Compare and contrast the theories and methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.docx

Compare and contrast the theories and methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.docx

《Compare and contrast the theories and methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Compare and contrast the theories and methods of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber.docx（5页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

CompareandcontrastthetheoriesandmethodsofEmileDurkheimandMaxWeber

CompareandcontrastthetheoriesandmethodsofEmileDurkheimandMaxWeberregardingsocialbehaviour

1.Introduction

ItiswellknownthatEmileDurkheim（1858-1917）andMaxWeber（1864-1920）aretwoofthemostsignificantphilosophersandsociologists.However,theybelongtotwodifferentschools.EmileDurkheimisanextremelyimportantFrenchsociologistwhobelievespositivism.Hecompletedhismagnumopus,“onsuicide”and“therulesofsociologicalmethod”,whichhaveaprofoundeffectonthesociology.Heusedscientificmethodincludingcollecting,analyzingdataanddiscussingthosedatetostudythesociety（Hynes,1975）.Ontheotherhand,Weberbelievesinterpretivismandhespenthisentireadultlifetostudythesociety.Hethoughttohaveknowledgeistogivemeaningtothesocialworldandinterpretthesocialphenomenainsomeway（Stones,2011）.Hisfamousmethodofstudyingthesocietyis“idealtypes”and“verstehen”（Goldman,1993）.Asbothofthemarechiefdelegatesintheirrespectiveareasofschools,combingtheirthoughtsandviewsofthesociologywillgainourknowledgeoftheworldmorefully.Thispaperwillshowthedifferencesbetweentheirobjectsoftheirstudyandprinciplesofsocialresearchmethodology.Inaddition,thisessaywillillustratetheirtheoriesbelongcollectivismandindividualismrespectivelyandtake“liberty”forexampletocontrasttheiropinions.Thispaperhasthreesections.Thefirsttwosectionsaretoshowthetwomen’stheoriesandmethods.Thethirdsectionwillcomparetheirtheoriesandmethods.

2.Durkheim’positivismtheoryandmethods

Inthe1880sand1890s,theintellectualclimatewasdominatedbypositivismandpositivephilosophy（Prager,1981）.Positivistsadvocaterealism.Theyregardthepositivismasthecoreoftheirstudiesandresearch.Realistsfocusonwhatpeoplecanbeobservedandwhatreallyexistsintheworld（Stones,2011）.Duringthatperiod,positivistsbelievedtheycouldstudythesocialworldasthewaytostudynaturalworld（Prager,1981）.Durkheimwasoneoftherepresentsinpositivism.In1987,hecompletedhisclassicalwriting,“therulesofsociologicalmethod”.Whenhedidresearchonthissocialphenomenon,heselectedstatisticsonsuiciderates.ThenDurkheimanalyzedthesedataandlookedatthedifferencesinsuicideratesamongcountriesanddifferentcategoriesofpeople.Inthisissue,heusedscientificmethodstosolvethesocialproblems.

AnotheroneofthemostfamouswritingsofDurkheimis“onsuicide”.Inthispublication,hethoughtthesocialstructuresincludinginstitutions,traditionsandbeliefs,patternsofbehaviourexistedindividuallyintheworld.Inanotherwords,these‘socialfacts’alreadyexistedwhenwewereborn-wewerebornintoanalreadyexistingsociety（Emirbayer,1996）.Generalspeaking,socialfactswerecollectiveofacting,thinking,orfeeling.Mostofthemarekindofobligationforus（Morrsion,1990）.Somepeoplemaythinktheycanchoosewhattolearn,howtothinkandhowtoact.However,Durkheimclamedthatpeoplejustfollowedthepatternsofthesocietytheyareliving.Whattheywanttobeandhowtolivehadbeendecidedintheirearlylives.Ourexpectationhasbeeninfusedbyourexperienceoflife（Hynes,1975）.Peoplehavesomesimilarbehaviorsfromgenerationtogeneration.Atthesametime,thesestructuresalsohavea‘coercivepower’overtheindividual–wearecoercedintofollowingtheestablishedrulesofoursociety（Morrsion,1990）.Thatistosay,thesocialfactshaveboth“pull”and“push”effectsonus.Forexample,ifamanbreaksthelawbymurderanotherperson,hewillfacetoarrest,trail,andimprisonmentorexecution.Atthesametime,ingeneral,peoplewillnotbreakthelawbecausethepunishmentsforcedhimtodarenotcommitacrime.

3.Weber’sinterpretivetheoryandmethods

Weberisoneofthemostfamoussociologistswhoarebelongedtotheinterpretivetradition.Interpretivistsadvocatetheidealism.Unlikepositivists,idealistsbelievethenaturalworldandsocialworldisfundamentallydifferent（Stones,2011）.Intheirviewsoftheobjectinthesocialworld,theobjectsofresearchofthesocialsciencesincludingpeopleandtheirinstitutionsarefundamentallydifferentfromthoseofthenaturalsciencesbecausehumanbeingshaveself-consciousnessandreflection,andhumanscanreflectonthemselvesandtheirsituations（Stones,2011）.Weberdidbelievethatsocialbehaviorcouldhavecausalexplanations（Mcintosh,1977）.Thatwastosay,eventhoughthesocialworldwassocomplicatedanditwashardtousegeneralandcommonrulestounderstandthosediversitysocialbehaviors,thesesocialphenomenahavetheirownreasonswhichcouldbeinterpreted.Furthermore,Weberclaimedthatweshouldunderstandthehistoricalandsocialbackgroundbeforestudyingasocialphenomenon（Goldman,1993）.Forexample,ifanAmericansociologistjudgesthesocialbehaviorandeventsinIndiabyAmericanvalues,theresultswillbehardtounderstandbytheIndiansortotallyunreasonable.InsteadtheyshouldseektounderstandbehavioraccordingtothevaluesofIndianculture.

Webercreatedaspecialmethodcalled“verstehen”tointerpretthesocialbehaviors.Verstehenmeanstheinterpretiveunderstandingofsocialaction（Goldman,1993）.Tobespecific,versteheninvolvesanunderstandingofwhatsomeoneisthinking,whichneedsanunderstandingoftheculturethatpersonlivesin.inWeber’sopinion,humanbehaviorwaspurposeful.Peoplealwayshadagoalandmadeeffortstoachievethegoalsuchasestablishinganinstitution.Wecanfindandinterpretthemeaningofthesocialphenomenathoughexploringitssocialbackgroundandessence.Itiscommonlybelievedthatsocialscientistsshouldestablishsystematizedmethodsandsolutionstodoresearch.OneoftheimportanttoolsWeberusedwascalled“idealtypes”.Itcouldbegenerallyusedtostudythecomplexsocialbehavior.Itsuggeststhatweshouldremoveallourvalues,motions,opinions.Thereforeidealtypescreateaframeworkoftheanalyticalmethodwhichissimilar“Utopia”（Prager,1981）.Itprovidesdifferentkindsofextreme“ideal”conditions.FromWeber’sidealtypes,wecanseethedifferencebetweenWeberandothersociologists.Weberfocusesontheessenceofthesocialspiritinsteadofthesocialstructure.Webertriedtouseidealtypestolayalogicalfoundationofthesocialscience.Idealtypesshouldbeestablishedafteranalyzinglotsofsocialphenomenasyntheticallyandsystematically.

4.Comparisonandcontrast

FewcomparisonshavebeendonesystematicallybetweenDurkheimandWeberbeforebecauseeachofthetwomendidnotconnecteachother’sstudydirectly（Tiryakian,1966citedinParger,1981）.Bendix（1978）alsosuggestedthateachofthemhaddifferentagendaintheirsocialworkssoitwashardtofindoutthecluestocomparetheiropinionsdirectly.However,bothofthembelongsdifferentschools.Thispaperwillshowthecomparisonbetweentheirobjectofstudyandtheprincipleoftheiranalyticalmethod.

4.1Theobjectoftheirstudy

IntheDurkheim’sbook,“therulesofsociologicalmethod”,hefocusedhisobjectofstudyassocialfactsandsocialstructure.Heclaimedthatallthesocialbehavioralpatterns,nomattertheywerestableorunstable,oncetheycouldlimitindividual’saction,arecalledsocialfacts.Thatistosay,allthepeoplecouldnotavoidtheinfluenceofthesocialfactseventhoughtheeffectsofthesocialfactshaddifferenteffectsonindividualsinthecomplexsocialworld.Onthecontrary,Weber’sociologywascalledunderstandingsociology.Inhisdefinitionofthesociology,hethoughtthatsociologywasasciencethattriedtounderstandandinterpretsocialactions;findthelogicalandcausalrelationshipsbetweendifferentsocialactions.Accordingtothisdefinition,wecouldseetheobjectofWeber’ssocialstudywassocialaction.ComparingwithWeber’ssocialactions,theviewoftheDurkheimwasmacroscopic.Accordingtothis,itisclearthatDurkheim’theoryisobjective.Ontheotherhand,Weberbelievedonlyindividualswerereal.Theprocessofthesocialstudyshouldbetoresearchsocialactionsofpeople,understandingthemeaningofsocialactionsandinterpretingcausation.SoWebertreatedtheunderstandingandinterpretingasthemosttwoimportanttasksinhissocialwork.

4.2Theprincipleofsocialresearchmethodology

ThemostbasicruleintheDurkheim’ssocialmethodologywastotreatthesocialfactsasobjectivefacts（Hynes,1975）.Durkheimemphasizedthatthefactsarepriortothoughts.Inotherwords,socialfactsexistedbeforebeingdefinedandjudged.Inhisideas,sociologistsshouldobservetheessenceofthesesocialfactsdirectlybeforeeliminatingtraditionalandgeneralvalues.However,Webercreatedanothermethodwhichwascalledidealtypestostudythesociety.Hethoughttheobjectofresearchhaditsownpeculiarityandsubjectiveintention.Inhisopinion,ifwewantedsocialsciencetobereliable,socialscientistsshouldestablishasetofaccurateandprecisesystemofthesociologyasthenaturalscience.Thepurposeoftheidealtypeswastoincreaseobjectivityanddecreasesubjectiverandomness.ThemethodIdealtypeswaswidelyacceptedandavailabletoallthesocialschools（Mcintosh,1977）.Soindividualsociologistcouldhaveacommonsystemofstudytounderstandandanalyzethesociety.Inthisway,socialscientistscouldremovethebarrierofcommunicationanddifferentvaluestodevelopthesocialscience.Similarly,Durkheimhadthesameideathatsocialmustgetridofallhisownpredictionswhendoingthesocia