What do you think?
Rate this book
Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Second Edition
This Second Edition is a thoroughly revised, expanded version of the bestselling student text in classical social theory. Author Kenneth Morrison provides an authoritative, accessible undergraduate guide to the three pivotal figures in the classical tradition. Readable and stimulating, the Second Edition of Marx, Durkheim, Formations of Modern Social Thought explains the key ideas of these thinkers and situates them in their historical and philosophical contexts.
- GenresSociology
480 pages, Paperback
First published July 21, 2006
9 people are currently reading
85 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 5 reviews
September 25, 2019
Simply awful.
As others have pointed out, the writing is mind-numbingly repetitive to the point of nausea. If this wasn't enough, much of the content, especially as it regards Marx, is blatantly incorrect. Here's an excerpt to underscore the point: "The means of production can be defined as anything in the external world that is put to use for purposes of producing material needs and sustaining existence. The way jobs are used to produce wages..."
...WHAT?!
I was tempted to give it two stars, if only because it provides an extremely superficial introduction to the central theories of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, but it doesn't even do that! Whereas some concepts have been incorrectly defined, other EXTREMELY CENTRAL concepts haven't even been introduced at all! Where is the discussion of base and superstructure, as an immediate example? How does term "historical materialism" ever appear without the 3 (30, in Morrison's case) pages it would take to briefly discuss the passage of human society from primitive communism, slave societies, feudalism, then capitalism?
Morrison spends a baffling amount of time expounding on the philosophical underpinnings of Durkheim and Weber's methodologies, but offers no insights into the salience of upholding one approach over another. The entirety of Engels' (who should without a doubt be understood to be a part of Marxist theory, especially because nearly the entire section on Marx is dedicated to a work that Engels co-authored) application of dialectic materialism to the study of nature is absent. Instead we are presented with an uninspired introduction to positivism that is arguably secondary to Marxist methodology (at best), which is later rehashed not twice, but thrice in the book.
This is not by any means because Morrison is maintaining a neutral or objective tone. On several occasions, Morrison selectively introduces dissenting views for each theorist, offering a clearly hand-picked and catered limit of the discourse. On at least one occasion, Morrison blatantly declares Bourdieu's "structured oppositions" to be the true meaning and clarification of Marx's concept of class, having the actual gall to suggest that Bourdieu (and by extension Morrison himself) understood Marx better than Marx. One wonders with what arrogant and audacious authority an author who literally has not understood the most basic Marxist concepts here deigns himself the arbiter of what constitutes "actual Marxist theory". Not surprisingly, he opts for the milquetoast charlatanism of post-structuralism for this end.
This is reinforced over and over again when Morrison compares the sociologists intermittently. As a side note, this seems as natural a time as any to ask, frankly non-rhetorically, why Morrison (or any other sociologist for that matter) would bother to dwell on the theory-poor screeds of Durkheim and Weber, let alone refer to them as the "[co-]fathers of sociology", when Durkheim is for obvious reasons never cross-examined alongside Weber. Whether or not this is a conscious choice, it makes the clear superiority of Marxist theory rather evident when this is always in practice held as the litmus against which every other social "theory" is tried. Yet, to the point, in these comparisons, Morrison is constantly ascribing to Marx the strawman that either he or the sociologists he calls on (and presumably both) have borne of their own ignorance of Marxist theory.
Why any serious academic would either assign this book to students or - god forbid - use it as a resource themselves is beyond me. At the rate it takes to read two identical sentences back-to-back for 400 or so pages, one could have simply read the three major works of each theorist and probably have made it decently far into Capital.
As others have pointed out, the writing is mind-numbingly repetitive to the point of nausea. If this wasn't enough, much of the content, especially as it regards Marx, is blatantly incorrect. Here's an excerpt to underscore the point: "The means of production can be defined as anything in the external world that is put to use for purposes of producing material needs and sustaining existence. The way jobs are used to produce wages..."
...WHAT?!
I was tempted to give it two stars, if only because it provides an extremely superficial introduction to the central theories of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, but it doesn't even do that! Whereas some concepts have been incorrectly defined, other EXTREMELY CENTRAL concepts haven't even been introduced at all! Where is the discussion of base and superstructure, as an immediate example? How does term "historical materialism" ever appear without the 3 (30, in Morrison's case) pages it would take to briefly discuss the passage of human society from primitive communism, slave societies, feudalism, then capitalism?
Morrison spends a baffling amount of time expounding on the philosophical underpinnings of Durkheim and Weber's methodologies, but offers no insights into the salience of upholding one approach over another. The entirety of Engels' (who should without a doubt be understood to be a part of Marxist theory, especially because nearly the entire section on Marx is dedicated to a work that Engels co-authored) application of dialectic materialism to the study of nature is absent. Instead we are presented with an uninspired introduction to positivism that is arguably secondary to Marxist methodology (at best), which is later rehashed not twice, but thrice in the book.
This is not by any means because Morrison is maintaining a neutral or objective tone. On several occasions, Morrison selectively introduces dissenting views for each theorist, offering a clearly hand-picked and catered limit of the discourse. On at least one occasion, Morrison blatantly declares Bourdieu's "structured oppositions" to be the true meaning and clarification of Marx's concept of class, having the actual gall to suggest that Bourdieu (and by extension Morrison himself) understood Marx better than Marx. One wonders with what arrogant and audacious authority an author who literally has not understood the most basic Marxist concepts here deigns himself the arbiter of what constitutes "actual Marxist theory". Not surprisingly, he opts for the milquetoast charlatanism of post-structuralism for this end.
This is reinforced over and over again when Morrison compares the sociologists intermittently. As a side note, this seems as natural a time as any to ask, frankly non-rhetorically, why Morrison (or any other sociologist for that matter) would bother to dwell on the theory-poor screeds of Durkheim and Weber, let alone refer to them as the "[co-]fathers of sociology", when Durkheim is for obvious reasons never cross-examined alongside Weber. Whether or not this is a conscious choice, it makes the clear superiority of Marxist theory rather evident when this is always in practice held as the litmus against which every other social "theory" is tried. Yet, to the point, in these comparisons, Morrison is constantly ascribing to Marx the strawman that either he or the sociologists he calls on (and presumably both) have borne of their own ignorance of Marxist theory.
Why any serious academic would either assign this book to students or - god forbid - use it as a resource themselves is beyond me. At the rate it takes to read two identical sentences back-to-back for 400 or so pages, one could have simply read the three major works of each theorist and probably have made it decently far into Capital.
March 19, 2019
I remember reading the first edition of this book years ago while a student, but thought I'd refresh my memory when the publisher sent me the second edition in order to review a proposal for a third one. I remember the first edition as a very comprehensive and accessible intro to the vast oeuvres of all the three thinkers. So was this edition, obviously, but it also had problems.
For some reason the basic rule of second editions is that they need to be thicker. Adding pages is an end in itself (as Weber would say). I don't know what happened to the editorial process in this second edition, but much of this padding is achieved by literally just repeating the same idea--often the same text, word by word--on a new page. This is especially bad in the case of Marx. It makes the reading challenging and makes one wonder about whether the author is on track with everything (which is not a problem in Morrison's case, clearly).
The chapters lack a useful summary and end abruptly, but otherwise the systematic review is commendable. In my view Durkheim gets the fairest hearing, but this might be personal bias. The glossary at the end is useful even for advanced academics, for quick reference.
I hope the repetition problem is fixed in the forthcoming version. The new edition does not need new pages, but better coherence.
For some reason the basic rule of second editions is that they need to be thicker. Adding pages is an end in itself (as Weber would say). I don't know what happened to the editorial process in this second edition, but much of this padding is achieved by literally just repeating the same idea--often the same text, word by word--on a new page. This is especially bad in the case of Marx. It makes the reading challenging and makes one wonder about whether the author is on track with everything (which is not a problem in Morrison's case, clearly).
The chapters lack a useful summary and end abruptly, but otherwise the systematic review is commendable. In my view Durkheim gets the fairest hearing, but this might be personal bias. The glossary at the end is useful even for advanced academics, for quick reference.
I hope the repetition problem is fixed in the forthcoming version. The new edition does not need new pages, but better coherence.
March 20, 2015
Excelente libro para entender a los grandes pensadores de la modernidad. Lo único que cabría criticar es que a veces es un tanto repetitivo. Lo que más me gustó fue la manera de explicar los conceptos, me pareció muy didáctico. Altamente recomendable.
This is an excellent book to understand the main authors of the modernity. I would only criticize that sometimes is a bit repetitive. What I like most was the way to explain the concepts. I found it very instructive. 100% recommended.
This is an excellent book to understand the main authors of the modernity. I would only criticize that sometimes is a bit repetitive. What I like most was the way to explain the concepts. I found it very instructive. 100% recommended.
December 12, 2016
If you have to learn from this textbook, rather than suffer through Morrison's lack of editing and clarity, poor grammar, spelling mistakes, and needless repetition, consult the Glossary of Terms in the back of the book for more concise (though still copy-pasted from the unceasingly redundant body of the text) explanations of concepts and theories.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 5 reviews