Download foundations of political science

FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
5 MARKS
1.Political
sociology
Contemporary political sociology involves, but is not limited to, the study of the relations between state and
society.[1] Where a typical research question in political sociology might have been: "Why do so few American
citizens choose to vote?"[2] or even, "What difference does it make if women get elected?" [3]political
sociologists also now ask: "How is the body a site of power?",[4] "How are emotions relevant to global
poverty?" [5] or "What difference does knowledge make to democracy?" [6]
The opening up of political sociology does not mean that old topics have been discarded. Traditionally there
were four main areas of research:
1. The socio-political formation of the modern state;1
2. "Who rules"? How social inequality between groups (class, race, gender, etc.) influences politics; [7]
3. How public personalities, social movements and trends outside of the formal institutions of political
power affect formal politics;
4. Power relationships within and between social groups (e.g. families, workplaces, bureaucracy, media,
etc.).[8]
In other words, political sociology was traditionally concerned with how social trends, dynamics, and structures
of domination affect formal political processes, as well as exploring how various social forces work together to
change political policies.[9] From this perspective we can identify three major theoretical frameworks: pluralism,
elite or managerial theory, and class analysis (which overlaps with Marxist analysis).[10] Pluralism sees politics
primarily as a contest among competing interest groups. Elite or managerial theory is sometimes called a statecentered approach. It explains what the state does by looking at constraints from organizational structure,
semi-autonomous state managers, and interests that arise from the state as a unique, power concentrating
organization. A leading representative is Theda Skocpol. Social class theory analysis emphasizes the political
power of capitalist elites.[11] It can be split into two parts. One is the 'power structure' or 'instrumentalist'
approach, another is the structuralist approach. The power structure approach focuses on 'Who Rules?' and its
most well-known representative is G. William Domhoff. The structuralist approach emphasizes on the way a
capitalist economy operates; only allowing and encouraging the state to do some things but not others (Nicos
Poulantzas, Bob Jessop).
Contemporary political sociology takes these questions seriously, but it is concerned with the play of power and
politics across societies, which includes, but is not restricted to, relations between the state and society. In part,
this is a product of the growing complexity of social relations, the impact of social movement organising, and
the relative weakening of the state as a result of globalization. In large part, however, it is due to the radical
rethinking of social theory. This is as much focused now on micro questions (such as the formation of identity
through social interaction, the politics of knowledge, and the effects of the contestation of meaning on
structures), as it is on macro questions (such as how to capture and use state power). Chief influences here
include cultural studies (Stuart Hall), post-structuralism (Michel Foucault, Judith Butler), pragmatism (Luc
Boltanski), structuration theory (Anthony Giddens), and cultural sociology (Jeffrey C. Alexander).
2.Social movement
Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings
of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out,
resist or undo a social change.
Modern Western social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination of literature),
and increased mobility of labor due to theindustrialization and urbanization of 19th century societies. It is
sometimes argued that the freedom of expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in
the modern Western culture are responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary
social movements. However, others point out that many of the social movements of the last hundred years
grew up, like the Mau Mau in Kenya, to oppose Western colonialism. Either way, social movements have been
and continued to be closely connected with democratic political systems. Occasionally, social movements have
been involved in democratizing nations, but more often they have flourished after democratization. Over the
past 200 years, they have become part of a popular and global expression of dissent.[1]
Modern movements often utilize technology and the internet to mobilize people globally. Adapting to
communication trends is a common theme among successful movements. Research is beginning to explore
how advocacy organizations linked to social movements in the U.S.[2] and Canada[3] use social media to
facilitate civic engagement and collective action.
Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social
movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular
movements and the formation of new political parties as well as discussing the function of social movements in
relation to agenda setting and influence on politics.
Definition
Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by
which ordinary people make collective claims on others.[1] For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for
ordinary people's participation in public politics.[4] He argues that there are three major elements to a social
movement:[1]
1. Campaigns: a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims of target authorities;
2. Repertoire (repertoire of contention): employment of combinations from among the following forms
of political action: creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions, public meetings, solemn
processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and
pamphleteering; and
3. WUNC displays: participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers,
and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies.
Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or
cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents
and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and advocacy groups.[5]
History
The term "social movements" was introduced in 1848 by the German Sociologist Lorenz von Stein in his
book Socialist and Communist Movements since the Third French Revolution (1848) in which he introduced the
term "social movement" into scholarly discussions[6] - actually depicting in this waypolitical movements fighting
for the social rights understood as welfare rights.
Tilly argues that the early growth of social movements was connected to broad economic and political changes
including parliamentarization, market capitalization, and proletarianization.[1] Political movements that evolved
in late 18th century, like those connected to the French Revolution and thePolish Constitution of May 3,
1791 are among the first documented social movements, although Tilly notes that the
British abolitionist movement has "some claim" to be the first social movement (becoming one between the
sugar boycott of 1791 and the second great petition drive of 1806). The labor movement and socialist
movement of the late 19th century are seen as the prototypical social movements, leading to the formation
of communist andsocial democratic parties and organisations. From 1815, Britain after victory in
the Napoleonic Wars entered a period of social upheaval. Similar tendencies were seen in other countries as
pressure for reform continued, for example in Russia with the Russian Revolution of 1905 and of 1917,
resulting in the collapse of the Czarist regime around the end of the First World War.
In 1945, Britain after victory in the Second World War entered a period of radical reform and change. In the
post-war period, women's rights, gay rights,peace, civil rights, anti-nuclear and environmental
movements emerged, often dubbed the New Social Movements [7] They led, among other things, to the
formation of green parties and organisations influenced by the new left. Some find in the end of the 1990s the
emergence of a new global social movement, the anti-globalization movement. Some social movement
scholars posit that with the rapid pace of globalization, the potential for the emergence of new type of social
movement is latent—they make the analogy to national movements of the past to describe what has been
termed aglobal citizens movement.
3.Social theory
Social theories are frameworks of empirical evidence used to study and interpret social phenomena. A tool
used by social scientists, social theories relate to historical debates over the most valid and reliable
methodologies (e.g. positivism and antipositivism), as well as the primacy of either structure or agency. Certain
social theories attempt to remain strictly scientific, descriptive, and objective. Conflict theories, by contrast,
present ostensibly normative positions, and often critique the ideological aspects inherent in conventional,
traditional thought.
Тhe origins of social theory are difficult to pinpoint, but debates frequently return to Ancient Greece (Berberoglu
2005, p. xi). From these foundations inWestern philosophy arose Enlightenment social
contract theory, sociological positivism, and modern social science. Today, 'social science' is used as an
umbrella term to refer to sociology, economics, political science, jurisprudence, and other disciplines. Social
theory is interdisciplinary and draws upon ideas from fields as diverse as anthropology and media studies.
Social theory of an informal nature, or authorship based outside of academic social and political science, may
be referred to instead as "social criticism" or "social commentary". Similarly, "cultural criticism" may be
associated both with formal culturaland literary scholarship, as well as other non-academic or journalistic forms
of writing.
Social theory as a distinct discipline emerged in the 20th century and was largely equated with an attitude of
critical thinking, based on rationality, logic and objectivity, and the desire for knowledge through a
posteriori methods of discovery, rather than a priori methods of tradition. With this in mind it is easy to link
social theory to deeper seated philosophical discussions to assure the responsibility in every human also.
Etymology
The origins of the term are ancient and are derived from two words; ‘social’ from the Latin socius and ‘theory’
from the Greek theoria (Harrington 2005).
History
Pre-enlightenment social theory
The earliest proto-social scientific observations are to be found in the founding texts of Western philosophy
(Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Polybius and so on), as well as in the non-European thought of figures such
as Confucius.[1] Prior to the enlightenment, social theory took largely narrative and normative form. Expressed
as stories and fables, it may be assumed the pre-socraticphilosophers and religious teachers were the
precursors to social theory proper.
Saint Augustine (354 - 430) and St. Thomas Aquinas (circa 1225 - 1274) concerned themselves exclusively
with the idea of the just society. St. Augustine describes late Ancient Roman society but through a lens of
hatred and contempt for what he saw as false Gods, and in reaction theorized City of God. Similarly,
in China, Master Kong (otherwise known as Confucius) (551 - 479 BCE) envisaged a just society that went
beyond his contemporary society of the Warring States. Later on, also in China, Mozi (circa 470 - circa 390
BCE) recommended a more pragmatic sociology, but ethical at base.
Sociology in medieval Islam
There is evidence of early Muslim sociology from the 14th century: Ibn Khaldun, in his Muqaddimah (later
translated as Prolegomena in Latin), the introduction to a seven volume analysis ofuniversal history, was the
first to advance social philosophy and social science in formulating theories of social cohesion and social
conflict. He is thus considered by many to be the forerunner of sociology.[2][3]
Political philosophy and social contract theory
During the Age of Enlightenment, political entities expanded from basic systems of self-governance and
monarchy to the complex democratic and communist systems that exist in the Industrialized and the Modern
Eras. In the 18th century, after Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws established that social elements influence
human nature, the pre-classical period of social theories developed a new form that provides the basic ideas
for social theory, such as: evolution, philosophy of history, social life and social contract, public and general will,
competition in social space, organistic pattern for social description and so forth. Jean-Jacques Rousseau in
this time played a significant role in social theory. He revealed the origin of inequality, analyzed the social
contract (and social compact) that forms social integration and defined the social sphere or civil society. He
also emphasized that man has the liberty to change his world, a revolutionary assertion that made it possible to
program and change society.
Classical social theory
The first “modern” social theories (known as classical theories) that begin to resemble the analytic social theory
of today developed almost simultaneously with the birth of the science of sociology. Auguste Comte (1798–
1857), known as the "father of sociology" and regarded by some as the first philosopher of science, [4] laid the
groundwork for positivism - as well as structural functionalism and social evolutionism. In the 19th century three
great classical theories of social and historical change emerged: the social evolutionism theory (of which Social
Darwinism forms a part), the social cycle theory and the Marxist historical materialism theory.
Another early modern theorist, Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), coined the term "survival of the fittest". Some
Post-Modern social theorists like Shepard Humphries, draw heavily upon Spencer's work and argue that many
of his observations are timeless (just as relevant in 2008 as 1898). Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) and Pitirim A.
Sorokin argued that 'history goes in cycles', and presented the social cycle theory to illustrate their
point. Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936) made community and society (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, 1887)
the special topics of the new science of "sociology", both of them based on different modes of will of social
actors.
Most of the 19th century pioneers of social theory and sociology, like Saint-Simon, Comte, Marx, John Stuart
Mill or Spencer, never held university posts. In this sense they were broadly regarded as philosophers. Emile
Durkheim, however, endeavoured to formally established academic sociology, and did so at the University of
Bordeaux in 1895, publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method. In 1896, he established the journal L'Année
Sociologique. Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a case study of suicide rates
amongst Catholic and Protestant populations, distinguished sociological analysis
from psychology or philosophy.
Many of the classical theories had one common factor: they all agreed that the history of humanity is pursuing a
certain fixed path. They differed on where that path would lead: social progress,technological progress, decline
or even fall, etc. Social cycle theorists were much more skeptical of the Western achievements and
technological progress, however, arguing that progress is but an illusion of the ups and downs of the historical
cycles. The classical approach has been criticized by many modern sociologists and theorists, among
them Karl Popper, Robert Nisbet, Charles Tilly and Immanuel Wallerstein.
20 marks
1.Pluralism (political theory)
Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework of
government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central
question for classical pluralism is how power and influence is distributed in a political process. Groups of
individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous
bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and
evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this
view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy
legislation that they do not agree with.
The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium,[1] and is crucial for
the obtaining of goals by individuals. A polyarchy - a situation of open competition for electoral support within a
significant part of the adult population - ensures competition of group interests and relative equality. Pluralists
stress civil rights, such as freedom of expression and organization, and an electoral system with at least two
parties. On the other hand, since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace,
the public acts mainly as bystanders. This is not necessarily undesirable for two reasons: (1) it may be
representative of a population content with the political happenings, or (2) political issues require continuous
and expert attention, which the average citizen may not have.[citation needed]
Important theorists of pluralism include Robert A. Dahl (who wrote the seminal pluralist work, Who Governs?)
and Seymour Martin Lipset.
Pluralist conception of power
The list of possibilities is virtually endless: legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma,
legitimacy, free time, and experience. Pluralists also stress the differences between potential and actual power
as it stands. Actual power means the ability to compel someone to do something and is the view of power as a
causation. Dahl describes power as a "realistic relationship, such as A's capacity for acting in such a manner
as to control B's responses" [A preface to Democratic Theory]. Potential power refers to the possibility of
turning resources into actual power. Cash, one of many resources, is only a stack of bills until it is put to
work. Malcolm X, for example, was certainly not a rich person. But by using resources such as his forceful
personality, organizational skills, and especially the legitimacy of his cause, he had a greater impact on
American politics than most wealthy people. A particular resource like money cannot automatically be equated
with power because the resource can be used skillfully or clumsily, fully or partially, or not at all.
The pluralist approach to the study of power, states that nothing categorical about power can be assumed in
any community. The question then is not who runs a community, but if any group in fact does. To determine
this, pluralists study specific outcomes. The reason for this is that they believe human behavior is governed in
large part by inertia. That said, actual involvement in overt activity is a more valid marker of leadership than
simply a reputation. Pluralists also believe that there is no one particular issue or point in time at which any
group must assert itself to stay true to its own expressed values, but rather that there are a variety of issues
and points at which this is possible. There are also costs involved in taking action at all—not only losing, but
expenditure of time and effort. While a structuralist may argue that power distributions have a rather permanent
nature, this rationale says that power may in fact be tied to issues, which vary widely in duration. Also, instead
of focusing on actors within a system, the emphasis is on the leadership roles itself. By studying these, it can
be determined to what extent there is a power structure present in asociety.
Three of the major tenets of the pluralist school are (1) resources and hence potential power are widely
scattered throughout society; (2) at least some resources are available to nearly everyone; and (3) at any time
the amount of potential power exceeds the amount of actual power.
Finally, and perhaps most important, no one is all-powerful unless proven so through empirical observation. An
individual or group that is influential in one realm may be weak in another. Large military contractors certainly
throw their weight around on defense matters, but how much sway do they have on agricultural or health
policies? A measure of power, therefore, is its scope, or the range of areas where it is successfully applied as
observed by a researcher. Pluralists believe that with few exceptions power holders usually have a relatively
limited scope of influence. Pluralism does leave room for an elitist situation- Should a group A continuously
exert power over multiple groups. For a pluralist to accept this notion, it must be empirically observed and not
assumed so by definition.
For all these reasons power cannot be taken for granted. One has to observe it empirically in order to know
who really governs. The best way to do this, pluralists believe, is to examine a wide range of specific decisions,
noting who took which side and who ultimately won and lost. Only by keeping score on a variety of
controversies can one begin to identify actual power holders. Pluralism was associated with behavioralism[2]
A contradiction to pluralist power is often cited from the origin of one's power. Although certain groups may
share power, people within those groups set agendas, decide issues, and take on leadership roles through
their own qualities. Some theorists argue that these qualities cannot be transferred, thus creating a system
where elitism still exists. What this theory fails to take into account is the prospect of overcoming these qualities
by garnering support from other groups. By aggregating power with other organizations, interest groups can
over-power these non-transferable qualities. In this sense, political pluralism still applies to these aspects.
Elite pluralism
There were some objections to this model of pluralism, especially by critics who argued that groups need a
high level of resources and the support of patrons to contend for influence. This observation formed the basis
for elite pluralism. This modified pluralism accounts for elements of elite theory and was advanced by scholars
such as E.E. Schattschneider, who wrote that "The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus
sings with a strong upper-class accent."[3]
Neo-pluralism
While Pluralism as a political theory of the state and policy formation gained its most traction during the 1950s
and 1960s in America, some scholars argued that the theory was too simplistic (see Connolly (1969) The
Challenge to Pluralist Theory) - leading to the formulation of neo-pluralism. Views differed about the division of
power in democratic society. Although neo-pluralism sees multiple pressure groups competing over political
influence, the political agenda is biased towards corporate power. Neo-pluralism no longer sees the state as an
umpire mediating and adjudicating between the demands of different interest groups, but as a relatively
autonomous actor (with different departments) that forges and looks after its own (sectional) interests.
Constitutional rules, which in pluralism are embedded in a supportive political culture, should be seen in the
context of a diverse, and not necessarily supportive, political culture and a system of radically uneven
economic sources. This diverse culture exists because of an uneven distribution of socioeconomic power. This
creates possibilities for some groups - while limiting others - in their political options. In the international realm,
order is distorted by powerful multinational interests and dominant states, while in classical pluralism emphasis
is put on stability by a framework of pluralist rules and free market society.
There are two significant theoretical critiques on pluralism: Corporatism and Neo-Marxism.
Charles Lindblom
Charles E. Lindblom, who is seen as positing a strong neo-pluralist argument, still attributed primacy to the
competition between interest groups in the policy process but recognized the disproportionate influence
business interests have in the policy process.
Corporatism
Classical pluralism was criticized as it did not seem to apply to Westminster-style democracies or the European
context. This led to the development of corporatist theories. Corporatism is the idea that a few select interest
groups are actually (often formally) involved in the policy formulation process, to the exclusion of the myriad
other 'interest groups'. For example, trade unions and major sectoral business associations are often consulted
about (if not the drivers of) specific policies.
These policies often concern tripartite relations between workers, employers and the state, with a coordinating
role for the latter. The state constructs a framework in which it can address the political and economic issues
with these organized and centralized groups. In this view, parliament and party politics lose influence in the
policy forming process.
2.Social representation
A social representation is a stock of values, ideas, metaphors, beliefs, and practices that are shared among
the members of groups and communities. Social Representations Theory is a body of theory within Social
Psychology and Sociological social psychology. It has parallels in sociological theorizing such as Social
Constructionism and Symbolic Interactionism, and is similar in some ways to mass consensus and Discursive
Psychology.
Origin and definition
The term social representation was originally coined by Serge Moscovici in 1961,[1] in his study on the reception
and circulation of psychoanalysis in FranPsychology, 14, 231-260. They are further referred to as "system of
values, ideas and practices with a twofold function; first, to establish an order which will enable individuals to
orientate themselves in their material and social world and to master it; and secondly to enable communication
to take place among the members of a community by providing them with a code for social exchange and a
code for naming and classifying unambiguously the various aspects of their world and their individual and
group history".[2] In his study, Moscovici sought to investigate how scientific theories circulate within common
sense, and what happens to these theories when they are elaborated upon by a lay public. For such analysis,
Moscovici postulated two universes: the reified universe of science, which operates according to scientific rules
and procedures and gives rise to scientific knowledge, and the consensual universe of social representation, in
which the lay public elaborates and circulates forms of knowledge which come to constitute the content of
common sense.
Moscovici's pioneering study described how three segments of French society in the 1950s, i.e. the urbanliberal, the Catholic, and the communist milieus, responded to the challenge of psychoanalytic ideas. Moscovici
found that communication processes, the contents, and their consequences differed across the three social
segments. Moscovici identified propaganda as the typical communication of the communist milieu, whereby
communication is ordered systematically emphasising incompatibility and conflict. The intention is to generate
negative stereotypes.Propagation was the typical form of the Catholic segment, identified as didactic and wellordered but with the intention to make limited concessions to a subgroup of Catholics with affinities to
psychoanalysis, and simultaneously, to set limits to the acceptance within the established orthodoxy of the
Church. Diffusion was typical of urban-liberal milieus, whereby communication was merely intended to inform
people about new opportunities, with little resistance to psychoanalysis.
Anchoring and Objectification
Moscovici described two main processes by which the unfamiliar is made
familiar: Anchoring and Objectification. Anchoring involves the ascribing of meaning to new phenomena –
objects, relations, experiences, practices, etc. - by means of integrating it into existing worldviews, so it can be
interpreted and compared to the "already known". [3] In this way, the threat that the strange and unfamiliar
object poses is being erased. In the process of objectification something abstract is turned into something
almost concrete.
Social representations, therefore, are depicted as both the process and the result of social construction. In the
socio-cognitive activity of representation that produces representations, social representations are constantly
converted into a social reality while continuously being re-interpreted, re-thought, re-presented.[4][5]
Moscovici's theorisation of social representations was inspired by Émile Durkheim's notion of collective
representations. The change from collective representations to social representations has been brought about
by the societal conditions of modernity.
Interpretation and developments
Social representations should neither be equated with relatively stable collective representations, nor should
they be confused with individual, cognitive representations. This has been elaborated by several authors who
contributed to the theory: Gerard Duveen and Barbara Lloyd emphasized the articulation of the individual and
the collective in micro-genetic processes of socialization,[7]Wolfgang Wagner theorized about the role of action
and social interaction in the construction of social representations,[8][9] and Sandra Jovchelovitch proposed to
regard social representations as a space in-between, at the cross-roads between the individual and society that
is the public sphere, that links objects, subjects and activities.[10] Most authors agree that social representations
are dynamic elements of knowledge that depend on social conflict and dispute to originate and that have a
history of elaboration and change over time. Bauer & Gaskell integrate this view in their formal model relating
three elements: subjects, or carriers of the representation; an object, activity, or idea that is represented; and a
project of a social group within which the representation makes sense.[11] This conceptualisation is known as
the toblerone model of social representations.
There have been various developments within the field since Moscovici's original proposition of the
theory. Jean-Claude Abric and his colleagues have explored the structural elements of social representations,
distinguishing between core and peripheral elements in terms of the centrality and stability of certain beliefs.
This approach has come to be known as Central Nucleus Theory.[12]Saadi Lahlou explores the relations
between social representations and behavior, focusing on eating representations and consumer
behaviour.[13] Other important developments have been made by Caroline Howarth in linking Social identity
theory with the theory of social representations,[14] by Gerard Duveen in elaborating developmental aspects in
relation to the micro-genesis of social representations of gender,[7] and by Wolfgang Wagner in fathoming the
relationship between discursive processes, collective behaviour patterns and the construction of social
representations.[15]
Status and prevalence
Social representation theory is popular mainly among European social psychologists. Two of the classic works
in the realm of this theory include Moscovici's own seminal work on representations of psychoanalysis in
France,[1] and Denise Jodelet's exemplary study of the social representation of madness.[16] However, the
theory is far from being a settled doctrine as it attracts ongoing debate and controversy from both social
representationists and other theorists.[17][18] The theory is less known in the United States, partly because much
of Moscovici's original work has been published in French.
3.Marxism
Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry based
upon a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social change, and an
analysis of class-relations within society and their application in the analysis and critique of the
development ofcapitalism. In the mid-to-late 19th century, the intellectual tenets of Marxism were
inspired by two German philosophers: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxist analyses and
methodologies have influenced multiple political ideologies and social movements throughout history.
Marxism encompasses aneconomic theory, a sociological theory, a philosophical method, and
a revolutionary view of social change.[1] There is no one definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has
been applied to a variety of different subjects and has been misconceived and modified during the
course of its development, resulting in multiple and sometimes contradictory theories that fall under
the rubric of Marxism or Marxian analysis.[2]
Marxism is based on a materialist understanding of societal development, taking as its starting point the
necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of
economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other
social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology — arise (or at
the least by which they are directly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, for which the
economic system forms the base. As the forces of production (most notably technology) improve, existing
forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These inefficiencies manifest
themselves as social contradictions in the form of class struggle.[3]
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between
highly-productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership
and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of
private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest
between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term
outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism - a socioeconomic system based on
cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production
organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to
advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communiststage of social development. Communism would
be a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Marxism has developed into different branches and schools of thought. Different schools place a greater
emphasis on certain aspects of Classical Marxismwhile de-emphasizing or rejecting other aspects of Marxism,
sometimes combining Marxist analysis with non-Marxian concepts. Some variants of Marxism primarily focus
on one aspect of Marxism as the determining force in social development - such as the mode of production,
class, power-relationships or property ownership - while arguing other aspects are less important or current
research makes them irrelevant. Despite sharing similar premises, different schools of Marxism might reach
contradictory conclusions from each other.[4] For example, different Marxian economists have contradictory
explanations of economic crisis and different predictions for the outcome of such crises. Furthermore, different
variants of Marxism apply Marxist analysis to study different aspects of society (e.g.: mass culture,economic
crises, or Feminism).[5]
These theoretical differences have led various socialist and communist parties and political movements to
embrace different political strategies for attaining socialism, advocate different programs and policies. One
example of this is the division between revolutionary socialists and reformists that emerged in the German
Social Democratic Party by the [Revisionist] during the early 20th century.
Marxist understandings of history and of society have been adopted by academics in the disciplines
of archaeology and anthropology,[6] media studies,[7] political science, theater, history,sociological theory, art
history and art theory, cultural studies, education, economics, geography, literary criticism, aesthetics, critical
psychology, and philosophy
Overview
The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the
necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of
economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of
other social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology —
arise (or at the least by which they are directly influenced). These social relations base the economic
system and the economic system forms the superstructure. As the forces of production, most
notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further
progress. As Karl Marx observed: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of
society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or_ this merely expresses the same
thing in legal terms_ with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated
hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then
begins an era of social revolution."[9]
These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle.
Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie)
who own the means of production, and the vast majority of the population (the proletariat) who produce
goods and services. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between
different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, leads the Marxist analysis
to the conclusion that capitalism exploits and oppresses the proletariat, which leads to aproletarian
revolution.
Capitalism (according to Marxist theory) can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due
to its need to compensate for falling rates of profitby driving down wages, cutting social benefits and
pursuing military aggression. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of
production through workers' revolution. According to Marxism, especially arising from Crisis
theory, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not an inevitability).[10]
In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative
ownership. A socialist economy would not base production on the creation of private profits, but would
instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs — that
is, production would be carried out directly for use. As Engels observed: "Then the capitalist mode of
appropriation in which the product enslaves first the producer, and then appropriator, is replaced by the
mode of appropriation of the product that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production;
upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of
production_ on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and of enjoyment."'[11]
4.Structural
functionalism
Structural functionalism, or simply functionalism, is a framework for building theory that sees society as
a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.[1] This approach looks at
society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as
a whole, and believes that society has evolved like organisms.[2] This approach looks at both social
structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its
constituent elements; namely norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized
by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as "organs" that work toward the proper functioning of the
"body" as a whole.[3] In the most basic terms, it simply emphasizes "the effort to impute, as rigorously as
possible, to each feature, custom, or practice, its effect on the functioning of a supposedly stable, cohesive
system". For Talcott Parsons, "structural-functionalism" came to describe a particular stage in the
methodological development of social science, rather than a specific school of thought.[4][5] The structural
functionalism approach is a macrosociological analysis, with a broad focus on social structures that shape
society as a whole.[6]
Theory
Classical theories are defined by a tendency towards biological analogy and notions of social evolutionism:
Functionalist thought, from Comte onwards, has looked particularly towards biology as the science providing
the closest and most compatible model for social science. Biology has been taken to provide a guide to
conceptualizing the structure and the function of social systems and to analyzing processes of evolution via
mechanisms of adaptation ... functionalism strongly emphasises the pre-eminence of the social world over its
individual parts (i.e. its constituent actors, human subjects).
—Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society 1984 [7]
Whilst one may regard functionalism as a logical extension of the organic analogies for society presented
by political philosophers such as Rousseau, sociology draws firmer attention to those institutions unique to
industrialised capitalist society (or modernity). Functionalism also has an anthropological basis in the work of
theorists such as Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. It is in Radcliffe-Brown's specific
usage that the prefix 'structural' emerged.[8]
Radcliffe-Brown proposed that most stateless, "primitive" societies, lacking strong centralised institutions, are
based on an association of corporate-descent groups.[9] Structural functionalism also took on Malinowski's
argument that the basic building block of society is the nuclear family [9], and that the clan is an outgrowth,
not vice versa. Émile Durkheim was concerned with the question of how certain societies maintain internal
stability and survive over time. He proposed that such societies tend to be segmented, with equivalent parts
held together by shared values, common symbols or, as his nephew Marcel Maussheld, systems of exchanges.
Durkheim used the term "mechanical solidarity" to refer to these types of "social bonds, based on common
sentiments & shared moral values, that are strong among members of pre-industrial societies".[10] In modern,
complicated societies, members perform very different tasks, resulting in a strong interdependence. Based on
the metaphor above of an organism in which many parts function together to sustain the whole, Durkheim
argued that complicated societies are held together by organic solidarity. This second concept is also called
"organic solidarity" and refers to "social bonds, based on specialization and interdependence, that are strong
among members of industrial societies".[10]
These views were upheld by Durkheim, who, following Comte, believed that society constitutes a separate
"level" of reality, distinct from both biological and inorganic matter. Explanations of social phenomena had
therefore to be constructed within this level, individuals being merely transient occupants of comparatively
stable social roles. The central concern of structural functionalism is a continuation of the Durkheimian task of
explaining the apparent stability and internal cohesion needed by societies to endure over time. Societies are
seen as coherent, bounded and fundamentally relational constructs that function like organisms, with their
various (or social institutions) working together in an unconscious, quasi-automatic fashion toward achieving an
overall social equilibrium. All social and cultural phenomena are therefore seen as functional in the sense of
working together, and are effectively deemed to have "lives" of their own. They are primarily analyzed in terms
of this function. The individual is significant not in and of himself, but rather in terms of his status, his position in
patterns of social relations, and the behaviours associated with his status. Therefore, the social structure is the
network of statuses connected by associated roles.
It is simplistic to equate the perspective directly with political conservatism.[11] The tendency to emphasise
"cohesive systems", however, leads functionalist theories to be contrasted with "conflict theories" which instead
emphasize social problems and inequalities.
Prominent theorists
Auguste Comte
Auguste Comte, the "Father of Positivism", pointed out the need to keep society unified as many traditions
were diminishing. He was the first person to coin the term sociology. Auguste Comte suggests that sociology is
the product of a three-stage development.[12]
1. Theological Stage: From the beginning of human history until the end of the European Middle Ages, people
took a religious view that society expressed God's will.[13] In the theological state, the human mind, seeking the
essential nature of beings, the first and final causes (the origin and purpose) of all effects—in short, absolute
knowledge—supposes all phenomena to be produced by the immediate action of supernatural beings. [14]
2. Metaphysical Stage: People began seeing society as a natural system as opposed to the supernatural.
Began with the Enlightenment and the ideas of Hobbes, Locke,and Rousseau. Reflected the failings of a selfish
human nature rather than the perfection of God.[15]
3. Scientific Stage: Describing society through the application of the scientific approach, which draws on the
work of scientists.[15]
Herbert Spencer
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), a British philosopher famous for applying the theory of natural selection to
society. He was in many ways the first true sociological functionalist.[16] In fact, while Durkheim is widely
considered the most important functionalist among positivist theorists, it is well known that much of his analysis
was culled from reading Spencer's work, especially his Principles of Sociology (1874–96). Spencer allude
society to the analogy of human body. Just as the structural parts of the human body - the skeleton, muscles,
and various internal organs - function independently to help the entire organism survive, social structures work
together to preserve society.[17]
While most avoid the tedious tasks of reading Spencer's massive volumes (filled as they are with long
passages explicating the organic analogy, with reference to cells, simple organisms, animals, humans and
society), there are some important insights that have quietly influenced many contemporary theorists, including
Talcott Parsons, in his early work "The Structure of Social Action" (1937). Cultural anthropology also
consistently uses functionalism.
This evolutionary model, unlike most 19th century evolutionary theories, is cyclical, beginning with the
differentiation and increasing complication of an organic or "super-organic" (Spencer's term for a social system)
body, followed by a fluctuating state of equilibrium and disequilibrium (or a state of adjustment andadaptation),
and, finally, the stage of disintegration or dissolution. Following Thomas Malthus' population principles,
Spencer concluded that society is constantly facing selection pressures (internal and external) that force it to
adapt its internal structure through differentiation.
Every solution, however, causes a new set of selection pressures that threaten society's viability. It should be
noted that Spencer was not a determinist in the sense that he never said that
1. Selection pressures will be felt in time to change them;
2. They will be felt and reacted to; or
3. The solutions will always work.
In fact, he was in many ways a political sociologist,[18] and recognized that the degree of centralized and
consolidated authority in a given polity could make or break its ability to adapt. In other words, he saw a
general trend towards the centralization of power as leading to stagnation and ultimately, pressures to
decentralize.
More specifically, Spencer recognized three functional needs or prerequisites that produce selection pressures:
they are regulatory, operative (production) and distributive. He argued that all societies need to solve problems
of control and coordination, production of goods, services and ideas, and, finally, to find ways of distributing
these resources.
Initially, in tribal societies, these three needs are inseparable, and the kinship system is the dominant structure
that satisfies them. As many scholars have noted, all institutions are subsumed under kinship
organization,[19] but, with increasing population (both in terms of sheer numbers and density), problems emerge
with regard to feeding individuals, creating new forms of organization — consider the emergent division of
labour —, coordinating and controlling various differentiated social units, and developing systems of resource
distribution.
The solution, as Spencer sees it, is to differentiate structures to fulfill more specialized functions; thus a chief or
"big man" emerges, soon followed by a group of lieutenants, and later kings and administrators. The structural
parts of society (ex. families, work) function interdependently to help society function. Therefore, social
structures work together to preserve society.[17]
Perhaps Spencer's greatest obstacle that is being widely discussed in modern sociology is the fact that much
of his social philosophy is rooted in the social and historical context of Ancient Egypt. He coined the term
"survival of the fittest" in discussing the simple fact that small tribes or societies tend to be defeated or
conquered by larger ones. Of course, many sociologists still use him (knowingly or otherwise) in their analyses,
especially due to the recent re-emergence of evolutionary theory.