Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber

by Anthony Giddens

Book Overview

Giddens's analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Weber has become the classic text for any student seeking to understand the three thinkers who established the basic framework of contemporary... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0521097851
• Release Date: March 1973
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press
• Length: 261 Pages
• Weight: 0.92 lbs.
• Dimensions: 9.0" x 0.6" x 6.0"

Customer Reviews

A substantial reinforcement of disciplinary interests

If the reader will permit, I'd like to use this review space to reflect upon the indirect consequences of this text's popularity for the discipline of sociology. Giddens was certainly not the first to canonize the "founding fathers" of sociology. Talcott Parsons did that in "The Structure of Social Action" and elsewhere. He conjectured that Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, and Marshall unwittingly converged on a theory of human action. Of course, Parsons left Marx out of the picture, and that serious mistake would be drastically corrected with the explosion of "Western Marxism" following the first English translations of Marx's early writings. Raymond Aron included Marx (as well as Comte, Montesquieu, and de Tocqueville) in his account of the "Main Currents of Sociological Thought". His vision of sociology was that of a river which sprang from the onset of modernity (in France) and later diverted into distinct but often parallel streams. Anthony Giddens, in the work in question, takes up much the same task as Aron, but seemingly dismisses the work of early French thinkers. Instead, sociology is crowned the science of modernity because all other sociologists of importance are reactionaries to Marx, and Marx is the preeminent analyst of capitalism. My point is this: whether by Aron's or Giddens' account, sociology is understood as the science of modernity. It is understood as the largely retrospective study of social change and transformation. Because of Giddens' theoretical genius in later works like "The Nation-State and Violonce" and "The Constitution of Society", his account of the sociological tradition has been given further credibility. But why must sociology be so focused on the past? We have discarded Marx's philosophy of history and thus the historical inevitability of certain social transformations, but does that mean we should stop looking to the future? Both classical sociological theory and political theory are, or will soon, be challenged by three important developments: contemporary race theory, biotechnology (both genetic and pharmaceutical), and robotics/artificial intelligence. Race theory has made the greatest influence thus far. New histories have shown just how integral race is to our understanding of statehood, citizenship, social engineering and the like. New analyses have shown the scientific impotence of race as a human category. And the contemporary demographic developments in the U.S. and Western Europe make these intellectual assessments all the more real. Bioscience has also moved above the radar as a real of concern for sociologists. If we choose to seriously consider the "garden conception" of the state (one in which the state, as steward, must prune human flowers and eliminate human weeds), then the implications of bioscience are truly incredible. Here, sociologists and political theorists have taken up the line of thinking pioneered by philosophical ethicists, dystopian novelists, and science fiction writers. They

Great Book for Sociology Theory Students

Giddens outdid himself for sure! He definitely knew that me and my friends would use this book in our Sociology theory assignment as supplemental reading to aid out paper. Although I did not read this book from cover to cover, it found the Durkheim commentary very useful. Two of my friends also used the Weber and Marx sections, and thanked me so much for purchasing the book. Giddens gets straight to the point, explaning himself very clearly to the reader . . . which is often difficult in theory. The best way to use the book is to look up your subject of interest in the index while you have your primary source in front of you. Enjoy it and save it . . . it'll come in handy een after you're done with your theory class.

Seeing master through master

Giddens is the most well-known British social scientist after Keynes and one of three masters in sociology with Bourdieu and Habermas. This book has been widely used as textbook in classes on the history of sociology, while his more recent book, ¡®Introduction to Sociology¡¯ ahs occupied most introductory classes of sociology. 1. Giddens might be the best and deepest understander of three father of sociology. The prestige and appeal of his structuration theory might be rooted in that mastery. Before proposed the outline of structuration theory in ¡®New Rules of Sociological Method¡¯, he spent about ten years in digging into three founders: Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. This book is the fruit of that effort. Unlike usual textbook, this book us not simple introduction to classical theorists. The need to read classics lies in the problem sociology poses to itself: ¡®what is the modernity?¡¯ Whereas other sister disciplines pose somewhat narrower problems-capitalism for economics, democracy for political sciences- sociology questions the modernity itself. That¡¯s the very problem three fathers posed over a century ago. But still we question the same problem in the way they set. So we should always return to classics when meeting the fundamental problem. 2. The style of this book is clear, easy-to-follow, and jargon-free enough to be used in undergraduate introductory class. But it doesn¡¯t mean that there is no depth in this book. Giddens argues that thoughts of Weber and Durkheim should be understood as the reaction to Marx. His emphasis is convincing and offers a good standpoint to look up three fathers as a whole. Such a point is invaluable to beginners. Moreover, his interpretations are opposite to conventional wisdom, with solid grounds. He contends that there is no discontinuity between young Marx and late Marx, against humanist views like Frankfurt school¡¯s and structuralist exposition like Althusser¡¯s; there is no inconsistency I Weber. He was always a radical neo-Kantian; the relationship of Weber and Marx should be seen as creative tension rather than antagonism; Durkheim¡¯s point lies in not primarily in ¡®the problem of order¡¯ but in the changing nature of order in the context of social development.

Great Book!

Well, to sort of disagree with the previous review, I feel that this book is great for Undergrads! I, myself had the opportunity to read this book in a social theory class and have since relied upon Giddens excellent analysis of these theorists! It really helped me grasp the detailed (and often times confusing) ideas and theories of the classical theorists. After reading the book, I was able to more fully understand the actual works of these individuals. I use this book as reference guide to refer back to what Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber said.

As good an analysis as there is... even 30 years later

I'm quite surprised this hasn't been reviewed yet; it's a wonderful book. Likely not for undergrads, Giddens is able to tie together in novel ways some of the key concepts that connect the writings of Marx, Weber and Durkheim. A good deal of the book summarizes the key writings of each author-- which is useful in itself-- and supports much of the summary material with compelling quotes and citations of both the author in question, as well as others who have done secondary analyses. Giddens also devotes a few chapters to analyzing the three authors in comparison, and spends a good deal of time teasing out differences between the three that were not, for me at least, apparent right away. In other words, a solid and original analysis. Not five stars because there was less on similarities of thought between the authors than I would have liked to have seen (and no explicit comparative analysis of Weber and Durkheim, only Marx vis-a-vis the other two), but this is probably due to the fact that Marx, Weber and Durkheim diverge in so many fundamental ways. Nevertheless, truly a must read for those who want to begin to get a grip on classical western social theory in a more sophisticated fashion than what most textbooks (which this is not) might have to offer. Get it, because if it's this old and still in print in the academic world, there's a reason for it...