal society, which

pushes the individual to deviance. So, the causal effects are still found in society.
(1) Durkheim was first to talk about deviance. Firstly, he said deviance is universal
because perfect society cannot exist.
(2) Secondly he says all attempts at reform begin as deviance.
(3) Thirdly, normal deviance is deferrable and functional. Deviance (abnormal social
facts) occurs when whole of cultural social norms gets weakened, and if followed
by punishment, it helps in rejuvenating cultural social norms. What is deviant
today may because normal tomorrow.

For Durkheim, anomie is primary cause of deviance. For him, anomie exists in the form
of inadequacy of norms. New situations arise because norms haven’t developed. For
example- In Gujarat there is business of child bearing and rearing. So, surrogate mothers
are on the rise. More the change more will be the anomie. So, in modern industrial
society technology grows, but norms remain unchanged. So, anomie results.

The second possibility is about contradictory norms. More rapid the change more is
anomie. This leads to anomie of poly normativism. For example- multiplicity of norms.
This is how Durkheim had earlier talked of anomie and deviance before Merton arrived
on scene.

When Merton arrived on the scene in 1931, he tried to further develop on these lines. In
his first major work ‘The paradigm of Anomie’ he highlights the contradictions of
capitalistic society in America. Here he identifies yet another manifestation of anomie.
For Merton Anomie is a character of social structure.

101
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Merton says, anomie involve a situation where there is lack of coordination (mismatch)
between ‘culturally defined goals’ and ‘structurally available means to achieve their
goals. He begins from the standard functionalist position of value consensus, that is, all
members of society share the same values. The value system of society glorifies certain
goals and people in the society internalize these goals. But their position (location) in
social structure is such that it doesn’t’ give access to those goals. Structurally they are
held back, but culturally they are pushed forward. This is what is called state of anomie.

As reformulated by Merton anomie becomes a concept used in the analysis of deviance.

Taking America as an example, he says, wealth and monetary success is a cherished
American dream, that people should have lot of money. As far as means and goals are
concerned, society provides certain structurally institutionalized means (education, hard
work, talent, ambition) and culturally defined goals. But the legitimate means which are
desirable are not accessible due to their structural locations. Individuals will respond to a
situation of anomie in different ways. In particular, their reaction will be shaped by their
position in the social structure.

Merton draws the paradigm for the individual and adaptation of anomie. He outlines five
possible ways in which members of American society can respond to success goals along
with it he identifies two parameters.
Institutionalized Cultural
Means Goal
Conformity + +
Innovation - +
Ritualism + -
Retreatism - -
Rebellion + +

The first and the most common response is conformity. Those who are located at higher,
Merton says have access to means. They use legitimate means to acquire culturally
approved goals and thus are called conformists.

A second response is innovation. People at the rock bottom of hierarchy (lower social
strata), if develops strong commitment to goals, devise means by rejecting, legitimate
means. They are least likely to succeed via conventional channels due to low educational
qualification and little opportunity for advancement. Thus there is greater pressure upon
them to deviate. To Merton, innovators are ‘imperfectly socialized’ so that they abandon
institutionalized means while retaining success aspirations. (For example- Dawood
Ibrahim, who was son of a constable in Mumbai police, took to illegitimate means as he
had strong determination towards success.)

Merton uses the term ritualism to describe the third possible response. People from
lower middle class have notions of respectability. They want to make it big in life, but
they are held back due to their structural location. Also, due to their notions of
respectability, they don’t break law. Merton also calls them stickler class. Those people
102
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
who accept the means but don’t accept the goals. They simply want to follow the rules,
but don’t care much about being successful. This is due to ‘over-socialization’ and their
response is called ritualism. They are deviant because they have rejected the success
goals held by most members of society.

Merton terms the fourth and least common response ‘retreatism’. It applies to
psychotics, chronic drunkers and drug addicts. They have strongly internalized both the
cultural goals and institutionalized means, yet are unable to achieve success. They resolve
the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goals and the means of reaching
them. They are unable to cope and drop out of society, defeated and resign to their
failure. They are deviant in two ways – they have deviated from the cultural goals and the
institutionalized means. Merton does not relate retreatism to social class position.

Rebellion formed the fifth and final response. This category of people rejects existing
means and goals, but tries to create a new kind of legitimate means and goals. They want
to change the world. They generally belong to upper middle class rather than most
depressed strata. They bounce back in society using alternative means and creating
alternative goals. (For example- Gandhi, Lenin, Harvard and called ‘Rebels’.)

These are the various kinds of adaptations. These are the various ways through which
individual can adapt to state of anomie in society. This is not an empirical study, but he is
only probing logical possibilities. He called it ‘paradigm of anomie’. This is how he says,
situation of anomie can exert pressure by pushing individuals towards deviant behavior.

To summarize, Merton claims that his analysis show how the culture and structure of
society generates deviance. The over emphasis upon the cultural goals in American
society at the expense of institutionalized means creates a tendency towards anomie. This
tendency exerts pressure for deviance. A pressure which varies depending on a person’s
position in the class structure. The way a person responds to this pressure will also
depend upon his position in the class structure.

Merton thus presents a sociological theory of deviance. He explains deviance in terms of

the nature of society rather than the nature of the individual (psychic abnormality). This
sparked off a great debate in sociology. It contributed to growth of entire branch of
sociology of ‘crime and deviance’.

Criticism:
(i) Albert Cohen says that Merton’s theory does explain the deviance oriented towards
monetary rewards, that is, professional crime but could not explain non-utilitarian crime.
For example, street brawls, vandalism which is without any motive or do not produce
monetary rewards.

He sees this kind of crime as a result of frustration which is born out of being at the
lowest level of social hierarchy. Crime becomes a safety valve. It is a result of status
frustration.
103
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
(ii) Walter Miller parts company from both Merton and Cohen in his explanation of lower
class delinquency. According to him, not every criminal of poor strata is really a
frustrated person. Arguing on the line of Oscar Lewis (Culture of poverty), he explains
that even a normal person who acts according to the culture of his class gets labeled as
deviant. In some societies children are given instructions to become a criminal. It is their
culture and so socialized and trained to be a criminal, for example, Kanjars, Meenas,
Sansi etc. This is their sub-culture.

Sub-culture theories argue that certain groups develop distinctive norms and values
which deviate from the mainstream culture of the society. Miller says that it is a sub-
culture that is responsible for deviance.

(iii) Marxist theory of deviance: Marx looks for cause of deviance in terms of economic
structure of society. Conditions existing in superstructure are shaped by conditions
prevailing in infrastructure. The law are made in the interest of capitalist class.

James Graham, a Marxist, conducted a study in USA, about ‘Drug abuse prevention and
control Act’. This law was passed by Nixon administration. The declared purpose of this
law was to prevent drug abuse. The Act demanded license for this production and only
MNCs were awarded license because they were able to fulfill criterion. All small
manufacturer were delicensed. As a result all the drug that was produced was a monopoly
of large organizations.

There was no difference of supply of drug in black market. The abuse of drug didn’t stop.
The only difference was that, prices went high and profits went to rich owners. This is
how rich and powerful make laws in such a way as to serve their interests.

104
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 Reference Groups
The concept of ‘reference group’ was first developed in social psychology and later on in
Sociology. Primary focus here is to attempt an understanding of human behaviour in
terms of subjectively significant factors.

Durkheim tried to understand human behaviour using social facts. But here we have to
look at factors which are crucial for actor itself. Certain factors are vital from actor’s
point of view, but may not be generally shared by all. They can’t be explained using
general customs.

This term was first introduced in social psychology by ‘Herbert Hymann’. He used it to
refer to an individual or a group, which individuals take as a point of reference to
evaluate his or her own situations or conduct. In other words, the reference group may be
an imaginary group to which we would like to belong. We might belong to another group
but would like to belong and confirm to norms of other group.

Harold Kelley further developed this concept pointing out that, when we take a group for
frame of reference, it is for two purposes. These purposes may sometime overlap also.

They are:
(i) Comparative Reference (Either for comparison or self evaluation)
(ii) Normative Reference (For emulation)

Comparative reference group is that group which is taken as the basis for self evaluation
and self approval, which provides a frame of comparison related to which the individual
evaluates himself and others.

Normative reference group is that group whose conduct we try to emulate (imitate), and
who sets and maintains standard for the individual. In other words, normative reference is
seen as guide to action.

These two references need not be mutually exclusive. The two types are only analytically
distinct. Sometimes for two purposes, same kind of reference group may be used for
comparative and normative reference.

Merton tried to develop it further. According to him ‘any of the in-groups (membership)
or out-groups (non-membership) which becomes points of reference for shaping one’s
attitudes, evaluations and behaviour, is his reference group.’

He adds that for members of a particular group, another group is a reference group if any
of the four circumstances prevail:
(i) Some or all the members of the first group aspire for membership in the second group.

105
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
(ii) The members of the first group strives to be like the members of the reference group
in some respect or to make their group like the reference group in some respect. Here, we
can notice one thing that the first group wants to be like the second group simply because
the first group cannot secure the membership of the second group. For example, the non-
brahmins in some parts of India have a tendency to imitate the ways of behaviour of the
Brahmins in order to acquire the prestige of the Brahmins.

(iii) The members of the first group derives some satisfaction from being unlike the
members of the reference group in some respect and strive to maintain the difference
between the groups or between themselves and the members of the reference group. For
example, in the US, the whites strive to remain unlike the Negros and enjoy more
prestige, superiority in ranking etc. In this case Negroes serves as the reference groups for
the whites.

(iv) Without necessarily striving to be like or unlike the reference group or its members,
the members of the first group evaluate their own group or themselves using standard for
comparison.

By the above characteristics and circumstances we can reach to conclusion that any group
is a reference to the one whose conception of the group is realistic or unrealistic, but is a
part of his frame of reference. This becomes more clearer with the study of ‘Stauffer’.

During World War II, a research team was commissioned to study the morale of
American soldiers. This research team was led by Samuel Stauffer and the title of this
study was ‘The American Soldiers’. In their study they came across a phenomenon which
defies common sense. The subjective/psychological state of deprivation and
objective/existential condition of life are not isometrically related.

People who should be happy were found to be unhappy and people who should be
unhappy were found to be happy. Here, what they saw was a sense of deprivation
(negative emotions). The perceived sense of deprivation is relative, not absolute. So, they
introduced concept of ‘relative deprivation’. They observed that soldiers in cantonment
were unhappy and soldiers at war happy, rather it should be other way round. This was
against common sense.

Merton picked up from here. He agreed that deprivation is relative to reference group. He
found using the same data that those who were in the cantonment area, their reference
groups were friends and families and that is why they felt deprived.

For soldiers on war, reference group was his senior in Army. So, they were happy and
thus there was no sense of deprivation. For example, feminists who are well educated
with urban exposure feel deprivation, but in village, women are not feminists. Because
for feminists reference group is men, and for villagers reference group is their ancestors.

106
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
So, deprivation is not subjected to objective conditions but is relative to reference group;
without change in conditions, one may become happier or unhappier. Often discontent
increases when society progresses. If people become educated, reference group changes.

To conclude, Merton’s theory of ‘reference group’ aims to systematize the determinants

and consequences of those process of evaluation in which individuals takes values and
standard of other individuals as a comparative frame of reference.

Functional aspects of Reference Group:

Merton has mentioned certain functions as well as dysfunctions of reference groups.

First of all, reference group motivates the individual to accept its values, attitudes and
behaviour-pattern. Consequently, not only many newer values, ideals, thoughts, images
and behaviour pattern are added to individual’s personality, but also there emerges
possibilities of his going high in social status because of those new values, thoughts etc.

Thus, according to Merton, the function of reference groups towards anticipatory

socialization of the individual is noteworthy.

[Anticipatory socialization refers to learning of the rights, obligations, expectations and

outlook of a social role or beliefs, values and norms of a status or group to which he
aspires. This kind of socialization is part of training in any administrative hierarchy.]

But when the reference group is of negative nature, its influence on individual can be
dysfunctional. Also when the society is of closed or conservative nature, it does not
tolerate such individuals who discards the accepted traditional norms, values and ideals
and accept that of others. Such betrayal or change over is resisted and opposed by the
society as a result of which the state of social tension and conflict emerges.

107
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
 G.H. Mead
Self and Identity
Mead belongs to ‘philosophical realism’ branch of ‘Chicago School of Sociology’ of
symbolic interactionism. The philosophical realism or social realists’ emphasis is on
society and how it constitutes and controls individual mental processes. Rather than being
free agents, actors and their cognitions and behaviours are controlled by the larger
community.

The ideas of George Herbert Mead became known to the larger world through his
posthumously published book “Mind, Self and Society”. Here, he has meticulously
shown how society or the social whole precedes the individual mind both logically and
temporally. The social group comes first, and it leads to the development of self-
conscious mental states.

Mead in his book “Mind, Self and Society” has developed the concept of ‘I’ and ‘Me’.
According to him ‘I’ represents the unsocialised self of the individual which develops at
the early age of child. Usually in the early ages, alters or society treats in a very confident
perception about themselves called ‘I’.

But over the period when individual interacts with the society or alters, society starts
evaluating individual on the basis of general rules which are equally applied on the other
members of society. Over the periods unsocialised ‘I’ convert into ‘Me’ and over the
period the difference between ‘I’ and ‘Me’ disappears and individual develops the real
‘self’.

Mead says that ‘Self’ is essentially a social process going on with these distinguishable
phases. It is important to bear in mind that the ‘I’ and the ‘Me’ are processes within the
larger process of the self; they are not ‘things’. And ‘self’ is basically the ability to take
oneself as an object; the self is the peculiar ability to be both subject and object.

Further, he explains that prerequisite of ‘self’ is social process i.e. communication among
humans. Lower animals do not have selves, nor do human infants at birth. The ‘self’
arises with development and through social activity and social relationships. To Mead, it
is impossible to imagine a ‘self’ arising in the absence of social experience. However,
once a ‘self’ has developed, it is possible for it to continue to exist without social contact.
He further elaborates the evolutionary process of development of ‘self’ by identify two
types of ‘Me’ i.e. ‘significant others’ and ‘generalized others’; both of them plays a
prominent role in development of ‘self’.

‘Significant others’ are those alters who are important for the individual. Their
perceptions, suggestion etc. get importance in the process of development of the ‘Self’. It
is based on two aspects i.e. (i) Value (ii) Expertise
108
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
Those people who have taken care of the individual physically and emotionally becomes
significant others. Baltimore study suggests that those parents who do not take care of
their children are not given importance by the children.

Other people who are considered as expert of particular subject are the significant other
for the ego (individual), though they have not taken care of him/her. Ego considers their
suggestions and perception in development of ‘self’.

‘Generalised others’ on the other hand do not play any important role in the process of
development of self in initial stage (childhood) but gradually with the passage of time, it
plays prominent role in development of ‘self’. In fact, it shapes community sentiment or
expectations. Mead explained that “Self and Identity” emerged in three evolutionary
stages:
(i) Stage of imitative Acts
(ii) Play Stage or Playing at a role
(iii) Game Stage or Role playing

(i) Stage of imitative Acts: The imitative stage occurs about the second year of life,
during which time the child mimics the mannerism and behavioural patterns of his
parents, siblings and other ‘significant others’.

(ii) Play Stage or Playing at a role: It begins about third year which is characterized by
the child’s growing interest in assuming various roles of his ‘significant others’. For
example, Playing mother-father, big sister, bride-groom, thief-police etc. While playing
these roles they try to learn or sense the coming roles in society.

(iii) Game Stage or Role playing: This is the final stage, and in this stage a unified self
emerge which is called by Mead, the ‘game stage’. At this time, the child develops the
ability to ‘take the role of others’. He is able to assume the attitudes of several people
comprising his social group, all at one time. In other words, at this stage child develops
ability to play complex organized games. He will have in his mind all the roles of other
players and make assessments about their potential responses to one another. For
example, football – it is played by a number of individuals with different roles – ‘the
child taking one role is ready to take the roles of everyone else’.

The third stage is very complex and indicates real maturity in consciousness of the self
and others. Rational adaptive behaviour is an indicator of mature self-consciousness. This
maturity occurs when an individual is able to mentally perceive, understand and employ
the symbolic meanings of his own gestures and those of ‘generalized others’, i.e. the
attitude of the whole community.

According to Natanson, rules of the game mark the transition from simple role-taking to
participation in roles. Through rules the child is introduced to societal compulsion and the
harsh texture of a more nearly adult reality. The mature self arises when a ‘generalized
109
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]
other’ is internalized so that the community exercises control over the conduct of its
individual members.

Thus, in the Meadian view of the emergence of role-taking capacities, the self that arises
gradually through a progressive widening of the scope of human involvement must never
be conceived as a mere body. It is rather a social entity emerging in a social process of
development from simple conversations of gestures to the process of identification with
the ‘generalized others’.

Mead reached to the conclusion that ‘Self’ develops in the process of interaction. The
‘self’ arises with development and through social activity and social relationships. It is
impossible to imagine a self arising in the absence of social experiences.

To conclude, Mead must be credited with having been instrumental in stressing the need
for always considering situations from the point of view of the actor. For him, just as for
Weber, when the sociologist refers to meaning, it is to the subjective meaning actors
assign to their action.

Criticism:
(i) Manford Kuhn and Bernard Meltzer: They criticized the vagueness of essential
Meadian concepts such as mind, self, I and me. Because these concepts are imprecise and
so testable logic cannot be generated.

(ii) Weinstein and Tanur: They criticized the tendency to downplay or ignore large scale
structure. The concept of social structure is necessary to deal with the incredible density
and complexity of relations through which episodes of interaction are interconnected.

(iii) Petras: He criticized median theory for ignoring the importance of factors such as
unconscious and emotions as well as needs, motives, intentions and aspirations.

(iv) Peter Hamilton: According to him, if Mead can be faulted for anything, it is for being
overtly optimistic about contemporary man’s capacity for reflective intelligence. He may
also have been unrealistic or naïve in regard to divisive categories and habits of thought
hold and constrain the self-realization process of the ordinary man. We live in a world of
racism, sexism, nationalism and a hundred of other ‘isms’ which serve to retard Mead’s
prophecy.

110
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@[Link], Visit: [Link]