Megan Linn
Soc. 402
Rich Hogan
Exam 2
14, April 2000
The Influence of Classical Sociology on Contemporary Sociology
Throughout time many developments have been made in sociological theory. These
newly developed theories are able to deal with the relevant societal issues of today. Yet most of
these theories can be traced back to the ideas of the classical theorists such as Marx, Durkheim,
Weber, and Simmel. Although somewhat outdated, their works still contain meaningful theories,
that when expanded upon, pertain to the ever-changing society of today. In fact, contemporary
theory is saturated with the evolved ideas of the great classical theorists.
With the help of his students, especially Robert Merton, Talcott Parsons conceived the
theory of structural functionalism at Harvard University in the 1950s. Using the Durkheimian
model of subsystems, structural analysis, and theory of differentiation as a basis for his work,
Parsons expanded upon Durkheim’s sociological theory. Both Durkheim and Parsons saw the
people of society as passive “actors” to the ever-changing social structures. Durkheim viewed the
continuing changes in the division of labor and differentiation in society as part of a process that
led to the increase in solidarity and social density in society. Yet Durkheim’s theory posed a
problem. Combining the conflicting problems of the economy together with those of the cultural
systems, society would only disintegrate, not solidify. In an attempt to fix this problem, Parsons
created a system of two subsystems, economic and cultural. Therefore each subsystem mode
would be able to deal with its own conflicts and problems and move toward its own integrated
needs and goals. By simplifying the system, Parsons avoided the unnecessary compounding of
different problems.
Being the pupil of Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton, although more liberal than Parsons,
had many similar theories. He too used the theories of Emile Durkheim as a basis for his work.
Merton’s main contribution was his analysis of the relationship between culture, structure, and
anomie (Ritzer, p.247). Durkheim focused on the direct effect of the increase of differentiation
and specialization on the individual (Farganis, p.59). He concluded that anomie was the result of
the declining strength of the common morality in the modern world (Ritzer, p.82). In an attempt
to deal with this issue, Durkheim evolved the idea of collective conscience defined as: “the
totality of beliefs and sentiments common to average citizens of the same society forms a
determinate system which has its own life” (Ritzer, p.82). He viewed the increase in the division
of labor as the cause of this transformation, the diminution but not disappearance of the
collective conscience (Ritzer, p.83). Therefore lacking in this guidance, individuals would lose
sense of their concept of right and wrong and become confused, allowing anomie to set in.
Merton expanded on Durkheim’s ideas of anomie and evolved them into a more modern version.
He defined culture as “that organized set of normative values governing behavior which is
common to members of a designated society or group” and social structure as “that organized set
of social relationships in which members of the society or group are variously implicated”
(Ritzer, p.247). From this, Merton concluded that anomie occurred when a specific conflict
arises between the culture norms and goals and the socially structured positions of the members
of the group that coincide with them (Ritzer, p.247). Through the expansion of this theory,
anomie no longer pertained only to the lack of moral guidance in the modern world. A
connection was made between the lack of moral guidance and the demanding positions of the
social structure. The cause of anomie is now due to the fact that individuals are being forced to
place their social positions above their morality in order to survive.
As a reaction to the structural functionalism theory, Ralf Dahrendorf developed conflict
theory. Despite his poor attempt to follow Marxian theories, Dahrendorf also used theories by
Weber in the development of own theories. Dahrendorf, like Weber focused on the influence of
authority on social conflict and change. Weber theorized that there were three legitimate forms
of authority to followers, rational, traditional, and charismatic. Rational and traditional authority
were legitimized by justifiable means. Yet, “charismatic authority is legitimized by the devotion
of followers to the exceptional sanctity, exemplary character, heroism, or special powers of
leader, as well as on the normative order sanctioned by them” (Ritzer, p.124). These authority
figures are often ordinary individuals and are therefore potentially problematic. Charisma was
one of the most influential revolutionary forces in society. Weber viewed the rise of such a
charismatic leader as a definite and intense threat to the stability of society. Weber theorizes that
the conflict between these three legitimized authorities was the source of social change. When
the conflict is caused by the charismatic leader, the change is often more abrupt and
revolutionary. Dahrendorf also theorized that conflict between authority figures has a major
influence on societal change. Yet these authority figures, or superordinates, were not legitimized
by society. He argued that society was composed of separate sections called “imperatively
coordinated associations.” Each section was separated into two parts, superordinates, the
authority, and subordinates, those under the authority’s rule. Because each association was
dichotomous, two and only two conflict groups could emerge. Conflict between the
superordinates and subordinates would arise due to a conflict or interest between the two groups.
Out of these associations as a whole, Dahrendorf categorized the individuals into three more
broad groups. The quasi group was made up of the individuals with positions that had identical
role interests. The interest group was derived from the quasi group and had a goal. The conflict
group, a group that engaged in group conflict, was derived from an interest group. Darhendorf
theorized that it was from the actions of theses conflict groups that social change arose.
Additional contemporary sociological theories of great importance are the neo-Marxist
and critical theories. Neo-Marxism is a combination of a great number of different sociologists
contributing to the enhancement and evolution of classical Marxism. One example of neoMarxism called Hegelian Marxism, represented by the work of Georg Lukacs on reification, is
the extension of the theories of economic Marxists. Focusing on the fetishism of commodities
and reification Lukacs agreed that commodity is the central structural problem of capitalist
society and broadened it to incorporate all societal structures. According to Marxists, “fetishism
of commodities is the process in which commodities and the market for them are granted
independent objective existence by the actors in capitalist society” (Ritzer, p.273). It is because
of this process that people believe commodities and social structures are out of their control.
Lukacs took this theory and expanded on it to create his own theory of reification. This theory
not only included the economic structure but also the law and state structures. Lukacs also
expanded the theory to explain how social structures come to be believed to be independent of
the actors even though it is the actors that created the social structures.
Another avenue of neo-Marxism was critical theory. This theory’s main criticism of
Marx was his intense focus on economic structures that caused him to loose sight of many other
important features of society, including culture. One of the most influential critical theorists was
a man by the name Jurgen Habermas. Using Marxian theories a basis for his work he expanded
on Marx’s idea of the species-being. Species-being was the term for what Marx “felt humans
could become once they were freed from the shackles of capitalism and allowed to express
themselves in the unfettered environment of communism” (Ritzer, p.49). Marx believed that
once labor allowed each individual to achieve their species-being all aesthetic and material needs
would be met (Farganis, p.28). Habermas expanded the idea of species-being from the singular
component of work into two analytically distinct components, work and social interaction. Upon
doing so, Habermas concluded that communicative action, social, not purposive-rational action,
work, was the most distinctive and pervasive human phenomenon (Ritzer, p.286).
Another great influence was that of Georg Simmel on symbolic interactionism developed
my George Herbert Mead. Like Simmel, Mead focused on social interaction and individual
consciousness. Both theorists believed that humans had an inner consciousness with which one
could analyze one’s own actions and the actions of others. Mead’s concept of the generalized
other is an expansion of Simmel’s theory that individuals in society are consciously oriented to
one another (Ritzer, p.157). The concept of the generalized other states that the attitude of the
entire community is directed by the actors’ ability to take on the role of the generalized other.
This role is the ability of an individual to evaluate his/herself from the point of view of the
generalized other (Ritzer, p.157). Simmel also theorized that it is this same inner consciousness
in which deep contradictions between the organic and creative processes of the soul occur
(Ritzer, p.156). This internal contradiction is much like the conflict occurring between Mead’s
concept of the “I” and “me.” According to Mead the “me” is content in the social world as it is,
but the “I” causes opposing ideas from which conflict arises and societal changes erupt.
Although great theorists, Parsons, Merton, Dahrendorf, Lukacs, Habermas, and Mead
owe a great deal of credit to the classical theorists from which they base their own theories. It is
evident from learning each of these theories that although ever-changing the classic concepts of
the greats will continue to apply to our society.