Weber, unlike Marx, does not intend to pursue a path of determinism. In contrast, his objective is to comprehend capitalism from a historical context ( Weber, 2002). The analyses both deploy are diachronic, which implies they attempt to understand the connection between historicity and modern capitalist orientations.
Marx authors a document that implies the manifestations of economic conditions within the culture and the society. On the contrary, Weber asserts that religion is a catalyst for commercial conditioning. Marx also defines the grand theory in which the community is created on class distinctions surrounding bourgeoisie and proletariat orientations ( Engels & Tucker, 1978 ). As such, the tendency of modern capitalism from this conceptualization is being oriented on the polarization of class relations. In this context, the distinctions imply that the gap between these groups keeps widening as time passes by and it is impossible to harmonize them. Marx is aware of the historicity of the landscape that forms the socioeconomic basis of the theory and the complexity of the issue is obvious. In quintessence, it is essential to denote Marx’s eventual class-based revolution and the notion of dialectal materialism as the basis of the current society ( Engels & Tucker, 1978 ). When one peeks at capitalism from another viewpoint, it is clear that Weber addresses an entirely different dimension of class. Marx’s theory is already weak because it depicts a weakness in the historicity of class growth and development to the point that the structure of types becomes simplified. Instead, Weber complicates the notion of class distinctions by pointing out to the differentiating factors between the strictures of the economic class and social class ( Weber, 2002). Accordingly, the theorist explains the economic order, which is capitalism, as the manner in which people distribute and use commercial goods and services. As such, this creates a sense of order within the society that influences status, which then reacts to it.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In a sense, Marx’s theory is more meaningful than Weber’s because it is a depiction of class distinctions and their evolutionary growth ( Engels & Tucker, 1978 ). In a sense, the existence of intermediaries between the two major classes is theoretically irrelevant. A case in point, these do not add insight to the theory of relations in classes, and they do not validate them, which implies their irrelevance is irrevocable.
Question 2
Durkheim defines two forms of solidarity of which one is mechanical while the other is organic. Significant to note is that this type of solidarity, mechanical, is one that originates from likeness and attains a maximum level when collective conscience entirely occupies people’s conscience and coincides with it from all perspectives ( Durkheim, 1972 ). It occurs in communities with minuscule traces of division of labor to a point they become homogenous with women and men engaging in similar daily activities and tasks, and then having the same experiences each day. The specific values of any of the societal institutions that are dissimilar reinforce each other considering the homogeneity they create in taking such a course. Since the conscience is similar, to imply same beliefs, values, and norms from the societal viewpoint, it is implausible that individuals may create deviance or individuality. In fact, the force that confronts individuals is consistent and overwhelming at all times. People in such societies are highly religious, which implies a strong culture with high levels of moral and social integration. People regard themselves as a part of a group, which means that there is little room for a sense of personal options since they surrender individual awareness.
A society with organic solidarity is one in which complexity is the norm and people have distinct beliefs, values, material interests, and social experiences. As such, this sociocultural context is one in which individuals are dependent upon each other but have distinct ways of thinking and behaving ( Durkheim, 1972 ). As such, the growth of individualism is inevitable in this case since the division of labor is not only different but also stratified. As such, the normative rules, beliefs, morality, and universal values in society are the most affected when individuals commence on moral inclinations that derail the sense of emotional collectiveness from the context of a community. The thought of community also becomes void since individuals lose universal values, which may imply giving excuses when one commits deviant acts such as murder ( Durkheim, 1972 ). The violent killing is unacceptable in a mechanical society considering the essence of societal connection among individuals from distinct backgrounds. As opposed to the allowance such an individual may get from an organic society’s stratified approach to morality, a mechanical society expects all inhabitants or members to follow a particular course, which has its origins in religious motives. The social bond in this community is strong, which implies a lack of tolerance to deviance. In case individuals lack interest in the sense of social restraint and allow self-interest to take root, it is apparent the punishment in a mechanical society is justified and coherent with the moral guidance on which the entire community is based. The mechanical society will punish the individual severely considering he or she satisfies his or her appetite with little thought concerning the effect that this may have on the dead person as well as his or her significant others such as dependents. Consequently, this community will hang the deviant individual.
Question 3
Simmel’s social types are based on the inventory of social forms the author formulated. In this context, these are “the renegade,” “the man in the middle,” “the adventurer,” “the poor,” “the mediator,” and “the stranger” ( Marotta, 2012 ). A case in point, each of these social types depends on specifiable expectations and reactions of others. As such, other people assign an individual a particular social type considering the relationship he or she has with them. In this case, each of the attributes that an individual manifests regarding a situation implies that it is expected to follow through the social structure. For instance, a stranger is an individual who is depicted as a wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow. As such, the structural position of this individual is absent in the society. Similarly, the poor is a class that receives recognition only when the community depicts this as a special status and assigns specific individuals that require assistance to this category. In this context, people may be poor but not belong to this group ( Marotta, 2012 ). It is only at the moment that the poor are assisted and accept the assistance that they fit into this context. I am a ‘student,’ but this category is not a part of Simmel’s definition. In this case, it should be noted that he might think of this as a group that the society creates for certain individuals. I believe that Simmel thinks I am a student only when I accept that and I depict the need to study.
Question 4
Durkheim believes that the current society does not have the best intentions for all members. As such, the capitalist purposes have spread in most nations in the world to the point that they depict organic solidarity. People do not want to work for the collective good of the community but believe that they should just work for themselves. The mechanical solidarity implies that each of the members of the community should ensure that they assist others rather than work for selfish gain, which may have adverse implications for the entire society.
According to Weber, the current society depicts industrialization. Despite the fact that this has led to an increase in production of goods and services, it has also culminated in disenchantment. In this context, the change and ideas in the setup of the society is an unwelcome addition.
According to Marx, capitalism is the cause of all issues. As such, competition is a waste, money is the ultimate measure of all things, marketing does not make sense, and profit is a way of stealing. In this case, the theorist implies that people should not engage in capitalism.
Simmel does not develop a systematic and general framework to analyze modernity. However, his text implies that not only should the society ascribe specific characteristics to a given individual, but also the person should accept it.
The most plausible explanation to this is the one by Durkheim. Humans should live in harmony considering that they should have a collective mindset. As such, it is the most acceptable in this context.
References
Durkheim, E. (1972). Anomie and the moral structure of industry. Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings , 173 , 173-88.
Engels, F., & Tucker, R. C. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader. The Marx-Engels reader .
Marotta, V. (2012). Georg Simmel, the stranger and the sociology of knowledge. Journal of Intercultural Studies , 33 (6), 675-689.
Weber, M. (2002). The Protestant ethic and the" spirit" of capitalism and other writings . Penguin.
