Classical Sociology: Durkheim, Weber & Founding Thinkers

Introduction to Classical Sociology: Durkheim and Weber, J. C. Portantiero

Sociology as a field of knowledge appeared in the mid-nineteenth century. Social and political phenomena began to be understood as collective processes that precede the creation and organization of human society.

The Origin of Sociology

The stimulus for the emergence of sociology is the Industrial Revolution (the social and political crisis that generated economic transformation). The factory proletariat appeared. Two positions emerged: one is socialism (Marx) and the other sets the classical sociological tradition (Weber and Durkheim). Society may undergo changes, but these should be orderly. The task was to unravel that order, to identify and correct deviations, and to prevent and address conflict. This responsibility fell to Classical Sociology (a conservative tradition).

The Founding Fathers

Montesquieu leads us toward discovering laws of social development. Although his focus is the analysis of political institutions, his perspective anticipated sociology. For Montesquieu, political institutions depend on the state and on the type of society. That is why there is no universally acceptable political regime; every society should build its own. He believed it was possible to construct a typology of societies based on historical experience and order.

Nisbet noted that the five essential elements of social ideas are:

• community
• authority
• the sacred
• status
• alignment

Saint-Simon was fraught with internal tensions that could point to either a revolutionary or a conservative path. Comte incorporated the ideas of development and progress and proposed two dimensions of study: Social Statics (analysis of conditions and order) and Social Dynamics (analysis of movement and progress). Spencer was more positive: for him there were no methodological differences between the study of nature and the study of society.

Durkheim: The Problem of Order

Durkheim argues that human happiness is possible only when it does not demand more than what can be collectively agreed upon. Limits should not be sought solely in the individual's constitution, organic makeup, or psychology. Humans demand the unattainable and thus fall into disappointment; therefore, it is necessary to ensure that passions are contained and stopped at a limit recognized as fair. That limit should be imposed by a moral power external to the individual—an authority worthy of respect. Only society is able to play this mediating role: it is the only moral power superior to the individual whose superiority is accepted by individuals.