January 16, 2014
•Every theorist has had to deal with Marx’s concerns, dealing with the giant (Karl
•There was no such thing as a fact that stands by itself, and that all assertions of
facts are always related to valued biases. Just because something is biased doesn’t
mean it’s irrelevant, and there’s such thing as no bias in social theory.
•There can be neutral claims is you’re doing social descriptions
•Movie: Talked about 3 major themes - religion, politics, military and economy all
inAmerican society which tie to the event of 9/11.
-The president is very concerned with his relationship with Christ. Learning
that presidents and god are like friends and that you can’t be president
without believing in god shows that there’s a relationship between authority
and god. Religion is being portrayed as being integrated with each other. ex)
Christ, Bush, Pro Israel and that everything is nicely integrated.
-Consensus theorists and organists are the same. Look at revolutions, wars,
strikes on the street.
Conflict theorist: Atomist. Content to look at what appears to be an organic
system but instead sees tensions. Looking for evidence of disruption. Marx
is a conflict theorist. Nothing that appears to be stable is stable. Conflict can
appear why you appear healthy and that you are healthy but also takes into
sense that you’re dying. Acknowledges the appearance of solidarity.Always
looking beneath the surface, and not looking to trust what seems to appear
on the surface and that it’s always suspicious. Doesn’t actually mean actual
conflict, just potential for conflict most of the time
-Barnyard socialism - criticisms of the social welfare system. Socialism
ignores responsibility. Conservatives will say it’s charity.
•(not sure if paHistorical and structural totality (historical materialism or the
materialistic conception of history) all ways of talking about how Marx
understands social history
-Always demanding that we understand that every period of history is related
intimately with every period of history.
-Circles are interconnecting for a reason and that you can’t understand the
present without understanding the past and the future. If you look in
capitalism you’ll see the echoes of feudalism and the potentials of socialism.
-Intersections are periods of turmoil and that they’re obvious periods of
revolution and qualitative change. They represent the moment of which the
first circle starts to become obviously the second circle. The dialectical leap
is the negated of the negated as the first circle declares itself. -Bottom of the circles represent material reality, and that it’s the reality of
things and existence.
-The numerators of the circles are spheres of culture, like everything and
anything that could be called culture. Theorists call the upper circle the
domain of the ideal which is known as the domain of the idea and not the
good. Marx will agree that there’s a relationship between material reality and
idea, like what we do will influence how we think and what we think. He’ll
argue that the arrow represents the dominant causal relationship, so what we
do will likely be the cause of what we think, but it’s not the dominant cause.
-First circle = primitive communism. Last circle (not closed) = communism.
Last circle isn’t closed (not sure what that circle will become of, but he
knows it’s not going to be the previous circles).
-If Marx said that the communism is an echo of the first one then in a sense,
history has been a tragedy of our species. History is the tragedy of the
rediscovering of what we wanted to do, and that it’s been the act of
forgetting and discovering of what we once knew.
-History for Hegel was simply the process of reason coming to know what it
always was. Hegel’s diagram is significant to Marx because the projecting
moment is the alienation and that's where Marx gets the idea of separating
from ourselves. Turns Hegel upside down in order to make his circle
argument, because Hegel’s is ideal and that what makes the power go around
is the idea, and that reason is determining what we are dealing with in our
life and that Marx thinks it’s the other way around and that what we’re
dealing with our life is determining reason, he’s inverting causal
relationships in reality and ideas and saying that y causes x.
-The reason why we’re a human being for Marx is because of labor since we
do things. We do it through objectification and that we have an idea that
drives the labor.
-Labor is the manipulation of some environment property, that I am
modifying with my idea.
-3 elements; idea, labor, and object are what makes people a human being, it’s
not just one of them but it’s all three of them. Anything that gets in the way
of this connection stops me from being a human being. For Marx 99.99% of
history has been devoted to getting in the way of being a human being. We
only know ourselves as a function of the labor we have engaged in. Species
being can only be derived that labor is shared, and it’s this realization that
makes things very complicated and that it’s the essence of the radical nature
of Marx’s work. -We recognized that we can connect our labor, we realize it because it’s
required in how we ought to do it. Can’t think of any oughts before we
realize can. When I recognize my activities is coordinated with another
human being, it’s that realization with my concern in how that coordination
ought to work and that it’s extremely relevant and constant because our labor
is always coordinated and can’t get rid of the ought question.
-Not logically possible to avoid the moral point of view or concern and that
it’s not possible to logically ignore the human existence, it’s possible to
repress it but you cannot logically ignore them. Certain things in society
have been extremely successful at teaching us to repress our moral concerns
because if they had not been successful, then everybody in this room would
be pissed off. Human nature and species beings underlie his theory. January 23, 2014
•Moral and conceptual crusade and that these two domains can’t be done without
the other. The oughts that we all should be concerned with are, for Marx tied to
how we should understand ourselves, and that the two go together
•Notion of Human Nature (pervades all this theory):
-Human Nature (species-being): You’re a human being because of the
conscious intent to manipulate the environment.
-There’s nothing you know about the world or yourselves that can’t be tied to
some biographical experience to labor, this is who the human being is
-Our labor is also in coordinated with other human beings either directly or
‣ ex) opening our laptop to surf the news, our labor isn’t solitary it’s
coordinated with other people and that our labor is always connected with
-Human nature is human nature because of objectified labor and also because
of coordinated labor
-There is no morality if you live alone like you grew up isolated, the moral
only exists because we have relationships with other human beings
-The moral intuition that we’re talking about can be understood as having
levels of adequacy, just the way Montesqieu said they did. Even at it’s
lowest point of development it’s still there
‣ ex) 6000 years ago one group invades another group and the moral
claim of the victim is revenge, but now today our moral sensitivity
understands that it’s not the best way to go about it
-Moral is originally initiated by the fact that the coordination isn’t producing
•Historical Materialism (circle diagram)
-Can’t differentiate the future from the past or the present from the past.
History is a structured whole of identifiable structure and that each circle is a
-The intersections represent abrupt qualitative change like revolutions
sometimes, but changes can also occur without revolutions occurring
-Tops of every circle is called superstructure and bottoms are called base or
modes of productions (forces or relations of productions). Each circle has
-Superstructure is culture; all the ideas, values and beliefs are being contained
within a cultural system. This cultural system that surrounds us is bigger
than any of our specific minds and that some of our specific minds represent
some of it. It’s the whole list, that you can access. But you can’t access any
of it without the experience of reality which is labor, even if the labor is just talking with somebody. Ideas are always tied to labor, and that culture is tied
with the economic reality of society
-Tools are what we use in labor, these tools vary historically. Relations of
production are how we organize our relationships with one another to utilize
the tools of production.
-Our species can be understood in terms of the tools we used, how we
coordinate our labor with one another and how those two things create
culture. Everything in the cultural system is supporting it in our economic
rule looks like the organicist system.
-First circle = Tribal community (Primitive communism). Last circle =
-History has been a necessary steps of disasters in order to rediscover once
we once known, and that the beginning and end of history is communism.
Reason is developing because all of reason history is developing in once it
-Second circle =Asiatic Society, Third =Ancient City, fourth = Germanic
society, fifth = feudalism, sixth = capitalism, seventh = socialism
-To him communism meant that it’s simply the democratic control of the
forces of production.According to Marx democracy exist if we have an
equal share of listening and making decisions, etc that we will all accept.
Technology isn’t bad, but it can be misused.
-Tribal (First): Family units like 50-70 people max, only division of labor is
tied to birth and age. Division of labor changed because of child birth,
rearing, etc. Once the baby finished nursing the women can do w/e the men
were doing. No private property
-Asiatic Society (Second): Still no private property, instead of hunting and
gathering we have a force of production called agriculture; harvest, storing
grain, etc, the labor is being increasingly divided because the force of
-Ancient city (Third): Still have agriculture as a force of production, but also
have militarism. We have the Roman, Greek, Persian, etc, it’s a rural urban
distinction but also a distinction in social class. Private property now appears
and it wouldn’t have appeared if the force of agriculture was there it was
also because of army. Highly decentralized because there are clans, domains
all over Europe.
-Germanic Society (Fourth):
-Feudalism (Fifth): Best understood as the recentralization of bureau, we
have huge land holdings and the dominant force of production is agriculture.
It’s also backed up by militarism and the appearance of highly specified set of relationships of production, diversified division of labor which then leads
to all sort of developments in legal courts. Predominance of religious
controls. Religion is dominated because of production. Cottage industry is
like technology which is dominant
-Capitalism (Sixth): That little industry becomes the dominate force of
production. When the industry changes in the force of production there’s a
radical change in the relations of production and they become much more
simple. We have owners and workers, we have a two class system. Culture is
full with all sorts of ideals, because workers now have rights. Some say that
capitalism is disguised as Feudalism and that they’re just peasants and that
we just give them money instead
-Socialism (Seventh): The dominant force of production is industry and
automation, could possibly undermined Capitalism instead of having them in
favor of it for automatism. Relations of production is that ownership
disappears, private property disappears. It’s not fully democratic and that
there’s a period of time of expertise system, like managers and that political
systems still exist. Politics will disappear, and that private property will not
exist and that everyone will be a manager and worker. Everyone will have a
say and that everybody’s point of view will be respected.
-Communism (Eighth): Describe as responsible anarchy, we are all morally
mature, capable of understanding what our obligations are to one another
and we see our rights as coming from obligations, relationships. Rights
because we trust that we sense an obligation and that I know that you know
that we are in this together
-Most of human history as we know it has been based upon forces of
production that produce private property. What follows is exploitation, if all
nodes of production with exception of the various one have been based on
private property then all relations of production have been exploited. If
private property is the reward of the forces of production, then the relations
of production will always be functioning with exploitation.
-Exploitation is the extraction of surplus value from the workers labor, like
they take the profit from them and exploit the workers. Socialized to see
value in the thing which is commodity fetishism, which is our inability to see
the true value of the things we value. The true value of a cell is the ability to
see the integrity of labor that was put into this.Always factor in the integrity
of human labor as the fundamental source.
‣ ex) the wage I pay is less than what you give to me. It’s possible
because you have more power
-Alienation means a social, cognitive, behavioral condition, in which we
create things, forget that we are the authors of that creative process, and allow the things produced to opposed us in some sense of the word oppose.
Once created it’s mutually reenforced. (The only way you can exploit is if
you increase the conditions for alienation)
-For the last circle he thought that the relationships with nature and humans
will be non-exploitive
-What is progress with/for Marx? The only thing that can be called progress
is a thing that’s compatible with non-exploitive for humans and nature January 30, 2014
- critical theory chapter, pay attention to it..no major concepts that come out of the chapter it’s more of a thematic
chapter and a critique about science and contemporary culture..get used to why marx and weber are important.
- Giddins; understand structuration, tide in space and other things he says about moderinity and think about the
- bordieux; a person who’s struggling with both marx and weber and very creative, foceau, darida; they represent
and pick up on a theme that isn’t brand new but the way they discuss it is fairly noble..the relationship between
unrelated but it’s also analytical distinct and it’s the power to name and control to what counts as knowledge, and
argue that it’s a more powerful or equal source of social power
•Emphasize for Marx that social theorizing isn’t a neutral activity and it’s
embedded within value judgements. Values and facts are equally important in
sociological theorizing. Not just talking about the values of people he studies but
also the theorists who studies them. His integrity depended on the moral (two
humans and nature) with the 7.5 circles. The values of people should not be
•The future will produce a situation of mutual respect among persons. The non-
exploitive relationship can only exist under dialogical mutual respect and that it’s
not about care, and that we can only get along with each other in a non-exploitive
way if we respect each other only as speaking persons who has a right to speak
and a right to listen and be sincere.
•All of history before socialism has been in denial of human nature and the
suppression of human morality. We know that once in a while we get mad and
have revolutions but not too often.
•(Exploitation and Alienation arrow)An increasing of division of labor is like the
act of a surgeon cutting up our body into more pieces, labor requires us to
separate our minds from our bodies.As it progresses the demands increases for
the use of just part of our bodies. As that gets exaggerates our species are getting
close to understand our servitude.
‣ ex) work had dehumanized him and that he can no longer connect
properly with other human beings (Charlie Chaplin where he explained the
•This is an objectively adequate description of our realities like the alienation
diagram. We just repress our remorse about this reality and that’s what false
consciousness does, where it enables us to think about the reality, if we did think
about it then we’d have to face the problem of doing so
•False consciousness is providing social stability, that’s the function and helps
maintain social order
•Comte sees the circle as an organist system and so does Marx but as a false
organist system since it’s based on repression. •False consciousness contributes to solidarity
‣ ex) He thinks religion is false conscious that means there has to be a
notion of religious alienation. Commodities there’s no value in the actual
object, but it’s the value in the person who made it.All four expressions are
false in a sense that they all ignore our responsibility for doing things and
that they camouflage the fact that it’s weak to do things. Religion produces
false consciousness and thinks that it’s alienating because he gets most of the
idea from Feuerbach, he argued that we experience ourselves where we have
knowledge of both good and evil. Marx thinks religion is a cop out and that
it’s a way for us to avoid taking a responsibility. He has nothing against god,
just as long as you are him but he only gets mad if you believe in him.
Religion is alienating because we create it and forget that we’re the author of
it and allow us to oppose it in some sense, if we take it and apply it to
political alienation then it means we create society, the state and forget we’re
the authors and allow for it to oppose us in some sense. We aren’t aware that
we’re the ones who do it all.
•Economic alienation, what does he mean by two kinds of value; use and
exchange. Both kinds of values have always existed, it’s just that historically
there relative importance changes.
-Use value of the thing is based on the need it satisfies. If something has
value, it’s value is related to the person like the needs of that one person.
When your needs have been satisfied then it has no more value. The human
being maintains self respect with use value. Throughout history we get
increasing population density, clearly society can no longer exist based
solely on use value and that it doesn’t completely disappear and that the
dominant mode of value is exchange value, otherwise we wouldn’t survive.
-Exchange value is the determined by the relationship with other things. The
distance between us increases, and that it’s tied with it’s relationship with
other things. In modernity we get sucked into exchange, any object loses it’s
commodity with exchange. When we sell our labor we are commodities,
that’s what he’s concerned about, the human being has become a commodity.
•Historical materialism, it’s a theory of social order and social change. Every circle
represents a period of social order. Social order for Marx occurs when the forces
and relations of productions and culture are all coordinating, like when culture
supports the way we deal with reality. Marx links this idea through movement of
time; at the beginning of any mode of production, the forces of production and the
relations of production will be in harmony and the superstructure will support this
relationship.As the mode of production continues to develop however, the forces of production, in order to further expand, will have to destroy the existing relations of production and replace
them with new ones. Anew superstructure will then emerge.
•Dominant force of Feudal production is agriculture, minor force is cottage
industry. Destroy the logic of owning and working, and destroy our ideas about
why we work and destroy the idea that ownership is necessary, but the more we
approach an automated society we’ll realize that we don’t require to work
•We can’t go anywhere else and that what’s driving us towards the cliff is the
capitalists desire to make more money by embracing automation. If all these
money needs to become distributed then it becomes irrelevant February 6, 2014
•Alienation and exploitation have been dominant forces in production, but they
also develop as a dominant social phenomenon in Capitalism..they’ve been
present but not as strong as compared to when it comes to Capitalism
•Alienation and exploitation are denying about what’s potentially meaningful of
us, but it’s also a necessary factor of social change
•In capitalism we are alienated from what we produce like alienated from
products, the process of production, from ourselves, and from others. It’s a
systematic destruction of the human essence diagram.
•Exploitation which is profit. Profit is taking more exchange value than the
exchange value is given.
•Exploitation produces alienation, alienation reenforces exploitation and disguise
this process with false consciousness
•Exploitation increases the complexity of the division of labor
‣ ex) company that turns the raw materials of cotton into yarn. The
owner owns the forces of production; building, machines and all the raw
materials that are tied to the process of producing, also own the workers
since he’s paying them a wage. The more workers you have the more profit
you’re going to make.
-Exploitation produces capital and the power to create and coerce and the
power to multiply the division of labor. This is a power to coerce human
beings into an alienated life
•Social Class; It’s not a definition telling the difference among people, it’s just the
difference ability to consume. It makes us look at each other as commodities. This
definition of class is created with a continuous variable, it doesn’t allow us to
make qualitative differences among a group of people, only quantitative
differences. It’s just producing conflict on the severe lack of this variable
(money), since it disguises the true nature of social class. Conception of social
class that disguises what social class truly is, this is a false conscious conception
of class, and that it’s just about the acquisition about money.
•Marx whatever class is, it has to be something that can allow us to understand
social revolution. There are two factors; an objective condition of class, like it is
objectively true that some people own while others work. If you divide into social
class of those who own and those who work, then you’ve understand the
objectively true of social class. Ownership means the owning of forces of
production like objecting the factories that make the product. He’s against the
nondemocratic forces of ownership.Afew people own, while the most people
work in them. Objective has been dormant, haven’t been aware of it or the
implications of it and what he’s concerned about it is that we become aware of it,
and that’s when the class in itself is transformed into a class FOR itself. Things can happen that make you increasingly aware of the importance of the distinction
of between owning and working, and that we become educated and aware that
these two mean something important. True interests are opposed to ownership,
that your interests as a worker are diametrically opposed to the interest of the
•4 major conditions that are likely to produce a class for itself;
1. Anetwork of communication among workers; communication has to
be among urban workers and it has to be international
2. The creation of a vanguard party; getting together a group of
disinfected intellectuals who see it our responsibility to constantly educated
3. The owners can’t organize it; organizations among owners won’t be
likable since they want to maximize profit for themselves
•Social class going from in it self to a dynamic for itself, and people become aware
of the ownership, and false consciousness become undermined and the revolution
happens. Socialism is the state organization February 13, 2014
•They reference Marx implicitly, not explicitly
•Sociology is always both factual and evaluative and always involves making
•Durkheim: The creation of the first department of sociology
-Two major themes that he’s constantly concerned with is;
1. Durkheim is going to claim that sociology is an objective science; it
deals without bias and deals with social facts. It’s a science of
interrelationships of social facts. Durkheim is not concerned with the
essence of a social fact, or it’s fundamental nature or origin. What he’s
concerned with is it’s varying relationship with other social facts.
Sociology is going to scientifically objectively study these relationships.
Science is always going to claim objectivity
2. Social solidarity (organization) because it was the source of the good
(moral) just like Comte. It has nothing to do with the enlightenment idea.
For him, it’s what rights is whats given in the norms and values of an
existing society. To be moral you simply have to conform. By solidarity,
he isn’t just talking about the source of the moral, he’s also talking about
predictability like the sense of security of being able to predict of
everything that’s happening around him, structure and the importance of
these things. Social life continuity because it’s predictable, based on
shared values and that’s what’s important for the sociologist to understand
-Trying to understand the social world
- How he’s different from Marx; three differences:
c) Social Class: For Marx, social class is socially created, it’s produced by the
behavior or the individuals and the awareness of the implications of that behavior.
Durkheim the existence of social class is natural, by nature that we have social class.
d) For Marx there’s something called Alienation which is social, cognitive and
behavioral circumstance. Durkheim when he tries to address alienation, he calls it
anomie instead. One has to look for problems within the social structure when they’re
concerned with issues like this. Social facts have nothing to do with behavioral
cognitions. Sociology is not going to relate anything to behavioral or feelings of the
e) Conflict; For Marx it is inevitable, it’s part of the nature of social development
and that it will happen, he believes it’s part of social development. For Durkheim it’s
accidental, if things are behaving naturally and normally then there is no conflict and
that the sociologist doesn’t have to focus on it, but at most they’ll have a hard time
understanding social adjustment and not conflict. Nothing intrinsic to society that will
produce conflict. From his point of view it’s not conservatism and that it’s just the
science of society and that it’s an organic thing 1. There is absolutely no nominalism in his work. He isn’t interested in
you claiming that you have reasons for what you do. Simply carriers of
outside social forces, he knows nominalism exists but that’s not the point
2. No history in his work. People author history and that it’s a subjective
thing and that nobody agrees with the facts. He believes it’s interesting but
he thinks it’s not objectively factual. He’s interested in historical trends
because those can be measured.
-*Durkheim and Weber totally disagree with each other, the contrasting
methodologies of of both of them
-3 things to discuss about him
1. Social order and social change; Handles these things together. The
line is more evolutionary than it is developmental, he hopes it’ll change to
have the formation of adequate solidarity. He doesn’t think it’s a value and
that it’s actually factually true that it’s happening. Society is evolving
from one kind of solidarity to another kind of solidarity; mechanical to
◦Mechanical relative to these phenomena is unstable, like mechanical
can’t maintain itself in relationship to these pressures. That’s why
there’s an evolution of solidarity, since early solidarity can’t remain
society. What makes it to break down is increasing in population
density, which puts a pressure on resources. which causes it to increase
the division of labor.
◦Don’t confuse solidarity with division of labor and that div of labor is
just a factor in solidarity.Abnormal forms of solidarity, and that
evolution hasn’t dealt with the problems with solidarity.
◦Mechanical is like a segmental society where each little piece is like the
same as the other piece. The division of labor is very simple, since each
one is like the other one and that they do the same thing.
◦Why do societies exist? Because it’s the skin that keeps it together like
for the orange. Mechanical societies have skins which is the collective
conscious, which is a religious system of shared norms, values, beliefs.
Totally homogeneous, every segment and person believes in the same
things, values, and knows the same things. Avery strong collective
conscious. The only way is so that we know each other and keeps
society in together. Justice and penal systems are repressive in the
mechanical system. The laws in these societies are do nots and dos but
they are assertions. You threaten the collective conscious by introducing
other systems values and beliefs like the muslim living beside a
christian and then a jew moves in, which causes disruption. Interdependence segments happens by increasing the complexity of
division of labor, so that we create efficiency and productivity. That’s
why society doesn’t exist with segments that are autonomous and that it
exists as segments that depend on each other.
‣ ex) Can’t be a professor unless you’re a student, and that we
need each other. In Modern society the roles become increasingly
differentiated. The judicial institutions becomes restitutive instead of
repressive, like we don’t care about making people suffer is they
break the rules. The only thing we want to do is to put things back to
the way they were. We don’t care except about making things work.
Our consciousness have changed and that we no longer have a
homogeneous value system and that it’s now all individual
◦The nature of solidarity and that it’s made up of two things; integration
and regulation. In order to have solidarity, these two social forces have
to be balanced, if they’re out of balance then we lack solidarity and
become aware of them. If we’re imbalance then we’re not aware of
them. ex) Decision of going to class.The forces of integrating you into
this situation and forcing you to be present are balanced sufficiently and
that we’re functioning how we’re supposed to function according to the
◦Independent consciousness is a positive value. It’s good and we can’t
undue it and it’s also one of the major threats to solidarity. How do we
promote individuality but make sure it doesn’t get out of hand
◦We’re individuals because of the division of labor, which creates
individuality. We weren’t born as individuals. It’s the division of labor
and the increasing of complexity that increases the phenomenon of
individuality. She can think of herself as an individual since she can’t
figure out the other. Individual consciousness the queen on the loonie.
◦Solidarity can vary not only in terms of changing, but that they can
have different states with the ratios of integration and regulation. If one
of these two increases or decreases then it’ll lead to suicide. 2. Methodology; He’s going to study social facts and their
interrelationships with other social facts.Asocial facts are ways of acting,
thinking and feeling that are EXTERNAL to the individual (definition of a
reactor), and have the power of constraint over the individual. The test of
the existence of the social fact is that it will exert itself when it is
transgressed. Social facts can be normal or pathological (abnormal).
◦He’s going to study them with two techniques:
a) Indirect experiment (correlational analysis) like x and y like
their covariation, does one go up or does the other one go down?
Identifies the facts like operationalize (label) and then sees if they co-
b) Functional analysis; he wants to relate the social facts with a
whole bunch of other social facts, he wants to put numbers. He wants
to know how the system is functioning without value judgements. If
you mess with it then you might alter the system and do something to
integration or regulation and then it’ll affect solidarity
3. Understanding of abnormality; in or to know a normal social fact,
you have to compare the incidence of it across conditions of similar
morphological structures. Ex) body temperature is at 37 and that it’s
February 27, 2014
•Continuation of Durkheim
•Durkheim values individuality of labor but on the other hand it could get out of
hand. Individuality doesn’t always mean a person, he means a collectivity that
isn’t properly integrated into the rest of the social system. When education or an
ethnic group isn’t integrated into the system, he calls it the problem of the
individuality, which is used metaphorically
•If the division of labor is really simple, then you have to ask why they would
want to live with each other. Because when you look at each other, you know who
you are since you all share the same values, beliefs and identities that’s why
you’re together since it’s the source of your meaningfulness
•In Mechanic there’s religion and ethnicity and that these two hold things together,
but migration destroys it by juxtaposing religion with other religion
•In organic, we depend on each other to survive since each one is individualized
and that they do their own things and that it doesn’t matter what religion they are.
He can’t get rid of individual consciousness but he has to redesign it by building a
collective consciousness to keep it under control, to balance it. We get along with
each other since we form with each other of persons that we all share some sort of
identity regardless of what identity we hold. It can’t be a collective conscious on religion or ethnicity since there are too many differences, Durkheim has to bring back a
consciousness that all of us can share in a company of all of our differences.
•Moral education; teaching children to why and how it’s important to conform to
secular norms and values
•Solidarity suggests that the secular collective conscious hasn’t been well
established, but instead the power of law has been well established but it wasn’t
because we have been integrated into it well
•When he starts worrying about the insufficiency of organic solidarity as written in
Book 3, he has two major abnormal concerns. we’re talking about norms of the
whole system, and normative relationships among norms of the society.
-Anomie division of labor sees a problem of normative regulation.
◦Two examples; relationship between capital of labor (owners and
workers) talking a bit about Marx and saying that the relationships
between owners and workers aren’t properly normed, that’s why we have
population duress and that talking between the groups so that they can
understand not only each other but the importance of their various
functions of their maintenance of the whole system.
◦Lack of knowledge in regular systems, worried about the lack of
organization in science
‣ ex) UWO; each department claim scientific status and that none of
them agree on any of their scientific ways
-Force division of labor, there’s something wrong with the stratification
system. What he says is that we have a force of division of labor because of
the distribution of the natural ability in the population does not correctly
correspond with the distributions of social inequality. The job and effort
with the natural ability ought to be rewarded accordingly.All of us has been
socialized to believe all of this. Force of division of labor is not the first one
or the second one because of the barriers.
◦Unfair contracts because there hasn’t been unobstructed opportunity for
the jobs. Equal opportunity hasn’t existed. If there is equal opportunity
there are some places in life where it’s still unfair. If there is equal then the
unfair will disappear since they’ll be compensated for the amount they put
into it. Barriers = opportunity.
◦ Inheritance he believes that we ought to get rid of inheritance since it stands in the way
of equal opportunity. Therefore, if we get rid of the barriers and advantages then we’ll
all have an equal opportunity to be able to rise of the top. In order for it to be natural, it
has to not have been influenced by society. If you’re getting a lot of money, then
somebody else can only get less. The minimum wage of Canada isn’t independent on
Canada’s wealth. If he’s going to get rid of inheritance and family, then maybe we’ll
have equality in one generation
- Abnormal divisions of labor problems - If you got rid of the family, then from a capitalist point of view you could have a fair
Max Weber (for essay)
- It’s a story about how a religious point of view influence a point of view that apparently or
makes sense as an influence on capitalist behavior.Areligious point of view nurturing capitalist
point of view which in turns nurtures capitalist behavior.
- Aprotestant pov influences and is compatible with a capitalist point of view, but not the
creation of capitalism but the growth of capitalism. Before spirit of capitalism gets really
strong, capitalism isn’t as strong and before protestant even happens the catholicism is even
weaker because lending money was weak and wasn’t allowed to. The growth in sea, why does
the growth of capitalism takes place in the western world and it could be because protestant
reaction to catholicism had an influence on spirit of capitalism which stimulates the reality of
- Begins with contemporary data with the distribution of evidence. Why are protestants neurotics
while the catholics aren’t.
- He goes back to look at the 50th century..is that versethechen then?All these different
protestants reformation sects, why? he’s trying to build an ideal type and develop the picture of
the protestant that allows him to make the connection between protestant and spirit of
- Religion as a belief system can have an influence on economic reality
- Tell that story, but how methodology is applied to it. Highlights; understand social action since
when he focuses in on calvin he’s talking about a particular type of social action, verstehen,
ideal types and multi-causality and shows him how he uses it in this book.
- How does he account for social change? In the lat two paragraphs of the book, he’s talking
about Marx. Saying Marx is a one sided materialistic argument. You can predict this happen
because capitalism required it. You can’t explain a social event with a single cause and that
there’s always multiple causes. Think about what he says about charisma, charismatic authority.
Mead (for essay)
- Chapter on mind; parallelism constitutes the logical reason arguing that there’s no such thing as
mental illness. Trying to argue that we’re not totally like rats and that we have minds as well as
brains, and that we couldn’t have a mind without the brain but the mind cannot be reduced to
the brain. The mind is between your ears because they’re between somebody else's ears and
then when the two of you face each other, then you’re communicating with each other with
symbols. The mind in general is