February 2012 Archives
Patrick Buxbaum blog #2 29 feb, 2012
How does, according to Simmel, the position of stranger differ from non-stranger and what does this position allow for stranger and why?
To wander or to be detached from permanency of any one and everyone given point in space is essentially what makes one a stranger. The stranger holds with in him the choice and discipline to arrive and vanish at any time, choosing his every move whether it be for business or pleasure and to do so with no emotional baggage keeps him labeled as a stranger rather than one of the village. This can also be said about his lacking the ability to be one with the people as a whole although the stranger with out a doubt plays an intrical role within the group.
The stranger is not seen as a negative member of the functioning society but as a trader, and a trader always enters the group as a stranger. He differs from people who are born in a village/town and live there whole lifes in that town because he did not originate from that town, he more than likely came as a trader, thats how history has it at least. He differs from the locals not only because they view him differently but also because he views himself differently. Often times a stranger or traveler can never shake his want to travel, or distant himself from the society he lives in even if he has settled in it and seems to be staying.
The role of the stranger allows that individual to view things from his own perspective, not letting emotions, family and community connections fog the view in which he sees his surroundings. His ability to remain objective to all situations he encounters prevents him from projecting prejudices onto others. This ability learned through many life lessons allows the stranger to treat even his close relationships through a set of binoculaurs.
The stranger is always near and always far. In modern times a stranger is at it was 100 years ago he may not come to as a trader although he very may well. A stranger is a human walking across the street who you can relate to through his shoes. A man that borrows you a quarter. The lack of emotional connection allows the stranger to view in most cases without prejudices that often come when one is of the same village. To know one is to know there weaknesses and faults and that often leads to judgement and prejudice.
How does one develop a sense of Self according to Mead? What is the significance of social act and interaction in this process?
According to George Mead, to develop a sense of self, one must go through "the process of social experience and activity" (pg. 282). Innately, one is not born with "a self". Mead believed that there was a deeper meaning to someone than what is seen on the outside, physically. "The self has a character which is different from that of the physiological organism proper" (pg. 282). For example, I could say that I am an Asian-American female who is 5'1 with long black hair and lives in Minnesota. Though all those things are true about me, that doesn't define me in accordance to Mead's theory. The social experiences and activities that aid in developing a self occur all throughout one's life. To put into perspective, take the notion of wanting to improve your craft (whatever it may be, such as playing an instrument). To progress, you must work on it repetitively. You may develop new ways and techniques throughout your practicing, you may even fail and find out what once worked, doesn't anymore. That's alright though, because these things are all necessary in order to maximize yourself to become better. The same concept goes for developing a self. Your every day social interactions (just like practice/work) are what "progresses" you (as in your sense of self). A way to describe a social interaction can be how you communicate with others. You may communicate a certain way with your boss differently than of your family and friends. This line of communication helps develop your relationships with these people. Alone, relationships are very important in life. There are different variations to a relationship. Depending on how close one views their relationship with another (for example, your relationship with your parents is probably more important to you than your relationship with a classmate), either way they are all an aspect that contribute to your life as a whole. From these relationships, they can shape and reflect on your personality, attitude, and mannerisms. These are some attributes of a self. However, one must be aware of these things because, "the body can be there and can operate in a very intelligent fashion without there being a self involved in the experience" pg. 283). In simpler words, you may be there physically; but not mentally. Social act and interactions play a prominent role in self development. The more you go through, the more you will learn and attain. It is an ever growing learning experience apart of life. People are never the same as they were when they were young. Through these experiences (pertaining to interactions and acts), you learn from them and can help shape you into your own sense of self. In this development, it affects you more than one way. "The self is essentially a social process going on with these two distinguishable phases. If it did not have these two phases there could not be conscious responsibility, and there would be nothing novel in experience (pg. 294)."
Simmel begins his work "The Stranger" by giving us a brief definition of how society describes a stranger, "If wandering, considered as a state of detachment fro every given point in space, is the conceptual opposite of attachment to any point, then the sociological form of "the stranger" presents the synthesis, as it were, of both of these properties" (Simmel pg. 295). Simmel's definition although a bit confusing condenses down to a very simple idea. A stranger, one who we see as detached from society, can more than just a person that does not belong, but a quality asset to the environment, Simmel uses the example, "..his position within it (society) is fundamentally affected by the fact that he does not belong in it initially and that he bring qualities into it that are no, and cannot be, indigenous to it. I believe that statement underlies our beliefs of strangers in the sense that they are strangers because they are different from the rest of society. Simmel's ideology towards strangers continues to dictate, "The following statements about the stranger are intended to suggest how factors of repulsion and distance work to create a form of being together, a form of union based on interaction" (pg. 295). Simmel's statement continues to contradicts societies view of the stranger, which is a person who is detached from society. Simmel's view of the stranger contradict the sociological definition of a stranger with the face that Simmel's stranger eventually anchors himself within society, Simmel uses the example of a trader. Simmel describes a trader, or merchant as a stranger considering only a small amount of goods are produced within an environment so in order for a merchant to obtain foreign items they are considered a stranger in the foreign environment. "Unless there are people who wanter out into foreign lands to buy necessities, in which case they are themselves "strange" merchants in this other region, a trader MUST be a stranger; there is no opportunity for anyone else to make a living at it." I broke down Simmel's statement to define merchants as strangers by means of travel. The merchants must travel to foreign lands to obtain necessities, forcing them to be strangers, but they make a considerable living by being a middleman of trade in any society where land and handicrafts satisfy local demands. According to Simmel the position of a stranger differs from a non-stranger in sense that the stranger is always mobile. The sense of mobility arises due to intermediary trade and pure finance give s the stranger a specific sense of mobility. Also a stranger does not own land, in the eyes of society he holds no more rank than a pesant. Simmel's definition of a stranger differs from a common use of the term in a sense that Simmel continues to describe merchants, although merchants were strangers of their time the members of society had knowledge of the merchants existence, or even deeper knowledge of the merchants history. Where as in a common society a stranger is considered an outcast, that nobody in society cares to get to know.
How does one develop a sense of Self according to Mead? What is the significance of social act and interaction in this process?
People usually classify themselves as who they are based on race and other traits that define them. Let's say that there is a girl who is 18 years old and lives in Wisconsin. If someone were to ask her to describe herself, she would say something about how she is an adult and is a Wisconsin citizen. In George Herbert Mead's eyes people cannot be defined based on their physical traits, or in other words "physiological organism proper"(p. 282). The self is not in a person at the beginning meaning at birth. According to George the self has to be developed through a "process of social experience and activity"(p. 282). People's personalities, skills, and everything else has to be developed. Supposedly there is someone who wants to be good at math. How do you think they will become good at math? If someone wants to become good at math all they have to do is study and practice math daily. Like someone who wants to be good at math people's self has to be developed the same way. Our bodies and self are two separate things. The body can be doing whatever it is doing while the self is or is not involved. You can be weight lifting, jogging, and etc. but you may not feel like doing it right? That is an example of an association of self. The self "is an object to itself"(p. 283). Another way to say it is the self is both a subject and an object at the same time. Pretend that you are working at Delta Airlines. You feel like being at work today. You start off the day fine and your manager is impressed. Here the self has shown to be a great worker and the self has shown to be an object of a good driving force. Let's look at this in a different aspect. You are there at work but you do not feel like being there. This time you are the subject of a worker but you are not the object of a good driving force. The self can only be developed through social interactions. Through social interactions the self is able to gain more knowledge and become affiliated with others. As George puts it, it is impossible for the self to develop without social interactions. It makes perfect sense. Without social interactions people would just be there all by themselves and not develop at all. Life would be boring and secluded. People would not learn new things and see other things that make life interesting. The self goes only through two stages of development according to George. When people have fully developed the self they have firstly mastered how to interact with people on an individual basis. Secondly a person has also mastered how to interact and stay with whatever social group they belong in. In a way I agree with George Herbert Mead on the concept of self. I agree because people have multiple sides to them depending on where they are.
Midterm Review Guide SOC 3701 SP 2012.doc
Hello Students,
Here is the midterm review guide for Social Theory. I encourage you to form study groups and draw on all the course materials-- readings, lecture slides, notes, and this blog-- to study.
Please remember, if you have questions about anything on this guide or trouble understanding the material, come to office hours or make an appointment with us. Please do not ask us to explain things over email, but we are more than happy to talk theory with you in person!
Very Best and Happy Studying,
Sarah
Critical Theory and the Sociology of Knowledge: Reading Questions
"Ideology and Utopia" - Karl Mannheim
1. Explain Mannheim's notions of "ideology" and "utopia"-- how do both of these types of thought "transcend the situation" of real life? (p. 342). According to Mannheim, when can a position be defined as "ideological thought," and at what point does it become truly "utopian?" Why does one's position in the social order matter for defining something as ideology v. utopia? (p. 343-4). Mannheim identifies another problem with distinguishing ideology from utopia: A utopian ideal can also contain ideological elements. Explain what this means by referring to Mannheim's example of the bourgeois utopia of "freedom" (p. 346).
"The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" - Horkheimer & Adorno
2. Describe what the "culture industry" is, according to H & A. Through what primary technologies is mass culture produced? Discuss the authors' example of the technological advance from telephone to radio. What are they saying about how this transformation changes the position of the consumer? (p. 386). Think about the title of this article-- "Enlightenment as Mass Deception." What happened to the "freedoms" of the Enlightenment in the mass culture industry of advanced capitalism, according to H & A? In other words, are we really "free" in the culture industry, or what kind of freedoms do we really have? Do you agree with this theory?
"One-Dimensional Man" - Herbert Marcuse
3. Like Horkheimer and Adorno, Marcuse is deeply critical of technical progress in advanced industrial capitalism. What is Marcuse's argument, in the opening of the piece, regarding the meaning of our "rights and liberties" in the modern era (p. 390-91)? Explain Marcuse's concepts of "false needs," "sublimation," "desublimation," and "Happy Consciousness." (Give it your best shot!)
Simmel in his work Stranger identifies a particular social form that, he thinks, exists across lots of societies. He starts his work by providing a working definition of this social form: stranger. What is this definition? How is Simmel's definition of stranger different from the everyday usage of the term?
How does, according to Simmel, the position of stranger differ from non-stranger and what does this position allow for stranger and why?
How does one develop a sense of Self according to Mead? What is the significance of social act and interaction in this process?
Weber observes the occupational statistics of any country of mixed religious that brings to a light a frequent situation that business leaders and owners of capital, as well as the higher grades of skilled labour, and even more the higher technically and commercially trained personnel of modern enterprises, are Protestant. He noted the post-Reformation shift of Europe's economic centre away from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and Italy, and toward Protestant countries such as the Netherlands, England, Scotland and Germany. Weber also noted that societies having more Protestants were those with a more highly developed capitalist economy. Similarly, in societies with different religions, most successful business leaders were Protestant. Weber thus argued that Roman Catholicism impeded the development of the capitalist economy in the West, as did other religions such as Confucianism and Buddhism elsewhere in the world. It appears that in religious affiliation, it has had a free hand to alter the social distribution of the population in accordance with its needs, and to determine its occupational structure. Based on Webers observations, he believed that the greater participation of Protestant in the ownership of capital, in management, and the upper ranks of labour in great modern industrial and commercial enterprise, in which as he stated, "religious affiliation is not a cause of the economic conditions, but to a certain extent appears to be a result of them (pg.228). A majority of the wealthy towns went over to Protestantism in the sixteenth century. Tradition has been a factor. Religious traditions, as of all traditional authorites. It has been claimed that "greater participation of Protestants in the positions of ownership and management in modern economic life may to-day be understood, in part at least, simply as a result of the greater material wealth they have inherited" (pg. 229), this explains why few Catholics are engaged in capitalistic enterprise. "Catholics show stronger propensity to remain in their crafts, that is they more often become master craftsmen, whereas the Protestants are attracted to a larger extent into the factories in order to fill the upper ranks of skilled labour and administrative positions," as stated (pg. 230). The mental and spiritual was acquired from the environment, the type of education favored by religious atmosphere of home community and the parental home, which have determine the choice of occupation and the professional career. "This the principal explanation of this difference must be sought in the permanent intrinsic character of their religious beliefs, and not only in their temporary external historic-political situations" (pg. 230). In his observations, he chooses to investigate these religions with a view to finding out what peculiarities they have or had that resulted in their behaviors. It appears that they value time and money. They invest their sum through the labors of their work to make good and large credit and make good use of it.
Weber offered an "ideal-type" methodology. His classification system was based on deduced constructs of rationally related potential means-end connections. These were not intended as reflections of actual social behaviors, but as abstract examples of possibilities against which the phenomena being studied could be assessed. Weber saw this process as essentially different from "generic conceptualization" which attempts, by means of empirical observation, to isolate key criteria and to group phenomena in terms of these. In his view, such generic concepts reflect the "essence" of the fixed, orderly and valueless reality of the physical world, and comprise the basic facts of natural science. He believed that social reality is so different in its ultimate "essence" that its concepts must be constructed quite differently. Weber insisted there was indeed a way in which ideal types could ascertain "correct" explanations. The subjectively intended meaning of an act could be uncovered by the method of "Verstehen". The essential meaning thus arrived at is what he meant by "Verstehen", or "explanatory understanding".
The Protestant ethic motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures. The notion of calling meant that each individual had to take action in order to be saved; just being a member of the Church was not enough. Predestination also reduced antagonising over economic inequality and further, it meant that a material wealth could be taken as a sign of salvation in the afterlife. The believers thus justified pursuit of profit with religion, as instead of being fuelled by morally suspect greed or ambition, their actions were motivated by a highly moral and respected philosophy.
Iron cage is concept introduced by Max Weber, refers to the increased rationalization inherent in social life, particularly in Western capitalist societies. The "iron cage" thus traps individuals in systems based purely on teleological efficiency, rational calculation and control. In Weber's view, bureaucracies are cages in the sense that people are trapped in them, their basic humanity denied. Marx sees alienation as only a transitional stage on the road to man's true emancipation. Weber does not believe in the future leap from the realm of necessity into the world of freedom. He thought it more probable that the future would be an "iron cage" rather than a Garden of Eden.
1. Explain the interesting historical puzzle Weber observes at the beginning of the piece. What important question emerges from this puzzle? How does Weber attempt to answer this question? Outline the theory Weber constructs to explain the relationship between Protestant religious values and the development of capitalist culture.
Max Weber begins this section of reading by talking about the history of people's performance in the work field. The main focus is on a certain part of Europe. I can understand why Max emphasizes this part with Europe. This is the place where Max was born and raised. A person could say "Why didn't Max Weber talk about America or Asia?". The answer to the question is Max was not around those places before he wrote "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". I would do the same thing too if I knew enough information about a certain place more than another.
Max starts talking about how Germany's main religious denomination is Catholic. Even though Catholic is the leading religious denomination, Max has observed that most of the people who are wealthy and own a lot of things, "are overwhelmingly Protestant"(p. 228). If you do not know what Protestant is, Protestant is another denomination of Christianity. As you can see there is a bit of irony here. Since Germany's citizens mostly belong to the Catholic denomination, one would think Catholics should be dominating Germany's economy. As Max has seen that is not the case. When I read this part I thought Max sounded surprised too based on the tone of the passage. Anyways this is the historical puzzle that Max wants people to know.
When Max discovers this historical puzzle of the majority of high class people in Germany belong to the Protestant denomination, he gives a question for thought. The question Max gives is "why were the districts of highest economic development at the same time particularly favourable to a revolution in the Church?"(p. 229). The answer to that question according to Max "is by no means so simple as one might think"(p. 229). In the past a lot of whites' countries were ruled by the church. With the church ruling the states or whatever the success of the economy came through the church. People who are churchgoers have created different sects from way in the past till now. Protestants are one of them. The first reason why Protestants are wealthy is because they inherit "greater material wealth"(p. 229). Protestants inherit great wealth due to their schooling and ambitions. Studies show that Protestants prepare themselves for their careers better than Catholics. In better preparation Protestants get more access to higher income and power. When people start working Protestants tend to learn different trades along the way. Thus building their skills so they become wiser and allowing them to move up the hierarchy. Catholics on the other hand tend to stay in one position. Staying in one position allows them to "become master craftsmen"(p. 230). The choices that these people make are reflective upon their denominations. I guess these traits that Protestants show lead to the notion of Protestant Ethic. I assume that what Max talked about involving Protestants is what gave him the idea to create such a concept. Despite Protestants being better both Catholics and Protestants make the economy better.
Explain the interesting historical puzzle Weber observes at the beginning of the piece. What important question emerges from this puzzle? How does Weber attempt to answer this question? Outline the theory Weber constructs to explain the relationship between Protestant religious values and the development of capitalist culture. How does Weber's analysis challenge the Marxist logic of historical materialism? Are there elements of Weber's theory that complement Marx? What is the "iron cage" Weber refers to at the end of the piece? Would Marx agree with that concept?
Weber observes a connection between being Protestant and the economic development, which Weber contributes to their religious beliefs. Weber addresses a question of "Why were the districts of highest economic development at the same time particularly favourable to a revolution in the Church?" (229). Weber contributes this to the Protestant ethics. The Protestant ethics in Webers observation appears that it is virtuous to have capital gain. Protestants both as a high class and low class have developed an 'economic rationalism', which Weber contributes to their religious beliefs. However, I don't feel that Weber was exploring the religiousness of the Protestant, but more so their spirit and how they applied their beliefs and ethics to the work place. The Protestants value profit and their success are good signs of being in God's favor. However, it is not material gain, but a 'compulsion to save' (241) which attributed to the Protestants economic development and their rise in wealth. The Protestants were focused on working hard and accumulating profit, but they were restricting their consumption of luxuries and possessions. It was deemed necessary by God that the consumption of luxuries or possessions were an irrational use of wealth. Instead the Protestants focused on what was necessary for an ideal and comfortable life, which was much like the middle class. Furthermore, the working hard and accumulating their wealth not only helped maintain a Protestants ethos and morals but it also allowed them to rise spiritually as well as building on their wealth. On top of this concept, the Protestants also grasp and welcome the ideas of capitalism, unlike other religions. On page 230 it states "...Catholics show a stronger propensity to remain in their crafts...whereas the Protestants are attracted to a larger extent into the factories in order to fill the upper ranks of skilled labour and administrative positions." This ideal helps perpetuate the ideal of capitalism and the labor market. The Catholics viewed their 'craftsmanship' as a key to their success, however the Protestants recognized the need for the labor within factories which in turn helped to create more individual jobs. Thus, the Protestant views give way for Marx's idea of the bourgeois. Because God shined upon the Protestants to accumulate all this wealth, it then gave rise to the capitalist system and allowed the Protestants to legally, and with God's approval exploit the common laborer. This idea is very similar to Marxist logic of the bourgeois and the proletariat. I feel it does complement Marx's theory , however what id contradicts on Marx's theory was the fact of materialism. Marx was focused on the materialistic gain of an individual, which was the key to capitalism. At the end of the piece, Weber refers to the 'iron cage'. "Specialists without spirit, sensualists without hearth; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved" (245). In this Weber is referring to the creativity being sucked out of the actual labor. Labor and the laborer will become a mechanical function. I feel Marx would agree with this function in the fact it is very similar to his idea of alienation. Marx's idea of alienation came from the laborer not having an attachment to the product, and not having a personal relationship with the consumer or the capitalist. This can be seen as Weber's idea of the iron cage, where the laborer becomes mechanical in his job process, he thus separates himself from everyone else and his job.
In Max Webers article titled Bureaucracy, Weber depicts the essentials to his ideal Bureaucracy. Weber begins the section with six key points that highlight the main stipulations of his ideal form of government. The first key being a separation of power within the government. Weber states,"Regular activities require for the purpose of the bureaucratically governed structure are assigned as official duties." (pg. 255) I unpacked that statement by determining its meaning as, not one single person will have complete control over any situation, and that each person within the system has a specific set of duties and tasks that are essential to the overall functionality of the government. Weber also makes a strong statement by claiming, "Only persons who qualify under general rules are employed." (pg. 255) I interpreted Weber's meaning similar to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. If a particular person cannot manager or complete a particular job, they are not fit for that situation and will be replaced by an organism that is, causing the exiled laborer to search for a new niche. The second ideal to Weber's society also relates to division of power between government officials. Weber uses the terms "office hierarchy" to depict pyramid effect, or a series of checks and balances intwined within the system to ensure that not one individual holds an extensive amount of power over the others. For example, the President of the United States would be the tip of our pyramid, followed by members of congress, the senate, all the way down to your average Joe. Although the President has significant amounts of power, he can not freely exercise that power at all times. By that I mean, the President simply cannot walk around bombing every nation we come into combat with, instead the President uses his assets (other members within the government) to come to an appropriate solution. Weber emphasizes on his point with this statement, "When the principle of jurisdictional "competency" is fully carried through, hierarchical subordination - at least in public office - does not mean that the "higher" authority is authorized simply to take over the business of the "lower". Indeed, the opposite is the rule; once an office has been set up, a new incumbent will always be appointed if a vacancy occurs." (pg. 265) The statement basically speaks for itself, I just pose one question. When Weber states "once an office has been set up, a new incumbent will always be appointed if a vacancy occurs" my only question is, by new incumbent does Weber mean a person within the same company, from lower on the hierarchy becomes promoted when a vacancy occurs? Or does Weber insist on the company hiring a new employee to take the place of the last employee? I believe both options are highly likely, but then again I also believe companies would rather promote within the company, than hire a new and untrained hand. The third component of Webers ideal bureaucracy stated that modern office is based upon separations, not just separation of wealth, or power but a separation of the two from themselves. What I mean by that statement is that this system abstains employees from bringing work into the household, ultimately separating business and pleasure. I believe a modern example of that statement can pertain to the military in regards to their "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, that allowing homosexuals to participate in the military under the grounds that they do not publicly exert such behaviors within the military. I believe that relates to Webers stipulation because there is a separation from business and pleasure. The fourth stipulation to Weber's Ideal governmental system beging with Weber stating, "Office management, at least all specialized office management - and such management is distinctly modern - usually presupposes through training in a field of separation." (pg. 256) That statement leads me to believe that the training of the managerial staff is vital to the operation and functionality of the company. I also believe that is extremely prevalent in a modern society, considering managers must undergo leadership classes, consumer sensitivity, and costumer service classes to ensure they are fully aware of their managerial duties. The fifth essential ideal highlights the idea once a company is established and operating, the activity demands the "full working capacity" of the official. I interpreted the meaning of the statement as, no matter how many hours your are designated to work, you may have to put in more. For an example relating to modern society I can relate to mechanics. Most mechanics are paid salary, meaning they get paid the same rate for 40 hours of work every week weather they have worked 30 hours or 50 hours. The example I can relate to is say a mechanic has been working for 39 hours, and is still not complete with his last car, the mechanic usually will stay to complete the task even if he then has worked over 40 hours. The last detail to Weber's ideal society depicts is the fact that each establishment has a set of rules or laws to be followed by each member of society. Which is fairly basic, considering every work place, or public facility has a simple set of rules each employee is responsible for knowing, and also following. I believe that rule can relate to almost every job in modern society. Considering upon being hired with a company, you sit down with a representative and fill out extensive amounts of paperwork, and finally conclude with the signing of your employee handbook, that you are responsible for reading, knowing, and demonstrating. Personally I believe Weber is wise beyond his years, considering many of these strategies are still exercised in todays modern society
Patrick Buxbaum blog 1: 20 Feb, 2012
How does Weber define legitimacy? What are three pure types of legitimate domination? What is the relationship between Weber's definition of legitimate order, his description of the basis of legitimacy in modern societies and his theory rising power of bureaucracy?
Weber speaks of legitimacy, domination, legitimate domination, and how the individual in power dominates those hes in charge, his staff and what kind of control he has over them and for what reasons. He defines legitimacy through domination. Domination is "the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of persons. It seems though that in whatever case it may be, to have domination when leading others, one must have legitimacy. Legitimacy is the legs that hold up domination. "in addition there is normally a further element, the belief in legitimacy." IN modern times one must show he has legitimacy before he can ever hope or wish to achieve domination. A example of legitimacy to attain domination over staff and peers is the military. Individuals start at the bottom of the rank structure, through hardwork, determination and proving ones legitimacy to lead, one earns the domination of others, or to command others. Without legitimacy domination will surely fail.
Max Weber talks about three types of legitimate domination. They are rational grounds, traditional grounds, and charismatic character. When I think of rational grounds and people who attain power in this manner I think of Officers of the Law. Police are chosen to uphold the law, and in doing this are given the power to command other civilians in regards to issues pertaining to law or the safety and best interest of the general public. These officials who are earn this power are also held at a higher standard than others and expected to act honorable or face consequences which could have them relenquish their position.
Traditional Grounds is similar but different in that when one rules on traditional grounds he is not ruling with standards related or upheld by the law. This type of legitimate power is upheld due to personal loyalty rather than legal. An example of this might be the president of the chess club, or captain of the wrestling team, he is voted into his position because peers look up to this individual.
To rule or achieve power because of charismatic grounds is slightly different as well. Although someone may be the president of the chess club, or captain of the wrestling team due to charismatic grounds. I think a great example of this is a war hero who saves many mens life and leads with a charismatic glow. When he does this he will recieve legitimate domination from his peers because on charismatic grounds.
Weber's legitimate order only comes when peers and those below the individual in power must have a belief in legitimacy of the individual whose leading them. Legitimate order in modern society is governed by some rules and regulations that must be adhered to for the commander as well as the people, with out these regulations one could lead with no power, and at the same time having those under him planning against him which on modern times happens but is a absolute must not. It is absolutely imperitive those under the commander and chief support his decisions. Although while they must do this there opinions are also important when making difficult decisions. Also while they must support the commander, he being the commander is also "subject to an impersonal order by orienting his actions to it in his own dispositions and commands." He who leads and holds the greatest power is also held accountable for his actions, no one is above the law.
Bureaucracy for Weber is the most advanced institution of capitalism. It is his ideal type of state or ecclesiastical, public or private organization. It is the most stable mechanism that would exist even if there were a change of a leader. In Weber's bureaucracy there is no negative connotation of the term, but only the most sufficient way to operate. The mechanism of bureaucracy and every little detail of it is carefully chosen according to its specialization or competency. There is no place for purposelessness. It seams not to match to the real life situation and it is the point of Weber's theory to create this perfect model and compare it to the real life for the purpose of studying it. Weber does not consider here the irrationality of humans that are involved in a bureaucratic structure that could introduce some actions that would create negative characteristics for the "ideal type".
Weber does not deny hierarchy in his ideal type and so hierarchy is serving a positive role for society that keeps everything in order. Marx's theory sees the problem in this hierarchical order since hierarchy implies classes or interest groups that due to different interests will always be in a conflict instead of producing this perfect organizational mechanism that speeds up functioning. Durkheim would be more lenient to Weber's ideal type since both of them see division of labor as a very modern and positive thing. Weber's bureaucracy consists of Durkheim's division of labor since officials in a bureaucracy are chosen to perform a certain duty that is a "jurisdiction" of only certain people. So, in this case Weber and Durkheim I think would agree.
In terms of legitimacy Weber defines it through the prism of the idea of domination. Any kind of domination according to Weber strives to legitimate its domination. Legitimate dominance is dominance, which suggest that it has a right for this domination, since purely ideological or affective motives are pretty unstable. Weber distinguishes tree types or grounds of legitimacy, which are rational, traditional and charismatic. The grounds are pretty self-explanatory and Weber suggests that rational grounds are the most desirable and traditional and charismatic grounds eventually acquire rational grounds - sort of routinization.
This routinization I think relates concepts of legitimate order and rising power of bureaucracy. Loyalty to a traditional authority according to Weber is not sufficiently reliable basis for domination without legitimization of this dominance. Charismatic authority also tends to routinize itself. Those strivings for a legitimate routinization is a definition of bureaucracy.
Weber contributes to Marx's social conflict theory when he defines class, group, social action and class situation. Social situation is linked to social action or social action brings forth social situation and this action is not between identical classes". Social actions between classes are labour market, commodities market and capitalist enterprise. Those terms are key words in Marx's theory. Labor market is where wage-workers sell their labour as a commodity. Weber does not exclude a class struggle in his concept of status.
To introduce his perception of status, Weber divides the concept of "status" into three categories: 'Classes', 'status groups', and 'parties'. To Weber, these terms are important in order to analyze power within a society.
We may speak of a "class" when (1) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, insofar as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor markets. This is "class situation." (248)
In this statement, Weber was asserting that 'class situation' was based around the capitalist market, the commoditization of labor, and wages. In other words, there are two classes; the property owners and the 'propertyless' as Marx coined them the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. These two terms constitute the basic ideologies behind Weber's idea of 'class situation.'
This is where Weber diverges from Marx because Weber is proposing a category within a category. "Accordingly, the propertied, for instance, may belong to the class of renters or to the class of entrepreneurs." (248) Basically Weber is saying that the classes are differentiated by level of honor; for example, the owner of a small farm and the owner of a corporation. The worker is also classified or ranked according to skills. Where Marx justifies two classes, Weber contributes to that idea and introduces categories within the classes. Weber and Marx can both agree on class interest/struggles which lead to class action. Social unions grow out of the 'class situation'; (e.g. worker disapproval of wage; proletariat vs. bourgeoisie.)
This is where in my opinion Weber and Marx differ in ideas. Weber uses the term 'Gemeinschaft' meaning that a class does not in itself constitute a group whereas Marx would disagree by saying that there are but two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and they form two groups, the property owners and the propertyless. Weber introduces 'status situation' as the formation of groups based on specific lifestyles, moral values, and ethnic traits (e.g. sports teams, coworkers etc...). These groups are guided by laws and ideals. He adds that both the propertied and the propertyless people can belong in the same status group. Marx would refute that statement by maintaining that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat cannot share the same moral values.
Weber goes on with his theory of the creation of groups within groups. He adds that status groups gradually change into a closed caste, meaning that private social groups create their own identities within based on ethnicity, religious sanctions and laws, (e.g. if you belong to a certain group, you can't associate with another; Capulet and Montague; intermarriage).
Finally, Weber introduces 'parties' as groups that constitute of power. They usually associate with other groups and are formed to realize an interest. These parties are based either on class situation or status situation while some constitute of both. Marx would challenge Weber on these terms by saying that the economic division and labor exploitation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is too significant to have them in the same class situation or social situation.
Weber II
Legitimacy, in its most bare and fundamental form, is an ideal type, a belief that attempts to establish and maintain order in any system for the purpose of a functioning system, because of the insufficient reliability and relatively unstable situation of customs, personal advantage, or ideal motives of solidarity. Legitimacy, in other words, is for the guarantee of obedience and authority establishment that is attempted to be established in every system in order for the systems function.
The validity of legitimacy can be claimed on three pure forms of legitimacy. The first being rational grounds. The rational grounds foundation rests on the idea that the people who have been chosen, or put in authority, to enforce predetermined rules, have the power to enforce said rules. This type is also referred to as legal authority. Secondly, traditional grounds gives legitimacy thus authority to one who works within the sanctity of valued traditions. This type is also referred to as traditional authority. Lastly, charismatic ground gives authority to one that hold true character. Obeyed by individuals that hold belief and value to one's charisma.
The purest form of legitimate authority lives in modern-day bureaucracy. Bureaucracy foundation is on interdependent ideas on forming a system. At the most simple and fundamental a legal norm can be established and member of the organization, or social sphere, are to be obedient. Every part of law and creating law uses a consistent and predictable system. The rules are set to aid the order of governing the origination and cannot be disapproved by the group, much like a checks and balances system. Thus, the one in charge tailors their actions within the impersonal order, given certain context. The members of the organization, or enforcers, do not own the obeisance as an individual, but to the order itself and is limited to a jurisdiction that is predefined. Meanwhile, the person who obeys does so as a member, or by association, within the organization. Ultimately, this is the core of the functional bureaucracy. Without this the whole bureaucracy would fall apart. That being said, it has become one of the hardest to destroy, because one would have to destroy or change the very idea of legitimate authority.
-John Scallon
In his essay Bureaucracy, Max Weber thoroughly discusses the bureaucratic ideal type. Bureaucracy, according to Weber, is the most rational, capitalistic form of administration. Everything in a bureaucratic system is guided by fixed, general rules. Officials are hired according to set standards, perform designated duties, and interact through an unchanging pyramid of (rational) authority. The appointment, rather than election, of employees guarantees their quality and reinforces their subservience to their superiors. Bureaucrats are set apart from the rest of the population (the proletariat, if you will) by the vocational nature of their occupation, the determination of salary by rank and age (rather than productivity), and by the expectation of lifetime tenure with promotions. Weber identifies bureaucracies as symbols of democracy because they assess every individual equally and impersonally and because the bureaucratic worker is stripped of economic and social privilege and given a salary instead. Finally, Weber declares that bureaucracies are indestructible: they have become vital to flourishing capitalist economies, ingrained in people's behavior, and have transcended dependence upon the individual such that people may pass in and out and the machine itself shall endure.
Bureaucracy plays a large role in modern society. It is vital to the high-powered economics of capitalism (discussed later), supports democracy, and is necessary for the increasing scale of modern networks, such as political parties and governments. Bureaucracy is also our way of rationalizing society. At least according to Durkheim, society is increasingly rational, and efficient, impersonal bureaucracy therefore has a high appeal.
Weber's theory has several ties to Marxist thought. For one, Weber describes the division of society into the clergy and the laity. The "clergy," or bureaucratic officials, derive social honor and economic stability from their vocations. The "laity" have less secure, less estimable jobs. This is reflective of Marx's bourgeoisie and proletariat, especially in light of the fact that bureaucracies have decision-making power that affects the whole people. However, Weber's bureaucrats do not exploit the workers, nor are they a part of an eternal wheel of conflict and revolution. Weber saw society progressing towards increased democracy (the equal treatment of all), in which class stratification would continue, but social privilege would decrease. Nevertheless, the predominance of instrumental- over value-rational action was depriving the actor of meaning and dehumanizing society, much like industry and division of labour was alienating the workers
Weber's theory does a better job of complimenting Durkheim's. Durkheim put a lot of thought into division of labour. The bureaucratic system is just the division of labour in management: nolonger one overseer, but a whole team, specialized and organized for the most efficient processing of information and duties. Rationalization also corresponds to the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity, at least in the effect both have of increasing division of labour and interdependence. The loss of meaning due to rationalization could also be compared to anomie, but less clearly. Both are negative effects, but anomie rests on interactions with society and rationalization on personally-derived meaning.
Weber, like Durkheim, saw society evolving toward a more rational form, with bureaucracies epitomizing the organic division of labour. Yet Weber, like Marx, saw people losing something of themselves through the mechanization of the work.
Though Weber never explicitly defines legitimacy in The Types of Legitimate Domination, it can be explained as a reason for not only following a leader, but believing in him. Legitimacy goes beyond rational motivation; it produces "the opinion that it is right to obey" (website below). Legitimacy is typically manifested through legal, traditional, or charismatic authority. However, charismatic authority is hard to maintain, and therefore usually becomes traditional or, more frequently, legal. Traditional authority, too, is modernly being replaced with legal authority, as in the case of monarchies becoming democracies and republics. We can see here a relationship: if legitimacy is a belief in leadership, and leadership tends to change to the legal-rational type, then there must be some trend of rationalization, which is indeed what we see in society, especially in the rising power of bureaucracies.
Weber's concept of status is quite distinct from, yet complimentary to, that of class. For Weber, class is purely a measure of economic acquisition. Status, on the other hand, is a measure of honor, and also of lifestyle. Although status is directly independent of class, a given status group only has legal power while it has a stable distribution of economic power. Finally, it is when statuses become stratified (not classes) that goods and opportunities become monopolized. In this perspective, Marx's bourgeoisie and proletariat are not classes, but statuses. The bourgeoisie's political power come from their elevated class, but their true assets--honor, privileges, culture, etc.--come from their bourgeoisie status. In this light, Weber both supports and contradicts Marx. On the one hand, it would seem reasonable for the proletariat status group to covet the opportunities and capital of bourgeoisie status. However, in Weber's world it would not be impossible for a proletarian man to make himself into a bourgeoisie. Marx also believes that all of the differences of the two groups boil down to their different economic, or material, situations, whereas for Weber the true feud is independent of the market.
Sources:
the book
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6408.html
07 Weber I - Method of Social Science SP 2012.ppt (slide 16)
How does Weber define legitimacy? What are three pure types of legitimate domination? What is the relationship between Weber's definition of legitimate order, his description of the basis of legitimacy in modern societies and his theory rising power of bureaucracy?
As you know Max Weber has defined legitimacy on his own term. In the beginning of chapter 19 Max rambles on about legitimacy. Max begins defining legitimacy as a way of domination. Domination in Max's eyes is defined as "the probability that certain specific commands will be obeyed by a given group of persons"(p. 256). So Max means that a certain person or persons who has gained or has control over other people's will, has the ability to lead other people. I agree with Max on domination, because America is like that. Here in our country companies have to gain the people's trust. Take a look at Burger King or WalMart Corporation. Those companies have gained the citizens trust for many years. Since citizens trust these companies they go eat out at Burger King or shop at WalMart. People do not obey others just because they are obeying. All persons who obey others have a reason or reasons to. It could be to achieve something that people are trying to achieve. It could be even due to the fact that people have no choice but to do what that person or persons want. Going back to my example of Burger King or WalMart, people who go to Burger King restaurants or WalMart stores have "an interest"(p. 256) for obeying the rules and policies of those businesses. Those interests could be to be able to taste the delicious Whopper sandwich, fries, and drink, or to be able to see the items being sold. Basically in simple terms people obey the ones in charge due to their "material interests and calculations of advantages"(p. 256). All this collection of thoughts lead to Max's perception of legitimacy. Legitimacy has always been tried to be improved upon by the sponsors to improve public relations of course, and also to improve their reputation. We see examples of this in our everyday lives. Governments are constantly looking for ways to make the lives of citizens' lives better.
According to Max Weber there are three types which legitimacy is based on. One type of legitimacy is rational grounds. The domination of legitimacy on rational grounds is derived from trusting the legality of the rules and policies set up by the commanding authorities. Another type of legitimacy is traditional grounds. The domination of legitimacy on traditional grounds is derived from putting trust in the practices from those who exercise authority under the authority. The last type of legitimacy is charismatic grounds. The domination of legitimacy on charismatic grounds is derived from putting trust in an individual. If I try to answer the last part of the question entirely it would take too long. So I am going to summarize Max's viewpoint. In summary Max argues that all three conditions of legitimate domination must be met in order for society to operate in a well manner. If bureaucracies meet those three conditions then their power will gradually increase. Not only their power but their legitimacy will be looked upon in a better light too.
Weber III: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" - Reading Questions
1. Explain the interesting historical puzzle Weber observes at the beginning of the piece. What important question emerges from this puzzle? How does Weber attempt to answer this question? Outline the theory Weber constructs to explain the relationship between Protestant religious values and the development of capitalist culture.
2. How does Weber apply key aspects of his methodology to his study of religion and economic development in this piece? Focus on how he uses the ideal type, the notion of verstehen, and the significance of ideas and values in shaping human behavior.
3. What are the key characteristics of the Protestant ethic? Focus your reflection around the key piece of evidence Weber uses to illustrate them, Benjamin Franklin's statement (232). How did the values of Protestant asceticism produce an attitude that supported the capitalist demands to work hard and accumulate profit? What kind of "rational" social action emerges from these values?
4. How does Weber's analysis challenge the Marxist logic of historical materialism? Are there elements of Weber's theory that complement Marx? What is the "iron cage" Weber refers to at the end of the piece? Would Marx agree with that concept-- why or why not?
4. What are the four types of social action, according to Weber? Which two are the most important, and how are these types of action transforming in modern life? Give your own example of a social action that would fit into each of Weber's categories.
Webber is a sociologist who is concerned with human behavior, individuals and the structure of it. For him, he has 4 ways of identifying actions- human behavior. The first way is action which is assimilated by both parties; it's the expected behavior that they both need to present. Weber defines this action as instrumentally rational, doing something to attain a rational goal. An example would be, to earn a college degree in order to get a good job. Weber then identifies his second action as an action that is done to strive for a goal- it may be rational but nonetheless pursued. This is rather a value-rational action. This is rather an expressive action; there is a symbolic meaning in the activity. For example, one might attend a specific college because a "significant" other is going to that same school. A third action, Weber refers to as effectual action. He defines this that emotions form actions. Individuals are motivated by the status, rather than the ending results. For instance, one may enjoy attending school only because they like the joy of learning- nothing more. The last social action that Weber describes is considered as continual and extended actions. It's almost like continuing what's always been repetitive in history. Because this action describes actions that are long-term societal traditions, its examples include religious holidays and cultural activities. These four actions were developed by weber due to the fact that he was concerned about how modern society differs from societies in the past.
I am not quite sure which two are most important. The text does not clearly state which two actions have impacted societal changes. However, through some quick research, it is obvious that there are two actions that relate and have great connections.
Although I cannot label which two actions that are the most important, I can identify that actions three and actions four and closely related. The both describe actions of human behavior. Action three has a single event outcome, whereas the fourth action has many events as an outcome. For example, one's reason to attend school is because they enjoy learning, however for action four, one may celebrate Christmas and St. Patrick's Day because of religious status.
Weber is confident that his four types of actions not only describe human behavior across societies, but it also describes behavior influenced my motivation which causes the actions taken my humans in societies. It's the all about the action that is taken, it's more about what caused and influenced the action.
How does Weber characterize of his 'ideal type' for bureaucracy? Can you elaborate on this ideal type and its role within modern societies?
What does Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy tell about Marx's view of class struggle and Durkheim's division of labor in modern societies? Does this ideal type in anyway contribute to or challenge Marx's and Durkheim's theories of modern society, and social developments after industrial revolution or development of capitalism?
How does Weber define legitimacy? What are three pure types of legitimate domination? What is the relationship between Weber's definition of legitimate order, his description of the basis of legitimacy in modern societies and his theory rising power of bureaucracy?
How does Weber's conceptualization of status contribute to or challenge Marxist idea of class and class struggle in capitalist societies?
I want to begin saying that Max Weber's theology is different from Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Max does come from a similar background as Karl and Emile did. Max talks a lot about social interactions. There are four types of social actions that Max created as concepts. The first concept is instrumentally rational. In this concept people commit actions that are based on how "results are all rationally taken into account and weighed"(pg. 227). To clarify I will use an example. Let's say you are trying to buy a 3D HDTV and you have seen the entire TV selection from Best Buy also Walmart. There is one TV that you like and want to buy. You also notice that this TV is both at Best Buy and Walmart. Walmart's TV is cheaper. You then take time to think about it so that you will be "satisfied as far as possible"(pg. 227). In the end you do decide to purchase the TV from Walmart because that choice satisfied you the most based on the conditions. The second concept is value-rational. Value-rational is when you believe in upholding a certain value because of religious, economic, and other purposes. People who go to church believe in becoming a righteous person. They do not care if that value will bring them success or not. This is an example of value-rational social actions. The third concept is affectual. An affectual social action is when someone does something "by the actor's specific affects and feeling states"(pg. 226). A person may do something whether it is good or bad. As long as the action satisfies a portion or everything about the person. The fourth type of social action is traditional. In a traditional social action a person in a similar way will do the same things as in an affectual social action.
I was not quite sure about the question "Which two are the most important, and how are these types of action transforming in modern life?". The question did not point out whether it is important in Max's perception or ours. Anyway I will just go with our perception. From my point of view I believe the two types of social actions that are most important are instrumentally rational and affectual. Every day of my life I choose to do things in an instrumentally rational or affectual way. I judge if watching TV or doing my assignments is better. I end up doing my assignments because if I don't then I will lose points for the class. As you can see I am outweighing the means. Besides me everybody else makes decisions based on outweighing outcomes too. Learning to make decisions is an important trait that people need to develop. Our society does stress that skill through our parents, schools, and other sources of information. If people make decisions randomly that is like playing a game with your own life. Affectual and instrumentally rational social actions are developing more as this world progresses and as we progress.
How does Durkheim explain the different suicide rates among different groups in European societies?
Durkheim explains different suicide rates among different groups of European societies partly by looking at different classes. He states that the some of the wealthiest groups in society have higher suicide rates than groups of lower status. He looks at occupations in the following areas: trade, transportation, industry, agriculture, and liberal professions. The different locations he uses for the survey are France, Switzerland, Italy, Prussia, Bavaria, Belgium, Wurttemberg, and Saxony In general, suicide rates were lowest in agricultural industries in all of the locations studied. This occupation is not made up of as many wealthy people as in others and their suicide rates are also lower in this category.
Durkheim would argue that the wealthiest people do not have a specific or attainable goal in sight because of their respective occupations. As a result of this lack of attainable goals, some of these people begin to feel as if their lives are moving towards no ultimate end. Since they are unable to achieve any ultimate goal in life, they feel more or less disconnected from society. This disconnection sometimes results in suicide among these people. The wealthy people are kind of taken over by their greed. They are not necessarily working for any purpose; they are only working to achieve more wealth. Eventually, this results in unhappiness because they are constantly earning money, but they never reach that one, final goal.
By having different class systems, people are more easily able to have attainable goals. Different classes will have goals that pertain to whatever class they are in. For example, a worker somewhere in the middle of the class system will have goals that are higher than the class directly below them, but lower than the class right above them. If someone from this class tried to attain a goal of the class above them, Durkheim might argue that that person will never achieve that goal. So, by having specific classes, each class a goal they can achieve. Since they have achievable goals they will be content in their life. The wealthiest people do not have a class above them, so Durkheim might argue that they are chasing after an infinite goal. This could be why the suicide rates among the wealthy are higher in general than the lower classes.
In a society without a formal structure or rule that controls it, an anomic society, it is plausible that suicide rates might be higher. The reason for this is because in a society with a lack of rule there is no structure to hold the class system together. Without a class system, people would not have goals that are attainable. Everybody would be striving for an unattainable goal or would not even have a specific goal in mind. This would arguably, according to Durkheim result in a society with a high rate of suicide. According to Durkheim, "Those who have only empty space above them are almost inevitably lost in it, if no force retrains them." This could be attributed to a society with a lack of rule because there is no controlling body to structure the class system and allow for attainable goals among the people.
Readings Questions for Weber I:
"Objectivity in Social Science"
1. Explain how Weber's methodology defines what it means to be "objective" in sociological research, using his concept of "ideal type." In your own words, what does Weber mean by "objectivity" and "ideal type?" Give an example of an ideal type, and explain how it fits Weber's definition.
2. What are the major differences in how Weber, Durkheim, and Marx approach the study of sociology? (How is each theorist's "method" a distinct way of doing sociology?)
"Basic Sociological Terms"
3. How does Weber define sociological study-- what is it? Explain the concept of "verstehen" in your own words. How and why is "verstehen" essential to Weber's sociological method? Give an example of how you could use "verstehen"-- Briefly describe a topic or issue you want to examine in sociology and explain how you would approach the questions that interest you using the concept of "verstehen."
4. What are the four types of social action, according to Weber? Which two are the most important, and how are these types of action transforming in modern life? Give your own example of a social action that would fit into each of Weber's categories.
Durkheim is strongly influenced by the concept of evolution. He prefers to study primitive forms of social things because they are closer to the evolutionary origin than advanced forms. In primitive religions, time and tradition have had less time to effect and distort the pure motives for which we began our various worships.
Durkheim felt that in studying the most advanced religions, sociologists might be misleading themselves. He looked at the totemic believes and rites of aborigines as a symbolic precursor to other, more evolved religions, and concluded that the aborigines were attributing the sense of social security of community to physical objects--totems. Thus the totems became sacred. This sacredness, according to Durkheim, is the thing which is common to all religions. Worshipers attribute many feelings which are beyond their comprehension to something sacred, whether it be a totem, nature, a pantheon, or God. Thus religion comes to serve the role of uniting the community. Through religion people can feel a strong sense of mechanical solidarity. They can symbolize their own reality in a second, idealized reality in which their norms and values are paramount. A through the expression of this reality (that is, by conforming perfectly to the collective consciousness) they can achieve that blissful religious fervor.
The way Durkheim applied primordial context and research to religion and the way he described how religion functions in society are trademarks of his method and perspective. Even from this one reading we could guess that he is a functionalist, and he is indeed the father of Functionalism. Durkheim's almost paleontological approach to religion reflects the way he tries to approach sociology not as a school of philosophy, but as a school of science. He is concerned with using hard, testable evidence to support his claims. Finally, his study of religion from the roots up is a tribute to his respect for the evolution of a thing as crucial to the understanding of it.
If Marx heard Durkheim's theory of religion, he would scold Durkheim for overlooking the conflict rampant in religion. He would agree that the sacred is important in religion, but he would see it as secondary. The point of religion for Marx would be to reinforce inequality. The doctrines of religions all set out a series of norms which comply to the society in which they are practiced. By setting these norms up as sacred, the bourgeoisie gives the proletariat spiritual incentives to obey. These sacred norms often advocate docility, subservience, and poverty. Yet those in control of religion are often wealthy, powerful, and noble: a veritable figurehead of the true bourgeois ideal.
Durkheim believes that when societies change from a highly ritualized mechanical society to a more organic society in which each individual has a greater level of independence, a state of anomie ensues. Anomie is most easily defined as 'normlessness.' It occurs when people throw off the ropes of old society and then find themselves in a free fall, no longer tied to society by tradition and mechanical solidarity. When an individual feels particularly lost because of anomie, he has an increased incentive (or decreased inhibition) to commit suicide. Thus suicide rates vary according to who experiences the most anomie. Two main factors affect this: occupation and class. Different occupations experienced different levels of division of labour during industrialization. Incidentally, I take issue with the chart provided. Although it shows suicides according to profession, it shows them as absolute numbers and not as percentages out of those plying the profession. Thus we can not confidently compare the different professional categories in their promotion of suicide. As far as the effects of class: a man who has lived humbly his whole life can accept a little heavier burden, but one who has never known the yoke will find their new burden disorienting and loathsome.
Durkheim identified four types of suicide. The first, anomic, we have already discussed as resulting from anomie. The sufferer is nolonger sure of how to interact with society. Egoistic suicide is vaguely related. It is the suicide that comes from taking no pleasure from life and therefore having no incentive to remain in it. For Durkheim life revolved around the social, so he said that for someone to feel no pleasure in life, they must be dissatisfied with their collective encounters. Both anomic and egoistic suicide result from "society's insufficient presence in individuals" (201). Altruistic and Fatalistic suicide come from the excessive presence of society in individuals. Altruistic suicide occurs when the individual gives up their life in order to comply with society. Fatalistic suicide occurs when society's presence is so oppressive that the individual would rather die than exist in it.
I take problem with these categorizations of society because they imply that the individual's will to live is completely dependent on society. By Durkheim's own rules we evolved from species that had no concept of society, so we should be able to function without it. I believe that people commit suicide for all of the reasons above, but what about the person who expects to find meaning in his life from things besides the collective, and not finding it, kills himself? The reason for his suicide was not lack of meaningful social connections or because he felt lost and disconnected in society, it was what he found outside of society.
Returning to the prompt: altruistic suicide. Some examples are kamikaze pilots, hara-kiri, going into battle for your country (you might expect to survive, but the statistics are that people will have to die), and suicide to make a point (I have a vision of monks burning themselves alive. Obviously the suicide is meant to be shockingly deviant, but they do it because their (sub)culture tells them it is what they must do for the sake of society.) I did not feel that the 12 words Durkheim allotted to altruistic suicide were enough to explain it. From what he said I thought that altruistic suicide was a rather psychological, spiritual endeavor, or something like in Inception whereby the suicidal person is awakening themselves to a truer life. I used Wikipedia to supplement my understanding of the suicides and to find an explanation of Fatalistic suicide, which I did not remember from and could not find in the text.
Sources:
the book
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elementary_Forms_of_the_Religious_Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(book)
Although the purpose of Durkheim's study of sociology is to understand modern society and modern man Durkheim goes to the very early ages to study religious life because he believes that it is necessary to first study a simple form of religion and then extrapolate his findings to that of more complex religious life. He believes that historical analysis is the only way to study religious life. By studying how religions were formed and how they evolved we can determine what conditions were present at the time of its birth and what caused this particular religion to win out over other possible forms of religion. Durkheim says that "It was one of Descartes's principles that the first ring has a predominating place in the chain of scientific truths." (181). This means that the birth of a religion is the most important thing to study when scientifically examining modern religion and society. Durkheim proposes that one cannot simply try to compare modern complex religions in order to discover what is common to all forms of religion. He proposes that one must examine the primitive simplistic forms of religion found in "the lower societies."(183). He says that the less individuality, the closer the group, and similar environments all contribute to the commonalities of dissimilar modern religions. The simplicity of these groups promotes collective consciousness. Durkheim says that in primitive religions "That which is accessory or secondary, the development of luxury, has not yet come to hide the principal elements."(183). Everything is reduced to the bare bones of what is necessary to sustain religion. Without these principal elements, religion would not exist. These bare bones are the common elements which Durkheim says that we must first understand to be able to proceed in our understanding of modern complex religions. By looking at primitive societies we can understand that religion is not always about God. Primitive religions not only help us to strip away the extra meat of modern religions but they also help us to explain them. Because the facts are simpler in primitive religions, the connections between those facts are more easily seen and understood. The reasons that people use to justify their actions in primitive societies are closer to their actual motivations because they have not thought in depth about how to hide their motivations and make them seem purer. When simplistic religions are analyzed the essential ideas which dominate intellectual life (ideas of time, space, class, number, cause, substance, personality) are always found. These ideas come from religion. They are a part of religion. Durkheim says that by studying primitive religion we can understand that human society could not exist without the essential ideas that dominate intellectual life. In saying this he is saying that society cannot exist without religion because the essential ideas that dominate intellectual life come from religion and they are a part of religion. The two are inseparable. Life would not exist if it were not for the essential ideas that dominate intellectual life (e.g. religion).
1. Although the question asked how Durkheim's perspective of the division of labor differed from Marx's I think it is also important to point of some of the similarities between their theories. Marx's like Durkheim, believed that division of labor sucked all the creativity, and fun out of the production of the product. Both theorists also agree that the division of labor has become extremely specialized, meaning not one man can make the whole product from start to finish, but instead many man take smaller jobs to achieve the final and finished product. Marx's perspective of the division of labor a leader or boss, providing a laborer with a task and paying them for the task they complete. The goods produced then go on to be exchanged for a profit, but the laborer does not see any of that profit, considering they are a cost of manufacture. When Durkheim speaks of division of labor I believe he pertains more to the process of breaking up a job into a sector of smaller, and more tedious jobs. Such as in the film watched in class with Charlie Chapman as he turned bolts for hours on end, and everything that looked remotely close to a bolt he turned. Durkheim's idea of division of labor is more closely related to what we think of division of labor as today. Durkheim's perspective was first used by Gerald Ford, to make the beloved Model-T Ford quickly, easily, affordably, and most importantly profitably. The process in which each worker maintains a particular task is known as specialization. The specialization process takes all the laborers creativity out of the finished product, and causes the laborer to know only how to create his or her designated part, rather than knowing how to make the whole product from start to finish. Which ultimately results in loss of knowledge to the employee, if they are forced to do the same tedious task everyday, instead of making an entire product they will only make a small section of it.
3. The different between solidarities in this chapter pertained mostly to mechanical and organic societies. To begin to answer that question I'd like to describe solidarity itself, which is the integration within a society, and the degree of integration. In a mechanical society integration comes from people who feel connected through similar activities, and usually operates in a traditional small scale societies. In organic societies, solidarities derives from specialization of work and the complementariness between people. Typically organic societies are found in more modern or industrial societies. In my own eyes I feel as a mechanical society would be more like a rural, farm society where neighbors depend on one another for help, goods and most importantly safety. Members of small communities are required to depend on each other, due to the lack of resources and benefits emitted by rural areas. On the other hand, I would feel like an organic society would consist of a more modern, and urban setting. I also feel that members in an organic society do not depend on other individuals, because there is no need, all individuals in the society are self-sufficient.
SOC 3701 FINAL SYLLABUS SP 2012.pdf
Hot off the press, get your copy now.
ELEMENTARY FORMS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE
If the purpose of Durkheim's sociology is to understand modern society and modern man, based on your reading of Durkheim's argument in Elementary Forms of Religious Life, can you explain why does he study religion by going to the very early ages and looking at a primitive society? How do the totemic believes and rites of aborigines can help us to understand the role and function of religion in modern society according to Durkheim? What does this tell about Durkheim's view of sociology and sociological method?
Can you discuss briefly what would be a Marxist critique of Durkheim's study of Religion? E.g. you can discuss his views or lack there of power, power holders as religious leaders, relationship between religious and political and economic elites, and the function of religion in social conflicts.
Suicide
How does Durkheim explain the different suicide rates among different groups in European societies?
Durkheim, based on his empirical data distinguishes 4 different types of suicide. Please explain those types and their relationship to social bonds and integration in communities.
One of the four types of suicide defined in Durkheim's Suicide is altruistic suicide. What are some examples you can think of that have happened in the world where people may have committed suicide for this purpose? Do you think Durkheim's explanation for that type of suicide make sense and convincingly explain that type of suicide?
Hi 3701 Students!,
As announced in class today, there was a mistake with final exam scheduling on the syllabus. We put it to a vote, and the vast majority of you wanted to take the final on May 2, 2012, which is the last official day of class. So, note the following, please.
Final exam: Scheduled for In-class on Wednesday, May 2nd (last day of SOC 3701)
This means that:
Monday, March 26th - We will drop Exchange and Rationality readings (I will summarize some of the most relevant points in class on March 28th). March 26th we will take the whole class period to watch the film The Trap and have a discussion about it.
Monday April 30th - No film. Read Elias, Bauman, and Latour. There will be a final exam review that day.
Wednesday May 2nd - Drop Wallerstein reading, move Latour reading to Monday, April 30th. We'll take the exam and complete our semester of Theory!
Thanks,
Sarah
What was Durkheim's vision of sociology? Can you discuss it giving examples and comparing it to other disciplines?
Durkheim's basic vision of sociology revolved around "to the establishment of sociology as a discipline" (pg. 135). He wanted to use empirical evidence and apply methodologies to cases of human interaction. By definition, a discipline is: "The practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience." Aside from reading and studying about sociology through text, he wanted to put these theories and ideas into practice to help others exhibit how they work. He studied concepts "relating social causes to social effects" (pg. 136). To explain this in greater detail, Durkheim wrote a book by the name of Suicide. This book is probably the most prominent example in regards to his vision of sociology. He used the suicide rate (in terms of the social fact) and studied into its reasons of what could cause suicide. These reasons were "external to individuals" (pg. 136), because he didn't research into feelings for suicide or individual reasons. To his findings, "he argued that under different social conditions, different causes produced patterns of suicides. In modern societies, the most important cause was a disconnection of people from social bonds - resulting from either isolation or from disorienting changes in society at large" (pg. 136). To be more specific, he found suicide rates to be higher: in men than women, those who are single than those who are married, people without children than with, those of the Protestant faith than Catholic or Jewish, those who are soldiers than regular civilians, during times of peace than in times of war, and so on. His goal was to explain suicide through a sociological perspective to aid and develop a different understanding for readers to think outside their comfort zone. He has written other books such as, The Division of Labor, which focused on what contains a society together. In this approach he writes about the conscience collective and how social integration is a huge concept. Another one of his famous works is The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. He focused on the "social origins and the social functions of religious beliefs" (pg. 136).
Simply put, in all his books, they are carefully examined with scientific evidence and knowledge. I cannot think of a fit example to compare with a discipline, but the elementary idea behind it all is that there is a greater importance. Instead of just stating what something is, there is more to it; such as his idea of how it is "external to the individual." You have to look at things on a macro-level versus a micro-level situation. He focused on variations that affected a society, not just individuals. "In doing so, he wanted to unite two philosophical claims that seemed to be opposed to one another. Durkheim suggested that categories are collective representations; that is categories are the product of society. To the extent people collectively constitute society, our categories of knowledge can be said to be human creations" (pg. 137).
While I was reading Durkheim's, "The Rules of Sociological Method" I thought he took the field of sociology by storm. In my opinion, I think Durkheim's vision for sociology was to establish the field that was based on facts and not humanistic ideas. In the beginning of the text he stated that the word social was too vague. "The term is used without much precision. It is commonly used to designate almost all the phenomena that occur within society, however little social interest of some generality they present"(141). He also determined new rules of sociology such as "The determining cause of social fact must be sought among antecedent social facts and not among the states of the individual consciousness" and the rule "The function of a social fact must always be sought in the relationship that it bears to some social end" (155). He defined the terms social, constraint, social currents and social fact. It is apparent that defining the term social was important to him along with defining other areas in the field of sociology.
Secondly, Durkheim noticed that there was a lack of validity in sociology because there was a lack of quantitative data. He established the need for sociology to be empirical. An example that comes to mind is Durkheim's research on suicide rates. Since suicide can be based on internal thoughts or at the individual level Durkheim was able to differentiate internal and external causes of suicide. By doing this he was able to establish validity in the field.
I also think Durkheim made people knowledgeable about how society operates. On page 139 Durkheim makes this statement evident. He described the essence of a thing. In order to make something a fact; it has to be comprehended by the masses of people for the current time. Things cannot become facts until they are accepted. "A thing is an object of knowledge which is not naturally penetrable by the understanding" (139). In reference to sociology this is key because resistance will occur even if not intended.
This reminds me of disable people. In 500 a.d many people did not understand why people had seizures or why some people were born with birth defects. As time progressed the field of neurobiology and psychology has grown and made diseases and being handicapped more acceptable. It was a taboo to common people and they ridiculed disabled bodies. Now since research has increased disabled people are treated better and have more rights in comparison to the past. In reference to the ideas of thing and fact; it is safe to say that in the past disability was seen as a thing but now is a fact. It is a fact because the type resistance today is based on the inability to have access to certain areas. It was a thing in the past because it was unknown and taboo.
I think Durkheim's main goal for sociology was to establish rules that could be followed. I think he wanted to establish sociology as an established field like biology or mathematics. He established rules in which subject matter should be conducted. He defined terms that were used vaguely. He shifted sociology from thing to accepted facts. Durkheim has had an enormous amount of influence in the field of sociology.
"The Division of Labor in Society" (1893) - Emile Durkheim
1. How does Durkheim's approach to the study of the division of labor differ from Marx's?
2. What is the basic meaning of "solidarity" for Durkheim? What are the problems with studying solidarity, and how does Durkheim suggest we go about doing it? Why?
3. Explain the differences between mechanical and organic solidarity, according to the reading. How is each type of solidarity related to a particular degree of social cohesion, the level of division of labor, and the type of law prevalent in society?
What was Durkheim's vision of sociology? Can you discuss it giving examples and comparing it to other disciplines?
Emile Durkheim is a man who loves to study social fields. Through the reading one can tell that he was not interested in sociology at the beginning of his higher education. After going to Germany and hearing about the emergence of sociology, Durkheim began to like sociology. I assume at this time that sociology did not have as much content as it does today. A lot of the sociological concepts today come from Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and other famous figures. The focus here for my response is just about Emile Durkheim. As I said earlier the time when Durkheim became interested in sociology, sociology was not well developed yet. With sociology not well developed Durkheim had an interest to develop sociology. Durkheim's vision for sociology was to establish "sociology as a discipline"(pg. 135). A person could ask "well why does he want sociology to become a discipline?". Based on the reading thus far I believe one reason why Durkheim wanted to establish sociology as a field of study, is because he believes sociology can help people to understand society more. In order to understand something that is not yet fully understood one must study it right? There have been many times in history where people have misunderstandings, selfish views, and so on. A lot of times those issues arise because people could not comprehend the other side or sides of topics. If people can understand each other more then there will be lesser conflicts. The second reason is Durkheim wanted to expose an aspect of society or societies that the population should know about. "Suicide" is an example because through "Suicide" Durkheim offers scientifical ideas and notions behind people who chose to take their own life. In turn will make people think differently about suicide. Also Durkheim has other reasons to why he wanted to develop sociology that I do not know about, because I am not Emile Durkheim so I do not know what goes on in his mind. I think Durkheim believed sociology is a field that is important as say computer engineering for example. I do not know when computers were first developed or when the field was developed. I do know that computer engineering is a field of great importance. Our world today has become very technical in a sense that everyone uses some sort of technology in their everyday lives. Durkheim wants people to see sociology as people see computer engineering. Every day we do socialize and interact with one another. Based on my opinion I think Durkheim's dream of making sociology into a well known discipline across the world has succeeded. I think it was not just Durkheim but Marx and other sociologists shared a similar dream too. I say their dreams have been accomplished because as of today I see almost every college have sociology in their majors list. It is also thanks to the combined efforts of Durkheim and others that have made sociology what it is today. Durkheim's work alone would not be sufficient enough to make sociology a discipline, it requires the works of others too.
3. Marx argues that competition between capitalists and competition between workers drives the system of capitalism. Interpret this part of the reading in your own words-- how are the two related? Think about how Marx uses the concepts of real wages and relative wages-- what is the difference? According to Marx, if real wages for workers increase, does it mean that the working-class has advanced? Why or why not?
Marx argues the competition between capitalists and competition between workers drives the system of capitalism. The higher competition between the capitalists is what drives the market. This competition is based on their (the capitalists) product, and the goal to sell to the consumer at a price which is lower, so as to increase profit as more product is sold. The capitalists are focused on taking the market from the other capitalists in hopes of increasing their profit on products and capturing the field by selling at a lower cost to the consumer.Thus, all the capitalists are then in competition with one another to sell their product, which then causes capitalists to increase the product production, however in doing so also attempt to limit the production costs. This competition and product production is a cyclic effect. Not only does it affect the market and the capitalists, but it also affects the workers who are producing said product. The laborers in this market are driven to make wages. These wages are based on the necessity it takes to keep a laborer alive and in the said position to produce the product. The laborers are thus competing with other laborers. The laborers are competing against one another to maintain their position and keep their wages. As the competition rises, the laborers are more driven to produce a product for the market, which in turn affects the gains of the capitalists as profits increase because the product is purchased by the consumer.
Addressing the concept of relative versus real wages is simple. As stated before, the competition rises not only between the capitalists, but the laborers as well. As the laborer increases production, they may see an increase in their real wages as there is a profit for the capitalists due to the profit from the product which is being sold. Once this profit occurs, the capitalists reward the laborer by increasing their real wages. However, as the laborers increase production and they see a rise in their real wages, their 'relative wages' decreases. The relative wage decreases as a result of the increasing share which the capitalists profit from. This profit further widensthe social gap between the laborer and the capitalist. For example, a profit on a product deemed necessary by the consumer increases by twenty two percent. The capitalists then reward the laborer, and provide a raise to the laborer's real wages. The laborer does not see an increase in their real wages by twenty percent, but only by two percent. The capitalist is the one who makes the gain from the profit of the product, widening the social gap between the capitalist and the laborer. Thus, the laborer has not profited, but in turn has fallen back as the capitalist continues to rise. On page 126 Marx states: "...when business is good, wages rise by five per cent, profit on the other hand by thirty per cent, then the comparative, the relative wages, have not increased but decreased."
1) In the capitalist system, as Marx describes it, wages, labor, commodities, and the cost of production are all related. Wages are paid to the laborer in exchange for his or her work. Most wages are provided only for the sustenance of the worker, not for him/her to enjoy anything lavish. By keeping these wages as low as possible, the capitalist can keep the cost of production down. Although things such as materials for production, equipment, etc. are all included in the cost of production, the wage paid to the worker is also included because it is an additional cost to the capitalist. A low cost of production is ideal for the capitalist because this leads to more profit (surplus value) for him/her. By exchanging work for wages, the labor of the proletariat becomes a commodity; it is something the capitalist is purchasing in order to get the finished product of whatever is being manufactured. Labor is just another important aspect of production similar to any raw materials or machinery involved in the process. The product of the labor is also a commodity. After it comes off the assembly line, it becomes available for purchase to the public.
As industrial innovations and greater division of labor are introduced to the production process the cost of production decreases. In the capitalist system, efficiency is key. The more efficient something is, the less it costs to produce, so the more value it has. With the development of better machinery, less time needs to be dedicated to producing something. Therefore, more of that product can be produced in a shorter period of time. Since more can be produced in less time, the capitalist will be paying the worker the same wage, but the worker will be producing more. As labor is divided further, individual jobs gradually become easier to complete. Since jobs become less complicated, there are more people who are able to perform these jobs. Since there is less skill required in the labor, the capitalist has more options for potential employees. As a result of competition between workers, some will settle for lower wages in order for job consideration. Furthermore, the capitalist can hire workers for lower wages with little concern that the product will be properly manufactured since the jobs have become easier on account of industrial innovations and increased division of labor.
As a result of a lower cost of production, other aspects of the capitalist system are affected. Most importantly, the class inequality gap is continually widening. As cost of production continues to decrease, the surplus value enjoyed by the capitalist experiences the inverse; it gradually increases. The capitalist excels while the worker experiences more struggles. These struggles result in uneasiness among the proletarians. The proletariat becomes more and more frustrated with the current situation and will want a change. This desire for change eventually leads to revolution. The working class will work to overthrow the bourgeoisie all because of capitalist greed. Another less important effect on the system would be change in the frequency of commodities purchased. If the cost of production is decreasing, the capitalist can lower prices slightly and still make more money since the lowering of prices would theoretically lead to a spike in purchases. This is yet another way the CAPITALIST can CAPITALIZE on a low cost of production.
In the Capitalist system wages, labor, commodities, and the cost of production are all intrinsically connected. The capitalist system is setup to benefit only the small elite few known as the Bourgeoisie class. In this system, the worker's labor is a commodity just like any other type of product would be. The capitalist "buys" labor with money whilst the laborer "sells" his labor time to the capitalist. The worker never owns any part of the finished product that he makes or the raw materials that were required to make it. The Capitalist "buys" the machinery, raw materials, and supplies just like he "buys" the worker's labor. Wages is just another name for the price of labor. A laborer does not own the product he makes, the Capitalist does, so wages are what the Capitalist pays for his labor time. Wages are a means for the Capitalist to control the society and are used as the reason for why the laborer needs to work ie maintain quality of life. "The cost of production of simple labor, therefore, amounts to the cost of existence and reproduction of the worker." In other words the cost of production is directly tied to the worker's wages. The wages are determined by the amount of training and skill required to perform the task and also by the amount to sustain the workers throughout life.
The implementation of industrial innovations and the increase of division of labor show exactly how wages, labor, and the cost of production are inter-related. For instance there is a company that makes bottled water. At first the Capitalist pays the laborer a wage of 100 dollars a day to bottle water which includes filling the bottle, labeling, capping, and packaging the bottle. The Capitalist then decides to increase the division of labor to lower his cost of production. He does this by adding workers to do each step instead of paying one person to complete each step. Since the time to learn and skill required to only complete one step of the process is lower he does not have to pay each workers as much as the one original workers. He now only has to pay the filler 20 dollars a day, the labelers 20 dollars, and capper 20 dollars, and the packages 20 dollars. The Capitalist now only pays 80 dollars in the cost or production versus the 100 dollars he was paying before all the while the worker is still only receiving as much as required to sustain his living. This example shows that labor is a commodity with a price that is set upon its relative value to the capitalist. If the labor is easy to reproduce and requires little to no training then the worker's wages will be at the wage minimum which is just enough for the worker to live. The more division of labor the Capitalist can create then the lower of the cost of production he pays due to the lower amount of wages paid to the workers.
The problem with this system is that it is based solely around the exploitation of the proletariat class. No matter how much they work, capitalists will on average pay only the wage minimum for the laborer to survive. The laborer receives his means of survival in return for his labor to the capitalist. The capitalist on the other hand receives from the workers their labor which he then turns around and sells it right back to them and a substantial mark up only perpetuating the entire process.
Wages, labor, commodities and the cost of production are all related in the system of capitalism because, as Marx outlines it, wage labor ultimately supplies the wealth of the Bourgeoisie. More specifically, wages supply the labor (through wage-labor workers) by giving laborers a reason to need to work for capitalists -- to sustain life. The labor then becomes a commodity because it is measured by time; the amount of time a worker spends working determines the wages he will receive. The cost of production, being the "cost required for maintaining the worker as a worker and of developing him into a worker", is the amount the Capitalists spend on paying the workers their wages and supplying them with the necessary machines and materials to do labor. The Bourgeoisie then profits from the surplus money made from selling the product of the workers' labor, while the laborer retains a set hourly wage.
Industrial innovations cause the cost of production to decrease as industrial innovations and greater division of labor is introduced. The cost of production decreases because workers become replaceable. They become replaceable because the division of labor requires an extremely low level of training for working positions, and this then creates a system that devalues workers. It devalues workers because without the requirement of a knowledge base, workers are easily replaced. Workers cannot argue for higher wages because he/she understands that another worker willing to work for a low wage will come along and replace them. Being able to pay workers extremely low wages for tasks that require very little training lowers the cost of production because work is being completed for as little money as possible. Materials also lower the cost of production when purchased in bulk from the cheapest locations, are so insignificantly priced. Industrial innovations have made the cost of production lower because machines have been invented that replace large numbers of workers so that a factory owner (company owner, etc) can buy a machine once and have it do the work of employees efficiently without having to pay it any wages. Fewer dollars that capitalists have to spend on labor and supplies means a lower the cost of production. The lower the cost of production is, the more money capitalists make.
This affects other parts of the system because by making laborers a commodity it makes them "victim to competition and a fluctuating market". This creates hostility both between workers and bourgeoisie as well as between workers. It also forces the lower middle class to become lower on the totem pole because they cannot sustain themselves with the rising demand and their expensive costs of production. Machines eliminate jobs for workers, and further the gap between the workers and the bourgeoisie. Eventually, the bourgeoisie will create their own demise because the wage labor workers, which make up most of the general population will not be able to afford the goods of industry and therefore industry will fall unless something changes.
In my opinion, this system provides for a very small group of people to prosper infinitely as the expense of the common, greater number of people. Marx and Engels accurately depict the wage-labor society by showing how individuals are devalued and made replaceable as well as how they are pitted against one another competing for jobs.
1. Define how wages, labor, commodities, and the cost of production are related in the system of capitalism, as Marx outlines it. What happens to the cost of production as industrial innovations and greater division of labor are introduced, and how does this affect other parts of the system?
Wages is the price of labour or also known as the sum of money that is paid for a labour time. Labour is the work or a particular duty to perform a particular piece of work. A commodity is the item or a particular piece of work that was created or performed by a labour. Cost of production is the price for the process and supplements that the employer have provided for the worker to perform a particular piece of work. For example, a car-making corporation provides all the parts and machine tools for the worker to put a car together. The parts only last a particular time and the employer has to figure out the cost of replacing the equipments and the worker. When cost of production as industrial innovations and greater division of labor are introduced, the system is affected. There will be competitions between other employers and also the competitions between the prices of commodities. When more and more buyers and sellers increase, the competition between the buyer and seller increases as well. Whether the buyer is stronger, the prices will be low and if the seller is stronger, the prices will be high.
3. Marx argues that competition between capitalists and competition between workers drives the system of capitalism. Interpret this part of the reading in your own words-- how are the two related? Think about how Marx uses the concepts of real wages and relative wages-- what is the difference? According to Marx, if real wages for workers increase, does it mean that the working-class has advanced? Why or why not?
Marx argues that competition between capitalists and competition between workers drives the system of capitalism because of interest in growth. Competition between capitalist is good because it drives the motivation for increased production and commodities. As Calhoun stated, "a rapid increase of capital is equivalent to a rapid increase of profit" (Calhoun 126). Competition between workers also drives the system of capitalism due to the fact that when a worker has capitalism and has an interest to raise the growth of capital, he/she increases the wealth of others, therefore also benefiting himself as well. For example, if the worker increases the wealth and growth of a corporation, the corporation will be able to produce more means of goods and also hire more workers. Therefore, it will benefit everyone in return.
When Marx uses the concepts of real wages and relative wages, he is talking about the money value of labour and the adjusted wage. Real wages talks more about inflation and a more representation of an individual's wage. Relative wages talks about exchange value of labour. Relative wages can fall and real wages cannot. Marx gave a clear example of relative wages and real wages. For example, if sells and profits are going up by 50% and wages are increased by a 10% percent, the relative wages have fallen. If profits are going up by 50%, shouldn't relative wages go up by 50% as well? If real wages for workers increased, the working class has advanced because real wages has a better understanding of a personage's wages. As said, the wages for workers increase, society and the capitalist has increased as well.
In order for me to answer how wages, labor, commodities, and the cost of production are related in the system of capitalism I would like to begin by defining these terms. Wages are the sum of money paid by capitalist for a particular labour time or for a particular output of labor. "Wages are only a special name for the price of labour, for the price of this peculiar commodity which has no other repository than human flesh and blood." (pg 123) I think that quote is very strong, considering in the time Marx observed his findings, the laborers were underpaid for unjustly amounts of work. Labor can be defined as the work you do to received the wages. Commodities can be described as many things, an example from the text depicts labour and sugar as a commodity. By doing so he sheds light on the fact that labour is a commodity because the money you earn from working (say two marks) can assist you to buy a definite amount of other commodities, such as sugar. This process creates an exchange of good; "Accordingly, the two marks express the ration in which labour is exchanged for other commodities, the exchange value of his labour. The exchange value of commodity, reckoned in money, is what is called its price." (pg 122-123) Bringing me to my next point, the cost of production. The cost of production ranges from the materials, the machines necessary to preform the tasks, and also the laborer. The laborer is paid for before hand, and will rarely reap any benefits of the products he/she produced, except their daily wage. The cost of production is a vital portion to capitalists, because the cheaper it costs to make the products, the cheaper they can sell the products for, therefore more people will be able to afford the product. Also, the entrepreneur with the lowest prices, will slowly drive all other competition away, unless the competitors can compete with the low prices. All these pieces are vital to the capitalist puzzle, considering without one of these components none of the others would exist.
When the cost of production as industrial innovations and greater division of labor are introduced, the prices of products drop, because the methods in which they are produced is vastly cheaper than those using other methods. Take Ford for example, when Ford devised the assembly line the cost of production went down significantly, causing the price of the Ford Model-T to be very affordable for the average joe, consequently almost everyone bought Ford's. The use of assembly lines is still in effect today, because the division of labor lowers the cost of production, but also takes the creativity out of the labor. In regards to industrial innovations and division of labor, I believe they are closely related to the system of capitalism. I believe so because companies do anything to cut costs and increase profits, and by dividing up all methods of labor the cost of production decreases. Also by using specialized machines mechanically engineered to do the job of a human being you receive more uniformity in the engineering of the products, and also machines do not have to be paid so you cut the costs of labor. This can also negatively affect the system in a sense that some laborers may go on strike, or cause riots considering they are upset about their job replacement. This also affects the market negatively, because the aggravated laborers can easily influence others to boy-cot the products. For the most part though, the division of labor and industrial innovations help those in poverty afford more, while making the rich richer.
