Durkheim Lecture 4

Nov 6, 2007

Crisis of modern society: a moral crisis, political context of DK’s time:
o Third republic, politically divided into three antagonistic camps
o Conservatives for restoration of monarch, radical socialist fought for revolution against the republic
o DK wanted to develop a secular institutional order for the republic

Main problem is to indentify the possible source of moral crisis in modern society; to identify the structure make up of modern society.

What are the sources of social strife? Lack of regulation.

Part of solution: professional ethnic

Crisis of anomie: state and democracy:
- effort to find solutions to the problems
- How to achieve the dynamic and just society?
- How is social solidarity possible functionally?

Three levels of solution:
1. National- different political camps to swear allegiance to republicanism
2. The social equality in economy and social justice between employees and workers.
3. Educational, restraining the conservative influence of the Catholic Church, secular education to inculcate democratic spirit and individual morality.

Factors to consider:

1. Roles of occupational group, professional ethnic
2. Roles of the state
3. Core value of society- concept of civil religion
4. How do these values being transmitted? Role of education

State: a politically society which is centralized to primitive societies and not well organized.

Political groups are formed by the coming together of a rather large number of secondary groups, subject to the same authority.

Elementary society, according to Sumner,Maine, Fuster de Coulange, is to be an extensive family group made up of all the individuals linked by ties of blood or ties of adoption and placed under the direction of the oldest male ascendant, the patriarch.

The difference between state and political society
- The state is sovereign authority, the agent for society; the state is the highest organ
- Political societies have reached a certain level of complex, they can no longer act collectively save through the interventions of the state.
- State represents the sovereign power, supreme legislative body encompassing all other groups in society.
- The state, however, is not the sum of all political societies, rather a special organ whose reasonability is to work out certain representation which hold good for the collective interests.

(Weber, the state is the only legitimate power to use violence)

We often use “state” not to the instrument of government but the political society as a whole. Since it is to have separate terms for existent things as different as the society and one of its organs, we use “state” more especially to the agents of the sovereign authority and “political society” to the complex group of which the state is the highest organ.

State is different from the administrative bodies, the later are in charge in carrying out change, and the functions are to implement the decision decreed by the state. The difference between the state and the administrative body is clear, just like the difference between the muscular system and the central nervous system.

State is to guide the collective conduct.

The duty of the states to the citizens and vice verse

Two contrasting theories try to give the explanation:

1. Individualistic, expounded and defended by Spence, Kant and Rousseau etc. It exhorts that the purpose of the society is to develop the individuals. And for the sole reason that he is all that there is that is real in society. Kant says that individual has the inborn right, with a moral personality by virtue of which he is endowed with a particular character that calls for respect. The society is to protect and watch over the maintenance of these individual rights.

2. The critique on this theory is that, the sovereign power over individuals is also often lodged in the state. The state, on the strength of the authority, has intervened in fields which by their nature should remain alien to it. It controls religious belief, industry and economy by regulation. This unwarranted spread of its influence can be justified wherever war plays as important part in the life of a people.

3. War has not yet entirely disappeared and there are still threats of international rivalry. So the state, even today still has to preserve a measure of its former prerogative. But the state function has multiplying as society is undergoing the progressive development in the course of evolution. Beside the duty to watch over individual rights. DK suggests that every society has an aim superior to individual aim and unrelated to them. It is state’s duty to carry out its social aim. While individual should be an instrument for putting into efforts to the glory of the society.

Three types of societies with different civic duties are defined by DK in terms of communication between sovereign and society. “They all lie intermediate between two contrasting schemes. At one extreme, the government consciousness is as isolated as possible from the rest of society and has a minimum range “communication between society and political society; government and subjects of governing.”

1. aristocracy
2. democracy
3. monarchy

Democracy is defined as “extension of government consciousness”. The closer communication becomes between government consciousnesses and the rest of society, the more government consciousness including state opinion and awareness expands, and the more democratic the society will be.

DK’s concept of modern state is different from Weber’s.

While Weber conceives state in term of power and territory, for DK, the most important features is integrative function as both “protector of the collective ideal” and “protector of the rights of the individual”

Just like there is no freedom of will without morality; there is no freedom as human right without state.

Function of the state, though vary historically, is external, against violence and aggression; and internal, maintain the peaceful and moral state. “Since malaise of modern world in ultimately moral in nature, state must play a moral as well as economic role.”

Moral role of the state:
1. force of a higher order, capable of containing them and curbing the excesses
2. To keep a rein on inequality and injustice
3. To take account of the general needs being subordinated to individual interest

Patriotism: a sentiment that attaches the individual to a political society.
Nationalism: an extreme form of patriotism. Flags as totem and symbol of power

DK’s concept of modern industrial society:

o It is a normal developing stage as evolutionary universal, neither did he lost hope to achieve social cohesion, like Marx’s predication; nor as "the disenchantment of modern life” as Weber stated.
o Social cohesion is based upon collective sentiment and belief, collective effervescence; to forge cohesion by establishing professional ethnic, civic and moral value, encouraging individuals to participate in rituals and ceremonies.
o Civic religion has replaced the traditional religion as core culture value which defines the social identity of society and specifies the regulating norm for the social integration.
o Moral education is main part of secondary education. The purpose is to enable every child to adapt social environment, to teach students social core values. Thus, the teachers are like priests. (note that the differences from Weber, and Marx)

Vision for future society:

By establishing the core shared social values, DK hoped:
o To overcome economic anomie the modern life.
o To finally achieve the organic solidarity, in the long run, the division of labour will not lead to the decline of morality, but rather the decentralization of social life and differentiated regulation.
o The new form of social collective consciousness will emerge and develop.

Durkheim's Work

Reading on "Durkheim’s Work"

The comparing with Marx and Weber:

Comparing to Marx, and Weber, Durkheim’s work was the least directly involved on a personal level in the great political events of this time, his works are wholly academic in character, more concentred and his theoretical outlooks are more homogeneous and easy to specify than those moulding he work of the other two.

Influences on Durkheim’s
Intellectual position come from French intellectual traditions, with overlapping interpretations which Saint Simon and Comet offered of the decline of feudalism and the emergence of the modern form of society constitute the principal foundation fro the whole of Durkheim’s writing. The main theme of Durkheim’s work is o reconciliation of Comet’s conception of the positive stage of society with Saint-Simon’s partly variant exposition of the characteristics of industrialism.

The notion that society forms an integrated unity which is in some sense comparable to that of a loving organism is one which can be traced back to classical social philosophy. The publication of Darwin’s theory of biological evolution gave an entirely new stimulus to the elaboration of organicist theories.

1885 – 1887, Durkheim’s critical discussion of the work of Schaffle, and lilienfeld and other German social thinkers.


1. One of Schaffles’s the most important contributions, according to Durkheim, is to have outlined a useful morphological analysis of the principal structural components of different forms of society. But Schaffle does not attempt in a direct sense to deduce the properties of social organisation from those of organic life, he insists that the use of biological concepts represents nothing more than a metaphor which can facilitate sociological analysis. Schaffle pointes out that there exists a radical and highly significant discrepancy between life of the animal organism and that of life. Whereas the life of the animal organism is governed mechanically, society is bound together not by a material relation, but by the ties of ideas. The notion of “society as the ideal” is the Schaffle’s main thought. “Society is not simply an aggregate of individuals, but is a being which has existed prior to them more than they influence it, and which has its won life, consciousness, its own interests and destiny.” Schaffle rejects the Rousseau’s hypothetical ‘isolated individual, on the contrary, everything that makes human life higher than the level of animal existence is derived from the accumulated cultural and technological wealth of society. Durkheim continues this line of thought, and treats “collective consciousness” as a composite, the elements of which are individual minds.

2. Differing from the orthodox economic standpoints, which is built upon individualist utilitarianism, that says the main laws of economics would be exactly the same even if neither nations nor states had existed in the word, they suppose only the presence of individuals who exchanges their products, two German economists, Wagner and Schmoller argues that society is a unity having its own specific characteristics which cannot be inferred from those of its individuals members, the organisations of relationships has properties of its own. Therefore, Schmoller shows that economic phenomena cannot be adequately studied in the manner of classical economic theory, as if these were separate from the moral norms and beliefs which govern the life of individuals in society.

3. Durkheim in his “the division of labour” clearly stated that there is no society where economic relationships are not subject to customary and legal regulation, that is to say, a contract is not sufficient unto itself. If it were not for the existence of social norms which provide the framework within which contracts are made, then ‘incoherent chaos’ would reign in the economic world. The regulations which control economic life cannot be explained purely in economic term.

Contrary to the traditional deductive system approach, German scholars have shown the moral rules and actions can and must be studies scientifically, as properties of social organisations. Durkheim affirms that the study of social life must begin with reality, which means the study of concrete forms of moral rules comprised within definite societies. Moral rules are shaped by society, under the pressure of collective needs.

The Rule of Religion

Wundt’s Ethik, Durkheim points out that Wundt’s primary contribution is to have shown the basic significance of religious institutions in society. Durkheim accepts his position of that “religious is a force making for social unity.” Religious is the set of metaphysical speculations on the nature and order of thins, and rules of conduct and moral discipline on the other.

In primitive societies, religion is a strong source of altruism: religious beliefs and practices have the effect of restraining egoism, of inclining man towards sacrifice and disinerestedness. Religious sentiments attach man to something other than himself, and make him dependent upon superior powers which symbolise the ideal. Individualism is the product of society development.

Durkheim points out that the dual character of the regulative effect of religious and other moral rules. The positive attraction to an ideal or set of ideals; constraint, or obligation, the pursuit of moral ends is not always inevitably founded upon the positive valence of ideal.

The Division of Labour

Without accepting the allegation of “wholesale ideas from German”, Durkheim presents the following views

• The importance of ideals and moral unity in the continuity of society


• The significance of the individual as an active agent as well as a passive recipient of social influence.


• The dual nature of the attachment of the individual to society, as involving both obligation and positive commitment to ideals


• The concept of an organisation of units, theory of anomie.

Those are rudiments of his later theory of religion.

The main proposition developed in The division of labour is that modern society is not, in spite of the declining significance of traditional moral beliefs, inevitably tending towards disintegration. It is a normal state of the differentiated division of labour in organic stability.

The main substantive problem of his concern in The division of labour is the relationship between individual and society. On the one hand, the development of modern society is associated with the expansion of individualism; on the other hand, there are other contradictory moral trends “universally developed individual” which are also strong. To understand of source of these apparently contradictory moral ideals, Durkheim suggests that one has to analysis the causes and effects of the expansion of the division of labour.

The cause of expansion of division of labour:

Division of labour is not a new phenomenon, nor does it happen only in economic sphere, but also in all sectors of contemporary societies, and all other areas of social life. The increase of social differentiation which is characteristic of the process of development from tradition to modern forms of society can b compared to certain biological principles. The more specialised the functions of the organism, the higher its level on the evolutionary scale. Durkheim applies this into the development of the division of labour and its relationship to the moral order.

While social solidarity is not easy to measure by internal fact, we can use external index to symbolise it. The legal code is an index can be used. When a stable form of social life exists, moral rules eventually come to be codified in the shape of law. The function of law is to define as a rule of conduct which is sanctioned, and there are two types of “sanction” :- 1) repressive sanction, which is in penal law, consist in the imposition of some kind of suffering upon the individual as a punishment for his transgression.; 2) restitutive sanction, involves restoration, the re-establishment of relationships as the were before the law was violated.

Penal law is to say there is punishment, while civil law is to say there is duty.

The predominance of penal law within the juridical system of a given society necessarily presupposes the existence of a strong defined conscious collective, of beliefs and sentiments shared in common by the members of the society.
Punishment consists above all in an emotive response to a transgression, not only confined to the guilty, but also to those who are closely connected to the guilty party. The primary function of punishment is to protect and reaffirm the conscience collective in the face of acts which question its sanctity. In the most primitive forms of society all law is repressive.
Society which is based on mechanical solidarity have an aggregate or segmental structure, they consist of social groups are very similar to each other in their internal organisation. The society is dominated by the existence of a strongly formed set of sentiments and beliefs shared by all members of the community; there is little scope of differentiation between individuals.

The progressive displacement of repressive by the restitutive law is an historical trend which is correlated with the degree of development of society. The higher level of social development, the greater the relative proportion of restitutive laws within the juridical structure. The very existence of restitutive law presupposes the prevalence of a differentiated division of labour, since it covers the rights of individuals, either over private property, or over other individuals who are in a different social position from themselves.

The second type of social cohesion is ‘organic solidarity’. Here solidarity stems from the functional interdependence in the division of labour, unlike mechanical solidarity, where the collective consciousness is the basis of societal cohesion, presupposes not identity but difference between individuals in their beliefs and actions. The growth of organic solidarity and the expansion of the division of labour are hence associated with increasing individualism.

Melancholy suicide increasing shows that in contemporary societies that societal differentiation does not inevitably produce an increase in the general level of happiness. We do know however that the development of the division of labour goes hand in hand with disintegration of the segmental type of social structure. For this happen, the new relationship is formed to bring separate groups into contact, this differing modes of life and belief of such societies, breaks down the once isolated homogeneity of each group, stimulates economic and cultural exchanges. Division of labour thus increases as there are more individuals sufficiently in contact to be able to act and react upon one to another. Durkheim calls the frequency of such contact moral or dynamic density.

Individualism and anomie

The growth of division of labour is not inevitably associated with increasing of individualism that is with disruption in social cohesion, what explains the conflicts in modern society? Though facing difficult, Durkheim offered explanation as such: “that division of economic functions has temporarily outstripped the development of appropriate moral regulation.” The modern state is an anomic state. Durkheim suggested “the forced division of labour provides the functioning of organic solidarity”. The conflicts can be obviated only if the division of labour is coordinated with the distribution of talents and capacities, and if the higher occupational positions are not monopolised by a privileged class.

Durkheim's sociology of moral fact

(I was quite lost at lecture of Durkheim 3, talking about religion origin and function etc. I found it hard to follow the argument,I don't see how Totems can be the origin of all religion?)


reading of Francois-Adnre Isambert

Durkheim's interest in morality makes him not only a sociologist of morality but a moralist as well. He tried his best to make morality a positive science.

1. Morality as obligation

According Wandt, whom Durkheim was closely affinity with, moral ends are conceived as obligatory. Moral facts derive their authority from entirely intelligible psychological source:

• the constraint, either external, for fear of punishment, or internal, interiorization of public opinion;


• motives of liberty, the satisfactions of doing good


• motives, only accessible to elite soul, by contemplation of moral ideal

Moral facts therefore, include 1)constraint, external or internal; 2) motives; 3) moral ideal.

Wandt's morality is of norms in which the justification of moral act, at the same time what causally determine its execution.

Durkheim: obligatory force as an order handed down to us by the divinity, it is in the name of God or as consists of a social discipline, in the name of society. He casted doubt upon the effectiveness of motives linking it to its ends, but he accepted Wandt's account of the motives of constraints in obligation, but concluded that the acceptance of moral ideal is a matter of faith.

Durkheim thinks that moral facts consist of rules of conduct, by virtue of their regularity, social habits, latter can change to rules. (most of social habits lack of the imperative character of rules)

Kant's hypothetical imperatives- rules which prescribe the means require to obtain a result, violation of the rules simply brings the whole enterprise to grief.

Durkheim wishes to provide an observable criterion, every moral offence provokes an intervention by society to prevent the deviation.

Therefore, Durkheim, "moral fact" consists of a rule of conduct to which sanction apply. The consequence of moral error can sometimes be predicated. The social reaction follows the offence with true necessity, however, this necessity is not that of an efficient cause operating in the world of pragmatic consequences of courses of action. "The withdrawal of the sanction is only possible when the rule itself disappears, it only occurs when one society changes to another."

2. Morality and law

Durkheim points out that "very often law cannot be separated from the morals (substratum), nor can morals be separated from the law which implements and determines them." Mutually determining relations force the sociologist to consider both together.

Legal sanctions are material, while moral sanctions are reprobative, but, moral sanction is administrated by each and everyone of society (diffuse), the legal sanction is by specialized established bodies.(organized)

Since the legal sanctions are easier to observe than moral sanction, it will be possible to use variation in law to infer the associated changes in morality. Durkheim's observation of "decline in repressive law to deduce a weakening of the morality" and "expansion of cooperative law stipulating the various different obligations of individuals and groups in division of labour"

3. The diversity of moral facts

Dual diversity:

1) Objects of moral facts- accommodate a conception of moral fact, according to which any moral rule proclaimed in a given society.
2) The moral rules governing a given society.

Durkheim thinks the moral regulation is sometime normal, sometimes abnormal.

The normal type is the average type within a given stage of the development of the organism under consideration of (any given society). He however is skeptically that "normal type will achieve the ultimate degree of perfection"

There are two side of morality: obligation and desirability

Notion of duty-> notion of moral -> notion of sacred

"The sacred being is the forbidden being, which one dare not violate, it is also good, loved and sought after". Therefore, Durkheim's two morality, one being a morality of obligation (out of duty) and the other desire (out of good),
It is impossible for people to act out of pure obligation means that moral goodness must be desirable. But there is an irreconcilable antagonism between duty and desire.

Moral facts "substratum" have two bases:
spirit of discipline - obedience to authority
attachment of groups - attractive power and collective ideal

Spirit of discipline, is respect for the rules and the authority. Individuals may exercise self-discipline, but it is the interiorization of force which makes them obey. This interiorizaiton is the chief aim of education.

Moral consensus has been maintained, secular morality enables members of society to remain in agreement. Social being, namely society, possesses all the characteristics of the individual, but dominates the individual.

Durkheim Lecture 2

Oct 23 2007

“Division of labour in Society”

Different from Marx, who emphases efficiency of division of labour in economic value, Durkheim focuses on:-
o The moral life, extract the ethic from science
o Establish science of morality
o How does society be constituted and morality and solidarity.

Division of labour- degree to which tasks or responsibilities are specialized, it is more than just of economic arrangement, it is of sociological and moral concern.

Collective consciousness (in division of labour) is one type of social facts
Common consciousness

The main points in “division of labour”:-
o Collective consciousness in compatible with the functioning of the type of society with an advanced division of labour
o Because social solidarity becomes more dependent on functional interdependence in the division of labour, the decline in collective consciousness or beliefs is a normal characteristic of the modern type of society, new form of solidarity emerges.

Durkheim criticized Herbert Spence, who thinks individual should be left to his own state, should not interfere. Durkheim is against such “individualism.” He thinks the interest of individual can never be the base of social solidarity, because interest can change.

In modern society, the typical contractual relationship established between individuals. Durkheim noted that the nature of contractual relationship is not base of solidarity, but rather the binding force in the contract is the base of solidarity. What is the binding force?

The existence of some general norms that governs relationship, the contractual ties are not the main elements that hold society but, the existence of contract is. “Society which confers that force”

What can modern society provide binding force? Force that bind society together?

Type of solidarity

Dynamic density, the major causal factor in Durkheim’s Theory that transition from the mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, refers to number of people in a society and the amount of interaction among them. ??

Mechanical solidarity –
o Relative undifferentiated social structure, no or less division of labour, people perform wide range of task and handle numerous responsibilities, jack of all trades.
o Society unified because people are generally engaged in similar tasks and responsibilities.
o Social authority is highly centralized
o Collective sentiment and beliefs predominate, there is low level of individual consciousness; the individual is subordinate to the group; individuals act collectively and reflectively
o Religious ideas pervade the whole society, social and religious laws are undifferentiated
o Law is repressive, deviant act will be not tolerated; it is regarded as against whole society.

Organic Solidarity

o Greater degree of specialization in division of labour, people occupy more specialized position and relative narrower range of tasks and responsibilities.
o Interdependent, difference among people draw them together, because they need each other. “Each one depends on much more strictly on society as labour is more divided; on the other hand, the activity of each other is as much more personal as it is more specialized.” The new form of solidarity.

Durkheim’s main concern is that there is the absence of proper transaction state in modern society. That is where problem rises. The new form of society emerged; however, the society had not reached to its ideal organic solidarity.

According to Durkheim, the decline of common morality in modern society, and loosening moral bonding is pathological.

Regulation and Anomie

If the division of labour does not produce solidarity, it is because the relationship between the organs is not regulated, they are in the state of “Anomie”. It is a transition stage and state of pathological.

Anomie: normlessness, an individual faces anomie when not under moral constraint, not clear idea of what is or is not proper conducted.

Anomie of division of labour: in organic solidarity, individuals become isolated in their highly specialized activities, ceased to feel a common bond with those who work and live around them. It is related to Marx’s concept of alienation, and Anomie is one of types of alienations, the alienation from the fellow humans

Equilibrium, the state of balance.

Pathological of modern society:

o The rapid of social changes and lack of regulation to dissolve conflicting interests among society, are in modern society.
o Individual feel intense sense of isolation due to highly specialized occupation, anomic division of labour.


Will equilibrium ever arrive? Notably, Durkheim doesn’t focus on conflicts and contraindication of society, but rather on how to regulate and moderate.

The study of Suicide- provides an illustration of concept of anomie, the social facts of suicide is not individual determined, in different social groups have different suicide rate.

Individual acts socially determined and social environment is function factor of suicide.

Type of suicide,

Each type links to the degree of integration in society or degree of regulation by society.

Integration: - the degree to which collective sentiment are shared. When integration is low, egoistic suicide rate is high; when integration is high, the altruistic suicide rate is high.

Regulation: - the degree of external constraint on people, when low, anomic suicide rate is high; when high, fatalistic suicide is high.

1. Egoistic suicide- happens when the individual is not well integrated into society; Lack of integration and individuals are left to pursue their own interests, unrestrained by a collective conscience.
Increasing the need and desires can never be fulfilled, might result in a deep sense of dissatisfaction with life, hence leads to suicide;
Strongly integrated social groups such as family or religious organization are able to discourage such suicide.

2. Altruistic suicide – where strong social integration motivated by a strong sense of duty to the group as well as the intense hopes that there is a better world beyond this life.

3. Anomie suicide – In modern society, it is anomic division of labour, when there is low social regulation, esp. when uncertainty or social transition and dramatic changes occur, give people a sense of rootlessness and normlessness. Common feature, both upward and downward phases of economic cycle causes disruption to accustomed modes of life.

4. Fatalistic suicide – when regulation is excessive, individual feels a strong sense of hopelessness and melancholy resulting from oppression.

The conclusion: there is a collective force within every population with a particular strength which impels ones to kill themselves.

In Singapore, from 2003 to 2006, the suicide rate increased 21% from 326 cases to 419. Among them, the largest group was the men in 40’s; the second largest group was the women in 50’s. Japan remains the countries with highest suicide rate.

Both “Division of labour” and “Suicide” make reference to crisis in modern society:
o Those are addressing the crisis of not economic in nature and could not be solved by economic measures.
o Therefore, Durkheim is skeptical about socialist programme, esp. wealth redistribution
o The main moral foundation upon which contractual relations and organic solidarity is built.
o Cult of the individuals: a general belief in the dignity and worth of the individual, while Durkheim is against.

According to him, the crisis of modern society is due to:
o Development of moral regulation has not caught up with the development of economic sphere.
o Division of labour is still in an anomic state, i.e. a system of regulation has not been fully developed that correspond to the stage of economic development
o The modern state of society is a transition stage, and equilibrium will be reached sometime in the future. Social reform will help equilibrium to be realized.

To Sum up.
Durkheim is interested how viable of a society despite of different conflicts and contradictions existing. He acknowledges the struggles of social life, the role of society is not to abolish the conflict but to moderate and regulate. He is interested in understanding individual society relationship. The study of suicide shows what individual acts can help us understand the boarder society and individual relationship within it.

Durkheim- "suicide"

“Suicide” Reading

Sociologist should define the social phenomenon he wishes to study as the object of his research groups of clearly circumscribed facts, using the methodology based on the fundamental principle that social facts must be studied as things, as realities external to the individuals.

Definition of Suicide:

Every case of death which results directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act, carried out y the victim himself, knowing that it will produce this result.

Durkheim’s approach is to study the social fact of suicide in relation to suicide rate and characteristic of the society. The suicide rate constitutes an order of facts which is unified and definite, is shown by its permanence and variability.

Social causes and social types

In determining the social types of suicide, Durkheim used aetiological classification rather morphological classification, by classifying the causes which produce them, first study the social conditions which are responsible o them, then group these conditions according to their similarities and difference.

Different cause he studied:

Apparently different social factors: such as
Religious denomination
Family and political society

All of them spell out the difference on social solidarity.

For example:

Knowledge vs Suicide:

In general, there is increasing of suicide rate with increasing of knowledge. Knowledge does not determine this increase. With the increased of knowledge, the religious society of which he forms part has lost its cohesion.

Types of Suicide

1. Egoistic suicide

Suicide varies inversely with the degree of integration of the social groups to which the individual belongs. Individual simultaneously detaches himself from society, i.e. his personality begins to predominate over the collective personality. Durkheim calls this state “egoism”, where the individual ego asserts itself to excess in the face of the social ego, this type of suicide that results from excessive individualism “egoistic”

2. Altruistic suicide

Opposing to egoistic, one is too integrated to society. Insufficient individualism has the same effect.

• Obligatory altruistic suicide, because it is his duty, if fails in this obligation, he is punished by being dishonoured and by religious sanction
• Option altruistic suicide, willingness of the Japanese, social prestige attached to suicide as an encouragement and reward
• Acute altruistic suicide, without specific reason, purely for the joy of killing himself.

One thing in common, that is they love something else more than themselves.

3. Anomic suicide

(presuming that insatiable human need requires regulating from society, external power, such as religion, family, government control etc)

Anomie is a state in which there is weak social regulation between the society’s norms and the individual, most often brought on by dramatic changes in economic and or social circumstances. Such as in modern society, when society is less integrated, where religious has lost most of its power to regulate individual moral action and behaviour and the government, rather regulating economic life, has become its instrument and servant. Anomie suicide happens.

Comparing with egoistic suicide, both come from society’s insufficient presence in individuals, in egoistic society is deficient in truly collective activity, thus leaving it deprived of objects and meaning, in anomic suicide, society has a weak presence in the really individual passions, leaving them without a restraining influence.

4. Fatalistic suicide: when social regulation is too strong, one feels hopeless and extremely oppressed, it will happen.

HSS201 Weber 3 Week 9

The sociology and domination

Weber and Domination

The starting point is Weber’s definition of the state: “is a human community that successfully claims and monopoly of the legitimate use the physical force within a given territory, the sole source of the right to use violence (PC pg 78)

The state is the only source that exercises the legitimate use of violence. One institution that the state must have is the military, external sovereignty, to defend its territoriality and maintain its sovereignty. Internal, police to maintain internal control.

The operative word is legitimate domination.

Legitimate ---------illegitimate (continuum)

Where is the tipping point?

Basic distinctions among:

Power: probability will of actor in a relationship carried out despite resistance?
Domination: command is specific content obeyed by a given group
Discipline: habituated, automatic obedience (socialization, institutionalization into a system,) ES vol I pg 53)

Types of domination:

• Legitimate -------illegitimate


• Self-discipline----- need no be physical force, raising voice or threatening tone


• Obedience------ resistance


• Consent ----coercion

When domination is legitimate, people tend to obey. Obedience and consent are the best.

Sociology and Action Meaning

The whole question of legitimacy lines the Meaning
Recall what is interpretive sociology and what is social action, behave in relation to others.

Meaningful actions vs, doesn’t not only mean or merely reactive behaviour, purely traditional behaviours, mystical experience, or action oriented towards ultimate ends or values; emotional affected behaviours.

Social actions- inaction can be a social action, eg, sitting in class quietly

Types of social actions:
1. instrumentally, self-interest
2. value rational
3. Affectual
4. Traditional customary

Thus: sociology of domination has to do with interpretive sociology and meaning

Bases of legitimacy

• Subjective (value- rational/ religious)


• External effects (interest situations)


• Convention (sanctions of disapproval)


• Law (physical/psychological coercion)


• Legitimacy of authority can be earned

Types of legitimacy:

1. Tradition, that which has always been,


2. Charismatic, revealed or exemplary, emotion of faith,


3. Legality (legal –rational) voluntary agreement imposed from legitimate authority to compliance.

Types of authority (legitimate power)

Traditional: from time immemorial of authority of elder,
Rational: belief in legality of rules and authority to enforce consistency and abstract rules backed up by bureaucracy.

Charismatic: devotion of exceptional, exemplary character of norms revealed ordained by him. Person with special characteristics.

Charismatic leadership: opposed to traditional and rational authority, the leader can disregard the law and rules; he doesn’t use the position but rather his quality.
Individual personality, supernatural, superhuman, at least exceptional,
Followers of disciples who recognize this

Charismatic community: communistic eg sectarian cults

Routinization of charismatic: the charismatic leader has flaw, difficult to sustain leadership; charisma becomes institutionalized.

Some extreme case of charismatic leadership: World War I and World War II, Holocaust, State Violence etc.

Holocaust research, Christopher R Browning; Daniel J Goldhagen “Ordinary German”

Debate on interpretation on mass participation of ordinary Germen in voluntary mass murder of Jews,

Why did they kill? Why did they stop killing? Personal motivation? Willingness? Choice making?

Issues: obedience to authority but have was authority legitimized?

Browning critiques Goldhagen’s work of the view that “Germen were willing to kill because they had hatred for the Jew long ago” too narrow;

He rather considers the grey zone, eg, mixed motives, conflicting emotions and pr..
Reluctant choices etc..

Sociological view: how do you explain that? Issues of domination, ordinary German by Nazis vs Jews by Germen.

Where does legitimacy come in? how the killer gave meaning of their actions?

Violence and rationalization

Holocaust as an example of rational i.e. calculated systematic, factory like examination of members of on group. And there limits to rationalization?

What is rational from one the point of view many well be irrational from another.

Domination is also tried to values and ethics and hence legitimacy.
The roles ideas in history, not ideas, but material of ideal interests, directly govern men’s conduct. FMW pg280 Domination can operate in fairly ordinary walls

Emile Durkheim- Lecture 1

This is very useful site about Durkheim, besides my favorite Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim

http://www.bolender.com/Sociological%20Theory/Durkheim,%20Emile/durkheim,_emile.htm

Sociology as Science

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

He was the first to suggest sociology as a discipline like nature science.
Max Weber- interpretation of meaning of social action, while Durkheim taking Structure approach.

Personal and career background
Grown up in a Jewish family, where Jewish law strictly observed. The Jewish religion background may have influenced him in two ways:
- He interested in social solidarity may be attributed to his Jewish training and family atmosphere and his identification to a familial, tribal collective group
- His view on religion, especially emphasis on religious ritual.

To Durkheim, science as vocation, Mauss “ by vocation and in an environment animated by political and moral will to devote his life to the study of social question.”

August Comte and Herbert Spence’s influence on “sociology as science”
Both adapted evolutionary framework in their theories of human social development.

Comet’s two fold division of sociology

1. Social statics: at each moment in history, individual and groups are joined to one another in particular way- social cohesion (noted: Durkheim’s approach is systemic social solidarity)
2. Social dynamics: social evolution, social change from one form of solidarity to another, Durkheim, however against linear concept of social evolution, he suggests past events are not necessarily fully determining today’s society. “social change is not fully determined by the past” (Elem 120). Karl Marx is for linear social
evolution.

Herbert Spence (1820-1903)

He thinks that social evolution as part of general natural evolution, which is increasing differentiation and specialization; thus, socially, increased division of labour and development of harmonious mutual dependence through free exchange of individuals.

Spence’s individualism sociology: a powerful ideological force at that time, like Marx, Durkheim against liberal economics of that time which were more ideological than scientific. Durkheim thinks the explanation of social events should not search the individual motives and intention but in term of social structure causes.

Mark’s influence to Durkheim

“Division of labour in society” Durkheim focuses on labour, echoes Marx’s idea, on causal flow start from material substratum, eg, population density, interaction via group structure.

Durkheim against economic materialism:-
- Causal connection ran in both direction between material substratum and mental phenomena
- Marxist economic determinism “unscientific” assuming certain factors had causal pre-eminence when that could only by a hypothesis, the presupposition cannot not be proven.

How did Durkheim treat “sociology” as “science”

Sociology is not merely study of individual, different from psychology, he coins

Social Fact “The rule of sociological method”
(Note: rule here is not laws of method, is provisional, practically, strategically employed to facilitate investigation of social phenomena)
The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim#Theories_and_ideas
Social facts

Durkheim was concerned primarily with how societies could maintain their integrity and coherence in the modern era, when things such as shared religious and ethnic background could no longer be assumed. In order to study social life in modern societies, Durkheim sought to create one of the first scientific approaches to social phenomena. Along with Herbert Spencer, Durkheim was one of the first people to explain the existence and quality of different parts of a society by reference to what function they served in keeping the society healthy and balanced, and is thus sometimes seen as a precursor to functionalism. Durkheim also insisted that society was more than the sum of its parts. Thus unlike his contemporaries Ferdinand Tönnies and Max Weber, he focused not on what motivates the actions of individual people (methodological individualism), but rather on the study of social facts, a term which he coined to describe phenomena which have an existence in and of themselves and are not bound to the actions of individuals. He argued that social facts had an independent existence greater and more objective than the actions of the individuals that composed society and could only be explained by other social facts rather than, say, by society's adaptation to a particular climate or ecological niche.

Sociological explanation causality: seek the cause of phenomenon, determine the effect.

Methodological Individualism vs Structural Individualism

To understand the way which a society conceives itself and world around it, we must consider the nature of society not only nature of individual.

Methodological individualism is a philosophical method aimed at explaining and understanding broad society-wide developments as the aggregation of decisions by individuals. In the most extreme version, the "whole" is nothing but the "sum of its parts" (atomism). It has also been described as "reductionism," a reduction of the explanation of all large entities by reference to smaller ones. It should, however, be noted that methodological individualism does not imply political individualism, although methodological individualists like Friedrich Hayek and Karl Popper were opponents of collectivism. A specific formulation of methodological individualism might also incorporate hypotheses about the relations of individuals to society.

Social Fact is:- the social structures and cultural norms and values that are external to the individual.

every way of acting, whether fixed or not, which is capable of exercising an external constraint on the individual; or which is general throughout a given society, whilst having an existence of its own, independent of its individual manifestations.

Social constraint: different from habit, which dominate within, like social beliefs and practices act on us from outside. Social constraint comes from the prestige with which certain representations are invested.

Problem in distinguishing the habit or social constraint. Sometimes, social constrain can become habit. Therefore hard to identify social facts.

Three groups of social facts:
1. Morphological structure e.g. density of population
2. social institution e.g. family, economic political religious institution
3. Social current, e.g. opinion, moral concept, religious dogmas, legal rules.

Social current --> way of being--> institution

Therefore, social facts can be material and immaterial, classified along a continuum, from minimal to maximal crystallization or institutionalization.

Rules for observing social facts:

1. considering the social facts as things. Objectivity- a thing cannot be modified simply by an act of will; to change it requires some degree of strenuous effort.

Thing :- is an object of knowledge which understanding does not naturally penetrate.

Phenomenon (as it appears)
Noumenon (as it is)

To gain understanding by observation and experiment, it is progressing process from the outside and external to the least visible and most profound; to adopt a particular attitude towards social facts, external to the individual; mentality of group different from that of individual, it has own laws to separate sociology from psychology.

2. Social facts can be normal, facts which are as they should be
or abnormal (pathological), fact which ought to be something other than what they are identify normal.

That is to say there is possibility for social reform. Social action reform, need to address “function”.

19th century, popular theories for social evolution is each society at its particular level of evolution, has its own “normal” and “pathological” social facts
(problem: is the society in transition, has it stabilized? How to determine?)

The Basic Sociological Terms

By Max Weber

Sociology is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and with a causal explanation of its courses and consequences.

Action:- the acting behaviour attaches a subjective meaning to his behaviour

Social:- the subjective meaning takes account of the behaviour of others and is oriented in its course.

Meaning:- the first part refers to actual existing meaning in the given concrete case of a particular actor

Subjective meaning:- (pure type) is the hypothetical actor or actors in a given type of action.

The line between Meaningful action and reactive behaviour to which no subjective meaning is attached, is not clear.

All interpretation of meaning, strives fro clarity and verifiable accuracy of insight and comprehension. This is the base of Understanding, which can be rational or an emotionally empathic or artistically appreciative quality.
(..to be continued)

The State and Emancipation

Sept 4, 2007 HSS 201 Lecture 4 Karl Marx

The Mode of Production--> Relation of production, production forces, Contradiction between class; class consciousness and class antagonisms which leads to revolution in the end.

Revolution products the New mode of production

Mode of production decides the structure and superstructure which constitutes political, legal and social.

In Marxist sociology, the economic and political are closely linked.

State, Emancipation, future society

Reading “on the Jewish question”

1834-1844

Jews were demanding religious emancipation
Bruno Bauer thinks that the state should not adapt any religion, to be neutral, so that Jews will not be discriminated. He argued for political emancipation, to end the discrimination against Jews, the states must cease to be Christian (no discrimination)

This seems very impressive, but not enough for Marx

Here Bauer’s fault lies in the fact that he subjects only Christian State to his critique, not “state as such”, a type of a state. That he does not investigate the relationship of the state of human. The secular state does not mean that religion will disappear.

Getting rid of religion from the political sphere is not enough. That shows that existence of religion does not contradict /impede the perfection of state.

Note: the attitude of the man who makes up the state to religion, if existence of religious is the existence of a defect, what is the source of this defect?

The nature of the state?

Man’s dual personality in modern state:

1. Communal social aspect- coincide with universalism of the state
• Communal and universalism of the state
• At the level of constitutes, and discover a citizenship, right and duties and stake in state.

2. Every life in civil society, individuals living in isolation from one another, in competition among themselves in civil society, the separation of man into a public and private man, (dual personality)

Man is leading a double life, he has a life both political community where he is active as a private individual treats other man as means, degrades himself to a mean too. Social citizen and competitive, individuals, e.g. Jewish, He has a life both in political and plaything of alien power.

Political emancipation of religion
The decomposition oneself from religious (JQ 47)

Marx’s analysis of “state”
• Above the economic structure, the official stratum of society
• The legal and political superstructure, the political, economic etc
• State arises upon conflicts material interest already existing in the relation of production
• Reason: if there is no conflict, then there is no need for any legal political superstructure to preside over the economic structure.

Marx’s criticism
• Modern state presuppose a gap between sates and civil society (economic realm)
• Institutions to fill this gap
• These institutes were in fact cloaks for particular interests in civil society.
• Institutions are in fact cloaks for people with vested interests

Bureaucracy: - most essential parts of state apparatus
The ruling class absorb the people into bureaucracy, it become caste: through higher education, claimed monopoly in interpreting state interests, self-perpetuating
Bureaucratic procedures give the impression that the state works fro general interests of society, i.e. it embodies universal principles, but in actual fact, the state, captured by ruling class, bourgeoisie, apparatus is held by the dominant class in society.
The ruling class, in the state, needs ideology to convince and conceal.

Ideology- to convince and to conceal

To convince the mass that the state is neural and but in fact
To conceal the fact that the state actually acts to preserve, exiting relations of production, and the masses that the state is neutral and universal character.

The State has limited autonomy: because its aims cannot be fully achieved,
E.g., French and American civil revolution, which was sought to emancipation man as political citizen but to Marx, man is still enslaved to civil society, i.e. by the economic production; enslaved by the capitalist mode of production. Through the abolition of the states the dual personality will be abolished too.

Abolishment and dualism

Solution must be found beyond the state. The state must be transcended, social revolution is needed.

“One Jews question” Marx is criticising Bruno’s idea and political emancipation, which is reduction of man, (member of civil society and citizen of moral person) is not enough, social revolution needed.

If the alienation is not resolved, then there is no emancipation.

Marx thinks the state is not neutral. Marx was the dualism of man’s personality to be resolved to transcend the state.

How will social revolution and real emancipation to be accomplished?

• The important concept of Praxis- the unity of correct understanding the theory and practice (both are important)
• Praxis: combining analysis of internal working and capitalism, human agency, class consciousness. That requires philosophical work and human agency.
• Revolutionaries reality through social action: Thesis XI: “philosophers only interpret the world, the points is to change it”
• Revolution must be based on an adequate group of the situation, understanding how capitalist system works.

Marx’s analysis of the internal mechanism of capitalism provided the adequate theoretical understanding of the system (theory); needs to be combined to the practical part to associations (practice)

Importance of associations: workers create bonds among themselves in the process, changing reality and creation of class consciousness. That is why capitalist states fear the unions, often to oppress them.

Revolution Praxis: the unity of theory and Practice: - embodying an objective and subjective elements.
• The need to be theoretically informed so as to take action
• Need the right circumstance (economic crisis) and awareness, education on working class
• Proletariat has to be a class for itself, class consciousness

Success of revolution would not be achieved if it is confined to one country. It needs to build up working class parties around the world.

Transitional period: The dictatorship of proletarian
Dictatorship and violence only strictly temporary measures;
Non democratic societies: revolution will be violent,
Bourgeoisie society: revolution occurs through ballots; violence only if bourgeoisies restated to violence to go against the wishes of majority.

Transcendence and abolitions of the state
When class rule will have disappeared there will no longer be any state in the present sense of the world. If there is no class, there will not be a need for the state to exist.

Role of state in communism society:-
Exact nature: to be found scientifically, Marx did not give a blueprint.
In transitional period between capitalist and communist, society will be under dictatorship of proletariat, who will capture state power.

Future communist society (Marx did not want to forecast)- idealism that lack of concrete empirical class

Some features:
• Democratically elected government appointees, judges and administrators, police, appointments could be revoked at any time.
• Political officials paid according workers wages, to prevent political careerism
• System operates at all level of government, small hamlet, national legislature and executive

Tension between state and civil society: - double life of the citizen in a bourgeois state will be abolished, no private vs. public distinction, return of social man.

Man’s discovery of his species being: - communal creativities communism is the positive abolition of private property, and thus human self-alienation, therefore the real re-appropriation of human essence by and for man (EPM)

Marx Portrayal of communism:

1, man in touch with himself and fellow men , in turn with his species being.
2, all contradictions prevailed within capitalism resolved so communism a steady state? The ultimate system? End of history, since there are no class struggles any more?

Ownership of private property is the sort of class domination, therefore if the former is abolished, so is the latter.

Q: How can we understand Marx’s ideas in relation to our society now? The structure and superstructure?

How Marxism is operationalized has brought to many? Heaven on earth?
Marxist sociology and ideas continue to exert influence and inspired many people and social movement around the world.

Social Structure and Capitalism

Aug 28, 2007-08-28

Capitalist economy focuses on mode of production.

Key concept to learn: labour, values of commodity, class structure, class struggles, revolution.

Capitalist economy is analysed as a system of commodity production which is based upon wage labour.

In commodity production, labour involved can be seen as;

Concrete labour: particular skills or practices necessary to products specific things.

Abstract labour: expenditure of human labour power in general in the production of commodity. For example, labour is commodified and sold to capitalist for his use for a specific period of time, and worker get paid for a wage.

Labour power is the capacity to work which is brought and employed by capitalist and from which surplus value is extracted.

In capitalism, worker agrees to submit to the employer’s authority for a fixed period of time, employer has freedom to use the labour power and the surplus product created as he wishes.

Production of commodities

Use value-
-its production is a natural human expression
- An object can have use value regardless whether it is also a commodity;
-produced to satisfy one’s needs.

Exchange value:

• The ratio at which a commodity exchange against others
• Exchange mediated by money
• Inseparable from the market

(Fetishism of Commodities)

Commodity is a product which possesses exchange value, which is determined by the market, it conceals the value of labour power which is embodied in the object.

Surplus value: The difference between the exchange value and the cost of production of a commodity, appropriated by capitalist as profits. It can be using for pay for rent, interest of bank, etc, or for capitalist own use and consumption, or reinvest to make more surplus value.

Exploitation of labour
In order to increase productivity of labour relative to constant capital, the capitalist will:-
o Increasing working hours: raise rate of surplus value
o Decrease wages below their value
o Increase use of machinery.

“The greater division of labour enables one worker to do the work of five, ten or twenty, it therefore multiply….” (Wage labour and capital)

Product is alienated from worker, the producer.

Alienation : is the consequence of capitalism on the working class due to division of labour, refers to man loses to someone or something certain aspects which are essential to his nature, specifically, loss of control over own activities and initiator of the historical process.

There are four aspects of alienation:

1. Alienation from the product.
The process of labour and production is the realization of labour, an objectification. This alienation makes worker lost its own labour reality.
“Fetishism of commodity
Fetish is a material object attributed with super-nature power.
Fetishism of commodity is not referring to the fixing of desires upon commodity, but fetish character of the commodity as a special kind of object, commodity is not only as a physical entity but also as a monetary value.

However, the value of commodity is determined by market demand and supply, therefore, the labour’s contribution is concealed and overlooked.

Under Fetishism of commodities society, social relationships between workers from different line are concealed and disgusted. The value of labour is also concealed.

2. Alienation from productive activity.

When the worker sells his labour power to a capitalist for wages in a specific timeframe, he does not have freedom to exercise his own will in production and other conscious activities.

3. Alienation from species being the human nature

Species being requires human being to interact in his productive life; free conscious activity is one of men’s characteristics. This alienation turns workers productive life into a mere means of sustaining the worker’s individual existing and of his fellow men.

4. Alienation from nature, subjugation and exploitation.

In olden days, under a less rationally system, God was a power over man with absolute power and authority; now as more ‘rational’ system, working class were under a small group of capitalists’ power.

Class, in Marx’s theoretical framework, often is used in two ways:-

1. Relationship to prevailing mode of production
2. A group’s consciousness of itself as a class with its own political organization.

Classes emerge when division of labour allows for the accumulation of surplus production that can be appropriated by a minority grouping. This small group stands in an exploitative relationship with the majority who are the producers.

In capitalism society, there are three main classes: capitalist, proletariat, landowners.

Some argued that there is also an intermediate /transitional class, e.g. petit bourgeoisie, these classes; however, will slowly dissolving into two polarized classes of Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. Class objective face (looking from outsider) and Class consciousness (looking from inside, recognition themselves as one of classes), that lead class struggles.

“Class struggle is the active expression of class conflict looked at from any kind of socialist perspective. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, leading ideologists of communism, wrote "The [written][1] history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle"[2].
Marx's notion of class has nothing to do with hereditary caste, nor is it exactly social class in the sociological sense of upper, middle and lower classes (which are often defined in terms of quantitative income or wealth). Instead, in an age of capitalism, Marx describes an economic class. Membership of a class is defined by one's relationship to the means of production, i.e., one's position in the social structure that characterizes capitalism. Marx talks mainly about two classes that include the vast majority of the population, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Other classes such as the petty bourgeoisie share characteristics of both of these main classes. ”*1

Main Contributions of Marx:

o Show classes linked to particular epochs in the development of productions
o Class struggles would lead to dictatorship of the proletariat and a classless society
o The engine of social change is class struggle

“The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term employed by Marxists that refers to a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society; during this transition period, "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat". The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie (propertied class).”*2

*1 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle
*2 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

Karl Marx Lecture 2

August 21, 2007 Marx -2

We are going to exam the following key concepts of Marx:
o Philosophy of history
o Consciousness
o False consciousness
o Ideology

Hegel’s view on history Review
o History as development and conflict of abstract principles
o Dialectical movement- every state of affair contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction and transformation to a higher stage
o Thesis ---Antithesis

Marx’s view on dialectic, appropriation but not whole accepted
Marx’s view on
o History: contains creation, satisfaction and recreation of human needs
o In these process, human beings develop different types of society

Thought Marx was regarded as Historical Materialism, but that only used to explain his socio-historical changes.

Marx thinks:

History is a social change by human agency in response to production relationship, which contains structures changes and human subjectivity (consciousness)

Marx’s criticism to Feuerbach

o Feuerbach ignored the creative subject of human beings that actively modified the world through production
o Feuerbach doesn’t grasp the significant of revolutionary of “practical-critical” activity
o “Contemplative materialism” doesn’t comprehend sensuousness
Mark thinks to “change” the world, is more important than just to “interpret” world.

German Ideology (1884)

Summary: Marx’s criticism to German philosophy system as well as their understanding of human social development process and progress, instead of accepting “idea” to “objectification”, he suggested……

Stage of societal development
Engine of historical changes: due to class struggles

(Question: is that class struggles is because division of labour? If so, the class struggles is no way to avoid, as long as the division of labour exists and counties to develop)

There are four stages of social history development according to Marx:

The Stage of Social Development

Type of Society	Ownership	Degree of Division of Labour	Class struggles	Private Property
Primitive	tribal	Low, elementary	Low, or none	none
Ancient communal	State	Start to develop	Low	less
Feudal	Estate to Lords and kings	middle	Landlords vs peasant	belong to landlord
Capital	Capitalists	Highly developed	Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat	captialists

Conception of history (p172)

Depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out form the material production of life itself and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production at the basis of all history.

Social and historical changes are tension between agency and structure. Agency here refers to human beings are constrained in social structure. Ritzer (1998) pointed out that dialectical relationship between agency and structure in larger scales is the historical and social changes.

Consciousness is a social product; Marx thinks consciousness only exists when needs rise.

Consciousness of nature
o Rooted in human productive activity, is a social product
o Only exist when needs are required, their consciousness and activities are not isolated from one another.

Human consciousness, dialectical interplay between a creative subject and the objective material environment

Mode of production in capitalism society:
o Ownership of force of production
o Relationship of production

Social being -- class consciousness -- social class-- class struggles

Class consciousness is an essential condition that can help bring about the change from capital to communist.

Class position, shape our ideas about the world and social relationship and in all class society: dominant ideas about who we are and what we ought to be are ideas of ruling class.

False consciousness: refers to social classes do not possess correct assessments of how the system works and their roles and interests in it.

Eg. Proletariat class:
1. they are unaware of they are the oppressed
2. see the idea system of bourgeoisie as natural as their own
3. unaware of their historical revolutionary potential

Difficulty in overcoming false consciousness

Ideology: one impediment to gain true class consciousness (more of the ruling class’s ideas)

o Formulated ideas
o Refers to human affairs
o Public
o Subject to state control

End of ideology when class domination in general ceases to be the form in which the social order is organized “general interest” as ruling interest.

Ruling class ideas--- political, economic dominance
What are the effects of ruling ideas/ ideology?
What are the resistances to the dominant ideology?
What form does resistance take? What are the alternative media to address general interest?

Karl Marx Lecture 1

Week 2 Aug 14, 2007

General information of Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Karl Marx, the founder of Marxism which has been captured many communist counties like China, Vietnams to embrace wholly into their social and political regime. Communism also has become a political ideology in ruling party.

Marx’s main concern: social inequality, social classes, and political ideology.

He was influence by German philosopher Hegal.

1. Idealist- a way to understand the world. Hegal thinks that Reality only exists in one’s idea; what appears to humans is not the world itself but one’s idea of it.


2. Empiricism / materialism- Reality may be reduced to physical properties; our ideas of the world are simple reflections. Structured by innate physical properties of the universe.

Hegel’s Philosophy of History

Social world composed of ideas, concept of “world/absolute spirit”, focused on dialectic of ideas and how the processes manifest itself in history. History obeys certain dialectic logic to reveal an idea “Freedom”. That is one way to interpret the evolves of human history.

The Dialectic Process

Thesis generated its own anti thesis;
Synthesis of above two develops then soon new antithesis appears
New Synthesis develops again, new antithesis appears again....

The thesis to explain the society and social development combine the both theories synthesis. As synthesis moving on, the anti-thesis may come up again. Social movement, reach certain point will generate its own anti-thesis. Dialectical is the movement of ideas through the time. By observing historical pattern, unfold with individuals and more pawns in its developments, Hegel assumed historical development would end up with an eternal Prussian State as such a final synthesis.

That is remnant of the ideas in Marx’s work, like communism.

Interpretation of Hegel’s work:

• Right wings: accept Prussian State as an embodiment of world spirit and reason.


• Left wings (young Hegelian) regarded present situation as not perfect yet.

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)

• He was an enthusiastic follower of Hegel and one of leaders of young Hegelians in 1840.


• Later became critical of Hegelian, Idealism and religion, especially Christianity.


• He thinks Gods created by man, were themselves idealized creations of human being. He believed that any progress in human culture and civilization required the repudiation of religions.

Key Influence of Marx’s work
o German Philosophy –Hegel, criticism of Hegel, critical of religion
o French socialism
o English political economy

Friedrich Engels (1820-1895)

• A capitalist himself, from Manchester of English, owned mill and manufactories


• Wrote “conditions of the working class” 1840


• Lift time collaboration and supporter to Marx


• Integrated all the intellectual traditions which Marx was concerned with.

Key Concepts of Marx

• Mixed feeling about religion. On one hand, he said the religion is an illusion, much more than clear thought is need to abolish it. On the other hand, he said religion is “heart of a heartless world”


• Young Hegelian critique: The young Hegelian focus on convincing people of the strength of the logical argument; as long as people were poor, ignorant and therefore need help, religion would constantly reproduce itself.


• He inverted Hegelian dialectic, which ignored real individuals and real conditions. Marx located the dialectic in the material world, especially material social relationships.


• o His conception of human nature – species being, unique feature of human being is that we created our world, while animals live in symbiotic relationship from all others.


• Human being, self-consciousness as species distinct from all other:


• Human must create a world in which to live: ability to change the environment in creative fashion in order to produce the necessity of life.


• Human products act as a mirror through which humans can come to see their own states


• Objectification- a process of human creative working by using nature resources to give self consciousness and self-awareness.


• Social relation being created when we exchange the things we produce with one another; human being as species also survive collectively and individually because of society.

The Communist Manifesto (1849) a political pamphlet

Key concept:

1. Bourgeoisie: owners of capital in capitalist societies


2. Proletariat: property less labors who live by selling their labor power to capitalists in exchange for wages. Condition of employment: exploitation, in creating value increase the wealth and power of the bourgeoisie against their own interest. (Exploited and oppressed), class struggle will lead capitalist society dissolve. Marx had tried to locate the social tension in capital society.


3. Relations of production. Economic and social relations between producers and non producers in the course of economic production


4. Force of production and means of products. Like raw materials, tools, technology


5. Model of production. A particular combination of a set of relations of production and forces of production

Organizing economic production:

Primitive communism, Feudalism, Capitalism
Capitalist has constant pressure for technology advancement, which leads to change of force of production then leads to relations of production and work structure, then relation of citizen and leaders.

Marx’s approach

Human nature- creativity production, self awareness, exchange of creativity productions to build up social relation

Critical social theories, a critical exercise in exposing the faults of society.
Concerning issues of such as emancipation, regaining creative capacity, well being.

The notion of material dialectic-
Economic structure moves history
Thinking from a historical perspective.