Marx: Currents Of Revolution

BACKGROUND

Marx is a complex composite influenced by Hegel as well as the post Hegelian thought that influenced the Young Hegelian Leftists, which modified Hegel’s historic approach to dialectical theory.  Following Hegel’s death two primary camps developed – the Right and the Left.  Several key individuals influenced the philosophy of the Leftist Young Hegelians, shaped their thought, and created tension between the Prussian/Christian monarchy and the Leftists.  Key figures are Strauss and his influential position on Christianity, Cieszkowski and his Philosophy of Action (which focused on the future rather than history), Brauer’s focus upon the “self-conscious” central role of the spirit in the opposing/negative world, and Ruge who for some time served as the editor of the Leftist journal.  Marx is connected to these individuals if not directly as in the case of Brauer, indirectly through connections in Berlin.  This philosophy developed to focus upon a philosophy of rejecting the historicity of Hegel in favor of the philosophy of negation, a position of atheism, and a political view sponsoring revolution as a primary mode of action.  Nonetheless, it is imperative to understand that while the Leftists influence Marx in that he accepted some of their philosophies and agreed with the problems they found as needing solutions, he is quite distinguishable in that he had a different view of how history affected the development of society (Chapter II).

EARLY MARX

Even though his first work, his doctoral thesis, entitled On the Differences between the Natural Philosophy of Democritus and of Epicurus is largely influenced by the Young Hegelian thought there is the beginning of Marx’ attempt to identify himself that would place him somewhere between the rational utopians and the conservative positivists.  Within this work, there is seen influence of Hegelian historical approach to the world state of condition as well as acceptance of an anti-utopia view of the history and progress of the world (99).  Moreover, there is the influence, which comes from Hellenistic philosophy and Aristotle’s power of the self-conscious as it relates to the philosophical freedom of the spirit.  His thesis, shaped by Hegelian logic, focused upon Epicureanism.  Thusly, Marx begins to state basic premises that later evolve into his theories regarding praxis, false consciousness and emancipation (perhaps the concept of human potential) (102, 104, 106).  The statement: “the spirit should not remain submissive to existing facts, nor yet believe in the absolute authority of normative criteria which it discovers freely in itself without regard to those facts, but should make of its own freedom a means wherewith to influence the world” seems to postulate self-consciousness as a means of obtaining human potential, hence actualization of freedom “parenclisis” (101, Chapter III).

CONTEMPORARY INFLUENCE FROM HESS AND FEUERBACH

Comparatively speaking Moses Hess and Karl Marx each positively influenced each other.  On the other hand, Marx came to reject most of Feuerbach’s propositions.  Hess developed his own philosophy of communism from the works of Hegel.  Influenced by Hegel, French socialism and the Young Hegelian Leftists, Hess moved from a philosophy of the historical past to the future and from attempting to interpret history to projecting future action.  For Hess, human freedom climaxes in future action and this is the essence of “free action”.  Ultimately, revolution leads to regeneration of society, fulfills Christianity; the result is an authentic religion of love (110).  However, this religion of love has no priests, churches, dogmas, Higher Deity, belief in immortality or education based upon fear.  The statement “there will be no more antagonism between public order and freedom” illustrates this… (110). This transformation is a precondition of communism.  “Moral and social slavery proceeds only from spiritual slavery; and … contrariwise, legal and moral emancipation is bound to result from spiritual liberation.” This illustrates further his thoughts that self-awareness was a vital part of future social harmony and identity of the individual and the collective interest (110).  Hess and Marx met and most likely shared ideas, hence it is possible to see the mutual influence in concepts of alienation, polarized wealth and poverty leading to revolution, religious and economic alienation, and the need to express free creative activity as a means to identify self-consciousness (113).  Feuerbach’s first book The Essence of Christianity, summarized on page 116 espouses the conclusion that the consciousness of man toward an object creates in man the true manifestation of what man are (114).  This contrasts with Hegel’s view that alienation is positive or at least may lead to positive manifestations (116).  Hegel proposed that alienation as an external force may lead to better understanding of self.  What is external and alien is through a process of enrichment absorbed (internalized) and allows fulfillment of self-actualization.  For Feuerbach, the alienation is “evil”.  Thus, religion serves to objectify humans to a level of inferiority and never allows full realization of the human being (religious mystification); it opposes the individuality of self, wastes human energy, and detracts from true value of man as an end unto himself (116).  Marx, from his statements (religion is as an opiate) rather than viewing religion as a central negative force focuses on economic influences that bear upon ultimate social realization.  As Feuerback continues to modify his position in later writings he strays further from Hegel and Marx and comes to reject his position more (118, Chapter IV).

MARX AND HIS EARLY WRITINGS

As editor of the Young Hegelian paper and later as writer, Marx had the opportunity to shape and develop his theories.  Early articles dealt with themes of censorship, property and the essence of freedom.  The Landtag law offered the opportunity to develop his concerns for the rights of humans and the role of law and the state.  Landtag made illegal the ancient tradition of allowing peasants to collect scrap wood and brush from the lands.  Marx concluded that revoking this right of the peasants promoted private property interests of a few, and limited the rights of all people.  Natural rights of all were restricted.  Like Hegel, real law (natural) is distinguished from state law.  State law promotes institutions and is protected by police.  Real law promotes the realization of freedom and should never restrict it (121).  In considering the freedom of press, the written word is an end unto itself.  Later writings that were instrumental to Marx early construction were Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, On the Jewish Question, and Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.  In both articles regarding Hegel, Marx quickly diverges from Hegelianism (123).  Four points of divergence are worthy of stating in relation to the first article: 1) the state is not an independent entity separate from the people which comprise it, 2) as with religion, the state is to be a reflection of the people which organize it, not the converse, 3) the proper aim of democracy is to make government the instrument of man, and 4) humans are not mere moments or stages in development of the universe.  In conclusion, the state may not legitimately set the pace for the general mood of the people, but rather the people have the power to set the mood for the state (124).  Hence, civil authority should dictate political authority (124).  When the state becomes a “tool” of a select few, the state stops being a mediator or as Hegel claimed a synthesizer, and becomes a tool of special interest groups (125).  In his work On the Jewish Question, it is noteworthy that the only way man may rediscover himself is by individual true consciousness and as bearer of the total community (127).  A particular point is that in writing Introduction to a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Marx conceptualizes what will serve to be his principle that the proletariat has a special mission as a class.  It will be the heart of the emancipation philosophy that will ultimately serve to liberate and abolish the class system and private property (130).  It is the realization of revolution, which is in itself a violation of history that will enable the simultaneous fulfillment of the emancipation (127,128).  This awakening of consciousness will be the heart of his theory of scientific socialism.  Ultimately, this will serve to unify political and social life and serves to establish six principles noted on page 131 (Chapter V).

PARIS, ALIENATED LABOR AND ENGELS

In the “Paris Manuscripts” Marx constructs the “full and perfect reconciliation of human essence and existence” (141).  Humanity and humankind’s being are harmonized in communism.  These writings serve to provide a partial theme for his later work Capital.  Within this context, the themes of labor and alienation are more clarified.  Labor is the basic characteristic of humankind and serves to establish a human consciousness and oneness with the world.  This serves to form a social relationship with nature (138).  Alienation comes not only as labor is commoditized but also as the worker comes to be alienated from both the work he/she performs as well as the product constructed.  This leads to animalized feelings, which serve to destruct human ability thereby penalizing not only the individual but also the larger community.  Noteworthy is that this alienation not only occurs to the individual proletarian but also to the capitalist in the form of becoming the object of money.  Hence, the capitalist becomes an abstraction of “money-power”.  An excellent quote regarding the capitalist is on page 139.  Private property, division of labor and human alienation are not mistakes.  Rather they are natural historic progression to a state in which natural conditions develop and “indispensable” future liberation may occur (141).  This leads to Marx finding that from within, from inner understanding an act occurs and it is this act which in turn affects the subject thereby allowing the subject to understand it.  In other words, the subject and the act coincide; this brings about self-recognition (144, Chapter VI).

EARLY 19^TH CENTURY SOCIALIST IDEAS AND MARXIST SOCIALISM

Socialist ideas arose in light of the Industrial and French revolutions.  A central conviction of all the myriad socialist groups is that uncontrolled concentration of wealth and unrestricted competition creates misery (183).  Only an organized redistribution of production and exchange would end poverty and oppression that accompanied this concentration of wealth and limited competition.  Socialism (Leroux) came to be qualified by many diverse means by which to achieve the correction of the problem (183).  Of those categorized as utopian three propositions arise that anticipate Marx.  These are categorized as historiosophical, capitalist, and socialist future (220-21).  Within each of these categories several points may be listed which exemplify a propositional statement or viewpoint of what Marx comes to postulate.  One particular socialist, Proudhon, a seeker of social justice, a son of a brewery worker, whose slogan was “property is theft” received particular criticism from Marx (224-7).  In summary, Marx concluded that Proudhon failed to note that the historical process is a dynamic process (227).  Technology drives the change that occurs and no amount of moralizing, attempting to revise outmoded structures or simply removing an obstacle (contender) will bring social upheaval.  Rather, only the historical process of struggle will eventually elevate the proper party (the proletariat) to revolution whereby class will be reduced to one level with no differences (227).  In turning to the summation of Marx, it is necessary to note The Communist Manifesto.  Within this short but complete document lays his theory of society and his beliefs for action.  With this work, there are no further revisions.  Within this document are the influence of Engels’ writings of the dialectic nature and materialism.

References

Kolakowski, Leszek. 1976. Main Currents of Marxism. —-: Oxford Paperbacks. Vol. 1, Ch 2-7, 10.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 1906. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr & Company.

Epistemology of Criminology

An epistemological study is “a study or theory of the grounds and nature of knowledge with reference to limits and validity” (Merriam-Webster).  The readings this week complement a thread examining the history of the developing study of criminology as a science.  By way of introduction, Swaaningen provides a history that has been dictated by external factors such as politics, media and even select academic fields such as law, psychology and sociology as well as economics.  In this article, the history is exemplified by a case study of the Dutch model.  In turn a proposal is made that incorporates the certain elements from the labeling model of the 1970’s with the need for independence in academic study and revised, up-to-date research methodology that will enable study of current trend crime of the 21^st Century.

            Rafter, in the article Somotyping, traces the history of criminology upon a case study of Sheldon’s Body Type Study for Correlating Delinquency and draws upon similarities to show how historical perspectives shape criminology not so much because of being true or false, probable or improbable, but by how it is presented and constructed over time through use of different audiences (Rafter 2007:826).

            Walters, in New Modes, provides a recent history of the commoditization of criminological research in the academic environment. 

SWAANINGEN

The central thought contained in this article is that the ‘role’ or ‘focus’ of the study of criminology has often been controlled by external forces (262, 269).  Ironically, Swaaningen writes much like a politician seeking to sell a product.  At times, the writing style seems a bit unprofessional and not substantiated by factual data but rather by feelings (251, 256, 257, 264).  Nonetheless, this Dutch study makes the point that external groups (249-50) have often orchestrated the method, purpose and parameters of study of criminology.

            The examination of the historical development gives a concise look at the development of criminology since the 1830’s in Belgium to the early developments in 1880’s Netherlands (252).  Particular eras of decline and ascention in the field of criminology are focused upon.  These eras are the 1970’s which sponsor a desire to improve humanity and are strongly driven by sociological tone (254-58).  The first professional journal in criminology in 1959, the Netherlands Journal for Criminology (253), and the 1960’s movement toward greater research methodology influence this period.  Following the 1960’s influence from Herman Bianchi led the study and educational endeavors for criminology, influenced by labeling theory, stigmatization, and criminalization, as well as Mertonian theories of anomie and strain (255).  During these decades criminology suffered from the dictates of funding as well as failure to establish professions that required a degree in criminology.  Hence, periodically criminology continued to wax, wane, and shift from one department to another, principally law, or the social sciences.  When funding was slack so was research.

            Partly because of little attention and position in the educational realm research methodology became sloppy, free spirited and opinionated (257, 264).  This in part was revitalized in the 1980’s (257).  Students were discouraged because no jobs called for their skills, educators and researchers were underfunded and felt their subject area failed to have sufficient academic recognition.  As a result, it is premised that history reflects that criminology’s scientific development is controlled by external forces such as externally defined importance of sponsored research and Law schools, and crime administrators (258).

            A new philosophy to “solve crime” rather than to build a better world advanced the study of criminology beginning in the 1990’s.  Parliament began to appoint more criminologists to commissions and the media began to give greater coverage to their statements.  Hence, law and media become external factors (258).  On the down side, much attention has been given to the “statement” rather than the research.  This mediatisation of crime and disorder is both positive and negative in effect.  It is good because focus is on crime and need to study, but bad because the focus is the statement made rather than critical review of the data.  Criminologists have been made into solvers of problems (which is the role of law enforcement) rather than those who study criminology.

            New types of crime bring the need to review the past attempts at criminology, to salvage what is good and combine it with new methodology so that the new crime can be better studied, analyzed and predicted (259, 261, 263-4).  Hence, with a new research focus speared by the University of Leyden and greater independence of study criminologists may move to answer the questions regarding the new myriad of crimes being introduced (260).  Combining the 1970’s desire to seek independence and create a holistic environment with greater academic freedom with an academic challenge to study deviance, social control and focus upon theory, research methods and techniques unique to criminology will lead to a better understanding and academic place for criminology (265).  This will free criminology from being a dependent sub-stratum of other disciplines and enable it to study the evolving crime in the world today.  In part, the establishment of criminology as a unique study will enable it to be freed from being funded as a “step-child”.  These unique characteristics are summarized on page 265 and 266.  The conclusion is that the policy decisions of the past have dictated funding and direction of study.  Serious academics in the field of criminology must control of their study and focus. 

Critically speaking, while these are noteworthy aspirations it seems that regardless all disciplines are somewhat at the disposal of outside funding.  At the heart of the educational system is the non-profit brick wall.  Until academia becomes a for profit institution or at least certain organizations within education do there will be little freedom from external funding constraints.  The desire for independence is admirable and needed, but in order to succeed needs more than mere words of inspiration.

RAFTER

Rafter’s thoughts make for an interesting article explaining the need to critically analyze scientific theory not simply by scientific methodology and technique, but also using other criterion.  Social sciences including criminology are not in a vacuum of their own.  They exist in historical context of the world that is ever changing.  In Somatotyping, Rafter details the work of William Sheldon in his study of the human body (biology) as a means to predict delinquency and criminal conduct.  He asks four questions in attempting to analyze the discreditation of Sheldon (807).  As Swaaningen and Walters, he connects the historical context to the development of criminology.  Diverging from Swaaningen, Rafter relates how one individual although discredited by fellow academia may gather followers and manage for many years to influence a field of study.  Sheldon although critiqued and discredited for lack of proper statistical analysis and measurement error, failure to use random sampling and his improper defining of delinquents managed to secure prominent sponsors who funded his research (815, 817-20).  As a result, he continued to influence a select segment of readers with his value system.  Critically speaking it may be this that has in some ways discredited a professional field of study in criminology.   Sometimes, singular events of illegitimacy lead to stigmatizing an entire field of study.   In essence, Sheldon used the public desire to cure “social ills” as a bait to gather a following of educated people of influence and financial means (820, 824).  Perhaps of greatest importance does Rafter pose the answer to the fourth question as to why his delinquency correlation continues to create interest.  In short, the nature of science it to “validate” the findings of others and hence there is a scientific desire within some researchers to seek a better understanding of Sheldons antimodernist analysis (825).  Perhaps a better word would be that science attempts to continue to test or verify findings rather than validate.

WALTERS

Similar to both Swaaningen and Rafter, Walters seeks to use history as a means to trace criminology and point out how criminology has come to the current state.  Swaaningen focused upon external politics and institutional concerns as pivotal in funding and directing focus of academic study.  Rafter used the narrowly focused qualitative analysis of Sheldon’s manipulation of wealthy and although educated, but ignorant (as to his discipline) sponsors to fund his work.  In both instances, external forces greatly influenced the state of the work being studied.  Walters takes a different approach and questions whether external forces may commoditize criminology.  Critically speaking, are we all in some degree commoditized by how others view the need of our ability or whether they desire our being?  His quote of Toffler, “The litmus test for assessing quality must be content, and not volume, popularity, political versatility or pragmatic relevance” is relevant (5).  Accordingly, how much of what we propose to society is accepted because it is factual and supported by positive analysis, and how much is simply accepted because it “feels good”?  Again, Toffler’s statement on the culture of music is relevant to this analogy (6).  As Walters puts it so well, is growth of criminological scholarship necessarily a sign of a discipline in a healthy state (6)?

            New modes of governance have come to affect criminological scholarship.  Economics and business models of accountability, risk management and profit margin drive some of this.  Since the mid 1980’s economics have played a large role in redefining academic research in general and criminological research has not evaded this phenomena (6, 11, 14).

            The production of crime control knowledge has become modified.  An example of this is a modified liberal mode of government.  In this case, government becomes a partner in a venture with research.  Government’s role has evolved to one of managing crime rather that solving crime.  Perhaps technology played a role in causing this change of focus.  However, the point is that crime is now approached from the standpoint of a business analysis.  Crime is an ill-effect and must be managed as any other risk.  Hence, the risk management model of business is applied to crime.  Those researching crime no longer focus on crime as an object to be analyzed, but rather the focus is on “management” of phenomena known as crime (7).  In other words, objectives and goals of research change.  The researcher becomes a tool of management.  Several predictions may be made, including crime is no longer an object of science, the researcher no longer creates the design of the research, but rather the party financing the research (researchers become hired brokers), greater focus is on fiscal accountability and time management, and politics and policy define research.  With control from external benefactors who finance research comes dictates regarding confidentiality and freedom of academic expression.  The quote from O’Malley is quite well used at page 9.  This restriction of academic freedom leads to lack of independence in the researcher’s decisions, influence, and control and is a result of coercion, profit schemes and so on.  The bottom line is that researchers need to maintain control of research and academic freedom to share research in order not to stifle academic scholarship (10). 

            The change in the role of government trickles down to affect many academic areas.  Technological advancement allows for greater contact and review by government.  The financial relationship becomes one of contract in law and thereby binds the researcher to follow procedure and restrict confidential information that may be in contradiction to codes of ethics regarding research, and may ultimately lead to conflict or strain (my addition) for the researcher.

            In the university setting this contract translates to make the university subject to external control and leads it to implement managerial-economic principles which may sound feasible in the business setting, but may stifle research which in its own right may not always be profitable.  With economic woes facing universities, they are often enticed to these relationships and may pressure faculty into these relationships.  Some faculty may actually seek these contracts and commoditize their research.  Some may leave academia, become entrepreneurs, and privately enter these contracts.  As government and private institutions seek to contract research in criminology in particular effects may be pressure to attract funding, minimal levels of annual publication, minimal levels of annual research, increased competition for funding and the creation of an air of secrecy that stifles sharing of findings (13-14).  It is easy to see why some criminologists may become private researchers.  The answer is money.  In short, whether research is through the institution or private contract the down side is that critical review of each other’s work is limited.  Confidentiality forms may prohibit peer-review, bias may be more prevalent because of the need to “stay on the good side” of the funder.  Secrecy may lead to much unneeded duplication and even competition rather than promoting the genuine search for knowledge (16).  In addition, the environment has tended to lead to a limiting of the critical process.  Publication that is not politically on point may be refused both at the peer review level and in texts (20).      

CONCLUSION

 Whether commoditized, solicited by favoritism or at the behest of political tides the criminological study may be victimized by economics.  The proponent may be outside interests or the researcher.  In short, in each of these instances to some degree criminological scholarship has been commoditized by the wax and wane of external economic factors.  This is not to say that criminology is a unique situation, rather like many other academic areas there is need to avoid research disproportionately driven by profit.     

             

 

Reference

Merriam-Webster Online. 2009.  Epistemolocical. Merriam-Webster.  Retrieved January 25, 2009 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemologicalhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemological).

Rafter, Nicole. 2007. Somatotyping, Antimodernism, and the Production of Criminological Knowledge. Criminology. Vol 45 4, 805-833.

Swaaningen, Rene van.  2006. In Search of Criminology’s Epistemological Threshold. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Vol 7 249-270.

Walters, Reece. 2003.  New Modes of Governance and the Commodification of Criminological Knowledge. Social Legal Studies. Vol 12:1, 5-26.

Talcott Parsons: Structure of Social Action

In Parsons’ words “this study is … study of one particular problem … the emergence of the theoretical system which has been called the ‘voluntaristic theory of action’” (14).  A critical point to understand about the purpose of The Structure of Social Action is stated in the Preface To The Second Edition; it is “intended to be primarily a contribution to systematic social science” (A, B).  Accordingly, the analysis is one of comparing and contrasting convergent theoretical development related to the scientific analysis of social phenomena.  This is the starting point for Parsons’ study and endeavor to determine a process by which to maximize the study of social action and dynamics.  What he envisions is development of an indispensable, preliminary, and accurate process by which knowledge may be developed.  The system he envisions provides a systematic understanding of theories and their processes in relation to rational action.

            Although the book in part examines four major social contributors, Alfred Marshall, Vilfredo Pareto, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber it is rather in purpose designed as a primary source material.  Rather than explore these theorists for their particular theoretical contributions, Parsons considers the totality of their contributions as they contribute to the sum total of the scientific structure of the system of theory itself.  This is a key point that the reader must not miss.  Hence, the four theorists are followed in order to better understand the development of the theoretical system (vi).  Through this analysis, it is argued that scientific theory in the social science is a product of observation, reasoning and verification.  This process examines facts, applies reason and then returns to the facts for verification.  A “fact” for this textual study is adopted from Professor Henderson, “empirically verifiable statement about phenomena in terms of a conceptual scheme” (41).  Empiricism refers to the claim that “categories of a given theoretical system are by themselves adequate to explain all scientifically important facts” about the concrete phenomena considered (69-70).

THEORETICAL SYSTEM

The proper structure of a theoretical system may be stated as a single body of systematic theoretical reasoning traceable through a critical analysis.  Hence, we find that there is a “logical structure” for theory (7).  Therefore, a theoretical system must not simply observe facts and make logical conclusions.  If empirically correct, it must also be capable of allowing for prediction or tell, “what empirical facts it should be possible to observe in a given set of circumstances” (8).  This process requires at a minimum that the theorist take into consideration all relevant known facts that may be obtained and then investigate each to see if they agree with the theory.  After this, the theorist must verify those expectations of theory that appear to agree with the facts as presented.  This process is what makes the “system” of theoretical science.  Only in this way is it possible to simultaneously state what is currently known, allow questions to be formulated about what needs to be known, and then test alternatives and possible answers for answers.

            Facts, which are not yet connected with, or fail to be in relation with theory do not constitute “science” (16).  These residuals, are only bits and pieces of knowledge and are not to be confused with the positive theoretical system.  Theoretical systems must deal with empirically identifiable variables.  A goal of the scientific system is to eliminate from consideration the residual categories from science and focus upon the positively defined, empirical variables (19).  Only such a systematic theoretical study will allow science to progress.  This is a major distinction between science and philosophy.

Philosophy

Science and philosophy are not the same, but they may provide mutual benefits.  The example of Kant is illustrative (24).  Philosophy is a residual category because it is a mere attempt to rationalize cognitive understanding of the human experience in ways other than by empiric evidence (21).  A key concept to consider is that of methodology.  As a preface, consider that for each positive there is a negative (22).  For each scientific theory, there are philosophical consequences and other assumptions.  Good or bad, the duality exists.  Some questions will lead to valid knowledge through empirically valid propositions.  This process is methodology.  Methodology is narrowly defined as “considered general grounds for validity of scientific propositions” (24).  This definition is more than research technique through interview, questionnaire or statistical analysis.  Hence, methodology separates science from philosophy, which is based in logic and epistemology.  

Concepts

There are different types of theoretical concepts and type determines how the concept is formed (or perhaps framed) for scientific study.  The quote from Henderson illustrates this point well: “all empirical observation is ‘in terms of a conceptual scheme’” (28).  Language differences are good to provide an example of how structure of concepts differs.  Parsons calls these descriptive frames of reference or schemata (28).  These schemata represent a methodological level of scientific observation.  Of these, the schema of social action, proposing that concrete individuals adapt means of reaching ends is instrumental (30).  (This sounds like Weber’s rational action.)  To relate the earlier discussion, empirical facts must be considered within the schema or conceptualization.  Similar to Weber’s historical individual this process of using schema allows for phenomena of interest to be identified and defined within groups (conceptualized) and then studied meaningfully.  Concepts may then be referenced or broken down into parts for further examination.  The goal is to devise observational operations by which the scheme allows examination of empirical evidence and thereby allows problems to be answered (37 – 39).

            Therefore, a theoretical system must include a frame of reference, conceptualized structure of concrete systems to which the frame applies and certain “parts”.  The main aspect of the part is related to its structure in systems of action; the skeleton or social structure.  This analysis of social structure is therefore critically related to action schema, and as Parsons notes provides the name of the text The Structure of Social Action (39).

THEORY OF ACTION

Parsons’ theoretical systems for social science relies upon the finding that an action is a unit or part.  There must be an “actor”, the “end” of the act, and the “situation” which initiated the actor to act.  Note B on page 77 explores this concept in detail.  The situation may allow for control or lack of control over the act.  These may be called means or conditions respectively.  Further, the relationship between the parts may allow for normative alternatives.  Factors of the action are time, choice, actor’s subjective point of view, physical environment/ biological organism,    (45).  Time moves from present to future.  Without the actor doing something the future would not change.  By this process, actors ‘achieve, realize or achieve ends.  In this fashion, the system is its own atom.  Parsons later seems to use this for his basis in listing atomism as the first predominant feature of a developing system (56, 743).  Choice equates to “range of choice open to the actor”.  There is range of choice in the means of acting and in the ends of the future result as affected by the normative orientation.  Error is potential in this process because of error in choice.  The external world interplays upon the individual actor’s subjective state.  Hence, it is necessary to determine whether action is brought about by the external world or the actors’ internal point of view.  Physical environment may impinge upon the action.  As a final note, it is not the actor as an individual that is the atom, but rather the unit act that is the atom (72).

            In his discussion of utilitarianism Parsons notes that a major problem with social thinkers has been to justify (“values”) course of conduct or policy which they propose rather than evaluate objective and understandable facts (53).  He argues his point using primarily the ethical and religious contexts of Christianity and secondarily the cultural thought of the Greek polis (53-55).  The antithesis of the faulty objective to explain based upon value leads to the second predominate feature of a developing system, which is “rationality”.  This is not to be fully explained by a discussion of irrationality or nonrationality.  Rather the positive norm of rationality is action understood to be guided “by scientific or … scientifically sound knowledge of the circumstances of the actor” (58).  This translates to evaluation of what ends are possible within the conditions of the particular situation and then judging which means are reasonably understood and verified to be available and best adapted to meet the ends (the rational acting unit).  This unit (automism, rationality, empiricism, and random ends) allows for concrete empiricism and completes the utilitarian system.  Parsons notes that rationality also plays a role in the theory of action.  Unitarianism, positivism and idealism are synthesized into his theory of action. 

Voluntaristic Action

Action is voluntary and involves an actor, goals of individual actors, alternative means for achieving goals and desires, internal and external constraints that affect choice, and subjective decisions by the actors (60-69).  The utilitarian assigns a degree of rationality to the actor, therefore unitarianism may be said to be positivistic, but there are other positivist examples (62).  Positivist thought was central to Marshal, Pareto, and Durkheim.  

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Parsons concludes analysis with a reminder that he has attempted an empirical study.  It does not matter that the theories of the theorists considered dealt with various phenomena; rather these theorists were the empirical data by which the process of development of scientific thought has been studied.  A synthesis of concepts related to the utilitarian, positivist, and idealist leads to a “voluntaristic theory of action”.  By this theory enables the categorization of social phenomena.  From this theory, five particular theses have been concluded.

Five Theses

First, there is an outline or structure called the voluntaristic theory of action (62).  This is so even though different theorists examined used different terminology (720).  Second, these differing categories as a whole create a new system that although it includes parts of earlier systems fails to have all parts of any one system therefore it is individually incompatible with any prior system.  Third, as a whole the new system allows for understanding and explanation (closeness) of each earlier writer’s empirical views whether positivistic, evolutionary, utilitarian or idealistic.  Fourth, there remains much study to be done.  Hence, empirical study is ongoing (721).  Fifth, empirical study is a multifaceted process.  In order to better understand phenomenon there is need for a fully integrated systematic approach to study of empirical facts.  Without this approach, several fallacies arise as set forth on page 726. 

            The bottom line is that the development of empirical knowledge must be an integral part of measuring the development of social change.  This method is not simply of dominating importance to study of dynamics, but of major importance (726). 

Implications of the Study

Many things need to continue to be done.  The verification part of theory requires that scientists continue to test theory against empirical fact.  However, it is fair for scientists to set limits and parameters upon their work and identify the context of their study.  By defining the parameters of investigation a theorist may come to conclude his/her work and leave additional investigation and verification to other scientists (727).  The establishing of parameters of a study relates to the defining of the problem in the initial investigation.          Though attempting to limit the study to empiric evidence Parsons admits that he has had to rely in part upon philosophical considerations (728). 

             

 

Reference

Parsons, Talcott. [1937] 1961. The Structure of Social Action.  New York, NY: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Pareto’s Rise and Fall of Elites

Perhaps it is Vilfredo Pareto, from among early writers who have been labeled “classical social theorists, which best follows the method of first defining his social problem of interest, then stating propositions and only then constructing theories and hypotheses.  As he notes in Chapter 1 of The Rise and Fall of Elites, it is not his aim in writing to defend some concept or finding, but rather to objectively analyze social theory with facts (25).  As a result of his clarity of purpose and stated aim the reader is greatly enabled in following his analytical processes.  Moreover, Pareto is to the point in advising the reader to consider the text in specific contextual meaning and not to go beyond the limits of this text (25).  The Rise and Fall of Elites first written by Pareto under the untranslated title ______ is an excellent introduction to the basic theory of the “circulation of elites”.  In essence this proposal provides that the coming and going of elites during different eras of society are critical elements of societal progression. 

RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR

Pareto follows the _____ reasoning process of Claude Bernard, whereby facts are noted, and thereby concepts are created.  It is from concepts that the scientist returns to an examination of objective fact (27).  Pareto informs the reader that he limits his analysis in “The Rise and Fall of Elites to examination of the concepts back to the facts (27).  He therefore jumps immediately into a discussion of his hypotheses or as elsewhere called laws.  Two hypotheses are as follows: 1) the greater sorts of human action arise not in logic but in sentiment, 2) In hindsight (a posteriori) humans try to justify actions arising in sentiment by assigning logical justification (27).  As this process plays out in the daily affairs of humankind most action is irrational and only afterward due to certain stimuli humans attempt to give rational justification to those actions.  The discussion of Themistocles defeat of the Persian fleet, ten times the size of the Athenian fleet at Salamis, in the Aegean Sea is a prime example of a posteriori justification (29). 

            Pareto concludes that from the two prior propositional laws that “every sociological phenomenon has two distinct and entirely diverse forms”, to wit: the subjective and the objective form (27).  Accordingly, the psychological state of belief is the subjective form and the objective state relates to the real interchange between objects.  Again his use of an example, the fun house mirror, brings clarity to his conceptualization.

            In getting a firm basic understanding of Pareto’s theory it seems most important to understand that human consciousness reflects (like a mirror) objective reality.  In essence, examination of the objective leads to understand the subjective.  None the less, in understanding the roles of both subjective and objective forms it is important not to discount either.  Rather it is a blend of both subjective and objective states that creates the better understanding of action.  Pareto rejects Darwin because Darwinianism suggests that forms that do not “fit” suffer demise.  In the interaction of objective and subjective basis for action neither form is eliminated.  Within this blending of subjective and objective is the answer to why or how their mutual relation plays out (29).  From hindsight history allows society to look back and see how actions based upon subjective sentiment play out and in so doing filled with greater objectivity bring fuller understanding of action.  Perhaps it can be said that in the present, the actors are too close and engrossed with the phenomena to fully appreciate the action taken.  Could the “war on terror” which some how led to the removal of Saddam Hussein from his seat of power in Iraq be form of globalized struggle of elites?  Could the sentiment of fear caused by 9-11 combined with religious zeal have bonded a people to irrationality?  If so, in a time of more rational evaluation would the U.S. now be continuing the struggle in Iraq? 

            In moving forward to the concept of the law of rhythm Pareto introduces the reader to a major assumption that he makes in this text (34).  Specifically he points out that the makes an assumption that “there is a rhythm of sentiment which we can observe in ethics, in religion, and in politics as waves resembling the business cycle” (31).  Pareto gives reference to Spencer’s law of motion (30).  These currents or waves of motion or movement may be accompanied by substantive interaction with ethics, religion, politics or other forms of sentiment.  These waves ebb and waine, they are turbulent and stagnate, but their flows create a “faith” or “skepticism” in groups of society.  This faith or skepticism binds with law number two regarding a posteriori logical justification for actions taken and create “strange imagination” about reality.  These strange imaginations provide the irrational justification for action.  In the process of justifying prior action both the actors and the masses come to see the justification as the actor’s true motive for the act completed.  For example anger may lead to assault and capture, which is justified as protection and thereby fear or hatred combined with a rhythmatic force such as patriotism or religion is seen as the justification.   In short people act because they get caught up knowingly or unknowingly in currents that lead to the impulse or irrational action.  After completing the act imaginary or devised reasons are constructed to justify the act.  Most all people, but the actors and the masses come to accept the justification as truth.

CIRCULATION OF ELITES

Elites are those people represent the strongest , most energetic, and most capable citizenry in concept.  They are part of every society and era of time and may be evil or good.  Pareto notes that elites come and go.  In this way as previous elites are removed new elites are being brought into the circle.  In the end the elite as a model of power and influence remains the same as in previous eras (36).  Pareto explains this continual process as follows.  Elites make major contribution to stability and continuance of society.  Each era, new outsiders with to come to power.  In their effort to enter the circle of the old elites they may establish and objective to only join the circle or they may determine to remove the old circle members.  In the ideal form these “want to be’s” sponsor the good of the oppressed and frail masses and declare the good of all or most of the society.  This provides support to their subjective cause to join the circle with an objective cause on behalf of the masses.  An example of the objective effort may be the use of boycotts, or sponsoring laws for general health care.  If successful, the new elites begin to take on the same role of the old elites and the masses are controlled, forgotten, or given concessions in order to manage solidarity of the society.  Could this also play out as a dream to bring Democracy to a part of the world that has historically denounced the concept?  Figure 1. below provides a flow chart of elite circulation.

Growing Sentiment		=	Growing Period of Crisis
Rise of New Elites (under class)		+ = -	Decline of Old Elite
Mode:	sponsor needs of society		Mode:	a.       some may be retained b.      all may be removed
	once in power =	perpetuates the power, but appear to vindicate the weak, perhaps with grants and necessary concessions

 

ASSENDING PERIOD – RELIGIOUS CRISIS

Religious sentiment is a commonly associated with

CONCLUSION

.

 

Reference

Pareto, Vilfredo. [___] 2008. The Rise and Fall of Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology.  Translated by ____; with an Introduction by Hans L. Zetterberg. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers.

Marx – Engels: German Ideology & The Manifesto

The evolution of socioeconomic systems naturally creates tension and in turn struggle.  The appropriate question may center on which type of dimension struggle erupts.  Is struggle centered upon class, race, gender, or perhaps another universal construct?  Can it be that class struggle is the optimum form of tension and that gender and race are only factors that may enhance or detract from the causal effect of class?  No doubt, tension and struggle do lead to a “sorting out” of differences, ways and those who seek power to “call the shots” of which the remainder of society must either abide by or seek to continue to frustrate or overturn.

            These tensions and struggles Marx would say have led to the ordered evolution of society from the primitive toward the civilized.

GERMAN IDEOLOGY

In his manuscript published as The German Ideology Marx with exactness, picks apart the theoretical concepts of young Hegelians such as Saint Bruno and Saint Max as he refers to them.  In Volume 1 he gives further great attention to the writings of Feuerbach.  Marx laboriously and with continual exactness emphasizes the role of the history of man, or perhaps better stated he explains his concept and theory of how history comes to be accounted for, and explains the cause and effect relationship that defines history as understood in each social age.  Within this context, Marx addresses the materialist’s conception of history as based upon certain “real premises” which are set forth for the reader beginning at page 36 and following.  The first premise, Marx tells the reader is that “all human history is…the existence of living human individuals” (37).

History

Human history began in its primitive stage as a tribal communal system.  Over time it evolved through stages which he calls ancient and feudal (38).  To these there he later adds the industrial or capitalistic age in which at his writing was in flux and debatably continues today even though there is current argument for a post-industrial world or an information society.  In the industrial age property and division of labor are uniquely tied together in establishing power groups and determining who, how, and when power is allocated.  Other transitional stages may be discussed such as the age of migration of tribal individuals to the town which led to the establishment of the guild/artisan system which matured in the feudal age.  Another transition is the migration of individuals from guildsmen and artisans to the merchant class and thereby led to manufacturing not only in towns but between towns.  In the progressive growth of manufacturing towns began to trade with other town.  Merchants connected towns and manufacturers. 

Division of labor.  Some towns became known for their products and manufacture.  Eventually this matured to states and countries trading with each other and led to some being know as primary manufacturers of certain properties.  This came to establish the division of labor and the formation of a capitalist society in which the bourgeois exercise power over the proletariat.  In other words society builds upon itself and productive people advance society (41).  As society grows more production is required, and what humans produce will dictate what humankind is; the mode of life (37).

            Within Marx’s concept society would advance further because of the above statements.  The need to exist creates in humans certain needs, food, housing, and clothes, etc.  Hence, production to create these needs occurs.  Without production there is no existence.  Hence, production is essence of human existence.  Marx lists three aspects regarding human existence (47,48).  All three co-exist in society and help the process of production.

            This process works together in the capitalist society whereby production is defined as division of labor.  Division of labor brings with it fragmentation (95).  A by-product is opposition, which may be classified perhaps as a type of competition.   This division of labor lends itself to development of private property and the state.  As people compete and specialized manufacturers come to exist there is also established an irony.  The irony is that mutual interdependence comes into play (49-52).

Production defines humankind.  Those in power are the ruling class and those that control material production also control intellectual production or ideas (67).  Hence, those with power shape the history of ideas for that particular age of humankind.  In this way the capitalist through production comes to regulate society.  Therefore, production regulates individuals and human history.  Production dictates the definition of humankind.  This is not as it should naturally be.  Humans were initially communal in the tribe.  What is called for is a return to the communal; the perfection of communism.  The communist human is distinguished from the capitalist.  The opposite cause effect relationship exists between the communist and capitalist society.  In the communist society humans (society) regulates production (53).

FUTURE ORDER

            From this point it is capable to predict the future of society and human history yet to be.  Marx states that in the capitalist social individuals ultimately become estranged.  This state of humanity must revolt in order to overcome being estranged.   But this can only be successful in a universal revolt.  Sporatic and isolated revolution will not  be successful.  Before such a revolution will be successful there must be widespread subjugation to “unendurable power” which has created in the majority of people a state of “propertylessness” (54).  Only will this universal revolt abolish the present state of humankind.  In this way revolution will end private ownership of property and division of labor and hence will end the power structure that in the capitalist system controls both the material production and the intellectual production of property.  Marx at page 71 makes a good argument and analysis of this point in the natural vs. the created instrument of production. 

INTERESTING OBSERVATIONS

Though it will not be discussed in this paper Marx’s analysis of the material and mental labor, the migrations from country-side to city and then to the establishment of the merchant class and capitalism is most interesting (75-83).  His analysis of the weakness of the unorganized groups of migrants leading to capitalism and power through division of labor and property is quite interesting.  Communism to Marx is the ultimate (89,90).

THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

The Communist Manifesto serves to put into succinct terminology the further developed concepts which Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels premised in The German Ideology.  Important concepts relate to class struggle leading to conflict and the resolution in the form of a new type of revolution or a pure revolution that will end property ownership and the need for class.  Essentially what makes this a pure revolution is that unlike in the past in which revolt established only a reform or reclassification of property this pure revolution will be a reform of society without property.

HISTORY OF STRUGGLE

The history of mankind is the history of class struggle (Marx and Engels 1906:2).  In this way Marx digresses to the basic concepts of the stages of society that he before established in The German Ideology.  However, in The Communist Manifesto he elaborates greatly on a more developed concept of the widening void between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat ( ).  Relevant sections to compare this analysis are set forth in The German Ideology (Marx 1998:38-83).  In developing the line of argument Marx makes several primary points regarding the relationship of the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat, the complementary function between the Proletariat and communism, the later role of socialism, and opponents to communism.

Laborer and Communism.

It seems that Marx says is asking the reader a question.  The question may be stated as who do you labor for?  He may say for the capitalist or for the laborer.  In the capitalist system the answer is that the laborer labors for the sake of labor.  In the communist system the laborer labors for the laborer.

            The Bourgeoisie and Proletariat will inevitably clash.  Society is an order of diametric scheme in the form of oppressed and oppressor (Marx and Engels 1906:2).   This is nothing new, however it must be understood that this form of antagonism between classes is ever growing and will erupt.  This growing change is the result of numerous revolutions in the form of modes of production and exchange.  As each age develops the modes of production and exchange have lead to the greater influence or power of the propertied Bourgeoise and less influence of the propertyless Proletariat. 

            Marx evidences to the reader that the Bourgeoise as it has gained power and property has been the spear point for these revolutions which have only led to greater centralization of power in themselves and reduction of the value of the laborer to that of his wage, a money relationship (1906:3).  As such, the conditions of production and exchange have evolved and created an ever increasing burst circular growth of the Bourgeoisie, which has become world dominating (Marx and Engels 1906:5).  Comically imaginative is the picture Marx paints of the sorcerer who has created more than he/she can handle and finds that the creation is in control of the creator.  Likewise, the global growth of production and exchange has now outgrown the control of the Bourgeois society and it will be their downfall at the behest of the Proletariat.    

            The Proletariat and communism roles, a call to arms.  Within this section is the inspiration for and the defense of the revolution.  Marx gives the reader insight in how to implement the revolution.  In addition, perhaps of greater importance he attempts to answer the objections that appear against the revolution.  In particular, he lends support to why a propertyless society is practicable and necessary.  He also sets forth reasons for why economics call for revolution regardless the strength of religion.  While these two arguments appear rational, his arguments regarding family and nationality seem slimly supported.

            Other socialists fail to see the absolute outcome through revolution.  Marx addresses three major types of then modern socialists, the reactionary, the conservative and the Critical.  Each of these Marx dispels with argument regarding their fallacies, inept understanding, or corrupt premises.

            Other opponents.  Keep the goal in mind Marx leads the reader.  This is his final call to rally.  He seems to say read everything said thus far and now put it to action.  The reader is not the only one that will act but rather all communists everywhere will support this revolt.  It is inevitable and it is sure to succeed.

CRITICAL NOTE ON MARX AND ENGELS

Apparently all social change is based upon economics.  They seem to give very little credit to change being initiated through religion or individual humans.  However, in particular The Communist Manifesto must be read for what it is; as an inspiring document drafted for purpose to propagandize a particular mode of change during a particular era of history.  In this it does an excellent job of cutting to the point and inspiring readers to “act”. 

CONCLUSION

In review of the above and after return to a few select pages from the German Ideology and the German Manifesto it is most aptly stated that Marx became a cynic of what became the new interpretation of Hegel’s concepts as set forth by the young Hegelians.  He also concluded that power is rooted in property and division of labor, which is to say in land, money and manufacturing. 

Reference

Marx, Karl. 1998. The German Ideology. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. 1906. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr & Company.

Durkheim – Rules of Sociological Method

Society is a collectivity.  Durkheim’s definition of sociology as “the science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning” is quite appropriate and lends the distinction between study of the individual and the social, of which Durkheim establishes social scientific method (45).  The scientific study or methodology requires the researcher to use caution in both defining what constitutes a social fact and follow an order in analyzing the relationship between the social fact or social facts and the interaction of groups (48).  An important emphasis is the need to study method.  Only in Comte is found the devotion to explore and establish true methodology for study of the social.  In Comte is seen a kindred spirit with Durkheim; there is need to learn about the whole through examination of the whole.  Therefore, there is the Comtian and Boutrouxian principle that “each science must explain ‘by its own principles” (7).  Interestingly, Durkheim specifies the weakness of focus on the individual and simultaneously criticizes Spencer for his individualism (48).

            Durkheim’s central focus is upon the whole of social order and the impact that social fact has upon society.  The focus develops around the concepts of social facts and external phenomena.  Basic to the analysis is the understanding that social facts are “things”, and social phenomena are “external” to individuals.  This basis establishes the need for objective and methodological sociology.  Hence, Durkheim emanates a desire to establish sociology as a science of objective, specific methods of explanation through the study of independent realities.  It is only through empiric investigation that the impact of external realities upon individuals and their subsequent interaction within groups may be determined.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD

This book is an inspiration to developing the use of scientific method to examine and answer questions about society and to explore and describe society.  As commented by Lukes in his introduction, this material resonates a “call to arms” as Marx’s’ Manifesto of the Communist Party.  In particular the last sentence of The Rules of Sociological Method emphatically states the following regarding the duty of all sociologists; “we must work to place it (sociology added) in a position to fulfill its part” (163).  The book is a call to action.  The action called for is to break with the heretofore-philosophic tendencies.  Sociology must be not only a concept for discussion, but also an empirical science in application.  If not applied scientifically it will be worthless to society.  Society is the highest order and therefore deserves an independent science, which explores answers and explains society at the highest level, both empirically and objectively.

Method requires 1) observation of facts (things) which are clearly defined as a function of their inherent properties (74, 75), 2) systematically discard all preconceptions (72), 3) discretion in order of main problems to be examined, 4) particular procedures to be followed in sequence, 5) following established rules of proof (never assume), and 6) cautious and critical review (48, 81-83).  What Durkheim calls for is an empirical, objective and quantitative science.  Ideas have their place, but only through real phenomena can there be true study that will allow relationships to be determined and analyzed (69-70).

SOCIAL FACTS

Social facts lead to order in ways of thinking, acting, and create a consciousness for a group (43).  It is almost as if Durkheim is saying that elements of socialization are the social facts, which construct meaning, establish duties and expectations within each society (50-52).  These social facts are the things we learn that establish reality.  If comparing this thought to the Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft of Tönnies states that, the folkway causes conformity in the Gemeinschaft and mores cause conformity in the Gesellschaft.  These external facts are in essence variables that explain the social condition.  In thinking of social facts as a variable, it is not hard to think of the study of the social as a systematic study of human interaction as controlled by external things (69, 70).  Social phenomena are things; it is data and is a starting point for science (69).  The ability to understand society is thus enhanced by proper selection of things to be studied for causal effect upon society.  Hence, through study of things external to the social it is possible to understand the social, generalize about and predict movement.  Durkheim defines a social fact by two alternate definitions:

“as any way of acting, whether fixed or not,  capable of exerting over the individual an external constraint; or which is general over the whole of a given society whilst having an existence of its own, independent of its individual manifestations” (59).

 

The following will elaborate on primary concepts that complement the definitions.

Things

The basic rule for observation of social facts is that a social fact is a thing (60).  A social fact is not material, yet it is a reality external to the subjective and is therefore a “thing”.  What ever is subjective is a concept or an idea, but the thing is objective.  The “thing” is outside the mind and in order to understand it and the impact or causal effect it may have requires observation of reality.  For example, a social group may have an understanding of appropriate behavior, not because the individuals of the group determined the understanding, but because earlier group affiliations may have established certain religious belief that focused upon the particular behavior as appropriate (52).  In short, the group follows the prior social fact, not because they or any individual established the behavior as appropriate in its own right, but because the behavior comes from a previous external order, which in this instance is the thing called the institution of religion (37).  In turn, the current group may adjust by adding to or taking from the “thing” and in this way become an effect upon other or later groups.  An example may be a campus demonstration that starts passive for most members which later escalates in the heat of the “crowd”, the members then caught up in the current or flow do things that individual members before and after felt incapable of perpetrating.  Yet in the current, they were capable of the accusatory actions (53).  An example of this is perhaps Kent State.  This introduces the concept of the external social phenomena.

            Social Fact comes to exist in part through previous fact, but is in part also established through interaction of individuals within groups (45, 52).  This inter-group interaction provides plurality and leads to adjustment, or synthesis of the social institution, such as religion.  Being objective is the key to understanding this synthesis and the evolving effects.  In this way several types of observations may be made, such as 1) phenomena although not a material thing is no less a real thing, 2) things may be defined, 3) things have a mode of existence that is constant, 4) things have an character independent of individual arbitrariness, and 5) things provide necessary relationship flows (46).

Reflective thought precedes scientific investigation (60).  Ideas form from reflection and help establish behavior.  Rather than try to investigate relationships it is simpler to speculate.  The scientific method conversely calls for observing, describing and comparing things.  Hence, scientific investigation should begin with reflection should lead to ideas and ideas should lead to things.  This was a failure of Comte and Spencer (63-65).      

External Social Phenomena

It follows from the premise that elements combine to create phenomena.  Where as the individual can make the entire whole of the psyche, the individual is only a part of the social.  Durkheim’s examples of chemical particles relating to the living cell, and individuals relating to society are well taken (39).  This is a good example of synthesis and may imply a separate stratum of study.  For instance since psychology is study of the whole (see above), and sociology is study of the whole (see above), and since the two wholes do not equate, it follows that they are different.  Hence, study of one is not sufficient study of the other.  While Durkheim admits that both sociology and psychology may overlap and we may find resemblances and similarities they are composed in different ways and must thereby be studied in different ways in an effort to understand them.  Hence, as introduced in the prior section what affects the individual as a whole and the study of that phenomena, is not sufficient or at least higher order study of a new whole consisting of many different individuals.  It follows that the social whole is thus influenced by external things that affect the collective group.

Human Resistance

Why has scientific study of the social been delayed?  Humans fight the logic that they are in part “substance of” rather than being “substance for”.  What does this mean?  Humankind fights objective reality that humans are controlled in part by the external phenomena.  Humans prefer to be complete and autonomous in control and power over themselves as a specie and all other species and existence.  This desire for dominion leads to natural aggression against any science that may subject human social order to an external order beyond their full control (46).

SOCIAL TYPES

History, Philosophy, And Sociology

History and philosophy fail to examine the social for a number of reasons.  Historians according to Durkheim establish only nominal data who categorize society by individual groups, according to sequential events that have heterogeneous relationships that are unique.  To the historian each society is unique and are not comparable.  The other extreme, the philosopher is pure realist which views groups of tribes, cities and nations as contingent aggregates of people that are held together by general laws and thereby creating a continuum for all humans.  Durkheim intercedes with sociology which is the intermediate.  He firmly states that there are many social species, but held together in unity, and distinguishable in diversity.  Therefore, society is the same overall, but with difference in relation to social facts (108,09).

            An interesting review and criticism of both Comte and Spencer are in this section.  Comte fails to because he defines society as one specie (109).  Spencer, although he recognizes the importance of studying parts in order to understand the whole fails in establishing a definite, clear, and concise definition of a simple society (110).  Durkheim moves forward to discuss the importance of the definition and establishes the horde as the simplest from of social specie in relation to the method of study.  No doubt the 19^th century reader would ask the following question.  If society is many species and if it is established that in order to study the whole the parts must be studied fully, how do we study all of the species of society?  It is enjoyable to read Durkheim’s discussion of selecting proper variables for analysis of society (110-17).  As he discusses the proper classification of social types, social morphology, it is easy to visualize the creation of frames and samples (111,112, 241-2).  This discussion is interesting reading because it is the concept we can visualize, not tainted by the sterile definition of a variable.  In his description, Durkheim states that the sociologist must clearly define the simple unit or part of the whole.  In this instance, the simple society which is the basic unit of study must not include others simpler than itself, and must contain only a single segment (113).  This unit must be a natural basis for classification of the population.  It is at this point the discussion of the horde as the basic unit for society grouping is made.  Upon this there may build the clan and the tribe and more general structure of society (111-14).  In his discussion of elements, it is noteworthy that he admits that selection of the simplest units of study are not exact.  There is room for error.   Hence, Durkheim tells the reader that in scientific method it is crucial to classify and define terms.  Not only the element to be studied, but also identify its degree of relationship to what is being studied (115). 

            Grouping of social facts and units help to improve interpretation of phenomenon.  However the interpretation of phenomenon requires the examination of the cause of the phenomenon as well as the analysis of its function.  The concept called function may be best understood as the effect of the cause, or “the relationship that it bears to some social end” (134).  This is the causal relationship which allows meaning to be given to the analysis of facts.

PROOF

In this step the essence of proof is looking for combinations of cases in which there is evidence that one case depends upon another (147).  The ability of the observer to artificially reproduce the phenomenon at will is the method of experimentation proper, but when phenomenon are reproduced beyond the will of the observer it is indirect experimentation, or comparative method (147).  Of these two methods comparative method is preferred because it allows the observer to determine sequence of events.  Comte preferred experimentation proper since it establishes general direction of change or progress.  Mill rejected sociological experimentation all together (148).  Durkheim rejects both because effect is not always the result of antecedents.  Only by controlled and isolated conditions may variable cause and effect be determined.

            The discussion of concomitant method is excellent (151-55).  The procedure on page 152 introduces the concepts of cause and effect relationships affected by control and other variables.  This fits nicely with a discussion on bivariate and multivariate analysis and exemplifies the need to be critical in analysis of findings.  Not only must the sociologist be critical and unbiased of his/her own findings, but he/she must question the information used in study of society.  There are many parallel and uninterrupted transformations within society.  This transformation is continuous.  The study of the variations within society must be thorough, methodical, and serial in that study must follow the successions of societies or species.  In this way sociologists may confirm findings through repetition and isolation of specific variables (155).

MARXISM

This section is a very interesting review of Antonio Labriola.  It not only attempts to bring some select clarity to the original doctrine, but also provides a commentary on the Manifesto of the Communist Party.  Central themes of life often dictate what history is or will be.  Hence as Durkheim seemingly correctly surmises humans often establish history upon what is central to their own lives, aims, desires, fears and create ways to justify or reasons to prove their relationship is accurate or legitimate (167).  This is history centered upon subjective concept and is as Durkheim says “worthless” (167). 

            By focusing on the subjective, history distorts reality and therefore true causation is not identified and explored.  This limits discussion and evaluation of the forces that cause society to move and flow in general succession from one era or age to another.  This is much like the theoretical discussion of the current age.  For instance, is our age, say since 1970, better described as a “Post-Industrial”, Information, Neo-Fordist or some other type of society?   Whatever the conclusion, society comes to act in part, because of what it believes to be accurate and this arises from the definition associated with the historical fact.  For instance, the mind may conceive a reason for acting.  This reason is substantively accurate, however in objectivity be inaccurate.  This lack of objectivity is overcome and analyzed through understanding societal evolution.  It appears that Durkheim states that Marx allows for objectivity through the state of technology.  Technology translates to the condition of the instruments of labor, and division of labor (168-9).  These relationships of labor and technology change through history and effect relationships of the classes.  Relationships of labor and technology as from agrarian to industrial change and therefore class relationships change.  Power becomes more central and calls for means by which to regulate masses and exercise power effectively and efficiently call for the state.  The state balances unrest and subordination against power and control.  Through this, law primarily carries out state balance measures.  Morality, arts and religion play roles in this process to “naturalize” the ways of human thinking 168-70).

            This economic illustration of cause and effect between technology of labor and division of labor forms the basis for society.  As such, “things” existing outside the individual consciousness explain social life.  At this point Durkheim turns to a discussion of the economy vis a vis the role of religion in serving as a social fact influencing society.  A point worth noting is that establishing a fact such as the role of economics in society may create a function and thereby lead to other cause and effect.

CONCLUSION

 

Reference

Durkheim, Emile. [___] 1982. Durkheim: The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. edited and introduction by Steven Lukes, select translations by W.D. Hallis. New York, NY:The Free Press.