Sociology Theory

Sociological Theory.
“What A Change there was between 1785 and 1824! There has probably never been such an abrupt revolution in habits, ideas and beliefs in the two thousand years since we have known the history of the World” (Stendhal. 1962: p.144)
There has indeed been many changes throughout history to the way that we think about society. The Enlightenment signalled a change in the World that was so eye opening a complete new discipline emerged. There was a lot of key thinkers around this time who were very influential in the creation of Sociology as a discipline. This essay will discuss the key thinkers around the creation of Sociology namely, Durkheim, Marx and Weber who are considered the founding fathers of Sociology. It will also analyse the Functionalist, Marxist, social action and postmodernist perspectives looking at some of the key figures and concepts within the perspectives.
The term ‘Sociology’ was coined from Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) in 1883. Comte wanted to understand the great social changes that had occurred around him and made the first contributions towards Sociological thinking. Comte believed that methods used in Science could also be used to study society, thus Comte was the proponent of Positivism, defined as an epistemological position that advocates the application of the methods of the natural sciences to the study of social reality and beyond. (Bryman, 2004).
Sociology as a discipline emerged from a series of debates which began during the Enlightenment between Philosophers, Scientists and Intellectuals about the origins and nature of society. However these questions did not lead to one set conclusion, it lead to the emergence of perspectives and different ideas. The three classical sociological perspectives are Functionalism, Marxism and Social Action Theory and the three key figures within these perspectives where Durkheim, Marx and Weber. These three men were considered the founding fathers of Sociology. (Bauman, 2002).
Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917) is often referred to as the founding father of Functionalism. He did draw on many aspects of Comte’s work, but he believed that Comte did not given enough detail and depth in his work. Durkheim put a lot of effort into establishing Sociology as its own discipline away from Philosophy and Psychology. This is evident in his two main themes of work, the priority of the social over the individual and the idea that society can be studied scientifically. Durkheim’s concept of social facts in itself differentiates sociology from Philosophy and Psychology. Social facts are the social structures, cultural norms and values that are external to and coercive over, Individuals. Social facts are not specific to the individual or capable of being simplified by individual consciousness. Durkheim believed that due to this, social facts can be studied empirically. Durkheim believed two type of social facts existed, material social facts which refer to the physical social structures which influence the individual and also immaterial social facts which refer to values, norms and conceptually held beliefs. Durkheim was most interested in immaterial social facts, particularly morality, collective conscience, collective representation and social currents. (Morrison, K 1995)(Taylor, 1995).
Durkheim’s work discusses how society is held together through the division of labour that makes individuals dependent on each other. Durkheim believed that societies with little division of labour were more unified by Mechanical solidarity. All individuals share similar roles and responsibilities, which builds a strong collective conscience. However Durkheim believed that modern society functioned more with organic solidarity. The increasing division of labour and specialisation of jobs divided society and weakened the collective conscience. Durkheim studied these different types of solidarity through laws, he believed that a society with mechanical solidarity is characterised by repressive law. Society with organic solidarity however is characterised by restitutive law. (Durkheim, 1964). In his book ‘The Division of Labour in Society’ (1964) Durkheim writes;
“This work has its origins in the question of the relation of the individual to social solidarity. Why does the individual, while becoming more autonomous, depend more upon society? How Can he be at once, more individual and more solidarity?” (Durkheim, 1964: p.37)
Durkheim also went on to state that social facts can help explain suicide rates. His work showed that using historical comparative methods that suicide rates varied over time and across societies. According to Durkheim suicide cannot be explained by individual Psychological problems. Durkheim believed that two social facts influenced suicide rates, these were integration and regulation. Through this Durkheim believed that four different types of suicide existed; Egoistic suicide which was a result of a lack of integration and altruistic suicide which is a result of too much integration. Anomic suicide which is a result of too little regulation and finally fatalistic suicide which is a result of too much regulation. (Bauman and May, 2001)(Taylor. 1995).
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) had very different ideas of society than both Comte and Durkheim. Marx ideas where very much inspired by the industrial revolution and he argued that the capitalist system affected human experience. His work focused on the conflict between the classes, in which he believed there were two main groups the proletariat and the bourgeoisie; the proletariat being the wage labourer and the bourgeoisie being the owners of the mean of production. Marx believed that this system was designed for one purpose, to ensure the powerful continue to get richer and richer and control over the proletariat. (Morrison 1995). (Taylor 1995).
Marx believed that under capitalism the relationship between labour and human expression has changed. Rather than labouring to fulfil the individual’s needs or express ideas, workers do so at the demands of capitalism. Marx believed that due to this workers where alienated from their labour because it no longer belonged to them. He believed that workers where alienated in four different ways. Firstly the workers where alienated from productive activity, secondly workers where alienated from the product of their labour, thirdly workers where alienated from other workers, and lastly workers where alienated from their own human potential. Marx critiques were designed to highlight that capitalism was the basis of alienation and also to develop a plan for action for overcoming the structures of capitalism. Marx also believed that capitalism would eventually lead to a communist society. Eventually the proletariat would revolt against the bourgeoisie, due to their increasing greed and continued dominance of the proletariat. (Jenkins. 2002). (Giddens 2001).
In Marx “material concept of History” he suggested that the way societies provide for the material well-being affects the types of relations that people will have with one another and their social intuitions. Marx uses the term “the force of production” to refer to the way people provide for their needs. He uses the term “relations of production” to describe social relationships that dominate the productive capitalist society. Under capitalism the forces of production lead to a set of relations of production which pit the capitalist and proletariat against each other. To change the relations of production Marx felt revolution was necessary. (Morrison 1995).
Marx believed that many ideas within capitalism cloud the true relationships that underlie capitalist society. Marx called these ideas “ideologies”. The first type of ideology emerged from the structure of society and can be seen in such things as the fetishism of commodities or money. The second type is used by the bourgeoisie to hide the contradiction of the capitalist system. Marx used equality and freedom to explain this in that these mask the fact that society is neither equal with one another nor able to freely control labour or the products of labour. Marx also viewed religion as an ideology, just as freedom and equality; it is an idea to be cherished. Religion also contains positive dimensions but has been used to hide the true nature of capitalism. (Morrison 1995).
Another key thinker is Max Weber (1986 – 1920). Weber was influenced by the work of Marx, but saw class conflict as less important and believed that ideas and values had as much impact on social change. He developed the idea of “ideal types”, which are conceptual and analytical models that can be used to understand the world. Weber stressed that “Verstehen” was the proper way of studying social phenomena. The method of Verstehen strives to understand the meanings that human beings attribute to their experiences, interactions and actions. Weber construed this as a methodical, systematic and rigorous form of inquiry that could be employed in both micro and macro sociological analysis. (Morrison 1995). (Taylor 1995). Weber has stated that “Science today is a ‘vocation’ organised in special disciplines in the service of self-clarification and knowledge of interrelated facts. It is not the gift of grace of seers and prophets dispensing sacred values and revelations, nor does it partake of the contemplation of sages and philosopher about the meaning of the universe. This, to be sure, is the inescapable condition of our historical situation. We cannot evade it as long as we remain true to ourselves” (Weber in Gerth and Mills 1970: pg. 152).
Webers sociology was fundamentally a science which employed both interpretive understanding and casual explanations of social actions and interactions. Weber social action theory describes that social action may be classified in four different categories, instrumental rational action, value rational action, affectual action and traditional action. Weber also argued that rationalisation was a long term historical process that transformed the modern world. His work relating to forms of rationality is essential to this argument. He argued that there were four types of rationality and these where practical, theoretical, formal and substantive. He was most concerned with formal and substantive rationalisation especially as this was propelled by capitalist society and bureaucracy. Weber argued that rationalisation occured in many places which included the economy, law, religion, politics, the city and art. (Taylor 1995).
Webers argument regarding rationalisation is exemplified in his study of religion and capitalism, His studies enquired into the way in which religious ideas, ‘the spirit of capitalism’ as he called it and capitalism are interrelated as an economic system. According to Weber, the protestant ethic particularly Calvinism as a rational, methodical system of religious belief and practise was very important in the emergence of modern capitalism in western societies. Weber first observed the link between being protestant and being involved in business. He determined that that modern spirit of capitalism sees the pursuit of profit as virtuous. Weber believed that this was due to the protestant work ethic in which it is believed that God has already determined who is saved and who is damned. As Protestantism developed, a deep psychological need for a clue about whether a person was actually damned or saved. This lead to protestants valuing such things as profit material, success to try gain the favour of God. Weber argued due to these religious beliefs it resulted in the breakdown of the traditional economic system and the emergence of capitalism. (Taylor 1995). (Morrison 1995).
Through the years there has been many developments to sociological theories. Firstly looking at functionalism, which was very popular, even dominant, up until the 1960’s. Although functionalism was dominant it is today generally considered historical. Functionalists were mainly interested in large-scale social structures and institutions within society. Talcott Parsons (1902 – 1979) is considered by many to be the single most important contributor and practitioner of structural functionalism. Parsons was the first functionalist to develop the theory of modern society. Parsons agreed and developed upon the work of Durkheim in that he agreed that social order is dependent on Value consensus. (Bauman. 2001).
The heart of Parsons work is built on the four functional imperatives, also known as the ‘AGIL System; these four functions where, the adaptive function where a system adapts to the environment, the goal-attainment function how a system defines and achieves its goals, the integrative function the regulations of the components of the system and finally the latency function the need for society to maintain its stability and transmit its values through the generations. Completing the AGIL system are the four actions systems, each of which serve and function imperative. The behavioural organism performs the adaptive function, the personality system performs goal-attainment, the social system performs the integrative function and the cultural system performs the latency function. Parsons saw the action system work as a hierarchy, starting with behavioural and building to cultural system. Parsons believed that each of the lower levels provided the impetus for the higher levels. (Bauman. 2001). (Taylor 1995).
The basic unit of Parsons social system is the ‘status role-complex’, He believed that actors are seen as a collection of structures and roles relatively devoid of thought. Parsons interest was in large scale components of social systems, such as collectiveness, norms and values. Parsons also thought that social systems hand a number of functional pre-requisites, such as compatibility with other systems, fulfilment of the needs of the actor, support from other systems, including sufficient levels of participation from its members, controlling deviance, controlling conflict and language. (Taylor 1995).
Parsons was very interested in value and norms in particular. He focused on the socialisation process, where by society infuses individuals with thoughts in which it is possible to serve themselves while still serving the interests of society as a whole. It is through socialisation that Parsons believed that actors internalised the norms of society. The culture system is the very pinnacle of action systems, Parsons believed that culture had the capability of becoming part of other systems, such as norms and values in the social system. (Giddens 2001). (Taylor 1995). (Morrison 1995).
In order to deal with the change to society, Parsons turned to a form of ‘the evolutionary theory’; focusing on differentiation and adaptive upgrading. He suggested three evolutionary stages, primitive, intermediate and modern. This perspective however suffered a number of flaws because it saw change as generally positive and does not deal with the process of change, but rather points of equilibrium across periods of change. (Morrison 1995).
Robert Merton (1910 – 2003) tried to rectify some of the weaknesses within structural functionalism. He criticised the underlying assumptions of functionalism and added complexity to how functionalism dealt with relationships between structures and functions, dispensing with the notion that all parts of the system are functional. Overall Merton thought that it was possible to have an idea of the balance of a structure by taking into account dysfunctions, functions and non-functions. He also added complexity by asserting that this sort of analysis may be performed at various levels of functional analysis; for instance, slavery was functional for some and dysfunctional for others. Merton was also interested in the intended and un-intended functions of structures or manifests and latent functions and their unanticipated consequences. Merton also agreed with Durkheim’s theory of anomie, he suggested that when an individual cannot act in accordance to normalised values it produces deviant behaviour. (Morrison 1995). (Bauman. 2001).
There are a number of criticisms towards the functionalist theory. Many believe that it is historical and cannot deal effectively with the changes or conflict in society. It is viewed as ambiguous and lacking in adequate methods. Structural functionalism inhibits certain forma of analysis. It has also been described as both illegitimately teleological and tautological. Illegitimately teleological implies that functionalism relies too heavily on the notion that social structures have goals or purposes. This notion is posited to justify the existence of particular structures with adequate theoretical reason or empirical backing. Tautology suggests that the conclusion of a theory makes explicit what is implicit in the premise of the theory. Thus, structural functionalism defines the whole in terms of the parts and the parts in terms of the whole. (Bauman. 2001).
Marxism, like functionalism has had a major influence on sociological thinking. However the two widely differ on opinion, factionalism being a perspective of consent and Marxism being one of conflict. Marxism is seen as economically deterministic and has been questioned in recent years due to the fall of communist regimes in Europe. Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) is an important figure in the history of Marxist theory. While Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels provided a rigorous analysis of capitalism, Gramsci supplemented this with a sophisticated theory of the political realm and how it is organically related to social and economic conditions. He provides a theory of how the proletariat must organise politically if it is to effectively respond to capitalism and bring about revolutionary change. This innovation has proven to be of interest not only to Marxist’s but also to those involved in such things as civil rights movements and gender politics. The reason why his approach has been so popular is because Gramsci himself was a man of action and his fundamental concern was with progressive strategy. Gramsci spent the last 10 years of his life in prison due to his thoughts and opinions where he developed most of his thinking further. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
Gramsci put forward his concept of ‘Hegemony’ to explain the perseverance of capitalist mode of production. Gramsci argues that dominance in economic relations of production is necessary, but not sufficient, condition for social dominance. The economically dominant class also requires hegemony to rule. Hegemony is the ideological dominance of society, the position in which an ideology favourable to the dominant class is agreed upon by the society as a whole. The subordinate classes are persuaded to hold views and values which are consistent with the continued economic and social dominance of the ruling class. Gramsci believed that through this concept, it is possible to show how capitalism and democracy have survived in Marxian terms. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
The most important aspect of the notion of hegemony is that of consent. In order to gain hegemony, the economically dominant class must forge alliances through compromise with other classes and social forces, so that it may gain ‘political and ideological leadership’. This stems from the work of Lenin (1870 -1924), which stressed the need for the workers to form an alliance with the peasantry in order to overthrow the Tsarist regime. Gramsci expanded on this by using hegemony to not only suggest strategies for the proletariat revolution, but to also explain the maintenance of capitalist society. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
Hegemony created a more complex relationship between the two conflicting classes. The alliances which hegemony classes will form, and the compromises it makes with other classes ensure that it gains the ‘active consent’ of society. Gramsci uses the term ‘active consent’ to show that the individual person or group is not passive in the creation and maintenance of hegemony. The alliance requires a national popular aspect of hegemony of the dominant class. Only by appealing to the widest common denominator can a class gain consent of the entire nation. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
Hegemony also provides a new and more complex explanation of the relationship between ‘civil society’ and ‘the state’. Hegemony is created and maintained with the civil society. A dominant class forms a ‘historical bloc’, which combines hegemony in civil society and dominance in the economy. Gramsci challenged the classical Marxist view as the concept of hegemony allows the ruling class to be partly determined within politics. Gramsci does stay true to the Marxist thought with regards to economic base, while giving politics a more significant role in social determination. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
Also Gramsci’s concept of hegemony gives a new tactical approach for the leaders of the proletariat. In order to gain hegemony, the proletariat must engage in a ‘war of position’. This is where class alliances are formed and broken to find the best suited alliance which is united by common ideology favourable to the proletariat. Also there must be moral and ideological reform, in order to change class bias of the existing hegemony. Gramsci believed that ideology was the key, as it is the ‘cement’ which held together and historical bloc by giving common ground to its members. Gramsci proposed a very different strategy for the bourgeoisie, called ‘passive revolution’. This is a movement from above, where the state plays the significant role in the revolution. The people are largely ‘passive’ and play only a marginal role. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
Gramsci gives the intellectual class a role to play in the revolution. He believed that there were two types of intellectual, traditional and organic. He believed that traditional intellectuals appeared to be neutral of any class base, but in fact kept the system in place by reproducing it ideas. Gramsci however was more concerned with organic intellectuals, which are intellectuals that are part of the class they represent. Gramsci saw the role of organic intellectuals as essential for creating a counter hegemony. He believed that the transformation from capitalism to socialism would require mass participation. Gramsci believed that if the proletariat where to develop its own organic intellectuals and also gain favour from some traditional intellectuals to show that other ways where possible, then this would open the door for revolutionary change in society. (Gramsci 1971). (Morrison 1995).
Another key thinker within Marxism is Louis Althusser (1918 – 1990). Althusser was heavily influenced by the work of Gramsci. Althusser was a French Marxist philosopher who saw Marxism as a science. One feature of Althusserian Marxism is a rejection of Marx’s Hegelian essentialism. Essentialism is a reduction of things to a single principle or essence. Althusser rejected two kinds of Marxist essentialism which where economism and humanism. In rejecting economism he saw ideology as itself a determining force shaping consciousness, embodied in the material signifying practices of ‘ideological state apparatus’ and enjoying ‘relative autonomy’. Althusser’s work represented a move away from preoccupation with economic determination. Ideology for Althusser represented the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence. Ideology transforms human beings into subjects, leading them to see themselves as a self-determining agent when they are actually shaped by ideological processes. (Bauman. 2001). (Morrison 1995).
Althusser endeavoured to develop a scientific and systematic theory as to how society functions in order to maintain conditions favourable to capitalism. His primary focus was on the relationship between ideology and the roles and identities society creates for people that help to perpetuate these conditions. Althusser’s structural model of society consisted of two different levels and of three different spheres. The first of these spheres is the economic base which refers to states of production. Two spheres then make up what known as the superstructure which consists of political and legal systems and the ideological structures which refers to institutions such as schools and churches that perpetuate dominant beliefs and values. Although culture and politics are separate from each other in Althusser’s model they share ideological interconnections which serve to support the capitalist system. (Bauman. 2001). (Giddens 2001).
While Marx primarily examined the role of economics in ideology, observing that the ultimate conditions of production is therefore the reproduction of the conditions of production, for Althusser the reproduction of the conditions of production is not simply guaranteed by perpetuating existing material conditions such as wages. Althusser believes that such conditions are achieved outside production through the concept which he deems the state apparatus. Althusser refers to the classical tenet of Marxism as the state apparatus, referring to its functions to repress the working classes and thus continuing with the capitalist system. He divided the state apparatus into two different forces, the repressive state apparatus and the ideological state apparatus. Repressive state apparatus such as government, army, and police minify the working class predominately through direct violence or the threat of violence and are mainly controlled by the public sphere. Althusser furthers himself again from Classical Marxist theory with his ideological state apparatus. Unlike repressive state apparatus, Ideological state apparatus cannot easily be unified into on collective force as that derive from various sources in the private sector. (Bauman. 2001). (Morrison 1995).
Althusser also proposed that individuals are transformed into subjects through the ideological mechanism of ‘Interpellation’. He explained that interpellation works primarily through language and occurs when people are hailed by a message. To illustrate this Althusser offered the following explanation, when a policeman calls out “hey you there”, most people within hearing distance will assume that they are being summoned, even if they have done nothing wrong. This reaction positions the individual as a subject in relation to the general ideological code of law and criminality. Althusser believed that the dominant beliefs, values and practises that constitute ideology serve political function. As people progress through the education system to work, ideology works through state institutions to interpellate people into particular subject positions in which work and lifestyle benefits those who control the process of production. For Instance, when it comes to election time, politicians will address their audience as either voters or tax payers, thereby referring to the subject position which benefits them in their capacity as political leaders. (Morrison 1995).
There are a number of criticisms towards the Marxist theories on society. It is argued that Marxist’s only concentrate on the negative side of society. Althusser and Gramsci are also criticised for over emphasising the role of ideology as a means of ensuring social order. Also their theories do not give enough consideration to real conditions of existence as an important element in maintaining social order. Another criticism of the Marxist theory is the idea that socialism can only be obtained through class conflict and proletariat revolution. Marxist’s also do not consider the positive influences that society has to offer. Some Marxist supporters argue that Marxist thoughts are viable; however the corpus is incomplete or outdated in regards to certain aspects of economic, political and social theory. (Morrison 1995). (Taylor 1995). (Bauman. 2001).
Interactionism, which takes its roots from Max Weber’s social action theory, is another fundamental perspective in sociology which has changed the world’s view on society. George Mead (1963 – 1931)is one of the key thinker within interactionism, his work takes its roots from two intellectual tradition which are pragmatism and psychological behaviourism, Mead adapted, from pragmatists, three important themes; The first theme is a focus on the interaction between actors and the social world. The second is a view of both actors and the social world as dynamic process. The third is the centrality of actor’s abilities to interpret the social world.
Meads most widely read work ‘Mind, Self and Society’ give priority to society over the mind and highlights the idea that the social leads to development of mental states. To mead, the mind is a process and is found in social phenomena rather than within individuals. The ‘act’ is the fundamental union in meads theory, and it is represented by four stages which are impulse, perception, manipulation and consummation. The basic mechanism of the social act according to Mead is the gesture. Mead pays particular attention to one kind of gesture ‘significant symbols’ which makes it possible for humans to think, to communicate and to be stimulators of their own actions.
Mead defines the ‘self’ as the ability to take oneself as an object and identifies the basic mechanism of the development of the ‘self’ as ‘reflexivity’, which means the ability to put oneself into the place of others and act as they act. Mead makes it clear through his work that a ‘self’ can arises only through social experiences, and he traces its development to two stages of childhood which are the play stage and the game stage. During the play stage, children learn how to take the attitude of other to themselves, but it is only during the game stage that children adapt roles and attitudes of others. Mead also discussed the difference between ‘I’ and ‘me’ in his theory of ‘self’. Mead believed that the ‘I’ is the immediate response of an individual to the other, it is the unpredictable and creative aspect of the ‘self’. He believed the ‘me’ is the organised set of attitudes of others that an individual assumes; it is how society dominates the individual and is a source of social control.
Symbolic interactionism has three key principles which are, people possess the capacity for thought, which is shaped by social action; people learn meanings and symbols through social interaction, and lastly people are able to modify or alter meanings and symbols they use in interactions by interpreting the situations they are engaged in. Mead believed that socialisation is one way individuals learn to think, interact with one another and how to use meanings and symbols. He also believed that defining the situation is another way that individuals actively engage in creating the social world. Finally he also believed developing a ‘looking glass’ self helps individuals to perceive and judge the impressions people make when they interact with others.
Erving Goffman (1922 – 1982) was another key thinker in interactionism; he focused his work on ‘Dramaturgy’ which is a view that social life is a series of dramatic performances. He was also interested in how the self is shaped through the interaction of the social actors and the audience. The basic unit of analysis in Goffmans work is a team, which is any set of individuals who cooperate in staging a single act or routine. The central theme of Goffmans work is ‘Impression Management’ which is the techniques used by social actors to maintain particular images of themselves when they encounter problems during interaction. Goffman used the concept of front stage, personal front, setting, appearance, manner and back stage to discuss the theatre of social life. According to Goffman, fronts tend to become institutionalised and are therefore selected rather than created. Personal fronts consist of appearance, or expressive equipment that tells the audience what kinds of role the performer expects to play in a particular situation. The back stage is where actors are more themselves and use informal actions that are suppressed when on front stage.

Bibliography.
Bauman, Z and May, T. (2001) Thinking Sociologically, Oxford: Blackwell.
Durkheim, E. (1964) The division of labour in society, Michigan: Macmillon.
Giddens, A. (2001) Sociology (4th edition), Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections From The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith, eds. And trans, London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Jenkins, R. (2002) Foundations of Sociology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Publications.
Morrison, K. (1995) Marx Durkheim Weber. Formation of Modern Social Thoughts, London: SAGE Publications.
Taylor, P. (1995) Sociology In Focus, Ormskirk: Causeway Press Limited.
Stendhal. (1962) Racien and Shakerspear, New York: Crowell Collier Press.

Bibliography: Bauman, Z and May, T. (2001) Thinking Sociologically, Oxford: Blackwell. Durkheim, E. (1964) The division of labour in society, Michigan: Macmillon. Giddens, A. (2001) Sociology (4th edition), Cambridge: Polity Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections From The Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith, eds. And trans, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Jenkins, R. (2002) Foundations of Sociology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Publications. Morrison, K. (1995) Marx Durkheim Weber. Formation of Modern Social Thoughts, London: SAGE Publications. Taylor, P. (1995) Sociology In Focus, Ormskirk: Causeway Press Limited. Stendhal. (1962) Racien and Shakerspear, New York: Crowell Collier Press.