History of Social Thought - Essay Example

HISTORY OF SOCIAL THOUGHT Karl Marx’s Social Theory: Karl Marx is one of the most distinguished philosophers and intellectuals the world has ever produced. His magnificent theories and wonderful works have left indelible imprints on the future generations, and urged the suppressed classes strive against the exploitations of the dominant, powerful and influential groups and communities in order to evade mistreatment of the “haves-not” at the hands of the “haves”. “Marxism has”, Bottomore submits, “brought into existence in many of the socialist countries, whether fortunately or not, conditions of political oppressions and cultural impoverishments which represent in the eyes of many observers, a notable decline from a level of civilisation previously attained.” (1975: 38) His famous Theory of Social Class maintains great significance in the history of social thought, which discusses the presence of different social classes in almost every human society. Karl Marl has pointed out the necessity of different social classes for the proper working and smooth running of the functions of all the social institutions and organizations. Before embarking upon the topic under study, it would be appropriate to define social class. Social class is the division of groups and individuals living in a social establishment on the basis of political status, financial position, educational background and economic ranking. Having a keen observation and a comparative account of the ancient times civilizations, it appears crystal clear that all human societies, from the most prehistoric ones, belonging to the Paleolithic and Neolithic eras, to the most modern technological societies of contemporary times, have been socially stratified since ever. “From cradle to grave”, Cuber witnesses, “position in the stratification hierarchy is one of the most important facts circumscribing the formation of personality and the freedom of action of the person.” (1959: 432) Sociological researches also affirm the evidence of divergent socioeconomic classes in every culture and civilization even during the prehistoric times. “According to historical and archaeological records”, Tumin observes, “stratification was present even in the small wandering bands that characterized society in the earliest days of man. In such primitive conditions both age and sex in combination with physical strength must have been important criteria of stratification.” (1967:16) The most prominent aspect of the Marxian Theory of Social Class is the existence of conflict between divergent social classes. Conflict between the classes, Marx asserts, paves the way for social change. Since Marx has himself observed the slow, steady and gradual industrialization process all over the Europe of nineteenth century, he envisages inevitable social changes in the aftermath of class conflict. He declares means of production as the fundamental reason of social change. Modes of production and division of labor create gulf between classes, leading towards social conflict. Further, Marx did not know that the concept of ownership of the means of production might suspend in the joint stock company. It has not only ended the concept of confrontation between the classes, but also gave the individuals from different social classes the right of ownership. Many times, Marx is found to insist how the class defines itself, or is a class only as it acts in opposition to other classes. “Stating the emergence of the bourgeoisie as a class in early capitalist Europe, Marx notes how the separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors.” (Giddens and Held, 1982: 20) The most critical element among the methods of Marxist Perspective is to find classes prevailing in societies all over the world, and study the techniques through which classes bring change in their prevailing environment. “Unlike other sociological systems that treat society as an autonomous subject and take its existence in the natural world as something given, Marx’s theory is based firmly upon the idea of a relationship between society and nature. Its fundamental concept is ‘human labor’, viewed in a historical perspective; it is the developing interchange between man and nature, which at the same time creates, and progressively transforms, social relationships among men.” (Bottomore, 1975: 47-48) But the class difference observed its growth during the initial years of industrialization that brought significant changes in social structure, widening the gulf between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes. Marx estimates the future exploitation of the labor classes by the upper class, where the labor classes seem to be protesting against the scarcity of resources and deprivation. Marxism lays stress upon economic instabilities and inequalities as the most significant factor in bringing social change. Marxist conflict theory does not declare capitalism the only reason of class conflict. Rather, it is inherent in every differential society. Capitalism, according to the Marxist perspective, only provides potential to this class conflict. “Marx notes that unequal access need not at all times and under all conditions lead to active class struggle. But he considered it axiomatic that the potential for class conflict is inherent in every differentiated society, since such a society systematically generates conflicts of interest between persons and groups differentially located within the social structure, and, more particularly, in relation to the means of production.” (Coser, 1977:130) Marx always lays stress upon availability of equal opportunities of growth, work and leisure consumption to bring positive change on the foundations of social justice and equality. “The individual with abundant leisure would have the opportunity to devote himself to more than one activity, to express himself to diverse fields of endeavour, both physical and intellectual; and as an economic producer he would find more occasion to develop all round abilities by participating in the work of management and by learning something of the science and technology upon which the operations of industry are based.” (Bottomore, 1964: p 143) Marx considers capitalism a serious threat to the interests of the labour classes or proletariat, and beneficial only for the upper class or bourgeois. He proposes a model of history in which economic and political conditions determine social conditions. Marx and Engels were to counter the social hardships stemming from the rise of capitalism. Appropriately, their theories are formulated specifically to analyze how society functions in a state of upheaval and constant change. He is yet not afraid of the existence of the clash of interests between the classes. Instead, he welcomes change taking place in some specific society. Social change is the rule, not revolution in his point of view. It is the way of development that is to be faced, not a thing to be avoided. Conflict is, Marx insists, the major source of change in social systems. The existence of conflict in each and every society is inevitable and every group finds its challenger class since its own birth and creation. Lockwood insists on the “presence of some mechanism in all societies resulting in inexorable conflict among its individuals.” (1956: 134) The mechanism of such kind serves as natural check and is responsible for the survival and solidarity of societies and cultures. “The distinction was laid out in the conscious behavioural differences between humans and animals; humans having the capacity to produce for others in their recognition as a member of a species, whilst animals remain confined to the object of there own existence” (Bottomore, 1956: 23). But the class difference observed its growth during the initial years of industrialisation that brought significant changes in social structure, widening the gulf between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes. Marx estimates the future exploitation of the labor classes by the upper class, where the labor classes seem to be protesting against the scarcity of resources and deprivation. Marxism lays stress upon economic instabilities and inequalities as the most significant factor in bringing social change. “Marx has been successful in considering the development of the economic structure of society as a ‘natural historical process’ whilst also considering the realms of personal interest and relations embodied within capitalist production. However Marx opens himself up to criticism with his failure to maintain a grounded frame of understanding upon which to build his thesis.” (Bottomore, 1956: 18) Stratification among the individuals are not only based on socioeconomic status and financial position; rather differences in caste, class, clan, community, region, religion, race, ethnicity, gender, age-groups and geographical boundaries also makes social divergences, though the diversified economic positions, professions and occupations of the individuals make up social stratification in its crude sense. “When we think of castes and classes”, Davis notes, “and of social stratification in general, we have in mind the groups which occupy different positions in the social order and enjoy different amounts of prestige. Hence, positions based on sex, age and kinship do not form part of the system of stratification. On the other hand, the positions that are socially prohibited from being combined in the same legal family viz. different caste and class positions constitute what we call stratification.” (1969: 364) Stratification is often mistaken as a negative social phenomenon that paves the way towards the creations of competition and conflict among the individuals, groups, communities and societies. The theorists are of the view that presence of class struggle between different groups of society, with the urge for capturing more and more privileges, liberties, benefits and rights, gives birth to class conflict. Thus, social conflict is often based on socioeconomic differentiation as well as unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and resources. All these conflicts at communal, national and international levels have caused chaos, disorder and anarchy; even civil wars and World Wars are also the outcome of conflict and rivalries among individuals, groups, societies and nations. Even then, social stratification cannot be declared as a non-productive characteristic of society; rather, it not only contains so many advantages in its fold, but also it is very essential for the systematic functioning of all the social institutions and organizations at large. Emile Durkheim declares anarchical social situation and even crime too as the constructive and creative product of social stratification. “Durkheim views crime”, Coser notes, “as normal in terms of its occurrence, and even as having positive social functions in terms of its consequences. Where crime exists, collective sentiments are sufficiently flexible to take on a new form, and crime sometimes helps to determine the form they will take. How many times, indeed, it is only an anticipation of future morality--a step toward what will be.” (1977: p 141) But KarlMarx views it as a positive sign that leads towards positive and fair change in society. Karl Marx always favors the rights of the proletariat and declares capitalism as a grave menace for them. He proposes a model of history in which economic and political conditions determine social conditions. Marx and Engels were to counter the social hardships stemming from the rise of capitalism. Appropriately, their theories are formulated specifically to analyze how society functions in a state of upheaval and constant change. He is yet not afraid of the existence of the clash of interests between the classes. Instead, he welcomes change, taking place in some specific society. Marx declares social change as the outcome of stratification and consequent conflict. Social change is the rule, not revolution in his point of view. It is the way of development that is to be faced, not a thing to be avoided. “Conflict is”, Marx insists, “the major source of change in social systems. They develop through the exposure of people, he emphatically states, occupying particular social positions to particular social circumstances. Thus, in early industrial enterprises, competition divides the personal interests of a crowd of people who are unknown to each other.” (Coser, 1977: 149) The existence of conflict in each and every society is inevitable and every group finds its challenger class since its own birth and creation. “Lockwood insists”, Porter notices, “on the presence of some mechanism in all societies resulting in inexorable conflict among its individuals.” (1956: p 134: Quoted in Porter, 1997: p 356). The mechanism of such kind serves as natural check and is responsible for the survival and solidarity of societies and cultures. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Abbot, Pamela & Wallace, Claire. (1991) An Introduction to Sociology London Routledge p 19 2. Bottomore, Thomas B. (1961) Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Society and Social Philosophy. Second Edition Middlesex Penguin Books pp 1-29 3. Bottomore, Thomas B. & Rubel, M eds.1956 Marx Selected Writings in Sociology and Philosophy (Watts) 4. Coser, Lewis A. (1977) The Functions of Social Conflict The Free Press p 141 5. Craib, Ian (1992) Modern Social Theory- From Parsons to Habermas, 2nd Edition, Harvester Wheatsheaf Books. 6. Cuber, John F. (1959) Sociology: A Synopsis of Principles. 3rd Edition New York Appleton Century Crofts p 432 7. Dahrendorf, R. (1957) Toward A Theory of Social Conflict in McQuarie, D. Readings in Contemporary Sociological Theory, Prentice Hall, pp. 74-83, p 157 8. Davis, Kinsley. (1969) Human Society Collier-Macmillan International Editions. The Macmillan Publishing Company New York pp 364-368 9. Davis, Kinsley and Moore, Wilbert (1945) "Some Principles of Stratification" 10. Giddens, Anthony and David Held. (1982) Classes, Power, and Conflict: Classical and Contemporary Debates (Berkeley, University of California Press,. HT675 C55 11. Marx, Karl. (1971). Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Tr. S. W. Ryanzanskaya, edited by M. Dobb. London: Lawrence & Whishart. 12. Matras, Judah. (1975) Social Inequality, Stratification and Mobility New Jersey, Prentice Hall p 137 13. Parsons, T. (1951) A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Systems in J. Farganis (ed) Readings in Social Theory, McGraw-Hill, pp.25-29, pp 213-218 14. Porter, Jene M. (1997) Classics in Political Philosophy Second Edition. Prentice Hall Canada Inc. p 356, p 429 15. Ritzer, George. (1988) Sociological Theory, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, N.Y pp 201-221 16. Tumin, Melvin M. (1953) Some Principles of Stratification: A Critical Analysis. New Delhi Prentice Hall of India p 391 17. Tumin, Melvin M. (1967) Stratification in American Society: Prentice Hall p 16 18. Turner, Jonathan H. (1978). The Structure of Sociological Theory. The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois. Chapter 3 pp 39-44 19. Zaidi, Mujtaba Haider. (1998) Leisure Time Activities with Relation to Social Classes: A Sociological Analysis An Unpublished Thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore Pakistan p 17 Read More