A Comparison Between the Analyses of Weber and Durkheim on Social and Economic Morality

In their works, sociologists Max Weber and Emile Durkheim both discuss the features that define modern industrial society. While Weber discusses the religious and rational contributions to industrial society, Durkheim examines economic institutions from a biological framework. As a result of these differing approaches, both Weber and Durkheim arrive at different ethical connections between individuals and social institutions. While Weber believes that economic and political institutions are devoid of moral responsibility, Durkheim asserts that all social institutions possess an inherent responsibility toward one another. An examination of the arguments presented by Weber and Durkheim reveal that the origins of social institutions and the function of social institutions are two critical factors that inform the social relationships that the institutions hold.

An Overview of Weber’s Analysis

In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, sociologist Mark Weber discusses how Protestant and rational foundations contributed to capitalism. Weber’s overview of the contributions of Protestantism to the “capitalist spirit” is useful for explaining the motivations of the individual who participates in capitalistic competition in an economy. As Weber notes, Protestantism influenced the work ethic of individuals because it advocated the “duty to have a vocational calling” (Weber 73). As Weber writes:

…[T]his peculiar idea of a duty to have a vocational calling, so familiar to us today but actually not at all self-evident, is the idea that in characteristic of the ‘social ethic’ of modern capitalist culture. In a certain sense, it is even of constitutive significance for it. It implies a notion of duty that individuals ought to experience, and do, vis-à-vis the content of their ‘vocational’ activity” (73).

As Weber established in this statement, the individual worker is motivated by their pursuit of a specific vocation. Further, their performance of a vocation holds ethical implications, as it reflects their fulfillment of their spiritual duty to pursue their calling.

However, while the individual in a capitalist society is primarily motivated by this spiritual foundation, rationally based institutions provide a dominant foundation for the organizational structures that thrive in a capitalist economy. As Weber asserts, rational proof forms the basis for the development of institutions in Western society (206). For example, while academic institutions were present in many parts of the world, Weber assesses that only Western universities systematically organized disciplines through rational methods of categorization (207). The political sphere is one of the first unique social inventions that was derived from Western rationalization. As Weber elaborates, the political sphere in Western society is defined by its employment of specialized civil servants who are trained in the technical, business, and legal areas of knowledge that are necessary for carrying out daily functions in society (207). Parliaments, bureaucracy, and other institutions in the political sphere operate by “rationally enacted constitutions and laws” (Weber 207). Thus, the political sphere became the first prominent aspect of society where a rationally based system intersected with the daily lives of the general population.

Similar to the political sphere, the economic sphere that later emerged was shaped by reason. As Weber notes, capitalism is often mislabeled as “a drive to acquire goods,” yet in reality capitalism seeks to employ ration to tame an individual’s excessive nature (208). All businesses in a capitalist system carry out the task of obtaining profitability, which is the repeated pursuit of profit (Weber 208). Because the ability to maintain profitability requires tools of reason in a capitalist system, all companies must conform to the market rules if they wish to be successful (Weber 208). Further, a primary rule is that companies must continually make sound acquisitions in which their cost of expanding their business or profits exceeds the costs (Weber 208). Further, the modern rational organization is defined by the separation of households from companies and the use of rational accounting systems that further separate private individuals from the actions of the business (Weber 212). Since capitalist institutions are bound by ration, they have drastically different priorities than individual workers whom are motivated by the previously addressed Protestant influences. While individuals have a personal moral obligation to pursue their vocation, capitalist institutions are bound by the requirement to act rationally, and thus have separate moral concerns from those of the rest of society.

An Overview of Durkheim’s Analysis

Similar to Weber, Durkheim attempts to examine the moral implications of modern economic systems. However, Durkheim focuses on the division of labor rather than the structure of the economy as a whole in his analysis. As Durkheim notes, the main features of the modern industrial economy are the large-scale consolidation of enterprises, the concentration of power and capital, and the “extreme division of labour” (1). As Durkheim observes, it is an increasing trend for labor to become divided in all areas of life, including political, judicial, artistic, and scientific areas (2). Yet, unlike Weber, Durkheim makes the argument that the separation of these spheres of activities does not pardon them from moral obligations, but rather it increases the moral obligations of the different spheres.

Rather than viewing the development of the division of labor from a rational or religious standpoint, Durkheim points to biology to describe how the division of labor emerged in society. As Durkheim asserts, the division of labor is a law that can be found in nature where animal’s with highly specialized functions are elevated on the animal pyramid (3). Thus, rather than being based on human reasoning, the emergence of specialization in human societies is an extension of the laws of biology (3). Durkheim asks, “In short, whilst the division of labor is a law of nature is it also a moral rule for human conduct and, if it possesses this last characteristics, through what causes and to what extent? (3) Because he believes that all biological activity falls within the realm of moral judgment, Durkheim believes that the trends of specialization also have moral implications that must be considered (3). Durkheim focuses on examining the moral considerations that influence the practices of specialization in society.

Durkheim addresses the unexamined moral assumptions that can be made regarding the division of labor. As Durkheim notes, the division of labor possesses a categorical rule that compels individuals to perform their specialized tasks out of duty (3). Further, Durkheim notes that the preference for specialization over generalization is necessary for human societies because it enables individuals to engage in focused, productive activities that will enable society to prevail in its struggle against nature (4). In a society where every individual is the best that they can become at a specific task, social and technological developments would improve that would be far more superior. Thus, Durkheim believes that society is correct to establish the specialized individual as the model for a successful individual in society (4). Further, he argues that specialization presents the need to provide individuals with specialized training for the roles that they will fulfill in society (4). Yet, the problem that emerges from increased specialization and decreased uniformity is that it reduced a common sphere where people share a sense of obligation towards one another. This problem creates reservations among the public in regard to the desirability of specialization.

Durkheim attempts to address these concerns by demonstrating how morality is still maintained, even while individuals are divided into spheres that might have little interconnections in society. In his argument that segments of society hold moral obligations to one another despite being fragmented through the division of labor, Durkheim presents the concept of organic solidarity. As Durkheim writes:

Because no individual is sufficient unto himself, it is from society that he receives all that is needful, just as it is for society that he labours. Thus there is formed a very strong feeling of the state of dependence in which he finds himself: he grows accustomed to valuing himself at his true worth, viz., to look upon himself only as part of the whole, the organ of an organism” (173).

As Durkheim argues, the division of labor provides an important task of creating solidarity in society by enabling individuals to unite with the traits in which they are lacking (17). Because individuals are strongly compelled to seek out individuals that reflect areas where they are inadequate, the division of labor provides a stronger cohesion between members in society who focus on specific sets of task. Thus, the implication of the principle of organic solidarity is that while the division of labor seems to promote separation, it actually promotes stronger unity where members of society have a stronger ethical and social obligation towards one another.

Discussion and Conclusion

There are merits and limitations to both Weber’s and Durkheim’s analyses of modern economic institutions. First, while Weber provides a thorough account of the roles of both religion and rationality in capitalism, he overlooks many exceptions to the rules that he outlines. While mechanisms, such as legal codes and accounting provide rational rules for the political and economic spheres, humans still play an important role in shaping the activities that occur in these spheres, making them subject to irrational behaviors. For example, in the political sphere, while civil servants are highly trained in scientific administrative techniques, the motivations of individual bureaucrats play an important role in influencing the behaviors that are enacted in the political sphere. Further, the passions of citizens in representative governments play an important role in determining who is elected to office and what kind of policies they will adopt. For example, while bureaucrats might have the training to adopt sound economic policies, voters can place politicians in office who will counter the expertise of civil servants. Similarly, in business, greed and nepotism are among the personally motivated vices that undermine the market. Further, there are many successful businesses that are able to remain in operation despite excessive behaviors from their executives. Though counting intends to add objectivity, many skilled managers can bypass accounting laws to extract additional profits from their business. Thus, it is not correct to claim that the political and business spheres are socially or morally detached from other spheres in society.

While Durkheim describes the interconnectedness of separated divisions of labor, he fails to prove that the division of labor is a biological phenomenon. Though Durkheim claims that animals who specialize in tasks are prized, he falls short of providing an example of animals that are prized for their ability to specialize in tasks. It could be asserted that humans, who are capable of multiple tasks as a species, yet are at the top of the animal kingdom, defy the claims that Durkheim makes on the benefits of specialization. Thus, if there is no inherit biological justification for specialization, it could be argues that Durkheim’s efforts to inject morality into this phenomenon are superficial. If humans don’t necessarily have to engage in focused labor as an evolutionary necessity, then it could also be argued that they don’t necessarily hold an obligation to serve and support others through their specialized tasks.

As both Weber and Durkheim demonstrate, the task that an individual takes to assessing the structures of society influences their overall evaluations. By examining government and industry from a rational standpoint, Weber is able to create a detached analysis that ignores interconnectedness between different spheres of society. By emphasizing a biological perspective, Durkheim asserts that elements of society are integrated in the same manner that parts of a biological system are integrated. Yet because society is composed by many artificial elements, it can be argued that Durkheim overlooks the aspects of specialization that counter what is natural. Thus, in each sociologist underscores the importance of using multiple theoretical perspectives to fully examine and understand the institutions in society.

Works Cited

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press, 1984.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.