Emile Durkheim – Philosophical Foundation

Introduction

• Émile Durkheim was a French sociologist.

• He maintained it was possible to develop a scientific study of society.

• Both Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim contributed to providing credibility to sociology.

• They helped establish sociology as an independent academic discipline.

• Durkheim is known for his writings on division of labour in society, religion, suicide, education, and morals.

• This unit begins with a biographical outline of Durkheim to understand the social, economic, and political environment influencing his ideas.

• It then examines the specific intellectual ideas that influenced him.

• Finally, it covers some important ideas from his writings.

Biographical Sketch of Emile Durkheim

• Émile Durkheim was born on 15th April 1858 in Epinal, a small town in Eastern France.

• He grew up in a Jewish family; his father was a rabbi (spiritual leader and religious teacher).

• As a child, he studied Hebrew and the Talmud and attended a rabbinical school with the initial aim to become a rabbi.

• Later, Durkheim lost interest in religious education and joined a local school.

• He was raised in a family emphasizing morality and discipline.

• Durkheim eventually gave up Judaism and Christianity, believing these religions could not answer the problems of the modern world.

• Despite this, he maintained interest in the intellectual investigation of religion and morality throughout his academic career.

• For higher education, he joined the Ecole Normale Superieure in 1879, the most distinguished college in France.

• Initially interested in psychology and philosophy, he was critical of the education style at the college, considering it too literary, rhetorical, and lacking scientific rigour.

• In his third year, he decided to study sociology, which he saw as more rational, scientific, and practical for understanding philosophical questions.

• At Ecole Normale, Durkheim was influenced by neo-Kantian scholars like Renouvier and Boutroux.

• Boutroux influenced Durkheim’s view that each discipline should have a distinct subject matter.

• Durkheim was influenced by Renouvier’s commitment to rationalism, scientific study of morality, and secular education.

• The historian Fustel de Coulanges, who emphasized the scientific method and the importance of religion in social life, also influenced Durkheim.

• From 1882 to 1887, Durkheim taught philosophy in state secondary schools near Paris.

• During this time, he decided on his doctoral thesis topic: the relation between individualism and socialism.

• He later focused on the relation between individual and society, finally settling on the relation between individual personality and social solidarity.

• He completed the first draft of his dissertation in 1886, which was incorporated into his first book, The Division of Labour in Society.

• Doctoral candidates in France write two theses: a smaller and a larger one.

• Durkheim’s smaller thesis was on Montesquieu, a French political scientist and early proponent of a scientific, comparative approach to political institutions (the state).

• Durkheim considered Montesquieu a forerunner of sociology.

• His main thesis on division of labour in society connected the economic idea of division of labour (as per Adam Smith) to its social meaning.

• Durkheim analyzed functions, causes, and abnormal forms of division of labour in society, beyond its economic aspects.

• In 1895, Durkheim published The Rules of Sociological Method, defining social facts, and laying down rules for their observation, recognition of normal and pathological, and explanation.

• His work on Suicide explored its social aspects, identifying three types of suicides, each with different causes.

• Although Auguste Comte coined ‘sociology’ in 1822, the discipline struggled for academic recognition.

• To understand sociology’s influence, Durkheim visited many German universities between 1885-86.

• German social thinkers were influenced by Herbert Spencer’s organic analogy in studying societies.

• Durkheim was impressed by the scientific study of morality by Wagner and Schmoller, and Wilhelm Wundt’s contribution to sociology of morality.

• His articles on German social science and morality became popular.

• In 1887, Durkheim began his career as a Professor at the University of Bordeaux, where he spent 15 productive years.

• He published The Division of Labour in Society in 1893, The Rules of Sociological Method in 1895, and Suicide in 1897 while at Bordeaux.

• In 1898, Durkheim founded one of the world’s first sociology journals, L’Année Sociologique.

• Durkheim faced opposition for supporting sociology during his lifetime.

• He disliked politics but responded to accusations against intellectuals supporting the Dreyfus case in his article ‘Individuals and Intellectuals’ on moral individualism.

• The Dreyfus Affair involved the false court-martial of Alfred Dreyfus during WWI for allegedly selling secrets to Germany.

• Durkheim’s public participation after the affair led to his appointment at Sorbonne University in 1902.

• At Sorbonne, he taught Education and Sociology, became a full professor in 1906, and was named chair of Science of Education and Sociology in 1913.

• Durkheim died of a heart attack in 1917, following the death of his son in WWI.

Socio-Historical Background

• After the French Revolution (1789-1799) and the onset of the Enlightenment Age, there was growing intellectual concern about the rise of individualism in society.

• There was an increase in the assertion of individual political rights and a decline in the collective authority of the state.

• In 1871, France faced a political crisis and a decline in national unity.

• France aimed for political consolidation by focusing on social progress.

• It was believed that the development of the scientific method would lead to social progress.

• Durkheim believed the sociological method could provide solutions to the decay in moral order.

• He was interested in the recuperation of the republic through establishing a moral, civic, and secular order.

• Durkheim focused on how individuals related to social life, especially in the context of increasing individualism in the modern industrial age.

• Durkheim served as a Professor of Science of Education and Sociology during a time when the French government sought to secularize education.

• The government aimed to create an education system not influenced by any religious faith.

• Durkheim incorporated secular topics into education, encouraging schools to teach reverence for society.

• He wanted students to respect institutions of society and understand social change from a secular perspective.

• Recurring ideas in Durkheim’s writings include the importance of ‘ideals’ and moral unity in society.

• He emphasized the significance of the individual as both an active agent and a passive recipient of social influences.

• He highlighted the attachment of the individual to society.

Intellectual Influences on Durkheim’s Works

Social Realism

• Durkheim provided social explanations for all phenomena and was a social realist, viewing society as sui generis with existence prior to the individual.

• He believed economic and utilitarian explanations could not explain individual phenomena.

• Utilitarian philosophers argued individuals engage in economic exchange driven by self-interest; Durkheim rejected this view.

• Durkheim opposed the utilitarian social theory of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who saw individuals as autonomous and unrestrained by social rules.

• Contrary to them, Durkheim held that society precedes the individual, and society and individual are inseparable.

• There is a social constraint on individuals, and their actions are not strictly utilitarian or economically driven.

• Durkheim aimed to establish sociology as an independent discipline studying social facts that are constraining and external.

• He believed human action is not based on common motives or self-interest but influenced by an external social constraint leading to certain actions.

• This led to his writing of The Rules of Sociological Method.

• Early French intellectual influences on Durkheim included J.J. Rousseau and Hobbes.

• Rousseau influenced Durkheim’s thoughts on morality and society, emphasizing the need for common social and moral rules to keep society together.

• Durkheim disagreed with Rousseau’s individualist theories that morality is explained by the original human nature of individuals.

• Rousseau believed collective will emerges from many individual wills, while Durkheim analyzed morality in relation to society.

• In his 1902-3 lectures on Moral Education at Sorbonne, Durkheim linked morality with discipline and group membership.

• Durkheim disagreed with Hobbes, who saw individuals contracting out of nature and emphasized individual will preceding social restraint.

• Hobbes explained society as emerging when individuals agree to common rules under a leader for peace.

• Durkheim held that social constraint emerges from the collective, not from the individual; it is external.

• Durkheim’s social realism opposed the individualism/nominalism of Herbert Spencer.

• Spencer argued modern society is based on contracts and self-interested individual acts and social order arises from individual struggle.

• Durkheim maintained society precedes individual action and social integration arises from shared solidarity, not individual actions.

• In The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim developed a framework studying ‘social facts’ such as suicide rates, religious affiliations, and moral rules.

• These social facts constrain individuals and represent the ultimate social reality—the group, not the individual.

• Social facts cannot be reduced to or explained by psychological or physiological factors; they are external and irreducible to individual facts.

• Durkheim analyzed mental and moral qualities of individuals as social, underlying concepts like collective conscience and social solidarity.

• His works assume that mental and moral qualities are social, not individual.

Scientism and Influence of Positivism

• Till the late nineteenth century, sociology was not studied as an academic discipline in French universities.

• The term ‘sociology’ was founded by Auguste Comte in 1882, but sociology was not introduced in universities at that time.

• Durkheim was influenced by Comte’s idea of positivism.

• After joining Bordeaux as a professor in 1887, Durkheim instituted sociology as an academic discipline.

• For Durkheim, sociology could be established as a scientific discipline only when causal relations underlying social activities were studied.

• Positivist doctrine advocated that speculative sciences like philosophy or history should seek law-like generalities based on relationships between observed facts.

• Emerging sociology aimed to establish generalizations rather than mere speculations.

• Durkheim was influenced by intellectuals like Montesquieu, Saint Simon, and Comte in developing sociology as a scientific discipline.

• Montesquieu believed a science of society should explore facts, not mere speculation, and held that humans could not exist without society.

• Saint Simon contributed the idea of a science of society.

• Comte developed a method and ranked sciences into positivistic and non-positivistic, placing social sciences lower in the hierarchy.

• Sciences like mathematics and biology were considered more developed and positivistic, while social sciences like philosophy and history were non-positivistic.

• Comte theorized societies pass through stages: theological, metaphysical, and scientific.

• In the theological stage, causes are explained as the will of Gods.

• In the metaphysical stage, causes are explained by speculative truths.

• In the scientific stage, causes are explained through observation, classification, and experimentation.

• Durkheim questioned whether all academic disciplines evolve simultaneously and achieve scientific status.

• He also doubted that all disciplines progress historically from speculative to positive stages.

• Durkheim held society as ‘sui generis’, subject to scientific investigation, and not reducible to individuals or individual acts.

• He critiqued both Comte and Spencer for abstract theorizing and speculation rather than empirical study of society and social change.

• Durkheim worked to establish sociology as a scientific discipline, separate from and not subsumed by philosophy.

• Durkheim and his nephew Marcel Mauss adopted the comparative method to study societies.

• To understand societal evolution, they applied comparative methods to study causal laws in both simple and modern societies.

• Durkheim and Mauss emphasized the need for ethnographic studies to distinguish between various states, nations, and civilizations instead of relying on abstract concepts of civilization.

Functionalism

• Durkheim incorporated Comte’s and Spencer’s organic analogy in studying society.

• According to the organic view, society is analogous to an organism.

• Various parts of society are interrelated and work together to maintain a stable whole.

• The whole is greater than the sum of its parts and cannot be reduced to individual parts.

• Like organs (heart, lungs) which have no life independently but sustain the whole organism, social phenomena cannot be explained through individual phenomena.

• Social integration occurs because all parts of society function to maintain the social whole.

• In simple societies, beliefs and sentiments exert a stronger constraining force, and individuals involved in similar tasks work together to maintain the whole.

• A simple society is homogeneous, with individuals not dependent on one another since everyone performs similar tasks.

• As population grows, society becomes more complex, and tasks become differentiated.

• Division of labour and specialization cause individuals to become dependent on one another.

• Herbert Spencer categorized societies as simple and compound, whereas Durkheim categorized them as based on mechanical and organic solidarity.

• Durkheim adopted the evolutionary view of society from Spencer.

• Durkheim criticized Spencer for assuming harmony in the social world without empirical investigation.

Central Ideas

Division of Labour in Society

• Division of labour exists in different sectors of society and is not limited to economic exchanges.

• Durkheim viewed division of labour as a social phenomenon requiring social explanation.

• As population volume and density increase, interaction and struggle for survival increase.

• Social differentiation in modern societies helps overcome survival struggles between individuals.

• Individuals become more dependent on each other for specialized functions, leading to social cohesion and increased individual autonomy.

• Modern societies see an increase in individualism, but also a need to maintain social solidarity.

• Durkheim explained how individuals relate to society through social bonds.

• His doctoral dissertation on Division of Labour in Society focused on social solidarity.

• Influenced by Rousseau, Durkheim believed solidarity is independent of politics and economy.

• Solidarity exists in two forms: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.

• In mechanical solidarity (small societies), individual autonomy is lowest; society has similar beliefs with little task specialization or division of labour.

• Collective conscience pervades all individuals; the bond to society is intense with perfect social integration.

• Religion is dominant, and individual’s social position is determined by kinship.

• Penal law is repressive, punishing crimes severely to reaffirm core beliefs and values.

• In societies with organic solidarity, there is a greater division of labour, and individuals depend on each other for specialized tasks, not on society as a whole.

• Such societies are dense, cover large geographical areas, and have more specialized political, legal, and economic institutions.

• The collective conscience over individuals is weakened, and individual differences are greater.

• Social integration weakens as the social whole weakens.

• Restitutive law operates to restore wrongs to their original state rather than punish severely.

Social Facts

• Unlike utilitarian thinkers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, Durkheim held that individuals are not autonomous or engaged only in utilitarian exchanges in society.

• Durkheim argued that social facts exist which exercise constraint on individuals.

• He wrote The Rules of Sociological Method to develop a methodical framework for investigating sociology’s subject matter.

• Durkheim aimed to establish sociology as a science of society, distinct from psychology.

• Just as physical sciences study natural facts, sociology should study social facts, which are things in society.

• Social facts are external, having an independent existence regardless of individual beliefs or opinions.

• Social facts are ways of acting that are co-external and constrain the individual.

• Social facts are generally diffused throughout society (e.g., parenting is a social fact, while eating is an individual fact).

• Social facts have an existence outside individual consciousness and precede an individual’s birth.

• They are passed from generation to generation, and society precedes the individual, subjecting individuals to societal laws.

• Durkheim laid down rules for observing social facts: they must be treated as things, not ideas, be distinct, and display regular patterns in society.

• In The Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim used an organic analogy to study society.

• He developed criteria to distinguish between healthy (normal) and unhealthy (pathological) societies.

• Durkheim’s concern with the normal and pathological was influenced by Tocqueville’s focus on pathology and social order.

• Tocqueville’s view that common values and beliefs play a role in social integration influenced Durkheim.

• A social phenomenon is normal if it is generally distributed in society and found in other societies under general conditions.

• A social phenomenon is pathological if it deviates from what is generally diffused.

• Durkheim considered crime a normal social phenomenon because it exists in all societies and serves a function.

• Crime helps maintain basic social values and sentiments.

• Crime has a role in maintaining social integration through the reaction of punishment.

• Punishment reaffirms collective values and sentiments offended by crime.

Suicide

• Durkheim studied suicide due to its increase after industrialization in Europe around 1850.

• Industrialization led to increased individualism and decreased social integration.

• Suicide was often attributed to individual factors like nervous disorder or alcoholism, but Durkheim argued it should be explained by the link between social institutions and the individual.

• He analyzed suicide rates from different European countries to understand the phenomenon sociologically.

• Durkheim acknowledged that the experimental method used in natural sciences could not be applied to social sciences.

• He conducted a causal analysis of suicide, coining the term ‘social suicide rate’ to refer to the number and pattern of suicides in a society.

• The rate of suicide is related to social institutions such as marriage, family, and religion.

• Durkheim studied suicide collectively, not individually, using data from France, England, Germany, and Denmark.

• Suicide was treated as a social fact with sociological significance, distinct from psychological explanations.

• Durkheim explained different forms of suicide by analyzing social bonds and social regulation.

• Egoistic suicide results from low social integration—individuals lack bonds with society and feel detached.

• Family life creates duties and obligations that restrain suicide by bonding individuals to society.

• Altruistic suicide is the opposite, where individuals are excessively integrated and sacrifice their lives for society (e.g., soldiers in battle, widows practicing sati in Hindu society).

• In altruistic suicide, individuals are socially honored for giving up their lives for the social whole.

• Anomic suicide occurs when there is a weakening of social regulation, often during economic prosperity or hardship.

• Society sets unattainable goals, causing disappointment and reflecting failure to regulate individual wants.

• Anomic suicide arises when wants are unbridled and the economy dominates other institutions without religious or social justification for individual placement.

• Fatalistic suicide occurs under excessive social regulation, exemplified by cases like suicide by slaves due to extreme oppression.

Religion and Manifestation of the Social

• The Elementary Forms of Religious Life was published in 1912.

• Durkheim’s interest in religion dates back to 1902, viewing it as a major institution in society.

• Many articles in his journal L’Année Sociologique focused on religion.

• In this work, Durkheim aimed to explore the elements or constituents of religion that make religious life possible.

• He studied primitive religion using an evolutionary approach, believing that understanding primitive religion reveals the basic structure of all religion.

• Durkheim advocated for a scientific study of religion based on observation and exploration.

• He argued that religion helps people make sense of the world and that religion personifies society.

• Religion consists of beliefs and rituals:

  • Beliefs are ideas focused on the sacred.

  • Rituals are actions directed towards the sacred.

• Universally, the religious worldview is divided into two domains: the sacred and the profane.

• A thing, belief, or act is sacred because society believes it to be sacred.

• The sacred is set apart and forbidden from the profane, according to Durkheim (1912).

• The profane refers to the unholy, secular, mundane world.

• Rituals allow communication between the profane and the sacred.

• Approaching the sacred requires purification through penance or prescribed means.

• Some scholars criticize Durkheim’s strict separation of sacred and profane, noting sacredness can influence everyday profane activities and vice versa.

• The ultimate basis of religion is social.

• The profane can pollute the sacred.

• Religion provides humans with a basis for classifying their worldviews.

Collective Conscience

• Durkheim focused on the concept of collective conscience (also called common conscience) in relation to the Division of Labour.

• Collective conscience is the body of beliefs, practices, and common sentiments held throughout society.

• It provides social purpose and structures social life.

• Characterized by a likeness of moral and mental sentiments among members of society.

• Different from individual conscience; it is diffused throughout society.

• Plays a key role in maintaining social solidarity.

• Connects different generations to one another through shared beliefs and values.

• The greater the spread, intensity, and uniformity of collective conscience, the stronger the individuals’ attachment to collective beliefs and sentiments.

Emile Durkheim – Social Fact

Introduction

• Émile Durkheim (1858-1917) is best remembered for establishing sociology as an autonomous academic discipline.

• He gained recognition for promoting the idea of a science of society.

• This science aimed to contribute to the study of moral and intellectual problems in modern society.

• Durkheim’s conception of sociology focuses on three key aspects:

  • (a) General conditions for the establishment of social science.

  • (b) Sociology as the study of social facts.

  • (c) The sociological method.

General Conditions for the Establishment of Social Science

• Human beings have always lived in societies and have pondered their nature, similar to how they understood their own bodies.

• Scientific knowledge about the body’s anatomy and physiology developed later with new methods called the scientific method.

• Similarly, knowledge about society, its workings, changes, and modifications is now pursued through a scientific method.

• Durkheim played a crucial role in bringing a scientific approach to the study of society.

• During Durkheim’s lifetime, sociology was an emerging discipline, largely unfamiliar to most educated people and scholars.

• When Durkheim was a student at the Ecole Normale, there was no professorship in sociology in France.

• In 1887, the first chair in social science was created for Durkheim at the University of Bordeaux by the French Government.

• He was later appointed Professor of Sociology at Sorbonne, Paris.

• Durkheim focused on outlining the nature and scope of sociology due to its nascent status.

• He considered social sciences distinct from natural sciences because social sciences study human relationships.

• However, methods from natural sciences could be applied to social sciences.

• Durkheim aimed to distinguish sociology as a social science separate from philosophy and psychology.

• Philosophy deals with ideas and conceptions, while science deals with objective realities.

• Philosophy is the origin from which all sciences have emerged.

• Durkheim in Montesquieu and Rousseau (1892) outlined the general conditions for establishing social science, applicable to sociology.

• Science is not coextensive with human knowledge; not every question can be tested scientifically. Some belong to philosophy or art, not science.

• Science must have a definite field or subject matter, focused on objective realities rather than human will or internal intentions.

• Social science must study external bodies of data like laws, traditions, religion, as they appear in the world.

• Science describes types or classes of subject matter, not individuals, to find general rules and behavioral regularities.

• Social science classifies human societies and describes the normal form of social life for each society type; what is normal is considered healthy.

• The subject matter of social science yields general principles or ‘laws’; without regularities, social science is impossible.

• Durkheim believed in the continuity of natural and social worlds, influenced by Comte, meaning social phenomena are part of nature and interrelated.

• Despite this continuity, the social world is distinctive and autonomous, comparable in status to biological or physical spheres.

• Durkheim opposed reducing society entirely to human volition or will, which belongs to psychology, not social science.

• Social science assumes societies have a nature and structure based on the arrangement of their elements.

• To identify uniformities, types, and laws of society, a scientific method is necessary, using methods valid in natural sciences.

• The criteria for social science set by Durkheim early in his career remained fundamental throughout his life and define sociology as a distinct field.

Sociology as Study of ‘Social Facts’

• Defining the subject matter of sociology involves two tasks: (a) defining the total field of study and (b) defining the type of ‘thing’ found in this field.

• In The Rules of Sociological Method (1895), Durkheim focuses on the second task and identifies social facts as the subject matter of sociology.

• Durkheim defines social facts as “ways of acting, thinking and feeling, external to the individual, and endowed with a power of coercion by reason of which they control him.”

• For Durkheim, society is a reality sui generis, meaning it has a unique, independent existence distinct from individuals.

• Society is formed by the association of individuals, creating a specific reality with its own characteristics, separate from physical or biological sciences.

• This societal reality exists apart from and above individuals and must be the subject matter of sociology.

• A scientific understanding of social phenomena must emerge from the collective or associational characteristics present in a society’s social structure.

• Durkheim developed various sociological concepts to study society; one key concept is collective representations.

• Understanding social facts is essential before learning about collective representations in Durkheim’s social thought.

Social Facts

• Durkheim’s scientific vision of sociology is based on the objective reality of social facts.

• A social fact is a way of acting, thinking, or feeling that is general in a given society.

• Durkheim treated social facts as things that are real and exist independent of individual will or desire.

• Social facts are external to individuals and have the power to exert constraint or coercion upon them.

• Social facts are coercive in nature and exist in their own right, independent of individual manifestations.

• The true nature of social facts lies in their collective or associational characteristics inherent in society.

• Examples of social facts include legal codes, customs, moral rules, religious beliefs and practices, and language.

Types of Social Facts

• Durkheim viewed social facts as existing along a continuum with different types.

• At one extreme are structural or morphological social phenomena, forming the substratum of collective life.

• These include the number and nature of elementary parts of society, their arrangement, and the degree of fusion between them.

• Examples of structural social facts: population distribution, forms of dwellings, nature of communication systems.

• Secondly, there are institutionalised social facts, which are general and widely spread in society, representing the collective nature of society as a whole.

• Institutionalised social facts include legal and moral rules, religious dogma, established beliefs and practices.

• Thirdly, there are non-institutionalised social facts which have not acquired crystallised forms and lie beyond institutionalised norms.

• These are termed social currents, such as sporadic opinions, enthusiasm in crowds, transitory outbreaks, feelings of indignity or pity aroused by incidents.

• All types of social facts together form a continuum constituting the social milieu of society.

• Durkheim distinguished between normal and pathological social facts.

• A social fact is normal if generally encountered in a society at a certain phase of its evolution.

• Deviations from the normal are pathological social facts.

• Example: some crime is normal in every society; an extraordinary increase in crime is pathological.

• Other pathological facts include weakening moral condemnation of crime and economic crises leading to social anarchy.

Main Characteristics of Social Facts

• Durkheim viewed sociology as an objective science that must follow the model of other sciences.

• Sociology’s subject must be specific and distinct from other sciences’ subjects.

• The subject must be observable and explainable, similar to facts in natural sciences.

• For Durkheim, the subject of sociology is social facts, which must be regarded as ‘things’.

• Main characteristics of social facts are:
  (i) Externality — social facts exist outside individual consciences, independent of individuals.
  (ii) Constraint — social facts impose a coercive power on individuals, forcing themselves upon them.
  (iii) Independence — social facts exist independently of individual wills or actions.
  (iv) Generality — social facts have a general occurrence across society.

• Examples of externality: laws, customs, religious beliefs, and language exist prior to and outside individuals.

• Social facts continue regardless of individual births or deaths, e.g., language persists independently of any individual.

• Constraint is shown when institutions like law, education, and beliefs are obligatory and command individuals from outside.

• A social fact is social because its basis is the group as a whole, not any particular individual.

• Social facts are independent of individual characteristics or universal human nature.

• Examples include collective beliefs, feelings, and practices of a group.

• Social facts arise from the association of individuals, representing the collective content of society.

• They differ fundamentally from phenomena in individual consciousness.

• Social facts can be categorized and classified.

• Social facts form the subject matter of sociology as a science.

Externality and Constraint

• Social facts are external to the individual in two related senses.

• First, every individual is born into an already organized society with existing values, norms, beliefs, and practices learned through socialisation.

• These social phenomena exist prior to the individual and have an objective reality, making them external to the individual.

• Second, social facts are external because any individual is just one element in the totality of relationships constituting society.

• These relationships are not created by one individual but arise from multiple interactions between individuals.

• Durkheim compares this to chemical elements combining to produce new phenomena that exist in the whole, not the parts.

• Society, like a living cell composed of atoms, is greater than the sum of its individuals; the whole differs from its parts.

• There is often a difference between individuals and the group, especially in collective demands or behavior.

• Many rules of behavior reside exclusively in society itself, not in its members individually.

• This shows social facts are distinct from individual or psychological facts, justifying the need for sociology as an autonomous discipline separate from psychology.

• The second criterion defining social facts is the moral constraint they impose on individuals.

• When individuals resist social facts, these facts assert themselves through mild ridicule, social isolation, or moral and legal sanctions.

• Most individuals conform because they accept the legitimacy of social facts, not just fear sanctions (Giddens 1971:88).

• Defining social facts in terms of constraint and coercion may shock proponents of absolute individualism.

• Durkheim argues that most ideas and tendencies come from without, imposing themselves on individuals to become part of them.

• Durkheim opposed the utilitarian view that society is held together by individuals pursuing self-interest.

• He believed individual and society interests do not coincide, so society must exercise control or pressure to maintain social order.

• To illustrate coercion, Durkheim notes education’s role in imposing ways of seeing, feeling, and acting that children cannot arrive at spontaneously.

• The aim of education is the socialisation of the human being, with parents and teachers acting as representatives of the social milieu shaping the child.

• Social facts are not defined merely by their universality; a thought repeated by all individuals is not necessarily a social fact.

• What matters are the collective aspects of beliefs, tendencies, and practices that characterize truly social phenomena.

• These social phenomena are transmitted through collective socialisation.

• Social facts are recognizable because they are external to individuals and capable of exercising coercion over them.

• Being external, social facts are general, and being collective, they can be imposed on individuals in society.

The Sociological Method

Rules for the Observation of Social Facts

• Durkheim’s first rule: “consider social facts as things”; social facts are real and should be treated as concrete realities worthy of direct study.

• Other writers often treat social facts as mere concepts or notions, not as empirical realities.

• In all sciences, thought and reflection precede science, but science begins with the empirical method, not just conceptual discussion.

• This is especially important in social science because social facts tend to be seen as either lacking substantive reality (mere creations of individual will) or as already wholly known through vague words like ‘democracy’ or ‘socialism’.

• Such words often evoke confused ideas, vague impressions, prejudices, and emotions rather than clear facts (Durkheim 1950:22).

• To avoid these issues, Durkheim insisted that social facts be treated as ‘things’, studied through the empirical method rather than direct intuition.

• Social facts cannot be modified by a simple effort of will.

• While studying social facts as ‘things’, three rules must be followed for objectivity:
  i) Eradicate all preconceptions; sociologists must free themselves from commonplace ideas and maintain an emotionally neutral attitude towards their investigation.
  ii) Precisely formulate concepts; sociologists often start with little knowledge and must conceptualize subjects based on observable external properties.

  • Example: In Division of Labour, the type of solidarity in society can be inferred by the dominant type of law — repressive or restitutive, criminal or civil.
    iii) Investigate social facts from an aspect independent of individual manifestations; objectivity depends on separating social facts from the individual facts expressing them.

  • Social facts act as a common standard for society members.

  • Examples of social facts include legal rules, moral regulations, proverbs, social conventions, which sociologists must study to understand social life.

• Social facts are seen in “currents of opinion”, which vary by time and place and influence group behaviors like marriages, suicides, birth rates.

• Though these currents seem inseparable from individual cases, statistics help isolate them and represent them accurately via rates of births, marriages, suicides, etc. (Durkheim 1950:7).

• Social currents are theoretical variables, and statistical rates are the means to empirically verify propositions about these variables.

• Since social currents are not directly observable, Durkheim emphasizes introducing ‘devices of method’ for empirical verification.

• The case of suicide rates is Durkheim’s best example of how social facts can be scientifically studied.

Rules for Distinguishing between the Normal and the Pathological

• Durkheim distinguishes between ‘normal’ and ‘pathological’ social facts to advance the scientific study of human behavior.

• Many writers have hindered this study by labeling behaviors different from their own as ‘pathological’.

• A social fact is normal when understood within the context of the society in which it exists.

• A social fact is normal if it is general to a given type of society and has utility for that societal type.

• Example: Crime is commonly viewed as pathological or immoral because it violates shared values.

• Durkheim argues crime is not abnormal because:

  • Crime exists in all societies, regardless of type.

  • Occasional deviance or norm violations allow for social change and provide opportunities for society to reaffirm or modify norms.

• Crime can be useful to the evolution of morality and law.

• Durkheim cites Socrates as an example: though legally a criminal in Athens for his independent thought, his “crime” contributed to a new morality and freedom of thought benefiting humanity.

• Durkheim was influenced by medicine’s scientific study of both normal and pathological states of the body.

• He applied this approach to social facts, studying normal features in the first parts of Division of Labour and abnormal features in the last part.

• He considered crime and punishment as normal social facts.

• A social fact becomes abnormal or pathological when its rate exceeds a more or less constant level for that social type.

• For example, suicide is a normal social fact, though considered immoral by some because it opposes the value of life preservation.

• The sudden rise in suicide rates in 19th-century western Europe concerned Durkheim and motivated his scientific study of the phenomenon.

Rules for the Classification of Social Types

• Two opposing conceptions of collective life exist among scholars:

  • Historians argue each society is unique and cannot be compared.

  • Philosophers believe all societies belong to one human species with general attributes driving social evolution.

• Durkheim takes an intermediary position, introducing the idea of social species or social types.

• Despite diversity in social facts, societies can still be studied scientifically—they can be compared, classified, and explained.

• Viewing all societies as one species overlooks important qualitative differences and makes it impossible to draw meaningful generalizations.

• Classification of societies into types is essential for explaining social phenomena since problems and explanations differ by social type.

• Determining whether a social fact is normal or abnormal depends on its relation to a specific social type.

• Durkheim calls this classification ‘social morphology’.

• A social type consists of common characteristics shared by several units in a group (e.g., bachelors vs. married persons).

• Durkheim showed suicide rates are higher among the ‘bachelors’ type, but this should not be applied to individual cases.

• Each society must be studied completely before comparing to identify similarities and differences and classify them accordingly.

• Durkheim stated, “Is it not the rule in science to rise to the general only after having observed the particular and that too in its entirety?”

• To determine if a fact is general for a species or social type, it is not necessary to observe all societies, a few well-chosen cases suffice.

• According to Durkheim, “Even one well-made observation will be enough in many cases, just as one well-constructed experiment often suffices for the establishment of a law.”

• Societies can be classified by their degree of organization, starting from:

  • Perfectly simple society or society of one segment (e.g., horde).

  • Simple polysegmental societies formed by combining hordes.

  • Polysegmental societies simply compounded formed by combining simple polysegmental societies.

  • More complex polysegmental societies doubly compounded formed by further unions.

• Within these types, varieties exist based on whether there is complete fusion of initial segments or not.

• John Rex critiques Durkheim’s biological approach to classifying societies:

  • Useful in description, classification, and creating average types.

  • Difficulties arise when studying historical processes where ‘species’ are constructed from history, making evolutionary theory less helpful.

Rules for the Explanation of Social Facts

• Two approaches to explain social facts: causal and functional.

• Causal approach explains why a social phenomenon exists.

• Functional approach establishes the correspondence between the social fact and the general needs of the social organism (Durkheim 1950: 95).

• Causes giving rise to a social fact must be identified separately from its functions.

• Normally, causes are established before specifying functions since knowledge of causes can help infer possible functions.

• Though cause and function are separate, they can have a reciprocal relation and study can begin with either.

• Durkheim sometimes starts with functions before causes, e.g., in his study of division of labour.

• Example: Punishment – crime offends collective sentiments; punishment’s function is to maintain these sentiments’ intensity, preserving social unity.

• Functionalism in sociology (especially USA in 1940s-50s) owes much to Durkheim’s conception of function.

• Durkheim emphasizes the method of explanation should fit the nature of social facts—since social facts are collective, explanation must have a social character.

• Society is a separate reality from individuals and has its own characteristics.

• A clear line exists between psychology and sociology; explaining social facts solely via individual psychology is false.

• For causal explanation, the cause must be sought among preceding social facts, not individual consciousness.

• For functional explanation, the function should relate to some social end.

• Durkheim stresses the comparative nature of social science for establishing cause-effect relations.

• To show causation, one must compare cases where both facts are present or absent and observe variations indicating dependence (Durkheim 1950: 125).

• Sociologists usually lack laboratory control, so they use the indirect experiment or comparative method by studying spontaneous social facts.

• Durkheim, following J.S. Mill’s System of Logic, praises the method of concomitant variations as the key tool in sociological research.

• The method does not require excluding all other variables; the parallel occurrence of phenomena in enough cases suggests a possible relationship.

• Validity arises because concomitant variations show causal relationships intrinsically, not by coincidence.

• Constant concomitance is considered a law itself, regardless of other excluded factors.

• When two phenomena vary directly, the relationship must be accepted even if sometimes one appears without the other due to:

  • Presence of a contrary cause preventing effect, or

  • The cause being present in a different form.

• Example: A plant grows straight under direct sunlight, bends under indirect sunlight—demonstrates concomitant variation.

• Concomitant variation should be reexamined but results from a methodical demonstration should not be abandoned hastily.

• Concomitant variation can be applied at various levels: a single society, several societies of the same social type, or several distinct social species.

• To fully explain a social institution of a given social species, one must compare its different forms not only within that type but across all preceding social species.

• For example, explaining the present state of family, marriage, property requires studying their origins and composition in earlier societies, tracking their progressive development.

• Complete explanation involves following the institution’s development through all social species to identify separate elements and conditions of formation.

• The comparative method is the essential framework of social science for Durkheim.

• Comparative sociology is not just a branch of sociology; it is sociology itself when it moves beyond description to account for social facts.

Emile Durkheim – Forms of Social Solidarity

Introduction

• Economic and social solidarity is analysed by Durkheim in The Division of Labour in Society.

• Durkheim aimed to understand the forces that regulate and control social life.

• He established a dichotomy between segmental and complex societies to conceptualise his ideas.

• Questions addressed include the characteristics of these societies and the types of solidarities found in them.

• Durkheim identifies two types of solidarities: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.

• These solidarities are linked to the types of law observed in different social structures.

• Repressive law, which is painful to criminals, is associated with the segmental type of social structure.

• The unit discusses the importance of the collective conscience in the social structure.

• It defines collective conscience and examines its nature.

• The restitutive aspects of law are linked to complex social structures, which make individuals interdependent and unite them in complex societies.

• The content of collective conscience is explored with regard to changed social conditions in complex societies.

Mechanical Solidarity

• Mechanical solidarity is sui generis, meaning it arises naturally based on resemblances of individuals.

• It directly links individuals to society through common experiences shared by similar members.

• Characterised by a segmental system, where every segment is homogenous and fully involved in the social structure.

• Society is divided into small compartments that completely envelop the individual.

• Originally based on clans found in less developed societies, but expanded later on territorial bases beyond consanguinity.

• The segmental social structure has a low degree of interdependence; what happens in one segment rarely affects others.

• It has a relatively low volume and density of moral and material interactions—limited people interact, and interactions happen infrequently.

• People perform similar tasks independently, resulting in limited interdependence and low interaction density.

• The question arises: what customs regulate people in mechanical solidarity? Durkheim answers this with the concept of collective conscience.

• Homogeneity of experience leads to a shared collective conscience of common beliefs and practices.

• Social life in such societies is blended with religion and economic institutions, resembling primitive communism with few differentiations.

• Most property is common, experiences are similar, and rules and regulations relate to common life.

• Customs and laws protect the group, its property, and its sentiments.

• The nature of laws is collective, with wrong-doers punished by the entire collectivity.

• Penal or repressive law is a key indicator of mechanical solidarity.

• The strength of legal sanctions is directly proportional to the number of social bonds regulated by the collective conscience.

• Punishment serves dual purposes: it is given to the individual wrong-doer and also strengthens the beliefs and values of society.

• Any wrongdoing injures group sentiments, and punishment restores the authority of the collective.

• If individuals in a society or sect are less dependent, more autonomous, and have less communication density and volume, it raises the question of how collective conscience or social control can develop across individuals or groups.

Concept of Collective Conscience

• Collective conscience under mechanical solidarity is defined by Durkheim as a set of beliefs and customs common on average in a society.

• These beliefs and customs form a determinate system with its own life-style.

• Collective conscience exists in a general form throughout society.

• It is possible to differentiate between the form of collective conscience and its content.

• The form relates to the general characteristics of collective conscience.

• The content refers to the specific beliefs and customs held within the society.

Collective Conscience: On the Basis of Forms

• Durkheim states that the strength of social bonds in mechanical solidarity depends on three variables:
  i) The relation between the volume of collective conscience and the individual’s conscience
  ii) The average intensity of the stages of collective conscience
  iii) The greater or lesser firmness of all those stages

• The more beliefs and sanctions present in society, the less freedom an individual has.

• In societies with strong mechanical solidarity, there is a strong and extensive collective conscience.

• This collective conscience creates harmonious relationships extensively among people’s activities.

• It becomes difficult to distinguish between the individual’s conscience and the collective conscience.

• Therefore, collective authority becomes the mode of totality, either involving the whole community or embodied by the chief of the community.

Collective Conscience: On the Basis of Contents

• The content of collective conscience is rooted in the totality of society.

• Society is controlled by common beliefs and sanctions unanimously accepted by its members.

• In ancient times, religious elements permeated every aspect of society; the terms religious and social were synonymous in simple societies.

• The source of superhuman features was deeply embedded in the constitution of the collective conscience.

• The collective and social characteristics of conscience were seen as transcendental values.

• These societal conditions elevated people beyond their individual conscience.

• The stages of collective conscience were closely linked to traditional (local) conditions, connecting individuals to racial and powerful objects in the universe such as animals, trees, sun, moon, clouds, and other natural forces.

• People have historically linked themselves to such natural and cosmic objects, which affect every conscience uniformly.

• The fusion of individual conscience with the collective reflects its form and object.

• Thus, collective conscience acquires specific features that vary across different simple societies.

Organic Solidarity

• Division of labour is an essential condition of organic solidarity according to Durkheim.

• Organic solidarity gradually replaces solidarity based on social likeness (mechanical solidarity).

• In organic solidarity, the individual depends on different parts of society.

• Society is viewed as an arrangement of different and specific functions mutually linked by social bonds.

• Differences among individuals become visible as each person has a specific field of activity.

• Individuals confine themselves to their own area of work or function.

• The individual’s conscience is distinct from the collective conscience in organic solidarity.

New Forms of Collective Conscience in Organic Solidarity

• Even simple societies can be well organised where organic solidarity is greater

• In such societies, the social structure has features opposite to the segmental social structure

• Organised social structure is characterised by a system of different organs, each with a specific role

• These organs are formed by different components that are coordinated and subordinated around a single central organ

• The central organ influences the rest of the organism within reasonable limits

• Organised social structure leads to the fusion of segments completely

• This fusion causes an individual’s sphere of interaction to extend

• As this process continues, the social structure increases in numerical strength and its impact spreads beyond local boundaries

• Fusion of segments results in the fusion of markets, creating a single market (city)

• The society begins to resemble a large city, embracing the entire population within its boundary

• Individuals are no longer grouped by lineage but by their specified activities

• Social conditions and the nature of work bring individuals out of their birthplace to their place of work

• Organised social structure is characterised by a high degree of interdependence

• Industrialisation progress corresponds to the division of labour, which determines the concentration of social mass

• Changes at one place are rapidly transmitted to other places

• Hence, state/legal sanctions become necessary

• Organised social structure has relatively high volume (material and moral density)

• As societies advance, they become more voluminous, and work becomes more divided

• Population becomes more concentrated with overall advancement

• When social norms correspond to organic solidarity, the division of labour gives rise to legal rules

• These legal rules determine the nature and relations of specialised functions

• Any violation of these rules is dealt with through restitutive measures

• Law with restitutive or cooperative sanctions acts as an index of organic solidarity

• This index includes civil, commercial, procedural, administrative, and constitutional laws, derived from less-advanced societies’ penal rules

• A correlation exists between penal law and mechanical solidarity, similar to the correlation between cooperative law and organic solidarity

• The extent of cooperative law is proportional to the part of social life consisting of bonds engendered by division of labour

• Interdependent relations regulated by customs based on similarity of work can be reasonably neglected here

• Both legal and customary rules are essential for the existence of organic solidarity

• For organic solidarity, different parts must cooperate in a determined way, at least under predetermined conditions

• The contract is not self-sufficient but presupposes a set of extensive and complicated regulations matching the contracted aspects

On the Basis of Forms

• The question arises about the form of collective conscience under organic solidarity

• Considering the volume, intensity, and determinateness of collective conscience, Durkheim discusses its forms when volume remains constant or diminishes

• Meanwhile, the intensity and determinateness decline

• Advancement of society and progressive division of labour lead to a decline in the intensity and determinateness of collective states

• The collective conscience has less strength to guide individuals in collective directions

• As rules of conduct derived from collective conscience become more indeterminate,

• The individual gains more chances for self-reflection

• This increase in self-reflection provides greater opportunity for self-freedom

On the Basis of Contents

• The content of collective conscience gradually becomes human-oriented, secular, and rational

• These social conditions weaken the values of collective curiosity in society

• The religious domain contracts significantly

• The strong domain of collective religious beliefs and sentiments decreases with the rise of scientific procedures

• The transcendental characters of society, once superior to human interests, begin losing their lustre

• Durkheim views the features of collective conscience in the system of beliefs

• In advanced societies, the supreme values bring both dignity to the individual and equality of opportunity

• This concept is explained in Durkheim’s work Ethic and Social Justice

Max Weber – Philosophical Foundation

Biographical Sketch of Max Weber

• Max Weber was born on 21st April 1864 in Erfurt, Thuringa, Germany in a prosperous Protestant household

• His father was a politician and part of the political establishment, living a luxurious lifestyle

• His mother, Helene, was deeply religious with values opposing those of her husband

• Weber’s parents had a strained marital relationship which impacted their children, including Max, causing him psychological distress due to divided loyalties

• Weber was a brilliant student, studied at the University of Heidelberg, then read economic and legal history at the University of Berlin, where he later taught jurisprudence

• His PhD thesis was on the History of Commercial Societies in the Middle Ages

• His post-doctoral study focused on Roman Agrarian History

• Married Marianne Schnitger, a distant cousin

• Became a Professor in the German University system in his early thirties

• Known for his academic brilliance and famous 1895 lecture, the Freiburg address on National State and Economic Policy

• Personal life crisis due to conflict with his father, whose sudden death after an argument caused Weber deep distress

• Weber blamed himself for his father’s death and suffered from intense guilt

• Experienced several mental breakdowns and resigned from his professorship at the University of Heidelberg

• Resumed scholarly work in 1903 but did not return to teaching for several years

• Despite personal challenges, produced major scholarly works on religious ideas and economic/social change, modernity and rationality, power and authority, and state control

• In 1904, published essays on social and economic issues, objectivity in social sciences, and the first section of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (published in 1905)

• Visited America in 1905, which deeply influenced his understanding of capitalist economy and political organisation

• Later works include studies on the religions of China (Confucianism, Taoism, 1915) and India (Hinduism, Buddhism) and ancient Judaism (1916-17)

• In 1919, delivered the important lecture Science as a Vocation and Politics as a Vocation at the University of Berlin during a period of political upheaval in Germany

• Worked extensively on Economy and Society, which remained incomplete and was published posthumously

• According to Poggi (2006), his major contributions include:
  • Writings on economic history
  • Empirical studies on rural workers, industrial work conditions, German stock market
  • Studies on cultural sciences and their methodology
  • Sociology of religion, including Calvinism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, ancient Judaism
  • General sociology focusing on the relationship between economic, religious, juridical, and political systems

• Died in 1920 at the age of 56 due to pneumonia.

Socio-Historical Background

• Weber was a public intellectual actively involved in the political sphere.

• He was a nationalist and volunteered for military service during the First World War at the age of fifty.

• Despite volunteering, he was deeply critical of the German leadership and their war policies.

• Weber advocated for an overhaul of the political system, which made him unpopular with the ruling authorities.

• After Germany’s defeat in World War I (1918), he called for sobriety in politics.

• He helped in drafting a new constitution and in founding the German Democratic Party.

• Weber often supported social and political causes that were unpopular or non-mainstream, leading to suspicion from the political elites.

• He engaged with almost all contemporary issues and debates of his time.

• His work reflects the major societal and historical shifts during the period.

• Weber’s ideas present a contrast to Karl Marx’s materialist conception of history based on economic determinism.

• Unlike Marx, Weber emphasized the fundamental role of values and belief systems in shaping material existence.

• He provided a corrective to the Marxian model by highlighting the influence of values and ideas on history and society.

Intellectual Influences

Debate between Natural and Social Sciences and the Subject Matter of Sociology

• Germany in the late 19th century had an outstanding system of higher education and the highest standards of research in both natural sciences (physics, chemistry, physiology) and disciplines like philosophy, law, theology, and history.

• The Natural Sciences (Naturwissenschaften) focused on accurate predictions and generalizations based on empirical observations, considered as ‘exact’ sciences.

• These were contrasted with Geisteswissenschaften or Kulturwissenschaften, sciences concerned with human culture and behavior or human history and culture.

• The positivist worldview, prevalent in England and France, held that the study of social or cultural phenomena should follow the principles of Natural Sciences.

• Many German scholars rejected positivism, emphasizing the contextual and historically specific nature of social phenomena that differ across time, space, and circumstances.

• For example, British/Austrian scholars used deductive reasoning with the concept of rational ‘economic man’ maximizing utility regardless of historical or moral context.

• German ‘historical school’ economists used inductive methods, studying social, political, and other circumstances and the meanings actors gave to their activities in specific times and places.

• This resulted in a lively debate among German scholars about the appropriate method for studying social and cultural phenomena and the importance of the researcher’s values and preferences.

• Weber played a key role in these debates, rejecting positivism that natural and social sciences share the same cognitive aims.

• He also challenged the historicist view that it is impossible to generalize or predict about human activity because it is unlike natural laws.

• Weber argued that scientific method involves abstraction and generalization, but understanding human action requires grasping motivations, which are not directly observable.

• He proposed a methodology enabling social scientists to understand social reality from the perspective of social actors and the larger societal processes.

• Weber emphasized the importance of value judgments in conducting sociological research, a significant methodological and philosophical contribution.

• Weber aimed to establish sociology on a foundation that balanced individuality and generality in understanding human behavior.

• Influenced by the German idealist tradition and Immanuel Kant, Weber distinguished between the biological/physical and spiritual/idealistic dimensions of human existence.

• As free subjects, humans can participate in the domain of ideas, exercising choice and agency, making natural science methods inappropriate for studying society.

• To understand human beings, their culture and history, an empathetic understanding of motivations and cultural patterns was essential.

• Philosophers Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, and Wilhelm Dilthey greatly influenced Weber.

• Windelband differentiated between nomothetic (universal laws in natural sciences) and idiographic (particularistic understanding in cultural sciences) approaches.

• Dilthey argued that studying human society requires understanding it from the inside through experience and subjective understanding, not just as an external natural phenomenon.

• Social scientists must empathize by putting themselves in the shoes of the subject to relive experiences and understand them empathetically.

• Weber’s concept of Verstehen or ‘empathetic understanding’ was inspired by Dilthey but seen as only the first step in sociological analysis.

• This was to be followed by a causal explanation, closer to the positivist and empirical tradition of natural sciences.

Causality and Probability

• There is a misunderstanding that Weber rejected causality due to the German idealistic tradition, but he firmly believed in both historical and sociological causality.

• Because social reality is complex, Weber uses the concept of ‘probability’ instead of absolute causality.

• Probability means that in a given social situation, people are likely to respond in certain ways governed by social norms, but exceptions may occur due to unique circumstances.

• Weber distinguishes between historical causality (unique causes of a particular event) and sociological probability (connections or relationships between phenomena).

• Establishing causality requires ‘mental experiments’ to test if an event would have occurred without a supposed cause.

• Example: The use of animal fat cartridges in the British army was linked to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857; mental experiments assess if the revolt would have happened without this issue.

• If the revolt would have happened anyway due to deep dissatisfaction, the cartridges can be ruled out as the sole cause.

• Weber’s probabilistic framework for sociological causality is exemplified in his Protestant Ethic thesis, proposing that a personality type shaped by Protestantism was probably necessary for capitalism’s emergence.

• The Protestant ethic is one cause among many, not the sole cause of capitalism.

• Weber sought to reconcile subjective, interpretative understanding of social phenomena with a rigorous scientific method based on causal analysis.

• In Economy and Society, Weber defines Sociology as a science aiming to understand social behavior clearly and provide a causal explanation of its course and results.

• Sociology must conduct empirical analysis but use methods different from natural sciences.

• Sociological analysis must study social action within social interaction, and be interpretive, not treating people as mere objects driven by impersonal forces.

• Understanding human actions requires engaging with the values and beliefs underlying behavior in society.

• The researcher’s own personal beliefs, orientations, and values influence their interpretation of reality, which Weber does not see as a disadvantage.

• Social science research can reveal not only external events but also deeper motives, values, and orientations influencing those events.

• Poggi (2006) illustrates this with a person chopping wood: externally an objective act, but underlying motives could be preparing fuel, keeping fit, or expressing anger.

• Weber significantly contributed to the ‘hermeneutic’ tradition in social science, emphasizing individual subjectivity as the starting point of social relationships and processes.

Objectivity and Values in Social Sciences

• Weber asserted there is no ‘objective’ science of society, unlike earlier founders of Sociology.

• A key concern for Weber was the relationship between science and human action.

• While emphasizing the importance of values in understanding social behavior, Weber insisted that the personal evaluations of the sociologist must be separate from the analysis.

• He distinguished between ‘value relevance’ (selecting research problems based on interest or values) and ‘value neutrality’ (conducting inquiry strictly according to scientific principles).

• Even if a researcher’s value orientations influence the choice of topic, the process of inquiry must remain value-neutral.

• Researchers cannot manipulate or twist findings to fit their own ideology or value system.

• Value neutrality underscores the distinction between ‘facts’ and ‘values’.

• Weber believed that empirical science cannot advise people on what they should do, but it can clarify what they can or want to do.

• The role of the scientist is not to engage in moral debates or act as prophets or sages, but to illuminate facts and their interrelationships.

Central Ideas

Ideal Types

• Weber stressed the importance of separating ‘value judgments’ from ‘judgements of fact’ through rigorous examination of factual data.

• He emphasized the development of clearly defined concepts to understand different configurations of a social phenomenon under specific circumstances.

• This approach led to his formulation of the ‘ideal type’, a key methodological tool.

• The ideal type is a model or construct of reality created by abstracting the most prominent features of a phenomenon.

• It serves as a measuring rod to compare the ‘real’ with the ‘ideal’.

• The ideal type enables researchers to construct hypotheses linking the model to the conditions that lead to the prominence of a phenomenon or its consequences.

• For example, studying parliamentary democracy involves constructing an ideal type by abstracting its key features.

• Comparing the empirical reality with this ideal type helps to understand the historical reasons for its emergence and how it functions in a specific socio-historical context.

Social Action

• Max Weber conceived sociology as a comprehensive science of social action, focusing on the subjective meanings individuals attach to their actions within specific social-historical contexts.

• He diverged from thinkers like Marx and Durkheim, who emphasized social structure over individual action in shaping human behavior.

• Weber emphasized the role of values and culture in orienting human behavior, unlike Marx who prioritized the material world over ideas.

• Durkheim focused on social facts with exteriority and constraint, while Weber focused on individuals and their actions.

• Durkheim concerned himself with institutional arrangements maintaining social cohesion; Marx focused on class struggles and changing economic structures.

• Weber’s primary focus was on the subjective meanings attached by actors to their actions in mutual orientations within historical contexts.

• Weber identified four major kinds of social action:

  • Traditional action based on societal values and customs

  • Affective/emotive action based on individual emotional states

  • Value-oriented rational action, pursuing values or goals that may not be ‘rational’ (e.g., spiritual goals through prayer or meditation)

  • Goal-oriented rational action, where goals and means are rationally chosen (e.g., an engineer using efficient means), considered characteristic of modern Western society

• Weber argued that goal-oriented rational action distinguished modern Western societies from non-Western ones.

• Unlike Marx and Durkheim who explained historical change through structural change, Weber emphasized human action and the acting individual as the basic unit of analysis.

• His interpretative sociology views the individual and their actions as the only carriers of meaningful conduct.

• Weber used his typology of social action to understand social change and was concerned with problems of modern civilization.

• He believed the shift from traditional to rational action was crucial for the development of rational economic systems like capitalism.

• This theme is explored in his work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

• Weber developed a typology of authority:

  • Charismatic authority based on leaders’ special qualities or charisma

  • Traditional authority based on belief in traditions, typical of pre-modern societies

  • Rational-legal authority, predominant in modern societies, based on modern government systems and bureaucratic administration.

Rationality

• Many scholars consider rationality and rationalisation as central themes in Weber’s work.

• By rationality, Weber meant logical and coherent ideas and behavior governing human activity.

• Rationalisation is the process by which rationality extends to various aspects of life.

• According to Weber, the spread of rational action and rationalisation under modernity led to the ‘disenchantment’ of the world.

• Life becomes so predictable and regulated that it loses its charm.

• Coser (1977) notes that modernity has been deserted by the gods, as man has rationalized and made life calculable and predictable, replacing chance, feeling, passion, personal appeal, and charisma.

• Weber illustrated this through his studies of various social institutions, such as the rationalisation of religious life.

• He also studied rationalisation in law, political authority, and music, noting that Western classical music is marked by strict rules and standardized procedures, unlike more spontaneous musical traditions in Asia and Africa.

• Weber envisioned a future world so highly regulated and rationalised that people would become prisoners of their own creation, trapped in an “iron cage”.

• The iron cage of bureaucracy restricts human freedom and possibilities due to its bureaucratic rationality.

• Key principles of modern bureaucracy include:

  • A hierarchical system of roles

  • High specialisation and compartmentalisation of knowledge

  • Merit-based employment governed by rules and regulations

  • A rational-legal authority structure

• This bureaucratic system gains a life and legitimacy of its own, becoming unquestionable by the people it serves.

• Consequently, bureaucracy becomes constraining and limiting, crushing individual autonomy and freedom rather than empowering individuals.

• Weber’s pessimistic vision of modern society remains a relevant topic for discussion, especially considering contemporary experiences in modern states.

Religion and Economy

• At first glance, the connection between religion and economy may seem unclear or nonexistent.

• Weber, however, argued that religious beliefs and values significantly influence economic activities.

• While Marx provided a systematic model of capitalism focusing mainly on economic factors, Weber offered a broader analysis including economic, political, and cultural factors.

• Weber emphasized the role of cultural factors such as values, ideas, and religious beliefs in shaping human thought and actions related to economic activities.

• Unlike Marx’s focus on material and technological factors, Weber explored the realm of ideas that motivate human behavior.

• After studying the growth of capitalism in the West, Weber hypothesized that the ‘Protestant ethic’ played a key role in breaking traditional mindsets and encouraging a new mode of working and wealth accumulation.

• The Protestant ethic is based on the belief that the ultimate goal of life is salvation.

• To achieve salvation, one must practice rigorous self-control and lead a frugal life.

• Followers of Protestant ethics are characterized by being hardworking, having a strong sense of responsibility, self-discipline, and forgoing luxury and enjoyment.

• Several Protestant sects emerged in Europe, including Calvinism.

• Calvinism stressed that people should work hard and generate profit, but prohibited spending profits on worldly pleasures and luxuries.

• Instead, profits were to be reinvested to generate more wealth.

• This practice promoted the development of rational capitalism.

Max Weber – Social Action and Ideal Types

Social Action

• According to Mitchell (1968: 2), social action denotes social behaviour.

• The concept of social action is used by both social psychologists and sociologists.

• Many social scientists regard social action as the proper unit of observation in the social sciences.

• Action is considered social when the actor behaves with the intention to influence the actions of one or more other persons.

• In sociology, Max Weber was the first to explicitly use and emphasize social action as the foundation for sociological theory.

Role of Values and Beliefs

• According to Max Weber (1964: 128-129), sociology is a science that attempts the interpretative understanding of social action to arrive at a causal explanation of its causes and effects.

• Important elements of social action:
  i) Includes all human behaviour.
  ii) Attaches a subjective meaning to the behaviour.
  iii) The acting individual(s) take into account the behaviour of others.
  iv) Social action is oriented in its course.

• Weber aimed to develop social theory from the point of view of the social actor.

• Weber’s theory differs from Marx’s:

  • Marx sees motivation as expression of human-beingness through productive activity and the desire to survive and prosper.

  • Weber argues social action provides opportunities for actors to live out their values and beliefs.

• Social actors act to survive, but also influenced by esoteric and abstract aspects like values and beliefs.

• Shared religious or spiritual beliefs can shape how a group manages survival; even the concept of survival can include spiritual well-being.

• A social theory explaining social action must consider needs and desires beyond basic economic ones.

• Weber’s theory centers on the rationality expressed by different types of action.

• Individuals immersed in a rationalised social world are influenced by this in their actions.

• Actions are distinguished based on the kind of rationality the actor tries to express.

• In modern society, the predominant guiding rationality for social action is instrumental rationality.

• Acting in a modern way means acting according to the principles of instrumental rationality.

Types of Social Action

• Weber identified four types of social actions, classified by their modes of orientation.

• i) Zweckrational (rational action in relation to a goal):

  • Action focused on means to achieve a specific goal or rationally closed ends.

  • Example: An engineer constructing a bridge uses materials and methods aimed at completing the bridge.

• ii) Wertrational (rational action with reference to a value):

  • Action directed by rational orientation to absolute values like duty, honour, or devotion.

  • Example: A soldier laying down his life for the country, motivated by values such as honour and patriotism, not material goals.

• iii) Traditional Action:

  • Action influenced by longstanding customs, habits, and practices.

  • Guided by customs that become second nature.

  • Example: Greeting elders with folded hands in India.

• iv) Affective Action:

  • Action driven by emotional states or feelings of the actor.

  • Classified by affectual orientation or specific emotional conditions.

• In reality, social actions are often a mixture of these four pure types.

• For analysis, these are separated into ideal types to help understand and interpret actions.

• Rational ideal types assist in measuring irrational deviations and understanding which type an empirical action approximates most closely.

Ideal Types

Meaning

• The term ‘ideal type’ has a distinctive meaning for Max Weber with specific principles for its construction.

• ‘Ideal’ (New Webster’s Dictionary 1985) means a conception or standard of something in its highest perfection, a mental image or model, not a material object.

• ‘Type’ means a kind, class, or group distinguished by particular characteristics.

• Generally, ideal type is conceptualized as a category or group of things or persons that exemplify the best example of a particular character.

• For Weber, ideal type is a mental construct or model used to analyze and understand social reality.

• It is a methodological tool designed to scrutinize and systematically characterize concrete social situations.

• Methodology refers to the conceptual and logical research procedures to develop knowledge.

• Weber focused on the problem of objectivity in social sciences and used ideal types to study social reality objectively.

• The ideal type examines, classifies, systematizes, and defines social reality without subjective bias.

• It is value-free and serves as a tool for classification and comparison.

• Weber said, “The ideal typical concept… is not a description of reality but aims to give unambiguous means of expression to such a description” (1971:63).

• Ideal types are concepts formulated based on carefully collected and analyzed facts for empirical research.

• They act as methodological devices to help in the understanding and analysis of social problems.

• The passage ends with an introduction to how ideal types are constructed according to Weber.

Construction

• Ideal types are formulated by abstraction and combination of many elements that exist in reality but rarely appear together in a specific form.

• Weber does not claim to create a new conceptual method but makes explicit what is already done in practice.

• For constructing ideal types, the sociologist selects certain traits from the whole, which is otherwise confusing, to form an intelligible entity.

• Example: To study democracy in India, one first defines democracy by its essential and typical characteristics.

• Essential characteristics of democracy include multi-party system, universal adult franchise, government formed by people’s representatives, people’s participation in decision-making, equality before law, respect for majority verdict, and respect for differing views.

• This formulation of a pure or ideal type concept of democracy guides analysis and helps identify deviations or conformity to reveal reality.

• Ideal types focus on typical and essential characteristics, not common or average ones.

• In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber analyzes the ‘Calvinist Ethic’ by selecting characteristics from historical writings important for the capitalist spirit.

• Ideal types are a selection of distinctive and relevant elements or traits related to the study.

• Though based on real facts, ideal types do not represent total reality but are pure logical constructs.

• Weber states that ideal types cannot be found empirically in pure form anywhere in reality.

• This is how ideal types are constructed — as conceptual tools for analysis.

Characteristics

• Ideal types are not general or average types; they are formulated based on certain typical traits essential to constructing the concept.

• Ideal types do not present total reality and provide only a partial conception of the whole.

• Ideal types are neither a description of a definite reality nor a hypothesis, but they assist in both description and explanation.

• They differ from descriptive concepts; a descriptive concept can be transformed into an ideal type by abstraction and recombination of elements when the goal is to explain or analyze rather than merely describe.

• Ideal types are related to the analytic conception of causality, but not in deterministic terms.

• They help in formulating general propositions and are useful in comparative analysis.

• Ideal types guide empirical research and aid in the systematization of data on historical and social reality.

Purpose and Use of Ideal Types

• Ideal types are constructed to facilitate analysis of empirical questions.

• Many researchers use concepts imprecisely or ambiguously; Weber notes that language often contains ambiguous constructs created to meet unconscious needs for expression but without clear thought.

• Social scientists must make the subject matter intelligible by avoiding confusion and obscurity.

• Weber distinguishes three types of authority: rational-legal, traditional, and charismatic, each defined by the motivation of obedience or the nature of legitimacy claimed by the leader.

• Reality presents a mixture or confusion of these ideal types, so each must be rigorously defined for clarity in analysis.

• Ideal types are not purely conceptual but are created, modified, and sharpened through empirical analysis of concrete problems, increasing analytical precision.

• Ideal types serve as a methodological device that helps in the analysis of empirical questions, avoids obscurity and ambiguity, and increases accuracy in analysis.

• Weber used ideal types to understand historical configurations and specific historical problems by constructing models to analyze how events occurred and how different antecedents might have changed outcomes.

• Example: Implementation of land reform laws, education, and modern occupations led to the breakdown of the joint family system in rural India, showing a causal relation between events and social situations.

• Ideal types also help in causal explanation but Weber rejects deterministic causality; causal relations are partial and probable, not absolute or specific.

• Example: Whereas some Marxists claim private ownership inevitably leads to political power concentration, Weber views economic regimes as making certain political organizations more probable, not inevitable.

• Weber’s causal analysis relates to his interest in worldwide comparisons and in establishing general propositions through historical and sociological analysis.

• Ideal types help build conceptions of particular historical cases and serve as tools for comparative analysis.

• Weber’s conception of ideal types shows the interdependence of history and sociology.

• Beyond historical cases, Weber used ideal types to analyze abstract elements of social reality and explain particular kinds of social behavior.

Ideal Types in Weber’s Work

• Weber used ideal types in three distinctive ways, distinguished by three levels of abstraction.

• The first kind of ideal types is rooted in historical particularities, such as the Western city or the Protestant ethic.

• These ideal types refer to phenomena that appear only in specific historical periods and particular cultural areas.

• The second kind relates to abstract elements of social reality, for example, bureaucracy or feudalism.

• These elements are found in various historical and cultural contexts, making them more general.

• The third kind of ideal type relates to the reconstruction of a particular kind of behaviour.

• The passage references Coser for this classification.

• Each kind of ideal type serves different purposes and will be discussed in detail in the following subsections.

Ideal Types of Historical Particulars

• According to Weber, capitalism has been fully realised in modern Western societies.

• Weber constructs an ideal type of capitalism by selecting certain traits from the historical whole to create an intelligible entity.

• He aimed to show a spiritual affinity between Calvinism and the economic ethics of modern capitalist activity.

• Weber identified specific components of Calvinist doctrine important in the formation of the capitalist spirit.

• The essence of capitalism is an enterprise aiming to make maximum profit or accumulate more and more.

• This is based on the rational organisation of work and production.

• The unique feature of Western capitalism is the conjunction of desire for profit and rational discipline.

• The desire for profit is satisfied not by speculation, conquest, or adventure, but through discipline and rationality.

• This is enabled by the legal administration of the modern state or rational bureaucracy.

• Capitalism is defined as an enterprise working towards unlimited accumulation of profit and functioning according to bureaucratic rationality.

• Weber argued there is a close affinity between this economic activity and elements of Calvinist doctrine.

• According to Calvinist ethic, God is all-powerful and above common man; man must work for God’s glory on earth through hard work and rational labour.

• The individual’s calling is to fulfill duty to God through moral conduct in daily life, regardless of wealth status.

• For Calvinists, work is worship; idleness and laziness have no place.

• This belief explains the relation between Calvinist doctrine and the spirit of capitalism, characterized by devotion to earning wealth through legitimate economic activity.

• The capitalist spirit is rooted in the value of efficient performance in one’s vocation as a duty and virtue.

• The affinity and emergence of the capitalist economic regime as defined by Weber existed only in the West, making it a historically unique phenomenon.

• In Calvinist ethic, religious and economic activities are combined uniquely, unlike Catholicism or other world religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Confucianism, Judaism, and Buddhism, which Weber comparatively analyzed.

Abstract Elements of Social Reality

• These elements of social reality (bureaucracy, types of authority, types of action) are found in a variety of historical and cultural contexts.

• Bureaucracy is considered by Weber as the best administrative form for the rational and efficient pursuit of organisational goals.

• Bureaucracy means rule by departmental or administrative officials following inflexible procedures.

• Weber emphasized the indispensability of bureaucracy for the rational attainment of goals in industrial society.

• Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy includes:

  • (a) High degree of specialisation and a clearly-defined division of labour with tasks as official duties.

  • (b) Hierarchical authority structure with clearly circumscribed command and responsibility.

  • (c) Formal body of rules governing organisation operation and administration based on written documents.

  • (d) Impersonal relationships between organisational members and clients.

  • (e) Recruitment based on ability and technical knowledge.

  • (f) Long-term employment, promotion based on seniority and merit.

  • (g) Fixed salary and separation of private and official income.

• Though developed bureaucracies existed before modern capitalism, organisations approximating this ideal typical form exist only within modern capitalism.

• Weber used these abstract elements of bureaucracy to explain concrete phenomena.

• To understand authority, Weber constructed ideal types of authority: traditional, rational, and charismatic.

• Traditional authority is based on belief in the sanctity of age-old customs and rules.

• Rational authority is maintained by laws, decrees, and regulations.

• Charismatic authority is characterized by exceptional virtue attributed to the leader, who is followed with confidence and devotion by followers.

Reconstruction of a Particular Kind of Behaviour

• This ideal type includes elements that constitute rationalising reconstructions of a particular kind of behaviour.

• According to Weber, all propositions in economic theory are merely ideal typical reconstructions of how people would behave as pure economic subjects.

• Examples include laws of supply and demand, marginal utilities, etc.

• The supply of a commodity in the market governs prices in relation to demand.

• The utility of a commodity for consumption varies depending on the units available for consumption.

• Economic theory rigorously conceives economic behaviour as consistent with its essence.

Max Weber – Power and Authority

Power

• In ordinary usage, power means strength or the capacity to control.

• Sociologists define power as the ability of an individual or group to fulfil desires and implement decisions and ideas.

• Power involves the ability to influence and/or control the behaviour of others even against their will.

• For Max Weber, power is an aspect of social relationships referring to the possibility of imposing one’s will upon another person’s behaviour.

• Power exists in social interaction and creates situations of inequality because the powerful impose their will on others.

• The impact of power varies depending on the capacity of the powerful individual and the extent of resistance from others.

• Power can be exercised in all walks of life, not just politics or battlefield.

• Examples include the marketplace, lecture platforms, social gatherings, sports, scientific discussions, and charity.

• Giving alms or ‘daan’ is a subtle way of exercising superior economic power, affecting the beggar’s emotions positively or negatively.

• Weber identifies two contrasting sources of power:
  a) Power from a constellation of interests in a formally free market, e.g., sugar producers controlling supply to maximize profit.
  b) Power from an established system of authority, e.g., army officers command soldiers who must obey.

• Discussions of power lead to the question of its legitimacy.

• According to Weber, legitimacy constitutes the core point of authority.

Authority

• The German word “Herrschaft”, used by Weber, has been translated variously as authority, domination, or command.

• Herrschaft describes a situation where a ‘Herr’ or master dominates or commands others.

• Raymond Aron defines Herrschaft as the master’s ability to obtain obedience from those who theoretically owe it to him.

• In this context, Weber’s concept of Herrschaft denotes the term “authority”.

• The difference between power and authority is that power is the ability or capacity to control another, whereas authority is legitimised power.

• Authority means the master has the right to command and can expect to be obeyed.

Elements of Authority

• For a system of authority to exist, the following elements must be present:

• (i) An individual ruler/master or a group of rulers/masters.

• (ii) An individual or group that is ruled.

• (iii) The will of the ruler to influence the conduct of the ruled, often expressed through commands.

• (iv) Evidence of the ruler’s influence shown by compliance or obedience from the ruled.

• (v) Direct or indirect evidence that the ruled have internalised and accepted the fact that the ruler’s commands must be obeyed.

• Authority implies a reciprocal relationship between rulers and ruled.

• The rulers believe they have the legitimate right to exercise authority.

• The ruled accept this power and comply with it, thereby reinforcing its legitimacy.

Types of Authority

• Authority implies legitimacy according to Weber.

• There are three systems of legitimation that justify the power to command.

• These systems correspond to three types of authority:

• (i) Traditional authority

• (ii) Charismatic authority

• (iii) Rational-legal authority

Traditional Authority

• This system of legitimation flows from traditional action and is based on customary law and the sanctity of ancient traditions.

• Authority is respected because it has existed since time immemorial.

• In traditional authority, rulers have personal authority by virtue of their inherited status.

• Their commands align with customs and they have the right to extract compliance from the ruled.

• Those who obey are ‘subjects’ who obey out of personal loyalty or pious regard for the ruler’s time-honoured status.

• Example: In the Indian caste system, the ‘lower’ castes accepted oppression because authority of the ‘upper’ castes was backed by tradition and antiquity.

• Traditional authority is based on belief in the sacred quality of long-standing traditions, giving legitimacy to those in power.

• It does not function through written rules or laws but is transmitted by inheritance across generations.

• Carried out with the help of relatives and personal favourites.

• In modern times, traditional authority has declined; monarchy remains a classic but diluted example.

• Example: The Queen of England is a traditional figurehead but does not exercise real authority; laws are enacted by the parliament.

• Traditional authority is hereditary, does not require written rules, and is exercised through loyal relatives and friends.

• Weber considers traditional authority as irrational and rarely found in modern developed societies.

Charismatic Authority

• Charisma means an extraordinary quality possessed by some individuals that gives them unique power to capture the devotion of ordinary people.

• Charismatic authority is based on extraordinary devotion to an individual and the way of life they preach.

• Its legitimacy rests on belief in the leader’s supernatural or magical powers.

• The charismatic leader ‘proves’ power through miracles, military victories, or dramatic prosperity of followers.

• As long as leaders continue to ‘prove’ their powers, their authority remains intact.

• This authority is related to affective action, where followers are in a highly emotional state and worship the leader.

• Charismatic authority is not dependent on customs or written rules but on the personal qualities of the leader.

• It is not organized: no paid staff or formal administration, and leaders often reject family responsibilities.

• Charismatic leaders are sometimes revolutionaries as they reject conventional social norms.

• The problem of succession arises after the leader’s death or disappearance since the successor may lack charisma.

• To preserve the leader’s message, organization develops, and charisma transforms into either traditional authority or rational-legal authority—called the routinisation of charisma by Weber.

• Succession by a relative leads to traditional authority; codifying charismatic qualities leads to rational-legal authority where anyone with those qualities can lead.

• Charismatic authority is unstable and temporary.

• Examples include saints, prophets, and political leaders like Kabir, Nanak, Jesus, Mohammed, Lenin, and Mahatma Gandhi.

• These leaders were revered for their personal qualities and message, not for traditional or rational-legal authority.

Rational-legal Authority

• The term refers to a system of authority that is both rational and legal.

• Authority is vested in a regular administrative staff who operate according to written rules and laws.

• Those who exercise authority are appointed based on achieved qualifications, which are prescribed and codified.

• Authority holders consider it a profession and receive a salary, making it a rational system.

• It is legal because it follows the laws of the land which people recognize and feel obliged to obey.

• People acknowledge and respect the legality of both ordinances and rules, as well as the positions or titles of those implementing the rules.

• Rational-legal authority is a typical feature of modern society and reflects the process of rationalisation.

• Weber considers rationalisation as the key feature of Western civilisation, a product of human thought and deliberation.

• There is a clear connection between rational-legal authority and rational action for obtaining goals.

• Examples include obeying the tax collector due to belief in the legality of tax laws and his legal right to enforce them.

• People stop vehicles at the order of a traffic policeman because of respect for his legal authority, not because of his personal identity.

• Modern societies are governed by laws and ordinances, not individuals.

• Rational-legal authority exists in political, administrative, economic (banks, industries), religious, and cultural organisations.

Bureaucracy

Major Features of Bureaucracy

• Bureaucracy is the machinery that implements rational-legal authority.

• Max Weber constructed an ideal type of bureaucracy highlighting its prominent characteristics.

• Bureaucracy functions based on the following rules and regulations:

  • Activities are distributed among officials as official duties.

  • There is a stable system where officials are vested with authority, strictly delimited by laws.

  • Strict and methodical procedures ensure officials perform their duties adequately.

• These three characteristics form bureaucratic authority, found in developed and modern societies.

• There is a hierarchy of officials with a clear structure of subordination and superordination.

• Lower officials are supervised by higher ones and must answer to them.

• People can appeal to higher officials if dissatisfied with lower officials’ behaviour or performance.

• Bureaucratic management is conducted through written documents or files, preserved by specially appointed clerks.

• Work in bureaucracy is highly specialised, and staff is trained accordingly.

• A fully developed bureaucratic office requires the full working capacity of the staff, who may be compelled to work overtime.

Characteristics of Officials in Bureaucracy

• Office-work is considered a vocation for bureaucratic officials.

• Officials are specially trained for their jobs.

• Their qualifications determine their position or rank in the office.

• Officials are expected to perform their work honestly.

• Official positions impact their personal lives as well.

• Bureaucratic officials enjoy a high status in society.

• Their jobs often involve transfer liabilities, meaning they may be transferred between places or departments, causing instability in professional and personal lives.

• Officials receive salaries based on status, not productivity; higher rank means higher salary.

• They also receive benefits like pension, provident fund, medical facilities, and their jobs are considered very secure.

• Officials have good career prospects, able to advance up the bureaucratic ladder through disciplined work.

Karl Marx

Introduction

• Karl Heinrich Marx stands as one of the most influential and critiqued political theorists in history. Born in 1818 in Trier, Germany, Marx’s intellectual journey began at the University of Berlin, where he was influenced by the young Hegelians. His later work, in partnership with Friedrich Engels, notably shaped political thought through the development of ‘scientific socialism.’ They aimed to distance themselves from early ‘utopian socialists’ like Owen, Fourier, and Saint-Simon.
• Marx was deeply influenced by Hegel, particularly his view of history. However, Marx rejected Hegel’s dialectical idealism, instead proposing dialectical materialism. He argued that human existence is shaped by the mode of production, which defines relationships within society. Marx categorized society into two key structures: the economic ‘base,’ consisting of the mode and relations of production, and the ‘superstructure,’ which includes political, cultural, and intellectual dimensions. According to Marx, individual consciousness is a product of these societal processes.
• He viewed history as a series of class struggles, identifying five stages of social evolution: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and communism. Marx focused primarily on analyzing capitalism, highlighting its ability to revolutionize production while condemning its exploitation and inequalities. He believed that capitalism’s demise was imminent, although history proved otherwise.
• Marx and Engels criticized early forms of socialism as idealistic, opting instead for a more scientific approach to understanding capitalism. While Marx refrained from outlining a detailed vision of a future communist society, his critique of 19th-century capitalism remains a key point for understanding his work. Many scholars believe that the best way to grasp Marx’s ideas is to view him as a sharp critic of the capitalist system of his time.

The Early Years of Karl Marx

• Karl Marx was born in Trier, Rhineland (Prussia), into a Jewish family, but he converted to Christianity during childhood. He studied History, Law, and Philosophy at the universities of Bonn, Berlin, and Jena, and received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Jena. During his student years, Marx became attracted to socialism, a doctrine considered highly dangerous by the rulers of the time. His radical anti-state and socialist views led to his expulsion from Prussia.
• He sought refuge in France and Belgium, where he continued to organize German workers. Under pressure from the Prussian government, the French government expelled Marx, after which he settled in England in 1849 and lived there until his death in 1883.
• Marx wrote extensively on issues related to Philosophy, Economics, Politics, and Society. His wide-ranging intellectual contributions make it difficult to categorize him strictly within any single discipline. Initially, Marx was influenced by Hegelian Idealism during his student years, but he later shifted his focus to Humanism and then to Scientific Socialism. His thought was shaped by the major intellectual movements of his time, such as Hegel’s evolutionary ideas and Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
• However, Marx rejected both Hegel’s Absolute Spirit and Darwin’s biological determinism, developing instead his own theory of historical evolution—Dialectical Historical Materialism—to explain human history.
• Marx engaged in debates with many contemporaries, including Proudhon and Bakunin, and critiqued various socialist movements of the time. His career as a writer began in 1842 when he contributed to Rheinische Zeitung. In Paris, he met Friedrich Engels, and they co-authored the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. In 1847, Marx helped found the Communist League and authored the Communist Manifesto in 1848, a significant political text.
• Central to Marx’s thought was his critique of capitalism, which he saw as fundamentally exploitative, subjugating the proletariat and hindering true human freedom. His intellectual work is often divided into two phases: the young Marx, focused on alienation and human nature, and the mature Marx, who provided a detailed analysis of capitalist society’s operations. This distinction was notably made by philosopher Louis Althusser.
• Marx’s intellectual journey was also shaped by his collaboration with Engels, who continued publishing Marx’s work after his death. Their combined works, including The Holy Family, The German Ideology, and the Communist Manifesto, remain foundational texts in socialist theory.

Major Works of Karl Marx

• “The German Ideology” (1846): Co-authored with Friedrich Engels, this set of manuscripts argues that humans distinguish themselves from animals when they begin to produce their means of subsistence.
• “The Poverty of Philosophy” (1847): Published in Paris and Brussels, this book analyzes the capitalist system of production and distribution, as well as the law of value. In this book Marx criticized J.P Proudhon on his book “Philosophy of Poverty”.
• “Communist Manifesto” (1848): This political document presents an analytical approach to the class struggle and conflicts within capitalism and the capitalist mode of production. In this book Marx quotes that “the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie”.

The Communist Manifesto is classified into four parts –

• History of the revolution
• Doctrines of Communist Party
• Criticism of existing society
• Reactionary and Bourgeois socialism

“A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” (1859): An analysis of capitalism and the quantity theory of money.

“The Civil War in France” (1871): A pamphlet written by Marx that explores the tumultuous events of the French Revolution.

Theory of Alienation by Karl Marx

• Karl Marx’s concept of alienation is a central element in his critique of capitalism, and it first appeared in his early work. The idea of alienation was initially hinted at in his poem Player and was later elaborated upon in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), often referred to as the Paris Manuscripts.
• In this text, Marx provides an in-depth exploration of how capitalist systems alienate workers. He observed that, under capitalism, workers create products through their labor, but these products are appropriated by the capitalist, the employer. The workers, therefore, become estranged from the goods they produce.

Alienation for Marx is fourfold:

• Alienation from the product,
• Alienation from the act of labor itself,
• Alienation from fellow workers and nature, and
• Alienation from the worker’s own essence or self.

• In a capitalist economy, labor becomes a means of survival rather than a source of self-fulfillment. Workers sell their labor power in exchange for wages, but the products of their labor do not belong to them. This dynamic alienates them from the very activity that defines their humanity—creative, purposeful work.
• Marx drew upon the ideas of Hegel and Feuerbach to construct his theory of alienation. Hegel had viewed alienation as a state of consciousness, where the external world seems estranged from the self. For Marx, however, alienation is rooted in material conditions, not just in thought.
• Unlike Hegel, Marx emphasized the importance of real, objective relationships in the economy, arguing that alienation arises from the worker’s relationship to labor under capitalism. To overcome alienation, Marx contended, society must transform the very conditions of labor, and this would be possible through the abolition of private property and the establishment of communism.

Commodity Fetishism by Karl Marx

• Marx’s analysis of capitalism goes further with the concept of commodity fetishism. In a capitalist society, exchange value, or the price a commodity can fetch, takes precedence over use value, or the actual utility of the product. Even if an item possesses a useful purpose, it may not be produced unless it carries a market value in a capitalist setting.
• The key determinant of exchange value is the amount of human labor invested in the creation of a commodity. However, Marx astutely notes that the contribution of workers is often undervalued and overlooked. Labor power itself becomes commodified, bought and sold as if it were any other product on the market.
• Capitalist societies tend to flood the market with an excess of commodities, produced using human labor and valuable natural resources. Paradoxically, this overproduction in capitalism not only diminishes the value of labor but also depletes precious natural resources.

“Human is a economical Being” – Homo Faber

Dialectical Materialism by Karl Marx

• Karl Marx borrowed the concept of dialectics from Hegel but infused it with his own materialistic perspective. While Hegel applied dialectics to the evolution of human history, emphasizing intellectual development, Marx shifted the focus.
• He contended that in the essence of the universe, it’s not ‘idea’ or ‘consciousness’ but ‘matter’ that holds prominence. According to Marx, social institutions are manifestations of changing material conditions, not evolving ideas.
• Dialectical Materialism represents the philosophical basis of Marxism, underscoring the importance of material factors in shaping societies and their development.

Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism encompasses three key dialectical concepts:

• Quantity into Quality: This concept posits that gradual accumulation of quantitative changes can lead to a sudden qualitative transformation. For example, as workers collectively demand better wages (quantitative change), it may eventually result in a qualitative shift, such as a revolution.
• Unity of Opposition: Marx argued that contradictions within a system drive change. The unity of opposites suggests that opposing forces within society, like the bourgeoisie and proletariat, generate tension that can lead to societal change, such as class struggle.
• Negation of Negation: Marx’s dialectics involve a process where a thesis (existing social order) encounters its antithesis (challenges and contradictions), resulting in a synthesis (a new social order). The negation of negation describes how a new synthesis can itself become a new thesis, perpetuating societal evolution.
• These dialectical concepts underpin Marx’s analysis of historical and social change, emphasizing the role of contradictions and conflict in shaping society.

Theory of Class Struggle by Karl Marx

• Class struggle is a central theme in Marxist theory. Marx observed that relations of production in societies were fundamentally shaped by class relations. He famously stated, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Communist Manifesto). 
• In every society, Marx identified two key classes: the ruling class, which owns the means of production, and the working class, which sells its labor. The relationship between these classes is defined by exploitation and domination. Throughout history, different iterations of these classes have existed, such as lords and serfs, guild masters and journeymen, and oppressors and the oppressed. Marx categorized classes into “Class in itself” (unaware of their common interests) and “Class for itself” (conscious of shared interests).
• Marx believed in the revolutionary potential of the “Class for itself,” represented by the proletariat (working class). He foresaw a socialist revolution led by the working class that would overthrow capitalism and establish a classless society, ultimately ending class conflict. He asked for all the workers to be united. He propagated for “Dictatorship of Proletariat”.
• Contrary to this many philosophers like George Owell and Bakunin feared that Marx’s dictatorship of Proletariat would become dictatorship on the proletariat.

Historical Materialism by Karl Marx

• Marx’s most profound contribution to social theory is his concept of historical materialism. According to Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, historical materialism posits that the ultimate cause driving the course of human history is the economic development of society.
• Marx’s theory explains the entire trajectory of human history through the changes in the modes of production and exchange, starting from primitive communism and progressing through slavery, feudalism, and capitalism. These transitions resulted in distinct class divisions such as slave-master, serf-lord, and proletariat-capitalist, leading to class struggles that propel historical development.
• Historical Materialism, detailed in Marx’s “Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy,” offers a scientific basis for Marxism. He held that men during social production centers into definite relations that are independent and indispensable of their will ; Relations of production which corresponds to a definite stage of development of their material productive force. The sum of these relations of production constitutes in Society the economic structure. 
• In Economic relations of Society, people undertake production, distribution and exchange of materials goods for their need which again constitutes legal and political superstructure. However, the economic structure is the real basis of Society . 

Concept of Base and Superstructure

According to Marx, the structure of Society consists of- 

• Base – Economic Relations (Mode of Production) 
• Superstructure – Social and Political Relations (Religion, morals, culture, art, etc) 

Further, forces of production and relations of production are the two components of the Base’s modes of production. The forces of production consist of means of production like tools, land, equipment and Labour power (human knowledge and skills). With the advancement in technology, improvement in means of production over powers the development of Labour power. While, Relations of Production in Society are on the pattern of ownership of the means of production which give rise to haves and have not, for example slaves were individuals who owned no means of production not even their own Labour, The serfs did own some but not full means of production, therefore landowning exploits the serfs , the Proletariat also does not own any means of production and were exploited by the property owning capitalists. 

Hence, Relations of production revolve around ownership of means of production and lead to social stratification. In capitalism, property-owning capitalists exploit the proletariat, who lack ownership of the means of production. Marx believed that capitalism represented the final stage in class conflict history, poised to be overthrown by a socialist revolution, ultimately ushering in a classless society.

Stages of History by Karl Marx

It’s important to note that Karl Marx’s framework is rooted in his theory of class struggle and the development of the means of production. Here are the five stages of history according to Karl Marx:

Primitive Communism:

This is the earliest stage of human history when people lived in small, tribal communities. The means of living was hunting and gathering. Needs were limited. Private property did not exist, and resources were shared collectively. Social hierarchies were relatively undeveloped, and there was little class distinction.

Slave Society:

This stage emerged with the development of agriculture and the establishment of surplus production. The primary mode of production was based on slave labor, where a privileged class of slave owners controlled the means of production.

Class divisions became more pronounced, with a clear distinction between slave owners and slaves.

Feudalism:

Feudalism emerged with the decline of the Roman Empire and lasted through the Middle Ages. The dominant mode of production was feudal, where feudal lords controlled land, and peasants worked the land in exchange for protection and a share of the produce.

Society was characterized by a hierarchical structure with a rigid class system, including kings, nobles, and serfs.

Capitalism:

Capitalism marked a significant shift in the means of production, with the rise of industrialization and the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) controlling factories, machinery, and resources.Wage labor became the norm, as workers sold their labor for a wage to the capitalist class.

Capitalism was marked by the pursuit of profit, private ownership, and the commodification of goods and labor.

Socialism (Transition to Communism):

According to Karl Marx, capitalism would eventually lead to its own downfall due to inherent contradictions and class struggle.

The working class (proletariat) would revolt against the capitalist class (bourgeoisie), leading to the establishment of a transitional socialist state. In this stage, the means of production would be collectively owned, and the state would play a central role in redistributing resources and eliminating class distinctions. This predecessor socialism is regarded as dream socialism by Karl Marx.

Ultimately, this transitional stage was expected to pave the way for a classless, stateless society known as communism, where resources would be distributed according to the principle “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

Here to the idea of communism by Marx, Edward Bernstein, founder of evolutionary socialism and Revisionism criticized him saying that it is only imaginary in nature and can not be applied in reality as the end of the middle class is impossible.

The Theory of Class War

• The concept of “class” is central to Marxian philosophy, where a person’s class is determined solely by their ownership or control over the means of production—land, capital, machines, and technology. Those who own or control these means form the bourgeoisie (exploiters), while those who own only labor power make up the proletariat (exploited).
• Marx defines classes based on one’s place in the mode of production and their position in the relations of production. The proletariat is characterized by its lack of ownership or control over means of production, its absence of property, and its need to seek work for survival. The disappearance of class differences is dependent on the elimination of property as a determinant of status.
• In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels famously said, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” They believed that class conflict drives human history, with capitalism being the peak of class conflict. In capitalism, class differentiation is most visible, class consciousness more developed, and class conflict most severe, with society splitting into two hostile camps—the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
• Marx distinguished between the objective existence of a class and its subjective class consciousness. Division of labor is the source of class formation and antagonism. Marx argued that each ruling class justifies its interests as those of society.
• Through historical analysis, he showed that major antagonisms, like that between rich and poor, have always existed but are polarized in capitalism as the conflict between capitalists and the proletariat. Marx believed that the proletariat’s exploitation and dehumanization reflect the human condition at large.
• By abolishing private property, the proletariat would not only emancipate itself but also humanity, leading to a classless and stateless society, as the state’s existence is tied to defending bourgeois interests.

Theory of Surplus Value – Das Capital

• Karl Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value is foundational to his critique of capitalism, explaining how capitalists exploit the working class by extracting value from their labor. Rooted in the labor theory of value, first proposed by classical economists like Ricardo, Marx argued that labor is the sole creator of value, although the working class lacks ownership of the means of production—such as land, capital, and machinery—that are controlled by capitalists.
• In capitalist production, four key factors—land, labor, capital, and organization—are involved. However, only labor adds new value to society. Marx noted that the actual labor exerted in commodity production often diverges from its market price, which fluctuates according to demand and supply. When the labor market is saturated with job seekers, wages decline, allowing capitalists to maximize their exploitation of the working class.
• The crux of Marx’s theory lies in the concept of surplus value, which he describes as the unpaid labor of workers. When a capitalist purchases labor power from workers and uses it to produce commodities, the commodities are sold at a value higher than the wages paid to the workers. This difference—between the exchange value of the commodities and the wages—is called surplus value, representing the capitalist’s profit. Marx explains that this surplus value is created because the worker is paid less than the value they produce.
• Marx broke down the capital invested into two components: constant capital (machinery, tools, raw materials) and variable capital (wages paid to workers). It is the variable capital—the value of labor power—that generates surplus value. The capitalist appropriates part of the worker’s labor, which goes unpaid, thus increasing profits.
• Marx also noted that over time, the portion of unpaid labor (surplus value) increases. The worker might get paid for only a portion of their labor, and eventually, only enough for subsistence—their own survival and that of their family. Marx emphasized that this process is central to capitalist exploitation.
• He contrasted capitalist exploitation with earlier systems like slavery and feudalism, where the worker (slave or serf) was directly tied to their master. In capitalism, however, the worker is seemingly free to choose their employer, but this freedom is illusory, as they have no option but to sell their labor power to survive. Marx famously described this situation as a “freedom to choose their exploiter.”
• At the heart of Marx’s argument is the belief that if workers owned the means of production, they wouldn’t need to sell their labor to capitalists. Instead, they could retain control over the products they create and be compensated fully for the value they produce. This is why Marx advocated for the abolition of private property and the eventual emergence of a classless society, where exploitation would cease.

State and Revolution by Karl Marx

• According to Karl Marx, the fundamental cause of revolution lies in the disjunction between relations of production and the means of production. As technology and scientific knowledge advance, the means of production evolve faster than the existing relations of production.
• This misalignment reaches a point where the relations of production act as a fetter on the production process itself, creating an immanent demand for a transition to a new mode of production. Marx posits that the capitalist mode of production emerged from the feudal order in a manner analogous to how the feudal mode of production arose from slave society.
• Similarly, he asserts that socialism will emerge from the bourgeois society because capitalism continuously revolutionizes its own means of production, ultimately undermining its own conditions of existence. In this context, Marx famously noted that the bourgeoisie produces, above all, its own grave diggers.
• Marx’s assertion that bourgeois relations of production represent the last antagonistic form of social production is based on the premise that historical movements (revolutions) have primarily served the interests of minorities. In contrast, the proletarian revolution will be different, as the proletariat—the lowest stratum of capitalist society—cannot elevate itself to the status of a ruling class without uprooting the entire superincumbent strata of officials.
• In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Friedrich Engels explicitly stated that communists do not hide their views and aims, declaring that their revolutionary goals can only be achieved through the forcible overthrow of the entire capitalist order. Therefore, the emancipation of the proletariat is tied to the emancipation of humanity.
• It is essential to consider the debate in the history of revolutions regarding the roles of subjective (human) and objective (material) factors. Marx’s position is noteworthy: he views a dialectical relationship between philosophical comprehension of the world and the ability to change it.
• He asserts that theory must evolve a proper interpretation of the world to facilitate change. The ultimate task of philosophy is not merely to understand reality but also to transform it. Praxis plays a crucial role in this transformation, possessing a dialectical aspect wherein it organizes conditions for human emancipation while also facilitating the self-discovery of the proletariat through organization.
• Marx transcended the dilemma of determinism versus voluntarism by emphasizing the dialectical nature of revolutionary consciousness. He argued that objective conditions alone cannot spark a revolution unless the proletariat recognizes that shaping its worldview allows it to change it.
• When workers understand that, under capitalism, they are reduced to mere commodities, they can evolve from being passive objects to active subjects. This revolutionary consciousness is a necessary condition for the possibility of revolution, as understanding the internal dynamics of capitalism enables the proletariat to initiate the transition from capitalism to socialism.
• Historically, Marx posited that social classes are the driving forces behind revolutionary change. Each new property-owning class has instigated revolutions under the pretense of benefiting all members of society, ultimately solidifying its status as the ruling class while exploiting those without property.
• He maintained that the only class capable of leading a revolution to abolish private property and class society is the proletariat, or working class. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx referred to the state as the instrument of the ruling class, arguing that the proletariat must seize state power to initiate the revolution.
• Marx advocated for the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” a transitional phase in which the bourgeoisie is excluded from the state until private property is expropriated and a classless society emerges.

In addition, Marx identified three types of colonies during the era of colonialism in his writings in 1865:

1. Plantation Colonies: These colonies were established primarily for the cultivation of cash crops such as sugar, tobacco, cotton, and coffee. European colonial powers, particularly the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, set up large plantations in various regions, including the Caribbean, the Americas, and Africa. These colonies heavily relied on enslaved or indentured labor to work on the plantations, with profits often sent back to the colonial powers.
2. Settler Colonies: Also known as Proper Colonies, these territories were established by European settlers who aimed to create permanent communities and eventually dominate indigenous populations. Examples include the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, where settlers played a dominant role in shaping social, economic, and political landscapes, often at the expense of the indigenous peoples.
3. Well-Populated Colonies: India and Mexico are cited as examples of this type of colony, characterized by a significant presence of indigenous populations under colonial rule.

Through this comprehensive analysis, Marx elucidated the mechanisms of exploitation within capitalism and the conditions necessary for revolutionary change.

Vision of a Communist Society

• Communism, as articulated by Karl Marx, is a societal structure envisioned to be realized through the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Friedrich Engels assert that the interests of communists align wholly with those of the proletariat.
• In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx defines communism as the positive abolition of private property, which also includes the elimination of social classes and the division of labor. Economically, a communist society is characterized as a “society of associated producers.”
• Politically, Marx argues that communism represents the first instance in human history where political power is utilized for universal interests rather than partisan agendas, contrasting sharply with the capitalist state, which he describes as merely a managing committee for the bourgeoisie. In capitalism, the state serves the long-term interests of the bourgeoisie, legitimizing the exploitation of the proletariat.
• In his Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx outlines two stages of communist society. In the initial stage, the socialization of the means of production occurs, meaning these resources are controlled collectively rather than by a single class. During this phase, wage labor persists, with the economic principle being “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his work,” indicating that individuals will contribute according to their abilities and receive compensation based on their efforts.
• The second and final stage of communist society aims to eliminate human domination by objective forces. For Marx, communism is not solely about abolishing private property; it also involves the dissolution of the state and the end of human self-alienation. In this envisioned classless and stateless society, governance transitions to the administration of things, allowing individuals to reconnect with their inherently social nature.
• Marx considers communism as the ultimate resolution to historical conflicts, enabling individuals to recognize themselves as both the architects and products of history. In this society, social divisions of labor will fade, allowing individuals the freedom to engage in diverse activities without becoming defined by any single role. Furthermore, it is a state of abundance where everyone works according to their capabilities and receives according to their needs, perpetually creating new needs and means of satisfaction.
• While alienation will cease under communism, labor will remain essential, with freedom commencing in leisure time, thereby ensuring that work continues to be a fundamental obligation within a communist framework.

Quotes by Karl Marx

• ‘The history of all previous Societies has been the history of class struggles’.
• ‘Men make their own history but they do not make as they please’.
• ‘Revolutions are the locomotives of history’.
• ‘Universe is a product and a prophecy in every state’.
• ‘The anatomy of civil society is to be found in Political economy’.
• ‘Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form’. 
• ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways, the point, however, is to change it’.
• ‘The last Capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope’. 
• ‘I am nothing but I must be everything’.
• ‘It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness’.
• ‘If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist’.
• ‘Religion is the impotence of humankind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand’. 
• ‘Foreign Policy of a nation is shaped by Geography’.