Marx Vs Durkheim Essay

Comparing And Contrasting Sociological Theorists Max Weber, Emile Durkheim And Karl Marx

Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are all important characters to be studied in the field of Sociology. Each one of these Sociological theorists, help in the separation of Sociology into its own field of study. The works of these three theorists is very complex and can be considered hard to understand but their intentions were not. They have their similarities along with just as many of their differences.
The first theorist to consider is Karl Marx. Marx has a uniqueness all of his own. His attention was normally directed towards capitalism in society. He studied the basis of inequality under capitalism. (Ritzer, 2004) When you look into Marx’s work on the dialectical method you can see one of the differences between his studies and Durkheim and Weber. It says, “ The dialectical thinker believes that it is not only impossible to keep values out of the study of the social world but also undesirable because to do so would produce a dispassionate, inhumane sociology that has little to offer to people in search of answers to the problems they confront.” (Ritzer, pg 46) I believe this is showing the depth of Marx because he is basically telling us that without your values when you study sociology you lose the passion of it.
Marx also focused on the alienation of individuals from society due to capitalism. He saw it as the people were separate from their labor. In older times, people had a trade that they were good at and it described them but after capitalism came into play then their labor just became a job and was no longer personal. Neither Durkheim nor Weber believed this to be so. This is also a difference between them. ( Ritzer, 2004) Marx also tended to go more into depth about the capital and commodities where the other two did not. He thought there was a basic formula to capital. This formula was C-M-C. (Kivisto) While most theorists have different ideas that made them well known, the next theorist had a lot of influence on the field of Sociology.
Emile Durkheim is considered to be the Father of Sociology. In contrast to Karl Marx’s theory of Sociology, Durkheim believed that society is made up of a bunch of social facts and can be studied empirically. Durkheim did put a lot of emphasis on the idea of social facts. This made him stand apart from all other theorists and their ideas. (Ritzer 2004) This is what Durkheim said of social facts.
“ A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations. (Durkheim,1895/1982;13) (Ritzer, pg 76)
Along with his study on social facts, he also focused some on the Division of Labor. Many people during this time believed that the social order of things was in danger due to the selfishness of society as a whole. While Marx believed that...

Loading: Checking Spelling


Read more

Comparing Adam Smith and Karl Marx

562 words - 2 pages Comparing Adam Smith and Karl Marx Smith and Marx agree upon the importance of capitalism as unleashing productive powers. Capitalism is born out of the division of labour... that is, it is made possible by dividing jobs up into simple tasks as a way of increasing efficiency. By increasing efficiency, then everyone can produce more than they personally need. The extra produced can go towards the accumulation of capital, (machines, more land,...

Comparing Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill

4526 words - 18 pages Karl Marx was born and educated in Prussia, where he fell under the influence of Ludwig Feuerbach and other radical Hegelians. Although he shared Hegel's belief in dialectical structure and historical inevitability, Marx held that the foundations of reality lay in the material base of economics rather than in the abstract thought of idealistic philosophy. He earned a doctorate at Jena in 1841, writing on the materialism and atheism of Greek...

Economis Theorists- Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes and their contributions to the field of economics

597 words - 2 pages Throughout the centuries, there have been many economists, who have contributed to the many economic theories. Among them is Adam Smith, also known as the Father of Capitalism. His theory on beneficial workings of the free marketplace and his 1776 Wealth of Nations is what he is most noted for. Karl Marx, the Father of Communism, is most...

Sociological Theory: Karl Marx: Major Features of Capitalist Mode of Production

4076 words - 16 pages Sociological Theory: Karl Marx: Major features of capitalist mode of production Introduction.Karl Marx is one of the outstanding and influential social scientists of the 19th century, an undeniable founder of modern social science. Some critics, however, believe that Marx was not an original thinker and that his...

Sociological Theory: Karl Marx: Major features of capitalist mode of production

4093 words - 16 pages Introduction.Karl Marx is one of the outstanding and influential social scientists of the 19th century, an undeniable founder of modern social science. Some critics, however, believe that Marx was not an original thinker and that his claim to recognition lies in the fact of his remarkable synthesis of German Philosophy, French...

Max Weber and McDonalds

1445 words - 6 pages With the rapid growth of globalization and economy of world progresses rapidly, the implementation of bureaucracy has a very important role in the development of organisation and management. This study introduces Max Weber and his theory of bureaucracy. The term 'bureaucracy' was first introduced by the Max Weber. Max Weber is known as one of the founders of modern sociology, but Weber also accomplished much economic work in the style of the...

Sociological Theories and Theorists

1195 words - 5 pages “Origins of sociological thinking can be traced to the scientific revolution in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century” (Kendall 11). In this time, great store was put on one’s possession of critical reasoning and experiences. In France the Enlightenment was dominated by a group called philosophes; these men believed that human society could be improved through scientific discoveries (Kendall 11). In France during this time period...

Emile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud

1193 words - 5 pages Emile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud Emile Durkheim and Sigmund Freud are European sociologists who studied and wrote about the affect of industrializations and with society. Emile Durkheim is known to many in the humanities and academic fields. Freud is familiar to anyone who has studied intellectual and scientific history. Durkheim and Freud believed understanding the rules of society was vital for human survival. Durkheim compares to Freud in...

Wallace Stevens and Emile Durkheim

1473 words - 6 pages Wallace Stevens and Emile Durkheim To more fully understand Stevens' poem "The Idea of Order at Key West," one can look at the ideas of the poem in context of social-philosophical thought. Emile Durkheim's theories on religion closely parallel those of Stevens. Both men believe that there is no supreme greater being, or God, that gives things order and meaning. But both men also believe that humans need to read order and meaning into the...

Marx, Weber and Religion

2924 words - 12 pages Religion, as defined by the High Court of Australia, is ‘a complex of beliefs and practices which point to a set of values and an understanding of the meaning of existence’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005) and can be studied either substantively or functionally (Berger 1974:126). Substantive studies of religion fall predominantly in the realm of theology and are more concerned with defining religious beliefs; their historical accuracy; and...

Comte Durkheim And Marx

1509 words - 6 pages Illustrate the role of early social thinkers, such as Comte, Durkheim, and Marx.There were many contributors to early sociological thinking and such a diverse discipline could not be attributed to one person. There is no single perspective but many and these along with theorists change over time. When looking at the origins of sociology it is those whose ideas and theories are still influential to this day that are considered to be the...


This paper seeks to compare the three analyses of modernity by Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim. It highlights the similarities and differences between the theories. For the sake of this paper, it focuses only on those aspects of their analyses that either converge or diverge since all three authors have written on the issue extensively. The analysis is done by researching primary texts of the three authors and deriving information from their works. All three sociologists look at modernity through connection with capitalism; therefore, this paper studies in details how mass production, which is a key characteristic of capitalism, interacts with societal relations.

Furthermore, in light of the aforementioned discussion, this paper also argues why Max Weber’s analysis is the most convincing out of the three points of view.

Modernity is a rather complex subject, which cannot be defined, as easy as one might hope. Perhaps, the reason behind it is the fact that the three forefathers of modernity have spent a lot of time and efforts to describe it. Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber describe the modern state of affairs in the world in their unique ways, and each of their efforts has been highly appraised and acclaimed. At first glance, all three authors seem to have different points on the issue; however, there thoughts contain numerous similarities, as well as differences.

When it comes to analyzing Marx’s opinion on modernity, there are little or even no grey areas. The founder of capitalism derives his theory of modernity through an exposition of capitalism. Capitalism, in essence, is merely a method of increasing profit and the bourgeoisie strive to achieve it by any means possible. Unlike machinery, a working man’s labor cannot be measured empirically; therefore, it is susceptible to exploitation. According to Karl Marx, it is the reason why capitalism is unfair to the proletariat. Furthermore, he explains that value of the laborer himself depends on the technology and mass-production. Marx asserts, “… the social character of labor appears to us to be an objective character of the products themselves” (322). This objectification of the societal (labor) due to technological (new means of production) is what defines capitalism and hence, modernity for Karl Marx. His theory boils down to the fact that societal relations are manipulated in capitalism so that they become exploitative towards the laborer (without much realization from the society) and, eventually, creates deep cleavages amongst classes.

Max Weber’s analysis of modernity is slightly different from Marx’s theory since he employs a political rather than economical approach towards it. Weber says, “The bureaucratic state order is especially important; in its most rational development, it is precisely characteristic of the modern state” (1991, p. 82). Just as modernity manifested itself in capitalism for Marx, a rational bureaucratic organization is the essence of modernity, for Weber. Furthermore, he explains how a set of regulations can dictate the process of rationalization for individuals. Weber says that this rationalization, which is embedded into the system through a bureaucratic organization, finally renders individual rationality useless. This fact, in essence, dehumanizes the whole idea of rationality since it is no longer emerging from the thought process of a given individual, but rather from collective actions.

This idea of dehumanization is very similar to Marx’s explanation of a capitalist society. For Weber, dehumanization occurs due to disconnect between the rationality and an individual whereas, according to Marx, it occurs as a laborer’s work is only showed through an objective commodity. Both Weber and Marx, therefore, are pointing to a “modern” system, which is not merely a sum of people, but is a thing in itself. In doing so, they both strongly recognize the “inherently” exploitative nature of modernity.

Emile Durkheim, like Marx and Weber, agree with the fact that capitalism affects the society in an adverse manner. In his book Morality and Society, Durkheim says “… this crass commercialism, which reduces society to nothing more than a vast apparatus of production…” (1973, p. 44). This thought is very similar to the idea of dehumanization mentioned above; hence, it is a common issue for Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. This assertion means that mass production is the thing that binds people together in a modern state. Durkheim is of the opinion that, as the society is becoming capitalist, it is losing that collective sentiment, which used to be derived from religion or tradition in the old times. The only binding factor between individuals, which remains is “interest” and Durkheim claims that interest only creates “transient relations” (1973, 90). From the recognition of a lack of a moral order, one can also see that Durkheim identifies with alienation as another characteristic of modernity. Because of the created moral vacuum, a person’s interest will frequently come in collision with another person’s interests, and will often be in conflict with the state affairs. Any given individual’s interest, hence, is alienated from the collective consciousness.

In his book The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim states, “state is too remote” from its citizens; therefore, “they inevitably lose contact, become detached, and the society disintegrates” (1947). In many ways, this idea is similar to Marx’ and Weber’s thoughts; on the other hand, one can see a difference in approaches. Weber would argue that the disintegration occurs due to the alienation caused by rules and regulations whereas Durkheim would call the lack of a cult mentality the culprit. The two sociologists are still somewhat overlapping in this particular idea. Marx, however, would state that the forces of production cause the alienation, as well as the disintegration of society. He is of the opinion that the cleavages between classes would occur as a direct consequence of capitalism and not because the collective consciousness has been threatened. This argument shows that all three thinkers, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, find the root cause of societal disintegration to be very similar. On the other hand, the issues of how it is manifested in a society, how the society reacts to it, and how it can be dealt with are different in all three analyses. This argument becomes a point of departure for further differences between the three theories.

The greatest antagonistic aspect between Marx and Durkheim evolves due to the fact that the binding factor that Durkheim deems to be necessary is incomprehensible to Marx. Since the way a capitalism society is unnatural, Marx would see any binding factor prevalent in a capitalist society as a way of making the masses believe that the system is correct, when it is not. Durkheim finds the division of labor “organic”; therefore, the way that the division of labor occurs in a capitalist society is somewhat natural and one’s profession is determined by area of expertise; therefore, it introduces logic to the system. What is being lost is the moral compass within society; hence, a restoration of that is the solution. This aspect is somewhat similar to Weber’s analysis, but far from Karl Marx’s suggestion.

Furthermore, from the Marxist point of view, the only “fix” to the exploitation of labor due to capitalism is the proletariat’s decision to revolt against the bourgeoisie. Marx’s theory of communism is centered on the idea that lower classes will mobilize and carry out a socialist revolution, which will eventually evolve into a capitalism-free society – communism. To Marx, it is the natural course of events, which will occur in order to restore balance. On the other hand, Weber would argue that the key to this problem is a better understanding of social relations. Weber (1991) says that the right politician is one who is ethical. He states, “… an ethic of ultimate ends and an ethic of responsibility are not absolute contrasts, but rather supplements which only in unison constitute a genuine man – a man who can have the 'calling for politics’” (Weber, 1991, p. 127). He also says that being not “spiritually dead” is necessary for the masses to succeed, as well (Weber, 1991, p.127). In saying this, Weber realizes the need for ethical grooming in a society and does not suggest eradication of capitalism. This idea has much to do with the fact that as much as Weber calls the bureaucratic organization into question, he realizes its efficiency and importance in order maintaining. This approach is radically different from that of Karl Marx.

Since the three analyses diverge at varying points, it would be best to pick out the strongest analysis by firstly applying the process of elimination. Karl Marx’s divergence from Durkheim and Weber is most strongly embedded in how he perceives the consequences of modernity. Capitalism is not natural to Marx; hence, the way for society to move forward (out of this kind of modernity) is by abandoning it entirely. The argument of capitalist versus communism then becomes plain. There is no middle ground and socialism is just a step away from communism, it is not an evolved system, which Marx thinks will form in the future. Weber and Durkheim give suggestions that are “in-between” rather than radical; therefore, they address the social complexities due to capitalism – an aspect, to which Karl Marx does not give as much importance since the end goal is a revolution. Therefore, from this point of view, the paper takes a closer look at the differences between Weber and Durkheim to see which one is the most convincing.

Emile Durkheim focuses on functionality in order to explain societal relations.Durkheim talks about organic solidarity in his book The Divisions of Labor in Society, as well as in Morality and Society. Through this perspective, he explains that every man has a function in society; hence, people are dependent on each other for the work that they do. This assertion comes in contradiction with Durkheim’s opinion on the need for a stronger binding factor, such as tradition or religion. On one hand, Durkheim sees the modern society as organic as opposed to mechanical one while, on the other hand, he says that the society becomes nothing more than a source of mass production. The most problematic aspect of Durkheim’s analysis of modernity is his treatment to religion. He sees it as a coercive force, but does not say that the pre-modern eras used to be better as they shared strong tradition values. Within the capitalist framework, he suggests that people must look out for others in the society, perform the tasks given to them and “receive the just award for our services” (Durkheim, 1973, p. 144). Rules that are “just” will not limit people in any realm of rationalization, but, in fact, will make them “free” (Durkheim, 1973, p. 144). There is almost no suggestion as to how these rules are to be implemented and what might be in the first place. Durkheim tries to see the societal and the technological relations, not as antagonistic to each other notions, but rather as complimentary ones. Although this frame of thought is not implausible, it does give root to ample contradictions within Durkheim’s own theory.

Max Weber looks at societal relations just as much Durkheim does, in fact, even more so. He talks about the esthetic, the religious, the economic, as well as the political issues in detail and ties them with each other. Weber uses case studies in order to exhibit what his theories are saying. China, France, Germany, and the United States are some of the countries that Weber uses as examples. Weber (1991, p. 220) states that there are reasons behind bureaucratic rules and hence they are seldom argued against. A bureaucratic organization helps in the “rational” creation of “societal action” (Weber, 1991, p. 228). Weber (1991, p. 228) says that such a system is “superior” to any other form of “communal action.” This opinion is antagonistic to Marx’s ideals of class struggles. Weber states that it is in the interest of everyone that this system functions successfully; therefore, it will help it prevail (1991, p. 229). What one can see in Weber’s idea is a more accommodative perspective on modernity. Moreover, what is most important is the way Weber is approaching the matter. His works show that he is interested in the way social interactions occur and how they could be manipulated. His thorough explanations about the interactions between religion, politics, and economics give a comprehensive understanding of human behavior.

Through the process of elimination and by studying Weber’s analysis independently, this paper concludes that Marx Weber’s analysis of modernity is the most convincing out of the three theories. The significance that Weber gives to human behavior not only provides reasonable insight into the way societal relations are manipulated due to technology, but also describes situations in which they can coexist.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *