Sociology

Working-Day

Summary and Key Points
The article aims at explaining working-day from capital point of view. The working time is the time spent by an individual doing occupational labor. In most of the countries the working time is stipulated allowing the individual to have personal time during the week. But the trend is changing with the time. Now the working hours is calculated on the basis of capital investment done. When working hours are calculated on basis of investment or capital, the value of labor is diminished. It is pushed to an extent where laborers are bound to work for 24 hours a day with essential break time to fuel them to work harder. The integrity and individuality of the laborer has no value when compared to capital.

Response and Critique
In my opinion, the trends have changed with the concept of working-day. In olden days, work was considered as part of human life for sustaining the individual and the family. For some, it was their passion and they did to enhance their talent and knowledge. But, now work and the working-day is the entire life. The laborer has no choice of working hours, shifts or holidays. The laborer works like machines, which is refueled time to time just to enhance the productivity. The effects of this change might be positive on the production levels where quantity matters (increased production due to extended man-hours), but quality of the products cannot be guaranteed. The worker is tired and exhausted due to lack of sleep and unhealthy eating habits.  The long working hours reduces the capacity of the worker to think, react and produce intelligent decisions during the working hours. In short, the long working hours tend to have ill effects on the mental and physical health of the laborer, which in turn will affect the production in terms of quality not the quantity.

Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx by Friedrich Engels
Summary and Key Points
The article is a speech at the graveside of Karl Marx given by Friedrich Engels (was a German social scientist, author, political theorist, philosopher, and father of communist theory, alongside Karl Marx) on March 17, 1883. It was delivered three days after the demise of Karl Marx. The speech describes the persona, thoughts and ideas, beliefs and work done by Karl Marx in his period. He described Karl Marx as philosopher, political economist, communist and revolutionary whose ideas were the base of modern communism. The speech also gives the list of work done by Karl Marx in his lifetime.
According to Engel, Marx was a man of discoveries. He describes Marx as an investigator, who can develop ideas and question the existing system of caste, religion, and social status.

Response and Critique
This speech gives the general picture of Karl Marx and his life. It also provides the insight into the relationship shared between Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A speech of this intensity can only suggest that Engels was a close contributor in Marxism along with Marx. While Marx remained an obscure figure in his lifetime, his ideas and ideology began to influence the worker class shortly after his death. Although, there was a great influence of this ideology on Russia, the rest of the world remained untouched. It could have been an eye opener if Engels could narrate the short falls and limitations of the Marxism in his speech. If the ideology of Marx was foolproof, then the success rate of its acceptance in the society should have been greater than what we see today. The speech lacked the information on the work to be completed in future to enhance Marxism. Though it gives the list of work done by Karl Marx, but does not emphasize on the practical implication of his ideology.

Emile Durkheim
Summary and Key Points
The article gives an insight into the ideas and ideology of French sociologist Emile Durkheim. He is the inventor of the idea anomie. The primary concern for Durkheim was how society could maintain their integrity and coherence in the modern era, when shared religion and ethnic background no longer plays a role. He was one of the first people to explain the existence and quality of parts of society with reference to what function they served. His idea was to have a scientific approach to study social phenomena. According to him, unlike the facts studied in natural sciences, a social fact refers to a phenomenon it consists of acting, thinking and feeling. Hence, even the most individualistic subject as suicide was regarded as objective social facts. For him the purpose of sociology was not to recommend political program rather it was to be a sound academic discipline. Unlike Marx the meaning of religion was quite different for Durkheim. He thought it was the way of explaining the level of social and collective consciousness.

Response and Critique
His ideology of collective consciousness of society, which suggests that society is a conscious agent with its own goal above or beside those of its individual members, is very impressive. It has been proved and agreed that psychology of an individual when alone and in a group is varied. Hence, it is not necessarily that society is a sum of its individual members. Social facts are above individual circumstances and have their own existence. These social facts meet us externally, and seem to strike everyone. Durkheim divides them into mechanistic and organic, but did not elaborate on relationship of development and how they functioned. Unlike Marx, he did not want to understand the world but wanted to change it. As social animals, we are growing diverse and individualistic and yet yearn for solidarity and unity.

Twilight of Sociology
Summary and Key Points
With the death of political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, the thought that comes to our mind is that almost all the prominent sociologist, who transformed our way of thinking, is no more. The death of Mr. Lipset and other prominent sociologists (Philip Rieff and David Riesman) seems to have left a void as there is no one to replace them. At present, sociology seems to have lost its confidence in the power of its fundamental categories. Sociology ceased to study the profound way of acknowledging difficult truths and substituted activism. Although, there is progressive work in sociology, but the sense of free-wheeling inquiry is diminished. While various sociologists viewed sociology from many different standpoints, such as economics, biology, psychology, and political science, there are writers who see sociology as a general science, and who seek to find single principle on which to base it.

Response and Critique
I have to agree that though there are works going on in different areas of sociology, but there are evidences of influential sociologists drifting away to other departments (Aln Wolfe of Boston College). He would prefer to be associated with the department of political science. The reason for such drift is evident Politics. Sociology as such came under the belief that nothing was grounded in nature, nothing is justified by tradition and customs and nothing is enduring. All could be reshaped along with political lines. It is just not politics, which is interfering with the progress of sociology, but also scientism. The attempt to imitate and follow other natural sciences for precision and status is also hindering the growth of sociology. Since the complexity of the society is far beyond imagination than what it was in earlier days, the study of social interaction and process is utmost priority without the interference of any external factors.