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

i brought this for my assessment yet to see how well I went. Thereis lot of informartion there that could be useful for someone studying sociology.

I do not like Anthony Giddens. I don't like his work, and I certainly don't like his politics. But this book (from early in his career, it's important to say) is an outstanding summary of the work of Durkheim & Weber. (I haven't read the chapters on Marx — I've read Marx enough — but I'll guess they're probably up to the same standard.)

Good book

If the reader will permit, I'd like to use this review space to reflect upon the indirect consequences of this text's popularity for the discipline of sociology.Giddens was certainly not the first to canonize the "founding fathers" of sociology. Talcott Parsons did that in "The Structure of Social Action" and elsewhere. He conjectured that Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, and Marshall unwittingly converged on a theory of human action. Of course, Parsons left Marx out of the picture, and that serious mistake would be drastically corrected with the explosion of "Western Marxism" following the first English translations of Marx's early writings. Raymond Aron included Marx (as well as Comte, Montesquieu, and de Tocqueville) in his account of the "Main Currents of Sociological Thought". His vision of sociology was that of a river which sprang from the onset of modernity (in France) and later diverted into distinct but often parallel streams. Anthony Giddens, in the work in question, takes up much the same task as Aron, but seemingly dismisses the work of early French thinkers. Instead, sociology is crowned the science of modernity because all other sociologists of importance are reactionaries to Marx, and Marx is the preeminent analyst of capitalism.My point is this: whether by Aron's or Giddens' account, sociology is understood as the science of modernity. It is understood as the largely retrospective study of social change and transformation. Because of Giddens' theoretical genius in later works like "The Nation-State and Violonce" and "The Constitution of Society", his account of the sociological tradition has been given further credibility. But why must sociology be so focused on the past? We have discarded Marx's philosophy of history and thus the historical inevitability of certain social transformations, but does that mean we should stop looking to the future?Both classical sociological theory and political theory are, or will soon, be challenged by three important developments: contemporary race theory, biotechnology (both genetic and pharmaceutical), and robotics/artificial intelligence. Race theory has made the greatest influence thus far. New histories have shown just how integral race is to our understanding of statehood, citizenship, social engineering and the like. New analyses have shown the scientific impotence of race as a human category. And the contemporary demographic developments in the U.S. and Western Europe make these intellectual assessments all the more real.Bioscience has also moved above the radar as a real of concern for sociologists. If we choose to seriously consider the "garden conception" of the state (one in which the state, as steward, must prune human flowers and eliminate human weeds), then the implications of bioscience are truly incredible. Here, sociologists and political theorists have taken up the line of thinking pioneered by philosophical ethicists, dystopian novelists, and science fiction writers. They understand how in an age of genetic and chemical manipulation, the definition of normal and the treatment of those who are abnormal take on increased significance.The sociological and political consequences of significant developments in robotics and artificial intelligence have been given the least attention. Of course we can read interesting treatises on "liquid modernity", "organs without bodies", and a global "network society", but these works tend to emphasize cultural innovation and changes in popular values. To vulgarly characterize such accounts: they assert that new technologies provide new human possibilities that in turn encourage new values and practices. The human organism (I dare not say subject!) remains intact although his physical and cultural stimuli are changing rapidly. But, in differing ways, race theory, bioscience, and robotics/AI all help us define what the human organism is. If personality can be situated outside of (or in a small fraction of) the human body, doesn't that require a rehauling of action theory? Of the idealist/materialist dialectic? Of the whole subject matter of sociology?While Giddens' "Capitalism and Modern Social Theory" is a wonderful exposition on three great theorists, it is also a reiteration of sociology's conservative self-definition as the science of modernity. Even though they often call our current society "post-modern", sociologists are still caught up in the same old game. Only now they want to understand the transition from modernity to post-modernity. And while that is an incredibly valuable line of research, it should not be the only one that is given credence by sociological orthodoxy. As it stands, the sociological implications of robotics/AI are only discussed by science fiction writers, animated characters from Japan, and less-than qualified "futurists". This is valuable territory that could be better explored with the help of trained sociologists. And there is endless research to be done at the intersection of the three intellectual developments in question.Thank you for reading, and please contact me if you'd like to discuss the subject further.

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

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

I have used this book on several occasions as a first year undergraduate reference

Very useful for my sociology course

eXCELLENT PURCHASE. tHIS BOOK WAS VERY HELPFUL IN MY SOCIOLOGY ASSIGNMENTS.GOOD VALUE. PROMPT DELIVERY.WOULD NOT HESITATE TO BUY AGAIN. INVALUABLE TOOL FOR MY COURSE.

The book met my expectation and even better than anticipated. it arrived perfectly on time as well. thanks and I hope to use this seller next in the future.

very good.