The concept of alienation has influenced the works of most modern thinkers. The present paper is an attempt to make a comparative study of the theories of alienation found in the works of three such thinkers. They are Karl Marx, whose life and works cover the middle part of the nineteenth Century, Max Weber, who in many ways is the bridge between the nineteenth and the twentieth century and; Karl Mannheim whose works begin when Weber's end and brings us to the most recent decades of this century. Amongst them, they cover more than one hundred years of modern history. They experienced wars, revolutions, economic and social crises of great significance and even expulsion, in case of Marx and Mannheim, from their native lands. They were impressed by the immense potentialities that this age offered; yet, at the same time, they were also aware of the forces that threatened to disrupt this civilization and reduce man to sub-human levels. A study of their works, therefore, brings us face to face with the problem of alienation in its entirety.

It is needless to say that there are dissimilarities in their theories of alienation. It is, however, assumed in this paper that similarities are close enough to allow a comparative study of these three thinkers. They all came to locate the source of alienation in the social, economic and political structure of the modern society. They also seemed to agree on the nature of alienation and the forms it took. Their point of departure, thus, does not lie in their overall treatment of the problem. It is to be found in their difference of emphasis on the causes that give rise to alienation. Thus, Marx focused on the capitalistic economy while Weber, though aware of such forces, argued that it was not the economy as such but rationality and the process of bureaucratization which are responsible for alienation in the modern society. Mannheim on the other hand, like Marx, finds the source of alienation in the lack of control of the producer over his own “works." And again, like Weber, he also recognized the consequences of over rationalization and how it led to alienation. These differences, as will also be argued in this paper, may be traced to the differences in the life experiences of these scholars. They came to work on the problem at different stages of its development. Thus while Marx could only speculate about a society fully alienated. Weber and Mannheim were almost living in it. Mannheim had the added advantage of living in an age when people were just beginning to be aware of the problem and was thus in a position to offer a solution to it and be more optimistic. And as might be expected, Marx was wholly utopian in his conception of a society free of alienation while Weber could never see an end to it.

This paper will try to elaborate on these issues. The paper is divided into five sections. In the first, the various meanings of the term alienation will be looked into. In the second, an attempt will be made to summarize Marx's theory of alienation. The third and the fourth sections will be devoted to the exploration of a theory of alienation in the works of Weber and Mannheim. At the same time, comparisons will be made with each other and with the theory of Marx, the concluding section will look into the question of adding alienation.

The Meanings of Alienation

The concept of alienation has been used to convey many ideas. It has been used to designate all sorts of negative attitudes which are present in the individual or in the society. It is seen as the negation of the world in such forms as estrangement, powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, isolation, loss of the self and so on. It finds a place in all social sciences, theology, psychology and in philosophy and literature. From Adam onward men have been found to be alienated in one form or the other. Keniston[1] feels that "heroes" of all kinds and all ages have been alienated and their stories are the tales of alienation and of struggles to end it.

Man's alienation becomes greater as he moves into the modern world. Here it unfolds in numerous varieties affecting both the individual psyche and the social fabric at large. Many like Marx see man's history as the history of alienation. Recognition of this is found in all ages. Intellectuals all through history have sought to interprate the phenomenon. Nisbet[2] says that any society that experiences sudden and violent change of its social order and values, gives rise to thoughts of both community building and alienation. Eberhard[3] argues that other generations also had the idea of alienation though they may not have expressed it in the same terms as we do today. Instead, the Idea “manifested itself in the literature, poetry, sculpture, painting and general culture of the times." Thus though the formal discussion of the concept was taken up only in the recent past, it remained what Keniston[4] calls, the 'archetypal theme' in human life and history.

                Alienation also finds a place in the everyday language. Johnson[5] shows that in its historic English meaning alienation is equated with transfer or expropriation of property or of individual rights. Alienation is also used as discontinue, frustration and hostility. Theologians used it to indicate separation of man from his God. They also saw it as outcastness. These views of alienation are also found in the writings of Schacht and Johnson and have filtered down to the day-to-day usage.

                A very good summary of the various meanings of the concept has been offered by Seeman[6]. He identifies five types of alienation. The first type, powerlessness, refers to a lack of control over an individual's own course of action * the consequences that follow. It is thus seen as a state of helplessness against the social and political forces. The second type of alienation refers to a lack of understanding of the individual's own situation and thereby a failure on his part to predict the outcome of his behaviour. This is the state of meaninglessness for the individual. Mills[7] in his study of the White Collar showed that a state of powerlessness may arise in case of the intellectual when he sees that "he cannot control what he is able to foresee." According to Mannheim, as will be shown later, alienation in the form of meaninglessness is witnessed when functional rationality increases and the substantial rationality fails to keep pace with it.

The third category of alienation is associated with a state of normlessness and is derived from Durkheim's theory of suicide. Durkheim called this a state of anomie, where there exists a general breakdown of law and order in the society. In the individual it is manifested as a state of uncertainty and insecurity. Anomie is also generated by a sudden change in the social and economic life of the individual and drives him to commit suicide. Durkheim attributed this to a loss of social solidarity. Merton treated the concept of anomie or normlessness as resulting from the ineffectiveness of the culturally prescribed means to attain the culturally expected goals. This imperfect coordination of the goals and means leads to the state of anomie. Men in such a situation resort to the easiest means available, whether they are culturally approved or not, for achieving their goals. For example those who discover the cause of their failure in the society become rebels. While many others resort to mysticism and develop a strong faith in chance, fortune and luck (Merton as quoted by Seeman[8]).

                Alienation as isolation results when individuals such as the intellectuals, fail to assign similar values to rewards that are highly coveted in the society. They regard the social goals as being unworthy of pursuing and as such distances themselves from those rewards and the society in general.

                Estrangement, the fifth type of alienation identified by Seeman, is probably the most popular term used to describe alienation. Marx used it to convey his notion of alienation. Mills also identified alienation in terms of estrangement. Fromm[9] said that by alienation is meant a mode of experience in which person experiences himself as an alien, "he has become, as one might say, estranged from himself”.[10] Thus estrangement is viewed almost as a synonym of alienation.

This summary of the various meanings associated with alienation points to a central theme, that is, the lack of control on the part of the individual over his environment, which produces in him a sense of frustration, powerlessness. This ultimately leads to the negation of the environment and a possible withdrawal from it. Whether it is another individual, a social, political or an economic force, when the individual feels powerless against it, to change or reshape it according to his wishes, and instead falls a helpless prey to it, an alienating situation arises. In such a situation, the individual may wish to isolate himself or revolt against the force. However, in most cases, it results in a humble submission of the individual to the over-towering forces, against which he can offer no resistances, physical or otherwise. But the conflict rages on within the individual and his helplessness breeds ill him a contempt for those forces to which, of necessity, he must surrender. And worst of all, there develops a contempt towards his own self. His existence becomes meaningless. And as more and more individuals get alienated, a state of normlessness is reached when social life as such looses its meaning. It is within this complex of meanings that the works of Marx, Weber and Mannheim will be examined.

Marx's Theory of Alienation

Marx saw alienation as estrangement and as being foreign (Entfremdung) to one's self. He viewed it as the separation of man from his product, from his self, society and nature. For him it is the debasement of personality and dehumanization of man.

His contribution to the theory of alienation was primarily confined to his early writings. Though, of course, the theme is said to have been carried on into his later works also. Authors such as Zeitlin[11] argue that Marx's contribution was in no way-restricted to the early writings and that Marx continued to be concerned with the problem of alienation throughout his life. Schacht[12] on the other hand notes that the "Manuscripts" last writings of Marx in which the term alienation figures centrally Zeitlin[13] however, asserts that even though there is very little reference to the topic in his later works, the theme of alienation plays a central role even in works like the Capital. Tucker[14] seems to agree with this. He says that in the later writings, of Marx the concept of alienation had "gone underground" and that the notion of "alienated labour" came to be represented by the notion of "wage labour". It might thus be argued that Marx continued to be concerned with the question of alienation throughout his life even though he was not often exp1icit about it. Indeed, it might even be suggested, as Fromm[15] does, that Marx's idea of socialism was the emancipation from alienation.

It is, however, comforting to know that Marx's treatment of alienation in his earlier writings is surprisingly complete. It is complete in the sense that he touches on all aspects of alienation namely, alienation of man from his product, from his self, from other men and from his species-being. In fact he is so thorough in his discussion that all later theories refer to him in one way or the other. This paper, however, will occasionally refer to his later (later than the 1844 Manuscripts) works also.

Marx's notion of alienation is rooted in his philosophy of human nature and of work (labour). To understand alienation in Marx, therefore one needs to look into these ideas first.

Marx's concept of human nature derived from Hegel takes production as the starting point. For Marx production becomes the "direct activity of individuality".[16] Through production the individual reproduces himself. Things produced, the product, is the objectification of his labour. Thus “his labor becomes an object, assumes an external existence".[17] He sees a reflection of himself in the object produced. Man becomes an objective fact for himself, accomplishes his self-realization. Therefore, through the things produced man comes to “confirm and realize his individuality”.[18] Thus production played a very central role in Marx's concept of human nature.

                Marx also saw in men two other essential characteristics. He argued that men also have a "social life” and a "sensuous life". It is in response to the "sensuous external world" that he produces things. But by senses, Marx did not refer to the five serves only. These senses are used to serve the "crude needs" and have a very restricted meaning. He found that the cultivation of the five senses was the work of all previous history.[19] What Marx was referring to as the “senses of social man" are like the “musical ear", like the eye “which is "sensitive to the beauty of form", the "spiritual senses", "which are capable of human satisfaction and which confirm themselves as human faculties."[20] Man needed to become human to cultivate such senses. It requires the “objectification of the human essence".[21] His basic-point here, according to Schacht,[22] is that man cannot be considered fully human until his senses have become human. Man cannot attain such a state as long as his senses remain subservient to the crude needs. The needy man, Marx said, has "no appreciation of the most beautiful spectacle".[23] Thus his ideal man should have the capacity for aesthetic appreciation. Marx saw such cultivation of the senses not only as an expression of the individual's personality but also as becoming more social.[24]

Being human for Marx also meant being social. In a number of places he came to equate the two. Man becomes human not only through his productive activity but also through his fellowship with other men.[25] Man's social characteristics are displayed in his species-bond. Man is social because he is a species-being. Marx here sought to distinguish between the animals and the species character of men. The life activity of animal is the same as itself, "it is its activity." But man's life activity is the object of his will and consciousness. It is this conscious ness that distinguishes him from the animals and it is for this reason only that he is a species-being.[26] It is through the production of the objective world that he becomes a conscious species- being, that is, he learns to treat others as belonging to his species and he to theirs, he becomes social. Thus for Marx man is a conscious being who realizes himself through production. And through production man also satisfies his social nature, he asserts his species-bond. He is also a sensuous being and needs to cultivate his aesthetic senses.

Marx also had high regards for work (labour). Work or labour is the activity through which production is carried out. Thus labour offers man the opportunity for self-realization. It helps develop his “spiritual and physical energies." He treated labour as a part of man's life activity. It is more than the means for the fulfillment of physical needs. It is an end in itself. He, therefore, wanted to see labour as free and voluntary.

                It is in such expectations regarding human nature and labour where lies the key to Marx's theory of alienation. It is easy to see that the forces which act against the free expression of human nature or those that constrain labour would be treated as barriers to the fulfillment of human personality. Such forces rob man of his opportunities for self-realization. They defer him from becoming human, Indeed, they dehumanize him. Such forces are therefore seen as hostile, as alien, as alienating.

                In the capitalist society, with which Marx was primarily concerned, alienation is fostered by a) the presence of private property, b) the transformation of human labour into a commodity and c) by the system of division of labour. Because of the system of private ownership, the object produced by the worker belongs to some one else. It is the other man for whom he produces. He has no control over the process of production or the product. He does not, therefore, fulfill himself in his product. He rather "denies himself." The product becomes alien to him. He has a feeling of misery rather than well-being.[27] He cannot develop himself or his mental and physical energies. He becomes physical1y exhausted and "mentally debased." He does not feel at home in his work. Work is avoided “like the plague." Thus his product is set against him, it becomes alienating.

The product of one's labour in the capitalist society becomes alienating in another way. His product does not only stand "opposed" to him, in the system of market economy, it now stand “independent of the producer”. It follows its own laws or the laws of the market and capital. Therefore, the more the worker produces, or "expands himself in work the more powerful becomes the world of objects which he creates. ..(and) the poorer he becomes in his inner life, and the less he belongs to himself". The worker puts his life into the objects therefore, it no longer belongs to him, it belongs "to the object". The worker gives life to the object but in the capitalist economy, the object, since it can operate on its own, sets itself "against him as an alien and hostile orce".[28]

In the capitalist society, human labour is transformed into commodity in yet another and a more direct way. The worker, to subsist has to sell his labour in return for wages. But, for Marx wage is also the product of alienation and in itself alienating. It is like the remuneration of the slaves.[29] In the capitalist system, the worker is considered as another form of capital. And as capital his value varies according to the supply and demand. He is simply equated with the other forms of goods. In the process of production, the worker produces capital and since through the production of capital for the capitalist he earns his living (in the form of wages), capital produces him. That is capital allows him to exist and recreate his physical energies through which he continues to produce more capital, Thus he also produces himself as a worker or as Marx puts it “as a commodity".[30] But that is not all. Marx thinks that the process of production does not only produce man as a commodity, it produces him (man) “as a mentally and physically dehumanized being".[31] Thus man is not only reduced to a commodity like any other in the capitalist society, he is also dehumanized- alienated.

The third factor, according to Marx, which induces alienation is the process of division of labour. In the Capital[32] Marx worked out an elaborate distinction amongst handicraft, manufacture and the factory mode of production. Marx argued that in the factory system, the last to    evolve, man is dehumanized totally. In the handicraft system the worker   was in command of his production and there was very little division of labour. In the manufacture system, the division of labour is Intensified, but it is still based on the division of handicraft labour.[33] In the factory system, which is based on machinery, on the other hand. the worker is turned into an appendage of the machine. Through the introduction of machinery, the working class is rendered superfluous, that is, they are no longer immediately necessary.[34] At the same time, the process of automation transforms him into a slave of the machine. The factory mode of production is also directed to an extreme system of division of labour in which the worker is merely involved in a part of the production process. Thus the worker is not only superfluous to the system, his personal contribution to the end product is very small and can never offer him the satisfaction of 'creation'.

                Marx's concept of man envisioned a freedom to express one's total self. In the German Ideology,[35] Marx (with Engeles) argued that in the future communist society no one would have any specific sphere of activity. Each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes". To the extent that one can do one thing today and another thing tomorrow, "to hunt in the morning, to fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner. ..without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.[36] But the system of division of labour and the process of specialization curtails such freedoms in the modern world. The individual is forced to become a one-sided being to follow one particular occupation. This not only robs him of other means of self-expression but sets him against others who have likewise been transformed into fragmentary personalities. Thus division of labour acts against his development into a universal being, as a total self and thereby alienates him. Fromm points out that what Marx had in mind when he criticised capitalism was the emancipation of man "from (such) cripling influence of specialization"[37], and create a society where man would be given the freedom of complete self-expression.

Thus the process of division of labour, the system of private ownership and the transformation of human labour into a commodity create alienating conditions for man. This culminates first, as has been shown, in the alienation of man from his product. In the next step, the alienated product alienates man from himself. It happens in two ways. First, because the product attains an independent existence of its own in the capitalistic market system and since it comes to belong to some one else (the capitalist), the worker fails to actualize himself in his work. That is, he fails to attain his true self. Secondly, the division of labour and the system of specialization and the modern technology make his work even less rewarding. He is turned into a fragmentary personality and even into a slave of the machine. Thus in the process of production, through which man could fulfill himself, now comes to deny his own essences. He is lost to himself, he is alienated from his self.

These conditions, Marx thought, ultimately led to the alienation of the whole society. He argued that since the product of labour is hostile and alienating to the worker, it must be because it belongs to another man hostile to the worker.[38] This realization brings about further alienation of the worker from other men (here, the capitalist). Marx also showed that the prevailing conditions of the capitalist society, where each worker has to compete with others, is like the Hobbesian war of all against all others. This Marx identified as the “civil society", which is guided by "egoistic" and individualistic demands. It is a perpetual struggle for survival and is rooted in the system of private property. In this struggle man exists for himself and not for his community or for his fellow men. His species character is lost. Thus, Marx noted that since alienated labour alienated man from himself so did it alienate him from his species-being.[39] Furthermore, Marx argued that in the process, species life is used as a means for individual life. That is, man comes to use others for his own selfish ends. It should also be noted that Marx argued that it is through work upon the objective world that man really proved himself as a species-being[40]. Thus, the object of his labour, is the objectification of his species life. But since his labour is alienated (because the product of his labour is alienated), his species life is also alienated. The direct consequence of his alienation from the product of his labour is therefore the alienation of himself from other men.[41] For Marx, therefore, man is not only alienated from his product or from himself, but because of a constant fight for survival and due to the alienating conditions of labour, man is also alienated from his species-being, from other men.

For Marx, therefore, the concept of alienation is rooted in the helplessness of man, his lack of control over the objects of his own creation. Alienation (estrangement) meant to him (Marx) that “man does not experience himself as the acting agent".[42] While at the same time the world man creates with his labour is estranged from him, it stands above and against him. Man lacks the power to control it. It is this passivity which gives rise to alienation. Fromm argues that alienation is "essentially experiencing the world and oneself passively, receptively, as the subject separated from the object”.[43] This idea of separation is also located in Marx's work by Schacht. Schacht argues that Marx's idea of alienation is expressed in the "separation through surrender".[44] The worker is alienated because he is separated from his product but at the same time he is also forced to surrender his product to others. Thus it is basically the lack of control over ones own environment which explains Marx's theory of alienation.

Weberlan Theory of Alienation

It should be noted at the outset that there is no comprehensive treatment of alienation in the works of Max Weber. What has been presented here are the bits and pices scattered allover his works. It is therefore easy to overlook the importance that the concept has in his writings. Yet, some like Nisbet[45] argues that the present meanings of alienation is derived from Weber and others like Durkheim and Tocqueville. And though Nisbet may not be wholly correct in such assumptions, there is no doubt that Weber contributed imensely in the understanding of alienation in modern society.

                Like Marx, Weber identified the forces of alienation in the modern Western society. But unlike Marx he laid greater emphasis on social and political forces rather than the economic conditions of the society. Modern Western society, as Weber saw it, was the result of the interplay of forces like, capitalism, democracy and bureaucracy, and underlying them all, the forces of rationalization. While all of these factors influenced the formation of the Western civilization in specific ways, Weber found that, they were all interrelated and mutually facilitated each other's growth. Bureaucracy and democracy, though seen as opposing forces, had been supplementary to each other's development.[46] Similarly, Weber showed that while capitalism fostered the growth of bureaucracy, the former was “most rational economic basis for bureaucratic administration and enabled it to develop in the most rational form".[47] Again, he argued elsewhere,[48] that bureaucracy promoted a rationalist way of life. In this interplay of forces, the most outstanding element appears to be the process of rationalization, and bureaucracy the most important agent of rationalization. An examination of these two forces reveals Weber's concern with man's future and alienation.

In all his writings, Weber sought to portray the West as being unique in its culture and civilization and that it was the Protestants who displayed this uniqueness the most. He discovered the cause of this uniqueness in the development of rationality in the West. West inherited its rationality from the Hebrew prophets, who had developed it ill their fight against magic and in their efforts to disenchant the world. This process of disenchantment continued unabated as more and more aspects of man's life came to be rationalized. Rationalization, with its emphasis on "calculations" and "matter of factness", had transformed the modern society radically.

Weber divided rationality into two types, the formal and the substantive. By formal rationality he designated the "extent of quantitative calculations or accounting which is technically possible and which is actually applied".[49] By this he came to identify actions that are calculable and could be expressed numerically. Substantive rationality, on the other hand, is the "degree in which a given group of persons, ...is or could be adequately provided with goods by means of an economically oriented course of social action".[50] This course of action refers to the ultimate values of the society. Weber points out that substantive rationality could not be measured in terms of formal calculations alone but that it involved a relation to the absolute values to which it is oriented. Thus substantive rationality becomes more subjective in its application as opposed to the objective rationality of the formal type. Parsons points out that tensions develop between these two aspects of rationality. This tension arises from the fact that" a high degree of formal rationality can be attained only under certain specific substantive conditions. But such conditions are always in conflict with the interest and moral sentiments represented by high substantive rationality. Therefore, high level of formal rationality can be achieved, as will be shown later in the case of modern bureaucracy, only at the cost of values and sentiments cherished by the society. Thus the process of rationalization takes away from man as much or even more than it gives him.

                The cause of rationalization therefore proves to be self-defeating. The forces that were required by the society to break away from the irrational and the magical finally turned against man himself. All of man's values and sentiments were slaughtered at the alter of rationality and today man is left with a viod in his soul. Nisbet[51] points out that Weber's concept of alienation springs from this inversion of rationality. Nisbet further adds that by removing the irrational, the superstitious, and the traditional elements from man's life, rationalization, in the end, becomes its own "nemesis".[52] Indeed, Weber showed that the fate of modern times was characterised by the disenchantment of the world. And because of this the most exalted of man's values had disappeared from the society. Men, therefore, came to seek solace in mysticism or in the bonds of direct and personal relations only.[53]

Weber asked whether the process of disenchantment had any meanings beyond the purely practical and technical. To this he answered that, caught in the stream of progress, man "may become 'tired of life' but not 'satiated with life'.[54] A man of the past, like Abraham, could be satiated with life but modern man got only a portion of what life

offered and what man got was always "provisional" and indefinite. His life was thus a fragment of what it could be and in this situation even death became meaningless for him. And, Weber adds that, "because death is meaningless civilized life as such is meaningless".[55] This sense of meaninglessness drove man to search for new meanings of life. He devoted, or believed he was devoting, himself to new faiths and religions, and often he withdrew or descended to the mystic life. Freund[56] inter-prates Weber as 5aying that in this march of rationalization the world becomes devoid of all charms and man loses his sense of prophecy and the sacred, and a great void is left in him. To fill this void, men "attempt to furnish their souls with the bric-abrac of religiosity, estheticism..moralism or scienticism."[57] Thus for Weber, the process of rationalizationin the West brought about an alienating situation to flee from which men took refuge in the irrational.

Weber's concern for alienation becomes more explicit in his discussion, of bureaucracy. For him bureaucracy was the best agent of rationalization. With its emphasis on impersonal rules, precision, unambiguity, matter of factness, and calculability, bureaucracy “naturally" promoted a rationalization of any sphere of life it came in contact with. The real threat of alienation in the modern world, therefore, lay in the ever greater bureaucratization.

Weber was the first among the social scientists to bring to light the dangers inherent in the total bureaucratization of the world. Bureaucracy, with its disregard for personal values, mechanizes man and his relations with other men. The more perfect it becomes as an administrative apparatus, the more it takes away from men. It dehumanizes as it roots out man's values and sentiments by its insistence on calculable rules. Bureaucracy thribes on the dehumanization of man. Its disregard for persons and insistence on conducting all dealings on the basis of calculation is the cause of such dehumanization. Yet, these are of paramount importance for a bureaucracy. They are treated as the most important virtues, and the bureaucracy becomes the more perfect as “it succeeds in eliminating from official business love, hatred and all purely personal irrational and emotional elements which escape calculations"[58] Marx argued that alienation of the worker is caused by the separation from his product and from the means of production. Weber recognized this separation of the worker and added that it was not only the worker but also the administrators in the state and capitalist organizations, along with those of schools, church, hospital, the military and even in the scientific research institutes, who are separated "the same way as capitalist enterprise separated the workers" from their means.[59] Therefore, if for Marx, the workers could be alienated because the product of their labour or the means of production did not belong to them, then for Weber, the administrators could be alienated for the same reasons. Weber noted that there was always a complete separation of the means of private life and the means of administration. The official cannot appropriate what he produces either. Thus Weber not only recognizes the plight of the workers, he also draws attention to the vast multitude of administrators, scientists, teachers, in a word, the whole of the middle class who are sharing the same fate as the workers. This definitely is an improvement over Marx's position on alienation. Fromm points out that this is the only "correction which history bas made in Marx's conception of alienation"[60]. He further adds that “if anything, the clerk, the salesman, the executive, are even more alienated today than the skilled manual worker"[61]. The credit for the discovery of this aspect of alienation definitely belongs to Weber.

                In his analysis of the position of the official Weber focuses on yet another aspect of alienation, namely powerlessness. In his analysis powerlessness works in two directions. First, the individual bureaucrat is seen as totally powerless in relation to the whole organization. He can neither change the system nor can he come out of it. He is like a “single cog" in the machine and works to fulfill only what is assigned to him. For Marx the worker became a part of a machine by working on it, similarly for Weber the official became a helpless cog in another kind of machine by belonging to it more fully. The professional bureaucrat, Weber argued, “is chained to his activity by his entire material and ideal existence".[62] Such statements, it might be added, sounds as Marxist as any formulations of Marx himself.

Secondly, the masses or the “ruled" are equally powerless against the bureaucratic apparatus. And once the bureaucratization has been completed, the organization becomes “practically unshatterable". Indeed, Weber considered the idea of eliminating a bureaucracy as “utopian". Yet, unfortunate, as it may seem, the ruled, on their part, cannot dispense with it either. Thus they are forced to a helpless position under its tyrannical powers.

And if this is true for capitalism, it would be only more so for socialism. Weber argued that socialism needed even greater amount of bureaucratization than capitalism. Thus if bureaucracy alienates the capitalist society, it would alienate the socialist society too. In a recent study Israel showed that in the socialist societies "majority of the people became powerless objects manipulated by bureaucracy".[63] He further argued that in such a bureaucratic social structure man became alienated "whether or not be belonged to the ruling to the ruled groups".[64] Thus, here, also, we find a further development on Marx's theory. Therefore, it can be concluded that Weber's theory of alienation was, not only comparable to that of Marx but in many instances it was an extension over the latter's theory. Such differential emphasis, as will be argued later, can be attributed to the changed social and economic conditions under which Weber was working.

Mannheim's Theory of Alienation

                Mannheim's theory of alienation incorporates the works of both Marx and Weber. Also like Marx, he made his major contribution to the theory in his early writings. His later writings are, however, a reminder of the works of Weber and the later Marx, where the theme of alienation runs very deep but it is never explicit. It will, therefore, be advisable to look first at his earlier and more concrete presentation and then try to identify the theme in his later works.

In 1917, in one of his lesser known essays,[65] Mannheim worked out a very comprehensive theory of alienation. Stupak[66] summarizes the essay in the following manner. Man produces “work", which are a sign of his creative nature. But as time passes, these "works” come to be governed by their own laws. They become objects of culture, greater than their creators. Through the process of history, as these “works" get transmitted to other men, in the form of religion, art, science, the state, and the mode of social life, the gap between the creator and the objects widens. They thus become separated entities in themselves. And as this process continues, the "work" becomes more and more alienated from the individual who created it. In the next step, culture takes on a life of its own, and gets completely dislodged from the individual. At this phase culture goes beyond and “against the individual". Culture comes to dictate what man will do. Man becomes a mere "role player”. His creative inner-directedness is lost and he is transformed into an "other-directed" role player. And as his creative spirit is extinguished, he becomes alienated from himself.

                Needless to say that this resembles Marx's theory very closely. The idea of alienation from one's product and alienation from one's self are very clearly developed. The arguments offered are similar to those of Marx. That is, man gets alienated from his product as that product attains a life of its own and follows its own laws. Similarly, the alienation of the self results from the helplessness of man against his culture. Thus, since all societies have cultures, it appears that men in every society would get alienated to some degree or the other. Indeed, Mannheim, at this stage, does not see a way out of alienation. All he can say is that, the individual and the culture are mutually dependent on each other and that culture cannot be "productive" without the total surrender of the individual to it. While, on the other hand- the individual cannot secure his own redemptation if he fails to make the culture “his own". Stupak concludes from this that what Mannheim had in mind was that “in essence, man must cultivate and renew his creative and productive capabilities or he will be swallowed up by a dictating system of cultural dogmas."[67]

                What is interesting in Mannheim's discussion of alienation here, is the concepts of "work" and "culture". He referred to works that are transmitted in the form of religion, art, science, the state, and the modes of social life. Thus he seems to be talking of the products of mental rather than physical labour as was the case with Marx. (Of course, Marx also included mental labour in his scheme of analysis but remained more concerned with physical labour). Again, the concept of "culture" in Mannheim closely approximates what Marx would identify as the “super structure" and not the basic economic structure of the society. These indicate that Mannheim's major concern was with people who create “culture", the intellectuals, or at best the people who are not related directly to the economic mode of production. Instead he referred to the mode of social life. Heeren,[68] therefore, points out that Mannheim tried to do for the intellectuals what Marx had done for the workers. That is, Mannheim tried to bring to light, like Weber before him, the alienation that existed among members of other strata in the society.

This concern with the alienation among the intellectuals is displayed further in his later writings. But at the same time he learns to recognise the plight of the masses as well. In his Ideology and Utopia[69] (first published in 1929) Mannheim referred to the rejection of the “here and now." This rejection of reality arises out of a failure to regulate the course of one's own life in the real world. Thus out of a sense of helplessness against the overwhelming social and political forces, man comes to reject the reality in which he lives. This results in the construction of imaginary worlds, devoid of reality, in which he can fulfill his dreams. These imaginary situations were identified as the ideologies and utopias. “Ideologies are the situationally transcendent ideas which never succeed de facto in the realization of their projected contents, "like for example, the Christian idea of brotherly love in the highly stratified feudal society.[70] Utopias are also situationally transcendental ideas but they are action oriented in the sense that they "tend to shatter, either partially or wholly, the order of things prevailing at the time."[71] Though the distinctions between the two concepts are difficult to draw,[72] Mannheim found the presence of both in all societies. This rejection of reality and the construction of wish dreams reflects the state of an alienated mind. The alienated mind looks for escape from the dreary reality and constructs hypothetical worlds in which the individual is the master of his own actions, where things go his way.

                However, not all such states of mind reflect alienation. Alienated mind does not only create hypothetical worlds, it also rejects the “here and now." On the basis of these categories, Mannheim identified at least two states of mind, Chiliasm and socialism, which reflect "detachment and alienation" from the world. Chiliasm unfolded itself as the peasant movements in feudal Europe. The chiliastic mind "lends at every moment to turn into hostility towards this world and all its works of earthly achievements." This rejection of the world resulted from the inhuman oppression of the peasants by the upper classes. It is seen by Mannheim as the beginning of "proletarian self-consciousness". Socialism is similarly a rejection of the here and now. The difference between these two types lies in their plans to end such alienating states of affairs. Chiliasm is directed at the immediate transformation of the world, whereas socialists look to a future date when the present society could be brought to an end. The other forms of wish dreams like, liberalism and conservatism do not reflect alienation since they are not rejections of the here and now.

But Mannheim was quick to point out that both socialistic and chiliastic minds can become conservative. This would happen as they succeed to establish themselves in power positions and thereby bring an end to their wish dreams. Mannheim also noted that the world is more and more achieving a position when it can turn utopias into realities. Thus a situation will arise when the utopian element "has completely anihilated itself". But such ends of utopias do not mean an end of alienation. Mannheim argues, on the contrary, that this situation gives rise to a decay of human will, man becol11es "no more than a thing".[73] He calls this the "greatest paradox imaginable" that when man has achieved the degree of rational mastery of existence, “just at the highest stage of awareness, when history is ceasing to blind fate, and is becoming more and more man's own creation, with the relinquishment of utopias, man would lose his will to shape history and therewith his ability to understand it”.[74] That is, with the end of utopias, man gets even more alienated.

                Mannheim takes up the question of rationality in another of his well known work, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction,[75] first published in 1935. Here, like Weber, he came to locate alienation in the process of rationalization. He also argued that rationalization can be seen in two forms, the functional and the substantial. By substantial rationality he identified "an act of thought which reveals intelligent insight into the inter-relations of events in a given situation".[76] By functional rationality he meant that "a series of actions is organized in such a way that it leads to a previously defined goal".[77] Functional rationality thus indicates a coordination of the end-means relations but substantial rationality requires a total knowledge of the situation. Mannheim noted that the two aspects of rationality do not nec-necessarily conform to each other. Thus an increase in the functional rationality does not imply an equal amount of development in the substantial rationality. Indeed, he showed that, in the modern industrial society where functional rationality has attained a very high level, substantial rationality or the understal1ding of the forces that led to the growth of industrialization bas not. That is, the knowledge that shaped this world did not reach every member of the society equally. Therefore, he argued that such increases in the functional rationality is "bound to deprive the average individual of thought, insight and responsibility and transfer these capacities to individuals who direct the process of rationalization[78] This would also assure those few managers, bureaucrats and organizers, who understand the affairs of this world to move to the key positions in society. And as the average man's capacity for rational judgement steadily declines due to his lack of understanding of the situation, and as a result, the control over his environment, he becomes more and more dependent on the elites. He becomes accustomed to being led by others and when this life collapses in times of crisis, common man's 'impotence reduces him to a state of terrified helplessness".[79]  Mannheim equated this helplessness of the modern man with that of the pril1litive man who lived in a constant state of fear and anxiety because he had no understanding of his environment. So it is with the modern man who has no understanding of the social forces and as such no control over his life. He too is condemned to live in a state of pervading fear and anxiety.

Mannheim also argued that in periods of crisis or in the dissolution of the society (state of Anomie?) man reverts to an earlier historical era. The general state of uncertainity presented by such a situation is catastrophic. It is also true of cases of unemployment. The unemployed impules man loses his "objects fixation", his habitual desires and remain ungratified, and irrespective of the social strata that the individual comes from, once his old ideals are shattered, his impulses turn inward and take the form of "self punishment", This finally degenerates "into masochistic or psychologically self-mutilating orgies".[80]

Thus, Mannheim's theory of alienation takes into account the plights of both the intellectuals and the masses. Like Marx he found one source of alienation in the process of production and culture on the other hand, like Weber, he also recognised another source of modern alienation in the process of rationalization. He, therefore, in a way stands between the two thinkers. Mannheim started with a theory of alienation that was rooted in the analysis of the process of production and an examination of the role of culture. But his later studies brought him closer to the more modern themes like the question of rationality, In the process, as will be argued presently, his initial passimism changed into one of hope and aspirations.

The End of Alienation

Not all three of the thinkers were hopeful about the end of alienation. Mannheim considered it a possibility, Marx offered revolutionary plans, though he was not clear as to the shape of things in the world free of alienation, while Weber saw only "icy darkness" in our future. These and other differences in their theories of alienation can be explained by taking into account their life experiences and the over all social context. Marx lived at a time when industrialization was just taking hold in Europe. The old society that men knew was changing so rapidly that life was not only becoming uncertain but was also losing its frame of references. The urban based industrial life was almost a complete antithesis of the agriculture based rural society. The  conditions of the general masses was really very pathetic. The working conditions in the mills and factories were deplorable. Man was being treated worse than animals, his labour was being bought and sold without taking into consideration his welfare or his dignity as a man. Marx's writings, particularly his Capital, are full of such examples of inhuman sufferings and pain and degradation of human labour and of humanity. His own life experiences were not sweeter either. His economic life was far from being satisfactory.[81] He was exiled from his home and was pursued by the ruling elites whereever he went. Three of his children died, presumably from malnutrition. He was not even able to pay his house rents properly. However, this is not to say that his personal biases prompted hil11 to denounce this society but there is no denying the fact that his poverty brought him face to force with the plights of the millions around him. He saw alienation wherever he looked. He saw no end to it as long as the capitalistic society persisted so he preached a destruction of that society and he thought once that was achieved, once the forces which crippled men were taken care of, alienation would end. He dreamed of a society where man could do whatever he pleased but since he was not sure about the structure of that society, other than saying that in such a society every thing would be communally owned, he could not devise a workable plan. The only plan he offered was the destruction of capitalism and the establishn1ent of a society where the workers would rule. But his "wish dream"-to borrow an expression from Mannheim, the communistic society, remained a utopia. Thus in the Mannheimian sense of the term, Marx could be seen as the perfect “utopian" thinker. He rejected the "here and now" of his situation and had an action programme for ending the capitalist society. The end of alienation was in sight, yet since he had no reference points, he could not conceive of the shape it would take. His own time and society did not offer him that insight.

Perhaps, Weber was the most fortunate of the three thinkers. He did not have to run from one country to the other in search of a shelter. His economic and social standing were respectable. He even ran for political office. Yet, his times were also bad. The spirit of nationalization and colonization had taken hold of Germany. Europe was sitting on a live bomb which finally exploded bringing about a complete defeat and total humiliation for his native land, Germany. This bred total frustration among the intellectuals and the youths of Germany. Baum[82] makes a comparative study of that time in Germany and the modern West. He shows that the intellectuals and the youth were dismayed in Germany. They sought to relieve their tensions through extra emphasis on religion and even sex. Weber was aware of these conditions but considered such attempts by the intellectuals and the youths to restore their lives as not so genuine efforts. He could not see an end to the emptiness in their souls.

                Weber also witnessed the march of bureaucracy and rationality. Though he considered both to be essential for the development of modern society, he was aware of their ill effects. He saw how in Germany and rest of the West bureaucracy along with the process of rationalization, was taking away all charms from mall's life. It is no wonder, therefore, that he would consider such forces as being more important than the forces of economy. He would similarly look at the lives of people who have to deal with those forces, like the middle classes, as being equally alienated as the lives of the workers. The condition of the workers had improved since the time of Marx and they were also becoming a great force ill the society. But the middle classes, at this time, were in the most helpless conditions. They were distrusted both by the ruling-classes and by the masses. The intellectuals, in particular, were being made the escape goats and blams for the failures of economic and social programmes were being put on them.

                Weber, therefore, could not see any end to this aspect of alienation. He argued that if man wanted pr ogress, he had to develop the forces of rationality further. Even socialism, which seemed so promising for Marx, was seen by him as strengthening the bands of bureaucracy and rationality. The only alternative he could suggest was to “face the future boldly", though, of course, he was certain that "no summer's bloom" lay ahead of us. He saw infront of us “a polar night of icy darkness and hardness". There is, thus, no escape from the “iron cage" that man had created.

Mannheim, writing at a later period than Marx and Weber, seems to have been in a better position to understand the forces of alienation and assess its future more optimistically. Needless to say that he too was for a while hopeless about the future of mankind. We see this pessimism in his first essay on alienation, written in 1971. This was the time which Weber was confronting. Therefore, like Weber, he also expressed his doubts regarding the end of alienation. He also advocated that man must somehow bear the tyranny of culture if he wanted progress. This position, however, changed later. Like Marx, he was forced to leave his country and finally settle in England. He not only witnessed the persecution of the intellectuals but was a victim of it as well. Intellectuals were being bunted down by the Fascist regimes in Italy and Germany and soon all over Europe. He recognized their great potential but also experienced the helplessness in which the intellectuals were forced into. He saw how Europe fell victim to the fascist rule. He reasoned that the average man had lost control over their affairs. Their uncertainty mounted as life became more and more complicated and they understood less and less of it. The difference between them and their leaders grew more and more. It was therefore very easy for the Fascist demagogues to influence them. And that's what was happening in Europe. It was thus easy for Mannheim to recognise the forces of alienation. They were all around him.

But when he reached England, his hopes 'were rekindled. Life in England was more tolerable. Compared to the continental Europe, life was peaceful. Man's freedom and rights were respected. Democracy was honoured. Indeed, after his experiences in Europe, he came to regard this as the only model of hope for humanity. He was full of praises for the English system of economy, politics and social life. Amidst such praises, he began to dream about a society free of alienation. He argued that man's nature could be moulded into desired shapes. So that with proper planning human society could be transformed into one where there is democracy and freedom. He was so thoroughly convinced of the possibilities & such changes that he spent most of his later life devising ways in which societies could be transformed into planned democracies and thereby bringing an end to the alienation of man.

Thus we find that the practical experiences of these thinkers shaped their theories regarding alienation. All three of them lived in the middle of alienated societies and met the forces of alienation face to face. Weber developed his pessimism simply because from his experience he could see no end to the bureaucratic rule of this society. Marx's hopes lay in the destruction of the capitalist society. Mannheim, coming at a time when things were already changing, could look to better days ahead. Indeed, he began to contribute towards such ends through his writings and by bringing into focus the prospects of sound planning. The contributions of these three thinkers are imense for the understanding of modern society and particularly, the alienation that exists in it.