The starting point of Durkheim is to criticize the utilitarian philosophers for arguing that society

is simply an aggregate of individuals, but instead posits that society is a sui generis reality or a
reality of its own. According to Durkheim, the transition of society from having mechanical
solidarity (solidarity based on homogeneity) to organic solidarity (solidarity based on
interdependence), meant there was a more complex division of labor.
Durkheim argues against the claim of utilitarian philosophers that the complex division of labor
occurred to increase efficiency of production or to lead to the greater happiness of people.
Instead, Durkheim, adopting Darwins claim that so long as resources are plentiful and
population size is limited, similar organisms can live side by side in relative peace; but where
population increases and resources become scarce, conflict and competition ensue, and this
conflict is just as active as the organisms are similar and pursue similar needs. Hence, for
Durkheim, people will avoid conflict by specializing in different occupations.
In further explaining cause of the more complex division of labor, as well as societys transition
from having mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity, Durkheim explains that as population
size increased, there was a growth in numbers and contacts between people which he referred to
as moral density. The increase in moral density thus resulted to greater competition for fewer
resources. In order to mitigate the competition and make social life harmonious, individuals in a
society will specialize their tasks and pursue different means to make a living. The more a
society grows in moral density, the more the labor of a society will divide and the more
specialized the tasks of its individuals will become. This leads to what Durkheim calls organic
solidarity, or solidarity based not upon individual resemblances, but upon the functional
interdependence of societys individual parts, much the way the organs of a body are
interdependent. The transition to a society with organic solidarity is also what gives rise to the
individual as the new sacred object.
With urbanization or the rise of societies, a more complex division of labor also becomes
possible because in modern society, people are no longer to live in the place that they were born,
they move to urban areas where it seems more possible to be free. It makes possible the
autonomy for individuals because people in urban areas are strangers to each other so they are
more free to be autonomous.
Durkheim was also concerned with the state of modern society. He posits that human beings
have insatiable appetites. With no regulation functions, dysfunctions may occur. This is why the
state has to serve as a moral agent that ought to ensure the maintenance of solidarity and avoid,
or at least reduce, anomie. The state has a positive function to ensure autonomy or freedom of
individuals; there is a check and balance with individual associations and political insitutions.
According to Durkheim, there is also a forced division of labor in society. Some people perform
tasks not because they have the skills but as a result of hereditary succession. Thus, hereditary
succession must be eliminated. In modern society occupational associations can also provide a
level of integration and regulation, both of which tend to be weakened by the division of
labor.Relations between occupational groups would be economic in the sense that they would
have to work together to reach agreemtns about wages, conditions of labor, etc. Occupational
assoications would also function as social orgnizatnos. Since they are based o the similiary of

labor, the individuals would tend to have shared interests and a sense of collective identity thus
giving the them a sense of belonging in the ways that kin and religion used to.
The writings of Marx clearly showed debts to Hegel. Marx appropriated from Hegel; the method
of dialectic which he believes should be reversed. For Marx, it is not the dialectic of ideas that
leads to social change but the antagonisms between the social classes. Society was comprised of
antithetical forces that generate social change by their tension and struggle. Struggle, rather than
peaceful growth, was the engine of progress; and social conflict was the core of the historical
process. Ideas, according to Marx, are not prime movers but are the material interests that impel
men in their dealings with others.
Marx is not the vulgar materialist that he is often depicted as being, but he did believe that the
forces of production which determine the relations of production was the most important factor
in explaining social change. Marx explains from a materialist perspective that the first act of
human history is when they began to produce for their own needs. As humans appropriate
sources form nature, they enter into social relations, or as Marx calls it class relations, which
are independent of their own will. There is an emergence of class societies, where there are some
who own the means of production (the bourgeoisie) while there are other who dont(the
proletariat.
The relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is exploitative in nature. Because of
ideologies spread by the ruling class to legitimiate the existing exploitation, the working class
are forced to sell labor to dominant class in exchange for wages which are always less than the
exchange value of goods. As a result, workers become alienated from themselves, their
coworkers, work (which becomes a mind-numbing activity instead of fulfilling their creative
potential), and the final product. But as Marx puts it, capitalism also carries the seeds of its own
destruction. It brings into being a class of workers (the proletariat) with class consciousness, who
will have a fundamental antagonism to the capitalist class, and as a result, will eventually band
together to overthrow the regime to which they owe their existence.
Marx believed that this class struggle was the driving force of social change. For Marx, history is
the story of conflict between the exploiting and the exploited classes. This conflict repeats itself
again and again until capitalism is overthrown by the workers and a socialist state is created.
Marx conceived of four major successive modes of production in the history of mankind after the
first stage of primitive communism: The Asiatic, the Ancient, the Feudal, and the Modern
bourgeoisie form.Each of these came into existence through contradictions and antagonisms that
had developed in the previous order. Free men and slaves, patricians and plebians, barons and
serfs, guild masters and journey men, exploiters and the exploited, have confronted one another
from the beginning of recorded times. This is why Marx claims that All history is the history of
class struggle.

Webers starting point is subjective in meaning. He explains the significance of ideas as causes of
social change, he regarded religious ideas as important contributors to economic development or
stagnation; according to his thesis, the individualistic ethic of Christianity, and in
particular Calvinism, partially explains the rise of the capitalist spirit, which led to economic
dynamism in the West.
He developed a theory that stated Protestantism was responsible for the development of
capitalism. He focuses on a particular type of Protestantism (Calvinism) because in countries
which demonstrated western capitalism, the entrepreneurs and skilled workers were Calvinists.
His book The Protestant Work Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism looked at how the religious ideas
of Calvinism brought about social change. Weber claimed that one of the important things in
Calvinism is the ascetic ideal. This helped to create an ethic of disciplined hard work, which is
the spirit of capitalism. Early Calvinists lived a strict and disciplined life with simple pleasures
and adherence to biblical rules. As a result of this, not only was there a build-up of capital, there
was the right work ethic for capitalism. Thus, the religious beliefs of Protestantism coupled with
the presence of the necessary economic conditions resulted in the development of the capitalist
system.
A change in collective ideas is not merely an intellectual process; it is often connected to the
formation of new social movements. This in itself might be regarded as a potential cause of
social change. Weber called attention to this factor in conjunction with his concept of
charismatic leadership. which leads to questioning of the way things are. This is also related to
the idea that there is no universal pattern in history because charisma arises at any time.
The charismatic leader, by virtue of the extraordinary personal qualities attributed to him, is able
to create a group of followers who are willing to break established rules. Examples include Jesus,
Napoleon, and Hitler.
Lastly, for Weber, we must develop ideal typical constructs to answer problem of what made
western society different fomr the west. Rationalization, as an ideal type and as an historical
force appears in much of Weber's writings. It is the movement away from emotion-based
motivations toward reason-based motivations. Weber regards the development of rational forms
to be one of the most important characteristics of the development of Western society and
capitalism. Weber calls the increasing rationalization an "iron cage" that trapped individuals in
systems based solely on efficiency, rational calculation, and control. In his theory, the "iron
cage" is the one set of rules and laws that we are all subjected to