Karl Marx and the Philosophy of Praxis - Report Example

POLITICAL ANALYSIS al Affiliation) Introduction According to Marx, Men have the responsibility to create their memorable greatness; however, he notes that the development of such greatness is guided by certain specific natural and man-made facets. These facets are usually encountered by the men as they make varying efforts to develop their greatness; they can be in the past, current or even in some cases transmitted from the past. Marx in his writings has provided an example of the Roman Catholic Empire whereby the incumbent Popes make attempts to achieve greatness through emulating the activities of the previous Popes. Moreover, Marx postulates that in relation to revolution and the efforts made by man to create new technologies and modify ways of living, man is usually compelled to borrow some aspects of the past i.e. Language, dress code, technology et cetera.1 Discussion In regard to the above philosophical argument, it is evident that Marx believed that there are various structures within the political environment that guide the behavior and the manner in which politicians conduct themselves as they strive to achieve some sense of respect from the community. These structures may be scenarios that were encountered by the politicians in their past or even in the current political dimension. In sociology, human behavior is guided by various societal facets as they interact with different forces on their daily activity. There have been heated debates on the role played by2 structures and agency in modification or guiding human behavior. This concept has been supported by Karl Marx and other philosophers giving different approaches to its argument. The concept of agency in sociology refers to the individual capacity of human beings to undertake certain activities by making their own choices as well as decisions. On the other hand, structures are the existing forces (Externally and internally) that man interacts with as he strives to make certain decisions. These forces may sometimes limit or improve man’s capacity to make certain choices that are imperative in the modification of his behavior.3 The Theory of Structuration According to Anthony Giddens’s theory of Structuration, societal life facets are more that the mere individual activity and is rarely guided by human societal factors. This entails that; social life cannot only be described by the examination of internal human activity, but also through an examination of the major external forces. Gidden postulates that there is great sense of relationship between the societal structures and the level of human agency. The essence of repeating human acts is a major contributing factor to the development of social structures. Gidden asserts that there are social structures composed of established moral codes, institutions as well as traditional norms. However, he notes that, people may modify and replace some of these social norms in order to fit their current life situation.4 In the context of Marx argument, the issue of agency emerges in the sense that Marx, notes that individuals are responsible in making their own history through taking certain measures and making choices. However, such actions are usually guided by societal forces that may be experienced or might have been experienced in the past. Structure and Agency There have been different dimensions of argument concerning the issue of social structure and agency. Different theorists have provided varying points of view regarding the issue of structure and agency. Emile Durkheim, a functionalist theorist argued that hierarchical facets and various social structures are pertinent in the stabilization of any existing society.5 One other hand, a contrasting argument has been provided Karl Marx who believes that can be a great hindrance to the success of some individuals in the society for instance; a society may have laid down rules and regulations that govern a certain behavior, such rules and regulations may be beneficial to a certain number of people within the society while also be detrimental to the development activities of certain members.6 Despite the contrasting arguments made on social structure by Marx and Emile Durkheim, there is some sense of agreement between the two theorists in that: Both of them believe that societal structures may be made up of physical (Material components) facets as well as various cultural dimensions such as; ideas, norms, rules and regulations, beliefs, traditions et cetera. The other view ascribed to societal structure emanates from Karl Marx’s belief that the societal prosperity of an individual is greatly determined by the entire characteristic structure of the society. The capacity of an individual to function in a certain societal structures is also greatly dependent of the different societal facets existing within the 7structure. The Functionalism theory is among some of the theories believed to be in concordance with the above argument. This theory stipulates that, society is a complex system made of different components that work collective in order to promote the achievement of stability. The concept of this theory emerges from the fact that it is focuses on the entire social structures that modifies the whole society. In his argument on the functionalism theory, Marx believes that societies have undergone evolution just like any organism. In this regard, Functionalism theory examines the different societal elements that function to guide the development of a society as a whole.8 Moreover, the issue of social agency or the capacity of an individual to act in a certain social structures has been elaborated by the arguments of Structuralism Theory. The Structuralism Theory posits that; the elements surrounding human actions should be comprehended in relation to the level of affinity that exists to the overall societal structures. According to Simon Blackburn, the Structural Theory is basically the notion that human actions may not be successful without the inter-relation that exists between actions and the overall societal facets. Taking Marxism, Structural and Functional Theories, studies have shown that the kind of arguments found within these theories are aligned with the Holism ideology, which posits that the whole is more imperative than an individual component or even the sum total of a single component.9 On the other hand, there have been opposing arguments concerning the notion that the success of an individual is greatly determined by the societal structures established. This has been seen through various theoretical views which give a totally different opinion. These theories include; social phenomenology theory, ethnomethdology, interactionism and methodological individualism.10 In relation to Interactionism theory, social structures may also be determined by various human processes for instance; human relations, human identity as well as cooperation and conflicts. This theory has provided opposing arguments on the information provided by the Structural, Functionalism and the Marxism theory. It asserts that, the interaction between individuals within any society is a great determinant of the dimension of a social structure. That is, the dimension or a framework of a social structure may be modified by the kind of human interactions that exist. For instance; a society that is characterized by excessive political conflicts may not have a proper political system while in societies with peaceful and proper leaderships facets are usually characterized by a proper governance or political structures. Consequently, the Ethnomethodology Theory is also another theoretical perspective that supports the view that agents or human capacity to make decisions is a great determinant of the type of a social structure. This theory indicates is based on the idea that there are various methods and frameworks applied by various people within the society to undertake certain activities in which ultimately lead to a specific social order. That is, this theory focuses on the fact that human beings may employ certain methods to undertake their activities with an intention of creating a specific social structure or framework.11 Issues ascribed to agency as a factor that shapes societal structures has also been discussed by the Methodological Individualism Theory. This theory opposes the arguments of the Structuralism and the Functionalism theories; it is based on the idea that, societal structures are greatly determined by factors that motivate individual members to behave in a certain manner. Methodological Individualism is based on the fact that an individual’s behavior may be best described in relation to the agent’s rationale in making certain crucial choices. The choices made by individuals are great determinants of the dimension of their societal structure. The Social Phenomenology Theory has also been used to oppose the notion that social structures are great determinants of agency or individual behavior. This theory depicts that both social structure and individual behavior or agency play crucial roles in promoting the overall well-being of the society. The notion behind this theory is based on the fact that social structures and agency compliments one another; any action undertaken by individuals as well as any element of the social structure play an equal role in the overall societal well-being. In simple terms, an action perceived to morally upright in the society together with appropriate cultural values play a crucial role in promoting the overall success of the society or the individual person. Production and Reproduction of Social Structure There are situations whereby individuals of a society may be exposed in a challenging situation especially when they make attempt to behave in a certain desirable manner or undertake certain activities but they face resistance from invisible forces. The big question that has been asked concerning this aspect is the features of such invisible forces. 12 A research conducted by Gidden on issues ascribed to the use of language depicted that: Language is a societal facet that only exists in cases where it is spoken and written. In such scenarios, people may indicate negative reactions in situations whereby a person ignore the rules and regulations governing the use of language for instance; use of language believed to be obscene. Similarly, Gidden notes that, the existence of social order is based on the idea that there are certain rules and regulations that are usually not written or recorded anywhere. Such rules are imaginary and are only awarded cognitive existence. However, in case such rules are jeopardized, people tend to show shocking negative reactions towards the violators.13 Therefore, from the above arguments, one can deduce that, social structure is a phenomenon developed from social order. The concept of social order emerges in the sense that continuous human behavior may compel certain people to act is a certain manner. This makes the development of social order a process that entail exhibiting certain behavioral characteristics. Thus social order occurs when continuous behavior of a community leads to the development of expectations regarding certain aspects of life. The ultimate outcome of social order is the social structure; usually developed from factors like norms, traditions, rules and regulations et cetera. Furthermore, Gidden believes that the development of social expectations on certain behaviors on any societal activity is a major factor that develops social forces. Social forces in this regard are issues like norms, which may compel individuals to act in a certain manner; this according to Marx, are among the circumstances that guide the capacity of man to make his own history. He asserts that society is made up of a specific form which has varying effects on people leading to the production and reproduction of a societal structure.14 Structural Pressures From the discussion above, it is apparent that there are various forces, both internal and external, that define the ways in which human beings act or make decisions that ultimate modify their social structures. One of the most common causes of structural pressures is the existence of the cultural values that define behavioral characteristics of individuals. Cultural values differ from one society to another depending on the type of their social structure. Culture is a key determinant of the ways in which individuals behave; the values and beliefs set by certain cultures defines the behavior of a person in that, individuals tend to adopt or undertake activities viewed as morally upright in their cultures. This way, continuous defined behavior leads to the development of certain expected modes of operation among the society members. This aspects aligns itself with Marx’s argument that people take actions to make their own history, however, the direction of their actions are usually guided by certain forces that may be existing or occurred in the past. This scenario has also been seen among the contemporary generation whereby individuals from different cultural backgrounds make decisions that are in concordance with their cultural expectations.15 Another evident structural pressure that may modify the dimension of agency is the existence of rules and regulations. Rules and regulations are usually set through ways like natural adaptation and formulation by governing authorities. Researchers have identified this aspect as one of the most effective factor that causes structural pressures: According to Marx, man has the capacity to make history or cause a major change in the society, although the capacity of man to undertake such actions is usually guided by internal and external conditions. Rules and regulations are one of these conditions that may limit the capacity of an individual to make certain decisions.16 Nevertheless, there have been issues of traditions and social norms; they are imperative societal facets that govern the behavior of an individual and ultimately the structure of a society. Individuals tend to behave in certain manners that appear desirable to their social norms as well as the applicable tradition. In some cases, traditions are usually transferred from one generation to the next. Further Views on Structure and Agency Michel Foucault has also provided his point of view regarding the issue of societal structure and agency. His observations were majorly focused on the various ways in which science and other human actions may modify the human himself and promote human development. Foucault point of view aligns itself towards a rule-deterministic explanation in that: He believes that science as a way to promote development creates certain conditions that that make it possible for man to succeed. Moreover, Foucault argument is also based on the fact that there are certain scientific rules and regulations that have played crucial roles in creating opportunities for man’s development overtime. Foucault believes that science and other forces of change are not factors that direct human behavior but those that sets guidelines on human behavior.17 On the other hand, Marcuse notes different settings that exist in any societal structure; he points out that the structural orientation of any society is made up of various facets emerging from the issue of gender. He asserts that in any society there are specific gender roles that define the actions undertaken by men and women. In his arguments, he believes that the feminist facets are key consideration that drives the negative dimensions of the capitalist modes of operation. Marcus also argued that in some cases, societal structures may be perceived as oppressive in nature and may later lead to rebellion.18 Marcuse also added that, the contemporary society is characterized by a situation whereby the number of people acquiring the level of self consciousness is rapidly increasing hence leading to an increased need for more satisfaction in the labor market. Moreover, Marcuse in his work identifies social processes as pertinent factors that lead to the creation of human consciousness. This may lead to conflict with existing leadership procedures as well as the hierarchies established. In relation to Marx arguments concerning man’s capacity to make history, it is evident there are external forces that affect his capacity to make such decisions. There is also a great sense interrelationship between agency and structure; from the discussion above as supported by functionalism theory and the structural theory; some aspects of human behavior determine the kinds of social structures established i.e. peaceful and democratic societies tend to have a proper governance system while conflicting societies may exhibited poor or lack of governance systems. Conclusion Human social structure is composed on different interacting components; these components vary from one social structure to another. In some cases social structure may play the role of modifying human behaviors i.e. agency; in some situations agency or the capacity of individuals to act have been identified as imperative for the development of social structures, that is: Humans are responsible for the development of certain components of social structures i.e. norms, traditions, rules et cetera. These components are crucial definitive factors of a social structure. Bibliography Callinicos, Alex. Making history agency, structure, and change in social theory. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 2004.i Cerny, Philip G.. The changing architecture of politics: structure, agency, and the future of the state. London: Sage, 1990. Crozier, Michael. Understanding Society. Bradford: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1985. Friedman, Gil, and Harvey Starr. Agency, structure, and international politics from ontology to empirical inquiry. London: Routledge, 1997. Groom, A. J. R., and Paul Graham Taylor. Functionalism: theory and practice in international relations. New York: Crane, Russak, 1975. Guantlett, David. Anthony Gidden: The Theory of Structuration. New Jersey: SAGE, 2002. Kitching, Gavin. Karl Marx and the Philosophy of Praxis. London: Routledge, 1988. Musolf, Gil Richard. Structure and agency in everyday life: an introduction to social psychology. 2nd ed. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Rubinstein, David. Culture, structure & agency: toward a truly multidimensional society. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2001. "UnderstandingSociety." UnderstandingSociety. http://understandingsociety.blogspot.com (accessed April 26, 2013). Calhoun, Craig J.. Contemporary sociological theory. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Jones, Pip. Introducing social theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press ;, 2003. King, Anthony. The structure of social theory. London: Routledge, 2004. King, Anthony. The Structure of Social Theory. Leiden: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006. MacIntyre, Alasdair C., and Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse,. New York: Viking Press, 1970. Marcuse, Herbert. Reason and revolution; Hegel and the rise of social theory.. 2d ed. New York: Humanities Press, 1955. Murdock, George Peter. Social structure. New York: Macmillan, 19651949. Ritzer, George, and inc Publications. Encyclopedia of social theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005. Smart, Barry, and George Ritzer. Handbook of social theory. London: SAGE, 2001. The Structure of Social Theory. Milwaukee, WI: Taylor & Francis, 2004. Top of Form Bottom of Form Read More