Sociology Optional (Classical Sociologists and Theoretical Orientation) by Smriti rao

Model Answer

Question #1. Outline Durkheim's theoretical approach to understand modern societies. 

Approach:

• Introduction – Durkheim’s concept of Division of Labour
• Types of solidarity

1. 1.   Mechanical solidarity and its characteristics
   2.   Organic solidarity and its features

• Criticism of Durkheim’s theory
• Conclusion

 Hints

Durkheim belonged to the Functionalist school of thought and believed that society progressed from traditional to modern via the creation and extension of the division of labour. A division of labour arrangement is one in which complicated duties are broken into a number of lesser jobs and distributed among individuals.

Durkheim viewed society as a social fact and was particularly concerned with the topic of social solidarity, or how contemporary society holds together given that society is made up of many individuals, each behaving in an independent and autonomous manner, with separate, unique, and varied goals.

Types of Solidarity

In The Social Division of Labor Durkheim distinguishes two forms of social solidarity:

1. Mechanical solidarity - which characterized earlier or traditional civilizations with a restricted division of work.

• • Focus on collective consciousness- These communities are distinguished by similarity, in which individuals share similar ideals based on common work and life events and experiences.
  • Repressive law or penal law - If there is a crime in our society, that crime is an offence to everybody, since it is an offence to the shared morality, the shared system of values that exists.
  • Everyone is more or less self-sufficient, generalist, and so bound by comparable experiences, duties, values, and morals.

Durkheim maintained that when population density and interaction (moral density) rises, society shifts from mechanical to organic solidarity.

2. Organic solidarity  

• The evolution of the division of labour erodes collective consciousness while simultaneously creating a new type of solidarity. This new form is known as organic solidarity, and it is distinguished by people' reliance on one another within the division of labour, as well as a certain level of collaboration.
• Heterogeneity - Whereas mechanical solidarity believes that people are similar to one another, organic solidarity assumes that they are not. Organic solidarity is social integration that results from people' need for one another's services.
• Interdependence and specialisation - there is a substantially higher division of labour, with individuals operating similarly to the interdependent but distinct organs of a live organism. Each of our activities grows increasingly specialised, making it more personal.
• Restitutive or restorative law -  While elements of penal or repressive law, such as the death penalty for murder, persist in modern societies, modern legal systems are primarily distinguished by judgments that require the offending party to restore the situation to its original state – for example, paying restitution for theft or to victims.

 Criticism of Durkheim’s ideas

• According to Karl Marx, the concept of collective conscience or shared ideals can be viewed as ruling class ideology. Furthermore, Marx sees division of labour as a process that dehumanises and alienates producers from their creations.
• According to conflict perspective Durkheim failed to see conflict and disorder that would arise as a result of strong competitiveness in society.
• According to Max Weber, the rationalisation of social life and the dominance of bureaucratic structures are the primary causes of anomie in modern industrial society.
• According to Nisbert, Durkheim discusses professional ethics and open competition in modern society, yet individual access to respective professions is sometimes purposely restricted in modern cultures in order to reduce competition (cartelisation and monopoly).
• According to American sociologist Jennifer Lehman, Durkheim's work contains sexist paradoxes since the author conceptualises "individuals" as "men," but women as unique and non-social beings. Using this paradigm, the philosopher entirely ignored women's roles.

According to Durkheim’s perspective with increase in division of labour, society evolves from mechanical to organic society. Modem societies are based on the principles of differentiation and interdependence and it act as new form of collective consciousness that binds the social solidarity in the society. Despite the criticisms of Durkheim’s theory, it is still relevant to study the issues of integration in the modern society.

Question #2. According to Weber, Ideal types are mental constructs. How then, can they be applied to study social reality ?

Approach

•   The question is straightforward requiring a discussion on ideal types. While explaining the concept, it’s application in particular should be discussed suitably to address the latter half of the question
•   Weber’s concept of Ideal Types as mental constructs
•   Use of ideal types in empirical research
  • Ideal types of historical particulars i.e. protestant ethic & growth of capitalism
  • Ideal types of abstract elements of social reality i.e. concept of bureaucracy, authority etc

While Max Weber has proposed the concept of ideal types as “mental constructs”, the concept in fact is a methodological tool to understand and analyse social reality. Historically, one of the major concern in social science has been to establish its scientific credentials. It is in this context that Weber’s ideal type serves as a tool to establish objectivity in social sciences. Weber proposed the concept of ideal types to study different aspects of social reality, be it a historical period or a system such as say bureaucracy or types of social behaviour as seen in his concepts of authority. Though Weber’s conceptual framework has been criticized, during the time, it served as a methodological tool for empirical research.

For Weber, the construction of an ideal type was an heuristic device, or method of investigation. An ideal type is neither an average type nor a simple description of the most commonly found features of real-world phenomena. One does not also construct ideal types by finding the features that are shared by real phenomena. Nor is the word ideal used normatively in the sense of a desirable objective.

Ideal types are worked out with reference to the real world, but involve a selection of only those elements that are most rational or which fit together in the most rational way. Thus the ideal type of bureaucracy for example, embraces those aspects of real bureaucratic organizations that fit together in a coherent means-end chain. In other words, ideal types are concepts formulated on the basis of facts collected carefully and analytically for empirical research. In this sense, ideal types are constructs or concepts which are used as methodological devices or tools in our understanding and analysis of any social problem.

Weber demonstrated his theory of ideal types through the following:

1. Ideal types of historical particulars such as in his work on ‘The Protestant Ethic & the spirit of Capitalism. According to Weber, capitalism fully developed in modern western societies. He created an ideal type of Calvinism as well as capitalism and tried to explain the affinity between the two wherein certain elements of the former doctrine facilitated the growth of the latter.
2. Weber also proposed an ideal type of bureaucracy wherein he explained how bureaucracy attained it’s ideal typical form in modern western societies as the most efficient form of administration to achieve organisational goals.
3. Similarly, Weber proposes the ideal types of authority based on the motivation of obedience or by  the nature of legitimacy claimed by the leader. There are traditional, charismatic and rational-legal forms of authority. Thus, one sees how ideal types are not merely conceptual thoughts but are born out of are created, modified and sharpened through the empirical analysis of concrete problems.

Thus, it is seen how Weber’s proposed and demonstrates his concept of ideal types through various works. One sees an attempt to create concepts that could aid study of social reality systematically and objectively. However, Weber was also criticized because not only is the concept of ideal types confusing, he focussed only on the extremes and also failed to show the connections between different phenomena and how the types and their elements fit into a social system.