Sociological Thinkers

Answer : Max Weber’s theory of religion explained correlation between the spirit of Protestantism and the rise of Capitalism in Europe. Weber studied six main religions of the world. These are Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Judaism, Catholics and Islam. On the basis of his studies, he found that there is a direct link between the economic activity and ethics of religion. In his doctoral thesis, ‘Protestant Ethics and Spirit of Capitalism’, Weber argued that it was the code of conduct or ethos of Protestant religion, which motivated its adherents to involve in activities which, in turn, accelerate the economic growth. In contrast to Karl Marx, Weber gave importance to ‘Social Action’ than social structure. He further advocated for the study of meanings behind those social actions which are defined and determined by value system of such society.

According to Weber, capitalism is not a structure but it is a spirit, it is value. If such spirit is present in man, he is driven to accumulate capital in both traditional as well as industrial society. Weber further argued that capitalism was also found in tribal societies.

Capitalism is present in different forms in all societies. Weber also said that different societies go for capitalism for different reasons. So ‘subjective understanding of objective reality’ is important in the study of the rise of capitalism in different forms in different societies.

Weber said that full fledged capitalism developed in Europe due to ethics of Protestantism. Following ethics of Protestantism gave rise to capitalism:

Culture of Predestination:v It means birth and life is predestined by God and this cannot be altered by appeasing God in the form of extravagant rituals. Instead, God will be pleased with hard work and commitment to vocation.

The doctrine predestinates the growth of capitalism because capitalism too demands hard work by the man and not to be God fearing, instead to be rational, creative and productive.

Notion of Calling: This asserts that man must always be driven by the divine calling that is, life is purposive, duties are enormous and time is short. So man should be laborious and wastage of time is a sin. This is the source of self-achievement and self-recognition which are also the requirements of capitalism.

Materialistic Ascetics: This means living a simple life and not to spend on luxury items as wasteful expenditure is immoral and wicked. Man will be remembered even after his death by the wealth he left behind by living a simple life. This material ascetics resulted in huge accumulation of wealth which led for further investment and finally capitalism was developed.

The above reasons gave rise to capitalism in Europe. But capitalism did not developed in other societies. So Weber advocates for two conditions for development and growth of capitalism— (a) Value; and (b) Substance Infrastructure. Out of these two, if one is absent then capitalism cannot be developed. Weber said that in tribal society there was neither value system of capitalism nor machinery or specialization of work. So capitalism did not developed in tribal societies. In Oriental societies like India though there were lot of resources both natural and man made, yet due to absence of values of capitalism, it could not be developed. For example, India is a rich country but religious values demand lot of expenditure to perform certain rituals and social obligations. So accumulation of wealth could not take place in India.

Among the Blacks of America, there was presence of values of capitalism but they were denied the right of equality by the White Americans. This social seclusion prevented the growth of capitalism among American Black. But in Europe there were both infrastructures and values in the form of Calvinism, so capitalism developed in the west.

Answer : Departing from Marx and Parson who advocated for deterministic and speculative theories, R.K. Merton advocated for realistic theory coming out of real social structure.

Merton criticized Grand Theory of Parson and advocated for ‘Middle Range Theory’, according to which small reality can be studied in its totality than studying total reality incompletely. Merton criticizing functional approach of Parson said that there are functions and dysfunctions of social reality. So the subject matter of sociology should be to study what actually is but not what ought to be?

Merton further said, in every institutional structure like family, kinship, education individual actors are present who play their role differently adapting to norms and values differently. Therefore, within every institution there is a present different degree of conformity to values, hence different roles.

Therefore, sociology should study the empirical characteristics associated with the institutions in modern society that may consequently give rise to role conflict, role confusion, conformity, deviance and so on. So sociologist should study real action of real people emulating from the real institutional structure and their consequence. R.K. Merton begins with the premise that deviance results from the culture and structure of society. Merton starts from the functionalist premise that for the smooth functioning of society, value consensus among the members is essential. However, since members of society are placed in a different position in the social structure, for example, they differ in terms of class position; they do not have this same opportunity of realizing the shared values.

This situation can generate deviance. In Merton’s words, “The social and cultural structure generates pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in the structure.”

Using U.S.A. as an example, Merton states that a state of anomie may exist in the social structure. One form of anomie is that there might be lack of co-ordination between culturally approved goals and structurally permitted means to attain these goals. The members of the society placed variously in the social structure may adapt differently to this anomic situation. For example, the Americans variously share the goal of success in American society which is equated with wealth and material possession. The American dream states that all members of society have an equal opportunity of achieving success, of owning a Cadillac, a Beverly Hills mansion and substantial bank balance. In all societies, there are institutionalized means of reaching culturally defined goals.

In America, the accepted way of achieving success is through educational qualification, talent, hard work, determination and ambition. In a balanced society, equal emphasis is placed upon both cultural goals and institutional means and members are satisfied with both. But in an anomic situation such an equal emphasis may not exist. Individual would adapt to the anomic situation in various ways. The anomie lies in the fact that simply by hard work, education and determination alone, an average American member, cannot attain the success goals. Merton outlines five possible responses to this state of anomie.

The first and most common response is conformity. Members of society conform both to success goals and normative means of reaching them. They strive for success by means of accepted channels.

The second possible response is innovations. This response rejects normative means of achieving success and turn to deviant means to attain success goals. Thus, the public servants who accepts bribe to get rich quickly indulge in innovative type of deviance. So does the politician who accepts commission in arms deals. Merton argues that members of relatively poorer section of society are most likely to select this route. They are least likely to succeed in conventional channels. Thus, there is a greater pressure upon them to deviate because they have little access to conventional and legitimate means for becoming successful. Since their ways are blocked, they are turning to crime which promises greater rewards than legitimate means. Merton argues that they abandon institutionalized means while retaining success aspiration.

Merton uses the term ritualism to describe the third possible response. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they make a fetish of the means and cling to them even though it means losing the sight of the goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest for members of lower middle class. Their occupation provides less opportunity for success than those of other members of the middle class. However, compared to the members of the working class, they have been strongly socialized to conform to the social norms. This prevents them from turning to deviant means. Unable to innovate and struck up with job that offers little opportunity for advancement, their only solution is to abandon their success goals. Merton points the following picture of the typical lower middle class ritualism. He is a low grade bureaucrat, ultra respectable but struck in a rut. He is stickler of rules given to follow the book to the letter, clings to red tape, conforms to all the outward standards of middle class respectability, but has given up striving for success. The ritualism is deviant because he has rejected the success goals held by most members of society.

Merton calls the fourth type of response as retreatism. It applies to psychotic, artists, outcastes, vagabonds, chronic drunkards and drug addicts. They have strongly internalized both the cultural goals and institutional means yet are unable to achieve success due to existence of anomic situation. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goal and the means of reaching them. They are unable to cope with life and hence drop out of society, defeated and are resigned to their failures.

They are deviants in two ways. They have rejected both the cultural goals and institutionalized means. Merton does not relate retreatism to social class position.

Rebellion forms the fifth type of response. It is rejection of both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means, and their replacement by different goals and means. Those who adopt this alternative prefer to create a new society. Lenin, Christ and Gandhi are the examples of rebel type of deviants. Even terrorists in different type of societies are an illustration of rebel type of deviants.

Merton argues that rebellion is typical of members of rising class rather than the most depressed strata, who organise the resentful into a revolutionary group.

To summaries, Merton claims that his analysis shows how the culture of the society generates deviance due to lack of coordination between the cultural goals and institutional means created by state of anomie. There is the tendency to exert pressure for deviance, pressure which varies and depends on a person’s position in the class structure. The way the person responds to this pressure will also depend on his position in the class structure.

Thus, he explains deviance in terms of the nature of the society rather than the nature of the individual and hence this theory is a sociological theory of deviance. Subsequently, Merton’s theory has been modified by others to explain other types of deviance.

Merton said that deviance may be functional, dysfunctional and non-functional. For example, Merton said in a social structure, ‘Conformists’ use institutionalized mean to achieve culturally prescribed goals so they are conformists. Whereas, ‘Innovators’ use other means to achieve goals and ‘Ritualists’ simply religiously follow institutional means but could not achieve goals and ‘Retrists’ like hippies,’ terrorists neither use institutional means nor achieve cultural goals. According to Durkheim only Retrists are deviants but Merton says that except conformists all others are deviants.

Merton says that deviants may also be conformists as they are functional to society. Merton says that all bureaucrats are not absolutely corrupt. Some are perpetually corrupt, some are occasionally corrupt. At times these corrupt bureaucrats are functional as they complete their work fast and achieve the institutional goals. Also these deviant bureaucrats spend money on social cause thereby bringing down hunger and poverty. In the same way, prostitution is pathological, but they give service to sexual demand of man and reduce the anxiety, tension and frustration of man. So deviant are also at time functional or dysfunctional.

Therefore, Merton advocated studying social reality present in social structure and then the latest and manifest function, deviance and conformists can be acknowledged.

Answer : Marxian analysis of capitalistic mode of production and class-struggle is very much related to what we called class and class structure. Before going to discuss class-struggle, we need to understand the periphery of capitalistic mode of production. Capitalistic mode of production is the fourth form of mode of production as discussed and elaborated by Karl Marx.

The development of capitalist mode of production presupposes the destruction of a feudal mode of production and a transformation of production from countryside to the town. In fact, the class of serfs of feudal society is replaced by the class of wage labourers of capitalist society. The productive system is based on an advanced division of labour, with developed trade and commercial activity. In a capitalist mode of production, the town has become the centre of economic activity, the productive system has shifted from agriculture to industry, and there is a fully developed political and social life. There is widespread emergence of private property and a developed class system of capitalists, who are the owners of the means of production, wage labourers, who are producers of physical labour.

Hence, capitalist mode of production refers to a production system where the owners of means of production, capitalists, extract surplus of labour from the proletariats in the form of profits. In addition, capitalism refers to a mode of production in which capital is the dominant means of production. As a mode of production, capitalism first emerged in Europe. The Industrial Revolution started in England and spreading across different countries saw a rapid growth of technology and corresponding rise of capitalist economy.

Marx viewed capitalism as a historical phase to be eventually replaced by socialism – a revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism. As Marx stated, “at a certain stage of development, the material forces of production in society came in conflict with the existing relations of production, or – what is but a legal expression of the same thing – with the property relations within which they had been at work before. From forms of development of the forces of production these relations turn into their fetters.

Then occurs a period of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed.”

At this point, it can be said that each of these stages of historical development has three central themes:

1. They perpetuate the division of society into classes, in which one class is dominant over another;
2. They perpetuate economic, political and social inequality; and
3. In each society, unequal social relations are supported by religion, law, and the political structure.

Class- struggle is the central theoretical orientation of Marx’s writings. The root cause of the development of class-struggle is the notion of surplus value and the transformation from “class in itself” to “class for itself”. Both “surplus value” and the transformation from “class in itself” to “class for itself,” Marx’s theory of class-struggle rests on the premise that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Free men and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeymen, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended either is a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the
contending classes.

Marx believed that except in communist society, class conflict is inherent in every differentiated society. In such societies, there is always conflict of interests between persons and groups located differently within the social structure. All human societies have fundamentally divided between classes who clash in the pursuit of class interests. But the fact is that, “Modern workers are formally ‘free’ to sell their labour while being existentially constrained to do so makes their condition historically specific and functionally distinct from that of earlier exploited classes.” According to this view, the conflict found between master and slave, landlord and serfs, bourgeoisie and proletariat are characteristics of all stages of historical development. But in the capitalist stage of development, proletariats become conscious of its class position. That is, at this stages the notion “class in itself’ transformed to “class for itself”. Hence, the proletariats acquire the revolutionary character by overthrowing these oppressors that is capitalist or bourgeoisie. In these sense, the factory system becomes the prime locus of antagonism between classes. This factory system makes class to be actual self-awareness from self-awareness. At this point, “common-struggle” takes the position of class as a potential power force. According to Marx, classes are determined on the basis individual’s relation to the means of production. These relations are independent of individual’s will. Individual’s class is determined not on the basis of his occupation but on the basis of his position in relation to the means of production.

In a capitalist society, the means of production and distribution of products are in the hands of the few, the so-called ‘haves’. These few people who have the economic power also take control of political machinery including the courts, the police and the military.
Capitalists also justify their ideology and a political system of domination that serves their collective interests. The state is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests. The ideas of the ruling class are…. the ruling ideas.” Political power and ideology thus seem to serve the same functions for capitalists that class consciousness serves for the working class. At this point, class antagonism acquires most acute dimensions. The working class movement gets concretized and reaches its peak. This may turn into violent revolution resulting in the destruction of the structure of capitalist society. Ultimately a classless society is likely to be created with the social dictatorship of the proletariat.

Answer : Emile Durkheim in his last major work, “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,” describes and explains the essence of religion and its positive role in a simple society. His main focus was on the social control of social structures over the individual. He defined institutions as ‘beliefs and modes of conduct established by collective life’ and he made a special study of the institution of religion among the Australian tribes.

His purpose in studying these aborigine societies was very clear. He wanted to use these societies so remote in distance and organization from modern ones as a way of highlighting the exact difference between modern and traditional ones. He wanted to comprehend religion per se and the ‘elementary forms of religious life’. He treated the institution of religion as ‘paradigmatic’.

Totemism is the simplest religion which implies an evolutionist concept of religious history in the context of a non-evolutionist standpoint.

To explain this simple religion Durkheim uses the concepts of clan and totem:

1. A clan is a group united by recognition of a kinship.
2. This kinship is not derived from any blood relationship but from acceptance of a common name.
3. The name is also the name of a determined species of material things with which it (the clan) believes that it has very particular relations. This species of things is the totem itself.
4. Both the clan and the totem form part of a wider system of bonds, known as the phratry.

Duekheim sees in totemism the ancestor of all religions. The theory of religion is not elaborated on the basis of study of a large number of religious phenomena. The essence of the religious phenomena is apprehended from one particular case which is regarded as indicative of all phenomena of the same kind and also what is essential in these phenomena.

This religion consists of totem and clan. Each totem has its emblem. In almost all clans, there are objects which bear a figurative representation of the totem. Ordinary objects are transfigured once they bear the emblem of the totem. They share the sacred quality that is associated with the equivalent of the charinga (objects which bear the emblem of the totem). Totemic objects bearing of emblem of the totem give rise to behaviour typical of the religious order – either practice of absentation or positive practices. In this way is formed in the Australian societies, a realm of sacred things. This realm includes first of all the plants or animals which are totems themselves, then the objects which bear the representation of the totem; eventually the sacred quality is communicated to individuals.

In the last analysis the whole of reality is found to be divided into two fundamental categories; the profane things towards which one behaves. In a manner we might call economic; and on the other hand, a whole realm of sacred things. Totemism, according to Durkheim, is the religion not of certain animals or of certain men or images but of a kind of anonymous and impersonal force which is found in each of these beings without being identified with any of them. None possesses it entirely and all participate in it. Individuals die, generations pass away, but this force remains ever present.

Durkheim finds all these totemic beliefs or practices similar in essence to a religious belief or practice. What the Australians recognize as outside the world of profane things is an impersonal anonymous force which can be embodied in an animal or plant. It is towards this impersonal force that belief and worship are directed. What is important is not where the notion of sacred is applied but that it exists because as participants in a collectivity they have the vague feeling that there is something superior to their individuality; this superior force is the force of society. It is society which will survive all of them (and which without knowing it they worship).

He quotes the example of the Melanesian societies and concludes that the origin of religion is the distinction between the sacred and the profane and that the anonymous diffuse superior force superior to individuals and very close to them is the reality they worship.

A religion thus is a unified system to beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community, called a church, all those who adhere to them.

Durkheim defined religion by its context of beliefs, which is variable, and not always theological. According to him, religion performed the following functions:

1. The individual’s initiation into collective life takes place through religious rites. Religious cult is, therefore, the elementary form of discipline, consisting of a system of self-denials (negative cult) and thus preparing the individual for positive cult participation.
2. Religious rites help in community integration and are a means by which a social group asserts itself. Religion thus helps in groups’ solidarity and moral unity.
3. Rites perpetuate group traditions.
4. Rites also support the individual in times of crisis,for example funeral rites. This, Durkheim called the ‘euphoric function’.

Thus, in Durkheim’s thought there are two different things:

1. Religious ideas and practices symbolize the social group;
2. Group association on special occasions is the source or cause of the religious experience.

Why does society become the object of worship? Because society has everything needed to arouse in men’s mind, simply by the influence it exerts over them, the sensation of the drive. Just like the gods, society requires that we forget our personal interests and become its servants, at every moment we are obliged to submit to rules of conduct and ideas which are sometimes even opposed to our most fundamental inclinations and instincts.

Moreover, according to Durkheim, society favours the rise of beliefs because individuals, brought together living in communion with one another are able in the exaltation of festivals to create the divine, as it were to create a religion. In describing the life of the Australian tribes Durkheim found two distinct phases; one, the secular, where life is monotonous and mainly concerned with economic activity; and the other religious in which celebrations reach a feverish pitch of emotional excitement. He reasoned that when man reaches this feeling of exaltation, he is carried away by some sort of external power which makes him think and act differently than in normal times. It seems to him that he has become a different man, his companions feel themselves transformed in the same way and express this sentiment by their cries, their gestures and their general attitude. There experiences make him feel that there are two words; one, the profane world, the other the world of sacred things.

Thus, to Durkheim religion was the collective ideal. God and heaven were reflections of this collective ideal. And the origins of religion were in crowd simulation when the emotional excitement of a crowd cast aside ordinary restrictions of life and ideas of the sacred emerged.

Answer : Social Facts: Sociology, as Durkheim conceives it, is the study of essentially social facts and the explanation of these facts in a sociological manner. The Durkheimian conception of sociology is based on a theory of the social facts. The requirement for such a science is two-fold:

1. First, the subject matter of the science must be specific.
2. This subject must be such that it can be observed and explained in a manner similar to the way in which facts are observed and explained in the social sciences.

Things include all objects of knowledge that cannot be conceived by purely mental activity, those that require for their conception data from outside the mind, from observation and experiments.

To treat facts as things is not to place them in a certain category of reality but to “assume a certain mental attitude towards them” (Durkheim – The Rules of Sociological Method), that is, they cannot be discovered by the most careful introspection. We must observe social facts from the outside; we must discover them as we discover physical facts.

Precisely because we have the illusion of knowing social realities it is important that we realize that they are not immediately known to us. It is in this sense that Durkheim maintains that we must regard social facts as things. His main requirement was that of ‘methodological ignorance’.

He then says that social facts are to be recognized by virtue of two properties : (a) they are external to the individual i.e. happening outside the individual; and (b) they exercise constraint over individual behaviour.

Answer : Max Weber conceived of Sociology as a comprehensive science of social action. Weber’s theory of social action is related to his methodological approach. Weber first developed the theory of social action in economy and society, which he wrote between 1911 and 1920.

The theory of social action proposed by Weber eventually embraced the question of ‘meaningful’ social action and attempted to incorporate the relevance of values in a theory of human action. In fact, Weber’s theory of action is the product of the Methodeustreit.

In the background of this theory, Weber made two fundamental points: first, that sociology must concern itself with the interpretation of social action; and second, that it must devise a social theory of values. Weber’s theory of social action may be defined as that body of social theory devised by him in order to make valid judgments about the “inner states.” Weber was referring to the capacity of the actor to choose between the means and ends of action and to exercise rational choice. Weber’s theory of social action involves four central concepts:

1. The concept of understanding or Verstehen;
2. The concept of interpretive understanding;
3. The concept of subjective meaning; and
4. The concept of social action.

The central theme of the theory of social action is that Sociology is a science which attempts the interpretive understanding of social action in order to arrive at a casual explanation of its course and effects. In action all human behaviours are included when and in so far as the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to it. Action in this sense may be either overt or purely inward or subjective; it may consist of positive intervention or passively acquiescing in the situation. Action is social in so far as, by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it by the acting individual, it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course.

“Social action, for Weber, can be defined as occurring “when the acting individual attaches a subjective meaning to an act and when it takes account of the behaviour of others and is thereby oriented in its course.” In fact the idea of “interpretive understanding” and the concept of Verstehen are central to the theory of social action. Verstehen relates to “human understanding.” In this sense, Weber believed that the job of the social scientists was to examine the processes related to ‘meaning’ or ‘understanding’ in society. Weber concludes that a social phenomenon is identified not by their external characteristics but by their “inner-states”, i.e., dependence on ‘understanding’ or Verstehen.

Weber’s Measurement of Social Science Method: Webers’ observation on measurement of social science methods is basically related to his methodological orientation of ideal type construction. An ideal type deals in terms of mental construction about any particular situation of the researcher which is part and partial of is researchers’ analysis of Verstehen approach.

The ideal type is one of the Weber’s best-known contributions to contemporary sociology. Ideal type is, basically, a conceptual and methodological tool to study a particular social situation or problem. He developed ideal types for making scientific generalizations out of our understanding of this infinitely complex and shifting world. According to Coser, “An ideal type is an analytical construct that serves the investigator as a measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases.

It provides the basic method for comparative study. Therefore, an ideal type is the selection of certain elements, certain traits or characteristics which are distinctive and relevant to the phenomenon under study.” “An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized view points into a unified analytical construct… In its conceptual purity, this mental construct …. cannot be foundempirically anywhere in reality.

Despite of this definition, Weber was not totally consistent in dealing with ideal type. In this sense, an ideal type never corresponds to concrete reality but always moves at least one step away from it. In Weber’s view, the ideal type was to be derived inductively from the real world of social history. But Weber did not believe that it was enough to offer a careful analysis of concepts, especially if they were deductively derived from an abstract theory. It can be said that ideal is a mental construction, formed by exaggerating certain essential features of a given phenomenon. In brief, ideal types are heuristic devices that are useful and helpful to conduct empirical research and to make us understand about the social world. In this sense, Weber stated: “The ideal typical concept will develop our skill in imputation in research. It is not a description of reality but it aims to give an unambiguous means of expression to such a description.”

In other words, ideal types are concepts formulated on the basis of facts collected carefully and analytically for empirical research. In this sense, ideal types are constructs or concepts which are used as methodological devices or tools in our understanding and analysis of any social problem or social situation.

Methodological Contribution in Social Sciences: Weber used three kinds of ideal types based on their levels of abstraction: The first kind of ideal type is the main category of type formation based on historical particulars. It can also be said historical ideal type formation. Historical ideal types form concepts by selecting phenomena on the basis of common characteristics and employ criterion of selection of only those general concepts “which are precisely and unambiguously definable, such as individualism, feudalism, and capitalism.” In this sense, the ideal type is designed to capture features of empirical reality by arising at what Weber referred to as the “analytical accentuation” of certain aspects of social historical reality. For instance, the ideal type construction of “city, here it is necessary to outline the essential traits of city economy”.

The essential traits of a city economy may include such elements as a system of law based on statutes, decline of magic and a system of private property. Other traits are related to a city economy that may include the concept of a citizen, a municipal organisation and a bureaucracy created by political office holders.

The second kind of ideal types refer to abstract elements of the historical reality that are observable in a variety of historical and cultural contexts. An example of this kind of type construction can be found in Weber’s comparison of the shift from a system of administration by notables to a modern system of bureaucratic administration. This type is constructed by forming the general concept of administration by notables
and by isolating common elements such as their means of legitimacy, type of administration, degree of calculation in decisions, and the characteristics of a system of law.

The ‘shift’ from such a system to a modern bureaucratic administration may be conditioned by specific factors such as a system of legal authority, the dominance of formal rationality, a hierarchy of offices and decision makers, and reliance upon written documentations and record keeping. Weber used these abstract elements of bureaucracy, and also constructed ideal types of authority and social action.

Third kind of ideal types relate to the reconstruction of a particular kind of behaviour. For example, according to Weber, all propositions in economic theory deals with the laws of supply and demand, marginal utilities and so on. Supply of commodity in the market governs prices in relation to demand. Similarly, utility of a commodity for consumption in higher or lower level depend upon the units available for consumption. Economic theory rigorously conceives economic behaviour as consistent with its essence. This essence is being defined in a precise manner.

Answer : Parsons’ contribution in the field of social system has been considered as network of social relation and social actions. He attempts to develop a conceptual scheme that reflects the systemic inter-connectedness of social systems. Crucial to this conceptualization of the social system is the concept of institutionalization, which refers to relatively stable patterns of interaction among actors in statuses. Such patterns are normatively regulated and infused with cultural patterns.

This infusing of values can occur in two ways. First, norms regulating role behaviours can reflect the general values and beliefs of culture. Second, cultural valves and other patterns can become internalized in the personality system and hence affect that systems need structure, which in turn determines an actor’s willingness to enact roles in the social system. Parsons’ views institutionalization as both a process and a structure.
As a process, institutionalizationcan be portrayed in the following terms:

1. Actors who are variously oriented enter into situations where they must interact.
2. The way actors are oriented is a reflection of their need structure and how this need structure has been altered by the internalization of cultural patterns.
3. Through specific interaction processes norms emerge while actors adjust their orientations to each other.
4. In turn, these norms regulate subsequent interaction, giving it stability.

It is through such a process that institutionalized patterns are created, maintained or altered. As interactions become institutionalized, asocial system can be said to exist. Any organized pattern of interaction, whether a micro or macro form, is termed a social system.

When focussing on total societies, Parsons frequently refers to the constituent social system as subsystems of these larger systematic wholes.

Thus, institutionalization is the process through which social structure is built up and maintained. Institutionalized clusters of roles comprise a social system. When the given social system is large and is composed of many inter-related institutions, these institutions are typically viewed as subsystems. A total society may be defined as one large system composed of inter-related institutions.

Answer : Merton’s analysis of latent and manifest functions is mainly related to middle range theory. Merton’s theory of sociological functionalism is based on two types of functions which gives anticipation in sociology.

Manifest functions are those objective consequences contribution to the adjustment or adaptation of the system which are intended and recognized by the participants in the system; latent functions, correlatively, are those which are neither intended nor recognized.

As a major illustration of the value of a distinction between manifest and latent functions for sociological analysis Merton cited bossism and machine politics; to understand the role of bossism and the machine in political behaviour.

Answer : According to Max Weber the ideal type is an analytical construct that serves the investigators as measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases. It is neither an statistical average nor a hypothesis. Rather it is a mental construct created by exaggerating certain essential features of given phenomena, so that no one case of that phenomena correspond exactly to the constructed type, every case of phenomena falls within a definitional framework. Thus ideal type is never an accurate representation of real things. It is somewhat distorted or exaggerated version rather in the ways of cartoonist caricature, which is an exaggerated version of still recognizable face.

Weber developed three kinds of ideal types based on their levels of abstraction. These are:

1. Ideal type of historical particulars: It refers to specific historical reality such as western city, protestant ethic and modern capitalism etc
2. Ideal type that refers to abstruct elements of historical reality: It is observable in a variety of historical and cultural context such as bureaucracy and federation and
3. Ideal type that constitute rationalized construction of particular kind of behaviour.

Thus, Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy is related to the above memtioned second level of abstraction. Generally, the term bureaucracy refers to the rule by departmental or administrative officals following inflexible procedure. Max Weber emphasised the indispensibility of bureaucracy for the rational attainment of goals of any organisation in industrial society. Weber's ideal type of bureaucracy comprised various elements which are as follows:

• The principle of fixed or official jurisdictional area which are generally ordered by rules. The regular activities associated with each status are distributed in a fixed ways to official duties. The structure of authority is clearly delineated and strictly delimited by rules.
• The principle of office hierarchy and levels of graded authority with a firmly ordered system of superordination and subordination in which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.
• A division of labour based on specialized function and responsibilities.
• A system of written documents (the files) defining the procedures as well as the rights and duties of people in all positions.
• Office management based on through and expert training
• Selection for employment and promotion based on technical competence, specialised knowledge and skill.
• Office holding as 'vacation'. Official work is no longer a secondary activity but something that demands the full working capacity of the officials.
• Provision for pecuniary compensation as a fixed salary.
• Appointment of employee by higher officials rather than by election.
• The system of tenure for life. Normally by position of the bureaucrat is held for life as specified by contract.
• A clear distinction between the sphere of office and that of the private affairs of the individual. The bureaucratic officials is not an owner of the enterprise and therefore not entitled to the use of official facilities for personal needs except as defined by strict rules.
• The practice of performing specialized administrative functions according to purely objective consideration and the officials discharge of business according to calculable rules and without regard for persons.

According to ''Encyclopedia of Social Sciences", ''Authority is the capacity innate or acquired'' for exercising ascendency over a group. It is the manifestation of power and implies obedience to it for a system of authority to exist the following elements must be present:

1. an individual ruler/master or a group of rulers/masters.
2. an individual/group that is ruled.
3. the will of the ruler to influence the conduct of the ruled which may be expressed through commands.
4. evidence of the influence of the rulers in terms of compliance or obedience shown by the ruled.
5. direct or indirect evidence which shows that the ruled have internalised and accepted the fact that the ruler's command must be obeyed.

Weber has argued about three types of authority-tradition as authority, chrismatic authority and rational-legal authority. In traditional authority the ruler enjoys personal authority by virtue of their inherited status. Their command are in accordence of customs and they also possess the right to extract compliance from the ruled. The legitimacy of chrismatic authority rests upon the belief in the supernatural and magical power of the persons. According to Max Weber Weber the rational-legal type of authority is found in the bureaucratic organisation. It is vested in the regular administrative staff who operate in accordance with certain written rules and laws. Those who exercise authority are appointed to do so on the basis of their achieved qualification which are prescribed and codified. Those in authority consider it a profession and are paid a salary. Thus it is rational system.

It is legal because it is in accordance with the laws of the land which people recognise and feel obliged to obey. The people acknowledge and respect the legality of both, the ordinance and rules as well as position or titles of those who implement the rules.

According to Weber, modern bureaucracy is the social manifestation of formal rationality. Formal rationality implies the importance of rules and procedures rather than belief and sentiments. The development of bureaucracy is based on the separation of the rulers from the ruled, people from the position, and sentiments and belief from procedures and regulations. Thus, there are several senses in which Weber sees bureaucracy as a form of rationalisation. These are:

1. the systematization of purpose and procedures;
2. rights and obligation based on established and clearly defined norms for the purpose of efficiency; and
3. most importantly, the rationalisation of the procedures of recruitment, promotion and retirement of bureaucrats through which their lives gain security and manageability.

According to Weber, bureaucracy is a structure of rational domination. It is a typical expression of rational legal authority. Hence, power is legitimate only when its exercise is consistent with the formal, impersonal rules and regulation which define the organisation. Again a bureaucratic organisation helps promote rational action of its members.

Weber sees the development of bureaucracy as part and percel of the logic of the development of capitalism, because it is so rational and rationally oriented. Weber also highlights an important paradox or contradiction. The growth of the bureaucratic mentality stifles creativity the very things that made capitalism possible.

Thus, on the basis of above mentioned arguments it can be reasonably concluded that Weber's conceptions of ideal type and authority are largely applicable to the modern bureaucratic organisation in the industrial-capitalist society. Indian civil services is the typical example of it. But in actual fact, in bureaucratic organisation the scope of rationality is relatively low, because legality is the ethos of such institution. There is a chances of misusages of rationality which may ultimately results in the dysfunction of bureaucracy.

Answer : Bureaucracy is a rational organization of modern new capitalist economy. Max Weber was the first to give an elaborate account of the need, development and necessasity of bureaucracy. The term is used both to designate the tasks and procedures of administration as a collective word for a body of administrative officials.

Why bureaucracy is necessarily in new capitalist economic systems? Weber has explained and argued on the basis of following characteristics: fixed areas of official jurisdiction governed by laws and regulations; offices organised on the basis of a clear hierarchy of authority; administration based on written documents and conducted according to procedures for which special training is required; personally free officials appointed on the basis of technical qualifications; appropriation of neither office nor the means of administration by the officials who is employed full-time and subject to strict discipline; a career for the officials in which promotion is governed by seniority or merit, and a fixed salary is paid according to rank.

In modern society this has been replicated in both popular and academic usage. Bureaucracy has been equated with large organizations and, in so far as the state is both organised on bureaucratic principles and has a symbiotic relationship with large organisations, it is easy to conceive of modern societies as bureaucracies. Goulder points out that no sociologist doubts that the dominant type of roganisation todya whether in the private or public sector, is the bureaucratic group. The entire fact lies in that there are seven modern concepts of bureaucracy, namely, as rational organization; as organizational in efficiency; as rule by officials; as public administration; as the organization; as modern society.

Answer : Emile Durkheim’s theory on religion and society has been dealt in his famous book, ‘The Elementary forms of Religions Life’. The book deals a description and a detailed analysis of the clan system and of totemism in the Arunta tribe of Australian aborigines, elaborates a general theory of religion derived from a study of the simplest and most “Primitive” of religious institutions, and outlines a sociological interpretation of the forms of human thought which is at the heart of contemporary sociology of knowledge.

Durkheim began with a refutation of the reigning theories of the origin of religion. Tylor as well as Spencer supported the notion of “animism” i.e., spirit worship as the most basic form of religious extression. Max Mueller put forth the concepts of ”naturism”, i.e. the worship of nature's forces. Durkheim rejected both concepts because he felt that they failed to explain the universal Key distinction between the sacred and the profane, and because they tended to explain religion away by interpreting it as an illusion, i.e., the reductionistic fallacy. The central thesis of Durkheim’s theory of religion is that throughout history men have never worshipped any other reality, whether in the form of the totem or of God, then the collective social reality transfigured by faith.

According to Durkheim, the essence of religion is a division of the world into two kinds of phenomena, the sacred and the profane. The sacred refers to things human beings set apart, including religious beliefs, rites, deities, or anything socially defined as requiring special religious treatment. Participation in the sacred order, such as in rituals or ceremonies, gives a special prestige, illustrating one of the social functions of religion. ”The sacred thing”, wrote Durkheim, ”is par excellence that which the profane should not touch and cannot touch with impunity.” The profane is the reverse of the sacred. ”The circle of sacred objects”, continued Durkheim, ”cannot be determined once for all. Its existence varies infinitely, according to the different religions.” Accordingly, Durkheim defines religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden beliefs and practices which unite in one simple moral community called a church, all those who adhere to it.” Beliefs and practices unite people in a social community by relating them to sacred things. This collective sharing of beliefs, rituals, etc. is essential for the development of religion. The sacred symbols of religious belief and practices refer, not to the external environment or to individual human nature but only to the moral reality of society.

Instead of animism or naturism, Durkheim took the ”totemism” among the Australian tribes as the key concept to explain the origins of religion. Ordinary objects, whether pieces of wood, polished stones, plants or animals, are transfigured into sacred objects once they bear the emblem of the totem. Totem, Durkheim explained, refers to an implicit belief in a mysterious or sacred force or principle that provides sanctions for violations of taboos, inculcates moral responsibilities in the group, and animals the totem itself. The emphasis was upon the collective activities as the birthplace of religions sentiments and ideas.

According to Durkheim, the essence of totemism is the worship of an impersonal, anonymous force, at once immanent and transcendent. This anonymous, diffuse force which is superior to men and very close to them is in reality society itself.

Religion, as Durkheim saw and explained it, is not only a social creation, but is in fact society divinized. Durkheim stated that the deities which men worship together are only projections of the power of society. If religion is essentially a transcendental representation of the powers of society, then the disappearance of traditional religions need not herald the dissolution of society. Furthermore, Durkheim reasoned that all that is required for modern men now was to realize directly that dependence on society, which before, they had recognized only through the medium of religious representation. ”We must,” he explained, ”discover the rational substitute for these religious notions that for a long time have served as the vehicle for the most essential moral ideas.” On the most general plane, religion as a social institution serves to give meaning to man’s existential predicaments by typing the individual to that supra individual sphere of transcendent values which is ultimately rooted in his own society.

Criticism: Modern anthropology has been able to challenge the picture he gives of aborigine society as built upon homogeneous tightly organised clans. Also, many objections have been raised to Durkheim's assumption that Australian totemism may be regarded as representing the most primitive or elementary stage of either social organisation or religious thought.

Critics have objected that the distinction between sacred and profane is faulty as an account of what aborigine religious thought was actually like. Conceptually also it is not clear that there can be only two classes of objects. Is there not also at least one other class which consists of things which are neither ‘sacred’ nor ‘profane’, but simply mundane? Again, is the relationship between the two classes of objects one of total hostility or one of a division between two complementary systems of thought?

Lastly, the origin of the actual content of religious systems is not accounted for at all bat treated us if to say the choice of sacred objects were arbitrary or unimportant.

Asia is to be considered as a homogenous, developing, eclectic of various culture, multilingual, multireligious, and diverse in nature. Japan, we as know, as only country of developed type but other values and characteristics are still prevalent in this country as well. Asia is basically composed of not only south and north but also west and east. Therefore, it has a greater degree of diversity that the western world. But one thing should be taken into consideration that they have greater intimacy and personal relationship based on cultural values. These cultural values are based on the notion of religion, language and the way of life. Emile Durkheim's theory of religions is very much revolving around the mainly three concepts i.e. sacred, profane and totemism.

Therefore, all the factor and contours of
his theory of religion are found in the societal structure of Asian countries. For instance, we take the example of Indian society; Hinduism is very much related to the Durkheim's notion of sacred, profane and totemic behaviour of the social structure. Before entering the temples, we should take out of our chapples and shoes that represents these objects are profane and mundane in nature and temples are to be considered as sacred place. In Asia, we have seen that these different types of tribal communities are present and totemism is the best practice that practiced by the tribal people and is to be taken for granted as a religious symbols, ritual and values. Hence, Durkheim's theory of religious is useful to understand societies of Asian countries.

Answer : Max Weber showed a deep interest in the link between religious ideas and economic institution in his famous work ‘The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Capitalism’. It says that ascetic Protestantism fostered a spirit of modern capitalism marked by a ceaseless obligation to earn money and for reinvest profit. For this, Weber constructed ideal types of both, the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.

The basic points culled by weber from Franklin’s writing to construct his pure type of spirit of the capitalism may be summarized as follows:

1. Time is money
2. Credit is money
3. Money begets money. One should never misspend or keep idle even a single paisa,
4. One must be punctual is repaying the debt. ‘The good paymaster is lord of another man’s purse’ i.e., if a person pays his debts when they are due, they will always be able to borrow as much as they can.
5. One should keep careful accounts of income and expenditure in the minutest details, and
6. One should always be known for prudence and industry. One should not spend time idly.

Observance of the above rules nurtures the spirit of modern capitalism. This spirit is “that attitude which seeks profit rationally and systematically”. It is a philosophy of ceaseless and rational pursuit of profit. Weber observed that the movement to a capitalist society was primarily caused by the habits, attitudes and beliefs of Protestantism, more specially of Calvinism. The main features of Calvinism are as follows:

1. Calvin’s Image of God: God, said Calvin, was all powerful, transcendent. His divine will was unknowable. It would be foolish of any human being to try to understand God’s will.

2. Doctrine of pre-destination: At the core of Calvinism is the belief that certain persons are chosen or ‘elected’ by God to enter Heaven while the rest are damned. The ‘chosen’ will reach Heaven no matter what they do on earth. We cannot bribe God to give us a place is Heaven through prayers or sacrifice.

3. Calvinism and “this worldly asceticism”: By ‘asceticism’ we mean strict self-discipline, control and conquest of desires. Calvinism stressed rigorous self-discipline in order to master the environment. A simple, frugal life-style along with hard work was recommended.

This emphasis on hard work was not confined only to Calvinists but all protestant sects also. The idea that ‘honesty is the best policy’ was the principle of early capitalism.

4. The notion of ‘Calling’: The Calvinist ethic holds that all work is important and sacred. For example, a university graduate would accept a sweeper’s job in this context.

Thus, Calvinism helped to create a disciplined and dedicated work force without which capitalism could not have emerged.

Criticism: Although Max Weber tried to give sociology a scientific look but he had also been subjected to a good deal of criticism. He has been charged of being weak towards, ‘Functionalism, ‘Super Naturalism’, and ‘Mysticism’. His concept of relationship between religion and capitalism has also been attacked. In this respect, Sorokin has quoted examples of Japan where no progress worth the name was made in the field of religion but it had miraculous progress in the economic, political and cultural fields. On this, Sorokin has criticized Max Weber in the following words: “Nevertheless Weber very often slips from his ‘functional stand-point’ into that of one causation”. In addition to it, working day and night and not enjoying the fruits of that labour might seem very irrational to most of us. But if we keep in mind the doctrine of “pre-destination” and the need to prosper to prove one’s “election” by God, this irrational behaviour makes sense.

Another fact is about possibility that the tenets of the capitalism must also have effected the emergence of the protestant ethics. It is very difficult to support this view because most of the capitalist society such as United States of America and Britain are very much influenced by the Christianity. In contradiction to, Japan is very catholic in nature where the notion of capitalism has been developed. But Karl Marx did not recognize the importance of religion in the development of capitalism. For Marx, it was only economic factor.

Answer : The term ‘anomie’ was first used by the French sociologist, Emile Durkheim, to refer to several aspects of social participation where the conditions necessary for man to fulfill himself and to attain happiness were not present. These conditions were that conduct should be governed by norms, that these norms should form an integrated and non-conflicting system, that the individual should be morally involved with other people so that ‘the image of the one who completes me becomes separable from mine ‘and so that clear limits were set to the pleasures attainable in life. Any state where there are unclear, conflicting or unintegrated norms, in which the individual had no morally significant relations with other or in which there were no limits set to the attainment of pleasure, was a state of anomie.

R.K. Merton uses the term to refer to a state in which socially prescribed goals and the norms governing their attainment are incompatible. Leo Srole has attempted to construct an index of anomie. In most attempts to make ‘anomie’ measurable, emphasis is placed on lack of clarity in goals and norms or upon the absence of social ties. All such attempts involve a more restricted use of the concept than Durkheim’s which was related to a philosophical conception of human nature.

Merton argues that deviance results not from ‘pathological personalities but from the culture and structure of society itself. He begins from the standard functionalist position of value consensus, that is all members of society share the same value. However, since members of society are placed in different positions, they do not have the same opportunity of realizing the shared values. This situation can generate deviance. In Merton’s words ‘the social and cultural structure generates pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in that structure’.

Merton outlines five possible ways in which member can respond to success goals. The first and most common response is ‘conformity’. Members of society conform both to success goals and the normative means of reaching them. They strive for success by means of accepted channels. A second response is ‘innovation’. This response rejects normative means of achieving success and turns to deviant means, in particular crime. Merton argues that members of the lower social strata are most likely to select this route to success. Third response is ‘ritualism’. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they have largely abandoned the commonly held success goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest for members of the lower middle class. Their occupations provide less opportunity for success than those of other members of the middle class. Merton terms the fourth, and least common response, ‘retreatism’. It applies to ‘psychotics, autists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drunkards and drug addicts’. They have strongly internalized both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means yet are unable to achieve success. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goals and the means of reaching them. They are deviant in two ways: they have rejected both the cultural goals and the institutionalized means. Merton does not relate retreatism to social class position.

‘Rebellion’ forms the fifth and final response. It is a rejection of both the success goals and the institutionalized means and their replacement by different goals and means. . Thus urban guerillas in Western European capitalist societies adopt deviant means i.e. terrorism to reach deviant goals such as communist society. Merton argues that ‘it is typically members of a rising class rather than the most depressed strata who organize the resentful and rebellious into a revolutionary group’.

In brief, Merton claims that this analysis shows how the culture and structure of society generates deviance. Merton thus presents a sociological theory of deviance. He explains deviance in terms of the nature of society rather than the nature of the individual.

Criticism: Merton’s theory of Anomie has also been frequently criticized. Albert K. Cohen makes two major criticism of Merton’s views. Firstly, he argues that delinquency is a collective rather than individual response. Whereas Merton sees the individual responding to his position in the class structure, Cohen sees individuals joining together in a collective response. Secondly, Cohen argues that Merton fails to account for ‘non-utilitarian crime’ such as vandalism and joy-riding which do not produce monetary reward. Cohen questions whether such forms of deliquency are directly motivated by the success goals of the main stream culture.

Walter B. Miller also criticized the Merton’s views in this respect. He rejects Merton’s view that it represents an alternative means of achieving mainstream goals. Cloward and Ohlin argue that Merton has failed to explain the different forms that deviance takes. They argue Merton failed to consider the ‘illegitimate opportunity structure’. However, Merton’s views give a direction to understand the concept of Anomie.

Answer : Marx-has used both the terms for determination of class. By ‘class-in-itself’ he means the objective criteria of any social class. Objective criteria of class means people sharing the same relationship to the means of production. For example, all labourers have a similar relationship with the landowners. On the other hand all the landowners, as a class, have a similar relationship with the land and labourers. In this way, labourers on one hand and landowners on the other hand could be seen as classes.

Class-for-itself, for Marx, means the subjective criteria of class. Any collectivity or human grouping with a similar relationship would make a category not a class, if subjective criteria are not included. Class-for-itself refers to the members of any one class not only have similar consciousness but they also share a similar consciousness of the fact that they belong to the same class. This similar consciousness of a class serves as the basis for uniting its members for organizing social action. Here this similar class consciousness towards acting together for their common interests is what Marx calls “class-for-itself”.

Answer : The “Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism” is one of the important works and doctoral thesis of Max Weber. Weber made his departure by rejecting the contemporary Marxian views on the development of capitalism which regarded economic substructure as the ultimate cause of social change. He also rejected Engel’s views that protestantism rose in Europe as legitimising ideology to nascent capitalism which has already come into existence, instead he emphasized the role of ideals as an independent source of change. Refusing Engel’s argument, he further states that capitalism existed in an embryo in Babylon, Roman, Chines and Indian society and in China and India other material condition propitious for the development of capitalism existed at certain stages in the history. But this phenomena is peculiar to the western society alone.

On the basis of his analysis and statistical record, Weber found that the higer grade of skilled labour and modern enterprise were overwhelmingly protestant. This was not merely a contemporary phenomena but also a historical fact. Weber started the search for the ideas which contribute to form psychological motivation manifested in the spirit of capitalism. For Weber, these ideas lay in the belief and practices of certain protestant groups– Calvinism, Methodists and Peptists whose manner of life was characterized by asceticism. Weber elaborated these motivation in the form of an ideal type which many be summed up as follows:

Underlying everything is an interpretation of predestination, hence religious conviction. Since Gods decrees are as impenetrable as they are invocable, so that it is impossible to lose grace once it has been bestowed as it is to gain if it has been refused. Thus, the protestant concerned is necessarily left in the state of wilderness, not knowing whether he is the elect of God or not. The success in one’s professional activity is a manifestation of the glory of God and may be interpreted as a sign of election. Salvation may therefore not be brought through the efficiency of his faith which is attested by the success attendent upon his industry. In order to succeed in one’s profession, one should not waste the fruit of his labour in leading a luxury of life, rather one should lead a disciplined and the ascetic life to ensure continued success in one’s profession.

Weber classified religious activities into two categories. (1) Asceticism and (2) Mysticism.

(1) Aseticism: It consists of the belief that God directs religious activities, so that the believer sees himself to be the instrument of the divine will. Therefore, the purpose of this life is not to waste in the luxuries and pleasure of flesh rather one should lead a disciplined life to realize the glory of God.

(2) Mysticism: It constists of consciousness not so much of being an instrument of God but what Weber calls a vassal of God. Religious activities in this case is a question of achieving a condition akin to divine. This is accomplished by contemplation on both rather than those which can be demonstrated in this world.

Next, according to Weber asceticism can manifest in two forms :

(a) Inner worldly asceticism : where individuals do not feel themselves to be the instrument of God’s will, but seek to glorify God’s name through performing good work in the world. Here success in this world itself becomes a sign of divine approval,

(b) Other worldly asceticism : when individuals, renounce the world so that they may be of service to God alone, as in the case of monastic orders.

Here, Weber pointed out that only inner worldly ascetic type of religious belief which makes the believer treat day to day working as the calling of God, will foster the spirit of capitalism. Certain sect of protestantism alone was the inner worldy ascetic type and hence contributed to the rise of modern capitalism. On the other hand, other religions like Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism etc. were either other worldly ascetic or have preponderence of the mystic and therefore, failed to foster the spirit of capitalism, although material conditions propitious for the development of capitalism were present in Indian and Chines socieities.

Weber’s thesis on “Protestant Ethic and spirit of Capitalism” has been criticised on various accounts. Famous English historions R.H. Tawney has pointed out that the empirical evidence on which Weber’s interpretation of protestantism was based, was too narrow. According to him England was the first country to develop capitalism. However, the English puritans did not believe in the doctrine of predestination.

Secondly, there were aspects of traditional Catholic teaching which were equally comparable with capitalism. Yet capitalism was extremely slow in some Catholic dominated areas. Weber seems to have ignored crucial development in Catholicism which occured after reformation and the modernised catholicism from within. Next, capitalism is contradictory in that it requires the consumption of commodities as well as saving for the future investment. Protestant asceticism aids the latter but the former may require hedonism. Finally, the present day capital is no longer guided by the inner worldly ascetism. What is more, the present day life style is increasingly hedonistic. Webers thesis can be defended against some of the criticism by pointing out that it was only an ideal type construction which sought to establish a connection between certain aspect of protestantism with some aspect of early enterpreneurial type of capitalism. At no stage did Weber claimed to be the sole cause. In fact, Weber did admit to the possibility of building other ideal types linking other contributory forces to capitalism. Thus, Webers thesis should not be treated as general theory of capitalism development. It is more ideographic in nature. Further Weber clearly states that the spirit of capitalism was only one component albeit an important one. There are other components too which together with the spirit constituted the modern capitalism. These components are:

1. Private ownership of the means of production
2. Technological progress to the degree the production can be calculated in advance. For example mechanisation or automation.
3. Formally free labour
4. The organisation of capitalist producers into joint stock companies.
5. Calculable law, that is the universalistic legal system which applied to everyone and is administered equitably.

These elements form the basis of the ideal type of modern capitalism.

Answer : In his famous book "Rules of Sociological Method" (1895), Durkheim is concerned with the very fact 'social facts' as a subject matter of Sociology. He has defined social facts as ways of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual and endowed with a power of coercion by reason of which they control him. Durkheim treats social facts as things which is real and exist independent of the individual will and desires. According to Durkheim social facts are external to individual and are capable of exerting constraint upon the individual. It is independent of individual manifestation. The true nature of social facts lies in the collective or associational characteristics inherent in the society. Legal codes, customs, moral values, religious belief and practices, language etc. are social facts. Thus, on the basis of above arguments, Durkheim has argued about four characteristic features of social facts. These are externality, constraint, independence and generality. He has also argued about the types of social facts which he has named (i) Morphological social facts, (ii) Institutionalized forms of social fact and (iii) Non-institutionalized forms of social fact, (iv) Normal social facts, (v) Pathological social facts.

Commenting on the social facts as things, Durkheim has argued that we do not know in the scientific sense of the word “know”, what the social phenomena which surround us, among which we live, and it can even be said which we live really are. To use Durkheim’s language, we do not know what the state, sovereignity, political liberty, democracy, socialism or communism are. This does not mean that we do not have some idea of them, it is important to regard social facts as things, i.e. to rid ourselves of the preconceptions and prejudices which incapicitates when we try to know social facts scientifically. We must observe social facts from the outside. We must discover them as we discover physical facts. Precisely because we have the illusion of knowing social realities. It is important that they are not immediately known to us. It is in this sense that Durkheim maintained that we must regard social facts as things because things, he says, are all that is given, all that is offered to or rather forced upon our observation.

According to Durkheim we recognise a social fact by the fact that forces itself on individual and gives a series of extremely varied examples which show the multiplicity of meaning which give the word constraint invested in his thinking. There is a constraint when, in a gathering or crowd, a feeling imposes itself on everyone or a collective reaction— Laughter, is for example, communicated to all. Such a phenomena is typically social in Durkheim’s eyes. Because its basis is the group as a whole and not one individual in particular. Thus, on the basis of collectivity Durkheim treats social facts as any way of behaving, fixed or not, which is capable of exercising an outside constraint on the individual or again any way of behaving which is universal throughout a given society and has an existence of its own and independent of its individual manifestation.

These two propositions — to regard social facts as things and to recognise the social facts by the constraint it exercises are the foundation of Durkheim methodology. They have been the subject of endless discussion, which to a large extent, has been concerned with the ambiguity of the term implied. Durkheim is perfectly right to say that social fact must be regarded as thing.

Answer : The term "theory" refers to an abstract conceptual scheme which in itself may be little more than a number of definitions or it may have a systematic reference so that each abstract term is systematically relased to the others, rendering the categories exclusive of each other, but pointing to their articulation. If, from such a categorical system, laws may be derived possessing predictive values, then we may say that theoretical system has been evolved. Strictly speaking only this last kind of system is a system of theory, and a law or generalisation derived from it, is properly called a theory. The expression social theory denoted a range of description and argument concerned with the political arrangement and courses in social theory usually devote large proportion of the syllabus to the writing of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, Hegel, Green and Bosanquet.

The term "fact" refers to the proved reality. Durkheim has argued that not all facts about human behaviour are necessarily social facts. According to Durkheim, fact is social only in so far as it exists externally to the individual and exercise control over him. He insisted that social fact must be treated as a thing, it is general to the society and it also imposes constraints on the individual behaviour.

Both the terms theory and fact are corrected. It is theory through which new facts are discovered. On the other hand, facts also help in the formulation of theory.

Answer : According to Durkheim the essence of religion is the division of the world into two kinds of phenomena-the sacred and the profane. The sacred refers to things human, being set apart, including religious belief, rites, duties or anything socially defined as requiring special religious treatment. Participation in the sacred order such as rituals and ceremonies, gives a special prestige, illustrating one of the social function of religion. The sacred things, wrote Durkheim, is par excellence that which the profane should not touch with impurity. The profane is the reverse of the sacred. It is the realm of routine experience. It coincides to a considerable extent, with what Pareto has called “logic-experimental” experience. The realm of profane deals with the mundane activities and is transcended by religion. It is sphere of the adaptive behaviour. Durkheim has argued that sacred is characterised by ambiguity, non-utilitarianism, non-empiricism etc. It also does not involve knowledge. Sacred is supportive and has strength giving character. Further, Durkheim defines religion as unified system of belief and practices related to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden. The belief and practices unite into a single moral community called a church. The sacred symbol of religious belief and practices refers not to external environment or to individual human nature but to moral reality of the society.

Answer : A common basis for the growth of informal relationship of the clique type is the fact that the members of any organisation are also members of a variety of other groups. If these other groups, each have fairly strong in-group feeling, their members are likely to carry over their prepossessions and antipathies into the formal organisation. Sometimes these attitudes prevailing in the wider society are formally recognised in bureaucracy, in discriminatory practices with respect to recruitment and promotion. Cliques may form on the basis of ethnic groups, religions, castes, regional origins, college from where the officials have graduated or the fraternities to which they belong. Such clique may or may not be dysfunctional for the formal organisation. Despite the empirical importance of such clique, we shall devote our attention here to aspect of informal organisation that arise independently of the outside affiliations of officials. Social interaction system with a fairly continuous existence always develops normative pattern. This is true of the informal relation in a primarily formal organisation. Weber has often been criticised for focussing exlusively, on the formal structure of bureacracy. Peter Blau's study of interviewers in an employment agency indicates that official rules and procedures cannot, in and of themselves maximise efficiency. No set of rules can anticipate all the problems which arise in a bureaucracy. To some degree such problem will be handled in terms of informal norms of group of workers. Blau's study of federal agent indicates that in certain circumstances, contarary to the implication of Weber’s argument, breaking official rules can increase organisational efficiency. In general, Blau's study shows the imprtance of studying the informal structure of the organisation.

Answer : According to R.K. Merton the term “function” refers to observable objective consequences not subjective disposition. It is those observed consequences which meets for the adaptation & adjustment of a given system. He has divided the entire social function in two categories. The first is the Manifest function & the second is the Latent function. Manifest function are those objective consequences which contribute to the adaptation of the system and which are intended and recognized by participant in the system. It is irrational. On the contrary, the latent functions are those which are neither intended nor recognized. To highlight the example of manifest & latent functions, Merton cites the example of the "Hopi Indian rain ceremony" This ceremony is rarely followed by rain. Yet the Hopi Indian have been performing it. Here Merton argues that when we view the ceremony from the focus of latent function, then the sociologists realise that consequences of ceremony exists not in the rain god but for the groups which conduct the ceremony. This ceremony performs a latent function of reinforcing groups identity. According to Merton this distinction between the manifest & latent functions have various advantage for sociological enquiry. In the first place distinction aids the sociological interpretation of many social practices even though their manifest function in clearly does not exist. Here Merton advises that the sociologist should not dismiss them as a mere superstition or irrationalities or instead should try to look for the latent function. The Hopi Indians rain ceremony is an example of such a situation.

Answer : The very word 'class' originated from the Latin term 'classis' which denotes a group or a division of people. In Marxian term, a social class is an aggregate of persons who perform the same function in the organisation of production. It is determined not by occupation of income but by the position, an individual occupies and the function he performs in the process of production. Secondly, he has also argued that it is the consciousness which is the basic element of class. Without conciousness, a class is called by him as 'class in itself'. It is, in true sense, not a class. Whenever consciousness is added, a class in itself sentiment, becomes 'class for itself'. Thus, according to Marx the real meaning of class is vested in "The class for itself".

As far as, class struggle or antagonism is conscerned, Marx, has broadly elaborated it in historical sense. He assumes that the "history of hitherto existing society is the history of class strugle. Free man & slave, patrician & plebian, lord & serf, guildmaster & journeyman, in a word oppressor & oppressed, stood in contstant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that is time tested either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

The main causes of class antagonism in different points or period of time is the ownership of means of production. It refers to the entire things such as lands, labour and capital or the ownership of the production system. As Marx has argued about, only two classes all times and in all societies, these two rival classes mutually come in conflict over the ownership of production system. One primitive society was a classless society hence there was no class conflict or antagonism but with the coming of ancient society from where the class system initially originated, the conflict became apparent. In the ancient society, the master was the owner of entire means of production. They were the oppressor. On the other hand, slave was considered as oppressed who was generally exploited by their master. After a long struggle, this system ended or was overthown by the class struggle which ultimately resulted in the emergence of feudal society. During the medieval period, feudalism was very prevalent in European society. In this system, the ownership of means of production was in the hands of landlords who terribly exploited the serfs whose status was just like the bonded labour. In this system, agriculture was the main source of livelihood. The landlords owned the entire land holdings whereas the serfs were totally deprived from it. They merely worked as agriculture labourer. The mutual rivalry between these two opponent classes ended with the emergence of French, Industrial & Russian revolutions. These revolutions also give birth to a new system of production or society which is known as Industrial or capitalist system.

Infact the class struggle is still continuing, with changed form. From the very beginning, the intensity of conflict has been rapidly increasing & in the modern Industrial capitalist society, this struggle became very acute. In this system, the bourgeoise exploit or dominate over the proletariate or the working class. The ownership of means of production is in the hands of bourgeoise while the proletariate has only the labour power. The proletariate are alienated and as Marx predicted when they become conscious, the capitalist system could be replaced by the communist system or a classless society.

The Marxian views on class antagonism have been criticized by functionalist thinkers. Functionalists argue that inequality, some degree of class struggle or stratification system of the society are functional for the society. They also favoured the prevalance of class system but Marx was in favour of a classless society. According to functionalist view, without the class system or inequality, the competition, progress & development of society are not possible. Prominent functionalist thinkers Davis & Moore have argued that the different people or strata of society have different qualities or skill to perform, therefore their position & status in the society should be ranked accordingly. On the other hand, Weber has also argued that the market situation of an individual determine its class situation which to some extent seems reasonable. But Marx has refuted all these views & emphasized importance of struggle and conflict in the society. But a layman can know the importance of cooperation or mutual inter dependence in the development and progress of society.

Answer : Emile Durkheim along with Max Weber must be credited with founding the modern phase of sociological theory. It begin with his first book 'Division of labour', submitted as a French Doctoral thesis. Durkheim established a broad framework for analysis of social system that has remained central to Sociology & Anthropology to the present day. The focus of his work was on the social system & the relation of that system to the personality of the individual. The French philospher Rousseau, a protagonist of democratic individualism' infuenced Durkheim greatly, especially Rousseau's famous concept of volonted generale which provided a conception of social solidarity directly dependent upon neither politics nor economics. As reflected in his close ties with Rousseau as well as Descartes, Durkheim was strongly rooted in French intellectual history and was admitted close to Saint Simon & August Comte as well as his university teacher Fustel De Coulanges. Durkheims genius was somewhat in his ability to strike an intermediary position between British empiricism and utilitarinism of spencer and German. idealism of Hegal and others. To a great extent, modern Sociology is the product of the sysnthesis of elements that have figured most prominently in this two traditions. His second works 'The rules of sociological method (1895)’ was also of paramount importance from the sociological point of view. In French academy in 1898, Durkheim founded all L'An-all sociologique, a scholarly journal under his own editoriship that became the organ of research, debate & discussion among not only Durkehim & his immediate followers but of all accepted sociological work going on in France. His final and in many respect provocoative book came 15 years after his previous study and 10 years after going to Sorbonne entitled Elementory forms of Religious life (1912). It was a ripe harvest of long process of intensive cultivation. Religion, once a major passion for him in childhood became once again a major pre occupation, not so much as an unwitting participant but as a scrutinizing observer.

According to Durkheim, the origin of religion may be traced in the Arunta tribe of Austrialian Aborigine who used to practice totemism. According to him, the essence of religion is a division of world in two kinds of phenomenon, the sacred & profane. The sacred refers to things human being set apart, including religious beliefs, rites, deities or anything socially defined as requiring special religious treatment. Participation in the sacred order, such as in ritual and ceremonies gives a special prestige, and is one of the social functions of religion. The 'sacred things', wrote Durkheim, is par excellence, that which the profane should not touch and cannot touch with impunity. The profane is the reverse of the sacred. The circle of 'sacred object' continued Durkheim, can not be determined once for all. It's existense vary infinitely, according to different religions". According to Durkheim religion as a unified system of belief & practices relative to sacred thing, that is to say, things set apart & forbidden, belief & practies which unite in one simple moral community called a church, all those who adhere to it'. Belief & practise unite people in a social community by relating them to sacred things.

Durkheim writes 'Totemism is the religion not of certain animal or of certain man or of certain image but of a kind of anonymus and impersonal force which is found in each of his beings. It is the implicit belief in a mysterious or sacred force or principle that provides sanction for violation of taboo, inculcates moral responsibility in the group and animates the totem itself. Durkheim has argued about the functional aspect of religion. He says, by worshipping religion man indirectly worships the society. Religion performs various social, economic, political and individual function in society and enhances collective conscience and social solidarity. In this way, social integration and cohesion are being ensured in the society.

Thus, we see that Durkheim has contributed a lot to make Sociology a scientific discipline. His views on social fact, anomie, religion & society, crime, suicide etc are of paramount importance as far as the sociological investigation is concerned. He is one of the prominent founding fathers or the modern architect of sociology.

Answer : The 'ideal type' is an analytical construct, that serves the investigator as measuring rod to ascertain similarities as well as deviations in concrete cases. It is neither an statistical average nor a hypothesis. Rather it is a mental construct created by exaggerating certain essential features of a given phenomena, so that no one case of that phenomena correspond exactly to the constructed type, every case of phenomena falls within, a definitional framework. Thus 'ideal type' is never an accurate representation of real things. It is some what distorted or exaggerated version rather in the ways of cartoonists caricature, which is an exaggerated version of still recognizable face.

The ideal type concept grew out of the creative convergence of Weber's concept of 'Versetehen' and casual explanation. Weber developed three kinds of ideal types based on their levels of abstraction:

1. Ideal type of historical particulars: It refers to specific historical reality such as western city, Protestant Ethic, modern capitalism etc.
2. Ideal type that refers to abstract element of historical reality: It is observable in a variety of historical and cultural context such as bureaucracy and federation.
3. Ideal type that constitutes rationalized construction of particular kind of behaviour: All propositions in economic theory may be said to fall in this category. Since these are merely ideal types reconstruction of the ways man would behave if they were pure economic objects.

Other Characteristic of Weber's Ideal Type

1. An ideal type is a clearly constructed model of the specific set of social relationship of which an understanding and causal explanation is sought.
2. It is not the description of those factors or laws which are thought to be found on an average in the kind of configuration.
3. It is not ideal in the sense of being ethically good or right.
4. It is an ideality of rational construction imputing certain meaning in terms of values held and sought, calculation made and men implied, in which the imputed meaning of action are interpreted as having causal validity in terms of value relevance. It is a clear rational construction of the nature of an exercise in imputation of meaning for causal understanding.
5. It is not rational in the sense of assuming pure rationality among men and women in the specific configuration of action and relationship. Thus, investigator knows that non-rational and irrational elements are often in much of the human behaviour.
6. It is ideal and rational only in the sense of being a conceptual and logical reality imputing a pure rationality of means and action simply as a hunting case.
7. It is essentially a one-sided model deliberately emphasizing those imputation thought to be worth postulating and testing. In this sense it is purposefully selective and of the nature of an experiment.
8. Many ideal types may be constructed about one specific configuration, each relatively emphasizing one point of view and submitting its particulars imputation to the test. The adequacy of an ideal type is measured purely in that it gives a correct explanation to the specific social configuration it is examining.

Significance of Ideal type in Social Science: In the social research and investigation, ideal type provide us with lots of ideas or clues about the matter or things. Before proceeding towards the real situation the researcher visualizes the entire research procedure in a channelized or hypothetical ways. For example, Max Weber has argued about the ideal type of bureaucracy in which he firstly made an imaginative idea in his brain about an ideal structure and function of the bureaucracy. Later on, he compares this model to the existing bureaucratic structure. This is applicable not only in the case of bureaucracy but this methodology may be reasonably applied to the various issues of social research and investigation. The social scientist, by adopting the ideal type methodology, may be able to get more reliable and valid data. To a large extent, objectivity will also be ensured by this method. But, since Sociology is a science of social relationships, interactions and changing phenomena, it will be difficult to ensure biaseness or value-free approach to analyse a problem. The ideal type method is scientifically framed which was used not only by Max Weber but also a large number of social scientists are following this method to expose the hidden realities of the society.

An ideal type can be viewed as an ideal experiement. Like the ideal type all experiement is constructed as a closed sytem, although nothing that happens in the controlled and natural stage may occur exactly as it does in the experiment, the experiement proves that what is performed is possible and therefore occur in nature. What happens in the open system outside the laboratory, approximate in the various degree to the result of experiment. Knowledge of the result obtained by experiment helps us to find out factors which might be operative in actual situation and bring out result that differs from those observed in the experimental situation. The other function or significance of ideal type is to use theoretical analyses. In particular an ideal type makes prediction possible. With an ideal type as a model, we can foresee probable development in particular situation that correspond in some degree to the model. For example Spencer's prediction of dictatorship in Europe form the tenants of some colonies such as Germany towards the materialistic type of organization. An ideal type also makes possible the establishement of relevant connection between two different constellations e.g. pattern represented by ideal types. For example the connection between the Spirit of Capitalism and Ascetic Protestantism. In this case of recognition of the connection is facilitated by unambiguous formulation of ideal type. They provide the clarity of conception necessary to perceive affinities.

Answer : According to Merton all members of the society share the same value. However, since the members of the society are placed in the different positions in the social structure, for example they differ in terms of class position, they do not have the same opportunity of realising the shared values. This situation can generate deviance. In Merton's word, the social and cultural structure generate pressure for socially deviant behaviour upon people variously located in that structure.

Using U.S.A. as an example, Merton outlines his history as follows. Members of the American society share major value of the American culture. In all societies, there are institutionalised means of reaching culturally defined goals. In a balanced society, an equal emphasis is placed upon both cultural goals and institutionalised means and members are satisfied with both. But in America, great importance is attached to success and relatively less importance is given to the accepted ways of achieving success. As such, American society is unstable & unbalanced. There is a tendency to reject the rules of the game & to strive for success by any available means. This situation becomes like a game of cards in which winning becomes so important that the rules are abandoned by some of the players. When a rule ceases to operate, a situation of normlessness or anomie results. In a situation of "anything goes" norms no longer direct behaviour & deviance is encouraged. However, individuals respond to a situation of anomie in different ways. In particular, their reaction will be set by their position in social structure.

Merton outlines 5 possible ways in which the members of American society respond to success code. The first & most common response is 'conformity'. Members of the society conforms both to success goals & normative means of reaching them. They strive for success by means of accepted channels.

The second response is 'innovation'. This response rejects normative means of acheiving success & turns to deviant means in particular time. Merton argues that members of the lowers social strata are most likely to select this route of success. They are less likely to succeed via the conventional channel. Thus, there is a greater pressure upon them to decide. Their educational qualifications are usually low. Their job provides little opportunity for advancement. In Merton's words 'They have little access to conventional & legitimate means for becoming successful.

Merton used the term 'Ritualism' to describe the third possible response. Those who select this alternative are deviant because they have largely abandoned the commonly held success goals. The pressure to adopt this alternative is greatest for the members of lowers middle class. Their occupation provides less opportunity for success than those of other members of the middle class. Merton points the following picture of a typical lower middle class ritualistic. He is a low bureaucrat, ultra respectivate & stuck in a rut. The ritualist is deviant because he has rejected the success code held by the most members of the society.

Merton termed the fourth & most common response as 'Retreatism'. It applies to psychotics, Pariah, outcastes, vagarants, vagabonds, tramps, chronic drinkers & drug addicts. They have strongly internalized both cultural goals & institutinalized means yet are unable to achieve success. They resolve the conflict of their situation by abandoning both the goals & means of reaching them. They are unable to cope with job of the society and are defeated to resign to their failure.

'Rebellion' forms the fifth a final response. It is rejection of both the success goals & institutionalized means & replacement by different goals & means. Those who adopt this alternative wish to create a new society. Thus, urban gurillas in western European captalist society adopt deviant means as terrorism to reach deviant goals such as communist society.

To summarize, Merton shows how the culture & structure of society generate deviance. The over emphasis upon cultural goals in American society at the expense of instituionalized means creates a tendency towards anomie. This tendeny exerts pressure for deviance. A pressure which varies depending on person's position in a class structure. Merton, thus, explains the sociological theory of deviance. Finally, it may be aptly remarked that Merton has explained deviance in terms of the nature & structure of society rather than individual.

Answer : Relative deprivation refers to the feelings felt and judgements reached when individuals or members of a group compare themselves adversely with some other individual within their group or with another group. For example, teachers in a university may feel relative deprivation when they compare their status, prestige and perks as compared to that of the bureaucrats. The notion is that it is not absolute standards which are important in making such judgement but the relative standards in terms of which people make judgements.

The concept of relative deprivation was developed by Stouffer in the work 'The American Soldier'. Stouffer found that a married soldier suffered from relative deprivation. Comparing himself with his unmarried associates in the army, he could feel that induction demanded greater sacrifices from him than from them. Moreover, comparing himself, with his married civilian friends, the married soldier felt that he had been called on for sacrifices which they were escaping altogether.

Later, Merton worked on the concept and used it for his theorisation on reference group. Merton suggested that the group with which comparisons are made constitute the reference group of individual/group experiencing feelings and making judgements of relative deprivation.

Answer : The study of division of labour in society was Durkheim's doctoral thesis and his earlier work. Under the division of labour, Durkheim has responded to the rise of industrial society and has also highlighted the positive and negative sides of it. The rise of industrial society has been seen as a consequences of technological advancement which itself is regarded as a natural concomitant of increasing division of labour or specialisation. However, Durkheim is not first to discuss the division of labour. Classical economists led by Adam Smith has already attempted to explain division of labour as an activity confined to the field of economy, where complex task is rationality divided into specialised and simpler task and allocated among the members. Such a rational organisation of task increases the efficiency and productivity.

Durkheim rejected the purely economic interpretation of division of labour and applied it as a phenomena having ramification for the whole of the society. According to him increasing specialisation in the economic sphere is the consequence of social differentiation. Durkheim explores the consequences of division of labour for the society as a whole. Durkheim probes the relationship between division of labour and the manner in which solidarity comes about.

Durkheim divides society into two categories, one simple, small-scale type of society, characterised by low division of labour based upon ascription criteria like age and sex and the other large scale industrial society characterised by high division of labour, based upon specialised skill. In the former case, the task to be performed are simple which almost all members can perform equally well. Due to similar activity being performed by all members, likeness results among them. Cohesiveness in such a society is based upon the shared sense of likeness among the parts. Durkheim calls this type of solidarity as “mechanical solidarity”. In the latter case, members perform highly specialised task. Thus, each member's task differ from those of the other members. So each part of the society tend to be more and more different. But given the specialised and partial nature of the society, they become highly interdependent. In this case, cohensiveness of society is based upon interdependence of parts. Dukheim call this type of solidarity "organic solidarity".

According to Durkheim society based on mechanical solidarity is segmental in nature with little interdependence. It has relatively low volume of population and low material and moral density as it is evident from the fact that the simple society is scattered over immense areas relative to the number of individuals that compose them.

In societies based on mechanical solidarity, conscience collective is very extensive and strong and almost fully engulf the individual conscience. The collective authority is absolute whether it is diffused throughout the community or incarnated in the chief. The content of the conscience collective is pre-eminently religious, pervades the whole social life. This is because social life consists of almost exclusively in common belief and practices which derive from unanimous adherence of very special intensity. Further, the essence of conscience collective is concrete.

The law in mechanical solidarity is repressive and penal in character. It aims at inflicting suffering or loss on the criminal and to supress recurrences to crime. According to Durkheim, an act is treated as criminal "when it offends strong and defined state of conscience collective. Thus the crime is viewed as affront to the conscience collective which feels hurt by the criminal act. Hence, one of the important functions of the punishment is the action and reaction taking place at the collective level. In the words of Durkheim, "we must not say that an action shocks the collective conscience because it is criminal; but rather that it is criminal because it shocks the common conscience. We do not improve it because it is crime but it is crime because we improve it".

With increase in the volume of population, material density and moral density also increase. According to Durkheim, division of labour is the peaceful solution to the need created by the increase of population in size and density. This increase in division of labour gives rise to the organic solidarity. Organic solidarity is characterized by the decline of the conscience collective. The role of collective conscience becomes specialised. Individual becomes increasingly more free while becoming more aware of their interdependence. The freedom of individual becomes a venerated principle of society based on organic solidarity. The relation between individual and group becomes contractual. Repressive law remains diffuse throughout the community. Restitutive law, a special function, organs and institution, tribunal council and so on like precedence.

Further, comparing the organic solidarity and mechanical solidarity, Durkheim suggests that social cohension is greater in the case of organic solidarity. As the labour is divided so also does the member of society depends more and more on labour. The labour of one fits into the labour of others and produce cohesive community. Thus, the community becomes more cohesive and better integrated individual becomes more free and more able to experience, his initiative being less lightly bound by common sentiments. The division of labour thus contributes both to the cohesion of the society and to the self expression and freedom of the individual. However, the above mentioned discussion refers to what organic solidarity ought to be. It does not describe the situation actually obtaining in modern industrial society. Durkheim himself was aware of this hiatus between what ought to be and what really happens. Therefore, he calls the above description as a normal type of division of labour, at the same time, pointing to the major abnormal forms of division of labour.

Conclusion : Thus, it may be aptly said that with the increase in division of labour, the social solidarity in the society decreases. High division of labour in the society gives birth to individualism, more interdependence, specialisation, low social integration or cohesion. In the mechanical solidarity, the social cohesion and integration are very high but as the society develops and reaches the stage of organic solidarity, integration or social cohesion gradually lower.

Answer : According to Talcott Parsons social system involves the interaction of two or more individual in the social situation according to common value pattern. A social system is considered functional till it maintains the 'equilibrium' among the various mechanism. The dysfunction in the mechanism leads to disequilibrium. According to Parsons there are four functional prerequisites to maintain a social system alive. These are adaptation, goal attainment, integration and latency. Besides others, goal attainment and integration are the two major problems of the social system. The role- conflict or what Parsons called role strain occurs in choosing the goals and means to realise it. When the people are unable to attend the goal, it may lead to deviant behaviour in the society while the attainment of goal enhances integration in social system. Secondly, modern industrial society lacks integration because values orientation are different in the society. The clashes may be observed between the individual and collective social values. The other problem is that the pattern of family, personality, political system etc., are going under tremendous changes. Parsons assumes that it is very difficult to study the changing nature or function of the social system.

Answer : Durkheim divides social differentiation into two types of societies. The first is the small scale type of society characterised by local division of labour based upon ascriptive criteria like age and sex. The second is the large scale industrialised society characterised by high division of labour based on specialised skills. In the former, the task to be performed is simple which almost all members can perform equally well. Due to similar activities being performed by all members, likeness result among them. Cohesiveness in such a society is based upon the shared sense of likeness among the parts. Durkheim calls this type of solidarity as the “mechanical solidarity”. In the latter, members perform highly specialised task. Thus, each members task is different from those of the other members. So each part of society tends to be more and more different. But given the specialised and partial nature of society, they become highly interdependent. In this case, cohesiveness of society based upon interdependent of parts. Durkheim calls this type of solidarity "organic solidarity". According to Durkheim, society based an mechanical solidarity is segmental in nature with little interdependence. It has relatively low volume of population and low material and moral density. On the other hand organic solidarity is characterised by the decline of 'collective conscience'. The individual becomes increasingly more free of interdependence.

Answer : Karl Marx has comprehensively explained the men's productive nature, their consciousness and the mechanism of forming relationship. He assumes that man is a social being and productive or creative by nature. He has described their productive nature and social being in the historical perspective. It has been observed by Marx that during the long period of history, the sociability in the men have been gradually increasing. As the social nature of man becomes more intensive and widespread, they become more conscious of their existence and creativity. He gives the example of primitive society and argues that during this epoch the men were more unsocial and uncivilised. These were the reason why they were not conscious and productive. But, during the later phase of the historical development, both the features; sociability and consciousness in them have changed drastically.

Initially the term "mode of production" is used by Marx to identify the primary element of a given historical stage of production by showing how its economic base shape social relation. In this sense, the way people actually produce and enter into social relationship with one another is called the 'mode of production' and this comprises a total way of life of society, its social activities and social institutions. Thus, according to Marx "Mode of Production" comprises the 'Forces of Production and ' Relation of Production. The forces of production may be taken to mean the instrument, equipment, land, tools etc. which are put to work for purpose of producing a livelihood. But these forces of production can only be put into operation when people in society enter into relation of production. The relation of production, therefore, are always about how the forces of production are to be used in order to produce, and one key idea stemming from the relations of production is that one class is the proprietor over these forces, the other being subject to them. Thus the, relation of production involves the right of proprietors to control the labour of the producer and secondly to control the product of the labourer.

The notion of the 'mode of production', sociability and consciousness have been described by Marx during the three historical epoch of its development. These are the ancient, feudal and capitalistic epoch of society. Each society have been divided into the two classes; the exploiter and the exploited. In the ancient society the dominant class (masters) preside over the forces of production in such a way that the relation of production entered into by the producer transforms them into slaves. This gives the dominant class the direct control over the product. According to Marx, this was resolved in the estrangement or deprivation of the slaves from their own products which, in turn, was a threat to their social existence. It had sowed the seeds of consciousness in them.

Similarly, in a feudal made of production or society the landholders directly preside over the forces of production and have a right to control a portion of serfs' labour as well as the right over the serfs agricultural production. As a result of threat to their social being, the slaves began to solidify and organise themselves against the lords.

Thirdly, in the "Capitalist mode of production " or capitalist society, the capitalist has direct ownership over the forces of production including the land, machinery and materials and exercise a right over the disposition of the product of labour but does not exercise direct control over the labourer during the working day. In capitalism, it should be noted that the control existing in the dominant classes to exercise right over labour and over the product migrate to the wage-form where the capitalist pays out in wages suf ficiently less than the amount of wealth created by the workers. Marx assumes that this is gradually resulting in the process of solidarification and unification or class-for-itself sentiments among the working class or Proletariat. When they will become fully conscious, the capitalist would be overthrown and 'communist society or ideology will preside over the society.

On the basis of above mentioned arguments of Marx, it can be concluded that whenever, there are the threats to men's existence, they try to cope with them in a revolutionary way with full consciousness and unification. Thus Marx's notion that it is the social being of man that determine his consciousness is more apt rather than the notion of consciousness of the men which determine his unique adjustment to the society. Some of the psychologists have also objected it. Whatever happens, this conception of Marx has enriched the social thought and has added a dimensional change in the process of social investigation

Answer : In his analysis of the social system, Talcott Parsons has emphasised both the utilitarian and idealist approach. The utilitarian approach treated social system as product of rational impulses of human being (individual) to integrate their needs and urges as orderly systems. These systems are based on compatability of interest through contractual mutuality. For example, the system of government and the state which represent organised system of power. On the other hand, idealist approach places too much emphasis on values and ideas and not enough on social practice. According to idealist treatment, democracy is seen simply as the fulfillment of the interest of nation. According to Talcott Parsons both the idealist and utilitarian notions of the social system assume certain characteristics in human impulses in an apriori manner. By apriori we mean that which is already given or assumed. Keeping the above in mind, Parsons offers another approach to study of social system termed as "action approach".

Parsons' action approach to the social system is integrative in nature because he has used the motivational factors of the utilitarian perspective and values. Thus social action, according to Talcott Parson, is the intrinsic element of social system.

According to Talcott Parsons action does not take place in isolation. It is not empirically discrete but occurs in constellations which constitute systems. A behaviour becomes action when the four elements present; First, it is oriented towards attainments of ends or goals or other anticipated affairs, secondly it occurs in situations, thirdly it is regulated by norms and values of society and fourthly it involves an investment of energy or motivation or effort. Thus, the motivation and value orientation together constitute the social action, the constellation of which, in turn, constitutes social system. According to Talcott Parsons, the system of action have three modes of organization which he describes as the personality system, cultural system and the social system. The personality system refers to those aspects of human personality which affect the individual's social functioning. The cultural system comprises, instead the actual beliefs, concrete system of value and symbolic meaning of communication. The social system in this context refers to the forms and modes of interaction between individuals and its organisations.

According to Talcott Parsons, social system has three basic characteristics. First it involves interaction between two or more actors and the entire interaction process. The second is that the interaction takes place in a situation which implies other actors. These actors are objects of emotion and value judgement and through them goals and means of actions are achieved. Finally, there exist a social system, collective goal orientation and common values and consensus on expectation in normative and cognitive senses.

The basic unit or organization of social systems are; first the motivational orientation which consists of cognition of individual to the environment, cathectic or emotional orientation and the evaluative orientation. The second is the value orientation which consists of the cogitive orientation of the value judgement, appreciative orientation of emotional responses and moral orientation which refers to commitment of an actor towards his or her object.

The other dimensions which reveal the properties of all action system is Parsons concept of pattern variables. The pattern variables reveal the roles of an individual actor which are very vital to the element of social system. According to Parsons there are in all five pattern variables. The first is affectivity versus affective neutrality. In this, the evolution of roles is made through the emotional situation that whether the role is emotionally attached or non-attached. The second is self-orientation versus collective orientation; the roles which is evaluated by the moral standard of the society. The third is the universalism versus particularism; which reveals whether the roles are bounded by kinship, friendship or legal codes of conduct. The fourth pattern variable refers to the Ascription versus Achievement in which roles are evaluated by either quality or performance. For example roles in the caste system is evaluated by the ascriptive pattern whereas roles in the class have achieved connotation. The last and fifth pattern variable is specificity versus diffuseness which refers to the scope of the role performance. The scope refers to the nature of social interaction.

According to Talcott Parsons, the pattern variables not only define the nature of role-interaction and also role expectation in social system but provide, in addition, the overall direction in which most members of the social system choose their roles. It also gives an idea about the nature of social system.

The other crucial aspect of social system is the functional prerequisite. It is the essential function without which social system cannot survive. According to Talcott Parsons, there are four functional prerequisites. The first is adaptation through which the members of the social system learns how to adjust in the internal and external aspects of the system. The second is the goal-attainment in which the members decide the goal and means to achieve it. The third is integration which helps in the maintence of coherence, solidarity and coordination in the social system. The fourth is the latency which organises and maintains the motivational energy of the social system.

This function is performed by the socialization process of the member of the social system.

Finally, Parsons has also highted the types of the structure of social system. According to him there are four types; these are economic system, family system, political system and the personality system.

Analysis : Though Parsons's notion of the social system has enriched the subject matter of the sociology, at the same time it has the conflicting views with Weberian and Marxian notion of the system of society. The concepts of social action of Parsons is different from that of the Weber. He has not properly highlighted the class system and its relevance which is the prime area of traditional and modern social system. The change is the nature of society and system, but Parsons has especially highted the static aspect of the system and has avoided its dynamic side.

Answer : Generally, the word "Social Change" refers to change in the social system, social structure, culture, social institutions and values of society. Just as evolution brings about change in the structure of the organism, similarly social evolution introduces change in the structure of social system and contributes to the growth of new stage of social organisation. The social change may be revivalistic and reversible. It is more so in the areas of cultural change. Development is a desirable direction of change in a society, which is consciously planned. But all social change cannot be planned. Planning brings about change that are consciously expected, but it also bring about many change which were not anticipated. All societies experience automatic and unanticipated forms of change which may be desirable or undesirable.

Thus social change is a distinct concept which cannot be substituted by either social process, evolution or development. Basically, the term social change implies first, internal differentiation or multiplication or forms of roles and relationship within social structure and secondly replacement of older structure by new structure. The first process may be called "change in structures" rather than "structural change". The latter are rare indeed.

The change-in structure are generally small scale changes, as these do not influence all other attributes or elements of social structure. The 'Structural change' are however large in scale as they alter a wider set of elements of social structure. These have far reaching repercussions. Similarly, change-in-structure are short period changes and usually structural changes are long period change in the society. For example, when a small settlement becomes a village; a village, a town; a town, a city, it is called change-in-structure. In this type, change in the older roles continue to exist along with new ones which emerge in the process of differentiation.

Structural changes involve total replacement of older forms of structures by substituting them with new ones. Revolutionary changes in society are good example of ownership of property, family, political system and arrangement of social classes or castes and basic structural ideas and belief replaced by new one. Such change may be called 'Structural Change'. It is not only the revolutionary social movement but also the scientific and technological knowledge that bring structural change in the society.

Some of the sociologists assume that most changes in the actual practice are of "change in structure" type. They maintain that structural change is not reality but only an abstraction or model from which change in structure can be analysed. According to them, even after the revolutionary change in the society, most of this basic structural element are not replaced, especially kinship system and a large segment of cultural and symbolic tradition. These exert pressure on the new social structure to work at new synthesis. Thus, even evolutionary social change consists not entirely of structural change as it constrains the process of change-in-structure.

Karl Marx's theory of social change which is evolutionary and structural in nature is one of the important theories in Sociology. He believed that class struggle is the driving force of social change and the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle. According to him a new historical epoch is created by the development of superior forces of production by a new social group. These developments take place within the framework of the previous era. For example, the merchants and industrialists who spearheaded the rise of capitalism emerged during the feudal era. They accumulated capital, laid the foundation of industries and factories which are essential for the capitalism.

Secondly, Marx argues that the class-struggle in history has been between minorities. For example capitalism developed from the struggle between the feudal aristocracy and emerging capitalist class, both group in numerical terms forming a minority of the population. Major change in history involves the replacement of one form of private property by another and one type of production technique by another.

Thirdly, according to the Marxian notion of social change the basic contradiction contained in a capitalist economic system would lead to its eventual destruction. The Proletariat would overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize the forces of production, the sources of power and property would be communally owned and, since all members of the society now share same relation to the forces of production, a classless society would result.

Fourthly, according to Marx the, "Class-for-itself" sentiment that is, one’s awareness, conciousness and subjective perception of the objective reality work as the catalyst in bringing social change in the society. At this stage, the members of a particular class unite and solidify themselves against the opposite class. Giving the example of capitalist society, Marx predicted that when the Proletariat or working class will become totally a "Class-for-itself", the Proletarial revolution whill occure\ which will throw the existing capitalist society. The new society will be "Communist Society" which will be egalitarian and classless

Thus, Marx’s concept of social change is revolutionary or structural in nature. He perceived social change at broad level. According to him changes in the mode of production bring wider change in the relation of production. The entire infrastructure and superstructure of the society dramatically change as the mode of production changes.

Marx’s theory of social change has raised debate among the sociologists. Firstly many sociologists claim that his social class and change theory provide the best explanation of nature of changes in the capitalist society. Secondly, much of the research on class has been inspired by ideas and questions raised by Marx. Thirdly, the class and social change concept of Marx have been proved equally useful for both the Marxist and non-Marxist thinkers. Commenting on Marx, T.B. Bottomore remarked, "For the past eighty years Marx theory of social change has been the object of unrelenting criticism and tenacious defence". The observation is still true.

Answer : Max Weber has propounded his theory of social action in his famous work "Economy and Society" which was written between 1911 and 1920. The term "Social action" is derived from the body of Weber's work which concerned itself with developing a theory for making valid judgement about the decisions, individual make in their action with others in a social environment. The theory of social action proposed by Weber eventually embraced the question of 'meaningful' social action and attempted to explain the relevance of values in a theory of social action.

The term social action in general denotes social behaviour. The concept is used both by the social scientists and psychologists. Action is social when the actor behaves in such a manner that his action is intended to influence the action of one or more other persons. In sociology, it was Max Weber who first explicitly used and emphasied social action as a basis of sociological theory.

According to Max Weber "Sociology is science which attempts the interpretative understanding of social action in order thereby to arrive at a causal explanation of its causes and effect. According to Weber 'Action is social', in so for as, by virture of the subjective meaning attached to it, by the acting individual, it takes account of the behaviours of the others and is thereby oriented in its course. Thus according to Weber, following are the characteristics of social action:

1. Social action includes all human behaviours.
2. It attaches a subjective meaning to it.
3. The acting individual or individuals take into the account the behaviours of others.
4. It is oriented in its course.

Weber has classified social action into four major type on the basis of the meaning involved in it.

(1) Zweckrational action or rational action in relation to goal: When a man engages in pursuit of specific goals, rationally decided and make use of most efficient means to achieve these goals; such type of action is termed as rational action in relation to goals. For example, an engineer constructing a bridge is good example of it. This action is corresponding to Pareto's logical action.

(2) Wertrational action or rational action in relation to values: Here means are choosen for their efficiency but the ends are determined by values. For example the action of a soldier laying down his life for the country. His action is not directed towards attaining specific material goal. It is for the sake of certain values like owner and patriotism.

(3) Traditional Action : In traditional action both the means and ends are decided by the rituals, customs, ceremony and practices related to tradition. In traditional Indian society, doing pranam and namaskar to the elders are examples of this type of action.

(4) Affective Action: This type of action is determined by the emotion and impulse of the individual. Embracing an old friend or attacking a foe is an example of affective action.

Weber has correlated rational action with the rational-legal authority, traditional action with the traditional authority and affective action with the charismatic authority.

Limitations :

The first is that Max Weber conceives of Sociology as a comprehensive science of social action. The typology of action therefore is the most abstract level of conceptual system applicable to social fields. The classification of types of domination; rational domination, traditional domination, charistmatic domination depend on the four types of action.

Secondly Sociology is also a comprehensive science of social action. According to Weber comprehension implies an understanding of the meaning man gives to his conduct. Pareto judged the logic of action in terms of the knowledge of the workers, but Weber's aim is to understand the meaning each man gives to his own conduct, so that becomes essential to the comprehension of the subjective meaning to proceed to a classification of types behaviours.

Thirdly, classification of the types of action to a certain extent governs the Webarian interpretation of the contemporary era. For, according to Weber the prime characteristic of the world we live in is its rationalization. The rationalization characteristic of modern society is expressed by a widening of the sphere of zweckrational action.

Fourthly, the classification of the type of action may be correlated with what constitutes the heart of Weber's philosophical thought, namely the relation of solidarity and independence between science and politics. For, Weber was always passionately interested in the question; What is ideal type of political man? The ideal type of scientist? How can one be both politician and professor. The question was for him personal as well as philosophical.

Answer : Talcott Parsons has identified change in two forms- one is called structural change and the other is called long term evolutionary change. Structural changes are the important changes in the organisation and functioning of the society, its sub-system by which the society moves from one social type to another. Transformation of traditional society to industrial, feudal and capitalist to socialist society are examples of structural change.

Sources of such change may lie in the variation of physical environment, change in the technology, change in the personality, and cultural values or norms. The other major sources of change may lie in the internal organisation of the society. This is manifested in the forms of strains that develop in the society. When strain cannot be relieved through institutionalized means, a reservoir of tension is built up which lead to structural change with greater or lesser violence. Strain themselves may sometimes be produced by other factors of change mentioned earlier. However, these forces of change will not succeed in bringing about change so long as they remain weaker than the forces maintaining equilibrium and social control.

Following the tradition of the founding fathers of Sociology, Parsons regards evolution as the second form of change. It is a long term process of change. Parsons builds his theory of change on the model of biological theory of evolution, as in living organism system, which has also shown greater ability for adapting to the environment. Thus, the fundamental principle of evolution is the capacity for adaptation.

Capacity for adaptation, in turn, depends upon two basic processes viz differentiation and integration. Increasing structural differentiation enables society to respond fully to all its needs. Thus, it increases or upgrades the adaptational capacity. At the same time, it becomes more differentiated, new modes of integration have to be invented in order to coordinate the new and more numerous part of which it is composed. Increased differentiation accompanied by sustained integration enables a society to evolve according to the exigencies of the environment. Here, change in the culture is very important for both, increased differentiation as well as for new integrative mechanism to be effective, because culture plays the major role in maintaining control. According to Parsons, cultural change that accompanies increasing differentiation is characterized by increasing generalisation of cultural values which can help in greater inclusion.

Applying the evolutionary model, Parsons has distinguished five steps of evolution in terms of which various society can be classified. These stages are characterized by increasing level of differentiation and integration. First type is primitive society like Australian aborigin. Second type is archaic socities like mesopotamian and Egyptian empire, third type is historic society like China and India, the fourth is are seed-bed societies like Israel and Greece and the fifth type is modern societies like the USA, Soviet Union, Europe and Japan. Each of these stage represents a similarity in their degree of differentiation and their integrative solution.

These features, Parsons termed as "Evolutionary Universal." If a civilization at a lower evolutionary stage adopts certain evolutionary universals belonging to a higher stage, it can easily leap over one or more stages, altogether. Here, Parsons gives the example of Europe, the fiefdom of the medieval Europe were at the lower stage of evolution than their contemporaries like the Indian and Chines empire. Yet feudal Europe absorbed some of the higher level of evolutionary universals that was organised in the Roman, Hellenistic and Judaic civilization which together transformed the medieval European society into modern advanced stages. One evolutionary universal happened to be the concept of transcendent God which later made possible a strict separation between a church and the state leading to modern secular and rational culture. The second evolutionarily universal was the concept of citizenship as developed in Roman law which in turn formed the legal matrix for each institution as correct and properly. These were further accelerated by the growing differentiation of the economy set in motion by the introduction of money, banking etc. This enabled the transition of modernsociety.

Answer : "abstract concept"

Answer : The concept of "social fact" has been propounded by Emile Durkheim, in his second major works "The Rules of Sociological Method" (1895). He has defined social facts as "Way of acting, thinking and feeling external to individual and endowed with power of coercion by reason of which they control him". Durkheim treats social facts as things which are real and exist independent of the individual will and desires. According to Durkheim social facts are external to individual and are capable of exerting constraints upon the individual. Social facts are independent of individual manifestation. The true nature of social facts lies in the collective or associational characteristic inherent in the society. Legal codes and customs, moral values, religious belief and practice, language etc. all are social facts.

Durkheim has stated that it is important to know which facts are commonly social. If we look, he writes, at the things individuals do, such as eating, sleeping and reasoning etc. none of their activities may be called social fact since these acts only identify a set of individual facts. In addition, if all these facts were to be viewed as social then Sociology would have no subject-matter exclusively its own, and its domain would be confused with that of biology and psychology. All these individual acts, he went on, cannot be counted as social facts and, if they were, Sociology would have no distinctive subject-mater-no social reality, only individual reality. But, according to Durkheim, in every society, their exists a group of phenomena which may be studied independently of these individual facts.

Durkheim has argued that this group of phenomena, differentiated from all other and defined externally in law and custom have two distinct properties which qualify social facts as distinct from the individual fact. First, they present the noteworthy property of existing outside the individual; and second, their existence is prior to the individual and as such they are more historically continuous than individual existence and therefore precede individuals in the historical sense. According to Durkheim, there are a class of externally independent rules or customs which are clearly withdrawn from individual discretion. These he went on, constitute a new variety of phenomena and it is to them exclusively that the term 'social' ought to be applied.

This claim by Durkehim that 'social fact' can be withdrawn from individual description was pivotal in setting out the study of society and it challenged utilitarian thinking on at least two separate and distinct fronts. First, in stating that society preceded the individual historically, it shifted the focus from individual motives to the laws of society. Second, in asserting that society exerts constraint on individuals, it showed that individual action in fact derives from society, thus placing the individual within the framework of larger social rules. When, the term constraint is used in this way, stated Durkheim, we risk shocking the partisans of absolute individualism who protest the complete autonomy of the individual. Those who take this view mistakenly that the individual's dignity is diminished whenever they are made to feel that they are not completely self-determinants.

On the basis of above arguments, Durkheim has argued that only those facts will be considered as a social fact which will have the following characteristic.

1. Externality
2. Constraint
3. Independence
4. Generality

Social fact, according to Durkheim exists outside the individual conscience. Their existence is external to the individual. For example, domestic, civic and contractual obligation are defined externally to the individual in laws and customs. Religious belief and practices exist outside and prior to individual. An individual takes birth in the society. For example, language continue to function independently of any single individual.

In other words social fact are external to individual in two senses:-

1. Every individual is born on in ongoing society which already has a definite organisation and structure. There are values, norms, beliefs and practices which an individuals find readymade in the society since the birth and through the process of socialization. Since these social phenomena exist prior to the individual and has an objective reality, they are external to the individual
2. Secondly, social fact is external to the individual in the sense that only one individual is a single element with totality of relationship.

The second criteria by which social facts are defined is the moral constraints they exercise on individual. Whenever, an individual resists the social fact, it leads to mild ridicule, social, isolation and moral and legal sanction.

Thirdly Durkheim argues that social fact is general, not specific fact. It is generally found in the collective conscience of the society. The collective conscience consists of common beliefs and values of the society.

Answer : In his "Economics and Antiquity" (1908) Weber, first wrote on the subject of bureacracy. Later in "Economy and Society", he included a much larger section on bureacracy in which he looked more extensively into the question of the development and growth of the modern administrative apparatus. Formally, Weber's study of bureaucracy is a part of much larger study of the theory of domination which appeared in the part of “Economy and Society”. Nevertheless, his discussion alone stands as an independent investigation into the historical determinations of bureaucratic administration in the society.

According to Weber, bureaucratic type of organisation began in the societies whose political organisation tended towards an officialdom. Early examples of societies with larger political administration include the Germanic and the Mongolian empire and feudal estate of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Among these societies, Weber cited the cases of emperor and feudal lords, when making known their decrees and pronouncement would appoint, commissioner whose power were exercised within their large juridiction. Weber identifies six types of bureaucratic structure; (i) states which tended to control policy and policing functions (ii) ecclesiastical communities which are required to administer a large population of believers (iii) Economies whose main function is to distribute goods and coordinate functions (iv) The modern agency (v) the military and (vi) Judiciary.

One of the important factors which Weber had in developing a historical understanding of bureaucratization was to show that it was a development of modern society. In order to demonstrate this, he drew on several historical comparisons of administrative oriented societies. He looked at the administration of early Egypt and Rome, at the administration of the Catholic Church, at Asiatic socities and the feudal economics of central Europe. While these socities develop administrative staff and trained decision maker. they are in Weber's view, formally pre-bureaucratic in their administrative organisation.

According to Weber, in modern industrial capitalist society, bureaucratic organisation is fully developed and has become a function essentiality for the society. The rational legal type of bureaucratic administration, which consists of technical superiority of the bureaucrat, strict official rules, hierarchy of job etc., has replaced the traditional and charismatic type of the bureaucratic administration.

The structural sources of the dysfunction of bureaucracy in the modern industrial capitalist society are embedded in firstly, in the traditional monarchial and feudal, and charistmatic bureaucratic organization, and secondly the modern bureaucratic structure itself. Though, in the present society, democratic political system has been established around the world, in practice the power and authority of the bureaucrat are misused sometimes in the expression of it. To some extent, it has been affected by the aristocratic and feudal principle which does not suit to modern organisational society.

The second major factor which has led to dysfunction of bureaucratic organisation, according to R.K. Merton, is the principle of strict adherence to rules. He argues that rules and regulation, in itself, are not sufficient to get the organisational goals. Sometimes the situation arise, which are not covered by the rules, may result in its dysfunction. It requires the personal expertise of the bureaucrat through which he efficiently and effectively sorts out the solution. Secondly, it may lead to displacement of goal.

Thirdly, R.K. Merton argues that the emphasis on impersonality in the bureaucratic procedure may lead to friction between officials and public. For example a client in a job centre or maternity clinic, may expect concern and sympathy for their particular problems. The business like and impartial treatment they might receive can lead to bureaucrats being seen as unsympathetic, abrupt and even arrogant. As a result, clients sometimes perceive that they have been badly served by the bureaucrats.

Commenting on the structural deficiency of bureaucracy, Peter Blau, has argued that the more formal nature of the bureaucracy is not fully conducive for the realizations of organisation goal. Blau's case study of the formality and informality work together, it will lead to realization of the organizational goal. He argues that no set of rules can anticipate all the problems which arise in bureaucracy. To some degree, these problems will be handled in terms of the informal norms of group of workers. Variation in these norms will result in differing level of efficiency. According to him a bureaucracy in operation appears quite different from the abstract portrayal of its formal structure.

Answer : Functionalism approach in sociology view society as a system of inter connected parts which work together for the maintenance of the whole. Thus social institutions such as religion is a part of the society rather than an isolated and independent institution. The early functionalists often drew an analogy between the society and an organism such as the human body. They argued that the understanding of any organ in the body, such as the heart or the lungs involves an understanding of its relationship to other organs, and in particular, of its contribution towards the maintenances of the organism. In the same way, the understanding of any part of the society requires an analysis of its relation to the other parts of the society and its contribution to the maintenance of society as a whole. Like organism, society has certain basic needs for its survival which is called functional prerequisite by Parsons.

A number of sociologists such as the founding father August comte, Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, and others like Talcott Parsons, Davis and Moore etc. have approved functionalist approach in Sociology. Robert K. Merton is chiefly known for his logical criticism to functionalism which also contributed a lot to this perspective. The classical functionalist thinkers firstly differ with R.K. Merton in the adoption of methodology. Merton approves the empirical and paradigmatic approach to society whereas they are merely theoretical. Secondly the classical thinkers are concerned with the whole society in their analysis, but Merton's advancement may be especially emphasised in the modern capitalist society. One cannot reasonably disapprove the functions of religion given by Durkheim. Religion to a great extent, still maintains social solidarity in the society. But Merton has completely ignored its functional aspect by his postulate of functional unity of society. His dysfunctional analysis of religion, to some extent, is true because religion is associated with ethnic prejudice and fundamentalism in the society. If the functionalist perspective adopt this dysfunctional aspect of religion, the perspective will be widened and more scientific analysis will be possible. Merton's concept of dysfunction and non-function have really enriched the perspective.

Commenting on Herbert Spencer's "organic anology", Merton assumes that no part or function of society is indispensable, it is generally replaced by others. In the present day global world, the functions of family, marriage, religion, economic institutions etc. have been gradually replaced by the modern institutions and organisations. But classical functionalist's assumptions are also true because these institutions still perform relevant roles in the maintenance of social system. The level or degree of function has been lowered as a consequences of social change. Therefore, both R.K. Merton and his counter-parts are true to their own discourse. Merton has also criticised Parsons functional pre-requisite with his postulates of functional indispensability. Merton's another contribution is his postulate of universal functionalism. Unlike other functionalist, he argues that some system or social institutions may be functional for the one society but dysfunctional or non-functional to the others. The religion or kinship systems are rather more significant in the small-scale tribal societies. Similarly, the bureaucratic organization is of the worth importance in industrial capitalist society.

Max Weber has also proved that it was the protestant religion which first laid the foundation of industrial capitalist society. In the field of religion Merton's views are similar to Karl Marxs who has also highlighted the dysfunctional aspects of religion. While dealing with social structure, unlike Parsons, Merton took account of the psychological factors in his analysis. Merton and Parsons-both have dealt with aspects the of dissent and conflict in the society. What is neglected perhaps is the balance in the role played by both consensus and conflict in the society. This is the question which remains largely unresolved in their sociological theory.

Answer : R.K. Merton, an American sociologist, has developed the theory of Middle-Range. He defines "theories of middle-range" as theories that lie between the minor but necessary hypothesis and unified theories. They evolved in abundance during day today research and to all systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behaviours, social organisation and social change. By way of collaboration of his thesis, he further observes, "Middle range theories are principally used in sociology to guide empirical inquiry. It is intermediate to general theory of social system which are too remote from the particular classes of social behaviour organisation and change to account for what is observed and to those detailed orderly description of particulars that are not generalised at all. Middle-range theory involves abstraction, of course, but they are close enough to observe data to be incorporated in proposition that permits empirical testing. Middle range theory deals with delimited aspect of social phenomena as is indicated by their labels. He speaks of reference group and relative deprivation, a theory of role conflict etc.

Answer : Subjectivity and objectivity are two quite opposite terminology in Social and Natural Science. The former refers to the personal ideas, values, consciousness etc. of an individual about an existing reality or thing. Whereas the latter refers to the fact or thing as it is. Karl Marx has used both the concepts in his description of class antagonism in the society. He has pointed out several mechanism or perception of the man which leads to the class conflict.

Marx has defined social class as a group of individuals whose members share the same relationship to the means of production. According to him each societies, besides primitive communism, is characterised by two antagonistic classes. For example the "master" and "Slave" in the ancient society. The "Feudal Lord" and “Serf” in the feudal society and “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” in the capitalist society. Marx has used the term "ruling class" for the Masters, Feudal Lords and Bourgeoise whereas the ruled or subject class refers to the Slave, Serfs and Proletariat. The ruling class is the owner of the means of production and therefore, has control over the entire infrastructure and superstructure of the society. They always make struggle to preserve their dominance and supremacy over the subject class. On the other hand, the subject class survives by dint of their labour power. They are exploited and alienated from due right.

Marx assumes that the class antagonism between these two polar opposite classes makes its departure when both of them subjectively perceived the reality of the society. He refers that the capital and surplus value are created by the sweat of the brow of the ruled or subject class. It is the reality or objective facts. At the same time it is also unfortunate that they become alienated from their own products and relations. On the other hand, he has also perceived it as a fact that the ruling class ideology always exploit the labour power for their own sake.

Marx has used the term is "class-in-itself" to refer to the class as it is. Class-in itself sentiments are without conciousness and opposition. In this both the class are not able to perceive the reality in their own distinctive context. For example, the ruling class exploit the subject class and the latter make no opposition for their harassment. But according to Marx, whenever a class becomes conscious or subjectively evaluate their existing position in context of reality, it becomes a "class-for-itself". It is the fundamental cause of the formation or articulation of class antagonism in the society. The ruling class becomes more conscious of their ownership and power while the subject class is in a condition of not tolerating their further exploitation. The members of the class develop a common identity, recognise their shared interest and unite to produce social solidarity. The final stage of class consciousness and class solidarity is reached when members realize that only by collective action they can overthrow the ruling class and when they take positive steps to do so.

Referring to modern industrial capital society. Marx argues that the Proletariat or working class, due to over exploitation by the capitalist, is organising themselves in the form of different worker's union. They have perceived the existing reality in a more subjective way. The "class-in-itself" sentiment is gradually being replaced by the "class-for-itself" sentiment. Marx predicted that, finally a time comes when the proletarial revolution will occur which will destroy the entire capitalist structure of the society. There will be an egalitarian society where power, prestige and capital etc. will be equally distributed among the people. This type of society has been termed by Marx as the "Communist Society" He has given the example of Russian society where communist rule firstly took place. Thus, the social change is brought in the society when a class subjectively thinks about themselves and perceives reality in their own context.

The above mentioned views of Marx can be evaluated in context of the democratic political system of the New world. According to Max Weber the modern industrial society has the democratic political system, characterized by the rational legal bureaucratic structure. This has lessened the inevitablity of class antagonisms, alienatation and exploitation in society. Marx's prediction of Proletariat revolution and coming of communist society seem merely ideological in nature. The intensity of conflict between these two classes are to a great extent, resolved through value consensus.

Answer : "Way of acting, thinking and feeling external to individual and imposed, endowed with a power of coercion by reason of which they control himexternality, constraint, independencegenerality

Answer : The formal structure of bureaucracy, in the strict Webarian sense, refers to the organisational management which is strictly based on the written code of conduct. Impersonality, objectivity, hierarhcy of rank, fixed salary, strict duty hours, etc. are the chief features of the formal bureaucratic structure of the modern organisation. At every stage of decision making and monitoring organisational conduct, rules and order are strictly followed. On the other hand, the informal structure refers to the opposite of it. In this system the organisational goal is always followed but means to reach them may not be according to written rules, ways, techniques, knowledge and other means prescribed by the office. Both, these systems have their own merit and demerits in ensuring the achievement of official goals and thus ensuring the development of society. While Max Weber has soundly represented the formal structure of bureaucracy and its role in developed and developing society, Peter Blau has emphasised more on the informal aspect of it.

The characteristic features of the developing societies are; agricultural based economy, poverty, unemployment, low per capita income, illiteracy, conventional technology and poor infrastructure. To overcome these problems, the bureaucratic organisation may play very decisive role in ensuring the growth and development of the society because they have relevant power and authority regarding the fixation of the goal and how to achieve it.

Firstly, as Weber has argued, the modern industrial societies, especially developed, are charcterised by formal bureaucratic set up. According to Weber the technical superiority of the bureaucrat is essential for doing job. It is derived from the exclusion of the personal emotion and interest which might detract from the attainment of those goals. Weber has called totally objective and scientific process of the realization of the organisational goals. Commenting on the dysfunctional aspects of modern bureaucracy, R.K. Merton argued that the bureaucrat is trained to comply strictly with the rules but when situation arises which is not covered by the rule, the training may not be successful in the realization of organisational goal. Secondly, the devotion to the rules encouraged in bureaucratic organisation may lead to displacement of the organisational goals. Thirdly, the impersonalisation in bureaucratic procedure may lead to friction between official and public. In spite of all these criticism against Weber, rational legal bureaucratic organisation is now playing a very dominant role in the developing and developed society. But it is more practical and useful in the capitalist and developed countries.

Weber's rational legal bureaucracy is to a great extent, apt for the developing countries but since there is the major problem of illiteracy, population explosion etc., some degree of informality must be added to it. In Howthorne and Banking wiring case study, it was observed that informal behaviour with the employees enhanced the production as well as job satisfaction among the employees. Similarly, Peter Blau's study of interviewers in an employment agency indicates that official rules and procedures cannot, in and of themselves, maximise efficiency. No set of rules can anticipate all the problems which arise in a bureaucracy. To some extent much problems will be handled in terms of the informal norms of the group of the workers. Variation in the norms will result in differing levels of inefficiency. Blau’s study of federal agents indicates that, in certain circumstances, contrary to the implication of Weber's argument, breaking official rules can increase organisational efficiency. According to Peter Blau a bureaucracy in operation appears quite different from the abstract portrayal of its formal structure. Although, formal and informal structure can be separated for purpose of analysis, in practice they form a single structure.

Peter Blau, who is the supporter of both the formal and informal bureaucratic organisational structure in the developing and developed society, claims that the democratic objective could be impossible to attain in modern society without bureaucratic organization to implement them. Secondly, the life of modern man is shaped more and more by organisation over which he has little or no control. Blau argues that what is required is a readjustment of our democratic institutions to make them capable of controlling the power of organizations. P. Guy Peter argues that the major problem is not so much in terms of the mechanism which exist to control and influence bureaucracies. Parliamentary committee, the judiciary and the interest group but in terms of the motivation of the public to utilise these mechanisms. Peter argues that 'In practice most methods of accountability depend upon individual or group actions to press demands before the mechanism go into operation. He regards public apathy as the greatest danger to bureaucratic accountability and a democratic state".

The above mentioned wrong with the bureaucracy may be corrected if formal and informal aspects of it work together.