The Iron Cage or the Cult of the Individual? Compare Weber and Durkheim's alternative understanding of the idea and role of the individual in modern life

Résumé du document

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, social studies were conducted by founding fathers of sociology in order to understand both the role of the individual and the role of the society in a new epoch called modernity. At macro-sociological level, this period is characterized by general changes in western societies: the industrialization, the advent of democracy, the secularization of societies.

At micro-sociological level, modernity is defined by a new conception of the individual who believes in progress and who is rational. Both Weber and Durkheim were interested in the role of the individual although they did not have the same conception. Indeed, Durkheim considered the individual was limited by the society whereas Weber thought the society was created by social actions of individuals.

Paradoxically, Durkheim was optimistic about the advent of modernity because it would lead to the emergence of individualism. On the other hand, Weber was pessimistic: he argued that modernity would crash the individual because of processes of rationalization and bureaucratization. Hence, there is an opposition between both thinkers (although they have also similar ideas) about the future of the individual in modernity: either the individual would be at the core of a humanist religion, or his freedom would end with modernity.

Hence, we may wonder how these authors understood in different ways the role if the individual in modernity and which analysis is the more relevant to understand modern life in our contemporary societies. After an explanation of both theories, we will demonstrate that Weber's pessimistic approach seems (unfortunately?) very relevant to understand modern life, although Durkheim also developed convincing arguments about the future of the individual

Extraits

[...] Durkheim, in a holist perspective, states that the society is over and above individuals which are determined and limited by it (through social facts). However, paradoxically, he explains that modernity is the site of the individual and that society loses a bit of its immense power because modern societies become more complex. This rise of individualism is explained by Durkheim as a consequence of the division of labor. Indeed, he says that in traditional societies, ‘mechanical solidarity' was predominant because people were similar and produced the same things (sanction were ‘repressive'). [...]

[...] (1997), “Sanctions and Mechanical and Organic Solidarity” in McIntosh, I. Classical Sociological Theory: a Reader, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. - Marongiu, J-B. (1996), monde en cage d'acier. Peut-on partager le diagnostic désenchanté de Max Weber sur la modernité occidentale et échapper au nihilisme? Un essai de Pierre Bouretz sur la philosophie du sociologue allemand”, in Libération. Available at : http://www.liberation.fr/livres/0101183119-un-monde-en-cage-d-acier- peut-on-partager-le-diagnostic-desenchante-de-max-weber-sur-la- modernite-occidentale-et-echapper-au-nihilisme-un-essai-de-pierre- bouretz-sur-la-philosophie-du-sociologue-allem - Mommsen, W. J. (1989), The Political and Social Theory of Max Weber: Collected Essays, Polity Press, London, Chap ‘Weberian Bureaucratisation'. [...]

[...] In his mind, social order (because it influences individuals) was necessary to keep the society unified and to balance individualism. What is really relevant in his analysis is that he stated there was a dilemma between individual freedom and social control by the State. Although he did not give any direct political commitment in his work, this is still very interesting to understand the difference between right and left on a political scale. The best society is balanced: none of both entities which are the individual and the society is too much stressed. [...]

[...] Democratic political regimes were implemented but it does not mean that individual freedom (which is one of the preponderant values held in democracy) is respected. Indeed, although bureaucracy has been decreasing in certain fields, Weber would argue that we still live in an iron cage, regarding recent evolutions (proliferation of rules and laws for everything). If we take into consideration the way public organizations infringe upon our privacy, we can argue that that individual freedom has been undermined. For instance, electronic surveillance has been growing a lot (CCTV). [...]

[...] Nonetheless, Durkheim's theory is still relevant about other aspects of modern life. For instance, the fight for human rights has enhanced over the course of the last century. Indeed, after two terrible world wars which violated the dignity of the Individual (Humanity crimes committed during WWII), political leaders of Western societies recognized a number of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. In the USA, Martin Luther King fought for human rights and spoke to the Americans as if they ‘already shared such common ideals as equality, liberty and social justice' (Cladis p.408). [...]