UNIT 18

METHODOLOGY: MARX,
DURKHEIM AND WEBER

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

Structure
18.0 Objectives
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Meaning and Importance of Methodology
18.2.0 Difference between Methodology and Methods
18.2.1 Difference between Methodology and Methods
18.2.2 Why study Methodology?

18.3 The Methodology of Karl Marx

18.3.0 Marxs Materialistic Conception of History
18.3.1 Social Conflict and Social Change
18.3.2 Marxs Notion of Praxis

18.4 The Methodology of Emile Durkheim

18.4.0
18.4.1
18.4.2
18.4.3

Individual and Society

Subject Matter of Sociology The Social Fact
Durkheims Functional Analysis of Society
Social Conflict versus Social Order

18.5 The Methodology of Max Weber

18.5.0
18.5.1
18.5.2
18.5.3
18.5.4

Verstehen or Interpretative Understanding

The Ideal Type
Causality and Historical Comparison
Values in Social Science
The Role of the Social Scientist

18.6 Let Us Sum Up

18.7 Keywords
18.8 Further Reading
18.9 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress

18.0

OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you should be able to understand and compare
the methodological perspectives of
z

Karl Marx

Emile Durkheim and

Max Weber.

18.1 INTRODUCTION
In Blocks 2, 3 and 4 of this course, you have studied in detail some of the
enduring sociological contributions of the founding fathers of sociology.

Max Weber

In this Block, we are going to compare the views of Marx, Durkheim and
Weber on certain issues. Before we do so, it is important to understand
their distinctive methodologies, and this is exactly what we will do in this
unit. For this purpose, we have divided the unit into four sections. In the
first section (18.2), we will try and understand the meaning of the term
methodology and the reasons for studying it. The second section (18.3)
will take up the methodological perspective of Kari Marx. The third and
fourth sections (18.4 and 18.5) will be devoted to an understanding of the
methodologies of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber, respectively.

18.2

MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF

METHODOLOGY

In Blocks 2, 3 and 4 you have studied many things. You are now familiar
with Karl Marxs theory of historical materialism, his understanding of class
conflict, dialectics and so on. You also have an understanding of the
contributions of Durkheim and Weber.
Yet, no separate unit has been devoted to the study of their methodologies
in detail. The reason behind this is that, we hope that your study of the
substantive or concrete elements of their work will help you to gain a
better appreciation of their frameworks of enquiry, which is what is
attempted in this unit. We have used the term methodology a number of
times so far without really clarifying its meaning. Let us do so now.

18.2.0 What do we mean by Methodology?

By the term methodology, we refer to a system of method or procedures
with which the study of a problem is approached.

18.2.1 Difference between Methodology and Method

There is an important point to be noted here; methods and methodology
are not one and the same thing. Whilst methods are a part of methodology,
methodology is a system which combines or integrates certain methods.
Methods are the tools or techniques, which help to implement a
methodological approach or perspective.
Let us take an example. In Block 3, you studied how Emile Durkheim
understood the problem of suicide. His methodological perspective was
the study of social phenomena as social facts and his methods included
those of concomittant variations.
Having understood the difference between methodology and method, let
us now see why we should study methodology. You might point out that
having understood the substantive contributions of the founding fathers, a
study of their methodology is not really necessary. This is not the case.

18.2.2 Why Study Methodology?

A study of methodology does more than merely list methods. It gives us

an understanding of the overall approach of thinkers to the problems under
study. In sociology, the subject matter or problems under study are human
beings and human society. Sociologists are not observing atoms or

molecules under a microscope. They are studying human life, human

behaviour, human problems. Sociological methodology includes a
conception about social reality. It reflects the manner in which thinkers
conceptualise the relationship between individuals and society. It gives us
an insight into the aims and objectives with which thinkers study society.
Since the subject matter under study is so closely and intimately connected
to the sociologist, methodology sharply reflects the sociologists overall
concerns and orientations regarding human beings and society. Hence,
studying methodology is not only very important but also very interesting.

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

Let us now go on to examine the methodology of Karl Marx. You have

seen in Block 2 that Marx was not a sociologist in the sense that he
called his work specifically sociological. He was also an economist, a
philosopher and a political activist. Thus, he did not specifically set out to
define special methodological rules for sociology as Durkheim and Weber
did later. Yet, the mode of enquiry that he introduced has had a profound
impact on sociology, both methodologically and substantively.

18.3

THE METHODOLOGY FOR KARL MARX

Karl Marx introduced into the social sciences of his time a new
methodology, new concepts and a number of bold new hypotheses.
All of these came to exercise a deep influence on the writing of history,
political science and sociology.
Marx elaborated his conception of the nature of society and the means to
study it in a more precise and empirical manner than the social theorists
before him did. We will examine, firstly, Marxs materialistic conception
of history. You have read about this in Block 2 of this course. Here we
will briefly review it in the light of his methodology.

18.3.0 Marxs Materialistic Conception of History

The motivating force in history, according to Marx, is the manner in which
human beings act upon nature in order to obtain their basic survival needs.
The production of material life is the first historical act, in Marxs view.
Even after meeting survival or primary needs, human beings remain
dissatisfied. This is because new or secondary needs arise as soon as primary
ones are fulfilled.
In the effort to satisfy primary and secondary needs, human beings enter
into social relationships with each other. As material life becomes more
complex, social. relationship too undergo a change. Division of labour
emerges in society and class formation begins. The existence of classes
implies that distinct divisions of human beings have emerged, in other
words, society is divided into the haves and the have-nots.
You have studied that Marx places particular stress on the material or
economic basis of society. It is the economic infrastructure that shapes
or moulds/the rest of society. It is the particular mode of production from
which emanate the relations of production on which the whole cultural
superstructure rests. Law, polity, cultural formations and so on cannot be

Max Weber

separated from the economic basis in which they are embedded. We can
thus say that Marxs approach to society is holistic. This is a very important
methodological contribution. Marx stresses on the study of human societies
as wholes or systems in which social groups, institutions, beliefs and
doctrines are interrelated. They cannot be studied in isolation, rather they
should be studied in their interrelations.
However, in the ultimate analysis, it is the economic system, which proves
decisive in shaping the specific features of the superstructure of society.
Marx applies his materialistic conception of history by studying the history
of human society in terms of distinct stages, each marked by a distinct
mode of production. From the mode of production flow the specific kinds
of relationships and class antagonisms distinct in every phase of history.
In Block 2 of this course you have studied in detail Marxs theory of
historical materialism and the stages of history identified by him. Marx
can be described as a relativising historicist. By this we mean that he roots
all systems of social relationships and all systems of ideas within a specific
historical context. He holds that each stage of history is marked by class
struggles, but the nature of the struggle and the participants in the struggle
are qualitatively different in every epoch. The slaves in the ancient stage
are very different from the feudal serfs or the capitalist industrial workers.
Briefly, Marx assigns to the economic realm the crucial role of shaping the
nature of other sub-systems in society. He studies society in a holistic
fashion, stressing on the inter-relatedness of its components. He also takes
note of the specificities of the various stages of history. Although Marx
insists that the history of human society is the history of class struggle, he
accounts for the distinctive features of the classes down the ages.
Let us now move on to another significant methodological contribution of
Marx, namely, his conception of social conflict and social change.

18.3.1 Social Conflict and Social Change

Early sociology, as you have studied in Block 1 of this course, was
profoundly influenced by the idea of evolution. The work ofAuguste Comte
and more importantly, Herbert Spencer reflected the doctrine of evolutionary
change. We can say that the early sociologists stressed on change through
peaceful growth. For them, social order and harmony was normal and
disorder and conflict was pathological.
It is against this background that you will be able to appreciate better how
important Marxs contributions are. According to Marx, societies are
inherently mutable or changeable systems. Changes are produced mainly
by internal contradictions and conflicts. Each stage in human history is
marked by certain contradictions and tensions. These become intensified
over a period of time to such an extent that the existing system has to
break down, giving way to a new system. In other words, each historical
stage contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The new system
emerges from the womb of the old. Thus, Marx understands conflict not
as something pathological and harmful, but as a creative force. It is the
engine of progress.
8

His conception of conflict as the major harbinger of change reflects in the

unique way in which he deals with both the past and the present, and also
in his anticipation of the future. This brings us to one of the problem areas
in Marxist social theory, namely, the conflict between objective science
and political commitment. Let us briefly consider this aspect of Marxs
work.

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

Activity 1
Carefully read the daily newspapers. Identify some major national or
inter national conflicts. Try to interpret them using Maixs methodology.
Write a note of about one page and compare it if possible with other
students at your Study Centre.

18.3.2 Marxs Notion of Praxis

Ever since the birth of sociology right down to the present time, sociologists
have argued over the separation between sociological theory and political
ideology. Marxs work represents that stream of social thought where theory
and political activism unite. Marx very clearly voices his opinions of
capitalist society in his work. He sees it as an inhuman system of exploitation
and anticipates its breakdown under the weight of its own contradictions.
He awaits the birth of a classless, communist society, which will be free of
contradictions. Marx advocates praxis, namely, using theory for practical
political action. Thus, Marxs methodology aims not just at understanding
society, but also anticipating and assisting in changing it. You can read
more about the concept of praxis in Box 18.1.
Box 18.1
Praxis: The word praxis is of Greek origin and refers to action or
activity of all kinds. The term passed into Latin and through it to the
modern European languages. The Greek Philosopher Aristotle gave
the term a more precise meaning and used it to denote specifically human
activity. He contrasted it with theory or theoretica. In medieval
European philosophy, the term was used to denote applications of theory,
e.g. theoretical geometry (theoretica) and practical or applied geometry
(praxis). The medieval European scholar Francis Bacon insisted that
true knowledge is that which bears fruit in praxis, defining it as the
application of human powers and actions for the attainment of good
and useful things. Immanuel Kant distinguished between pure and
practical reason in his work Critique of Pure Reason. Philosophy is
thus divided into theoretical and practical. The theoretical part tells us
what there is and the practical one tells us what there should be.
Kant insisted on the primacy of practical philosophy. Hegel too accepted
the distinction between the two but also thought that the two united in
a third, higher moment. Hegels philosophical system is divided into
three parts, namely, logic philosophy of nature and philosophy of spirit.
It each of these parts, a distinction between theoretical and practical
aspects arises and is transcended in a higher synthesis. It Hegels system,
praxis became one of the moments of absolute truth. In Marxs, the
concept of praxis becomes central. Philosophy is to be transcended

Max Weber

into revolutionary action, which will transform the world. Marx speaks
of praxis as the goal of true philosophy and revolution as true praxis.
Marx sees praxis basically as free, conscious activity through which
alienation is eliminated. Thus praxis is the transformation of alienative
labour into non-alienative, creative self-activity.
Let us now go on to study the methodology of Durkheim. Here, we move
on to a distinctly sociological methodology. Durkheim, as you already
know, was actively involved in developing the emerging concerns of the
sociology of his times. According to Randall Collins (1985: 123), Durkheim
made sociology a distinctive science with its own lawful generalisations.
Check Your Progress 1
Answer the following in three sentences each.
i)

Distinguish between methods and methodology.

ii)

Why is Marxs approach to society said to be holistic?

iii) Marx is a relativising historicist. What does this statement mean?

iv) Complete the following sentences.
a)

According to Marx, changes in society are mainly produced by

..

b)

By praxis Marx refers to ..

c)

Durkheim made a clear distinction between .

and sociological explanations.

d)

According to Durkheim, human desires can be checked by

.

18.4

THE METHODOLOGY OF EMILE

DURKHEIM

Emile Durkheim is one of the key figures in the development of a distinctly

sociological orientation. Durkheims work is marked by an emphasis on
the social aspect of phenomena. To Durkheim goes the credit of making a
clear separation between psychological or individualistic explanations and
sociological explanations. To understand this point further, we will first
describe how Durkheim views the interrelationship between the individual
and society. We will then consider how Durkheim identifies social facts as
the subject matter of sociology and finally, we will describe in brief his
functional analysis of society.

18.4.0 Individual and Society

To Durkheim, human beings are creatures with unlimited desires. Unlike
other animals they are not satisfied when biological needs have been
fulfilled. Human desires can only be held in check by external or societal
control, according to Durkheim. Society constitutes a regulative force, which
sets certain limits to individual passions.
10

When social regulations break down, the controlling influence of society

on individuals is no longer effective. Individuals are left to their own
devices. Durkheim terms this state of affairs as anomie or normlessness.
It is a condition wherein individual desires are no longer regulated by
common norms, thus leaving individuals without moral guidelines for
pursuing their goals.

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

According to Lewis Coser (1971: 133), the major concern in Durkheims

sociology is the problem of social order versus disorder. Durkheim is
concerned with explaining the forces that contribute to social regulation
and de-regulation. He addresses himself to the tensions between individual
desires and social cohesion. He attempts to establish a balance between
individual and societal claims.
Focus on analysing this tension expresses itself all throughout Durkheims
work. For instance, in Division of Labour Durkheim (1893) identifies two
types of societies, those based on mechanical solidarity and those based
on organic solidarity. The former society is marked by the total grip of the
collective conscience on the individual. The latter type is marked by the
flowering of individualism. Durkheim speaks favourably of organic
solidarity because he sees it as a state where individual concerns can in
fact help build stronger societal bonds. Thus, Durkheims understanding
of the relationship between individual and society is a complex one. He
does not take an extreme stance by stating that the individual is unimportant,
and emphasises the role of individual creativity. He does not advocate pure,
unchecked individualism either, but recognises the need for societal
regulation.
For Durkheim, society is sui-generis. It is self-generating. It is more than
just the sum of individuals that constitute it. It existed before the individual
and will continue to exist long after individuals. Its members are born and
die, but society lives on. It thus exists independently of the individuals
that constitute it. However, individuals cannot exist without or apart from
society. Having understood the interrelationship between individual and
society as described by Durkheim, let us go on to see what, according to
him, the task of the sociologist is. In other words, what is the subject matter
of sociology?

18.4.1 Subject Matter of Sociology The Social Fact

In his major works The Division of Labour in Society, Suicide and
Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Emile Durkheim explains the
phenomena in question by sociological explanations. He rejects
individualistic or psychological explanations. For instance, in tracing the
causes for suicide, Durkheim dismisses explanations like madness or
alcoholism (psychological explanations) but looks towards society for
explanation. For Durkheim, suicide has a social aspect and reflects poor
social integration. For Durkheim sociology is the study of essentially social
facts and the explanation of these facts in a sociological manner. Durkheim
systematically discusses this in The Rules of Sociological Method (1895).
He tries to demonstrate that there may and must be a sociology, which is
an objective science, based on the model of other sciences. The subject
matter of this science must be specific and distinct from that of the other

11

Max Weber

sciences and must be such that it can be observed and explained just like
facts are observed and explained in other sciences. To make this objective
science of social facts possible, Durkheim gives the following two
guidelines, namely, (1) social facts must be regarded as things, and (2) a
social fact exercises a constraint on individuals.
Let us examine the first of these points. What does Durkheim mean when
he asks us to regard social facts as things? He means that we must shed
our preconceptions and prejudices and observe social facts from outside.
We must discover and observe them as we discover physical facts. For
instance, you want to study democracy in India. If you follow Durkheims
suggestion, you will shed your preconceived or vague ideas, e.g.,
democracy is a failure in India or democracy is peoples rule, and so
on.
You will instead observe it objectively and scientifically. How can a social
fact be observed and recognised? This brings us to the second point,
namely, that a social fact forces itself upon or exercises a constraint upon
the individual. To take the example of democracy in India, the social fact,
namely, democracy, can be recognised during elections. Politicians ask
citizens for their votes and support. Thus democracy forces itself upon or
constrains citizens to make certain choices or act in a certain manner. Let
us take another example of a social fact, which exercises constraints on
individual behaviour. You are part of a crowd in a cricket match. When
Sachin Tendulkar hits a six the whole crowd goes into frenzy. You may
not be a Tendulkar fan, but since you are in that crowd, you too will clap
and cheer. You are constrained or pressurised into behaving in a certain
manner. These two propositions, to regard social facts as things and to
recognise social facts by the constraints they exercise, are according to
Raymond Aron, (1970: 72) the foundations of Durkheims methodology.
Durkheims prescription to study social facts externally and objectively
shows the impact of natural sciences in shaping sociology. Remember that
sociology was in its infancy at that time, struggling to carve out a niche
for itself in the academic world. The contributions of Durkheim to the
methodology of the subject must be seen in this light. Let us now briefly
look at Durkheims functional analysis of social institutions and
phenomena.

18.4.2 Durkheims Functional Analysis of Society

Among Durkheims most important methodological contributions is his
functional analysis or explanation. The idea of studying social phenomena
in terms of their function or role in maintaining the life of society has its
origins in biology. Each part of a living organism has a particular function
in maintaining the life and health of the organism. For instance, if we
consider the various organisms of the human body in a functionalist manner,
we will see that each part contributes to maintaining the whole. The heart
pumps blood, the lungs purify air, the stomach grinds and breaks down
food, the brain directs and coordinates the other organs. All these functions
performed by the various organs help to keep us alive and healthy.
12

If society is studied with a functionalist perspective, we will view the various

systems and institutions of society in terms of their contributions in keeping

society intact, or maintaining social order. Durkheim clearly establishes

the procedure of the functional approach in studying social phenomena.
According to him, the determination of function is... necessary for the
complete explanation of the phenomena... To explain a social fact it is not
enough to show the cause on which it depends; we must also... show its
function in the establishment of social order. (Rules of Sociological Method,
p. 97.)

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

In other words, for Durkheim, sociological understanding of phenomena

cannot be complete until the role or function of these phenomena in
maintaining social order is understood. The concept of function plays a
key part in all of Durkheims work. In Division of Labour he tries to see
how the process of occupational specialisation functions to maintain social
order and cohesion. (You will study this point in greater detail in Unit 20
of this Block.) In Elementary Forms of Religious Life he demonstrates the
function of religious rules and beliefs in strengthening social bonds, as
you will see in Unit 19. The thread that runs right through Durkheims
work is the need to demonstrate social order.
Briefly, Emile Durkheim attempts to demarcate a subject matter for
sociology that will enable the sociologist to gain an objective and unbiased
view of social phenomena. The task of the sociologist, according to
Durkheim, is to understand social facts in a sociological manner. By doing
so, he/she can give explanations regarding the function of social phenomena
in helping to maintain social order.
If you have read the above pages on the methodology of Marx and
Durkheim carefully, one major point of difference will have become clear
to you. Marxs emphasis is on conflict whilst Durkheims is on order. Let
us now briefly compare the perspectives of these thinkers. But before that,
complete Activity 2.
Activity 2
Identify any two social institutions in your society, e.g., marriage, family,
caste, clan, etc. Try and understand them with the help of functional
analysis. Write a note of about two pages and compare it if possible
with the notes of other students at your Study Centre.

18.4.3 Social Conflict Versus Social Order

Whilst Marx stressed the role of conflict and struggle is maintaining the
vitality of society, Durkheim stresses harmony and social order. Durkheim
regards conflict as pathological or abnormal; Marx regards it as the vehicle
of social change. Durkheim studies social facts in terms of their contribution
to social order and Marx constantly explores the contradictions and tensions
within a society, which will bring in change.
Notice, though, that both thinkers treat society as an entity or reality in
itself. Marx speaks of various subsystems constituting an interrelated whole
and is concerned with the historical movement of the total society from
one stage to another. Durkheim too speaks of society as a reality, which is
sui-generis. Both thinkers are more concerned with social wholes rather

13

Max Weber

than individual behaviour and feeling which, according to them, emanate

from particular societal conditions. Marx and Durkheim can thus be
described as social realists.
This point becomes particularly relevant when we compare their
methodologies with that of Max Weber. Webers brand of sociology reflects
a shift in emphasis. Webers starting-point is social action. He is concerned
with the behaviour of the individual which, he holds, is shaped by the
individuals attitudes, values and beliefs. Weber is concerned with
interpreting the meanings ascribed by actors to the world around them. Let
us now first complete Check Your Progress 2 and then study Max Webers
methodology in some detail.
Check Your Progress 2
Answer the following questions in 2 to 3 sentences each.
i)

ii)

State whether the following statements are True (T) or False (F).
a)

Durkheim held that the individual is unimportant because society

is all -powerful.

b)

In organic solidarity, individuals can exist without society.

How can a social fact be recognised? Give an example.

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

iii) Give two examples of Durkheims functional analysis.

...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................

18.5

THE METHODOLOGY OF MAX WEBER

Max Weber conceives sociology as a comprehensive science of social

action. He focuses on the subjective meanings that human actors attach to
their actions and interactions within their specific social-historical contexts.
Webers focus on the meanings ascribed by actors to their actions reflects
his distinctive methodology. Weber challenges the notion that social sciences
can be modelled on the lines of natural science. He thus charts out a special
subject matter and special methods of inquiry for social sciences.

14

Weber rejects the positivist notion that the aims and methods of natural
sciences and social or cultural sciences are the same. He takes the stand
that the human being, in contrast to things or natural objects, has certain
underlying motivations, which the sociologist must try to understand. He
suggests a method that will help the sociologist achieve this purpose. Let
us see what it is.

18.5.0 Verstehen or Interpretative Understanding

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

Weber points out that a natural scientists understanding of natural

phenomena is from the outside. Let us take an example. When a chemist
studies the properties of a particular substance, he does so from the outside.
When a sociologist tries to understand human society and culture, he
approaches it as an insider, or a participant. Being human, the social scientist
has access to the motives and feelings of his/her subject matter. Social
scientists can understand human action by probing the subjective meanings
that actors attach to their own behaviour and the behaviour of others.
Sociological understanding is thus qualitatively different from that of other
sciences. Sociology, in Webers opinion, must use the method of
interpretative understanding or verstehen (which means to understand
in German). The method of verstehen implies that the sociologist should
visualise the motivations of the actor by trying to interpret his feelings, his
understanding of the situation. But is verstehen sufficient for sociological
explanation? According to Weber, it is only the first step. The next step of
analysis is causal explanation or searching for the causes or reasons behind
the occurrence of any social phenomena. In order to facilitate sociological
analysis, Weber develops an important methodological tool, which you have
already studied in detail in Block 4 of this course. This is the ideal type.

18.5.1 The Ideal Type

The ideal type provides a basic method for comparative study. It refers to
creating a kind of model which includes the most prominent characteristics
of the phenomena to be studied. In a way, it is an exaggerated picture of a
particular reality. For instance, if you want to construct an ideal type of a
villain in an Indian film, you may develop an image of a man with small,
wicked eyes, a moustache, a deep voice and a sinister laugh, wearing a
flashy suit, carrying a gun and surrounded bygondas! Of course, not all
villains in Indian movies are just like this. But you have abstracted the
most commonly found characteristics and created an analytical construct
(see figure 18.1: Ideal type of a film villain). This ideal type can be used
as a measuring rod with which the sociologist can compare existing reality.

Figure 18.1 Ideal type of a film villain

15

Max Weber

Ideal types help to construct hypotheses. Using ideal types, the sociologist
can measure real development and clarify important aspects of reality. In
Block 4, you have seen how Weber used the ideal types of the Protestant
ethic and the spirit of capitalism, showing the linkages between them.
His study of the sociology of religion with which you are by now familiar,
reflects the historicity which is an important aspect of Webers approach.
At this point it will be interesting for you to complete Activity 3.
Activity 3
Construct ideal types of (a) the Indian joint family and/or (b) life in an
urban slum. Try and compare the existing reality with your ideal types.
How representative or accurate are your ideal types? Note down your
findings.

18.5.2 Causality and Historical Comparison

What we have studied so far about Webers methodology is that he
advocates the study of social action. To do so, an interpretative
understanding of the motives and values of actors is recommended by him.
The use of ideal types will help the sociologist to gain insights into actual,
concrete events. Weber is also interested in providing causal explanations.
But human society being so complex single or absolute causes to explain
phenomena cannot be given, according to Weber. He thus speaks of a
plurality of causes. Certain causes, however, can be identified as being
more important than others. For instance, in his understanding of capitalism,
Weber speaks of the importance of religious ethics. But he certainly does
not say that religious values are the only causes behind the growth of
modern capitalism. To show the importance of religious values in
influencing the development of capitalism, Weber uses the method of
historical comparison. You have seen in Unit 16, Block 4 of this course
how he compared the growth of capitalism in the west to the absence of
its growth in ancient China and India. The reason for this difference, he
concluded, was the presence or absence of an appropriate ethic or valuesystem. Thus, Webers methodology does include a search for causal
explanations but not monocausal explanations. Since Weber was so
concerned with the importance of values and beliefs in social action, it
will be interesting to ask what his stand concerning values in social science
was. Did Weber, like Marx combine theory and political activism? Did he,
like Durkheim speak of strict objectivity? Why not read the next sub-section
for an answer?

18.5.3 Values in Social Science

Science is often described as an objective search for truth. It is supposed
to be value-free, unbiased, impartial. You have seen how Durkheim
advocates objective understanding of social facts and how he recommends
that the sociologist free himself/herself from prejudice and pre-conceived
notions. Is an objective, value-free science, natural or social, really
possible? According Weber, values play an important role in choosing a
particular topic of study. Why have you chosen sociology as an elective
course? Certain values have guided you. You might have thought it
16

interesting, or easy, or may be you did not like the other elective courses.
Similarly, if a scientist decides to study, say, the behaviour of an atom or
the life and customs of rural Indians, he/she has been guided by certain
value orientations.

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

But Weber makes a clear distinction between value-orientations and value

judgments. The researcher or scientist may be guided to undertake a
particular study because of certain value-orientations, but, according to
Weber, he/she must not pass moral judgments about it. The researcher must
observe ethical neutrality. His/her job is to study phenomena, not pass
judgments about whether they are good or evil. These, in brief are the
major methodological contributions of Weber.
You have by now gained an understanding of the distinctive methodological
orientations of each of the three founding fathers of sociology. It is time
now, to ask an important question, namely, how did they define the role
and tasks of the social scientist? The answer to this question will help you
to summarise the aims and objectives, which they had in mind when they
undertook their respective studies of social phenomena.

18.5.4 The Role of the Social Scientist

You have already studied how Emile Durkheim conceptualises sociology
as the study of social facts. The sociologist, having rid himself/herself of
preconceived notions and prejudices, can objectively understand the
characteristics of social facts and study the role of social institutions in
helping to maintain social order.
Weber assigns to the sociologist the task of interpretative understanding of
the motives of human actors. The humanness of the sociologist can prove
an asset in understanding society and culture because the sociologist can
examine phenomena from the inside. He/she can attempt causal
explanations by using ideal types and historical comparison. But ethical
neutrality must be maintained. In Marx, we find that the role of the social
scientist is linked to the role of the political activist. By understanding the
tensions and conflicts that mark society, the social scientist can anticipate
and help to pave the way for an ideal society, free of contradictions and
exploitation.
Check Your Progress 3
i)

ii)

Complete the following, statements.

a)

According to Weber, social scientists can understand human action

by probing . assigned by actors to their
behaviour.

b)

.. can be used as a measuring rod to compare

existing reality.

c)

Weber distinguishes between value-orientations and

...

State whether the following statements are True (T) or False (F)
a)

Weber maintained that a social scientist must give monocausal

explanations for social phenomena.

17

Max Weber

b)

18.6

Since social science cannot be value-free, sociologists cannot

maintain ethical neutrality.

LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have tried to understand what is meant by methodology

and why it is important to study it. We have then briefly described the
methodological perspectives of each of the three founding fathers, drawing
comparisons on the way.
We studied how Marx conceptualised the history of society using a
materialistic methodology. Studying social institutions in terms of their
relatedness, Marx stressed the inherently mutable or changeable nature of
society. In his view, social conflict is the engine of change and it is the
role of the politically committed social scientist to study and anticipate the
birth of the classless society of the future, namely, the communist society.
Emile Durkheim was concerned with establishing sociology as a legitimate
science. He introduced a certain rigour in sociological method. He spoke
of social facts as the proper subject-matter of sociological enquiry and
made a clear distinction between psychological and sociological
explanations. It was Durkheim who brought into vogue functional analysis,
which is in use even today.
Max Webers methodology marked a shift in sociological emphasis. Whilst
Durkheim and Marx practised social realism, Weber focused on
interpretative understanding of the motives of human actors. He undertook
comparative historical studies and provided multi-layered or multi-casual
analyses of social phenomena.
The aims and objectives with which these thinkers approached the study
of society differed. Whilst Durkheim and Weber were keen on maintaining
a certain scientific aloofness, Marx believed in the use of theory to guide
political action.

18.7

18

KEYWORDS

Anomie

A term used by Durkheim to denote a situation

where previously existing norms have lost their
validity. The individual no longer feels integrated
into society and is left to his/her own devices.

Collective conscience

A term used by Durkheim to denote the totality

of beliefs, sentiments and values held in common
by the members of a society.

Ethical Neutrality

Not passing value-judgments, i.e. not commenting

on whether something is good or bad.

Hypothesis

A statement of cause and effect which has to be

scientifically proved. Hypotheses are important
in scientific research and when proved, they

become laws. If they cannot be proved, they are

discarded or improved upon. An example of a
sociological hypothesis could be the children of
divorced parents are likely to become juvenile
delinquents. Sociologists must verify this
hypothesis before it becomes a law.
Ideology

Methodology: Marx,
Durkheim and Weber

A body of ideas usually political and/or economic

with which to guide policy.

Mechanical solidarity
and organic solidarity Durkheim differentiated between solidarity or
social bonds based on similarity (mechanical
solidarity) on the one hand and differences or
heterogeneity (organic solidarity) on the other.
The former can be observed in simple traditional
societies and the latter in more complex, modern
societies.
Pathological

Diseased, harmful.

Positivist

Based on practical experience. The term

positivism is used to denote the scientific model
on which early sociology tried to develop itself.

18.8 FURTHER READING

Aron, Raymond 1970. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. Volumes 1
and 2, Penguin: London. (See the sections on Marx, Durkheim and Weber)
Coser, Lewis 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought - Ideas in Historical
and Social Context. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: New York. (See the
sections on Marx, Durkheim and Weber.)

18.9

SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS

Check Your Progress 1

i)

By methodology we mean a system of methods or procedures with

which the study of a problem is approached. Methods refer to the
specific techniques, which comprise methodology. Thus, methodology
is a system and methods are parts or tools of that system.

ii)

Marx considered societies as social wholes. The various institutions

and sub-systems of society were studied by him in terms of their
interrelationships, not in isolation. Hence his approach is said to be
holistic.

iii) Marx considered the various stages of history to be distinctive and

with their own specificities. For instance, although he considered class
conflict to be a common feature of all the stages, he maintained that

19

Max Weber

its nature and participants differed in each stage. Hence he is described

as relativising historicist.
iv) a)

internal contradictions and conflicts

b)

tying together theory and political action

c)

psychological

d)

societal control.

Check Your Progress 2

i)

a)

F b) F

ii)

A social fact can be recognised because it exerts a constraint on

individuals. It forces or pressurises individuals to behave in a certain
manner. For example, if one is part of a crowd at a cricket match and
the crowd claps and cheers, one also gets carried away and behaves
like the others in the crowd.

iii) In Division of Labour Durkheim explains the growth of occupational

specialisation in terms of its contribution in bringing about social
cohesion. In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim
explains the role of religion in strengthening social bonds. This
illustrates his functional analysis.
Check Your Progress 3
i)

ii)

20

a)

subjective meanings

b)

ideal type

c)

value-judgments

a) F

b)