The Rise of Modern Society

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber

Name: Lesley Williams

Course Name: Social Theory

Course Prefix: Soci 302

Course Lecturer: Dr. Oliver Benoit

Topic: The Rise of Modern Society

Although there are earlier and other writers whose work is important to sociology, Durkheim and Weber are generally considered to be the key figures in the development of sociological theory. Their work and ideas have led to the development of major theoretical perspectives which have been further developed by writers into particular schools of thought with their own analytical styles and interpretations. While not exact contemporaries, both sociologists were born in the nineteenth century and developed theories that responded to the economic, political and social changes of that century. With the aim to understand the nineteenth century industrialization, they examined the effects of these changes on the shape and quality of social life and how the changes might, or might not, improve this quality of life. Therefore, the question we should ask is what were these changes and how did they brought about modern society? Indeed, the development of early sociology can be seen as an attempt to answer this question. In this paper, I would further discuss how Durkheim’s and Weber’s theoretical perspectives explain the rise of modern society.

Society is defined as a group of people that form a semi-closed social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to the group (Jenkins, R. 2002). According to Emile Durkheim, who helped established the idea of the study of society and gave sociology its academic credibility and influence, he attempted to answer the question “What is modern society?” by focusing on the moral basis of social order and stability- the moral basis of what he termed social solidarity. He believed that social order was based on a core of shared values- a key aspect of the functionalist approach in sociology that he helped established.

From the functionalist perspective, society appears quite stable and self-regulating. Durkheim argued that without the regulation of society, individuals would attempt to satisfy their own desires and wishes without the regards of others. This societal regulation or constraint had to be based on a shared set of values which he termed as “the collective conscience.” Durkheim defined the term as ‘the totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society’ (Mackenzie, J. 1996). For Durkheim, the achievement of social life among people, the existence of social order and social solidarity, is ensured by collective standards of behaviour and values. However, while social solidarity is crucial for the existence of society, the specific type or form it takes is not rigid.

This is a preview of the whole essay

One of the major academic issues which Durkheim focused on was the significance of the rise of individualism in modern, industrial society. “The Division of Labour in Society” examines how the rise of individualism exemplifies the emergence of a new type of social order- an order that will increasingly transcend traditional forms of society. He argued that the function of the division of labour in modern society is the social integration of individuals, which is achieved through their fulfilling a range of complementary roles and tasks. Here, he also introduced the terms "mechanical" and "organic solidarity" as part of his theory of the development of societies. He described how social order was maintained in societies, and the transition from more traditional societies to advanced industrial societies. Durkheim suggested that in a "primitive" or traditional society, “mechanical solidarity” exists. This is where the individuals act and think alike with a collective or common conscience which allows social order to be maintained. This type of solidarity has existed throughout most of human history. In such situations, collective feelings predominate, properties tend to be communally owned and the discipline of the small community and of tradition is dominant whereas in an advanced, capitalist society, “organic solidarity” - the complex division of labour means that people are allocated in society accordingly. In this society, people are no longer tied to one another and social bonds are impersonal (Hadden W. Richards, 2004). Based on his concepts, Durkheim thought that transition of a society from "primitive" to advanced may bring about major disorder, crisis, and anomie.

Durkheim also introduced the term “anomie” in his book “The Division of Labour in Society”. It is simply defined as a state where norms (expectations on behaviours) are confused, unclear or not present. Anomie, according to Durkheim, refers to a breakdown of social norms and it is a condition where norms no longer control the activities of members in society. Individuals cannot find their place in society without clear rules to help guide them. He used the term to describe a condition of deregulation that was occurring in society. This meant that rules on how people ought to behave with each other were breaking down and thus people did not know what to expect from one another.

According to Durkheim, societies with a highly developed organic solidarity will still need to have common beliefs, that is, all societies have to have some common set of assumptions about the world. So the collective conscience is still vital in all societies; without it there would just be disintegration into a collection of mutually antagonistic individuals. However, the collective conscience varies in extent and force from one society to another. Where mechanical solidarity is predominant, it embraces virtually all of the individual conscience; in modern differentiated societies characterized by organic solidarity, the scope for individuality is greater- people have greater freedom to follow their own preferences.

To explain restitutory law which relates to the organic state of society, Durkheim distinguishes it to repressive law. Laws serve an authoritarian function in society, telling individuals what is suitable and unsuitable. Law replicates the primary forms of solidarity and therefore we have only to categorize the diverse forms of law in order to determine the different types of solidarity equivalent to them. For Durkheim, the division of labour shapes social solidarity, which establishes collective conscience. However, he also believed that modern societies would still need to build up new ways of strengthening social norms and a mutual sense of connection. Hence, Durkheim’s functionalist’s approach has also been applied to examine the study of religion.

Durkheim placed himself in the positivist tradition, meaning that he thought of his study of society as dispassionate and scientific. He was deeply interested in the problem of what held complex modern societies together. His functionalist’s analysis of religion examines how and to what extent religious beliefs and practices contribute to meeting the needs or prerequisites of society. In his work, “The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life” he describes how religion provides the basis of the collective conscience- the shared values and ideas of a society. Durkheim believed that “society has to be present within the individual.” He viewed religion as a mechanism that protected a threatened social order and believed that religion had been the cement of society in the past, but that the collapse of religion would not lead to a moral implosion. Durkheim was specifically interested in religion as a communal experience rather than an individual one. His interest in the role of religion in society was produced by his observation that religion seemed to be a universal human institution. This universality meant that religion must serve a vital function in maintaining the social order (Mackenzie, J. 1996). Although many sociologists today take issue with Durkheim’s explanation of the origin of religion based on tokenism, they nevertheless recognize the value of his functionalist approach to understanding the vital role of religion in society.

While Durkheim devoted himself to trying to establish sociology as an academic subject, Weber was a pure scholar, exploring with ideas. His work extended into philosophy, economics, history and religion. He wrote about the nature of sociology and how to go about studying society. He argued that people could not be studied using the same procedures as those involved in investigating the physical world. For Weber, the basis of sociological analysis was the meaning that individuals give to the different social world and their situation in it. Sociology had to aim to understand human action and to do this it had to acknowledge the particular rather than the general. In contrast to the other classical theorists, Weber was interested in explaining social action and its motivation. Thus sociology, according to Weber, is the study of social action and it is by placing meaning on and interpreting the behaviour of others that we are able to understand that behaviour. However, Weber’s work was wide ranging and encompassed many topics. For the purpose of this paper, I would further discuss just two of his main theories: the relationship between religion and the development of capitalism and the spread of bureaucratic administration in the modern society.

Weber’s most famous study, “The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism” attempted to explain how a particular type of religious beliefs came to influence economic behaviour, thereby making it more rationale; this is an application of his argument that technical rational action was becoming the predominant form of social action in the modern, western society (Mackenzie, J. 1996). Weber studied a range of cultures and religions of the non-western world in order to show that the reason they had not developed a similar sort of rational capitalism to the west was due to religious and cultural factors. This approach could be contrasted with Marx’s emphasis on the importance of economic, class factors in the rise of western capitalism (Hadden W. Richards, 2004). Weber did not deny that in certain situations religion may be shaped by economic factors, but he argued that this was not always the case. His main interest was in the ways in which religious ideas might affect and determine social change. So, the “Protestant ethic thesis” aimed to explain the development of capitalism in terms of the emergence of a particular form of Protestant religion. Weber tried to explain why capitalism had fully developed only in the western society and had flourished in northern Europe. He argued that religion provided a clue. He argued that the ideas and practices of Protestantism were particularly appropriate to capitalism development in a way that was not true of other religions such as Islam or of forms of Christianity such as Catholicism.

In his work, “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” Weber argued that there was a capitalist spirit which was based on a desire to be productive. In western society, hard work and investment were seen as the ‘proper’ and correct attitudes, with idleness and over-consumption seen as wrong and production was more geared toward the production of goods for immediate use (Mackenzie, J.1996). The sort of western attitudes that Weber identified with capitalist societies were, he believed, by no means natural. With regards to the relationship between western capitalism and religion, Weber believed that a certain form of Protestantism provided conditions that were particularly favourable for the growth of the capitalist economic system.

In the sociological study of organizations, Weber’s work is generally taken as the starting point. He examined, in particular, bureaucracy, the form of organization that he saw as becoming predominant in modern industrial society. Weber saw that as industrial societies developed they were characterized by the growth and spread of large scale organizations- the Civil Service, the armed forces, churches, educational institutions and so forth. Large scale organizations were clearly having an increasing influence on all areas of social life. Weber was particularly concerned with the problem of efficiency in organizations. The “ideal type” blueprint for bureaucracy that he defined was the best way of ensuring efficiency in the administering of organizations. This “ideal type” of Weber’s was based on his analysis of alternative forms of power and authority. This analysis provides the context for an understanding of Weber’s theorizing on bureaucracy. However, Weber’s belief in the efficiency of bureaucracy did not mean that he saw bureaucracy as a ‘good thing’ in modern society, but he believed that rationalization was a key feature of modern society and that it occurred in the fields of both religious belief and economic activity.

In conclusion, it is understood that modern society could be defined as a society that is technical in nature and consist of complex institutions based on the theoretical perspectives of Durkheim and Weber. The society that we live in today was a result of a logical process that appeared natural and had a profound influence on theories and thoughts about nature and society.