Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel: The Relationship between Society and

Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel The Relationship amidst bon ton and the Individual Each of the four classical theorists Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Simmel had different theories of the kindred surrounded by society and the psyche. It is the objective of this paper to critic in ally evaluate the sociological approaches of apiece theory to come to a better understanding of how each theorist perceived much(prenominal) a relationship and what it means for the genius of complaisant reality.Karl Marx noted that society was highly stratified in that intimately of the item-by-items in society, those who worked the hardest, were also the ones who received the least from the benefits of their labor. In reaction to this observation, Karl Marx wrote The communist Manifesto where he described a new society, a to a greater extent perfect society, a communist society. Marx envisioned a society, in which all property is held in common, that is a society in which one individual did not receive more than another, entirely in which all individuals dual-lane in the benefits of collective labor (Marx 11, p. 262). In order to accomplish such a task Marx needed to find a relationship amid the individual and society that accounted for social change. For Marx such relationship was from the historical means of production, through the exploits of wage labor, and thus the individuals relationship to the fashion of production (Marx 11, p. 256).In the Communist Manifesto it is very clear that Marx is pertain with the organization of society. He sees that the majority individuals in society, the proletariat, live in sub-standard life sentence conditions while the minority of society, the bourgeoisie, have all that life has to offer. However, his most shrewd observation was that the bourgeoisie control the means of production that separate the both classes (Marx 11 p. 250). Marx notes that this is not just a recent development quite a historical process between the tw o classes and the individuals that compose it. It the bourgeois has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, and new forms of struggle in dapple of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly lining each other Bourgeoisie ... ...lay in societal change. However it was simply until the works of Durkheim and Simmel that the role of individual interaction and society is brought to the forefront. Durkheim largely viewed the individual as needing society as a mechanism of constraint to the aspirations of an never-failing goal. Finally, Simmel was able to expand on Durkheims dualism by noting that society could be viewed as more than a mechanism of constraint rather as an accumulation of individual interaction. Either through a combination or as individuals each theorist distinct view of the relationship between the individual and society demonstrates a new understanding towards the nature of social reality.Works CitedBender, Frederic L. Karl MarxThe Communist Manifesto. New York W.W. Norton & Company. ed. 1988. Durkheim, E. Suicide a Study in Sociology. Translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Gibson (London Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952).Simmel, Georg. The Stranger. from Kurt Wolff (Trans.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York Free Press, 1950.Weber M. (1971) The socialcauses of the decline of quaintcivilization, translated in J. E. T. Eldridge,Max Weber, London. Weber, M. (1976)