ABSTRACT
Comte, Durkheim, Weber and Pareto were all concerned with establishing sociology as a distinctive social science, delineating in their work both the subject matter and methodology of the new science as well as providing specific examples of sociological study. Within sociology it is generally acknowledged that these nineteenth century thinkers, along with Karl Marx, represent the ‘founding fathers’ of the discipline. However, in the case of Marx a notable difference is evident in that although his concepts and ideas are to be found in the work of many sociologists, there is in fact in his own work no reference to, or analysis of, sociology either in terms of methodology, subject matter, or substantive study. In this respect the consideration of Marx as a sociologist becomes problematic, as does the nature of the relevance of his work for sociology. One thing is certain, relevance cannot merely be asserted or assumed since the only explicit reference Marx makes to disciplines in the contemporary sense is by way of critiques of both philosophy and political economy plus an assertion to the effect that he recognizes only one science, the science of history. This is not to say that Marx was unaware of developments around him, for as he noted in correspondence with Engels,
I am studying Comte on the side because the British and French make as much fuss over that fellow. What captivates them is the encyclopaedic about him, the synthesis. But compared with Hegel it is wretched (in spite of the fact that Comte as a professional mathematician and physicist is superior to him, i.e. superior in details; but even here Hegel is infinitely greater on the whole). And this trashy positivism appeared in 1832! (1953, p. 218). Although Marx does not provide any direct refutation of socio
logical science his dismissal of Comte’s and Saint-Simon’s work,
including a criticism of the preoccupation with the abstraction ‘society’, indicates a distinctive opposition to the new social science of society, and adds confirmation to the view that whatever Marx was, he was not a sociologist. However, the subsequent development of both sociology and Marxism in response to particular methodo logical and epistemological debates, as well as to societal changes, provides us with a very different historical context in which to attempt to make a judgment of the relevance and significance of Marxian analysis for contemporary sociology. One thing is certain, sociology is now rather different from the Comtean conception having developed partly in response to the various interpretations and modifications of Marx’s work. In consequence any attempt to reconsider the nature of the relationship between Marxian analysis and sociology must come to terms with not only the several socio logical interpretations of Marx’s work and the range of different sociologies, but also the existence of an heterogeneous Marxism and an ill-defined Marxist sociology.
