Thomas Hobbes

1. Introduction

In the 16th century there was no sharp difference between sciences and social sciences. In the late 18th century they are differentiated from each other (Rousseau was one of the first people wrote on this issue but they were not still separated).
Many of the founding fathers of social theory's studies are multidisciplinary.
(In Hobbes slide) Hobbes likes Thucydides because he showed why democracy doesn’t work.
(In Hobbes slide) Humans are naturally evil and an order should be imposed on them. Otherwise everyone is against each other.
(In Locke slide) He first influenced by Hobbes and after meeting Shaftesbury, he turned from conservativism to republicanism. He defended in the state of nature, men are born free and equal. There is a need for a superior, but acceptance of the authority should be voluntarily. And then, there must be a separation of powers.
The theory of law starts with Montesquieu. His major book: The Spirits of Laws. Locke noted the need of the separation of powers and named these separate powers as executive, legislative and federative. On the other hand, Montesquieu formulates is the way we used today: legislative, executive, and juridical/judicial. His second major contribution is the relation between legal systems and climatic differences (foreshadows Durkheim) (Ä°bn-i Khaldun noted this relation before him - so does Aristotle as I remember).
Rousseau's Emile is the foundation of the modern educational theory. Main point: nature is good but society corrupts, puts all bad ideas in the people's mind. The aim of education, the real education is the removal of the things what education puts on their minds: Education is the negation of education.
Rousseau on human nature: Human nature is good - Opposite to Hobbes (and Durkheim) -- and foreshadows Marx.
Rousseau on social contract: Legitimate rule must be authorized by the consent of the ruled. He is the first who advocates popular sovereignty: this is the rule by the majority of all MEN. BUT: individuals express private interests - sovereign (=the state) expresses the general will. Thus, people need a sovereign state.
(In Rousseau slide) The Professor puts a line saying "General will: foreshadows Marx", but he skips this quickly without mentioning.
Adam Smith: If you want to be an economist, you have to read The Wealth of Nations cover to cover more than once. Interestingly, his first book was on morality called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". He is usually regarded as the theorist of self-interested individual, advocate of self-regulating markets and laissez-faire capitalism, and the first "rational choice" theorist. But sympathy and the helping hand (of God) is the themes he also emphasizes. So, are these two aspects contradict (the two faces of Adam Smith) or complement each other. The main themes in The Wealth of Nations is that the best for the common good is regarding his self-interest for each individual. And the second main theme is the labour theory of value. --- "LOOK FOR THE INVISIBLE HAND"
Mill: Utilitarianism. His father James was a close friend of Bentham. Utilitarians seek pleasure and avoid pain, and their goal is maximizing the utility in the society. Mill was not this sort of utilitarian actually. He is a revisionist because he thinks there are higher values which are also utilities rather than just seeking pleasures.
Marx’Ä± saygÄ±yla geçiyoruz :) Zaman kalmadÄ±.
Nietzsche: He is the first of the post-modernists, he questions absolute rationality.
Freud
Max Weber
Emile Durkheim

2. Hobbes: Authority, Human Rights and Social Order

The question is whether should we start the modern political theory with Hobbes or not.
Hobbes was against the Aristotelian themes in universities at that time. He discovers the modern science of Galileo during a trip to France and Galileo's thoughts became influential on his theory. Hobbes studied also on sciences, especially on mathematics and optics.
He also has a good association with Francis Bacon. He was against Aristotelian logic and he asserted that truth can be arrived at only by induction, starting from sensual observations. This is the start of the modern sciences against Aristotelian method of deduction. So, we can start the modern political science with Bacon.
He learns from Galileo the resolutive-compositive method (an alternative to Bacon's inductive method): one starts reasoning with deduction (like Descartes suggested) but from there one moves to induction (as Bacon recommended)
Hobbes rejects Descartes's dualism. For Hobbes, mind (vision) can be only affected by motion of object if it is also an object.
De corpore, De homine, De cive. Many social scientists start their investigation from biology, then to the individual and then to the society. There are also many people rejecting this kind of line through establishing a theory of society.
Hobbes was the first rational choice theorist.
People should give their loyalty to an authority that can provide security. People are by nature evil, we need an all-powerful sovereign to avoid a state of war of every one against every one.
In the second "Commonwealth" part of Leviathan, Hobbes says that also the sovereign has duties, not just rights.
Main themes:
- What is human nature? *Men deliberate between appetites (desires) and aversions (fears) - act voluntarily. Choose between them and therefore acts voluntarily. The choice is made by free will. We deliberate and at the end of this deliberation, we have a will *The essence of human nature is struggle for power (it is a natural necessity for survival). There is an unending desire for power. *Men born equal: Even the weakest person has a capacity to kill the strongest one. In fact, intellectually we are even more equal than by physical. However, an unending fight comes with this equality because we desire same scarce things. Equality is seen as the reason for social conflict rather than the solution (close to Nietzsche). *War of every one against every one
- Nature and contract: Hobbes is the first of the contractarians. *State of nature: There are two basic laws of nature. I) What is harmful for you is forbidden. You have to pursue self-interest. People are self-interested and you should be self-interested. II) Not to do others what you would not want them to do to you. Many political philosophers hold this principle, such as Kant's Categorical Imperative. *In the state of nature, if all restrictions are removed, there is no civilization (We can translate this as there is no striving, no labour if there is no suffering, no limitation, no need, no desire...). *Contract: Follows from the second law of nature. Through covenants or social contracts, we put our rights aside and transfer it to others. We give up some rights and we take something back as exchange -protection, safety, or something else. This is the first formulation of the theory of social contract. Different from other philosophers' formulation, we enter into contract by fear. Therefore, it is obligatory. Just because we were forced into a contract out of fear does not mean that we can walk out of this contract whenever we want to. Then he says a former contract makes void a later contract. What does it mean? It means we cannot exit a contract we entered into. There is no exit.
- Power of the sovereign Justified: The power of the sovereign is justified as long as he delivers safety. If he doesn't, you can withdraw your obedience and loyalty from it. *Hobbes is strongly favour of absolutism. The sovereign can be one man or a properly assembled body of men. So, the royalty may not be the sovereign. However, the structure of this assembly is not clear in his writings. It is more clear in Locke and Rousseau. *Duty of the sovereign: The office of the sovereign has to procure safety of the people. However, it is not bare preservation. It is more than just survival. *What are the good laws? Good laws should not serve only the sovereign, but the good laws should serve the people.
Contributions/shortcomings: emphasis on peace/not on abuse of power; there is not theory of checks and balances; he was an apologetic theoretician of enlightenment absolutism. His theory was not acceptable by the monarchs because there are too much limitations on their power; and also not acceptable by the rising bourgeoisie class because he gives too much power to the monarchs. Nobody really liked Hobbes.

3. Locke: Equality, Freedom, Property and the Right to Dissent

In 1667 Locke wrote "The Essay on Toleration": Break from Hobbes. Now he defends the right to dissent. As we remember Hobbes also was not against all forms of dissent. However, Hobbes had a condition, a legitimate condition for dissent. It was conditional. However, Locke defines the right of dissent as an individual right.
William of Orange's (William III) becoming the king was a change from absolutism to constitutional monarchy. The Second Treatise can be read as an ideology for a constitutional monarchy.
Major themes of the Second Treatise:
- We are all born free and equal: *There are three elements, three functions of political power: i. Right to make laws, ii. Execution of law, iii. The defence of the commonwealth against outside enemies. *In order to understand the origin of political authority, we have to consider why people on earth who are perfectly free and equal in a state of nature move into civil society where they surrender some of their freedom and equality. What is the origin of this equality? He says man is not created by God for the pleasure for another. So, there is no superiority. Now, we are experiencing the transition from conservativism (Hobbes) to liberalism (Locke). Liberty asserts that freedom is the primary value. For Locke, we should respect others because we are reasonable creatures. Hobbes doesn't mention reasonability. (Actually, Hobbes bases the equality not on reason but the power of the individuals in the state of nature. On the other hand, Locke refers to equality basing on the natural rights stemming from the God -being a rational being one of them.)
- Need for and nature of common superior: *To avoid state of war is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society and quitting the state of nature. (an argument close to Hobbes) *There is a difference between the state of nature and the state of war. People enter the civil society because of the danger of war, and also for this reason people need an authority. (an argument distant from Hobbes) *Common superior has to be established by consent. *"Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to liberty, common to everyone of that society ..." The legislative power, the source of sovereign is in a proper way constituted. - The issue is not only survival, but liberty.
- Theory of property: *Man submits to power of government to protect property. *Origins of property: "God had given the world to men in common. All the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds belong to mankind in common." *Man owns his own person and fruits of his labour (This is the first formulation of the labour theory of value as we will see in Adam Smith and Karl Marx -labour belongs to the labourer, but this idea is found controversial in modern political theory and also Locke's labour mixing argument is undermined by Nozick). *Limits of private property: Something belongs to you; as how much you can actually enjoy; nothing to accumulate. The man owns what he cultivates. It is justifiable as long as there is an assumption of abundance of goods. Before, Hobbes argued people fight each other because of the scarcity of goods. With the invention of money, the accumulation of money became possible. Therefore, in order to protect property -properties are the results of our labour and Locke says almost every wealth is created by labour-, we transfer our rights to the community. The laws are settled and the powers of legislation and execution are on duty.
- Rule by majority, acceptance of authority only by consent and separation of power: The idea of the rule by majority was first formulated by John Locke. *"There will be no civil society till the legislature was placed in collective bodies of men ... call them parliament or what you please." *We need the consent of every individual who made the community in order to create legitimate rule. And once this consent is arrived, that will bound everybody. One can be subject to authority only by consent. Consent can be tacit -for next generations.
He defends the separation of legislative and executive powers. These powers should be held by different people. If they are in the hands of the same person, this is absolutism. But, federative power can be held by the executive branch.

4. Montesquieu: The Division of Powers

English philosophers Hobbes and Locke start their investigation of society from the individual (society always starts from the individual) -British individualism, methodological individualist. On the other hand, The French are methodological collectivists. There is such an entity as "society" and it is more than mere sum of individuals.
Muhtemelen Spinoza da Hobbes okumasÄ±nÄ±n etkisiyle ilk önce bireyi, duygularÄ±nÄ± inceledi ve ardÄ±ndan toplumsala yöneldi.
18th Century: Siecle de lumiere. Was an enlightenment era for the French. In this century, Louis XIV, the Sun King, declared himself as the state and he represents the characteristic of the French absolute monarchy.
"Les liaisons dangereuses" both the movie and the novel reflects the time in which Montesquieu and Rousseau came in: In a time of sexual decadence (!)
He is the first environmentalist who understand the interaction between social organizations -mores, ethics, ideas- and society (he indicated the exception of Ä°bn-i Khaldun).
Main themes:
- Classification of governments: *Before Montesquieu the question was "Who rules?" (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy); but for Montesquieu, the question is "the manner of politics" (moderate vs. despotic) *Are various powers separated? *Why people obey? Honour of ruler or fear of despot *Who rules? institutions or one person *He supports a constitutional monarchy (moderate rule).
- Separation of Powers: *Remember Locke's separation. Montesquieu's separation is legislative, executive, and juridical (that is the separation accepted today). *Three powers have to be separated. *Legislative power should be exercised by elected representatives. *Right of minority should be respected. *Legislative power cannot and should not be held by the monarchs -can be held by the monarch, but has to be limited. *Executive exercises checks over the legislature. *Checks and balances over executive branch.
- Environment and law/social structure: *Social conditions are shaped by physical environment, climate. *But also by "general spirit" -there is a kind of consciousness above the individual consciousness; Rousseau's "General Will" and Durkheim's "Collective Conscience" is similar to that idea, but assertion is powerfully made for the first time by Montesquieu. As civilization progresses "general spirit" gains importance. Similarly, some facts are above the total sum of individuals, like law. Laws stands above us in the society. For that reason, Montesquieu names his book "the Spirit of Laws". This kind of attitude is common among French collectivists like Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Durkheim -against British individualists.
Main themes in detail:
- *Three forms of government: Republican (democracy or aristocracy: the people or a subset of people have the sovereign power), monarchy (The prince is the source of all power, but it is governed by fundamental laws), despotic state (there are no fundamental laws and the despot rules by his will). *Principle of republic is virtue. *Principle of monarch is honour. *Principle of despotism is fear.
- *Republic is no guarantee of liberty, separation of powers. In the Italian republics, where powers are united, there is less liberty. *Legislative power, exercised by elected representatives. The people who have a right to vote are property owners. *In order to provide the respect to the minority, he suggests "two chambers" solution. An "upper house" for the aristocrats and a "lower house" for the popularly elected by everyone. In the U.S. every state sends two senators irrespective of the population of the state in order not to violate the rights of small states. *Executive power should be stable, and that's why he believes it is better to be in the hands of a monarch, because the government needs immediate action. *He elaborates a number of limits of legislative power: should be convened at regular intervals; should not be in session without interruption (people in the office are not permanent); should not have the right to convene itself. *Executive exercises checks over legislature (veto right of the execution). *Checks and balances over executive branch: Executive power can enact on the rising of public funds only with the consent of the legislative.
- *His emphasis on environment is peculiar. Montesquieu, Rousseau and Durkheim: That's where modern theory of society came from.
General spirit: "Many things govern man: climate, religion, laws, the maxims of government...mores and manners; a general spirit is formed as a result." There is a set of ideas which is above our individual consciousness.
Methodological collectivists vs. methodological individualists.
When civilization unfolds, the importance of climate decreases and the importance of the general spirit increases.

5. Rousseau: Popular Sovereignty and General Will

The debate between Rousseau and the greatest French composer in the French Enlightenment, Rameau: Italian Opera (the melody should have precedence over harmony) vs. French Opera (the harmony is more important. Mozart's opera Bastien und Bastienne which was inspired by Rousseau's opera Le Devin du Village.
1755 second book Discourse on the Origins of Inequality: Love leads to jealousy, which leads to inequality.
1762, two major publications: "Social Contract" and "Emile". Social Contract is the culmination of social contract theory. He introduces the notion of "general will". There is a "general will" which is well above the individuals. This idea has a degree of insights and realism, but it is also very dangerous, because totalitarian regimes very often advocated for it: "The individuals will have to be forced to be free."
Montesquieu suggested two chambers, one for the aristocracy and one for the people. On the other hand, Rousseau wanted to have one: universal suffrage (except for women). -- popular sovereignty.
Main themes of the Social Contract: *What is legitimate rule? Rule is only legitimate when it is arrived at consent. But justice has to be diluted. The word "diluted" means: The truth, what is just is restricted by the general will. The general will has a power and authority over the individual interest. General will may claim what is actually good for the individual and may claim for the sake of making the individuals free. *Popular sovereignty and the need for a convention. *Individuals express only individual interest, general will is not will of all. *Need for a lawgiver to inspire amour propre. The lawgiver regards the common good over the self-interest of the individuals. He is a methodological collectivist. *A good government means a popularly elected legislature. Executive is still in the hands of the elected aristocracy. *Need for a civil religion.
Main themes in detail:
- Legitimate rule: Legitimate rule cannot be based on natural title, must be authorized by the consent of the ruled. Family is the only natural society, but even the family maintains itself by convention.
- Transition from state of nature to civil society: Necessary. It was an exchange of instinct for morality -which was lacking previously in the state of nature. We deprive some advantages that exist in the state of nature in turn of some advantages of the civil society.
- Diluted justice: "Diluted" means "our individual sense of justice has to be overruled by the general will". A sovereign needs no guarantor, but the individuals have to be constrained. Individuals have to be constrained because they seek only their own interests. The common good has to overrule the selfish individual interest. These are different arguments from the British liberals.
- Popular sovereignty: Must be based on convention. First convention is to agree to the rule by the majority. Assembled people must pool their resources. Men are not equal by nature (different from Hobbes), they are made equal and free by convention.
- Public possession
- General will: Individuals will express private interests; sovereign expresses the general will, public interest. "The general will is represented in what we call commonwealth," the professor said. General will is not will of all: The will of all looks to private interests, and is nothing but the sum of particular wills while the general will looks only to the common interest. "What generalized the will is not so much the number of voices, as it is the common interest."
- Law and lawgiver: *We can only be free if we obey the law. Key principle: freedom under self-imposed law. *The general will cannot be wrong. *We need wise men to unite particularistic wills -wise men has to inspire "amour propre", love of the country (rather than amour de soi which is self-love).

6. Rousseau: On the State of Nature and Education

The professor says there is no educational theory except Rousseau's Emile, but what about Plato?
We talked about the general will. But there is a problem with it: If it exists, where does it come from? How we will know what the general will is? Rousseau confronts it and smart people like lawgivers, the lawgivers know what is good for the society. And then the elected parliament makes it law. He says the government knows what is good.
Emile: The transition from the state of nature to the civil society is represented as the transition from "amour de soi" to "amour propre" (propre means myself in consideration with others, soi means myself without consideration of others). He tries to achieve this transition through education.
(The other notes will be about Emile): Rousseau is the first person using the term "bourgeois" in a pejorative way: Bourgeois are the selfish businessmen who want to have money and do not have a commitment to the collectivity; who do not obey the general will but pursue selfish, narrow, economic interest.
Emile main themes: *Nature is good; society corrupts (this idea is what Marx takes from Rousseau). *Task is to turn savages into social beings, from amour de soi to amour propre. But, what makes us social is pity. *Pity and love make us social...
Main themes in detail:
- Nature is good, society corrupts: This is the opposite argument of Hobbes. He gives one theological argument to this that everything was good in the hands of God, but then corrupted in the hands of men. So, people in the state of nature, vice and error are alien to the child. Here, he emphasizes the difference between "training" and "education". This man spoiling every good thing should be trained. Simply to giving skills and telling them how to do things is training. Education is the process in which we force you to think on your own.
- Fear of death is not natural: Rousseau agrees with Hobbes: man is driven by fear of death, but it is not natural. Animal accepts death. Philosophers, doctors, and priests implanted the fear of death into us.
- Negative education: The fear of that is the reason why we need negative education. The task of education is not to tell you what the truth is. But, to help your brain operate sufficiently to tell what is an error and to figure out when you are making an error.
- No commands: Giving commands is not what the educators should do. Don't create guilt but, on the other hand, tell people what is necessary, what are the limitations of your action. Emphasize what you are capable of doing.
- Turning savages into social beings: from amour de soi to amour propre. Everyone regards self-interest, but then they recognize they are living with people regarding their self-interests too.
- The three principles of sociality:
  - (I) The first maxim: We can feel pity for the people who are in a worse situation than us.
  - (II) The second maxim: We can feel pity for the people only who are suffering from a situation that we may possibly suffer from the same too.
  - (III) The third maxim: The pity we feel for another person is not measured by the quantity, but by the sentiment which one attributes to those who suffer it.
- Compassion and pity: *... *It is man's weakness which makes him sociable; it is our common miseries which turn our hearts to humanity...
- Citizen and bourgeois: *"Rousseau wanted to remake the world in Sparta's image, to replace enlightened self-interest with virtue. Everyman would be like the Spartan Pedaretus. This Pedaretus, Rousseau says in "Emile," ran for Sparta's governing council of 300 and lost. But he went home elated that there were 300 men worthier than he. This, Rousseau concludes, is the male citizen. And the female citizen? She would be like the Spartan woman who, after hearing that she has lost her five sons in battle, 'runs to the temple and gives thanks to the gods.'" (I copied from https://www.nysun.com/arts/thermopylae-round-one-in-the-clash/44526/) *"He who in the civil order wants to preserve the primacy of the sentiments of nature does not know what he wants. Always in contradiction with himself, always floating between his inclinations and his duties, he will never be either [natural] man or citizen ... He will be ... a bourgeois. He will be nothing." (p. 40 from Emile)
- Men and women, sexuality and love: *Civilization becomes culture, when sex is sublimated, bodily desire is turned into imagination (Freud?) *Enlightenment demythologized the world, deprived from its meaning, world became un-erotic, un-poetic (Weber's disenchantment?)
- The three stages how love develops: Wonderful but out of context for me before comprehensive exam:)
- Male-female differences in education: Men and women are different (biology) and similar (social).
- Men-women differences: There are sexist quotations along with (can be interpreted as) feminist quotations in Rousseau's works.

7. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill: The Invisible Hand; Utilitarianism and Liberty

::: Adam Smith

Is there a contradiction between his two major works? Self-interested individual and "rational choice" theory, laissez-faire capitalism (self-interest will lead to the common good) VS. His book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" is a book about "sympathy" and the "helping hand"
The Theory of Moral Sentiments: *Central question: How can we make moral judgments? There is an inner man, impartial spectator in us, who can judge others and ourselves. Our actions are led by passion and by sympathy (not by fear like Hobbes). This idea on sympathy is not inconsistent with the idea of the common good. We do good to be regarded as good and this serves for the common good. We understand other people through sympathy and considering our individual good drives to the common good. "But we are led by the 'invisible hand' of God which reconciles this dualism [between passion and sympathy]." The concept of the "invisible hand" is used in The Wealth of Nations only three times and it is in a different meaning in each of these usages. The meaning we should understand is used in a meaning which mentions about international free trade. And this is the context in which he is using the invisible hand in the meaning we generally use today.
The Wealth of Nations: *Self-interest and the common good. *In interaction with others, do not expect benevolence: He says all of our relations are based on self-interest, not only market relations. However, according to the professor, it is not quite right. I don't want to be in a cost-benefit relation with my children, as a father for example. *Self-interested choice of employment is advantageous for the society. *Individuals better judge of their own interests than any statement or lawgiver.
Labour theory of value: *Labour is the measure of value (coming from Locke). Marx radicalizes this idea, but he takes it from Smith. *The whole produce belongs to the labourer (Marx completely agrees with him the professor says). *But, where does profit and rent come from? From the labour put on it.
Bu konu tartÄ±ÅŸmalÄ± (Kymlicka'dan hatÄ±rla). Pekiyi üreticinin kendisi tamamen kendine mi aittir? AyrÄ±ca, Marx, zenginliÄŸin kaynaÄŸÄ±nÄ±n sadece emek olmadÄ±ÄŸÄ±nÄ± da belirtiyordu.
Marx and Smith differ in a dramatic way at one point: Marx thinks the product of labour belongs to the labourer. On the other hand, Smith argues that this kind of appropriation is not possible in capitalism which allows capital accumulation and private ownership. So, this argument is valid only for ancient societies. Why? Because profit and rent come from the distribution of value between labour, capital, and rent. The capitalist advances capital to the labourer, takes risks of investment, supervises the production process etc. Therefore, he should claim some profit from capital, otherwise would be a fool not to advance its capital. The same goes for land.
The three concepts of the "invisible hand": *Smith uses the term only three times in his writings: (i) In the Theory of Moral Sentiments (Extols God along with love and benevolence), (ii) In the Wealth of Nations (expels God and emphasizes self-interest), (iii) In the History of Astronomy (beliefs by superstitious savages)

::: John Stuart Mill (and before Jeremy Bentham)

Bentham's theory: *Human beings are created to seek pleasure and avoid pain. The greatest happiness can be achieved through min. pain and max. pleasure. An action is right if it leads us to happiness. *A right action can be quantified as [(sum of pleasures-sum of pains) X the number of people affected] *"Utility is that principle which approves or disapproves of every action ... to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question... By utility is meant that property ... whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness."
Mill was tutored by Jeremy Bentham and his father James Mill. He is the first person using the word "utilitarianism". His relationship with Harriet Taylor made him a kind feminist and he advocated female suffrage in the parliament.
Mill's major contributions: *Re-defines utilitarianism in broader terms. There is "higher happiness", and utility is more than expediency: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides” (Utilitarianism, Mill). (He re-evaluated the cold air of utilitarianism with warmer sentiments we may say. He tries to become distant from the technical understanding of utilitarianism) (From "Utilitarianism") *Individual freedom is the ultimate value - expediency cannot justify intervention against individual liberty. Freedom of speech and expression are ultimate examples. (From "On Liberty") *Women's legal situation resembles those of slaves (or is even worse) (From "Subjection of Women")
From Wikipedia: "Mill defines the difference between higher and lower forms of pleasure with the principle that those who have experienced both tend to prefer one over the other. This is, perhaps, in direct contrast with Bentham's statement that 'Quantity of pleasure being equal, push-pin is as good as poetry', that, if a simple child's game like hopscotch causes more pleasure to more people than a night at the opera house, it is more imperative upon a society to devote more resources to propagating hopscotch than running opera houses. Mill's argument is that the 'simple pleasures' tend to be preferred by people who have no experience with high art, and are therefore not in a proper position to judge. Mill also argues that people who, for example, are noble or practice philosophy, benefit society more than those who engage in individualist practices for pleasure, which are lower forms of happiness. It is not the agent's own greatest happiness that matters 'but the greatest amount of happiness altogether'."
!!! "Expediency" konusunu anlamadÄ±m. Tekrar bakmam lazÄ±m. EÄŸer benim anladÄ±ÄŸÄ±m gibiyse (salt faydaya iliÅŸkin eylemler ahlâkÄ± gerekçelendirmez), ÅŸu ana kadar bildiÄŸim utilitarianism görüÅŸüyle çeliÅŸiyor.
Mill: Utilitarianism (main themes): *Higher happiness: human beings have faculties more elevated than animal appetites. *There is a difference between justice and legality. Notion of justice is broader than legality. *Justice is not mere expediency, it involves sympathy (we remember sympathy from Smith)

8. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill: The Invisible Hand; Utilitarianism and Liberty

::: John Stuart Mill (cont'd)

The idea that not simply quantity, but the quality of happiness is what we seek is only touched by Smith, completely missing in Bentham. Mill's contribution is very important for also economic theory.
Different from animals, we have higher appetites: we have imagination, moral sentiments. There are qualitatively difference between human and animal appetites. Therefore, Bentham's theory of adding all appetites to the sum is not appropriate. The chief good, Mill argues, is virtue.
Theme 1 - On higher happiness:
- Quality of pleasures: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." (p.10)
Theme 2 - Justice and legality: *The professor says (he feels pleasure by giving such examples) "Communist government confiscated property from people, and they did it legally, but J.S. Mill will say they did it unjustly." *There are laws which does not exist, but ought to exist. *There are laws which exist, but ought not to exist (unjust laws). *Justice is required by law and reinforced by moral considerations.
- Justice, equality: According to Mill, in some sense justice is related to equality and some degree of inequality is unjust even if it is gained legally.
- The five components of justice: (i) It is unjust to deprive anyone of his personal liberty and property (this is the most important point in J.S. Mill), (ii) Legal right is deprived, may be rights which ought not to have belonged to him, (iii) Each person should obtain ... what he deserves [even if it is not guaranteed by existing laws], (iv) It is unjust to break faith (breaking a promise we gave), (v) Justice cannot be partial.
Theme 3 - Justice and expediency: What is expedient is not necessarily just. Expedient is if you reach that goal with minimum effort, but you occasionally you don't -you better not make shortcuts; making those shortcuts may be unjust and unfair.
Sympathy: Human beings are capable of sympathizing with all human.
The previous notes were on the book "Utilitarianism". Now we are studying "On Liberty": While Bentham emphasized pleasure, Mill emphasized self-development. We have to, in our lifetime, develop our capacities.
Theme 1 - Freedom: *Freedom should not be taken for granted. When the rulers are identified with the people, it does not guarantee freedom = can lead to the tyranny by the majority. Individual decides for his higher pleasures. Minorities may have different preferences and the others should respect. Only you can decide what is worse for you and nobody else can decide. *Individual liberty should take precedence over short-term utilitarian considerations. *Freedom of expression is crucial. Because if an opinion, which is suppressed right, we lose the opportunity to exchange truth for error; if opinion is wrong, we lose the opportunity to fully understand truth by contrasting it with error. Listen to both sides. That is the only way how we find out what the truth is and it undermines prejudices.
Kant has brought a similar idea (in continental philosophy) by the discussion in public realm, I think.
- Tyranny by the majority: One of the major evils of a mass democratic society.
Theme 2 - Individuality: Conformity in our times is moral repression and we have to resist it. We have to defend individual liberties. We have to fight against intervention. Intervention (by the government) is only permissible if injutice has taken place.
- Interference is only valid for self-protection.
The Subjection of Women (1869) - Main themes: *Marriage is the only remaining example of slavery. (Not only the obedience what men want, but also their love) *Subjection of women cannot be explained with the nature of women. (Different from Rousseau) *Argues for the legal equality in marriage. *Argues for the equality for women in politics, education, and jobs. *The case for marital friendship (Mill says "I still believe in marriage because marriage can be based on equality of partners.").

9. Marx: Theory of Alienation

Marx's father was an enlightenment man.
Critical theory is the theory which believes that the major task of philosophy, to subject human consciousness to critical scrutiny -that there is some discrepancy between human consciousness and the human condition. Kant believes that the concepts we develop cannot fit the world. Kant was an agnostic; he thought we cannot develop concepts which can capture the world. Hegel believed that through his philosophy, alienation can be overcome. There is a controversy about who is the first critical theorist: Kant or Hegel. "So you bring together the critical theory of Hegel and the Young Hegelians, radical critical theory [critical critics], and naturalism of Feuerbach, eventually pushing it further ...
The Epistemological Break: *April 1845: "Theses on Feuerbach" -the first statement of "historical materialism" *1845-1846: "The German Ideology"- when Marx turns from Hegelian idealism to historical materialism is now complete.
Now, on alienation... Proletariat is the universal point of view (instead of Hegel's civil servants who generates the universal class) because proletariat is the ultimate of alienation and they are the people who has interest the most in overcoming alienation. *Re-interpretation of Hegel: "Alienation does not come from ideas, it comes out of material conditions of the nature of capitalist economy. ... Hegel wanted to overcome the alienation in thought. Alienation was a problem of the state of consciousness. ... And when emerges alienation? When labour is becoming a commodity and when profit drives the economy; that's when we enter the state of alienation."
Smith: commodity producing commercial societies, Marx: the capitalist mode of production.
The four dimensions of alienation: (1) Alienation from the object of production, (2) In the act of production, (3) Alienated from species being, (4) Alienation from fellow men.
Marx'Ä±n türsel varlÄ±k konusunda insan-hayvan arasÄ±nda bir ayrÄ±m yaptÄ±ÄŸÄ±nÄ± ancak böyle katÄ± bir ayrÄ±mÄ±n yapÄ±lamayacaÄŸÄ±nÄ±, insan ile hayvanlarÄ±n oluÅŸlarÄ± arasÄ±nda, özellikle evrimle birlikte bir iliÅŸki olduÄŸunu, niteliksel ve keskin farklar olmadÄ±ÄŸÄ±nÄ± söyleyen kuramlara karÅŸÄ± "hayvan olma durumu"nun fizyolojik bir oluÅŸtan ziyade geliÅŸkin canlÄ±larÄ±n refahÄ±na yönelik bir kriter olduÄŸunu, dolayÄ±sÄ±yla tekil hayvanlarla karÅŸÄ±laÅŸtÄ±rmaktan ziyade "insanlÄ±k dÄ±ÅŸÄ± bir durum" olarak "hayvan olma"ya göndermede bulunulabilir.
"That's when you are alienated, when you're becoming an object rather than a human being." (Kant ile benzer burada)

10. Marx: Theory of Historical Materialism (1)

Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt is a play in the sense of alienation. There is literature in the sense of alienation, under the impact of alienation, and about alienation in the 20th century. There is no 20th century social theory without the theory of alienation (Kymlicka ise sosyal adalete nazaran yabancÄ±laÅŸmanÄ±n o kadar da önemli olmayabileceÄŸini iddia ediyordu). There is no Lukacs, no Frankfurt School, there is no cultural theory, no Baumann, no Kolakowski without the theory of alienation. But the professor says Marx gives up the theory of alienation with the second -the materialist- Marx.
(quote) What about "On the Jewish Question", what is at stake? Bruno Bauer wrote a paper on the origins of anti-Semitism, and he said, "We have anti-Semitism in Germany because the state is Christian, and as long as the state is Christian it will discriminate against the Jews. So the solution is to separate the state and the church, to have political emancipation. Right? And if we have political emancipation, we abolish anti-Semitism." Now Marx takes his point here and he said, "Look, this guy is completely wrong. Look at the United States, the church and the state are separated, and in the nineteenth century there was quite a bit of anti-Semitism in the United States." ... And Marx said, "Where does come like racism come from?" He said it comes from, what he said, civil society. He doesn't have the notion of capitalism. He said this is rooted in people's everyday experience and interest. Right? Anti-Semitism comes from civil society because some people feel threatened by the Jews. Why is there, you know, anti-African American feelings? Because some people feel threatened by African Americans. Right? And this is why there is racism. So you have to fix the problems in civil society. The problem is in civil society, not in the state. Therefore, what you need is universal emancipation. That's the bottom line of "On the Jewish Question." (/quote)
(quote) And he said, "Once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked"--that's what Feuerbach did. Right? He did show that alienation is our--we're projecting our alienation by creating God. Right? He said, "Now the task is to unmask self-estrangement or alienation in its unholy form." Right? In the everyday life--in your everyday experience--especially in your economic activities. That is the point what he tries to make. (/quote)
At 11:45, he says Marx's aim is the conceptualization of modernity. The modern life is the time in which subject and object are separated. City life is like this, but peasant in a village is not separated from the objective conditions of his existence, because it was bound to the earth, so do slaves [I am not sure... but crucial for my PhD project!!!]. "So the unique -this is Marx, this is not Hegel anymore- the unique feature of alienation, that you have this separation from subject and object in modern conditions."
Marx developed his idea of alienation in 1844 Manuscripts, but he doesn't publish it because he doesn't believe it is persuasive. No one believes that the working-class will fight behind the barricades and bring an unalienated world. He needs further ideas to convince people. Then, this is the cornerstone for Marx. The young Marx ends here. Then he develops his theory of exploitation.
Videonun sonunda 11. Tez'in yanlÄ±ÅŸ olduÄŸunu söylüyor ancak gerekçelendirmesini yapmÄ±yor.

11. Marx: Theory of Historical Materialism (2)

I won't take detailed notes on Marx...
Marx dedicated Das Kapital to Darwin, because he started to see himself as the Darwin of Social sciences explaining the evolution of human societies. Marx was really influenced by scientific reasoning. Anyway, he didn't become a social Darwinist.
In the first chapter of The German Ideology, Marx talks on Feuerbach but in a strictly materialist way and gets out of the voluntaristic element in the theses. He puts the elements of the new materialism which he calls "historical materialism", and staying away from the word "dialectical".
The revolutionary idea in The German Ideology: it is not the matter what we produce, but the modes of production: how we produce.
"The various stages of development in the division of labour are just so many forms of property, i.e. the existing stage in the division of labour determines also the relations of individuals to one another.": *The first form of property is tribal property, *The second form is the ancient communal or state property... *The third form is feudal property. *The rest of the page is left blank: Marx cannot here develop the fourth "mode of production": capitalism.
In the German Ideology, the 5th chapter is about "Sociology of knowledge". The themes are: *Life determines consciousness: Reductionist. Not only our economic interests determine our choices. For example, Freud... *(The professor says this is completely wrong) Ruling class always determines the ruling ideas of each people.

12. Marx: Theory of History

In The German Ideology: history is driven by increasing division of labour (Adam Smith); in Grundrisse: history is a movement towards private ownership, gradual separation of labouring subject and objective conditions of labour (bringing theory of alienation back)
In The German Ideology: A uni-linear trajectory of history; in Grundrisse: a multi-linear trajectory of history.
Even though the meaning of dialectics is not clear to Marx (professor says), we name a relation dialectical when there is not simply (one-way) determination, but a two-ways relation, a feedback loop.
In The German Ideology, he bases the relations among the nations to the division of labour. Property relations also change but these changing property relations are simply the outcomes of the changing division of labour. "If I understand the level of division of labour, I will understand property relationships as well." And Ossowski, a sociologist from Poland re-read the Ideology in 1950s and argued that it is not property relations which is crucial, but the division of labour, that is determining social life. This is what Marx tells us in the German Ideology. According to Ossowski, the improper division of labour creates inequalities in the Soviets, and that's why the abolishment of the private property didn't solve the problem of inequality.
The first mode of production: tribalism; the second mode of production: slavery; the third mode of production: feudalism; ... Did the division of labour increase from slavery to feudalism? No, the division of labour decreased. Renaissance was far greater than the Middle Ages, or Greeks and Rome, they had high level of technologies, this was all forgotten in the Middle Ages. Many people think Middle Ages was a step backwards. Marx didn't know what to do with it and abandoned with this idea and the manuscript. He said, well, the theory doesn't work and I cannot explain the development in history with the division of labour. The forth mode of production: capitalism.
New contributions in Grundrisse:
- Evolution of modes of production: change in property relations. (division of labour is abandoned)
- Private ownership is defined as a complete separation of labouring subject and objective conditions of labour: alienation.
- Transition to capitalism: separation of workers and the conditions of work.
- After tribalism there are various routes societies can take: Antiquity, the Asiatic mode, the Slavic form, the Germanic form. (multi-linearity) Rather than talking about modes of production, Marx, in the Grundrisse, is writing about social formations, or economic formations.
Bu video aÅŸÄ±rÄ± yoÄŸundu ve kafamÄ± allak bullak etti. O nedenle not alamadÄ±m... Tekrar tekrar izlemek lazÄ±m ve bizim bu coÄŸrafyada sürekli tartÄ±ÅŸtÄ±ÄŸÄ±mÄ±z, hatta bilmediÄŸimiz birçok ÅŸey BatÄ±'da çoktan tartÄ±ÅŸÄ±lmÄ±ÅŸ ve ders konusu olmuÅŸ. Biz çok gerideyiz…

13. Marx: Theory of Class and Exploitation

Labour theory of value: Marx follows the lines of Locke and Smith. Locke says the value of a thing is labour and all the useful things in the world are the products of labour. Actually he says that 90% of them are the products of labour, but he doesn't give any clue for how he comes up with this idea. Smith also says that labour creates value: "All value is created by labour." Adam Smith calls it "labour theory of value". But, when it comes to the distribution of wealth or income, he distributes it between three factors of production: labour, capital, land; wages, profit, rent.
(quote) I just suggested that, in fact, there are still people, scholars, who are seriously interested in the theory of exploitation today. They usually abandon the labour theory of value. I have not met yet an economist or political economist, or even a sociologist or political scientist, who still believes in the labour theory of value. Right? So now therefore when they try to construct a theory of exploitation, it is more around the theory of rent, rather than labour theory of value. (/quote)
In the parts where he talks about alienation, he says alienation is unique for the capitalist mode of production. Assume he is right. At the end of this video (at 40.31), he says that the statement "All history is the history of class struggles," is wrong according to both Marx's theory of exploitation and empirically. First, he says it doesn't fit the theory of exploitation: (quote) If exploitation is unique for a capitalist mode of production, reasonably you can talk only about classes in a capitalist mode of production where the labour power is free in the dual sense of the term--legally free and freed from the means of production and therefore has to sell its labour power. Right? If this does not exist, you should not use the term of classes. So this is a contradiction in Marx's own analysis. (/quote) But, why exploitation is unique for the capitalist mode of production? In other modes of production, extra work was also exploitation. Is he using the Weberian conception of class and is he confused about the difference between alienation and exploitation?

14. Nietzsche: Power, Knowledge and Morality

There are many similarities between Nietzsche, Freud and Max Weber. They depart from Marx, from his economic reductionism, simply to say. Actually Marx criticizes modernity, and these people emphasize that modernity is not so much in the economic system; it is much more in terms of power and consciousness. The problem of modernity is repression. The problem of modern life is we internalize the reasons for our own subjugation. Nietzsche (and the other two) tries to figure out how to liberate ourselves from this internalized subjugation. Why do we obey the rules? Why do we accept our subjugation? They think the problem is in us. They are really post-modern in this sense.
From Marx to Nietzsche, Freud and Weber: From economy to power and domination. However, there is a continuity of these writers with Marx: (Differently, there is no vantage point -of a good society- in Nietzsche) (Differently, instead of the activity of production, Freud offers a criticism of consciousness by confronting us with our repressed sexual experiences in our earlier life - in Marx, this sensuous activity is production, it is economic activity, for Freud, it is sexual experiences) All of them are critical theorists.
Parsifal - Wagner's anti-Semitist opera
In the Birth of the Tragedy (1872), Nietzsche, he saw life as a constant struggle between Dionysian and Apollonian principles: emotions and passion vs. reason. This is a confrontation to Enlightenment and its excessive rationalism: Post-modernism.
In the book he contrasts the Enlightenment with Greek civilization. While Greek civilization offered harmony between the two principles, Enlightenment represents the Apollonian principle won over the Dionysian.
Human, All Too Human (1879): *The book was dedicated to Voltaire and it is a strong statement for the "free thinkers" (later to be called the Übermensch). *This is also a break with Romanticism. Takes his point of departure from Rée's criticism of the Christian idea of good and evil and frame the problems for The Genealogy of Morals which goes well beyond Rée.
Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885): *The book is a fundamental attack on Judeo-Christian morality, what he found "repressive" and who offers a middle way between repressive morality and nihilism. *Zarathustra is regarded as the "first immoralist". *Humans are only a transitory stage between apes and Übermensch -who will achieve self-mastery and will become self-directed and overcomes the "eternal return". *Activity against passivity -in this sense he is also against Buddhism and its passivity.
Genealogy of Morality (1887): *Genealogical method: Critique of good and evil by comparison and without taking a stand. *Critical theory: "We are unknown to ourselves, we knowers: and with good reason. We have never looked at ourselves." (p.3) "The value of these values should be subjected to critical scrutiny itself.": Critique of moral values. *The different origins of good/bad and good/evil: It is coming from a master race; a master race which saw itself as good and defined those who were subjected to its rule as bad. On the other hand, priests against aristocrats, or Greeks: Hatred of those who have power are seen by the powerless as evil -not simply as bad, but as evil. *Slave morality and ressentiment: The slave revolt of moralities, he said, begins with the Jewish revolt. Actually, this is not anti-Semitism, but anti-Christian morality. Ressentiment: Seeing the enemy not simply as bad, but as evil. *An ultimate value is not needed to be critical of false ideas and lies. Get truth; and the ideal is the person who can fulfil itself in the world, and conquer the world as such.

15. Freud: Sexuality and Civilization

(Nietzsche first) What is genealogical method? What is Nietzsche's new approach? "In the genealogical method you will take an ideal and a moral principle, what you think is the right idea, and then he will show that one can think about this idea differently; and historically they did think differently. [show the transitions of values by going back to history] But to do it consistently, he really should be claiming that going back to the antiquity I am not suggesting that the good in antiquity was the real good. It's just a comparative study, which relativizes the idea of good in your mind today, to make you aware that good has been thought about differently in different times. [All the values] are manufactured in the workshop of ideals. And this workshop of ideals is a dark place where actually coercion, torture, is being used to manufacture these seemingly great ideas." Nietzsche agrees with Marx about alienation. We are alien in this world and we do not have power over our life. External conditions act like as if it were nature, a thunderstorm, and determines our life. He agrees with this diagnosis ... of modernity. His problem with Marx is that Marx comes to a solution. [...] This is a radicalization of critical theory. Critical theory -we talked about this, from Hegel to Marx- was a critique of consciousness; that what is in our mind is a distortion of the reality." On the other hand, Nietzsche tries to show the shortcomings of our consciousness without showing what is the right consciousness.
His struggle is similar to Nietzsche's. He sees modern civilization as repression, but he doesn't want to reject the civilization completely (unlike Nietzsche). [Tabi bu gerilimi yaÅŸarken sorunu bulmak için kaçabileceÄŸi tek yer birey olmuÅŸ olabilir.]
Psychoanalysis: In his sessions, Freud was using hypnotic method. His later partner Joseph Breuer was using another method called "the talking cure". Then he invented psychoanalysis. The essence of psychoanalyst is that you don't solve the problem for the patient. The patient has to find his own solution. It brings the problem from subconscious to the conscious.
After a few books, he published the book Totem and Taboo. This is a book investigating social psychology. It is about the origins of a fairly primitive society -the transformation from a kinship network to a tribal, larger tribal society. He explains the origins of first complex society as brothers come together and they kill their father. The father represents the absolute power and he believes that in this kind of kinship-based societies, there was even no incest taboo. The father could have sex with his daughters. Now, brothers come together, kill the father, and they create the first civilization. They begin to repress desires and share power among themselves.
The Ego and Id (1923): The elements of subconscious or unconscious and conscious are not sufficient to understand human consciousness. He suggests the three component of perception system (Pcpt): Id, ego, superego. What is the interaction between these three.
Pcpt: Subconscious is formed by repression. The desires which are prohibited, unwanted and unpleasant experiences are pushed into the subconscious. "Here unconscious coincides with latent and capable of becoming conscious." (pp.4-5) "All that is repressed is Ucs, but not all that is Ucs is repressed." (p.9) Which is Ucs only descriptively, not dynamically -because dynamically means repressed, but there is an element of subconscious which is there only descriptively-, he calls "pre-consciousness". It was never in the conscious. Id = repressed unconscious § preconscious (bu formülasyon birazdan hatalÄ± çÄ±kacak ama derste söylediÄŸi bu). "In each individual there is a coherent organization of the mental process; and we call this his ego." It is to this ego that consciousness is attached: ego = consciousness. It is also a mental agency. And repression is ego's act. The therapy is to try to bring into the ego what was unconscious and what was repressed. But, some of the unconscious is not repressed: This is Id (or some part of Id) (for example our sexual drives). Then he says the Id is that unconscious, but not repressed (So, is this repressed unconscious a part of Id or not?) or a combination of repressed and preconscious (now he said something different from the former one...). An analogy: The relation between Ego and Id is like a horseman on the horse; horse has its own drive to go, but the horseman on his back controls and drives it. Super-ego is part residue of earlier object choices of the Id, but it represents an energetic reaction formation against those choices." (p.30) "It is what tells you what you should be, not what you are [ego tells you what you are]." The super-ego represents social values and thus Freud evades the criticism that say psychoanalysis does not regard social values and only focuses on individual sexual practices.
The two classes of instincts: libido (sexual desire and desire to live and to survive, self-preservation) and death (Thanatos). There is a struggle between these two.
Civilization and Discontent (1930): *Religion is a mass-delusion. *Sources of unhappiness and suffering: discontent with civilization. *Development of civilization: towards "better control over the external world and towards a further extension of the number of people included in the community [more effective control of the few over the many]" (p.56) *Tendency of civilization to restrict sexual life.
"I am not suggesting the superego is not necessary --superego is necessary-- but I'm concerned about the superego to be tyrannical. And let's try to find a middle way in which let's not be naive. The Id gives bad impulses and they have to be controlled by the superego, but the superego can go too far and too much. So, kind of tries to walk a narrow way between Marx and Nietzsche."

16. Weber: Protestanism and Capitalism

Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and Weber are all critical theorists. There are also differences among them. Marx and Freud are very similar. Both depend on our material sensual experiences. Both are materialists. Marx is a reductionist in this point because he reduces sensuous experience to the economy only. And he has an ideal world which is good in his mind. He has answers. On the other hand, Freud does not quite have answers to us. He has a tensious relationship with the civilization. Nietzsche and Weber depart from the idea of depending on sensuous experiences for the scrutiny of our consciousness. Their central concern is power and domination -they probably reach back all the way to Hobbes. Nietzsche shows us how most of our values are manufactured by coercion in the workshop of ideals. Nietzsche and Weber: Our bodies may not be tortured in our civilization anymore, but our souls are kept hostage.
The last work: Economy and Society: *Power + Legitimacy = Domination *Three major types of domination in history: traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational. Different from Marx is "that social history not describes subsequent modes of production, but different types of domination."
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1903-04): *At that time Marxism was the prominent intellectual ideology in Germany (The Second International and Social Democratic Party of Germany), and Weber was trying to challenge Marxism. This book was his first attempt against Marxism. *The Marx-Weber Debate: (i) Marx advocates historical materialism and its evolutions, but Weber says not only modes of production, but also ideas matter too in the formation of history. (ii) Human motivation is the economic interest for Marx, but Weber says not just economic interest, but also tradition and values form human motivation too. (iii) History cannot be described as subsequent modes of production. What changes is the nature of power...different types of authority. (iv) Class: For Weber, class is not based on property relationship. And also he says class is a new phenomenon, it emerges only in modernity, in market economies.
Major themes in The Protestant Ethic:
- Empirical evidence of correlation between capitalism and Protestantism: *No proof of causality. A prima facie argument, there is no proof and reasonable relation. *This part is the weakest part of the book.
- What is the Spirit of capitalism: *Greed turned into ethical imperative: Acc. to professor, Marx does not explain the motivation for the original motivation for capital accumulation. For Weber, accumulation is unique for capitalism and modernity because greed to become rich, became an ethical imperative. And also you become rich in order to create jobs for others. *Rationalism and calculation: This is also unique to modernity -like double bookkeeping. So, the rational economic calculation is the key for capitalist spirit.
- Luther's conception of calling: *You have a call from God and you should not be passive -asceticism- in this worldly life, but active, working and living, Luther says. However, Lutherianism is too conservative for capitalism and Calvinism is needed. In Calvinism, magic is eliminated and religion is rationalized. Even, they do not have the pictures of saints in their churches.
- The religious foundation of worldly asceticism: Maybe the biggest invention of Calvinism is pre-destination. Everything in our life is previously determined by God before we are born. There is no change or intervention after we born. Calvin tries to remove every elements of magic in this worldly existence. And also, they were against collecting money from the worshippers to sell the heaven... However, they say, if you want to know whether you will go the heaven or to the hell, work hard, show your love to God and go to heaven: Labouring rather than buying.
- Asceticism and the spirit of capitalism: *Modernity created an iron cage, and we are working actually because we are forced to work hard.
(quote) This is a very important quotation; keep it and it will be helpful for you to understand the importance difference between Marx and Weber. he said, "Look, but don't misunderstand me. I don't want to substitute a one-sided materialist explanation of history, what Marx offers, with a one-sided idealist history. I'm not suggesting that capitalism came out of Calvinism. All what I'm suggesting, there has been an independent change in theological teaching, from Medieval Catholicism to Reformation. It was a rationalization of religious thinking: the loss of magic, the rationalism, the teaching of predestination. And if this would not have happened, capitalist institutions would not have been able to develop." Not that they caused the emergence of capitalist institutions; there was also an evolution of the economic systems. The material change happened in one line, and the change in the sphere of ideas happened in another line. And what he said, "There is an elective affinity between the two." If you have the proper ideas, and the proper economic institution, bingo--right?-- then the change happens; then you have modern capitalism. If you don't have the right ideas, like Calvinism--he said, "Like in China in the twelfth century everybody, everything was ready for capitalism. It did not happen because the Confucian and Taoist ideas at that time did not give the ideological framing which would have helped the development of capitalism in China, and that's why China was held back." Right? Calvinism, you know, rationalization of ideas could happen, but if there are no economic conditions for capitalism, it will not happen either. So this is the idea of elective affinity. He rejects a simple causal relationship between ideas and material conditions, and he substitutes it, we would say today, an interactive effect. Right? There is an interaction between ideas and material conditions. He calls it elective affinity, as such. (/quote)
Elective affinity A term used by Max Weber to describe the relationship between Protestantism and capitalism (in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905). It refers to the resonance or coherence between aspects of the teachings of Protestantism and of the capitalist enterprise, notably the ethos of the latter. The relationship was unconscious so far as the actors involved were concerned. The concept has remained firmly tied to Weber's work although it has been used loosely by other sociologists, often in situations where it seems likely that there is an association between certain variables, but it is not yet clear what form this connection might take. A more modern way of describing the situation to which the concept applies might be in terms of the connections between beliefs, actions, and the unintended consequences of action. (see R. H. Howe, ‘Max Weber's Elective Affinities’, American Journal of Sociology, 1978.) ("elective affinity." A Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved November 14, 2018 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/elective-affinity

17. Weber: Conceptual Foundations of Weber's Theory of Domination

For Freud, civilization is coming from repression, but it is still sublimation, and the most beautiful things in human society (art and science) are coming from this sublimation.
Marx's historical materialism: Habermas says "Marx in the Theses on Feuerbach got it right when he said that the real point of departure is sensuous human activity." When Habermas was writing this, he was a materialist, but he is not a materialist any longer. "Materialism is what you get from through your sense, not through your ideas." But he says Marx made a mistake; the reduced sensuous human activity to the economy, and to production. Freud has a different kind of sensuous human activity: between people and sexual relationships -we can call it sexual reductionism.
Marx: It is existence which determines consciousness; Weber: It is consciousness which determines existence. This is his argument it the Protestant Ethic.
Weber does not give an explicit view on the human nature but he is close to Hobbes. He believes that the history of humankind is a struggle for power; an un-ending struggle for power, and that's why he explains human history with power struggles.
Economy and Society, Volume I-II (1914-20):
- The four types of social action: How can we interact with each other? Weber tries to understand (Verstehen) the motivations of human action without employing any value judgement. This is interpretative sociology.
  - (i) Instrumentally rational action: We use somebody in order to achieve something. When the end, the means are all rationally taken into account and weighted. Maximizing the utility.
  - (ii) Value-rational action: If somebody says, "This value is so important for me that I don't care what is the price I will have to pay for it." No one can say this kind of action is irrational.
  - (iii) Affectual orientation: That you are led by your emotions. Sometimes rational and sometimes irrational; but justified in both cases.
  - (iv) Traditional orientation: When you act out of tradition.
- Rationality
  - (i) Weber's definition of rationality: to substitute unthinking acceptance of a situation and not thought out out, spontaneous reactions, to deliberate adaptation. "So when you are conscious about what you are doing, then you are acting rationally."
  - (ii) 36:31 mins.
  - (iii) 37:31 mins.
- Power and Domination: *"Power (Macht) is the probability that one actor within the social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance..." *"Domination (Herrschaft) is the probability that a command ... will be obeyed." (p.53) *Domination = power + legitimacy
- Legitimacy: "Every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance, that is, an interest...in obedience..." *Every privileged group, the people who are in power, are developing a myth of their superiority; a myth that is useful for you to obey. So the essence of legitimacy is that it has a certain --expects you to believe in the reasons what those in position of power try to justify their power. It is not really true, you just internalize your own submission to the authority. *Weber's view of legitimacy is different from the contemporary usage of the word: It's not universal suffrage and free and fair elections, what makes the legitimate. But the thing what makes the ruler legitimate is being capable to develop mythologies, to justify that you better obey the orders, what is given to you because you have some interest to do what is wanted from you, and you believe it is better for you to obey.
- Types of domination (authority): Marx understands history basing on economy. Weber is a Hobbesian or Nietzschean. He understands society and history basing on struggle for power. You have to understand origins of power and how power sublimated to domination. So it is not modes of production what describes the evolution of history, but types of domination describes:
  - (i) Legal-rational authority: the system in which there is a belief in the legality of enacted rules. Rule of law. Organized in a bureaucratic manner and there is no personal ruler. You do not obey the person, you obey the rules of the game. It may not be democratic only. It can be authoritative, or it can be a constitutional monarchy.
  - (ii) Traditional authority: Rests on the established belief on the sanctity of immemorial traditions, and the legitimacy of those exercising the authority under them. Obeying the father, for example.
  - (iii) Charismatic authority: When a leader's authority depends on his having an unusual character, an extraordinary personality, exceptional powers or qualities... These are not really the characteristics of the individual, that is what we attribute to the individuals, to have these extraordinary characteristics.

18. Weber: Traditional Authority

Macht is translated as power. There is no problem with it. Herrschaft is translated as either domination or authority. Both are OK but professor thinks domination is more appropriate. It represents an asymmetry in power. So, the notion of domination does imply a voluntariness to obey.
What is legitimation? Weber says power is an extreme case. People having the authority very rarely exerts power, use coercion to make people obey. They try to legitimate their authority and try to come up with reasons why people subjected to this authority should obey their authority. They try to internalize your subjugation to power one way or another.
One fundamental difference from Marx: Marx sees history as the unfolding of the modes of production and the human motivation is economic interest. For Weber, history can be read as different types of authority and the human motivation is the struggle for power. This subsequent types of domination are similar to Marx's subsequent modes of production. And Weber uses this to understand the evolution of humankind. However, Weber does more than this and these types can be used to understand social organizations and institutions. So, Weber is more flexible with Marx.
The three types of authority do not have the same ontological status. Charismatic authority is not long-lasting. It is a revolutionary force and it is not institutional, and for a limited time. Charismatic authority is a transition from one kind of traditional authority to another kind of traditional authority, Weber says. The two big types are traditional and legal-rational.
Traditional authority:
- Pure types or Ideal types: Weber is a Kantian. He thinks we cannot comprehend the object completely with our mind. We have only the images of these objects as far as we can comprehend the external richness of the world. These images of the objects in our minds are ideal types. They are abstractions from the world, not a precise description of the world.
- Basis of legitimacy: (1) "Legitimacy is claimed for and believed in, by virtue of the sanctitiy of age-old rules." (p.226) All types of authority have a degree of coercion. (2) "The rulers are designated according to traditional rule and are obeyed because of their Eigenwurde." (traditional status, or their belief they have virtue, honour) (p.226) Honour is very important to understand traditional authority. (3) "This... rule is... primarily based on personal loyalty..." (p.227)
- There are two major forms of traditional authority: Patriarchalism (no staff) and Patrimonial domination (administrative and military staff).
- Historical evolution of types of authority: Patriarchalism (no staff -ancient tribes), Primary or pure patrimonialism (staff=instrument -sultanism), Estate type of domination (staff appropriates certain powers from the master -feudalism), Legal-rational authority (power of coercion is monopoly of state -neither master nor staff has such means) As a result, the history of humankind is an evolution of the means of administration and coercion. This is a very Nietzschean idea, history is actually getting worse because those who rule have more and more sophisticated means to suppress a larger number of people. And what makes it worse is that you internalize your own submission.
The change in feudal system in Russia: Turning estate owning noble lords into loyal servants of the tzar... Mussorgsky's opera Boris Godunov. On the other hand, western feudalism is based on the long-lasting powers of the staff, western feudal lords received a property for lifetime, and it actually inherited by their children.
Traditional domination doesn't go very well with the economy because it is not based on the generation of profit. Therefore, it seems traditional domination is likely to prevent the development of business-oriented activities (Marx da böyle diyordu...)

19. Weber: Charismatic authority

Weber's idea of charisma as a revolutionary force actually has empirical relevance, but it's rather unpersuasive. Professor admits that Marx's idea of revolution basing on the class struggles and the relation between the means of production and the productive forces is persuasive and coherent.
Legal-rational authority does not mean liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is a new phenomenon (after WWII), but legal-rational authority is no that new. "There was a rule of law in England going back to the Orange Revolution. (late 17th century)"
- Definition - types of authority compared: Obedience is due to (a) Rules, (b) Master, (b.i) Tradition, (b.ii) Charisma *Charismatic authority is a charismatic leader emerges in times of great need, desperation and need for change. And they stay leaders as long as they deliver charisma. It is really difficult the establish a charismatic authority as a system. *In the most classical definition, charisma refers to the founders of the great world religions as the person having superior characteristics (their relations to God). And Weber makes a broader conception that "charisma will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality .... [considered and treated as extraordinary, superhuman, divine origin, exemplary (it is in the eye of the beholder)]".
- The source of charisma
  - recognition: "It is recognition on the part of those subject to authority" (p.242)
  - withdrawal: "If the proof of success elude [goes away from] the leader for long ... it is likely that his charismatic authority will disappear." (p.242)
- Community (of disciples): "An organized group subject to charismatic authority will be called charismatic community (Gemeinde). It is based on an emotional form of communal relationship (Vergemeinschaftung)..." *In charismatic communities there is usually relatively little hierarchy, not all that much of a bureaucracy. Those who are actually serving the charismatic leader usually do not get salaries or benefits. They have a whole army of volunteers.
- –
  - Charisma as irrational, anti-economic force: *It is opposed to rational and bureaucratic authority. It is a kind of irrational in the sense of being foreign to the established rules. There may be charismatic leaders even the system is, for example, legal-rational authority. Leaders may be charismatic, but the system itself is not charismatic. To establish the charismatic system, they always change the rules. For example, in Mao's China, every five years, everything is completely different: a hundred flowers flourish, great leap forward, cultural revolution... This is an unpredictable environment. "Can the economy work in this unpredictable environment? ... It is not good for business. ... That's why capitalism likes legal-rational authority." (Türkiye'nin son yılları bu fikre anti-tez oluyor tabi.) Then the professor says capitalists don't necessarily like democratic system. "Capitalism can live nicely with authoritarian figures. Capitalists loved Pinochet. ... I mean, what capitalism really wants is a predictable environment. And in many ways, you know, democracy is not all that good for a predictable environment, because every fourth year we go to the polls and then we elect other people, and then they come up with other ideas, and this is a bit of a mess. So really I would almost say that a good free market economy loves rule of law, with a kind of authoritarian leader and long-standing political stability."
  - Charisma as revolutionary force: "In traditionalist periods, charisma is the great revolutionary force." (p.245) However, it always has an effect to change the value system in the people.
- Problem of routinization: Charismatic authority is against routine and the problem of routinaziton arises when the charismatic leader dies.
- Methods of succession: There are different methods of succession:
  - Search: Searching the new born Dalai Lama who is reincarnated after death.
  - Revelation: Formerly oracles did, now media does and attach charisma to leaders.
  - Designation by the original leader
  - Designation by qualified staff: For example, the Pope.
  - Hereditary charisma: North Korea is trying to do that. It is not easy to pass charisma hereditarily.
  - Office charisma: We demand from some people depending on the offices they are in -like the Pope, or the President of the US, or "when you are the department chair, there is suddenly some charisma is attributed to you".
Bu karizmatik otorite meselesi Machiavelli'nin başarılı bir devlet kurmak için arka arkaya en az iki büyük kral gelmesi gerektiğini söylediği üzerinden de düşünülebilir. Liderin kuruculuk, ihtiyaca cevap olma ve değişim özellikleri Machiavelli'de de gözleniyor.

20. Weber: Legal-rational authority

When we say "legal-rational authority", we briefly refer to the rule of law.
Weber argues that the pure form of legal-rational authority is bureaucracy -the professor finds it counterintuitive.
Legal-rational authority:
- Pure type of legal authority: definitions
  - Various ways to establish laws, norms: *norms can be established by agreement or by imposition. They should be intentionally established. Legal-rational authority is an authoritarian system in Weber's view.
  - Who obeys what (or whom) under legal authority: (i) "...person in authority, the 'superior', is himself subject to an impersonal order..." (ii) "...the person who obeys authority... obeys only the law..." (iii) "...members do not owe obedience to [the superior] as an individual, but to the impersonal order..." (pp.217-218)
  - Characteristics of legal-rational authority: (i) "...[there is] continuous rule bound conduct..." (ii) "...specific sphere of competence (jurisdiction)..." (iii) "...[there is a] hierarchy ... right to appeal..." (iv) "...specialized training is necessary... [for] administrative staff..." (v) "...staff should be completely separated from ownership of the means of production or administration..." (pp.218-219) The process is impersonal.
- Bureaucracy - The purest type of legal authority
  - Characteristics of bureaucracy: *employs a bureaucratic administrative staff. Members of staff are (i) personally free (in traditional authority, they were not personally free individuals), (ii) are organized in hierarchy of office, (iii) offices are filled by free contract on the basis of technical qualifications and office holders receive fixed salaries, (iv) office is the sole occupation of the incumbents (officeholder) and it constitutes career. (v) "The official work entirely separated from the ownership of means of administration and subject to systematic discipline and control..." (pp.320-321)
  - Efficiency of bureaucracy: Weber claims that the most efficient organization is bureaucracy. He argues this is from the technical point of view because it is predictable and predictability makes it efficient in the market, it has a high degree of calculability.
  - Capitalism, socialism and bureaucracy: Bureaucracy is domination through (technical) knowledge. Weber said "Socialism would require a still higher degree of formal bureaucratization than capitalism. But the big problem with socialism is that there will be a big conflict here between the formal rationality and substantive rationality, what the bureaucracy carries out." Formal rationality: you are simply implementing the rules of the game. Substantive rationality: you are actually concerned with the welfare, the substantive goals of the action. If you are concerned with the procedure, it is formal rationality; if you are concerned with the content, it is substantive rationality. You are concerned either with the content of your decisions or with the procedures of your decisions. (It is like Nozick's patterns)
  - Consequences of bureaucratization: (i) the tendency of levelling of interests ... of hiring in terms of technical competence. (ii) the tendency to meritocracy. (iii) the domination of the spirit of formalistic impersonality without hatred and passion.
  - Contradictions of bureaucratization: (i) formalism, (ii) a tendency in a contradiction with formalism. Officers care the interest and welfare of those subjected to authority.
- Limitations of bureaucratic authority:
  - The problem of collegiality
  - Functional division of powers-constitutional division of powers: Separation of powers in a legal-rational authority limits bureaucracy.
  - Representation: (i)Forms of representation: Appropriated representation, Estate type of representation, Instructed representation, Free representation. (ii)Free representation and capitalist economy: *Calculability and reliability is vital to rational capitalism ... so bourgeoisie imposed checks on monarchs. *In early stages property qualification defended the power of propertied class against the proletariat. *Occasionally monarchs advocated universal suffrage hoping proletariat will be conservative force against bourgeoisie. *Parliamentary free representation was the product of struggle between monarchs and bourgeoisie.

21. Weber: Theory of Class

Three fundamental differences: (1) For Weber, class difference does not depend on property ownership, it is determined in the market place like employer-employee relation. (2) Human history is not the history of classes because class is a modern phenomenon, they emerged with the emergence o the market economy, market capitalism. Before capitalism the stratification system did not depend on class, but on status. (3) Class struggle will not intense over time. Class struggle is more intense in the early stages of capitalism, but in time as capitalism becomes consolidated and bureaucratized, class struggle is actually reduced.
Professor says the usual interpretation of Weber on class is based on British sociologist W.G. Ruciman's interpretation, but it is wrong. What is the usual interpretation of Weber that we can see on the 90% of internet? The three dimensions of social inequality: (i)by status/prestige, (ii)by class/income, wealth, (iii)by power. This interpretation bases on empirical research and Gerhard Lenski shows that there can be inconsistency in these three dimensions, they can be asymmetric. Some officer can be prestigious, can be powerful but may earn lower than many other people. So, status, class and power can be measured as three dimensions. The comparison of the combination of these three shows us the way how to stratify society for upper-upper class to lower-lower class. That is the way how Weber usually has been used, he says.
Professor's alternative interpretation: *Distinction between class and status (Stand, estate) is historical. "Status" is translated from "Stand" and the professor thinks this is not right. The right translation is "estate". Status, therefore, is an archaic distinction, but class is a modern phenomenon. *Where is the third dimension? Status and class are historical categories, but where is power? In the Economy and Society, power is not an independent dimension. For Weber, power is the dependent variable. "He wants to explain where power comes from." Power comes from status in traditional authorities, and comes from class position in legal-rational authorities. However, traditional status or charismatic authority can work in the legal-rational authorities. So, they do not exclude each other. Status privileges exist in legal-rational authorities too. They can work at the same time: one of them is primary and the other is secondary.
- Definition of class
  - Class and market: "Those who have property and deprived from property do not constitute a class. And fundamental argument for this is that in traditional societies, it is not really property which puts you into a high status position. You being in a high status position has the consequence that you are wealthy. So the king or the queen decides to give you nobility, and gives you an estate." "We may speak of a class when (1) a number of people have in common life chances, insofar as (2) this...is represented exclusively by economic interests, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labour markets." (p.927) "Weber actually suggests that Weber suggest that you can think of classes on every single market situation." Like housing classes: the owner of a house and the tenant. On the other hand Weber is quite clear that there are two important market positions which fundamentally define the class position: the labour market and the capital market. This defines whether you have a good life chances or poor life chances. "And all other positions on other markets will be a consequence of your position primarily in labour market or in capital market." Weber sees that if there is a market economy, differences in property are very important for creating class positions. But, he says this is the case only if there is a market economy in place.
  - Class interest and class action: [28:10] Classes materialize in action.
- Definition of status groups
  - What is a status group (Stande): You belong to a group and you have a high esteem, and you have a solidarity within the group. "Status honour is...expressed by...a specific life style..." (p.932) Even modern society creates status groups.
  - Status privileges
  - Economic conditions of status stratification: Status stratification (strong status groups, for e.g.) is not good for the development of the market economy. Market knows no personal distinction.
  - Status stratification, caste, and ethnicity
- Class and status compared: "There is some kind of stability in status stratification, class stratification is dynamic and conflictious. This idea will come from, that in fact, class relationships are not becoming more antagonistic over time but is becoming less antagonistic over time." There are two main stratification status: one is on status (State) and the other is on class.
- Types of classes: *Property classes *Commercial classes: Basic class distinction in modern society for Weber is between management and employees, rather than the owners of capital and the owners of labour power, unlike Marx. *Social classes: Establishing and representing a life style of a specific group. Social classes are (i)the working class, (ii)the petty bourgeoisie, (iii)the propertyless intelligentsia…

22. Durkheim: Types of Social Solidarity

Early life: functionalist and positivist; Later life: cultural analyst
The Dreyfus Affair: 1894-1906
*1893: The Division of Labour in Society (His most functionalist work) *1895: The Rules of Sociological Method (His most positivist work) *1897: Suicide
The Division of Labour: main themes: *He very much influenced by Montesquieu and Rousseau, but especially Montesquieu. He uses law as a measure of social development-much like Montesquieu did. *Marx was interested in economic conflict; Weber in power struggles; Durkheim in solidarity. Marx and Weber are conflict theorists. Durkheim tries to understand what holds society together. *Makes distinction between two types of social solidarity: mechanical and organic. Marx explains the evolution in society with modes of production, Weber explains it as from traditional authority to legal-rational authority, Durkheim's alternative is mechanical and organic solidarity. What Weber calls traditional authority is a kind of mechanical solidarity, Marx calls pre-capitalist formations. Organic solidarity is described as legal-rational authority or modernity or capitalism. *He identifies a pathological form of division of labour called "anomie" = analogous to Marx's alienation and Weber's disenchantment.
Suicide: this is one of the first rigorous empirical studies of a social phenomenon. He makes distinctions between various types of suicide and shows that the causes of suicide are social.
Durkheim's methodology: *He was a methodological collectivist (like Montesquieu or Rousseau, and not like Hobbes, Locke, or Mill - Marx being half way between methodological collectivism and individualism). *He believed in "social facts", which are more than the sum total of individual phenomena.
Division of Labour in Society (all below in this section will be on this book)
Durkheim's Tactic: *Major questions include: How does the change in economic structure impact social relationships? What is it that binds society together? *Why Durkheim begins the analysis by taking the law as the point of departure? A methodological collectivist needs to find a collective expression in order to study society, not individuals. And much like Montesquieu, the law can be studied as this collective expression. By this way, the collective conscience can be grasped which is above individual consciousness.
Key Concepts: *Solidarity: How strong/connected are members of society, not only as individuals but to the "collective consciousness". He tries to answer that what holds society together. Before modern capitalism, traditional order holds the society together, but with the industrialization, will the society fall apart? What can keep us together in an urban industrialized society? *What creates this solidarity is "Collective consciousness": Not the sum total of individual consciousness, but the shared norms, beliefs, and values which exist prior to the particular society -Durkheim uses the law as an example of collective consciousness, analogous to Rousseau's General Will and Marx's Class Consciousness. He thinks the law is the best thing to observe this collective consciousness, because it changes very slowly and inherited along generations. He is a sort of scientifique, he insisted to work with objective data.
This is important: "Well the French are very methodological collectivists. The Anglo-Saxons tend to be methodological individualists. And the French unlike the Germans, are very scientifique; they are very much scientists. The word scientifique in German does not exist. The German say 'I am Wissencschaftler'; Wissenschaft means --Wissen is knowledge. Science in German is constituted by all sorts of knowledge. It is a much broader notion. In French, or in English, with science we really mean rigorous science of the natural science types."
The most obvious example of collective consciousness is the law for him. Language is another example for the collective consciousness. *Law in Pre-Modern Society: Repressive, Penal. *Law in Modern Society: Restitutive, Civil. The essence of modern law bases on contract. In modern society, the law performs a different function: to restore the status quo. The penal code survives, but what is novel is contractual law which is restitutive, which is not about punishing.
Why does he study law? The legal system is the single best measure of what he tries to get at, collective conscience, which can be studied the most objectively.
The two types of solidarity
- Mechanical solidarity: is typical of pre-modern society; it can be described as solidarity of sameness. The law reflects this in that it serves to protect and maintain the "sameness" of the group. Mechanical solidarity is primarily based that we see ourselves similar in the group. In earlier times, society was more operating like a machine where you actually -a part is taken out, mechanically it doesn't matter all that much. In organic solidarity, it is an analogy to organism: each organ has a different function, but an organ cannot live without another. It bases on difference. That is the fundamental distinction. However, for Durkheim, mechanical solidarity does exist also in contemporary societies -but it is not the driving type of solidarity.
- Organic solidarity: We generally look for a partner who complement us. This means we are looking for someone who can complete a gap which we are deficient at. This division of labour is based on difference. That describes modern society, with a higher level of division of labour. Like the bodily organism, we are performing different functions in society, we complement each other, we need each other on the bases of our differences, rather than our similarities. Transition from one kind of solidarity to another -transition into a market economy, into modernity- involves a lot of problems. Durkheim calls it "anomie".

23. Durkheim: Theory of Anomie

Anomie: The state of NORMLESSNESS.
The driving idea of the distinction between mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity is the division of labour (it seems he is inspired by Adam Smith like early Marx). Professor says there is a neglected view in Durkheim that he owes to Montesquieu: the relation between the type of solidarity and the environment.
Durkheim himself does not name "ecosystem", but he has this notion in his writings. It is the relation among these: Environment, Population, Technology, and Social Organization. This constitute a system which interacts with each other.
Anomie (again): *Abnormal consequences of division of labour -abnormality or social pathologies. *This idea is heavily criticized by many of the social scientists because social sciences are believed to be value-neutral, therefore claiming some pathologies on society is a normative attitude. Something abnormal in one society may become normal in another society. *The roots of abnormality (§The classification below doesn't make sense because I cannot see any relation between the division of labour and anomalie causing absence of rules. Why does he classify pathologies resulting from the division of labour under the title of "pathologies resulting from absence of rules"????? §"Durkheim identifies two major causes of anomie: the division of labour, and rapid social change. Both of these are, of course, associated with modernity. An increasing division of labour weakens the sense of identification with the wider community and thereby weakens constraints on human behaviour. These conditions lead to social “disintegration”—high rates of egocentric behaviour, norm violation, and consequent de-legitimation and distrust of authority. According to Durkheim, the desires and self-interests of human beings can only be held in check by forces that originate outside of the individual. Durkheim characterizes this external force as a collective conscience, a common social bond that is expressed by the ideas, values, norms, beliefs, and ideologies of a culture. “As there is nothing within an individual which constrains these appetites, they must surely be contained by some force exterior to him, or else they would become insatiable—that is morbid” [1928] 1978, p. 213)." (from https://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Durkheim1.htm)):
- Pathologies resulting from absence of rules:
  - Division of labour as a source of solidarity: However, under some circumstances, the opposite occurs.
  - Pathology I: Crisis and class conflict -high division of labour causes. This idea is very close to the notion of alienation in Paris Manuscripts which was published after Durkheim's death.
  - Pathology II: Division become dispersion, excessive specialization.
  - Pathology III: Lack of regulation, anomie: Either lack of regulation, or not enough regulation.
  - Concept of anomie - elaborated: For him, the solution to abolish the problem of anomie is to fix the system of values.
  - Anomie - exceptional consequence of division of labour: Anomie is not an inevitable consequence of division of labour. Those institutions -cultural, legal, moral, ethical institutions- are in place, then in fact the division of labour will not produce anomie. It produces only if there is no such systems.
- Pathologies resulting for over-regulation: forced division of labour. Too much control over my life makes me desperate and this is "fatalism".
- Anomie, alienation and disenchantment: *Anomie: insufficient regulation in society. *Alienation: excessive regulation in society (more like "fatalism" in Durkheim) *Disenchantment: the loss of an "enchanted Garden", "magic" - conversion of dense, all sided human relations into instrumental relations (much like Lukacs's notion of "reification")
- Durkheim's theory of human nature: *"Marx said essentially humans are fine. The problem is in the society, not in the individual. This is Rousseauian inspiration in Marx. Society corrupts. He goes beyond Rousseau: Because Rousseau saw the noble savage as a savage, as an individual who has to be brought into society. At that point Marx disagrees with Rousseau. He sees we were born in society; we are social by nature. We are not only good, but we are also social. It is society which corrupts us, which creates us egoistic individuals who will compete with each other and will kill each other. This is exactly the opposite of Hobbes and a big step beyond Rousseau's theory of human nature. Durkheim is actually much closer to Hobbes in his notion of human nature, because he believes that social pathologies emerge when there is a vacuum of control over people. ... Unless we are controlled, then we can be evil. ... What you have to fix is making sure that individuals develop the proper value system."

24. Durkheim: On Suicide

Suicide: It is the first rigorous empirical study of a social phenomenon.
Types of suicide (his major types): egoistic, altruistic, anomic, and fatalistic.
Suicide: "Suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim himself, which he knows will produce this result." (p.44) *Intention can vary (suicide bomber) *Can be indirect and negative (not taking food) *Being aware of the consequence (animals cannot commit suicide §I am not sure whether they cannot)
There are some social patterns, cultural patterns how people commit suicide.
Durkheim defends a "golden middle road". He sees societies integrated -cohesion of the members of the society- too high or too low as pathologic. Similarly, regulation level: if regulation is too high or too low, it is pathological and these cases affect suicide rates. He defends a moderate middle way. (abnormalities in terms of integration of regulation)
(quote: https://www.opencollege.info/types-of-suicide/)
- Egoistic suicide relates to the person being alone or an outsider and subsequently they see themselves alone within the world. This type of person has a low social interaction with others.
- Altruistic suicide is when social group involvement is too high, expectation from a group is being met at a very high level such as a sacrifice for a cult or religion. Another example would be a Marta or a suicide bomber.
- Anomic suicide relates to a low degree of regulation and this kind of suicide is carried out during periods of considerable stress and frustration. A good example would be great financial loss or when the financial market that person controls collapses with severe consequences for many involved.
- Fatalistic suicide is when people are kept under tight regulation such as in Korea. Where there is extreme rule in order or high expectations set upon a person or peoples in which lead them to a sense of no self or individuality. (/quote)

25. Durkheim: Social Facts

*The distinction between power and domination is clear: Power is the imposition of our will on somebody even if there is the possibility of resistance and it can involve coercion. On the other hand, domination excludes systematic coercion and people tend to internalize the reasons who use power over them. Because, there is a legitimacy of why those should have power. *Legitimacy: are the claims which are made by those who have power, which try to justify why it is reasonable that they should issue commands and others should obey it.
Second question: What are the differences between traditional and legal-rational authority? Traditional authority is legitimated by the sanctity of age-old rules. However, traditional authority did not disappear in modern times.
Third question: Why does Weber think bureaucratic organizations are the most efficient ones? He argues this idea in technical terms. He believes bureaucracies are efficient only if they are purely formally rational, but they are not. (These are the test questions)
Seventh question: Anomie. The notion of anomie comes out of the absence of sufficient regulation. And this is a temporary product which emerges because mechanical solidarity is breaking down and organic solidarity has not been established yet. In this transition period, people in urban industrial society, people have problem of regulation in value systems, and that is when they are anomic.
The Rules of Sociological Method (1895 -two years after The Division of Labour and two years before Suicide):
- When is a "fact" social?
  - Social as distinct from biological and psychological: *"If all phenomena generally diffused within society ... are counted as 'social' facts, sociology would have no subject matter exclusively of its own." (p.1) *Life sciences: biology, psychology, sociology (and their units of analysis: the body as an organism, personality, collective representation).
  - The objectivity and coercive quality of "social": *"I feel the reality of my obligations subjectively, but such reality is still objective." (p.1)
  - The collective aspect of social. Role of education: "It is the collective aspect of the beliefs, tendencies, and practices of a group that characterizes truly social phenomena... Collective habits are ... given permanent expression in a formula which is repeated from mouth to mouth, transmitted by education... The social fact is a thing distinct from individual manifestations... These are crystallized 'ways of acting'." (p.7)
- How to observe social facts?
  - Social facts are things: *(Depending on professor's expression, the things for Durkheim are collective manifestations, collective ideas, not property relations. However, these "things" fall under the ideologies usually, I argue) *"Proper science should not proceed from ideas to things, but from things to ideas." (p.15) *"In social sciences -much like it happened in natural sciences as chemistry developed from alchemy- prejudices or 'Idols' [Bavon] should be substituted by the study of facts." (p. 17) -the scientific method: moving beyond preconceptions and dogmas. ***"Theory should be introduced only when science reached a sufficient stage of advancement." (p.25) *"Economists today are principally occupied with the problem how society ought to be organized without understanding properly how it is organized." (p.26)
  - Rigorous discipline is required in social analysis.
  - Eradicate all preconceptions.
  - Define objects of investigation independent of values of investigators.
  - Discard data which are too subjective.
- The distinction between normal and pathological
  - Normal as the most frequent form: *Without the conceptions of normal and abnormal we cannot operate. "We shall call 'normal' those social conditions that are the most generally distributed, and the others 'morbid' or 'pathological'." (p.55) *"It would be incomprehensible if the most widespread ... would not be at the same time ... the most advantageous." (p.58)
  - What is the cause of the most frequent form? *"But a situation be often be normal without being at all useful." (p.59) "It can be normal only in appearance." (p.60)
- Nominalism, realism and classification of societies
- Explanation and the question of causality
  - The task of social science is to explain, not just to describe.
  - In social sciences comparative method takes the place of experiments (we do experiments in natural sciences)
  - Neither the method of agreement or difference is sufficiently scientific
  - The proper method is concomitant variations or correlations: "Nevertheless, to be sure the relationship is indeed causal 'we shall investigate, by the aid of deduction, how one of the two terms produced the other' [in other words we need 'hypotheses', derived from theory]." (p.132) This means today, we have to show the causal mechanism, the causal relation between two terms along with the statistical correlation between them.