29
See also: Auguste Comte 22–25 ■ Max Weber 38–45 ■ Michel Foucault 52–55 ■ Friedrich Engels 66–67 ■
Richard Sennett 84–87 ■ Herbert Marcuse 182–87 ■ Robert Blauner 232–33 ■ Christine Delphy 312–17
problems and the answer to them,
but there had been little research
into the social structure of society.
Between 1830 and 1842, the
French philosopher Auguste Comte
had suggested that it was possible,
and even necessary, to make a
scientific study of society. Karl
Marx agreed that an objective,
methodical approach was overdue
and was among the first to tackle
the subject. Marx did not set out,
however, to make a specifically
sociological study, but rather to
explain modern society in historical
and economic terms, using
observation and analysis to identify
the causes of social inequality.
And where Comte saw science
as the means of achieving social
change, Marx pointed to the
inevitability of political action.
Historical progress
In Marx’s time, the conventional
explanation of the development
of society was of an evolution in
stages, from hunting and gathering,
through nomadic, pastoral, and
agricultural communities to
modern commercial society. As a
philosopher, Marx was well aware
of this idea of social progress and
the economic origins of industrial
society, but developed his own
interpretation of this process.
His primary influence was the
German philosopher Georg Hegel,
who had proposed a dialectic view
of history: that change comes about
through a synthesis of opposing
forces in which the tension
between contradictory ideas is
resolved. Marx, however, viewed
history as the progression of
material circumstances rather
than ideas, and took from Hegel
the dialectical framework, while
dismissing much of his philosophy.
He was also influenced by French
socialist thinkers, such as Jean-
Jacques Rousseau, who laid the
blame for inequality in civil society
on the emergence of the notion of
private property.
Marx offered a new approach to
the study of historical progress. It
is the material conditions in which
people live that determine the
organization of society, he said, and
changes in the means of production
(the tools and machinery used to
create wealth) bring about socio-economic change. “Historical
materialism,” as this approach to
historical development came to be
known, provided an explanation
for the transition from feudal to
modern capitalist society, brought
about by new methods of economic
production. Under feudalism, the
nobles had controlled the means of
agricultural production, as owners
of the land that the peasants or
serfs worked. With the machine
age a new class, the bourgeoisie,
emerged as owners of a new means
of production. As technology ❯❯FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIOLOGY
Modern society has two great classes: the industry-owning
bourgeoisie and the proletariat (workers).The fall of the bourgeoisie
and the victory of the proletariat
are equally inevitable.Controlling the means
of production enriches
the bourgeoisie and
enables it to dominate
private property.The majority proletariat
owns little and sells its
labor to the bourgeoisie
yet stays poor because
of exploitation.Self-interest mitigates
against solidarity among the
bourgeoisie, while unceasing
competition fuels regular
economic crises.This dehumanizing
status leads to alienation
and a group consciousness
that seeks its own class’s
collective good.