Download Compare and contrast how differing sociological theories approach

Compare and contrast how differing sociological
theories approach the problem of inequality in
western society.
It is common belief that those within society who have the necessary skills
and attributes to perform and produce will succeed. But this assumes that
everyone within society is given the same opportunities. As Haralambos
points out people might be equal in the sight of God but they are far from
equal in society (Haralambos, pg 69, 1986).
To describe inequalities sociologists speak of social stratification, the
study of any systematic inequalities between groups of people, which
arise as the unintended consequence of social processes and relationships
(Marshall, pg 643, 1994)
Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Max Weber (1864 – 1920) were two of the
most influential sociologists and they each developed their own theories
about why inequalities exist. This essay will compare and contrast the
differences and similarities between the theories of Marx and Weber and
examine each of their theories in detail.
Inequalities exist in all types of human society. It is necessary to make a
distinction between social inequality, which is the existence of socially
created inequalities and social stratification, which is a particular form of
social inequality (Haralambos & Holborn, pg 21, 1995) Marx developed the
idea of class into the class struggle. This class struggle, argues Marx,
constrains and shapes the lives of all individuals in a society. (Haralambos &
Holburn, pg 35, 1995) . This process places individuals into various class
positions. Marx believed that all individuals have a class position regardless
of whether those individuals are consciously aware of that class
position.
Class is therefore to be understood as a social structure greater than
structures of gender or ethnicity. Giddens states that most of Marx’s
works were concerned with stratification, and above all, with social class
(Giddens, pg 244, 1997)
1
Marx’s theory looks at two main classes in capitalist society, the
bourgeoisie (those who own means of production) and the proletariat
(those who do not own the means of production, the exploited property
less wage workers). Marx argued that exploitation was a defining
characteristic of capitalist production. In capitalist society there is immense
competition amongst the bourgeoisie, with each producer trying to gain a
bigger share of the market. This is ultimately done by selling its products
cheaper than its competitors. This results in smaller producers and
manufacturers being unable to survive and with less bourgeoisie numbers,
power is then concentrated on few producers.
Marx believed that the outcome of this would mean lower wages and a
deterioration of working and living conditions and this would eventually
lead to a revolution, out of which a new type of classless society would
emerge.
The Marxist view is that members of the proletariat only own their own
labour, which they hire out to the owners of industry in return for wages.
Marx stated that the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeoisie. Wealth is
generated in the form of manufactured goods by the labour of the
proletariat, with much of this wealth taken from them by the owners of
industry in the forms of profit (Haralambos, pg 77, 1986)
Haralambos (pg 77, 1986) states that Marx believed that members of the
proletariat would eventually realise that they were being exploited and
they would join together to overthrow the bourgeoisie. Marx believed
that they would set up a communist society and all members of that
society would share equally all of the goods produced. With everyone
working for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Weber’s ideas differed from those of Marx in a variety of ways. Weber
rejected Marx’s beliefs regarding a communist society and regarded
communism as an unattainable utopia. He also rejected Marxism as a oneside sociology, unable to deal adequately with the full complexity of
society and social change (Bilton et.al, pg 52, 1987)
Marx’s theoretical views of class have been criticised, as Joseph points out
(Joseph, pg 77, 1990) there are other means of stratification in society
2
besides class, such as the inequalities arising out of race, power and
status. Joseph argues that Marx seems to concentrate on material
inequality. Nothing is said within Marx’s theory about gender inequality
and the exploitation of women, resulting in the fact that in the home and
outside women’s work has lower status. Male Marxists fail to show how
gender differences are socially constructed and socially maintained.
Weber certainly agreed that classes existed and that they were significant
to the life of the modern individual. Weber’s classes are rooted in
economic markets. Markets such as the labour markets, the commodity
markets and the money markets. According to Weber, class divisions arise
from economic differences, which have nothing directly to do with
property.
Weber, unlike Marx, explains other dimensions of stratification besides
class. One based on life styles that may be quite different from class
systems (e.g. particular occupations might have traditional status
regardless of their levels of income or wealth). Status groups for Weber,
may have sources outside class, people who work in the same place feel
that they have much in common, for example, even if they belong to
different classes (Haralambos and Holburn, pg 37, l995,)
However, Weber did regard capitalism as a class society with economic
relations forming the basis of inequality. Weber believed that the primary
cause of inequality in capitalism was market capacity, the skills brought to
the labour market by the employee (Bilton, pg 53, l987). A lot of
emphasis is placed on life chances when evaluating the work of Weber,
especially the large division in life chances between manual and non
manual workers. Bilton argues that there a number of problems with
Weber’s theories. Weberian theory concentrates on occupations and
neglects wealth as a crucial element in the class structure. (Bilton, pg 54,
l987)
Weber defines class as a group of people who share a similar position in a
market economy, they receive similar financial rewards and therefore
have similar life chances in common. Individuals with sought after skills, or
a good education would have a higher class position.
3
In general, the higher a person’s class position, the better his life chances
and the greater his opportunity to obtain and experience those things
defined as desirable in his society (Haralambos, pg 85, 1986) This concept
is Weber’s term for all those rewards and advantages afforded by market
capacity. Life chances include income, perks and pensions, together with
less tangible benefits such as security or good working conditions. (Bilton
et.al, pg 53, 1987)
Weber divided society into four main classes, the propertied class, white
collar workers, the petty bourgeoisie and the working class. Joseph states
that Weber has a more complex view of class than Marx, as Weber’s
theories are not based solely on the ownership or non-ownership of the
means of production. Weber believes that different skills have different
market values (Joseph, pg 78, 1990) Weber, however, was not content to
classify society solely by class. He also classified social life by status. A
status group referred to all those occupying a common status. Those in the
status group had the same honour accorded them, for example army
officers.
Joseph goes on to use the example of newspaper typographers to show
how the loss of a skill ultimately leads to a loss of status. The introduction
of computers made the skills held by typographers obsolete and the
status of typographers fell. (Joseph, pg 78, 1990) Bilton also comments on
this stating how these workers ‘kept themselves scarce’ and as a result
could command a higher salary than most other manual workers. These
workers suffered a major fall in ‘life chances’ with the replacement of
antiquated machines with rapidly expanding computer technology. (Bilton
et.al, pg 53, 1987)
Power, according to Joseph also plays a huge part in Weber’s theory of
class and social activity. Power is the probability that one actor can
carry out his or her will against another. Power involves a relationship,
for example, between husband and wife, or parents and children, or
employer and employee, or teacher and student. To have power you have
to be able to control what the other person needs. For Weber the chief
source of power was not to be found in the ownership of the means of
production. While Marx tried to analyse stratification in society by one
system (the ownership of the means of production) Weber showed that
4
there are at least three ways of stratifying society and that there is
interplay between status, class and party. (Joseph, pg 79, 1990)
So who is right, Marx or Weber?
Both theorists agree that ownership of property and the value of labour
are key causes of class stratification. But whereas Marx emphasises on
the ownership of property, Weber focuses his attention on labour value.
Both Marx and Weber were looking at the same things, using very similar
concepts. However, their analysis and conclusions tended to differ, mainly
because they were concerned to explain different things.
Marx’s theory of class has been very influential. Marx analysed class in
relation to the ownership of capital and the means of production. Dividing
the population into those who owned property and those who were
property less, the capitalist class and the proletariat.
Weber’s theory is much more complicated and difficult to assess. He
introduced society to the idea that there are several dimensions to the
inequality that exists in a society. Weber sees class, as did Marx, as being
based in power and the distribution of power.
To conclude, this essay shows that Marx and Weber’s theory agree that
the ownership of property and the value of labour are fundamental
sources of stratification. Marx puts his emphasis on the ownership of
property while Weber focuses on labour value, but while Marx reduces
everything down to one fundamental model based on his own analysis of
capitalism as exploitation, Weber’s theories on class and stratification
show that other dimensions of stratification strongly influence people’s
lives.
Marx looked upon inequality as evil and something that should be
replaced, whereas Weber took a more neutral view, taking into account
the existence of inequality and attempting to understand what inequality
is and the consequences of it.
We can conclude that Marx and Weber can be considered to “agree to
disagree” over the relative importance of the concepts of class, status and
5
power. Whereas Weber defined social class as any group of people who
share a similar position in an economic market, Marx concentrated on the
ownership of production and property.
Bilton asks if Marx’s analysis can be applicable today (Bilton et.al, pg 46,
1987) , but as he points out the working class in capitalist societies has
seen a rise in the standard of living and working conditions, and the growth
of the new middle class of managerial, professional and clerical workers
appears to contradict Marx’s view that divisions among those without
wealth would disappear.
Marx’s ideas seem therefore to have been disproved by twentieth century
developments. (Bilton.et.al, pg 46, 1987)
References
Bilton, T, et.al, Introductory Sociology, Macmillan
Education, 1987 Giddens, A, Human Societies, A Reader,
Polity Press, 1992 Giddens, A, Sociology, Polity Press, 1997
Haralambos, M et.al, Sociology, A New Approach, Causeway Press Ltd,
1986 Haralambos, M & Holburn, M, Sociology, Themes and Perspectives,
Collins Educational, 1995
Joseph, M, Sociology for Everyone, Polity Press, 1990
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, G Marshall, Oxford University
Press, 1994 Sociology: A New Approach, Haralambos et.al,
Causeway Press Ltd, 1986
6