An examination of W. E. Du Bios’ life
William Edward Burghardt DuBois, to his admirers, was by spirited devotion and scholarly dedication, an attacker of injustice and a defender of freedom
Gerald C. Hynes
W.E.B. (William Edward Burghardt) DuBois was born to Alfred and Mary Burghardt DuBois on February 23, 1868 in a small New England village of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, United States, where the African American community was small in numbers but were very well respected (McKissack 17). DuBois’ father, Alfred, left the family home for good when DuBois was young (i.e. left home soon after he was born) and so he was raised by his mother, Mary (McKissack 16). He was the only child for his mother, Mary, who emphasized education and hard work as the vehicle of social mobility and success. DuBois was the first African American to have graduated of his class and the foremost African American to have graduated in Great Barrington (DuBois 99).
Because Fisk University was not located in Great Barrington but to the South, DuBois had to relocate to Tennessee where he first experienced overt segregation and racism. Although W. E. B. DuBois was experiencing segregation, he was still able to surround himself with educated African-Americans and liberal whites who were instrumental in awakening the social consciousness within this young man. He later posits, “I was tossed boldly into the ‘Negro Problem’ . . . I suddenly came to a region where the world was split into white and black halves, and where the darker half was held back by race prejudice and legal bonds, as well as by deep ignorance and dire poverty” (DuBois 108). This may have begun the social reformist consciousness within DuBois and may have propelled the willing to use himself as an example to both the white and black races.
On graduating from Fisk University in 1888 with a BA in Philosophy, between 1888 and 1890, he entered Harvard University as a junior and received a B.A cum laude. DuBois did post graduate work at Harvard University between 1890 and 1892 where he pursued and successfully completed a M.A in sociology. He was angered by his ex-president Rutherford B Hayes’s assertion that he (Rutherford Hayes) could not find a worthy student to take advantage of a fund to educate Negro students. This assertion angered DuBois, the later reformist and social activist, greatly and so he applied directly to Hayes and was given the grant.
While DuBois was at Harvard University, he distant himself from the system, he felt the purpose of him being there was to “Improve the condition of the race as a whole” (McKissack, 30). DuBois was so adamant about the segregation that while at Harvard, he chose not to socialize with many of the other Harvard students, choosing instead to spend his time with the African-American in Boston, encasing himself in a completely coloured world (DuBois, 136). It was during that period that DuBois solidified his belief that education was the cure of his people. He believed that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the colour line, the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in Asia and Africa, in America and the islands of the seas” ( Weinberg, 81). As such, DuBois theorize that education was the only way the African-American will save themselves from poverty and racism. In 1896, he was awarded a PhD from Harvard; his dissertation read “Suppression of the African Slave Trade” (DuBois). He was the first African American to have received a Ph.D. from the University (Harvard).
Between 1892 and 1895, while completing his doctorial dissertation, DuBois brilliantly projected the possibility of subjecting to scientific scrutiny the problem of race in the modern world. This inevitably placed DuBois in an irreparable conflict with the social Darwinism, and the hereditarianism research programme which attempted to verify it. Between 1897 and 1914, Dubois conducted numerous studies of black society in America, he published 16 research papers. He began his investigations believing that social science could provide answers to race problems. Gradually he concluded that in a climate of virulent racism, social change could only be accomplished by agitation and protest. These were the dominant ‘ideoshanal’ and research paradigms on race matters with Anglo American social psychology of the time. Both actively capitulated and apologized for racism, both vigorously supported class exploitation; each claimed that social structure and social behaviour for the consequences of inherited genetic characteristics.
DuBois began his academic and public careers at a time when the forces of reaction had achieved political, ‘ideoshanal’ and cultural supremacy in the United States. It was within this background that he began his long journey in pursuit of the truth. He taught that this truth could be studied through scientific investigation. Scientific rigor and an unbending partisanship to the cause of African-American equality defined the part he chose. In retrospect, Du Bois’ scientific effort has prevailed over both Herbert Spencer’s and Francis Galton’s research programme of scientific racism. W. E. B. DuBois brought back the German scientific ideal from the University of Berlin and was one of the first to initiate scientific sociological study in the United States.
Dr DuBois thrust eagerly and indepthly into research. He believed that the race problem (segregation and white racism) was one of ignorance. So, he was determined to unearth scientific knowledge as much as he could, thereby provide the "cure" for color prejudice. Williams’ unrelenting research led into historical investigation, statistical and anthropological measurement, and sociological interpretation. The outcome of this exhaustive endeavor was published as The Philadelphia Negro (Hynes). "It revealed the Negro group as a symptom, not a cause; as a striving, palpitating group, and not an inert, sick body of crime; as a long historic development and not a transient occurrence." This was the first time such a scientific approach to studying social phenomena was undertaken.
On the completion of the study (the scientific observation of The Philadelphia Negro), he accepted a position at Atlanta University to further his teachings in sociology. For approximately thirteen (13) years there DuBois wrote and intensely studied the Negro morality, urbanization, Negroes in business, college-bred Negroes, the Negro church, and Negro crime. William DuBois also repudiated the widely held view of Africa as a vast cultural cipher by presenting a historical version of complex, cultural development throughout Africa. His works left no issue unturned in an effort to promote and help social reform. Many argue that because of DuBois’ outpouring of information "there was no study made of the race problem in America which did not depend in some degree upon the investigations made at Atlanta University."
W E B DuBois, the scientist, the social reformer, the advocate of black equality and the pioneer begin the introduction of scientific racism must be among the fathers of sociology. Furthermore, in Tony Monteiro’s view:
In retrospect, DuBois's scientific effort has prevailed over both Herbert Spencer's
and Francis Galton's; that is, the research program of scientific racism. This in spite
of the fact that scientific racism continues to rear its ugly head, as revealed in the
publication of The Bell Curve. DuBois's emphasis upon class and social structure
as the primary causal factors of social behavior, social action and social conflict,
subsequently propelled a tradition in American social science that stretches from
Franz Boas, to the Chicago School of Sociology and up till the present. Professor
E. Digby Baltzell argues that Franz Boas in The Mind of Primitive Man (1911)
was echoing the findings of DuBois when he wrote that "the traits of the American
Negro are adequately explained on the basis of his history and his social
status...without falling back upon the theory of hereditary inferiority." DuBois's
historical research, beginning with the Suppression of the African Slave Trade
(1895), through Black Reconstruction (1935), Black Folk Then and Now
(1939) and The World and Africa (1947) laid a materialist foundation in American
and African historiography. His masterwork in philosophy The Souls of Black
Folk (1903) remains a central achievement in moving American philosophy beyond
the strictures of pragmatism and positivism.
DuBois’s literary production is rather massive. According to Herbert Apthker, “it is on a Dickenson scale”. Yet more than this, his contribution in many respects laid a scientific materialist foundation for sociology and historiography. His most important works have that rare quality that brings paradigmatic; setting the broad philosophical and conceptual outlines of disciplinary research. In this respect, his work in both sociology and history established an alternative research programme. The DuBoisian’s paradigm is a consistent alternative to sociobiology, the assimilationist and the declining significance of rare paradigms. DuBois’s scholarship in history, sociology, social history, political economy and literature has the quality of taking on fundamental questions in a scientific and courageous manner. This gives a time less quality to his most important work and many of his historical predictions. Of this kind is DuBois’s brilliant prediction at the beginning of this century that “the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of colour line.” The lasting significance of this prediction is that of making it. He did not absolutize the issue of race by suggesting that it is not the only problem of this century, nor did he separate race from the modified problems that emerged in the twentieth century. But what his scholarship and research sought to do was to verify the interactive relationship between race, class and the multi-level configuration of the social structure of modern society. Du Bois saw race in a global context. He connected the problem of race to the colonial system and the world economic system. Du Bois was one of twenty nine (29) men who formed the Niagara Movement that was later merged with a white liberalism to form the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) in 1909 (Broderick).
Du Bois prophetically saw the world with a new colonialism and the same old human slavery which once ruined us, to a third world war, which will ruin the world. As a result, he also called for the outlawing of nuclear weapons. The richness of DuBois’s work can be problem in his works such as the The Suppression of the African Slave Trade (1896), The Philadelphia Negro (1892), and The Black Reconstruction as few of them. In The Suppression of the African Slave Trade, he evinces an approach to history writings that does not include advocacy or partnership. This masterpiece was out of print and publication for some fifty (50) years. What an irony? In 1954, the Social Science Press re-established the publication of The Suppression of the African Slave Trade. Within that Edition, Du Bois included a ‘postlude’ which is a short explanation of some omissions he made in the book. He considered a particular naiveté with respect to human psychology which reflected the pre-Freudian epoch of the book’s production and the other weaknesses to that he gave most of the weight was the ‘Marxian analyses’. Du Bois acknowledge the existing emphasis in the book but indicated the absence of the concept of class domination of the state, class struggle and class interest as basic to the historical process.
DuBois’s blackness and the fact that he was an African-American, did not cripple his ability to explore beyond the natural but was the hallmark on which he sought to show the equality of the African, as it relates to scholarship. The Philadelphia Negro clearly shows the scholastic aptitude of this black man (Du Bois) as was set out to be proven by Du Bois. The Philadelphia Negro is the first major work of Americas and by extension the world in regard empirical sociology and remains unsuppressed in it methodology, research design, conceptualization, scope and rigor (Katlz). Although the Philadelphia Negro is basically ignored by most scholars in the field, it is the pre-eminent model in sociology. The Philadelphia Negro can be considered to be part of a larger scientific project which included Du Bois’s Atlanta studies. Between 1897 and 1910 Du Bois headed a team of researchers who rigorously studied the race question in the United States and the situation of the African-Americans. He took charge of the Atlanta University’s annual sociological conferences. This conference was attended by imminent scholars such as Max Weber and Franz Boas who would present scholarship papers. As such, Du Bois’s scholarship became a central part of the movements of reform and against poverty and racism. In this Du Bois stated that the final design of the work is to lie before the publics. Continuing, he believed that the body of information may be a safe guide for all efforts towards the solution of the Negro problems of great America. By 1896, Du Bois already understood what many conservatives and liberal sociologists have not yet digested “ghettoization” and poverty are not the creations of the poor but are as a result of the processes controlled by economic and political forces far removed from the ghetto and the poor themselves. He posits poverty, “ghettoization” and crime are symptoms of institutional and structural racism.
In spite of DuBois’s marvelous scholastic achievements, a generation later, in favourable reviews in Harris and Spencers’s The Black Worker, critiqued his Philadelphia Negro for a certain ‘provincialism’ which intended to view the oppression of black people from the view of religion, humanity and sentiment; rather than from the position of socio-economic realities and alignments. DuBois a scholar from the school of William James, George Santayana and Hegel, was fully aware of the epistemological crisis facing philosophy at the end of the nineteenth century. The Souls is a unique DuBoisian’s effort to philosophically address the problem of race and the failure of American pragmatism to provide a philosophical framework for a social science of race. Another work by this intuitive scholar was Black Reconstruction. The book received a positive reception and an enthusiastic response from the Afro-American periodicals and journals. His long association with Pan African efforts, the imminent historian Rayford Logan, said that Black Reconstruction revealed that Du Bois was both a merciless critic and a constructive historian. According to Logan the real value of this epoch making book is that it is the first Marxian interpretation of this crucial period. DuBois also sought to make clear that Reconstruction was an episode in the entire worldwide struggle of the rich against the poor. The book did not only review and approach the specificity of the land question in the south but the entire matter of property right; indeed, he called one of the most pregnant chapters in the book “Counter-Revolution of Property”.
DuBois rejected the naïve optimism of American exceptionalism and idealism of hegelimism. In The History of the American Negro he argued, is the history of this strife, this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self. In this merger, he wished neither a lost of the older self. He maintained that real history should be confronted head on, and thus sought to construct a philosophy of real history and of human action. Charles Wesley, an historian, portrayed Du Bois as a “Lyric historian, the literary knight with a plumbed pen”.
Why the visible marginalization of Du Bois in sociology? It would appear that both contemporary and traditional sociologists have not seen it fitting to epitomize Du Bois to the premier status of being one of the founding fathers of the discipline. Despite his unprecedented contributions to the discipline and the materialist foundation that Du Bois has offered to the branch of the social science, his legacy is somewhere between the opaque lines in all sociological texts and the untold of the captured. This essay has outlined the scholarastic materialist foundation of Dr Du Bois as it relates to the scientific approach of the study of issue as race and the invaluable legacy that he has felt for the study of other social phenomena that were once conceive as unscientific. Then why is W E B Du Bois not mentioned in the same sentence with persons like Max Weber, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte. Answer – the same phenomenon that he (Dr Du Bois) studied.
Auguste Comte is lauded for his contributions to sociology and epitomized to the helm of the discipline because of firstly coining the term sociology and secondly laying the materialist foundation that the subject would be studied with the same scientific rigours as the natural sciences. Did Auguste Comte use empirical evidence to validate his position that social phenomena could be externalized and as a result be studied with the same scientific rigours as the natural sciences? Answer – No. Then, why is he among the fathers of the discipline? Answer – he was the first individual to have established the notion of a discipline known as sociology. In addition to distinguished characteristics that are fundamental to the establishment of the study of the discipline as was previously mentioned.
Marxian theorizing represented a significant growth of the postulations of some the greatest representatives of beliefs, economic idea, and socialism. Those positions are the essence, a fusion of German philosophy, English economic thought, and the best of French socialism (Rob Sewell, 1994). As such, it was that Marx matured under an atmosphere of Hegelianism and its unavoidable influence – through radical Hegelianism and the Young Hegelians (Jim Blaut, Hegelian and Marxist Dialects, 2002). That influence became apparent in Marx’s dialectical approach to understanding the fundamental sociological question: “How is society Possible?”
The theoretical intercourse that occurs within Marxian thought is made apparent through the many manifestations of the dialectics within society. For distinguished sociologist, Karl Marx, the role of the dialectic is in analyzing the antagonistic and contradicting forces within society. So, conflict then becomes one of, if not the most important concept used in Marxian thought to explain or show the existence of the dialectical nature of society. It should be noted that, a dialectical relationship also exists in Marxian theorizing, between the structures or infrastructure and the superstructure, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (that is, the oppressor and the oppressed, the exploiter and the exploited), ‘class consciousness’ and ‘false consciousness’, and even between conflict and equilibrium.
Therefore it becomes essential in examining and distinguishing ‘the roles of dialectics and conflict in Marx’s sociology on a whole’, to define the key concepts of Marxian thought, important in understanding the question being asked. According to the Dictionary.com, 2003, dialectic is the “contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.” As such, by extension therefore, conflict or class struggle may be defined as the “struggle between capital and labour” (Bob Jessop, Karl Marx, Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998). Therefore, it is the resulting contradiction caused by antagonism within the dialectical relationship. This suggests that social change, broadly defined, is the post facto occurrence of class conflict.
The role of dialectic, therefore, is in analyzing the relationship between two opposite forces. So, conflict then becomes the central theme of the dialectical relationship, and social class conflict that leads to social change. This, now, is the basis of Marxian theorizing: but, “it is more complicated than this simple and faceless explanation which calls for more in depth analytical exploration of the matter?”
The Genesis and Development of the Marxian Dialectical Approach
The origin of dialectical thought did not begin a few years ago but came about over some two (2) thousand years ago. This, then, new phenomenon was systemicatically developed by Hegel, and was further advanced by Marx and Engel. Karl Marx’s notion of the dialectic is traceable to Hegel, and characterizes every single element of his theory (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998).
Due to Marx contribution to politics, economic and sociology, it may be, easily, accepted and misconstrued that he is the only contributor to the development of the dialectical approach to some theories. As such, Hegel’s work can be said to be significant in at least three (3) respects to the core of Marxian theorizing (Any Austin, Hegelian and Marxist Dialectics, 2002). These include the Hegelian theory of change (that the transformative overcoming of natural and socially inherent limitations); Hegel’s theory of the “objectification of the material work through human labour” (Andy Austin, 2002); and Hegel’s attack on the liberal conception of the individual. Therefore it is Hegel, more than any one else, who can be seen as the “genesis of the anthropological hardcore of Marxian materialism’ – (Andy Austin, 2002).
Where as Hegel postulated materialism’ the idea that “the intellectual world of reason and views ultimately determines history” Marx on the other hand, argued that it was the “economic world that provided the key to understanding and transforming historical development” (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998). Such an intellectual discourse is unambiguously expressed in the philosophical dispute between idealism and realism (mind and matter debate).
Therefore, while Marxian methodology is rooted in Hegelian dialectics, Hegel can be considered to be a ‘philosophical idealist’. Furthermore, Marx accepted Hegel’s vague understanding of the historical dialectic. He, however, unequivocal rejected and criticized Hegel’s ‘idealism’ and ‘false positivism’, which implicitly justifies the status quo (Michelson, 1994). According to Marx, “Hegel has only found the abstract, logical, speculative expression for the movement of history” (Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 …). Similarly, in his Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (1867), Marx bluntly stated that the dialectic suffered a “mystification …in Hegel’s hands” and “it must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell” (pp. 45).
Concurrently, Marx attempted to turn Hegel’s notion of the dialectic “right side up”, by transforming it from a dialectic of idealism to a dialectic of human development, where “history is demystified and understood as humanity’s own creation and development of itself through labour” (B. Ollman, 1971). As such, Marxian methodology is a materialist dialect where it views social reality as a historical process (Mickelson, 1994).
Manifestations of Marxian Materialist Dialectics
In answering the fundamental sociological question (as to the origin or existence of society), Marx employed a materialism approach. He began by analyzing human activity, and argued that consciousness is a product of that (economic) activity (Key Sociological Thinkers, 1998). Thus, in the Preface to (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859), he argued that “it is not the consciousness of man that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”.
In his (Marx) views, society is the relationship acted out by individuals in coming to terms with the material conditions of their subsistence (Haralambos and Holborn, 2002). For him, there needed to be a material makeover of society, rather than a change in consciousness, for the achievement of human freedom. In using the economic world or ‘historical materialism’ to analyze this transformation and development, Marx purported the very social institutions originated from or exists in economic behaviour (Classical Sociological Theory, 1997). This may explain why Marx is credited with the position of ‘historical materialism’ or ‘economic determinism’.
Furthermore, Marxian notion of the dialectic becomes even more recognizable in his discourse concerning the components of the mode of production or the economy, which are: the means of production (ideological elements), and the relations of production (material elements), otherwise called the ‘structure’ or ‘infrastructure’ and the ‘superstructure’, respectively (Macionis and Plummer, 1998, pp. 62).
In recognizing that there is a dialectical interplay at all times between the structure and the superstructure, Marx purported that the economic system was the foundation of the institutional order and everything else was (religion, government, arts and marriage) was seen as a derivative superstructure built upon the base of economics (Masters of Sociological Thought, 1971).
The clear dichotomy in the mode of production or economy is actually a manifestation of his use of the dialectic. Thus, this manifestation of dialectical intercourse is also apparent as Marx goes on to discuss class, thus analyzing social conflict and social change.
In the Communist Manifesto, it is argued that ‘the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle’. Thus, concurrent with his ‘historical determinism’ or historical materialism’ dialectics approach, Marx went on to look at class conflict as being the driving force of social change from one historical epoch to the next.
In distinguishing the five (5) different historical epochs or stage of societies to which every society exist or existed belong: Primitive communism, ancient slavery, feudal society, capitalism and ultimately communism societies. Marx forwarded a position that class society began when the structure and-or superstructure was no longer communally owned, and thereby moved to privatization of resources (Classical Sociological Theory). As such, class emerges and along with it, class conflict (due to the separation of wealth in the mode of production), there also emerged a dialectical struggle that characterized the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, the oppressor and the oppressed (Master of Sociological Thought, 1971, pp. ).
It is this dialectical struggle that leads to social change, which occurs either when the oppressors are overthrown by the oppressed, or there is the “mutual ruination” of both (Macionis and Plummer, 1998 pp. ). Similarly, as there appears to be a distinct manifestation of dialectic between structure and superstructure, Marx pays much attention to the concept of a dominant ideology, in analyzing class-consciousness.
This dialectical struggle is made manifest in the superstructure where the dominant prevailing “false consciousness” (as seen by Marx) of the bourgeoisie, either suppress or impede the true class consciousness of the proletariat. As such, the value system of each class strive for hegemony there emerges a two (2) sided struggle at the superstructure level, that also drives social change. This explains the dialectical interplay when conflict seeks to threaten the equilibrium in society.
Further analysis of the dialectics of history within Marxian sociology reveal a certain dialectical relationship between and within the two (2) [alternative (end) stages] of society: capitalism and communism. The focus on this realization as well as one’s criticisms of Marxian thought concerning them will be explained in the two (2) concepts of “dialectical capitalism” and “classless consciousness”.
Dialectical Capitalism: New Analytical Currents
The concept of “dialectical capitalism” is critical realization of the notion of capitalism, being a presupposition of conflict within society. Therefore, capitalism is a support of the fact that dialectics exist this stage of society. For there to be value consensus, a collective conscience, or class consciousness, then concurrently there is recognition of the existence of conflicting values, conflict, and false consciousness. As one cannot exist without the other, then the realization of one is the recognition of the other. The fact is, even where integration or collaboration exist, individuals will always strive for self-preservation, irrespective of the needs of others. It is that causes conflict.
However, even with the existence of conflict, a disgruntled proletarian class and the increasing socio-economic lacunae between classes, it appears that such a conflict has become institutionalized and engrafted in advanced capitalist societies (Haralamlos and Holborn, 2002, pp. ). Thus, there may not be any threat to the present social order. The result is that, it appears that the proletarian class, far from being a class of itself, is dissolving in the “class consciousness” of the ruling class, which has created an emerging middle class, making the class structure of capitalist societies even more complex.
While the abovementioned arguments may explain to an extent a number of situations in societies, it can be asserted that even with the “false consciousness” of the proletarian class and the super complex structure of the capitalist societies, there will be a group within the groups, that will not be contented with what they have, will also want to overthrow the others. Similarly, even if this does not occur, and all classes fall to the fallacy of the “collective conscience”, then the mutual ruination of the classes thereby within itself will be a cause for social change.
Another criticism of Marxian dialectical thought came from Max Weber himself, another founding intelligentsia within the discipline. In his (Max Weber) study ‘Of ascetic Protestantism’, he argued that beliefs, values, ethics and attitudes also drive the development of capitalism, and not the economic factors (Haralambos and Holborn, 2000, pp. ). Such a criticism appears rather baseless, as Marx in Capital and Communist Manifesto, did make it clear that change also occur at the super-structural level also. Although he (Marx) prioritized the economic factors (after all he was an economist), they from only on aspect of the dialectic of history. Therefore the economy is primary, but not sole determinant of change, as those who own the mode of production also control the thought processes of society (and even that is still economic in its origin).
Communism: Classless Consciousness
Considering (hypothetically) that capitalism came to an end, Marxian thought would assert that it is the final stage of societal evolution. Here lies, what may seem to be a colossal pool of foolishness, cascading down from an active volcano with fierce less in mild stupidity, in Marxian theorizing? It appears that the postulations as purported by Marx is dialectical and contradictory in nature.
The concept of “classless consciousness” is an abstract criticism of Karl Marx’s predictions on how society will change. This is abstract in pure philosophical construct. The fact is history has yet to substantiate Marx’s view of communism and how society would transcend and eventually radical transform to communism. Though one is sure that the historical materialist and economic determinist he (Marx) was, he would way that “these things take time, just wait on another evolution or revolutionary epoch.” To day marks in excess of one hundred years since his (Marx) theories were first purported to the world. Is this time, and is it sufficient time given the World Trade Organization (WTO) position that the gap between the rich and poor economies has significantly widened? The WTO in 2000 forwarded an argument in a position paper that poverty has increased in the world. Then, what has happened to Marx’s position that society would change to collectivism?
The concept also assumes that Marx’s notion of communism is no different from “valued consensus” or the “collective conscience”. In proposing a classless society, Karl Marx is in fact supporting Functionalist claims – in that there is a consensus in values of the proletarian class upon their realization of their “false consciousness” that will cause him to utilize a collective will and action to overthrow, subdue and dissolve the bourgeoisie into usurping ‘proletariat consciousness’, thus forming a classless society. Hence, a ‘classless consciousness’ will take over and allow for the sustaining and maintaining a communist society – but is this really feasible and probable given the structures in our society?
Perhaps, perhaps not – in his postulations, Marx forgot the individualistic, possessive, territorial, materialistic values and attitudes of man that drove him from a classless society (Primitive Communalism) to a class society (Ancient Slave Owning). It may make for fascinated readings and information truths for a position paper to be written on the psychological state of man in his/her pursuit of happiness, the role that materialism plays in that cognitive state. This, therefore, may add an intellectual answer as to the importance of materialistic values in how man organizes him/herself in society.
The notion of religion that Karl criticized as it relates to the ‘pie in the sky’ is arguably the same he offered through a philosophic, economic determinist guise. I must hasten to add that this author has no religious idealism or religious epistemology. Although an abstract thought, it is arguable as to whether or not communism’s last hope and Marx’s avenue of solace and theoretical redemption is in religion, where the notion of a ‘here after’ may be the ideal communist society. Or, is this just an abstract theoretical academic construct that has no bearing on realism. However, even such postulations seem to be punch-drunk, and well out of the realm of sociological theorizing. This, now, lends itself for further research as needed answer must be sought that will explain the probable ness of Marx’s idealism.
In retrospect, although Marxism theorizing on the whole was influenced by Hegelian idealism and dialectical thoughts, it was by rejecting and criticizing Hegelian dialectical idealism that Marx postulated a notion of dialectical materialism in explaining how society exist over time.
Difficulties, however, arise in accepting the Marxian view of the origin of society from a material economic basis. Juxtaposed against this view is the Functionalist view that societies exist when there is working out of ideas and plans to get or even know that you have material needs – some form of social contract. This is, however, still debatable.
Furthermore, Marx did not adequately forward reasons for the emergence of private ownership within (Primitive communism) classless societies. What drove men to seek the private acquisition of wealth as opposed to still looking out for others? In the same way there was a change from classless to class society, how then can Marx expect to maintain a classless society such as communism? Marx must have forgotten the unpredictable behaviour of man even without class conflict. Even within the Soviet Union up to the 1989, and this nation represented socialism and to some communism, some men were more equal than other. Within that nation many of the organisms that are evident in capitalist countries like the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy to name a few were evident in that society. Thus to support Communism, Marx supported “value consensus” or the existence of a pre-capitalist dominant consciousness that will unite society. Given the materialistic values and idealism of man today, is Marx’s consensus assumption possible?
It is, however, unambiguously clear that dialectic and conflict goes hand in hand in Marx’s sociology on the whole and their role clear and fundamental essential to Marxism theorizing. Therefore, dialectics in context is the Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given contradiction is characterized by a primary and secondary aspect; the secondary aspect succumbing to the primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction (Dictionary.com).
Similarly at the foundation of dialectics is the theory of change and conflict which fuels progression through mounting antagonism between what Marx calls the mean and relations to the mean production. It is the relation of these social productions, which” constitute the economic structure of society” (Preface, 1973, pp. )
Another sociologist who is lauded with the accolade of being one of the founding fathers is Emile Durkheim. According to Dr Orville Taylor (2003:17), Du Bois’s empirical scientific research was the first empirical work with the discipline of sociology in the American sociology. In his view,
In 1896, he was commissioned to carry out a study on the African descendants
in the Philadelphia area. The study comprising more than fifteen months of work,
eventually became the first real empirical work in American sociology,
The Philadelphia Negro. This works of particular significance for the historical
development of sociology as a science. Within the chronology of sociology’s emergence
as a science it is positivist. Even more important is the fact that it was not only an attempt
to apply a scientific methodology to the study of social phenomena, but it utilized social facts,
popularized by Durkheim in his Rules of the Sociological Method (but traced back at least as
far as back as Ibn-Khaldun), to explain the condition of Blacks in Philadelphia.
His conclusion is as doctrinal to the discipline as one can get. In regard to the Blacks he
Declared, “His strange social environment must have immense effect on his wealth and
pauperism. That this environment differs and differs broadly from the environment of his
fellows …” (Du Bois 1971a:284).
From Dr Taylor writings, Du Bois’s works predated the contributions and empirical writing of Emile Durkheim whom is among the fathers of sociology. Both the traditional and contemporary sociological thinkers argued, Emile Durkheim’s empirical work on suicide used the science of positivism to establish a generalization of suicide in sociology. Durkheim’s work on suicide was similar that of Du Bois who predated him. Then, why is Du Bois not a founding father of the discipline given the fact of his pioneering contribution to the study of sociology? The answer lies in the same phenomenon that he spent his live studying.
We will now critically analyze the works of Emile Durkheim. The study that helped to propelled him to the zenith of sociology is that on Suicide. In his work, Durkheim’s main aim was concerned with the concept of social solidarity, how societies ‘hand together’ to function as one synchronized entity. He strongly recommended that the social life of the individual should not be studied distinctly from a biological or psychological approach. His approach in studying society was that of the deductive method. He believed that society makes the individual what (s)he is. Whatever rules society makes the individual has to abide by them so that society will function as one entity and as a whole. All structures of the society also are inter-related and functions as one unit at large. As a result, he goes on to distinguish a social fact from a psychological fact. A social fact, he states as a phenomenon that is larger than the individual who has two main characteristics – externality and constraint. Externality refers to the outside factor and constraint comes from within the individual. On the other hand, a psychological fact as cognition which has to do with the mind, thinking or thought processes of the individual.
Continuing, Durkheim posits that “Crime represents a social fact and not all men in a given society are criminals.” By this Durkheim means that crime is an issue that comes from the societal level and stems automatically from the society. Society causes crime and the social variable within it causes crime. However, not all men are criminals and crime can only be associated with some men and not all. Using his social fact that constitutes the externality and constraint, externality would refer to all the factors in the society that causes the individual to resort to illegal activities. Such main factors are unemployment, economic instability or depression, poverty among other factors but these being the most important. All these elements are produced by man based on the decisions they make within society, and a negative action will arise because man has no choice but to resort to criminal activities. Therefore, Durkheim would conclude that crime is caused by the society and not from the individual. However, the individual has a choice of not participating in criminal activities based on his level of constraint that comes from within. Deviancy can be viewed as a social fact and can be compared with crime. The end product of deviancy is crime. Society and the individual are both responsible for their acts of deviancy. Exteriority can be traced to deviancy in that man’s behaviour has breached the norms and values of one’s society.
Durkheim like W E B Du Bois used the science of positivism as a tool to propel this branch of social science as being able to use the principles of the natural science. In Durkheim’s contribution to sociology, his study on Suicide is of utmost importance to the field. It helps society to analyze critically the factors influencing man to commit suicide. In studying this phenomenon, he describes four types of suicide – Anomic, Egoistic, Altruistic, and Fatalistic Suicides. He believed that Suicide should not be analyzed from a psychological perspective only but also from a sociological perspective which must take into consideration social factors.
Another area in which Durkheim focuses his study on is mechanical and organic solidarity. According to Durkheim, simple societies with an undeveloped division of labour have strong and well-defined states of the ‘conscience collective’ and a mechanical form of social solidarity. By this he means that because their society is so small and closely intertwined or knitted, individuals do not need to specialize in different skills or modes of production. They are only familiar with one mode of production. Before the industrial revolution took place, the society was made up of only Pre-Industrial Families where the members would participate in cottage industries and all other business transactions were done only by the family members. However, as society became complex more ideas relating to the modes of production developed hence causing the specialization of goods and services. As a result, division of labour came about to equate with the needs of competitive goods and services. With the complexity of the society, individualism came about. People became more for themselves with the habit or principle of independency and self-reliance.
Once again Taylor (2003:18) provides us with analytic arguments that within themselves add powerful answer as to why Du Bois may have been sidelined by American sociologists. In his views,
There is every reason to suspect that Du Bois’ academic contributions would have
been stifled because, first of all, his ideas and research opposed the orthodoxy.
America was not ready, more than 60 years before the civil rights movement,
for a social science which challenged racism. At this juncture there can be found
some utility for the work of Marx, who himself, because of this revolutionary ideas
was not taught in American social science. Marx notes that the class which controls
the means of material production also controls the means of ideological reproduction.
In simple works, a White ruling class, with its allies in academia, excluded the work
of Du Bois from its central role in sociology.
From Taylor’s (2003:18) writings, Marx offered a powerful theoretical explanation for Du Bois exclusion from the founding fathers of the body of works known as sociology. Marx position was unambiguously clear in that the capitalists controlled both financial resources and ideological thoughts and so Du Bois’s work that sought to topple the status quo could not be place in the forefront of ideological bases as its purpose was to recreate and destroy the capitalists’ position on which they have invested everything. In Taylor’s (2003:18) views,
While America had to wait 40 years for the emergence of its conservative defender
Talcot Parson, before it had a sociology which represented its ideology. Parsons
resuscitated the ghost of Spencer and Durkheim and their organic model, and
advanced the notion of socialization but steered clear of the race issue. Like
the classical theorists, he presented a colour-blind sociology which makes
assumptions about the value consensus, suggesting that roles are for the benefit
of society on the whole. From this approach we find the work of Kingsley Davis
and Wilbert Moore (19450 who implicitly justify racism by suggesting
that society is a meritocracy and the unequal divisions within society serve
the interest of the whole. In the end sociology, as it was in the nineteenth
century, is a defence of the status quo.
From Taylor’s writing, Karl Marx argument undoubtedly answers the position of the capitalists as it relates to Du Bois. Despite the fact that Dr W E B (William Edward Burghart) Du Bois research on The Philadelphian Negroes used empiricism, statistical inference and postulations, and was the first sociological research of America not being a capitalist a position offered by Karl Marx clear explains why this pioneer was not idealized worldwide by the capitalists’ world. Dr James Jackson states that Du Bois, the scholar and scientist, was equally a man of action. He chose to keep the banners and goals of full equal rights flying high. Jackson later, so rightfully stated that W E B Du Bois was a great fighter for the African people, a true scientist, thinker and humanist. He (Du Bois) held aloft a bright torch of poetic inspiration that lightens the way and illuminates the path of all who struggle for freedom. The question that Du Bois posed and dealt with along the way of his arduous life will find resolution on the path that he chose the route of the great humanist and social scientist.
From what has been forwarded and discussed, William Edward Burghart Du Bois is in a founding father. He led a life of principle and example. Du Bois is responsible for many of the cherished memories that black people share. In addition to memories, he is instrumental in garnering many of the human rights that Black Americans enjoy today. Du Bois was the driving force behind the non-physical confrontational approach taken by Dr Martin Luther King. In that, he believed in education and not physical confrontation as the answer to the Africa-American problem. Du Bois knew what he wanted and worked relentlessly to achieve his ultimate goal the establishment that the black are equally competent and that their position is as a result of a created environment. He came about when there were a lot of sociological questions to be answered and he indeed, answered much of them including that of racism. Du Bois should also be credited for giving some insight on how the fundamental question of life should be answered. The work of W E B Du Bois The Philadelphia Negroes will always carry an air of prestige and honour for all black to see. He had other works such as The Soul of Black Folks and Black Reconstruction to name a few writings, which Dr Du Bois has left behind that, have made indelible mark on our societies and by extension history.
In concluding with Auguste Comte, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx being elevated to the pinnacle of founding father of sociology, with the discussion brought forth herein, Dr W E B Du Bois is undoubtedly a pioneer and a founding father of the discipline named sociology. In Ideaz, Dr Orville Taylor (2003:19) summarized the political and sociological dilemma unlike none other, when he wrote:
Yet, the so-called founding fathers were affected by a number of other
political, and economic developments that they were only able to see in a limited
context and exclusive of the African influence. The very pillar of modern society
that the classical theorists take as the main subject matter for their theories is
conceived of in an anti-historical fashion, bereft of the contribution of and
the relationship with African population.
The statements above offer many explanations for the marginality of the Blacks within our society as they live within a White world. So, DuBois exclusion from the high echelons of sociological scholarship is not accident but is as a result of his blackness and the purpose of his works. He sought to challenge the White establishment by his life’s works. Who was DuBois to challenge an ordered status quo? As such, DuBois’s empirical works although were significant and the first of their kind in the sociology of America, the Whites being the controllers of the financial resources were able to easily sideline the black scientist (W. E. B. DuBois). Therefore, Dr W. E. B. (William Edward Burghart) DuBois let peace wherein though lie be your comfort. For the Africans to which you fought, encourage and sought to elevate by scholarastic efforts do recognize and have accepted each thought that you sought to impart to us. In the new world, brother Dr DuBois, we recognize your epistemological construct and scholarship left behind as materialist pillars upon which we shall endeavour to build and encourage other black to read hereafter.
References
Broderick, Francis. 1978. W E B DuBois: Negro Leader in a Time of Crisis. California: Stanford University Press.
Clarke, John Henrik, et al. 1970. Black Titan: W.E.B. Dubois. Boston Press.
Comte, Auguste. 1974. The Positive Philosophy. New York: AMS Press.
Collins, Randal. 1994. Four Sociological traditions: selected readings, New York: Oxford University Press, London
Corder-Bolz, Judy, et al. 1978. Sociology: women, men and society. West Publishing Company, 50 West Kellogg Boulevard. P.O. Box 3526. St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Coser, Lewis and Rosenberg, Bernard. 1957. Sociological Theory: A Book of Readings. Second Edition. The McMillan Company, New York
Giddens, Anthony. 1982. Contemporary Social Theory. The Macmillan Press Limited. London and Basingstoke
Coser, Lewis A. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Du Bois, W E B. 1940. Dusk of Dawn. Harcourt Brace and the World. New York Press.
Du Bois, W E B. 1968. The Autobiography of W. E. B. DuBois: A Soliloquy on Viewing My Life From the Last Decade of Its First Century. New York: International Publishers Company Inc.
Du Bois, W E B. 1971a. The Philadelphia Negro. New York: Schocken Books.
- 1971b. The World and Africa. New York: International Publishers
- 1971c. Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of Race. New York: Schocken Books.
-
Durkheim, Emile. 1982. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.
Haralambus, M and Holborn, M (2002), Sociology: Themes and Perspective; London; University Tutorial Press
Jessop, Williams et al. 1998. Key Sociological Thinkers. R. Stones ed. New York, New York University Press
Katz, Michael B. 1998. W E B Du Bois, Race and the City: The Philadelphia Negro and its legacy. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadelphia.
Taylor, Orville W. 2003. Ideaz. Volume 2. Number 1. University Printery, UWI, Mona Campus, Kingston 7, Jamaica.
McCarney, Joseph. 1990. Social Theory and the crisis of Marxism. United Kingdom. 6 Meard St. London WIV 3HR
Macionis, John, J. and Plummer, Kenneth. 1998. Sociology. New York: Prentice Hall, New York
McIntosh, Ian. 1997. Classical Sociological Theory. Section 1, Washington Square, New York, New York University Press
McKissack, Frederick. 1990. W E B Du Bois. New York: Franklin Watts, 1990.
Monteiro, Tony. W E B Du Bois: Scholar, Scientist, and Activist. Online: Http://209.185.131.251/cg1-bin/linkrd?lang=&lah=a37ca9f52b8068fad2562b&lat=956195364&hm.
Moss, Alfred A. 1981. The American Academy. Louisiana State University Press.
Quarles, Benjamin. 1987. The Negro in the making. Touchstone, New York.
Post, Ken. 1996. Regaining Marxism. The Macmillan Press Limited. Great Britain
Ritzer, George. 1992. Contemporary Sociological Theory. New York, McGraw-Hill, USA
William, Darity A. 1994. The Black Underclass. Garland Publishing International. New York and London
Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. 1867. Karl Marx.Http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/archive/1848-cm/1872.txt. View date; October 23, 2003.
Communist Manifesto. Marx, Karl and Engel, F. Http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/archive/1848-cm/1888.txt. View date; October 23, 2003
Http://Dictionary.com. View date; October 23, 2003