Marx and Weber Concept of Class in Contemporary Society - Essay Example

Evaluation of Marx's and Weber's concept relevant to understanding contemporary societies To understand the foundations of Marx's and Weber's class analysis one must look beyond their synoptic treatments of class in their well-known and much appreciated works on economy, party concept and class systems. These perceptions and concepts of class are intimately linked to their investigations of the broad problem of rationalization in modern society. Class, in these terms, is the way economic power is distributed when economic action is organized in an instrumentally-rational manner to the greatest degree. The problem of exploitation the extraction of labour effort from workers is treated, in this framework, primarily as a problem of technical efficiency and economic rationality in creating work incentives and effective discipline. This leads to a relatively impoverished conception of the nature of antagonistic interests generated by class relations. Key readings from Marx ("The Communist Manifesto" and "On Classes") and Weber ("Class, Status, and Party") help us understand the sociological analyses of inequality in the concepts of social class, exploitation, surplus value, markets, status, and power. But there is always a difference of opinion between these two thinkers that clearly contrasts Marx's historical materialism and emphasis on class conflict with Weber's exploration of the overlapping sources of inequality in economic, social, and political spheres. (Chatterjee, 83) The importance of production relations in Marxian theory with Weber's emphasis on market relations could be a key prospect in understanding the basic or fundamental influence on modern European society. It could well be suggested that both property and market dynamics are important by relating each to the concepts of class composition. The basic concept may be incorporated into Weber's emphasis on social closure to more clearly differentiate social classes which could develop into a model of class structure, usefully differentiates relational and gradational conceptualizations of social class, and re-visits some key differences between Marxian and Weberian theory. But the end goal being the evaluation of Marxian and Weberian theory in the perspective of the modern society it could be well punctuated that the basic relevance of these perceptions are present even today but not necessarily in a visible manner. The insights of Marx and Weber remain integral to sociological analyses of inequality even as more recent scholarship has promoted more contextual, and some would say more nuanced, models. (Fletcher, 63) The basic perception of Marxian and Weberian theory relate to several critical debates in sociology, including structure versus agency arguments, functionalist versus social conflict models, and the debate over the primacy of class (as opposed to race or gender). In addition, the book's organization invites readers to think sociologically about the evolution of sociological theory itself; the connections between scholarly debates and the historical periods in which they are grounded are evident throughout the society. The concept of Marxian and Weberian theory is also useful for illuminating some of the differences between American and European intellectual traditions. If theoretical frameworks are identified by their silences as loudly as by their proclamations, then one of the defining characteristics of class analysis in Weberian tradition is the virtual absence of a systematic concept of exploitation. Nothing better captures the central contrast between the Marxist and Weberian traditions of class analysis than the difference between a class concept centred on the problem of life chances in Weber and a concept rooted in the problem of exploitation in Marx. This is not to say that Weber completely ignores some of the substantive issues connected to the problem of exploitation. It can be formulated easily, for example, Weber, like Marx, sees an intimate connection between the nature of property relations in capitalism and the problem employers face in eliciting high levels of effort from workers. But he does not theorize this issue in terms of a general concept of exploitation nor does he see the problem of extracting labor effort as a pivotal feature of class relations and a central determinant of class conflict. Instead he treats the problem of eliciting work performance within capitalism as an instance of technical inefficiencies reflecting a tension between formal rationality and substantive rationality within capitalist economic relations. If we take United Kingdoms as a relevant example things would be cleared out much easier in regard to this discussion. "Willingness to work on the part of factory labor has been primarily determined by a combination of the transfer of responsibility for maintenance to the workers personally and the corresponding powerful indirect compulsion to work, as symbolized in the English workhouse system, and it has permanently remained oriented to the compulsory guarantee of the property system."(De & Saha, Weber, 114) Thus, the relevance of work culture into the infusion of society can be well experienced within the framework of the model introduced by both Marx and Weber of a different and variable stratum. It should always be considered that the industrial revolution in Europe, particularly United Kingdoms, gave birth to different aspects of social and cultural changes. Religion was affected in a way too which is still quite relevant and observable in today's society in United Kingdom as well as the rest of Europe. With the advent of the industrial revolution in the18th century the whole Europe saw the birth of a new era with the inventions of 1785 (improved steam engine) 1804 (locomotive) making way towards an age of mass production. With this revolutionary change in the aspect of economy much social contexts began to change. (Khan, 55) As agriculture was not the prime economic outlook there was a sharp drop of birth rate that correspondingly gave way to better living standards and economic individual independence. Development of philosophies like these was never conceptualized before these were introduced. The ideas of Marx and Weber were no different. One of the social elements that were affected, or to be precise effected, by the use of these philosophies was the influence of religion on individual and public perception. Though Marx publicly announced religion as "opium of the mass" it was evident that with the development of economic independence individual beliefs on religion was already on decline. However, with the manifestation of Marx's idea of religion it became evident that religion would not be able to control individual response to nature and perspective. United Kingdom already rejected Christianity in the form of Roman Catholic Church and Marx's idea gave the people of Great Britain enough potential to reject religion at least partially in their personal level. This perception of religion and outlook to life still persists in the day to day livelihood of the common and average British. Therefore the concept of class division enumerated by religion was rejected entirely by the United Kingdom. (Sorabjee, 19) Another more important aspect of the teachings and theories of Marx and Weber are clearly visible on the social context of United Kingdom and the most important segment of these criteria is observed in the context of work environment. The concept of 'dignity of labour' has been injected and well digested within the social and cultural life of all British. This is a huge change from the days of feudal system of the society and theories of Marx and Weber made it sure that at least this aspect would be there to sustain in the sense that this fundamental is basically an irreversible process of the society. In a way, these theories of Marx and Weber could well be concluded as the main architect of shaping and construction the psychology and perception of the British society for a very long run profit return. This return today's United Kingdom is reaping by the dint of free democratic government system providing one of the most transparent democratic system if not the most.. The concepts of the theories of Marx and Weber on class difference still persists to date in United Kingdom in the sense that there are still differences in social and economical classes. But it should be mentioned in the same context that this difference is more of a fiscal data available and required in budget preparation and control and political semi-issue during a campaign. But it should be noted that the relevance of class difference today is low in the parameter of the entire population. However, this should be considered as a prime example where the absence of an element proves the existence of it. In other words the low class difference of today's United Kingdom is due to the perception of class initially put forward by the theories of Marx and Weber. It should always be considered that the theories of Marx and Weber made way for the direct stake holders of the industrial development to concentrate on the well being of their employees on a wide scale. This concept was to yield profit on the longer term but this helped the workers to realise their position in the context of an industry thereby gaining faith in them, thus attaining the needed perspective of human rights. (Lamb, 227) References: De, A & Saha, M; 1998; Quotes from Economists; National Book Trust Lamb, Davis; 2004; Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization on the Strategic Strata; National Book Trust. Sorabjee, H; 1951; Changes We Saw; Brooks & Dutta Chatterjee, S S; 2006; History of the World; Guild Publishers. Khan, Y M; 2001; History of Industrial Revolution; Madina Publications. Fletcher, R; 2003; On International Politics; Howard & Price; Read More