SOCIAL THEORY NOTES

UNIT- I:

AUGUST COMTE (1798-1857)

August Comte was born on January 20, 1798 in Montpellier, France.
He was a French thinker, a famous social philosopher who is also
considered to be the father of sociology.

August Comte died in Paris on September 5, 1857, from stomach

cancer.
In 1817, he met Henri de Saint-Simon, a social theorist, and became his
secretary and collaborator. Owing to a dispute of the authorship of their
writings, this partnership ended in 1824.
Saint-Simon was an intuitive thinker (understand reality in the
moment, without logic or analysis). Comte was a scientific thinker, in
the sense of systematically reviewing all available data, with a
conviction that only after science was reorganized in its totality could
men hope to their social problems.
Though Comte did not originate the concept of Sociology or its area of
study, he greatly extended and elaborated the field.
Comte first gave the name “Social Physics” to the science invented by
him but later he coined the word “Sociology’ a hybrid term compounded
of Latin word Socius meaning companion and Greek word Logos
meaning study or science.
The period during which Comte took his birth in France, was very
critical. Because there was chaos in France as the French World of
thought was divided into two parts. One part was dominated by the
revolutionary thinkers while the other part was dominated by the
religious thinkers.
But Comte opposed both these ways of thinking and gave emphasis to
scientific outlook and scientific analysis.
MAJOR PUBLICATIONS
● The Course on Positive Philosophy (1830-1842)
● Discourse on the Positive Spirit (1844)
● A General View of Positivism (1848)
● Religion of Humanity (1856)
Comte believed that the physical sciences, like physics and mathematics,
should be complemented with a new type of science: the social sciences,
which would study society using the same scientific principles. Putting
his love of science together with his fascination with society, he coined
the term sociology to describe the study of social behaviour
Comte's ideas about society were closely related to what he
called positivism, or the idea that the truth only comes from scientific
knowledge. In other words, if you can observe it and test it, then you can
find the truth. Thus, Comte didn't consider things that cannot be
scientifically validated, like religion and intuition, to be the 'real truth.’
Through his study of Sociology and Positivism, Comte developed three
stages of Social Evolution, which included the theological stage, the
metaphysical stage, and the positive or scientific stage.
The Law of Three Stages:
According to Comte it is the universal law of intellectual development.
According to him “Each branch of our knowledge passes through three
different theoretical conditions; the theological or fictitious; the
metaphysical or abstract; and the scientific or positive.” This is
known as the law of three stages because, according to it, human
thinking has undergone three separate stages in its evolution and
development.
Comte’s evolutionary theory or the law of three stages represents that
there are three intellectual stages through which the world has gone
throughout its history. According to him, not only does the world go
through this process but groups, societies, sciences, individuals and even
minds go through the same three stages. As there has been an evolution
in the human thinking so that each succeeding stage is superior to and
more evolved than the preceding stage. However, these three stages are
as follows:-
(a) Theological or Fictitious Stage.
(b) Metaphysical or Abstract Stage.
(c) Positive or Scientific Stage.
(a) Theological or Fictitious Stage:
This stage was the first stage of law of three stages. It characterized the
world prior to 1300 A.D.
According to Comte in this stage “All theoretical conceptions whether
general or special bear a super natural impress”. It was believed that
all the activities of men were guided and governed by supernatural
power. In this stage the social and the physical world was produced by
God. At this stage man’s thinking was guided by theological dogmas. It
was marked by lack of logical and orderly thinking. Theological
thinking is characterized by unscientific outlook.
A natural event was the main subject matter of theological thinking.
Unable to find the natural causes of different happenings the theological
man attributes them to imaginary or divine forces.
This kind of explanation of natural events in divine or imaginary
conditions is known as theological thinking. Excess or absence of rain
was believed to be due to godly pleasure or displeasure. Magic and
religion were given emphasis.
This stage was dominated by priests. It implied belief in another world
wherein reside the divine forces which influenced and controlled all the
events in this world. In other words, at this theological stage all
phenomena are attributed to some super natural power.
The concept of super natural power itself passes through three sub-
stages.
In other words, Comte had divided the theological stage into the
following stages.
(i) Fetishism
(ii) Polytheism
(iii) Monotheism
(i) Fetishism:
It is the first and primary sub-stage in theological thinking stage.
In this stage men thought that in every object or thing God resided.
Fetishism is a kind of belief that there exists some living spirit in the
non-living objects.
Too many fetishes created confusion. Hence, - they started believing in
several gods. Thus, arouse Polytheism
ii) Polytheism:
With the passage of time human mind develops and there occurred a
change in the form of thinking. A more evolved and developed stage
than fetishism known as Polytheism aroused.
As there were many things or many objects, the number of Gods
multiplied. So, men were found to be engaged in the worship of a
number of Gods.
He believed that each and every God had some definite function and
his area of action or operation was determined. At this stage man had
classified God’s or natural forces.
(iii) Monotheism:
With the passage of time human mind further develops and there
occurred a change and development in the form of thinking. A more
evolved and developed stage occurred which was known as
Monotheism.
This is the last sub-stage of theological stage. This stage replaced the
earlier belief in many Gods by the belief in one God.‘Mono’ means
one.
It implied that one God was supreme who was responsible for the
maintenance of system in the world. This type of monotheistic thinking
marked the victory of human intellect over irrational thinking.
b) Metaphysical or Abstract Stage:
This is the second stage which occurred roughly between 1300 and 1800
A.D. This is an improved form of theological stage. Under this stage it
was believed that an abstract power or force guided and determined all
the events of the world. It was against the belief in concrete God.
There was development of reason in human thinking (i.e.)
Rationalism started growing instead of imagination. Rationalism
states that God does not stand directly behind every phenomenon.
Because of this man ceased to think that it was the supernatural being
that controlled and guided all the activities.
At this stage the position of supernatural power of the first stage is taken
over by the abstract principles.
(c) Positive Stage:
The last and the final stage of human thinking or human mind was the
positive stage or the scientific stage which entered into the world in
1800. This stage was characterized by belief in Science. This stage
represents the scientific way of thinking. People now tended to give up
the search for absolute causes (God or Nature) and concentrated
instead on observation of the social and physical world in the search for
the laws governing them.
According to Comte observation and classification of facts were the
beginning of the scientific knowledge. So, at this stage the priests or the
theologians were replaced by scientists. The warriors were replaced by”
industrialists. Observation predominates over imagination. All
theoretical concepts become positive or scientific.
So, it may be concluded that in the first stage the mind explains
phenomena by ascribing them to supernatural power or God.
The second, metaphysical stage, is a mere modification of the first; in it
the mind suppresses those abstract forces produce all phenomena rather
than supernatural beings.
In the final stage man observes nature and humanity objectively in order
to establish laws.
HIERARCHY OF SCIENCES
Comte’s second-best known theory, that of the hierarchy of the sciences
or classification of sciences is intimately connected with the law of three
stages.
Just as mankind progresses only through determinant stages, each
successive stage building on the accomplishments( activities) of its
predecessors; so scientific knowledge passes through similar stages of
development.
The main aim of the classification of science by Comte is to prepare the
background and basis for the study of society, Sociology, a science
invented by him.
Comte thought that each Science came into being not arbitrarily (not by
chance or impulse) but for reason or principle. Each Science is
concerned with some definite event or subject matter and these
constitute the subject of its study.
Comte spoke of Sociology as the “crowning edifice” of the hierarchy of
sciences.
He did not mean that it is in any sense superior to any other science; but
only that it serves to bring all other sciences into relationship with each
other, in the overall intellectual history of man.
Comte says, Mathematics, the most general and simple of all-natural
sciences develops first.
It is followed by Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and finally
Sociology.
Each science in this series depends for its emergence on the prior
developments of its predecessors in a hierarchy marked by the law of
increasing complexity and decreasing generality.
The idea of the “classification of sciences” did not originate with
Comte. It did exist prior to Comte. From times immemorial thinkers
have been trying to classify knowledge on some basis.
The early Greek thinkers undertook to classify all knowledge under
three headings: (1) physics, (2) ethics, and (3) politics.
Later on, Bacon made the classification on the basis of the faculties of
man namely, (i) memory, (ii) imagination, and (iii) reason. The science
based upon memory is history, the science based upon imagination is
poetry, and the knowledge based upon reason is physics, chemistry, etc.

Classification of Sciences as Inorganic and Organic:

Comte stated that the classification of knowledge could be done in
another manner by making use of mathematics as the tool. Thus all
natural phenomena could be categorised into two grand divisions:
inorganic and organic.
Comparatively speaking, inorganic sciences [for example, astronomy,
physics, chemistry] are simpler and clearer. Organic sciences such as
biology are more complex.
Classification Based on the Principle of Increasing Dependence:
Comte chose “the order of increasing dependence” as his principle of
classifying knowledge.
Comte “arranged the sciences so that each category may be grounded on
the principal laws of the preceding category, serve as a basis for the next
ensuing category. The order, hence, is one of increasing complexity and
decreasing generality.
This principle could be stated in simple words in this way: The facts
pertaining to different sciences differ in complexity. Some facts are
simple while others are complex. The complex facts being dependent on
simple facts are, general and are present everywhere.
The sciences based upon complex sciences are, in turn, dependent upon
simple sciences.
Thus, each science is, in some measure, dependent upon some other
science and by itself forms a basis of some other science.
On this basis Comte presented a serial order of sciences.
Each science in this series depends for its emergence on the prior
developments of its predecessors in a hierarchy marked by the law of
increasing complexity and decreasing generality.
Although sociology has special methodological characteristics that
distinguish it from its predecessors in the hierarchy, it is also dependent
upon them. It is especially dependent on biology, the science that stands
nearest to it in the hierarchy. What distinguishes biology from all the
other natural sciences is its holistic character. Unlike physics and
chemistry, which proceed by isolating elements, biology proceeds from
the study of organic wholes.
And it is this emphasis on organic or organismic unity that sociology
has in common with biology. “There can be no scientific study of
society, if it is separated into portions and its divisions are studied
apart.” The only proper approach in sociology consists in viewing each
element in the light of the whole system.
In the inorganic sciences, the elements are much better known to us than
the whole which they constitute; therefore we must proceed from the
simple to the compound. But the reverse method is necessary in the
study of Man and Society; Man and Society as a whole being better
known to us, and more accessible subjects of study, than the parts which
constitute them.”
Classification of Sciences Begins With Mathematics:
Comte considers mathematics the basic tool of the mind.
Mathematics is the most powerful instrument which the mind may use in
the investigation of natural laws. It is only through mathematics that we
can understand sciences.”
According to Comte, mathematics occupies the first place in the
hierarchy of the sciences. Mathematics, in the Comtean scheme, is not a
constituent (ANNGAM) member of the group of sciences. It is the basis
of them all. It is the oldest and most perfect of all the sciences. He says
that mathematics is “the science.” It is the science that measures
precisely the relations between objects and ideas.
Sociology at the Top of the Hierarchy:
In the Comte an scheme, social sciences are at the apex of the hierarchy
for they enjoy “all the resources of the anterior sciences.” Social
sciences are the most complex and the most dependent for their
emergence on the development of all the other sciences.
Hence, they occupy the highest place in the hierarchy.” Social physics
or Sociology according to Comte is the last and the greatest of the
sciences. Although sociology has special methodological characteristics
that distinguish it from its predecessors in the hierarchy, it is dependent
on them too.
According to Comte, the social organic science is Sociology. It is
relatively new science. Being young it has not yet attended the status of
a full-fledged science. Sociology is still a growing and developing
science. However; it is quite clear that Sociology is gradually moving
towards the goal of a definite science.
Comte spoke of Sociology as the ‘crowning edifice’ of the hierarchy of
sciences. He did not mean that it is in any sense superior to any other
science; but only that is serves to bring all other sciences into
relationship with each other, in the overall intellectual history of man.
By arranging the six basic and pure sciences one upon the other in a
pyramid, Comte prepared the way for logical positivism to “reduce”
each level to the one below it. He placed at the fundamental level the
science that does not presuppose (to consider that something is
necessary) any other sciences—viz., mathematics—and then ordered the
levels above it in such a way that each science depends upon, and makes
use of, the sciences below it on the scale.
Each higher-level science, in turn, adds to the knowledge content of the
science or sciences on the levels below, thus enriching this content by
successive specialization. As the “father” of sociology, Comte
maintained that the social sciences should proceed from observations to
general laws, very much as (in his view) physics and chemistry do.
SOCIAL STATICS AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS
One of Comte’s lasting contributions is his distinction of Sociology
between Social statics and Social dynamics. Just as in biology it is useful
to separate anatomy from physiology, so it is desirable to make a
distinction in Sociology between statics and dynamics.
Comte’s aim was to create a naturalistic science of society, which would
both explain the past development of mankind and predict its future
course.
In addition to building a science capable of explaining the laws of
motion that govern humanity over time, Comte attempted to formulate
the conditions that account for social stability at any given historical
moment.
The study of social statics and social dynamics-of progress and order, of
change and stability-are the twin pillars of his systems. The social statics
is concerned with the present structure of the society. It studies the
current laws, rules and present condition of the society. In social statics,
it is observed as how the present social laws are affecting the society.
Social Dynamics is how the processes of social changes are taking
place. Social dynamics is the theory of social progress. A true science
of society must find out both the laws of order and progress. The law
of order is the concern of social statics and laws of progress are
discovered through social dynamics.
Statics in Sociology consisted of clarifying the interconnections between
those social facts (institutions, norms, values) which appear to be
universally necessary for the existence of a society of any kind. The
nature of connections between the family, the division of labour,
property, government, religion, morality and so on.
Dynamics in Sociology consisted of studying and tracing
interconnections between these many aspects (nilai) of society as they
actually existed and changed in the many types of society in the
cumulative (vottumotha) process of history.
It was a study that is of the actual varieties of societies existing in the
world. Social statics is chiefly analytical. Social dynamics is chiefly
empirical. Dynamics applies the analysis of statics to the study of actual
societies.
Comte defined social statics as the study of social structure, its elements,
and their relations. He first analysed “individuals” as the Elements of
social structure. Generally, he viewed the individual as a series of
capacities and needs, some innate and others acquired through
participation in society. He did not view the individual as a “true social
unit”; indeed, he relegated the study of the individual to Biology. The
most basic social unit, he argued, is “the family.” It is the most
elementary unit, from which all other social units ultimately evolved:
Comte believed that social structures could not be reduced to the
properties of individuals. Rather, social structures are composed of other
structures and can be understood only as the properties of, and relations
among, these other structures.
Main Features of Social Statics :
▪ It is concerned with the present structure of the society. Social
Statics refers to the study of the conditions and pre-conditions of
social order.
▪ It studies the issues of social stability and social order.
▪ It studies the current laws, rules and present conditions of the
society. It observes how these laws and rules are affecting the
present society.
▪ It investigates the law of action and reaction of the different parts
of the social system.
▪ It is concerned with the study of major institutions, which preserve
the social order. For example, family; it occupies an important
position in social structure. It provides the base for the social order
and progress of the society.
▪ Family is the smallest and basic unit of sociology.
Factors of Social Statics:
August Comte refuses to place individuals at the base of the society.
He places family at the base of society and allows resizing (shrink) it if
necessary to a couple. Family curbs the egoistic nature of a person to
make him adaptable to the society this makes it the base of a social
feeling causing stability. According to his thought of collective
organism he places families at the level of an element, classes and caste
of a tissue and cities and towns of an organ. Aware of the limitations of
such analogy Comte concluded them by stating language, religion and
division of labour as the unifying or binding forces of society.
He finds language, religion and division of labour as the three key
factors for the stability of the body social. According to Comte, there are
three factors of social statics. They are;
▪ Language; language is the “easiest and common way of
communication”, making it an essential tool for binding people
closely to each other in a community. Language is a common
mode of communication between generations. It helps impart
the future generations with the knowledge and skills of the older
generation, providing it with a base to progress on. It is the means
of storing thoughts and culture for proceeding generations.
Without a common language, attaining solidarity and social
order is not possible.
▪ Religion; religion compensates the weaknesses of language by
binding the society on the basis of a few common beliefs, acting
as a “positive guide”. It ties the society by morality not letting it
fall apart because of the disparities among people. It provides the
guidance for behaviour and it is the root of social order.
▪ Division of Labour; labour binds the society together on basis of
“similarity of classes” but is feared of distancing men from a
larger mass as they are more driven towards their personal interests
over the societies. Men in this stage become more conscious of
their personal needs and feebly relate them to the needs of society
It is essential for the success of the state cooperation as it creates
interdependence among the people in the society.
In presenting this analysis, Comte felt that he had uncovered several
laws of social statics because he believed that differentiation,
centralization of power, and development of a common morality were
fundamentally related to the maintenance of the social order.
Far more important is the view of structure that he implied: social
structures are composed of substructures and develop from the
elaboration of simpler structures.
Social Dynamics
Social dynamics is a branch of social physics that deals with the laws,
forces, and phenomena of change in society, it is
an approach to sociology, focussing on the empirical studies of societies
and social systems in the processes of change in years gone by. Social
dynamics looks at all the things that can change a social group.
It is the study of the ability of a society to react to inner and outer
changes and deal with its regulation mechanisms. It deals with the
forces in society that provide for change. Comte placed greater
emphasis on the study of social dynamics or social change.
Social dynamics studies the “laws of succession,” or the patterns of
change in social systems over time.
His theory of social dynamics is founded on the law of the three stages;
the evolution of society is based on the evolution of mind through the
theological, metaphysical, and positivist stages.
He saw social dynamics as a process of progressive evolution in which
people become cumulatively more intelligent and in which altruism
eventually triumphs over egoism. This process is one that people can
modify or accelerate, but in the end the laws of progressive development
dictate the development of society.
Main Features of Social Dynamics
Dynamics begin when the functions of the social institutions are altered
or changed. It begins with the study of the process of social changes.
Therefore, it is concerned with the matter of social progress.
Social dynamics refers to the pattern of the revolutionary progress in
which the sequence of the development is necessary and inevitable. The
term ‘Progress’ refers to the orderly development of the society, which
are according to the natural law. Hence, the order and progress or statics
and dynamics are co-related to each other.
According to Comte, social dynamics describe the successive and
necessary stages in the development in the human mind and the society.
Moreover, it is natural that the social systems, such as institutions are
interrelated and interdependent, so they can make a harmonious whole
Further, he opined that the social dynamics should depend on the
historical perspectives in order to study the process of social change and
progress. Thus, the social dynamics are found in all the aspects of the
society, such as physical, moral and intellectual. However, the
intellectual is the most important.
UNIT – 2
HERBERT SPENCER:
ORGANIC ANALOGY:
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) is regarded as the second founding
father of Sociology. He was born on April 27, 1820, in Derby in
England. He is famous for his ‘Organic Analogy’. In Organic Analogy,
he identifies society with a biological organism. He says, society and
organisms are similar in various ways.
Herbert Spencer developed the body analogy (also known as the
organic analogy) to describe how society works. The various parts are
interrelated and also interdependent and are comprised of different
institutions such as the education system, religion and the family.
Herbert Spencer came to sociology via biology. Therefore he drew
analogy between the society and the biological organism. “So
completely is society organized on the same system as an individual that
we may perceive something more than an analogy between them, the
same definition of life applied to both [biological and social organism]
Spencer believed that the social structure is a living organism. He
took great pains to elaborate in great detail the organic analogy which is
the identification of society with a biological organism. Indeed, he
regarded the recognition of similarity between society and organism as a
major step towards a general theory of evolution.
He concentrated on bringing forth wonderful parallels between
organic and social evolution, between similarities in the structure and
evolution of organic and social units. In fact, biological analogies
occupy an important role in all of Spencer’s sociological reasoning.
Similarities between Biological and Social Organism – As visualised
by Spencer:
Spencer wanted to explain the nature of social structure by the help of
the organismic theory. He observed some similarities between
biological and social organisms.
1. Similarity in Visible Growth:

Both society and organism are distinguished from inorganic matter by

means of their visible growth. Thus both society and the organism are

subject to growth. Example: A child grows up to be a man; a tiny

community becomes a metropolitan area; a small state becomes an

empire, and so on.

2. An Increase in the Complexity of Structure:

As both society and organisms grow in size they also increase in

complexity of structure. Primitive organisms [like amoeba] are simple

whereas the highest organisms [like the mammals] are very complex.

Primitive community was very simple whereas the modern industrial

society is highly complex.

3. Differentiation of Structure Leading to Differentiation of

Functions:

In societies and in organisms progressive differentiation of structure is

accompanied by progressive differentiation of functions. It is quite
obvious. The primitive living organism was a unicellular creature; but
with the increase in the cells, differentiation of organs resulted, at the
highest levels of evolution the structure of the body is quite complex.
Similar is the case with society. In the case of an organism that has very
complex organs, each organ performs a specified function. Similarly, in
the case of complex society subdivided into many different
organisations, each organisation carries on a specified function.

4. Change in Structure Leads to Change in Functions:

When change takes place in the structure of organs and communities,

there results a change in their functions. The function becomes more and
more specialised. This applies to the body of a living creature as well as

to the society.

5. Differentiation as well as Harmony of Organs:

Evolution establishes for both societies and organisms, differences in

structure and function that make each other possible. Evolution leads to

development of greater differentiation of the organs of society as also

that of an individual.

Along with this differentiation there is also the harmony between

various organs. Each organ is complementary to the other and not

opposed. This holds true both in the body of a living organism and

society.

6. Loss of an Organ does not necessarily Result in the Loss of

Organism:

Both society and the individual are organisms. It is common to both that

a loss of one organ or the other does not necessarily result in the death of

an organism. For example, if an individual loses his leg he does not

necessarily meet with his death. Similarly, in society if some association

or a political party disintegrates it does not invariably lead to the decay

of the society.
7. Similar Process and Methods of Organisation:

In discussing the organic analogy further Spencer compared —

(i) The alimentary system of an organism to the productive industries, or

the sustaining system in the society.

(ii) There is a strong parallelism between the circulation system of an

organism and the distributing system in society with its transportation

lines and with its commercial classes and media of exchange.

(iii) In both the cases there are developed regulating systems. In society,

there is the social control mechanism to full fill the regulative function.

In an organism there are dominant centres and subordinate centres, the

senses, and a neural apparatus to perform the tasks of the regulating

system.

These parallelisms throw only a small measure of light upon the nature

of society. But they become ridiculous when carried to an extreme.

Differences between Organism and Society – As Visualised by

Spencer:

Spencer had recognised important differences between societies and

organisms. He said, “The parts of an animal form a concrete whole, but

the parts of society form a whole which is discrete. While the living

units, composing the one is bound together in close contact; the living
units composing the other, are free, are not in contact, and are more or

less widely dispersed.” In simple words, the organism is a concrete,

integrated whole whereas society is a whole composed of discrete and

dispersed elements.

The main differences between the society and a living organism which

cannot be overlooked were noted by Spencer. They are listed below:

1. Organs are organised, but Parts of Society are Independent:

As Spencer has observed various organs of the body are incapable of

independent existence, whereas various parts of society can exist

independently.

Example:

Limbs of the organism such as legs, hands, face, etc., cannot have

existence outside the physical body of the organism. But the parts of

society such as family, school, army, police, political parties, etc., are

relatively independent and are not

organically fixed to the society. The movement of the parts is relatively

free here.

2. Society does not have a Definite Form as does the Organism:

Unlike organisms, societies have no specific external form, such as a

physical body with limbs or a face. Organisms have an outward form or

shape [for example, dog, donkey, monkey, deer and so on] whereas

societies such as Indian society or American society do not have any

definite and externally identifiable form. Society is only a mental

construct. It is abstract and exists in our mind only in the form of an

idea.

3. Manner of Difference in the Dependence of Organs or Parts on

the Organism or Society:

According to Spencer, parts or organs of the body [such as legs, hands,

nose, eyes, head, etc.] of the organism are dependent upon the body

itself. They exist for the sake of the body. On the

other hand, in the case of society the parts [such as individuals, families,

groups, etc.] are more important than the society.

In fact, society exists for the benefit of its parts, that is, individuals.

Spencer as a champion of the philosophy of individualism very strongly

felt that the state and society exist for the good of the individual and not

vice versa.

4. Difference Regarding the Centrality of “Consciousness”:

In an organism, there exists what is known as “consciousness” and it is

concentrated in a small part of the aggregate. The parts of the body do

not have this. But in the case of the society consciousness is diffused

throughout the individual members.

5. Differences Regarding the Structure and Functions:

In the case of organism each of its parts performs a definite and fixed

function. The parts perform their functions incessantly. This certainty

relating to the functions of the parts, we do not find in society. Functions

of the parts of society such as

institutions often get changed. Some of the functions of family, for

example, have changed. On the contrary, the eyes, heart, nerves, ears,

tongue and other organs of the organism cannot change their functions.

It is quite interesting to note that Spencer made an elaborate effort to

establish the similarities and differences between organic and social life.

He persistently endeavoured to establish the organic analogy as the

central theme of the second part of his “Principles of Sociology.”

Critical Comments:

1. Spencer used his organic analogy in a ridiculous manner when he

compared the King’s Council to the medulla oblongata, the House of

Lords to the cerebellum, and the House of Commons to the cerebrum He

failed to understand the limitations of his analogy.

2. Spencer used his analogy in a very dogmatic manner, but later

referred to it as merely scaffolding for building a structure of deductions.

He actually proceeded as if the scaffolding were the real building.

3. The organic analogy was used by thinkers in their discussions even

prior to Spencer. But Spencer was the first to give to that analogy the

value of scientific theory. But he was very definitely taken a prisoner by

the ghost he had evoked.

4. If a society is like an organism, it experiences a natural cycle of birth,

maturity, old age, and death. But the death of a society does not come

with organic inevitableness. A society need not die.

5. Whether we accept or reject Spencer’s comparisons between the

human society and the organism, we are bound to acknowledge the fact

that he popularised the concept of “system” in our sociological

discussion. Present-day sociology

profusely uses Spencer’s concept of “system”, of course, in a modified

form.

Theory of Social Evolution

The most important contribution of Herbert Spencer to Sociology is the

theory of evolution. He utilized the principles of physical and biological
evolution in order to elaborate and explain his theory of Social
evolution.
In physical evolution, a movement is from indefinite incoherent
situation to definite and coherent situation. Besides, the underlying
principles of physical evolution are a movement from simple to
complex and homogeneity to heterogeneity.
In biological evolution only those creatures survive in the struggle for
existence who are able to make effective adjustment with changing
circumstances. Herbert Spencer utilized these two principles, physical
and biological evolution in order to explain social evolution.
Physical Evolution:
Spencer writes, “Evolution is an integration of matter and concomitant
(associated) dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from
an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent
heterogeneity and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel
transformation.”
According to Lewis A. Coser, “The very- foundation of Spencerism is
the evolutionary doctrine or the law of evolution. In his “First
Principles” he traced everything in the world back through causal chains
to two fundamental factors. These are matter and motion—two aspects
of force. According to Spencer, the law of evolution is the supreme law
of every becoming.
For Spencer, evolution pervaded the inorganic as well as organic realm.
His voluminous work also treated “Super organic evolution” (Which
today we would term social evolution), and evolution of super organic
products (what we call cultural evolution). Within the Framework of
Universal evolution, Spencer 2 developed his basic three laws and four
secondary propositions – each building upon each and all upon the
doctrine of evolution.
The Three Basic Laws:
(i) The Law of persistence of force. (Some ultimate cause that
transcends knowledge)
(ii) The Law of the indestructibility of matter.
(iii) The law of Continuity of motion.

Force Tends to Persist:

(1) The First law is energy or force tends to persists. In the course of
evolutionary change there is no increase in energy or force.
Energy or Force is persistence. It undergoes no change. Energy or Force
is the cause of evolution but it is unaffected by the evolutionary
process.
Matter is Indestructible:
(ii) The Second law is “matter is indestructible”. Matter as one form or
aspect of energy is never destroyed. It may undergo formal changes.
The changes in the form of matter are responsible for the evolutionary
process. But the fundamental nature of matter never changes. The basic
elements of matter and energy in the world are neither created, nor
destroyed but conserved.
Continuity of motion:
(iii) The third law is, “motion is continuous and it is never wholly
dissipated”. There are of course, changes in the form of motion. On
account of these changes, there are stages in the evolutionary process.
There is perpetual continuity of motion in the world. All things continue
in motion.

Four Secondary Propositions:

(i) Persistence (uridhiyana) of the relationship between the forces.
(Harmony of all laws)
(ii) Principle of formal (muraiyana) changes and uniformity.
(iii) Principle of least resistance and greatest attraction.
(iv) Principle of gradual (padipadiyagha) motion.
Spencer has enumerated four secondary laws of evolution.
(i) Harmony of all laws:
According to Spencer there must be harmony among the various laws
of evolution. No two laws should contradict each other. There exists a
uniformity (seerana) or regularity (vazhakamaana) of relationships
among defined (definite) phenomena in the world. The world is an order
of elements.
(ii) Principle of formal changes and uniformity:
Matter and motion are not completely destroyed. These undergo
changes in form only. Of course, during formal change, the quantum of
matter and motion remains static. The force, the elements of matter, the
motion are never lost in the process of change. They are merely
transformed into the manifestation (velipaadu) of some other event.
(iii) Principle of least resistance or great attraction:
The direction of evolution is always towards the line of least resistance
or greatest attraction. All forces and elements move along the line of
least resistance and greatest attraction.
(iv) Principle of gradual motion:
For evolution, motion is essential, but it is not required that motion
should be at one level all the time. It may speed up or slow down. All
phenomena in nature have their own particular rate and rhythm of
movement of duration and development.
It is axiomatic (clear) to Spencer that ultimately all aspects of the
universe, whether organic or inorganic, social or non-social is subject to
the laws of evolution.
All universal phenomena-inorganic, organic, super organic—are subject
to the natural law of evolution. According to Spencer, all the phenomena
of nature—the stars and planetary systems, the earth and all terrestrial
phenomena, biological
organisms and the development of species, all the psychological and

sociological processes of human experience and behaviour-follow the

definite pattern of change.

Given the persistence of force, the indestructibility of the basic elements

of material substance, the continuity of motion and the like, Spencer

says, “Why were the changes of phenomena from homogeneous to the

heterogeneous? From the relatively incoherent to the relatively

coherent? From simple to complex? From the in differentiated to the

differentiation of specialized structure and functions?”

Biological Evolution:

Spencer adopted his principle of evolution from naturalist Charles

Darwin. Darwin developed the concept of evolution in his “Origin of

Species” in 1859. Spencer, the sociological giant of the second half of

the 19th Century was enamoured

(attracted) by “Social Darwinism”.

Spencer believed in the doctrine of the “Survival of the fittest” as

expounded by Darwin. According to him animal has to struggle to

preserve its existence. The struggle for existence is not confined to any

one aspects of life but pervades whole of life. Spencer says, only strong

creatures survive and evolve; only strong makes progress. The weak is
gradually eliminated. A strong creature is one who has the ability to

adjust himself with the ever-changing conditions of environment.

Social Evolution:

From the analysis of physical evolution Spencer convinced that the

underlying principles of all evolution are two:

(i) Movement from- simple to complex.

(ii) Movement from homogeneous to heterogeneous.

From the analysis of biological evolution Spencer utilized the principle,

that those creatures survive in the struggle for existence who are able to

make effective adjustment with changing circumstances. So, Spencer

utilized both physical and biological evolution for his theory of social

evolution. Like physical evolution in social evolution there is a

movement from simple to complex. The society is moving from

homogeneous to heterogeneous structure. Society is also moving from

indefinite to definite stage.

Spencer has borrowed the idea from biological evolution that those

cultures survive which are able to adjust themselves with the changing

circumstances. If a civilization is unable to make adjustment with the

changing circumstances it caves in and gradually becomes extinct.

Spencer’s theory of social evolution points out to two stages:

1. The movement from simple to compound societies.

2. Change from militant society to industrial society.

The movement from simple to compound societies—This is seen in four

types of societies in terms of evolutionary levels.

1. Simple Society:

These societies were predominantly small, nomadic, and lacking in

stable relationship structure. They had low degrees of differentiation,

specialization, and integration. Examples are the Eskimos, the Fuegians,

Guiana tribes, the new Caledonians and the Pueblo Indians.

2. Compound Societies:

Compound societies were presented as having generally come about

through either a peaceful or a violent merger of two or more simple

societies. They tended to be predominantly settled agricultural societies,

although a majority are mainly 7

pastoral, and tended to be characterized by a division of four or five

social strata and an organized priestly group. They are also characterized

by Industrial structures that show in advancing division of labour,

general and local. Examples are the Teutonic peoples in the fifth

century, Homeric Greeks, Zew Zealanders, Hottentots Dahomans and

Ashantees.

3. Doubly Compound Societies:

Doubly compound societies were completely settled, were more

integrated and a larger and more definite political structure, a religious

hierarchy, a more or less rigid caste system and more complex division

of labour. Furthermore, in such societies to a greater and lesser extent,

custom has passed into positive law and religious observances have

grown definite, rigid and complex. Towns and roads have become

general, and considerable progress in knowledge and the arts has taken

place.” Examples are thirteen-Century France, Eleventh Century

England, the Spartan Confederacy, the ancient Peruvians and the

Guatemalans.

4. Trebly Compound Societies:

It includes “the great civilized nations” such as the Assyrian Empire, the

modern Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. Spencer

points to their increased overall size, complexity, division of labour,

popular density, integration and general cultural complexity.

Criticisms:

1. According to some social thinkers Herbert Spencer’s theory lacks

practicability. It is not practical and realistic. Even today there are

several tribes and aboriginals that do not show any sign of evolution.

2. It also lacks uniformity. It is not possible to have a uniform pattern of

social evolution in all societies. Because the factors and circumstances
responsible for evolution differ from one another.
3. Mere survival for existence is not enough for man. In human societies
qualities like sympathy, sacrifice, kindness, love etc. are also present.
These are quite different from struggle for existence.
In spite of the above criticisms made by some of the social
thinkers ,Spencer’s Theory of Social Evolution is a master key to the
riddles of the universe.

.
UNIT-3
KARL MARX:
DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM:

Marx was not only a thinker but also a revolutionary activist. He said,
“The philosophers have interpreted the world, the point however is to
change it.” This suggests the very essence of Marxian dialectics. He was
not only interested in floating a thought or idea but also his ideas were to
change the entire world.

The concept of dialectics:

The word dialectics refers to a method of intellectual discussion by

dialogue. It is a term of logic. The meaning of dialectics is the conflict
between two mutually opposite forces or tendencies.

Dialectics means contradictions in the very essence of things.

Everybody is seen in the contradictions of its opposite and these
contradictions form the very basis of social change. Social change is
possible in the society because of the existence of opposite tendencies in
the society. Something new has to come.

Marx developed his theory of dialectical materialism in the elaborate

manner in "The Capital", but his views on the contradiction that propel
society forward can be found already in his renowned Communist
Manifesto (and in The German Ideology). Marx bases the study of
society on the study of inner contradictions. Contradictions within
society are what, according to Marx the view of dialectical materialism,
drive society forward. While Hegel thought the these contradictions
are ideal, meaning that they are contradictions between different views
and forms of thought, Marx held that they are in fact contradictions with
material substance (hence "dialectical materialism").

Dialectical materialism, a philosophical approach to reality derived from

the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

For Marx, materialism meant that the material world, perceptible to

the senses, has objective reality independent of mind or spirit. They did
not deny the reality of mental or spiritual processes but affirmed
that ideas could arise, therefore, only as products and reflections of
material conditions.

Dialectical Materialism:

Materialism suggests that the world is material by its very name.

Everything is caused, oriented, moved and developed by matter.

Matter decides and determines everything in the society.

Matter has the objective existence. From matter we get materialism that
can be seen, observed material and its true value can be ascertained. A
matter is knowable. It can be known on the other hand.

To Hegel the world is ideal by its very nature. Ideas determine the
matters or reality. Reason is the essence of reality. Idea is what it is as
against what is not.

One of the most basic concepts of Karl Marx's theory is the of

"dialectical materialism". Marx thought of the dialectical nature of
society and especially history is built on the tradition of G.W.F.
Hegel which viewed history as a process of thesis, antithesis and
synthesis, with each force in history creating an opposite one, driving
society forward. But while Hegel was concerned with dialectical
idealism, one of spirit, ideas and beliefs, Marx was more concerned with
the material-economic side of social reality.

These dialectics can help to understand the very nature of directions of

social change. Dialectics is the method used by Marx to advance his
arguments by which change in the society can be expected. This is called
Marx’s methodology. Method is the technical procedure with the help of
which conclusions are arrived at. His basic intentions were to bring
about a change in the basic order of society.

The opposite tendencies must be there. They are poles apart. Their
interests vary. There is nothing common between them. One always
tries to oppose the other. A cleared bipartite interest exists between the
two classes. If this is the situation of the society, the change is always
from within and not from without. Nature of such change is of
advanced types. One stage goes, other stage comes into being.
Marx’s and Engels’ conception of dialectics owes much to the German
idealist philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Everything is in continual process of
becoming and ceasing to be, in which nothing is permanent but
everything changes and is eventually superseded. All things contain
contradictory sides or aspects, whose tension or conflict is the driving
force of change and eventually transforms or dissolves them.

But whereas Hegel saw change and development as the expression of the
world spirit, or Idea, realizing itself in nature and in human society, for
Marx and Engels change was inherent in the nature of the material
world. They therefore held that one could not, as Hegel tried, deduce the
actual course of events from any “principles of dialectics”; the principles
must be inferred from the events.

Friedrich Engels

Friedrich Engels, 1879.

The theory of knowledge of Marx and Engels started from the
materialist premise that all knowledge is derived from the senses. But
against the mechanistic view that derives knowledge exclusively from
given sense impressions, they stressed the dialectical development of
human knowledge, socially acquired in the course of practical activity.

Individuals can gain knowledge of things only through their practical

interaction with those things, framing their ideas corresponding to their
practice; and social practice alone provides the test of the
correspondence of idea with reality—i.e., of truth.

The concept of dialectical materialism—which is a theoretical basis for a

method of reasoning—should not be confused with “historical
materialism,” which is the Marxist interpretation of history in terms of
the class struggle.
THEORY OF CLASS:
THEORY OF CLASS STRUGGLE:
ALIENATION:
UNIT – 4
EMILE DURKHEIM:

DIVISION OF LABOUR:
This was the first published book of Emile Durkheim in 1893.
The Division of labour explains the relation between individuals and
the collectivity and the manner in which the multiplicity of
individuals achieve the social coherence.
Division of labour he postulates is the basis of social solidarity.
Solidarity means the solidity of the organization. It is the characteristic
trait (VISESHAGUNAM) of a society.

The sociologist Emile Durkheim was the first to use the term division of
labour (1893) in a sociological sense.
He stated that rather than it arising as a result of wanting more material
resources, it came up due to an increase in population, leading to a rise
in competition for survival and finally it leads to changes in social
structures (EncyclopædiaBritannica,2017).

In such circumstances, a division of labour worked by helping societies

stay together and creating solidarity. Unlike Adam Smith who focused
on its economic implications, Durkheim argued that it benefited society
in various ways–by improving workers’ skill sets, and also helping
create moral and social order.
Durkheim discusses how the division of labour-the establishment of
specified jobs for certain people— benefits society because it increases
the reproductive capacity of a process and the skill set of the workers.
It also creates a feeling of solidarity among people who share those
jobs. But, Durkheim says, the division of labour goes beyond economic
interests: In the process, it also establishes social and moral order
within a society. "The division of labour can be effectuated (put into
force) only among members of an already constituted society, "he
argues.

Density can occur in three different ways

 through an increase in the spatial concentration of people

 through the growth of towns, because tasks grow more complex,
through an increase in the number and efficacy of the means of
communication

When one or more of these things happen, says Durkheim, labour begins
to become divided and jobs become more specialized. At the same time
the struggle for meaningful existence becomes more strenuous
(kadumai).
A major theme of the book is the difference between developing and
advanced civilizations and how they perceive social solidarity. Another
focus is how each type of society defines the role of law in resolving
breaches (meeralgal) in that social solidarity.

According to Durkheim, division of labour can only be explained in

terms of three social factors the volume, the material density and the
moral density of the society:

Volume of society: refers to the size of population.

The material density: refers to the number of individuals on a given
ground surface. (concentration)

Moral density: refers to the intensity of communication between

individuals.
With the formation of cities and the development of transport and
communication, the concentration of society multiplies intra-social
relations. Thus the growth and condensation of societies and the
resultant intensity of social intercourse necessitate a greater division of
labour.

Durkheim separated and classified societies based on the kind of

division of labour present in them.
He noted that in societies with less division of labour–primitive
societies, there is only mechanical solidarity present, as everyone
functions through a collective conscience and have similar thoughts and
behaviours .
For example, the members of a mainly agricultural region, since they
share similar work are more likely to think alike (Crossman, 2019).

In more sophisticated and more advanced, industrialized societies, the

division of labour is highly specialized and there is more
individualization present in both people and groups, and Durkheim
states that there is organic solidarity present as people across different
spheres connect (Hausner,2019).

Social Solidarity

Durkheim argues that two kinds of social solidarity exist: mechanical

solidarity and organic solidarity.
Mechanical solidarity connects the individual to society without any
intermediary. That is, society is organized collectively and all members
of the group share the same set of tasks and core beliefs. What binds the
individual to society is what Durkheim calls the “collective
consciousness," sometimes translated as "conscience collective,"
meaning a shared belief system.

The measurement of social solidarity is the intensity of collective

conscience. It is the sum total of belief and sentiment common to the
member of society. Collective conscience persists through successive
generations and keeps them united.
According to him, the primitive society is characterized by mechanical
solidarity based upon the conscience collective and the advanced society
is characterized by organic solidarity based upon division of labour.

According to Durkheim, the more primitive a society is, the more it is

characterized by mechanical solidarity and sameness.
The members of an agrarian society, for example, are more likely to
resemble each other and share the same beliefs and morals than the
members of a highly sophisticated technology- information- driven
society.

As societies become more advanced and civilized, the individual

members of those societies become more distinguishable from one
another. People are managers or laborers, philosophers or farmers.
Solidarity becomes more organic as societies develop their divisions of
labor.

A society characterized by mechanical solidarity is unified because all

people are generalists. The bond among people is that they are all
engaged in similar activities and have similar responsibilities.
Mechanical solidarity is solidarity of resemblance. As a member of the
same group they resemble each other, feel the same emotion, cherish the
same values.
According to Durkheim, the mechanical solidarity prevailed to the
extent that; “ideas and tendencies common to all members of the society
are greater in number and intensity than those which pertain personality
to each member.”
Organic solidarity which prevails in a heterogeneous society where the
likeness and the resemblance is missing, the coherent unity of the
collectivistic is expressed by differentiation; .Such a society is
characterized by an advanced form of division of labour.
Organic solidarity emerges with the growth of division of labour. This is
especially witnessed in the modern Industrial societies. The individuals
are no long similar. They may be differentiated in terms of thinking,
emotions and values. They have no collective conscience. The organic
solidarity is characterized by specialization and individualism.

The Role of Law in Preserving Social Solidarity

For Durkheim, the laws of a society are the most visible symbol of
social solidarity and the organization of social life in its most precise and
stable form.
Law plays apart in a society that is analogous to the nervous system in
organisms. The nervous system regulates various bodily functions so
they work together in harmony. Likewise, the legal system regulates all
parts of society so that they work together effectively.
Two types of law are present in human societies and each corresponds
with a type of social solidarity: repressive law (moral) and restitutive
law (organic)

Repressive Law

Durkheim believed that repressive law is common in primitive or

mechanical societies where sanctions for crimes are typically made and
agreed upon by the whole community. In these "lower" societies,
crimes against the individual do occur, but in terms of seriousness,
those are placed on the lower end of the penal ladder. Crimes against
the community take priority in mechanical societies
Punishments for crimes against the collective are typically harsh.
Repressive law, says Durkheim, is practiced in mechanical forms of
society.
Restitutive Law

The second type of law is restitutive law, which does focus on the
victim when there is a crime since there are no commonly shared beliefs
about what damages society. Restitutive law is made possible by more
specialized bodies of society such as courts and lawyers.

It is also characterized by the weakening of collective conscience and

repressive law. The collective conscience becomes weaker and more
abstract, permitting the development of greater individuality and
freedom.
Repressive law is largely replaced by restitutive law which calls not for
revenge but rather for the return of things to the conditions which would
have prevailed had the legal offences not occurred.

In sum, the course of social evolution is marked by a transition from

small, simple, homogeneous tribal societies integrated by likenesses and
a powerful concrete collective conscience to large, modern differentiated
industrial societies integrated by the interdependence of individuals and
structures created by the division of labour.

To sum up, Durkheim deals with the concept of social solidarity and
conscience collective in a very scientific method, he negates the view
that modern societies are based upon simply contractual agreements and
do not have any prior consciousness.
However, he agreed that the kind of consciousness characterizing
modern societies is different.
Yet, it is a form of social solidarity.

SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION:

Durkheim’s last major book “The elementary forms of Religious life”

(1912) has been regarded as one of the most profound and most original
work upon Religion.
It is regarded as his best and most mature work.
Where suicide focused on a large amount of statistics from varying
sources, the elementary forms of Religious life used one case study in
depth, the Australian aborigines. Durkheim chose choose this group
because he felt they represented the most basic, elementary forms of
religion within a culture.

Durkheim set out to do two things, established the fact that religion was
not divinely or super naturally inspired and was in fact a product of
society.
Durkheim also sought to identify the common things that religion
placed an emphasis upon, as well as what effects those religious beliefs
had on the lives of all within a society.

Durkheim's second purpose was in identifying certain elements of

religious beliefs that are common across different cultures. A belief in a
supernatural realm is not necessary or common among religions, but the
separation of different aspects of life, physical things, and certain
behaviors into two categories -- the sacred and the profane -- is
common. Objects and behaviors deemed sacred were considered part of
the spiritual or religious realm. They were part of rites, objects of
reverence, or simply behaviors deemed special by religious belief.
Those things deemed profane were everything else in the world that did
not have a religious function or hold religious meaning.

According to Durkheim, Religion refers to:

“A unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things that is

to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite
in one simple moral community called church, all those who adhere to
it.”

The definition of religion at which Durkheim arrives is:

“Religion is an interdependent system of beliefs and practices regarding

things which are sacred, that is to say, apart forbidden, beliefs and
practices which unite all those who follow them in a single moral
community called a church.” The concept of church is added to the
concept of the sacred and to the system of beliefs in order to differentiate
religion from magic, which does not necessarily involve the consensus
of the faithful in one church.

"A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred

things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and
practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church,
all those who adhere to them."
(1982, p. 129 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the
Religious Life])

"This system of conceptions is not purely imaginary and hallucinatory,

for the moral forces that these things awaken in us are quite real -- as
real as the ideas that words recall to us after they have served to form the
ideas."
(1973, p. 160 [excerpt from "The Dualism of Human Nature
and its Social Conditions"])

"Since it is in spiritual ways that social pressure exercises itself, it could

not fail to give men the idea that outside themselves there exist one or
several powers, both moral and, at the same time, efficacious, upon
which they depend."
(1973, p. 171 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the
Religious Life])

"Since religious force is nothing other than the collective and

anonymous force of the clan, and since this can be represented in the
mind only in the form of the totem, the totemic emblem is like the
visible body the god."
(1973, p. 184 [excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the
Religious Life])

With this definition Durkheim also puts an emphasis on the social

element of religion.
This is important because he spends a great deal of time
in Forms arguing against theorists like Herbert Spencer, Edward Tylor,
or James Frazer who locate the origin of religion in psychological
phenomena such as dreams (the animistic view of Spencer) or natural
phenomena, such as storms (the naturalistic view of the latter two).

Durkheim argues that such an interpretation of phenomena is socially

learned, and could only be the effect of an already established religion,
not its cause. With this said, it is now time to examine how Durkheim
believes a religion originates and operates.

According to Durkheim, religion is something eminently social.

Religious representations are collective representations which express
collective reality. Recognizing the social origin of religion, Durkheim
argued that religion acted as a source of solidarity.

Religion provides a meaning for life. Durkheim saw it as a critical part

of the social system. Religion provides social control, cohesion and
purpose for people as well as another means of communication and
gathering for individuals to interact and reaffirm social norms.

Durkheim is generally considered the first sociologist who analyzed

religion in terms of its societal impact.

Above all, he believed religion is about community: It binds people

together (social cohesion), promotes behavior consistency (social
control), and offers strength during life’s transitions and tragedies
(meaning and purpose). By applying the methods of natural science to
the study of society, Durkheim held that the source of religion and
morality is the collective mind-set of society and that the cohesive
bonds of social order result from common values in a society. He
contended that these values need to be maintained to maintain social
stability.
But what would happen if religion were to decline? This question led
Durkheim to posit that religion is not just a social creation but something
that represents the power of society: When people celebrate sacred
things, they celebrate the power of their society. By this reasoning, even
if traditional religion disappeared, society wouldn’t necessarily dissolve.
Whereas Durkheim saw religion as a source of social stability

IN the Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) Durkheim argued that

all societies divide the world into two basic categories: the
sacred and the profane:
● The profane refers to mundane ordinary life: our daily routine/
grind of getting up in the morning, doing our ablutions, going to
college, eating our daily Nachos, and doing the dishes.
● The sacred refers to anything which transcends the humdrum of
everyday life: which typically take the form of collective
representations which are set apart from society (spiritual places
such as churches or mosques are the most obvious examples of
‘sacred’ spaces.)
● But while these two categories are rigidly defined and set apart,
they interact with one another and depend on each other for
survival.
● The sacred world cannot survive without the profane world to
support it and give it life, and vice versa. In general, those aspects
of social life given moral superiority or reverence are considered
sacred, and all other aspects are part of the profane.
● For example, the Catholic Church respects the crucifix and the
behaviors and actions performed during mass as sacred, while
other behaviors and objects are not..
Importantly for Durkheim, anything can be sacred (or rather, a society
can determine that anything is sacred): there is nothing in any object or
action that makes it inherently sacred: anything can be sacred: not only
churches, mosques, and religious books, but in some cultures, trees, or
even rocks may be regarded as sacred.

Durkheim believed that in order to understand the role of religion in

society, the relationship between sacred symbols and what they
represent must be discovered.
Totemism
Durkheim saw Totemism as one of the earliest and simplest form of
religious practice. It is most commonly found among aboriginal peoples,
such as the Australian aborigines, and North West Native American
Indians, who have clan, based societies.

Durkheim used the totemic religion of Australian aborigines to develop

his theory of religion.
Aboriginal society was divided into a number of clans, and members of
the clan had certain obligations that had to be fulfilled – such
as mourning the death of other clan members or helping seek vengeance
if another member was wronged by someone external to the clan.
Each clan was also exogenous – people had to marry someone outside
of the clan.
Each clan had a totem(kulamarabhu chinnam), typically an animal or
a plant which was represented by drawings or carvings made on wood or
stone, typically linked to a ‘creation myth’ that explained the origins of
that clan and linked current members into that history. The totem served
to distinguish the clan from all other clans.

To clan members, the totem was as sacred object,

Durkheim’s ‘big idea’ is that by worshipping the totem, clan members
are actually worshipping society, and thus individuals are reminded that
society is more important than the individual, which is essential in
Functionalist theory because individuals are dependent on society.
THEORY OF SUICIDE
Essay on Durkheim’s Theory of Suicide – Durkheim’s third famous
book “Suicide” published in 1897 is in various respects related to his
study of division of labour.
Durkheim’s theory of suicide is cited as “a monumental landmark in
which conceptual theory and empirical research are brought together.
Suicide is an indication of disorganisation of both individual and society.
Increasing number of suicides clearly indicates something is wrong
somewhere in the social system of the concerned society. Durkheim has
studied this problem at some length.

Durkheim was not the first who collected and analysed the data on
suicide rate. From the middle of the 19 th century number of statisticians
and criminologists collected and analysed demographic figures on
suicide.
But no one came up with behind factors of suicide. Durkheim was the
person who went beyond to think about suicide in sociological
perspective.

He tried to elaborate that suicide rate has nothing to do with mental

illness or climatic changes and explained it with social facts like social
integration and social regulation in sociological perspective (Adams
& Sydie, 2001).
Durkheim made use of statistical analysis for two primary reasons. They
are stated below:
(a) To refute theories of suicide based on psychology, biology, genetics,
climate, and geographic factors,
(b) To support with empirical evidence his own sociological explanation
of suicide.

It is appropriate to go for the basic inspiration of Durkheim’s study on

suicide. Human beings are born in natural environment but natured in
cultural environment.
Society shapes individuals according to its culture, norms and values
(Giddens, Sociology, 1989). Durkheim criticized about the existing
social organization due to its characteristics after the Industrialization.
Old forms of organizational relationships were declined.
The societal transition from traditional societies characterized by
“mechanical solidarity” to industrial societies characterized by “organic
solidarity” created complexities and individual found little attachment,
integration and moral support with the society, where rigid rules and
regulation pushed individuals to find their own way of ending their
precious life (Emirbayer, 2003).

It is clear that suicide is a conscious act and the person concerned is

fully aware of its consequences. The person who shoots himself to death,
or drinks severe poison, or jumps down from the 10th storey of a
building, for example, is fully aware of the consequences of such an act.
It is not because of a personal situation but because of the manifestation
of a social condition. He speaks of suicidal currents as collective
tendencies that dominate some vulnerable persons.
Suicide is a highly individual act, yet the motives for a suicide can be
fully understood only by reference to the social context in which it
occurs. In his attempts to substantiate this fact he came to know that the
incidence of suicide varied from one social group or set up to another
and did so in a consistent(steady) manner over the years.
Protestants were more likely to commit suicide than Catholics; people in
large cities were more likely to commit suicide than people in small
communities; people living alone were more likely to commit suicide
than people living in families.
Durkheim isolated one independent variable that lay behind these
differences: the extent to which the individual was integrated into a
social bond with others. People with fragile or weaker ties to their
community are more likely to take their own lives than people who have
stronger ties.
The Four Types of Suicide
Durkheim’s theory of suicide can be seen more clearly if we examine
the relation between the types of suicide and his two underlying social
facts—integration and regulation (Pope, 1976)

Integration refers to the strength of the attachment that we have to

society.
Regulation refers to the degree of external constraint on people.
For Durkheim, the two social currents are continuous variables, and
suicide rates go up when either of these currents is too low or too high.
We therefore have four types of suicide. If integration is high, Durkheim
calls that type of suicide altruistic. Low integration results in an increase
in egoistic suicides. Fatalistic suicide is associated with high regulation,
and anomic suicide with low regulation.
 1. Egoistic Suicide:

Egoistic suicide is a product of relatively weak group integration. It

takes place as a result of extreme loneliness and also out of excess
individualism. When men become “detached from society”, and when
the bonds that previously had tied them to their fellow beings become
loose – they are more prone to egoistic suicide.
According to Durkheim, egoistic suicides are committed by those
individuals who have the tendency to shut themselves up within
themselves. Such individuals feel affronted(insulted), hurt and ignored.
Introvertive traits gain upper hand in them.
Egoistic persons are aloof and cut off from the mainstream of society
and do not take full interest in social matters. Such persons get alienated
and find it difficult to cope with social alienation and feel impelled to
commit suicide.
Durkheim’s belief is that lack of integration of the individuals into the
social group is the main cause for egoistic suicide. Durkheim studied
varying degrees of integration of individuals into their religion, family,
political and national communities.
He found that among the Catholics suicides were comparatively less
than among the Protestants. He also found that Catholicism is able to
integrate its members more fully into its fold.

On the other hand, Protestantism fosters spirit of free inquiry, permits

great individual freedom, lacks hierarchic organisations and has fewer
common beliefs and practices. It is known that the Catholic Church is
more powerfully integrated than the Protestant church.
It is in this way the Protestants are more prone to commit suicide than
the Catholics. Hence, Durkheim generalised that the lack of integration
is the main cause of egoistic suicide.
Durkheim’s statistics also showed that suicide rates go up for those who
are unmarried and therefore less integrated into a family, whereas the
rates go down in times of national political crises such as wars and
revolutions, when social causes and revolutionary or nationalist fervour
give people’s lives greater meaning. He argues that the only thing that
these entire have in common is the increased feeling of integration.

2. Altruistic Suicide:

The second type of suicide discussed by Durkheim is altruistic suicide.

Whereas egoistic suicide is more likely to occur when
social integration is too weak, altruistic suicide is more likely to occur
when “social integration is too strong” (Durkheim, 1897). The
individual is literally forced into committing suicide.
This kind of suicide takes place in the form of a sacrifice in which an
individual ends his life by heroic means so as to promote a cause or an
ideal which is very dear to him. It results from the over- integration of
the individual into his group. In simple words, altruistic suicide is taking
off one’s own life for the sake of a cause. It means that even high level
of social solidarity induces suicide.

Examples:
(i) In some primitive societies and in modern armies such suicide takes
place.
(ii) Japanese sometimes illustrate this type of suicide. They call it
“Harakiri.” In this practice of Harakiri, some Japanese go to the extent
of taking off their lives for the sake of the larger social unity. They
consider that self-destruction would prevent the breakdown of social
unity.
(iii) The practice of “sati” which was once in practice in North India is
another example of this kind.
(iv) The self-immolation by Buddhist monks, self-destruction in Nirvana
under the Brahmanical influence as found in the case of ancient Hindu
sages represent other variants of altruistic suicide. Wherever altruistic
suicide is prevalent, man is always ready to sacrifice his life for a great
cause, principle, ideal or value.

More generally, those who commit altruistic suicide do so because they

feel that it is their duty to do so.
Durkheim argued that this is particularly likely in the military, where the
degree of integration is so strong that an individual will feel that he or
she has disgraced the entire group by the most trivial of failures.
When integration is low, people will commit suicide because they have
no greater good to sustain them. When integration is high, they commit
suicide in the name of that greater good.

3. Anomie Suicide:
The breakdown of social norms and sudden social changes that are
characteristic of modern times, encourage anomie suicide. When the
collective conscience weakens, men fall victim to anomie suicide.
“Without the social backing to which one is accustomed, life is judged to
be not worth continuing.”
Anomie suicide is the type that follows catastrophic(terrible/disastrous)
social changes. Social life all around seems to go to pieces. According to
Durkheim, at times when social relations get disturbed both personal and
social ethics become the casualties. Values of life come down and
outlook of some persons changes radically. There are then certain
dangerous developments in the society.
A sudden change has its vibrations both in social life and social
relationship, which paves way for suicide. If the change is sudden,
adjustment becomes difficult and those who do not get adjusted to
changes commit suicide.
It is this social disruption which leads to suicide. According to
Durkheim, not only economic disaster and industrial crisis but even
sudden economic prosperity can cause disruption and deregulation and
finally suicide.
The anomic suicide, is more likely to occur when the regulative powers
of society are disrupted. Such disruptions are likely to leave individuals
dissatisfied because there is little control over their passions(desire),
which are free to run wild in an insatiable(greedy) race for
gratification(fulfilment). Rates of anomic suicide are likely to rise
whether the nature of the disruption is positive (for example, an
economic boom) or negative (an economic depression).

Such changes put people in new situations in which the old norms no
longer apply but new ones have yet to develop. This is relatively easy to
imagine in the case of an economic depression. The closing of a factory
because of a depression may lead to the loss of a job, with the result that
the individual is cut a drift from the regulative effect that both the
company and the job may have had. Being cut off from these structures
or others (for example, family, religion, and state) can leave an
individual highly vulnerable to the effects of currents of anomie.
The increases in rates of anomic suicide during periods of deregulation
of social life are consistent with Durkheim’s views on the
pernicious(evil) effect of individual passions(cravings/desires) when
freed of external constraint. People thus freed will become slaves to their
passions and as a result, in Durkheim’s view, commit a wide range of
destructive acts, including killing themselves.

the third type of suicide that occurs when the degree of social regulation
is too low. Individuals commit suicide when they experience anomie
which is considered as a feeling of disconnection from larger society.
Durkheim conferred two forms of economic anomie as acute economic
anomie and chronic economic anomie and two forms of domestic
anomie as acute domestic anomie and chronic domestic anomie. Acute
economic anomie suicide happens in booms and declines in economic
condition. Chronic economic suicide occurs where long term economic
troubles do not bring happiness among individuals. Acute domestic
anomie suicide was demonstrated by widowhood that faces difficulties
to adapt to the new circumstances. Chronic domestic anomie is a
situation where material regulation affects the equilibrium of needs of
men and women. Bachelors’ experience higher suicide than married men
and divorcees also face same situation (Durkheim, 1951).

D. Fatalistic Suicide
There is a little mentioned fourth type of suicide—fatalistic—that
Durkheim discussed only in a footnote in Suicide (Acevedo, 2005;
Besnard, 1993).
Whereas anomic suicide is more likely to occur in situations in which
regulation is too weak, fatalistic suicide is more likely to occur when
regulation is excessive. Durkheim described those who are more likely
to commit fatalistic suicide as “persons with futures pitilessly blocked
and passions violently choked by oppressive discipline.” The classic
example is the slave who takes his own life because of the hopelessness
associated with the oppressive regulation of his every action. Too much
regulation—oppression—unleashes currents of melancholy that, in turn,
cause a rise in the rate of fatalistic suicide.

Durkheim argued that social currents cause changes in the rates of

suicides. Individual suicides are affected by these underlying currents of
egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism. This proved, for Durkheim, that
these currents are more than just the sum of individuals because they
dominate the decisions of individuals. Without this assumption, the
stability of the suicide rate for any particular society could not be
explained.

Fatalistic Suicide is the final type of suicide oppose to the anomic

suicide developed by that occurs when a person is overly regulated by
the society. This kind of extreme social regulation potentially pushes
individuals to rather die than survive in oppressive situations. People
don’t like to live under the rigid regulation and they have a feeling of
losing their own self due to this extreme regulation. Durkheim claimed
that if there is too much of control and regulation over a person’s life it
will lead to increase the suicide rate among them. Example for this
fatalistic suicide is suicide among prisoners, because some prisoners
ought to finish their life where they face continuous abuse and too much
regulation (Durkheim, 1951).

Critical Comments:
1. Durkheim has given importance only to social factors in suicide. In
doing so, he has neglected the role of other factors, especially the
psychological. Hence this is a one-sided view.
2. The theory is based upon a very small sample of data concerning
suicide.
3. As criminologists have pointed out, economic, psychological and
even religious factors may lead to suicide. But Durkheim did not give
any importance to these factors.

Concluding Remarks:
These three kinds of suicide understood as social types also correspond
approximately to psychological types. “Egoistic suicide tends to be
characterised by a kind of apathy, an absence of attachment to life;
altruistic suicide, by a state of energy and passion; anomie suicide is
characterised by a state of irritation or disgust” – Raymond Aron.
Raymond Aron pointed out that Durkheim in his study of “suicide” has
been successful in establishing a social fact that there are “specific social
phenomena which govern individual phenomena. The most impressive,
most eloquent example is that of the social forces which drive
individuals to their deaths, each believing that he is obeying only
himself.”

UNIT- 5
MAX WEBER
IDEAL TYPES:

Ideal types refer to the essential or key features of some social

phenomenon in its pure form, though no real form of the phenomenon
would completely conform to it. The ideal types is a conceptual tool
used as a kind of measuring rod to determine how real social
phenomenon are similar to or different from its purest form.

The concept of the ideal type was developed by German sociologist

Max Weber, who used it as an analytic tool for hishistorical studies.
The ideal type is an abstract model created by Max Weber that, when
used as a standard of comparison, enables us to see aspects of the real
world in a clearer, more systematic way. It is a constructed ideal used to
approximate reality by selecting and accentuating (draw attention to)
certain elements.... It is also known as the pure type.

It was felt by the idealist philosophers that scientific method could not
be used for studying cultural subjects. The main argument was that
social phenomena are unique and do not therefore allow generalisations.

Weber did not accept this view. He was of the opinion that scientific
categories could be used in the field of human studies or cultural objects.
Weber’s belief that scientific method was relevant to social studies
encouraged him to offer a set of operational definitions and to construct
concepts such as “ideal types” which could be used.

Ideal Type in Sociology

In sociology, however, the ideal type means something very different
from the best or the average. It is also important to pay attention that in
using the word "ideal" Max Weber refers to the world of ideas
(German: Gedankenbilder, "mental images") and not to perfection;
these " ideal types " are idea-constructs that help put the seeming chaos
of social reality in order.
According to New Websters Dictionary ‘Ideal’ is a “conception or a
standard of something in its highest perfection.” It refers to mental
image or conception rather than a material object. It is a model. The term
type means a kind, class or group as distinguished by a particular
character. So generally, we may conceptualize ideal type as a kind,
category, class or group of objects things or persons with particular
character that seems to be the best example of it.
Weber used Ideal type in a specific sense. To him Ideal type is a mental
construct, like a model, for the scrutiny and systematic characterization
of a concrete situation. Indeed he used Ideal type as a methodological
tool to understand and analyze social reality.

Methodology is a conceptual and logical research procedure by which

knowledge is developed. Historically much of the methodological
concern in the social sciences has been directed towards establishing
their scientific credentials.
Max Weber was particularly concerned with the problem of objectivity
in social sciences. Hence he used Ideal type as a methodological tool
that looks at reality objectively. It scrutinizes, classifies, systematizes
and defines social reality without subjective bias. The Ideal types are
nothing to do with values. Its function as a research tool is for
classification and comparison.

Ideal Type Helps to Understand Real Social Phenomena

Let's look at how an ideal type can help us understand what is real by
comparing the reality of any social phenomena against the ideal type.
Again, for purposes of illustration, let's stick with the example of
capitalism. One of its key features is that only the free market –
unregulated buying and selling-determines economic activity. Another is
that government does not interfere with market activity. Still another is
that the primary means of production are privately owned and are used
for the purpose of generating profit. If we identified all such key
features, we'd have a good idea of what the ideal (or pure) type of
capitalism looks like.

By applying the ideal type to a real capitalist economy (or any other
social phenomenon), it allows us to identify how closely the reality
fits the ideal type or deviates from it. This offers a richer
understanding of the reality.

Ideal Type Facilitates Comparative Analysis

An ideal type also allows us to compare important similarities and

differences between the same social phenomenon over time;
For example, how has capitalism in America changed from 1815 to
2015? Or, we can use an ideal type to compare similarities and
differences during the same period; for example, how does capitalism
differ today in the U.S., Japan, Peru, South Africa, etc.?

Some of the major characteristics of weber’s “Ideal Types” are as

follows:

1. Ideal types are mental constructs. It is subjective (influenced by

personal feelings) in nature.

2. Since Ideal types are mental constructs they do not exactly

correspond to the reality. Ideal types are constructed in such a way that
they are kept aside from the real world. Ideal types are hypothetical
constructions (which is not directly observable /e.g. intelligence and
motivation) formed from real phenomena, which have explanatory
value.

3. Ideal types are not the instruments to denote statistical average. For
example: the Protestant ethic does not indicate the average behavior of
all the Protestants. Honesty does not indicate the average behavior of all
the honest people that the society has witnessed.

4. Ideal types function as theoretical tools to understand the reality.

5. ‘Ideal type’ is not ideal in the sense of ethically good or right. Ideal
types signify ‘pure 'type. As Weber himself has stated the Ideal types
have “no connection at all with value judgement and it has nothing to do
with any type of perfection.

6. Ideal types are not hypotheses and hence the question of proving or
disproving them and establishing general laws does not arise here.

7. Ideal type is essentially a “one sided” model. It is one sided in the

sense that it deliberately emphasizes those imputation(attribution)
thought to be worth postulating(discussing) and testing. In this sense, it
is purely selective and of the nature of experiment.

8.Ideal types do not provide an exhaustive description of a social

Phenomenon. The nature of Ideal type is such that it does not provide an
exhaustive description since it selectively emphasize “one point of
view” and submitting its particular imputations to test.”
9. Ideal types are not rigid and fixed, they are subject to change. Ideal
types are abstract in nature. It resides in our imagination. They are
subject to change from time to time. The Ideal types are also subject to
modification in response to changes in social realities.

THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTION AND VERSTEHEN

Max Weber (1864-1920) was one of the founding fathers of Sociology.
Weber saw both structural and action approaches as necessary to
developing a full understanding of society and social change.

Unlike Durkheim, Max Weber rejected notion of objectivity and

positivism because Human beings, in contrast to objects have
underlying motivations and feelings, which may deviate a Human from
expected behavior.
His central idea of rejecting positivistic view is that unlike objects,
humans have brain and they associate subjective meaning to their
action.

Study of Max Weber covers wide area, but central theme is 'subjectivity'
which humans may associate with their action. That is the reason unlike
many other social scientists, he gave considerable importance to
individual's behavior, which most others like Durkheim in his study of
'Suicide' did not even consider of significant importance.

Prior to Weber, positivists believed that social action is done according

to the will , norms , rules , regulations , laws etc of collective conscience
and so social action is predictable, calculable and measurable . They
were of the view that social action is done by abiding the universal laws
of human behaviour.

For example , a social actor will stop his vehicle on seeing red traffic
signal. A person may not stop at all on seeing red signal or he may be a
person unaware of the meanings attached to the red signal. The action
done also varies according to the social positions the actors hold in
society. For example, politicians in rallies don’t follow traffic rules.

Weber was opposed to this view because he saw human beings as

rational and active agencies and thus, according to him a thought
process is involved between stimulus and the action i.e social action
involves a reasonable thought that animals lack. His behaviour can be
influenced by his moods, motivations, desires, knowledge, culture,
situations etc. He thus, said that the subject matter of sociology is to
study these thoughts, motivations, values and beliefs behind the social
action. Thus, he gave an interpretive method called Verstehen to study
all these.
He said, reality is vast, dichotomous and unorganized and one cannot
study every reality and so sociologists should develop ideal types to get
an essence of reality. For example, a simple act of blinking the eye can
be because of a number of reasons and can be done in a number of ways
for a number of purposes. It may be because something may have gone
into your eye or because it may be to eve tease your crush or because it
was an eye blinking ceremony.

Social Action and Verstehen

Weber argued that before the cause of an action could be ascertained

you had to understand the meaning attached to it by the individual. He
distinguished between two types of understanding.

First he referred to Aktuelles Verstehen – or direct observational

understanding, where you just observe what people are doing. For
example, it is possible to observe what people are doing – for example,
you can observe someone chopping wood, or you can even ascertain
(with reasonable certainty) someone’s emotional state from their body
language or facial expression. However, observational understanding
alone is not sufficient to explain social action.

The second type of understanding is Eklarendes Verstehen – or

Empathetic Understanding – in which sociologists must try to
understand the meaning of an act in terms of the
motives(reason/causes/motivation) that have given rise to it. This type of
understanding would require you to find out why someone is chopping
wood – Are they doing it because they need the firewood, are they just
clearing a forest as part of their job, are they working off anger, just
doing it because they enjoy it? To achieve this Weber argued that you
had to get into the shoes of people doing the activity.
Social action, then, is not action in isolation. A solitary act of
meditation, for example, is not social action.

Conversely, a group of people together does not constitute social action

unless they start interacting.
Social action should involve meaningful comprehension of the social
action of others. So, social action is confined to situations where the
actor’s behaviour is meaningfully related to behaviour of others.

In a social act it is necessary that it should have subjective meaning. A

blind imitation without any understanding of the nature of act being
imitated is not social action.

For Weber human action is social in so far as “the acting individual

attaches a subjective meaning to it.”

Weber’s Four Types of Action (and types of society)

Max Weber didn’t just believe that individuals shape society – societies
encourage certain types of motive for action – for example, the religion
of Calvinism encouraged people to save money, which eventually led to
capitalism

Weber believes that there are four ideal types of social actions. Ideal
types are used as a tool to look at real cases and compare them to the
ideal types to see where they fall. No social action is purely just one of
the four types.

1. Traditional social action:- actions controlled by traditions, “the way

it has always been done”. It is a social action that may be having some
meanings in the past but now is done out of habits only and thus, it
involves little or no thought process. For example, we always
wear watch on our left hand we do so out of habit Hindu people touch
the feet of elders and most of the time they do so without being
conscious.
2. Affectional social action:- This is an action done under the influence
of some emotions like love, anger, anxiety, fear, happiness. Thus,
people may not follow rules and laws always as believed by positivists
and they may in anger kill someone and in love may hug publicly.

3:-Value rational action:-This is a social action done under the

influence of value rationality or values. People slaughter animals for
sacrifices and also used to justify sati in the name of cultural values.
Some respect women and give them seat in bus, others may help elderly
people. Some help the poor out of compassion and others may
discriminate the LGBT community for having different sexual
orientations.

4:- Instrumental-rational action:- actions that are carried out to

achieve certain goal, we do something because it leads to a result .

This social action is based on formal rationality. It is an act done by

materialistic people for achieving some ends and is done by prioritizing
the available means within the framework of law. These actions
are utilitarian in nature and thus, fulfill some utility. For example, we
study to get jobs, status, appreciation and recognition. We do hard
work to get ahead of others.

To illustrate these different types of action consider someone “going to

school” in terms of these four ideal types: Traditionally, one may attend
college because her grandparents, parents, aunts, and uncles have as
well. They wish to continue the family tradition and continue with
college as well.
When relating to affective, one may go to school just because they enjoy
learning. They love going to college whether or not it will make them
broke.
With value rational, one may attend college because it’s a part of his/her
religion that everyone must receive the proper education. Therefore, this
person attends college for that reason only.
Finally, one may go to college because he/she may want an amazing job
in the future and in order to get that job, he/she needs a college degree.

Max Weber was particularly interested in the later of these – he believed

that modern societies encouraged ‘Instrumental-Action’ – that is we
are encouraged to do things in the most efficient way (e.g. driving to
work) rather than thinking about whether driving to work is the right
thing to do (which would be value-rational action.

Weber believed that modern societies were obsessed with efficiency –

modernizing and getting things done, such that questions of ethics,
affection and tradition were brushed to one side – this has the
consequence of making people miserable and leading to enormous social
problems. Weber was actually very depressed about this and had a
mental breakdown towards the end of his life.

PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF CAPITALISM:

BUREAUCRACY:
TYPES OF AUTHORITY

Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree

to follow. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these
individuals are worthy of respect. Generally speaking, people perceive

the objectives and demands of an authority figure as reasonable and

beneficial, or true.

“Max weber” explained the three ideal types of authority, he was

interested in the evolution of political power. The reason behind his

theory of authority was to enlighten that, how the barbarous authority

has been changed over time into the legitimated authority. According

to him human beings have experienced three different types of authority,

which are as follow;

● Traditional authority,

● Charismatic authority and

● Bureaucratic or Rational-legal authority.

Not all authority figures are police officers, elected officials or

government authorities. Besides formal offices, authority can arise from

tradition and personal qualities.

Traditional Authority

According to “Max Weber” primitive societies were operated by, the

traditional authority. By traditional Authority he meant, monarchy, in

which monarchs and kings’ authority over the individuals was dependent
on divinity. People of such societies believed that, royal families are

ordained(appointed) by God to rule over them. Traditional authority is

linked with traditional social action, in which people act according to

their religion, customs and culture. In modern world traditional authority

still exist; “Saudi Arabia” is the best example of traditional authority.

According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted

because that has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists

because it has been accepted for a long time. Britain’s Queen

Elizabeth, for instance, occupies a position that she inherited based on

the traditional rules of succession for the monarchy. People adhere to

traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel

obligated to perpetuate it. In this type of authority, a ruler typically has

no real force to carry out his will or maintain his position but depends

primarily on a group’s respect.

A more modern form of traditional authority is patrimonialism, which

is traditional domination facilitated by an administration and military

that are purely personal instruments of the master (Eisenberg 1998). In

this form of authority, all officials are personal favourites appointed by

the ruler. These officials have no rights, and their privileges can be
increased or withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The political

organization of ancient Egypt typified such a system: when the royal

household decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian was forced to

work toward its construction.

Charismatic Authority

“Max Weber” says that, after traditional authority there comes the epoch

of charismatic authority. Rulers who are considered to be, having heroic

powers and extra-ordinary from other individuals by, the people of

society is known as, charismatic Authority. Such authority is interrelated

with affective social action, people of such societies act on the basis of

their emotions. Napoleon Bonaparte is the good example of charismatic

authority, people of France rally behind him blindly in every war, even

after his exile he managed to raise an army because of his charisma.

Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because they are

drawn to the leader’s personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic

leader can be extraordinary, and can inspire followers to make unusual

sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of great hardship and persecution.

Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of crisis and offer

innovative or radical solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new

world order. Hitler’s rise to power in the post-war economic depression

of Germany is an example.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and

according to Weber, they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are

heroic. Diverse male leaders such as Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ,

César Chávez, Malcolm X, and Winston Churchill are all considered

charismatic leaders. Because so few women have held dynamic

positions of leadership throughout history, the list of charismatic female

leaders is comparatively short. Many historians consider figures such as

Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and Mother Teresa to be charismatic

leaders.

Bureaucratic or Rational-legal Authority

The legal-rational authority makes evident the power of the bureaucracy

over the individual. In the exercise of authority, the administration of

power, laws and rules, including institutional duties and protocols, have

control over individuals.

“Weber” believed that, bureaucratic powers comes from knowledge and

such power plays an important role in changing the conditions of a

nation, in a positive way. Moreover, he says that, changing a leader does

not have any impact on the conditions of a nation, however, knowledge

is more effective, compared to tools and money.

Rational-legal authority is associated with goal rational social action.

For example, if a police officer gives ticket to a person for breaking a

signal, the person does not obey police officer for the reason that, he is

inspired from his personality or he is some holy man, the reason behind

obeying the police officer is because the state has given him the

authority to enforce the law.

According to Weber, power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and

regulations is termed rational-legal authority. In this type of authority,

power is vested in a particular rationale, system, or ideology and not

necessarily in the person who implements the specifics of that doctrine.

A nation that follows a constitution applies this type of authority. On a

smaller scale, you might encounter rational-legal authority in the

workplace