The modern discipline of sociology is highly influenced by two figures: Émile Durkheim and Max Weber. Therefore, in order to understand current sociological thought and society in general, it is crucial to examine their theories. Though convergent in many areas and both influenced by German philosophy, Durkheim and Weber also had different approaches and theories to the same phenomena that is society. This means it is even more imperative to critically analyze their theories so as to arrive at an informed perspective on society and its ills. After all, knowledge without application is useless. Thus, the current situation in Wisconsin where the present governor has signed an anti-union bill (with other measures attached) and its broader implications will be examined.
To start, as Durkheim was a positivist (or quantitative, in general, studying facts and figures) and Max Weber was more of an anti-positivist (i.e. qualitative, studying the individual), their theories largely reflect these distinct frameworks. Durkheim focused on what he called “social facts” which are supposed to be objective “things” and which are determined by statistics (Craib 1997: 27). Weber, the other hand, focused on social action and the individual (Craib 1997: 45). From these starting points, these two theorized about society and social structures. Durkheim considered solidarity, that is, what holds a society together, and he proposed the concepts of “mechanical solidarity” and “organic solidarity” (Craib 1997: 65) Mechanical solidarity includes very little division of labor, as in kin groups, and organic solidarity involves a highly developed division of labor, as in the market system, and these “social facts” can be observed through the legal system. Further, mechanical solidarity is distinguishable by “repressive law,” in which residents are punished for violations of the moral code, called the “conscious collective” by Durkheim. Durkheim argues that moral action “seeks the common good over and above that of the individual and it is directed towards others in accordance with society’s ideals and values” (Craib 1997: 76). This forms social and system integration which Dukheim claims shapes and limits the individual (Weber would disagree which will be discussed later). In organic solidarity, not only is there supposedly greater economic prosperity due to the large-scale division of labor, but it unites different people as they share common purposes. Additionally, in organic solidarity, its external manifestation is not “repressive law” but “restitutive law,” identified by concern with restoring social contracts and compensation for violating the contract. However, these types of solidarity imply an ideal state which has arguably never existed. Hence, Dukheim described what he called “abnormal divisions of labor” (Craib 1997: 68) which take the forms of class conflict (which is a result of industrialization outpacing the development of rules for the market), forced division of labor (where people are misallocated in the job sector due to inequalities), and managerial deficiency (i.e. poorly organized enterprises).
By constrast, Weber speaks of communal and associative relationships as the basis of social cohesion. Communal relationships involve a group of individual actors viewing themselves as belonging to each other and act accordingly, such as familial relationships whereas associative relationships entail self-interest or personal values, for example, the relationships within a trade union or school. Regarding individual social action, Weber strays from Durkheim’s position on society dictating the individual actions and instead emphasizes the primacy of individual agency. Weber lists four kinds of social actions which vary in meaningfulness and rationality: 1) traditional action (which is ritualistic and borderline rational), 2) “purely affectual” action (which has more meaning as more control is exerted and is also borderline rational), 3) value-based action (acting in a way that satisfies a personal belief), and 4) rational action (where the ends, means, and secondary results are all taken into account). These actions, according to Weber, are guided by a “legitimate order,” such as laws, and the “validity” of that order is based on the probability that people will follow it.
As opposed to Durkheim who claimed that social conflict arises from “abnormal divisions of labor” and suggested that it can be remedied, Weber asserted that conflict, in terms of war or regulated competition, cannot be eliminated and that it has purpose in supporting the “fit” and filtering out the “unfit” (Craib 1997: 121).
Also distinguished from Durkheim is what Weber says about value freedom. Durkheim suggested that value freedom is merely about eliminating assumptions and considering only social facts. Rather, Weber claims that science is guided by integrity, rigor, clarity, and truth but that these are also based on human values, i.e. “social scientists choose their lines and objects of inquiry by reference to values” (Craib 1997: 52). In other words, both social facts and human values matter and that is true value freedom.
Durkheim and Weber both agree that religion (or beliefs, e.g., political) is central in holding a society together. Durkheim studied the Australian aboriginal religion of totemism which attributed special powers to the totem and this shared belief, or collective representation, tied the society together. Durkheim wrote,
Before all, [religion] is a system of ideas with which the individuals represent to themselves the society of which they are members, and the obscure but intimate relations which they have with it. This is its primary function; and though metaphorical and symbolic, this representation is not unfaithful. (Craib 1997: 70)
Weber studied Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity and notices the universality of the belief in the supernatural. As the beliefs develop, religion obtains autonomy and affects social order through moral codes and rationalizations. In this respect, Weber’s infamous work The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism elaborates that Protestant, Puritan, and Calvinist ethic of industriousness gave rise to European capitalism as its rationalization was that worldly success is a sign of God’s grace and salvation (Craib 1997: 253).
In regards to politics, Durkheim argues that a strong central authority without opposition is contingent upon mechanical solidarity and that government organization could neutralize social organization in societies with organic solidarity. In the state, opposition between the governing and governed is central in politics. As societies develop, there is increasing need for individuals to be empowered to prevent the governing to exercise despotic control and the state must provide that empowerment. According to Weber’s take on power, he focuses on class, status, party, leadership, and domination. Weber defines class as based on property, i.e. those who own property and the means of production have power over those who don’t. Furthermore, classes are groups that share the same chances of obtaining goods, living conditions, and life experiences (Craib 1997: 128). Status and “status situation” are defined by “social honor” and esteem. This is different from class in that it is not necessarily associated with economic standing, as a priest may be of a low class but with high status. Also affecting status is educational attainment and profession. Durkheim asserted that a professional group can form its own values and norms whereas Weber insisted that the groups merely pursue their own self-interest in the market. With political parties, Weber did not believe they could drive social or economic reform, whether they were concerned with gaining money and power or principle, which would end up the same as the former through bureaucratic processes (Craib 1997: 132). In terms of leadership and domination, Weber discussed “charismatic leadership,” “traditional domination,” and “legal-rational domination.” Charismatic leadership is distinguished by the charisma a person has which allows that person to lead, especially in times of crisis (Craib 1997: 133-134). An example of traditional domination is patriarchism where there the father has power simply by means of tradition. As for legal-rational domination, there is a legal and administrative order which has binding authority over the people and can use force if legally sanctioned. In addition, this state is legitimate only if people believe it is legitimate (Craib 1997: 38). One manifestation of legal-rational domination is bureaucracy with the following features: organization of functions bound by rules, a sphere of competence, hierarchical organization, staff not owning the means of production and administration, no appropriations of official positions, and all administrative actions and rules are in writing (Craib 1997: 139-141).
Lastly, on modernity, Durkheim viewed it as a movement towards a balanced society joined by the state and a humanist religion where individuals and development of the division of labor are important in contrast to Weber who viewed it as a process of increasing rationality where the biggest threat is a large bureaucracy which would be sped up by socialism and communism and so the free market within a liberal democratic state would be the best defense (Craib 1997: 260).
So how does all this fit in with the situation in Wisconsin? First, one needs to understand what’s in the Wisconsin governor’s “budget repair” bill. Basically, it strips away collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, increases payments for health benefits and pensions, requires unions to re-register with the state every year, restricts access to Medicaid programs and access to public transportation, and hinders broadband internet access to rural communities, effectively making people ill, immobile, and uninformed (Fischer 2011). Furthermore, the governor Scott Walker is funded by the Koch brothers who are conservative billionaires aiming for neoliberal policies, that is, “free market” privatization (Kroll 2011). Even Walker has admitted that his budget plan will not save any money for the state (Jilani 2011). Ergo, the only reason for the bill appears to be the corporatization of society and pleasing the Koch brothers. Walker even threatened to call on the National Guard if workers resisted (Think Progress 2011). In response to this, the fourteen Democratic state senators of Wisconsin fled the state in order to prevent the passing of the bill. Walker then started sending out layoff notices to state employee unions in order to get the senators to return (Kleefeld 2011). However, the Republican state senators removed the fiscal part of the bill which would allow passing it without a quorum. As Walker signed it into law, over 100,000 people protested on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin (Democracy Now, 14 March 2011), teachers went on strike, students walked out of classes, firefighters called for a boycott of a bank that supported Walker, and recall petitions were signed by many thousands (Democracy Now, 11 March 2011).
What Dukheim might say about the current conflict is that it represents social facts as reflected by the legal system in a society of organic solidarity, which has a highly developed division of labor. There is a conscience collective among the unions and people of different walks of life that “seeks the common good over and above that of the individual and it is directed towards others in accordance with society’s ideals and values.” This also relates to restitutive law as the social contracts are broken between the state and public. He would also talk of the abnormal division of labor in which the advancement of capitalism (which Weber would say is a product of the Protestant ethic) has outpaced rules and regulations for it, such as seen by the Koch brothers being allowed to make huge contributions to politicians.
Weber would speak of the associative relationships among the unions and workers as they share a common interest in preserving their livelihoods and are perhaps driven by controlled affectual action, value-based action, and rational action, following the legitimate order. Walker’s bill, on the other hand, does not have legitimacy or validity as the masses are opposing it. The central issue in the situation at hand, Durkheim would argue, is conflict between the governing and governed and that the citizens must be empowered in order to resist the looming despotic control. Weber may further argue that the class conflict is one between the haves – Walker and the Koch Brothers – and the have-nots – the public workers. Though the unions, as a collective actor which Durkheim would say form their own values and which Weber would claim are only after self-interests in the market, may not have the class advantage, they may have the status advantage in Wisconsin. And despite the obvious differences between the Republican and Democratic state senators in Wisconsin, in the end they both chase after power in order to have influence due to the bureaucracy. Also, as Walker is clearly not a charismatic leader nor a patriarchist, he instead gains powers from legal-rational domination. He was voted in and now makes the binding rules and laws, although they are being challenged in court as to determine their legitimacy. This would be aspects of the bureaucracy Weber described. Durkheim might propose that the people of Wisconsin introduce rules and regulations in order to achieve a balance between the state and the individual. Weber, alternatively, would warn against increasing bureaucracy and instead would advocate for the people of Wisconsin take meaningful action in establishing a free market liberal democratic state, i.e. a representative democracy with fair elections alongside the free market.
In closing, Dukheim and Weber are enormously influential in developing sociological thought and their theories and ideas, however similar or dissimilar, have great relevance even in the 21st century. It would do sociologists and society well to consider their work as the events in Wisconsin unfold and to have an informed opinion about possible solutions.
REFERENCES
Craib, Ian. (1997). Classical Social Theory. New York: Oxford University Press
Democracy Now. (2011). “Worker Uprising: Up to 185,000 Protest in Madison as
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Signs Union-Busting Bill,” March 14.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/14/worker_uprising_up_to_185_000
_____. (2011). “Walkouts, Bank Boycotts and Recalls: Wisconsin Protests Intensify as
Union-Busting Legislation Pushed through State Assembly,” March 11.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/3/11/walkouts_bank_boycotts_and_recalls_wisconsin
Fischer, Brendan. (2011). “What Else is in Walker’s Bill,” February 26.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/02/10139/what-else-walkers-bill
Jilani, Zaid. (2011). “Scott Walker Admits Union-Busting Provision ‘Doesn’t Save Any
Money for the State of Wisconsin,’” April 19. http://www.truth-out.org/scott-walker
admits-union-busting-provision-doesnt-save-any-money-state-wisconsin/1302757200
Kleefeld, Eric. (2011). “Walker Sends Early Layoff Notices – Which Can Be ‘Avoided’ If
Dems Come Back,” March 4. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/walker
sends-early-layoff-notices—-which-can-be-avoided-if-dems-come-back.php
Kroll, Andy. (2011). “Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros,” February
18. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers
Think Progress. (2011). “Wisconsin Gov. Walker Threatens To Deploy National Guard As
‘Intimidation Force’ Against Workers’ Unions,” February 14.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/14/walker-anti-union-bill/
